religion and morality

[DPMartin]

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website



It's all about God. In fact, I've never been able to really understand how No God religious paths are able to connect the dots between "I" on this side of the grave and "I" on the other side. If there is no God to judge your behaviors here and now what exactly is it that determines your fate there and then?

No, seriously...how does that work?

And God because most Gods are said to be omniscient and omnipotent. There is no getting away with behaving immorally because God sees all. And there is no question of not being punished for choosing to live off the righteous path.

And while Humanism can concoct secular renditions of objective morality there is no transcending font to turn to when these renditions themselves come into conflict. And whatever justice follows you to the grave, you are still only on your way back to star stuff for all the rest of eternity. "I" is at one only with oblivion without God. Or with how No God religious paths bring about immortality.

And salvation?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

what about salvation?

Theological salvation...

"...deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ"

Going to Heaven in other words.

But, for the No God religious paths, what is the equivalent? Reincarnation? Nirvana?

As for the pantheist, is it all about "going back to star stuff"?

Of course, most atheists imagine it as "oblivion". "I" as, for all practical purposes, nothing at all for all the rest of eternity.

well there is no equivalent to have one's life restored unto them after death of the body, or leave the presence in this world. that would take the power of a Living God. Life has to come from Life and or the power thereof to give and or restore it. and as far as i know, no one else claims the power to do so or demonstrated the power to do so as to your reference to "Faith in Christ".

and who is to say that the judgment that results in death isn't man's own judgement, (therefore men are already judged) and the judgement of a Living God would be Life, hence all that salvation stuff.

[iambiguous]

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

I’m going to use Christianity as my example, not because it’s representative of religion in general, but because there’s a lot of research on Christians, and because many readers will likely be familiar with it.

Christians will often tell you that their morality comes from their religion (or from their parents’ version of it). And if you ask them about what their religion tells them about what’s right and wrong, it will likely line up with their own ideas of right and wrong.

But the causal link is not as clear as it first appears.

It can't be entirely clear because among ourselves here there are a wide range of Christians...some are very conservative and interpret God's Scripture as condemning homosexuality and abortion and pretty much in line with the policies of, say, Donald Trump. Other, progressive Christians, using the same Scripture, come to opposite conclusions.

Then there are those who put emphasis on the meek inheriting the Earth while others insist that God wants you to be rolling in the dough.

Some say that without God all things can be rationalized. But, apparently, with God, most things can be too.

And some put emphasis on Judgment Day...on Heaven or Hell...while others insist that their own "private and personal" Christian God forgives all.

Thus...

The Bible is complex, with many beliefs, pieces of advice and moral implications. Nobody can believe in all of it. Different branches of Christianity, and indeed every different person, take some things from it and leave others.

The part I root in dasein. Christianity is much like any other set of value judgments. You are indoctrinated as a child to believe or not to believe in it. You have experiences as an adult that bring you toward it or away from it.

So, in acknowledging this, how then are you able to determine beyond a leap of faith or a "wager", if the Christian God is the optimal [or the only] path to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side?

Well, you tell me.

Many things in the Bible are unacceptable to modern Christians. Why? Because they do not sit right with contemporary moral sensibilities.

The part where morality [even religious morality] evolves over time historically and culturally. For example, with Christianity in the Feudal era, the Catholic emphasis on the afterlife and then, with the advent of capitalism, the birth of Protestantism in which the emphasis [for many] shifts to life on this side of the grave. It's still important to tend to the poor but it's also important to "live long and prosper".

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[promethean75]

"So, in acknowledging this, how then are you able to determine beyond a leap of faith or a "wager", if the Christian God is the optimal [or the only] path to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side?"

Good stuff, and once a Christian reads that, he can't unread it, and he knows he's only taking a leap.

