What constitutes critical thinking upon ethics from the perspective of both Christians and Humanist?

Humanity and Humanism are not the same. Humanity is the idea of moral excellence, or virtue.

Humanism is the philosophy of autonomy (self-rule) of one’s existence without divine input.

Christianity is the antonym of Humanism: faith in divine input over one’s existence.

if ethics is the observation and explanation of moral standards: What constitutes critical thinking upon ethics from the perspective of both Christians and Humanist?

This post is the first time I’ve ever heard it used that way.

1 Like

It’s the same thing for both Christians and Humanists. Failure to meet the criteria is to fail with regards to critical analysis. " Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence."

You ever thought of using Google?

1 Like

and what are the facts when it comes to ethics?

Are you being metaphorical? You don’t really mean that literally right?

Welcome from sunny South Australia. I hope you enjoy your stay.

I can’t remember using the word that way either. I’ll have a look…:

Humanity is the human race, which includes everyone on Earth. The word humanity is from the Latin humanitas for "human nature, kindness.” Humanity includes all the humans, but it can also refer to the kind feelings humans often have for each other. …


humanity - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › humanity

compassionate, sympathetic, or generous behavior

1 : compassionate, sympathetic, or generous behavior or disposition : the quality or state of being humane bespeaking humanity for the enemy in the midst of a bloody struggle— C. G. Bowers. 2a : the quality or state of being human joined together by their common humanity.


Humanity | Definition of Humanity by Merriam-Webster


Your use of the word is correct, just a bit unfamiliar to me.

I’ve learned/been reminded from your first post.

Having said that, Christianity doesn’t get to invent its own form of logic, rational thinking or science, although it tries with exegesis and biblical hermeneutics.

Facts regarding “ethics” is the subjective outcome of the tribe’s decision - whether there is a benefit or disadvantage.

Some benefits are somewhat obvious, given our species advantage for co-operation.

Say you meet a stranger. You may be cautious and smile or greet according to custom (in that culture). This brings an immediate “benefit” to both parties. A person rarely “greets” a stranger by punching them in the face. Most likely a lesson learned, that such behaviour brings about a disadvantage when the one greeted is bigger, tougher, faster, stronger…

Is it? Humanity is a collective term for a species of evolved ape.

Well, it’s a system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Morality is necessarily subjective, so your question can only get a subjective answer.

1 Like

Yes, Morality is not an object to be created, it’s a character trait. Who is ethical, and who is not is subjective? We all have moral standards, but by the ethics of Christianity: Jesus Christ morals are better than yours or mine if he is divine.


Morality is a human concept and construction. Just as is character as far as I know.

Of course I may be wrong.

Perfectly happy to change my mind if you can demonstrate that morality and character are innate.

My sense of morality is built on moral relativism. It is my observation that absolute moral codes lead to closed minds and bigotry. As often found among the devoutly religious.

Will every tribal member have the same “somewhat obvious” conclusion as to the benefits? If “might makes right”, then how do we apply Humanity (moral excellence) to a situation? What ethical questions are paradoxes, and what would be the moral solution?


How did you get “might makes right” from this example???

Health is preferable to sickness. Life is preferable to death. Etc.


It was posited that sickness, death, starvation, etc was necessary to reduce population. And should be encouraged.

Paradox: countries (groups of humans/tribes) that adapted an opposite approach - healthcare, education, job equality, food security have experienced decreased population growth and rely on immigration.

I would say a humane approach (health over sickness; food production over starvation; education over ignorance) has worked to benefit humans and thus is the more moral choice.

The last sentence in ebg’s comment an hour before this: “We all have moral standards, but by the ethics of Christianity: Jesus Christ morals are better than yours or mine if he is divine.”

The disciples asked Jesus, what is the great commandment?
He replied that you are to love your god with all your heart, your mind and sole.

My ethics judge that compulsory love is absolutely immoral. Therefore if Jesus even existed, he didn’t demonstrate superiority in morality.

1 Like

Exactly what is or isn’t the ethics of Christianity is itself incredibly subjective. This whole topic is doomed to subjectivity, for many different reasons, right out of the starting gate. Now that isn’t really a problem; unless you are insisting that it isn’t subjective.

But if you think one set of morals is better than another; do you have a metric for that? I mean a way for others to calculate that and compare their result to yours? You know, a way to test what you are saying? I’m guessing you don’t; and we just have to take your word for it? Is this whole mess starting to sound subjective?

I think you’ve taken that out of context:

Matthew 22:25-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Because some do not seem to grasp the meaning of the word ‘neighbour’, Jesus then tells the parable of The Good Samaritan*** The lesson is every man is my neighbour.

Yet it is my observation that the second commandment is the most egregiously ignored of all commandments by those claiming to believe.

**Samaritans were and are a dissident Jewish sect despised by orthodox Jewry as “not even real Jews”. Jesus’ use of a Samaritan in the parable would have been very powerful to his disciples.

An interesting and very common claim made by believers.Also a very old claim, usually expressed by claiming that morality comes from god/christianity/religion. A quick glance at some of pre Socratic philosophers give that the lie.

Implicit is the claim that christian morality is in fact ‘the best’ , which is demonstrable nonsense :

EG: Hedonism is a very different moral code, but perfectly workable. Seems to be increasingly common in affluent countries such as Australia, Japan, Western and Northern Europe

I lean towards ethical egoism. Viz that it is to my advantage to obey some moral precepts. Especially those which carry sanctions for breeches.

The strongest moral value I hold refers to the way I treat others, including not harming others.

The genesis of those values began with Catholicism and ended with Buddhism;
“The Buddha said: above all loving kindness” An ideal I have ye to reach. reached.

The astute of those who have read this post may notice an apparent contradiction between my ideals and the way I claim to actually live. Yup, guilty, I remain a flawed human being. I’ve long since given up trying to be perfect. These days I’m content to do better from time to time.

…and not Gentiles.

Neighbor is limited.

The Buddha - when did his enlightenment hit??? It wasn’t when he left his wife and son; his family - love is action - not words.

Maybe his leaving them was the most loving thing for his family :woman_shrugging:t2:…he sure seemed self-indulgent and self focused.

The way you actually live? Are you happy (content or peaceful)? You seem to not be out harming people physically. You don’t seem to be breaking laws and causing other’s a loss. You feed yourself - you sleep - you seem engaged in your life and activities.

What more would you want? Fucking ideals!!! Just bullshit to make you feel “less”. You have a goal, great. Find out it’s realistic and fulfilling - awesome. Find out you suck and it was a stupid idea. Good. No biggy.

Flawed human being? If you define yourself that way…

I prefer just human, or a person. That’s it. Not flawed. Just doing the best a person can with the information or circumstances available to them to do it or decide.

Jesus never demands that anyone follow him…if you want to interpret his answer as a selfish desire for control, instead of loving direction for our good…then isn’t that free will?

Your response in only based on the narrative God does not exist…not what is character would be. What would be the character of a divine God?