Here's the reasoning behind the 'wager'. And really nietzsche covered this far better than I ever could. This type of person feels that the world is doomed if god doesn't exist. They need a transcendent purpose to give life meaning and goodness. They can't settle with the fact that individual lives are mortal. That life continues after they die is not enough to satisfy them. See the self-centeredness here? It's subtle, but a defining feature of the religious spirit. They are so distraught by their own mortality that it escapes them entirely that there will be generations to come that have the possibility to live lives that are relatively full of joy and happiness (provided capitalism doesn't prematurely destroy the erf). 'It's all about 'me' (Stirner calls this the involuntary egoist), and if I'm miserable without belief in god (a greater cause than myself), so too must you be' (who finds no sacred cause other than himself), the religious man reasons. At the center of this degenerate soul is a heavy sickness born out of weakness, an inability to be satiated by any modest expectations for life. As he lives his life 'in fear and trembling', he naturally expects others to also do so, and is suspicious, envious, of anyone who does not experience the same dread and anxiety as he does.

The wager is simply the surrendering of a creature unfit for life who cannot find any joy in living unless he can believe he isn't mortal. And while it's perfectly reasonable to live in fear of them, I assure you: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of. These men are cowards.

[bahman]

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Descriptive Ethnocentrism

If moral psychology is to contribute to the psychology of religion, it will have to describe a moral domain as expansive as that of the Gods.
—Graham and Haidt

On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?

When a newspaper headline reads “bishop attacks declining moral standards,” we expect to read yet again about promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and so on, and not about the puny amounts we give as overseas aid to poorer nations, or our reckless indifference to the natural environment of our planet.
—Singer

The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:

In a recent interview, the Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, indicated that he viewed the heterosexual rape of young girls as preferable to consensual homosexuality:
Lokodo: I say, let them do it but the right way.
Interviewer: Oh let them do it the right way? Let them rape children the right way? What are you talking about?
Lokodo: No I am saying, at least it is [the] natural way of desiring sex.

What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?

From a contemporary Western liberal perspective, there is a chilling irony to the fact that Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio involves upholding moral values and principles. What could be more immoral than the rape of a child, a manifestly harmful act? Is it conceivable that Lokodo’s opposition to homosexuality is morally motivated?

You tell me.



FYI

Here is a thread from ILP that explores my own views on religion: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

Could you please tell me what do you mean by moral psychology and psychology of religion?

[iambiguous]

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

Let’s take magic as an example. Many Christians don’t believe in magic, but even the ones who do, don’t think they should kill those who use it, even though one could interpret passages in the Bible to be suggesting exactly that.

What’s going on?

In a word: dasein.

Each Christian connected to the God of Abraham is no less connected through their own childhood indoctrination and their own uniquely personal experiences connected to Him subjectively, existentially, problematically.

In the case of the magic above, there is a moral behaviour advocated by the Bible that gets rejected by most people. Why? Because they think it’s morally wrong.

They ignore that part of the moral teachings of the Bible. Instead, they tend to accept those moral teachings of the Bible that feel right to them. This happens all the time, and a good thing too.

Indeed, just imagine if the truly preposterous stuff from the Old Testament were taken literally: https://lifelessons.co/spirituality/bible/

Or the things God endorsed: https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kin ... e_partner/

Or the mass killings: https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-te ... s-killings

Clergy interprets scripture, and cultural practices and beliefs are passed down, many of which have little or nothing to do with the Bible, like the Catholic idea of having fish instead of meat on Friday a cultural tradition never mentioned in the Bible at all.

Basically, people take or leave religious morality according to some internal moral compass they already have. They might even choose which church to go to, according to how well the teachings of that church match up with what they feel is right or wrong.

And where does this internal moral compass come from if not from the manner in which I construe the self here as the embodiment of dasein? Especially in our "postmodern world" where interpretation is all the rage. For many, religion is just another cafeteria line from which to pick and choose the God least likely to impose actual onerous obligations on you. Religion-light as it were.

On the other hand, the fanatics...

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[iambiguous]

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet

Descriptive Ethnocentrism

If moral psychology is to contribute to the psychology of religion, it will have to describe a moral domain as expansive as that of the Gods.
—Graham and Haidt

On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?

When a newspaper headline reads “bishop attacks declining moral standards,” we expect to read yet again about promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, and so on, and not about the puny amounts we give as overseas aid to poorer nations, or our reckless indifference to the natural environment of our planet.
—Singer

The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:

In a recent interview, the Hon. Rev. Fr. Simon Lokodo, Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity, indicated that he viewed the heterosexual rape of young girls as preferable to consensual homosexuality:
Lokodo: I say, let them do it but the right way.
Interviewer: Oh let them do it the right way? Let them rape children the right way? What are you talking about?
Lokodo: No I am saying, at least it is [the] natural way of desiring sex.

What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?

From a contemporary Western liberal perspective, there is a chilling irony to the fact that Lokodo’s ministerial portfolio involves upholding moral values and principles. What could be more immoral than the rape of a child, a manifestly harmful act? Is it conceivable that Lokodo’s opposition to homosexuality is morally motivated?

You tell me.



FYI

Here is a thread from ILP that explores my own views on religion: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

Could you please tell me what do you mean by moral psychology and psychology of religion?

Unfortunately [for all of us], that would necessitate the complete understanding of where, say, deontological assessments of morality ends and human psychology begins. Pertaining to a particular set of circumstances.

So, for me, here and now, given my own entirely "subjective rooted existentially in dasein" leap of faith, I'd surmise that it will mean different things to different people depending on the extent to which "in their head" they link morality to religion.

Human psychology can only be grasped wholly if one wholly understands how genes and memes come together in a particular mind that [existentially out in a particular world] has come into contact historically and culturally with one or another religion and/or God.

Also, human psychology is notorious for its defense mechanisms. And God and religion defends "I" objectively on both sides of the grave. The ultimate defense mechanism. Objective morality "here and now", immortality and salvation "there and then".

Now, however, we would need to shift the discussion to the actual thoughts and feeling that we as individuals have precipitating one set of behaviors rather than another in regard to a specific context in which God and religion become an important factor.

[bahman]

Religion and Morality
Ryan McKay email the author, Harvey Whitehouse
at APA PsychNet



On the other hand, given a particular moral conflict relating to a particular set of circumstances, where exactly does moral psychology end and the psychology of religion begin. Human psychology in a free will world clearly revolves around trying to figure out what any specific thing means in the context of grappling with what everything intertwined into the "human condition" means.

And, even given our own tiny slice of that, the relationship between them is going to be murky at times to say the least.

In fact, how do you make that distinction yourself given a situation in which your own moral convictions were challenged?



The bishop of course is the very embodiment of the psychology of religion: a God, the God, my God. But where does his moral psychology fit into my own assumption regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, "politics" is but one more contributing factor to our collective "failure to communicate". Maybe God should have thought that part through more when He created us.

And here's how far that "failure to communicate" can go:



What objective moral truths would you impart to him in order to change his mind? After all, are there or are there not those among us who argue that rape is, in fact, perfectly "natural"? And God has been used to rationalize everything from slavery to genocide.

Consider:

https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04 ... ne-slavery
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family ... -holy-war/

So, where exactly does one draw the line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion here?



You tell me.



FYI

Here is a thread from ILP that explores my own views on religion: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

Could you please tell me what do you mean by moral psychology and psychology of religion?

Unfortunately [for all of us], that would necessitate the complete understanding of where, say, deontological assessments of morality ends and human psychology begins. Pertaining to a particular set of circumstances.

So, for me, here and now, given my own entirely "subjective rooted existentially in dasein" leap of faith, I'd surmise that it will mean different things to different people depending on the extent to which "in their head" they link morality to religion.

Human psychology can only be grasped wholly if one wholly understands how genes and memes come together in a particular mind that [existentially out in a particular world] has come into contact historically and culturally with one or another religion and/or God.

Also, human psychology is notorious for its defense mechanisms. And God and religion defends "I" objectively on both sides of the grave. The ultimate defense mechanism. Objective morality "here and now", immortality and salvation "there and then".

Now, however, we would need to shift the discussion to the actual thoughts and feeling that we as individuals have precipitating one set of behaviors rather than another in regard to a specific context in which God and religion become an important factor.

I don't think that you can draw a line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion in most cases since these two are aligned for many human beings. I mean most humans naturally would like to avoid evil and have tendency toward good.

[iambiguous]

Could you please tell me what do you mean by moral psychology and psychology of religion?

Unfortunately [for all of us], that would necessitate the complete understanding of where, say, deontological assessments of morality ends and human psychology begins. Pertaining to a particular set of circumstances.

So, for me, here and now, given my own entirely "subjective rooted existentially in dasein" leap of faith, I'd surmise that it will mean different things to different people depending on the extent to which "in their head" they link morality to religion.

Human psychology can only be grasped wholly if one wholly understands how genes and memes come together in a particular mind that [existentially out in a particular world] has come into contact historically and culturally with one or another religion and/or God.

Also, human psychology is notorious for its defense mechanisms. And God and religion defends "I" objectively on both sides of the grave. The ultimate defense mechanism. Objective morality "here and now", immortality and salvation "there and then".

Now, however, we would need to shift the discussion to the actual thoughts and feeling that we as individuals have precipitating one set of behaviors rather than another in regard to a specific context in which God and religion become an important factor.

I don't think that you can draw a line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion in most cases since these two are aligned for many human beings. I mean most humans naturally would like to avoid evil and have tendency toward good.

Okay, but, from my frame of mind, where things get really, really complicated is when we try to make distinctions here in regard to our reaction to human behaviors that come into conflict given a particular moral philosophy and a particular view about God and religion. Where, in other words, one ends and the other begins when it comes down to enacting actual rules of behavior in any particular community.

[bahman]

Unfortunately [for all of us], that would necessitate the complete understanding of where, say, deontological assessments of morality ends and human psychology begins. Pertaining to a particular set of circumstances.

So, for me, here and now, given my own entirely "subjective rooted existentially in dasein" leap of faith, I'd surmise that it will mean different things to different people depending on the extent to which "in their head" they link morality to religion.

Human psychology can only be grasped wholly if one wholly understands how genes and memes come together in a particular mind that [existentially out in a particular world] has come into contact historically and culturally with one or another religion and/or God.

Also, human psychology is notorious for its defense mechanisms. And God and religion defends "I" objectively on both sides of the grave. The ultimate defense mechanism. Objective morality "here and now", immortality and salvation "there and then".

Now, however, we would need to shift the discussion to the actual thoughts and feeling that we as individuals have precipitating one set of behaviors rather than another in regard to a specific context in which God and religion become an important factor.

I don't think that you can draw a line between moral psychology and the psychology of religion in most cases since these two are aligned for many human beings. I mean most humans naturally would like to avoid evil and have tendency toward good.

Okay, but, from my frame of mind, where things get really, really complicated is when we try to make distinctions here in regard to our reaction to human behaviors that come into conflict given a particular moral philosophy and a particular view about God and religion. Where, in other words, one ends and the other begins when it comes down to enacting actual rules of behavior in any particular community.

The problem is due to evil people. Not if they are a problem. They just have a tendency toward things that the majority don't. The majority rules, so they get suppressed for their tendency or punished for their behavior. There is no solution for the problem of evil. That is just a gene that circulates. Environment matters too.

[iambiguous]

The problem is due to evil people. Not if they are a problem. They just have a tendency toward things that the majority don't. The majority rules, so they get suppressed for their tendency or punished for their behavior. There is no solution for the problem of evil. That is just a gene that circulates. Environment matters too.

This reminds me of the movie clip from Witness: https://youtu.be/AcEe0LbP2wY

Evil people. Bad people. From the perspective of the Amish and from your perspective.

They, like you, "just know" what is evil and what is not. It's all in the Bible for them. Where does it come from for you. Philosophy?

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

[bahman]

The problem is due to evil people. Not if they are a problem. They just have a tendency toward things that the majority don't. The majority rules, so they get suppressed for their tendency or punished for their behavior. There is no solution for the problem of evil. That is just a gene that circulates. Environment matters too.

This reminds me of the movie clip from Witness: https://youtu.be/AcEe0LbP2wY

Evil people. Bad people. From the perspective of the Amish and from your perspective.

They, like you, "just know" what is evil and what is not. It's all in the Bible for them. Where does it come from for you. Philosophy?

We experience good and evil, such as pleasure and pain. As simple as that.

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

Well, killing could be good or evil depending on circumstances. To me killing a person who is in locked-in syndrome is good. Of course, if she/he wishes it.

[iambiguous]

The problem is due to evil people. Not if they are a problem. They just have a tendency toward things that the majority don't. The majority rules, so they get suppressed for their tendency or punished for their behavior. There is no solution for the problem of evil. That is just a gene that circulates. Environment matters too.

This reminds me of the movie clip from Witness: https://youtu.be/AcEe0LbP2wY

Evil people. Bad people. From the perspective of the Amish and from your perspective.

They, like you, "just know" what is evil and what is not. It's all in the Bible for them. Where does it come from for you. Philosophy?

We experience good and evil, such as pleasure and pain. As simple as that.

Okay but out in the world that we actually live and interact in, what some experience as good others experience as evil. What then is a philosopher to do when confronting this?

And then those who actually take pleasure in causing others pain. Where's the deontological argument to thorughly rebut that?

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

Well, killing could be good or evil depending on circumstances.

Not just the circumstances, but how each of us as individuals have come subjectively to understand those circumstances given the life that we have lived predispoing us existentially to arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that abortion is good or abortion is evil.

But, objectively, universally, which one is it?

To me killing a person who is in locked-in syndrome is good. Of course, if she/he wishes it.

I have no idea what this means. How would you explain it in regard to the moral conflagration that revolves around the "abortion wars"?

[iambiguous]

Religion does not determine your morality
From The Conversation website

Right and wrong

Experimental evidence suggests that people’s opinion of what God thinks is right and wrong tracks what they believe is right and wrong, not the other way around.

Social psychologist Nicholas Epley and his colleagues surveyed religious believers about their moral beliefs and the moral beliefs of God. Not surprisingly, what people thought was right and wrong matched up pretty well with what they felt God’s morality was like.

Now ask yourself this: where do their opinions come from? How about this: through one or another complex intertwining of their religious indoctrination and their own distinctive, idiosyncratic experiences all jumbled up in their relationships with others and the particular sequence of information they happened to bump into through newspapers, books, magazines, movies and the like. Thus, as with fingerprints, no two minds here are ever really going to be alike.

On the other hand, that doesn't stop most from insisting that their own take on God has nothing to do with any of that. No, they have convinced themselves they really are able to capture God so as to capture precisely what God has commanded of us in our quest to choose a righteous path.

Then Epley and his fellow researchers attempted to manipulate their participants’ moral beliefs with persuasive essays. If convinced, their moral opinion should then be different from God’s, right?

Wrong. When respondents were asked again what God thought, people reported that God agreed with their new opinion!

Why might this be the case? My own conjecture here revolves around what I call the "psychology of objectivism". Once you come to invest the meaning and the integrity of I in a particular moral narrative, that becomes the source of your "comfort and consolation". And not even God and "persuasive essays" are going to come between you and that. You see what you already know. And with luck for your "peace of mind" all the way to the grave.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[bahman]

The problem is due to evil people. Not if they are a problem. They just have a tendency toward things that the majority don't. The majority rules, so they get suppressed for their tendency or punished for their behavior. There is no solution for the problem of evil. That is just a gene that circulates. Environment matters too.

This reminds me of the movie clip from Witness: https://youtu.be/AcEe0LbP2wY

Evil people. Bad people. From the perspective of the Amish and from your perspective.

They, like you, "just know" what is evil and what is not. It's all in the Bible for them. Where does it come from for you. Philosophy?

We experience good and evil, such as pleasure and pain. As simple as that.

Okay but out in the world that we actually live and interact in, what some experience as good others experience as evil. What then is a philosopher to do when confronting this?

Good and evil are subjective. It depends on the eyes of the beholder. If you enjoy an act then that act is good, others might feel different, so it is evil to them.

And then those who actually take pleasure in causing others pain. Where's the deontological argument to thorughly rebut that?

There are just actions that there are two sides within, the one who act and the one who is acted upon. This act is obviously neither good nor evil. It is a new category. So for example, for such an act with two sides, an act is defined as good, when both sides are receiving pleasure, etc. We have four different acts.

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

Well, killing could be good or evil depending on circumstances.

Not just the circumstances, but how each of us as individuals have come subjectively to understand those circumstances given the life that we have lived predispoing us existentially to arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that abortion is good or abortion is evil.

Yes, it is or. Abortion could be good or evil.

But, objectively, universally, which one is it?

There is no universal law when it comes to morality. Everything is a matter of situation and preferences. In the case of abortion, one has no right to decide in favor of the baby. That is why it is forbidden unless the life of mother and baby both are in danger. They both die in this case so killing the baby is allowed so you save the life of the mother. The dilemma is when you can save the baby at the cost of putting the life of the mother in danger. The death of the mother is not certain so abortion is not allowed too.

To me killing a person who is in locked-in syndrome is good. Of course, if she/he wishes it.

I have no idea what this means. How would you explain it in regard to the moral conflagration that revolves around the "abortion wars"?

I am discussing locked-in syndrome.

[iambiguous]

...out in the world that we actually live and interact in, what some experience as good others experience as evil. What then is a philosopher to do when confronting this?

Good and evil are subjective. It depends on the eyes of the beholder. If you enjoy an act then that act is good, others might feel different, so it is evil to them.

Actually, in fact, good and evil are intersubjective. Moral perspectives are derived from particular historical and cultural contexts. And from the particular personal interactions that we have with others.

As I noted on an ILP post...

...imagine that you are a castaway on an island in which you are the only inhabitant. What of ethics then? Unless you believe in God, right and wrong comes to revolve solely around you and nature. If you survive another day then you have done the right things. If you don't then, well, obviously.

It is only if another castaway arrives on the island, that ethics becomes "for all practical purposes" a part of your life. Suddenly your behaviors in your own little world might be challenged by this newcomer. You do this, he or she thinks you should do something else instead. Then you become acquainted with the means employed to resolve such "conflicting goods": might makes right, right makes might, moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Abortion, for example. For the Amish it's Evil -- forbidden -- even if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered.

Whereas many argue that, on the contrary, what is truly evil is forcing women who become pregnant to give birth or risk being charged with a crime and going to prison.

Well, killing could be good or evil depending on circumstances.

Not just the circumstances, but how each of us as individuals have come subjectively to understand those circumstances given the life that we have lived predispoing us existentially to arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that abortion is good or abortion is evil.

Yes, it is or. Abortion could be good or evil.

For some moral objectivists it is good to have that option. But for other moral objectivist choosing that option is evil. Okay, then, philosophically, deontologically, which is it?

Whereas for the moral nihilists [like me] it is "good" or "evil" depending on how your life unfolded predisposing you existentially to embrace one or another set of political prejudices. And then always open to change "given new experiences, relationships and information/knowledge in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change".

But: the moral nihilists [like me] have no way to actually demonstrate that there is in fact no God, or no deontological assessment.

Even the belief in moral nihilism itself is no less an existential leap of faith.