Talk:Ethics in religion

message: As it stands, the depth of treatment given in this article to each tradition is so wildly out of proportion to the sheer numbers of people who practice each tradition, that it is not NPOV at all.  I certainly think Jewish ethics need depth if only to introduce how Christian and Islamic thought were applying the same principles to some of the same stories, but, there are 1.5 billion people with the Chinese ethical tradition somewhere in their background, 1 billion with the Hindu, 1.2 billion with the Islamic, 2.5 billion or so with the Christian, and only a few million actual practicing Jews.  
:You totally Wikipedia. We don't remove material because no one has yet written on other subjects. Rather, we do the precise opposite. We encourage others to contribute on areas where we are currently lacking. Similarly, there is no NPOV violation when we have more articles on genetics, and less on anatomy; that is merely a reflection of the fact that our contributors happen to have contributed more on genetics. We don't attack Wikipedia as biased; we merely ask others to begin contributing in areas that we need more on. RK 18:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
And these seem to argue a lot about what it really means, so it's hard to give any one view a monopoly on what Jewish ethical tradition really is.  
:Uh, who gave any Jewish group a monopoly? Which group? BTW, as the article currently stands, there are only short general summaries of Jewish ethics in a few selected categories, and they are not favoring the views of any particular Jewish denominations.  Frankly, any decent book on this subject would be at least 150 pages; what we here is a mere general overview.  What some people here consider "a lot" is what most book authors would consider "almosty long enough to be the introductory chapter." RK 18:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
"Jews did not adopt Judaism.. Jews created Judaism... molded and shaped a way of life, belief and practice which grew organically out of their group life... its theological systems have never been compactly or officially ordered, arranged, or defined.  Judaism has been relatively free from the authoritative or dogmatic theological coercions of a central religious body, and Jews have been priveleged to enjoy wide latitude in defining and crystallizing their concepts of God." (from p. 135, Christians and Jews:  The Eternal Bond, Stuart E. Rosenberg, 1985 edition, previously published 1961 as Bridge to Brotherhood: Judaism's bond to Christianity).
:Huh? Why are you bringing up someone's ideas on Jewish principles of faith?  That has nothing to do with this topic (Ethics).  In fact, Jewish ethics are about actions, not beliefs.  Even Jewish atheists can follow Jewish ethics. It looks to me like you don't understand the very topic. RK 18:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
Whateer it is, it's simply over-covered here, as a direct result of our lopsided representation of views - let's not let this lead to systemic bias. I suggest the section on Jewish tradition be summarized so it is equivalent in length to the other sections.  I'd suggest an approach based on this statement, also from the above by Stuart E. Rosenberg (same page, actually):
:In other words, let us not build an encyclopedia by constantly adding new text and articles, but rather cut what we already have to match your personal ideas of equality, so that it never grows.   Nonsense. The rest of us are here to build. If you have nothing to contribute to the section on Muslim or Christian ethics, don't whine about it and cut out stuff on Jewish ethics. We need people who are willing to do work, not to delete work. RK 18:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
"While Judaism has been called a religion of ethical monotheism, it is more properly understood as a way of life based upon a Jewish system of monotheistic ethics.  The Law, or Torah, contains the essential precepts whereby the Jew is helped to know God - not by abstract or mystical faith alone, but rather through a serious attempt to conform to the Divine plan for human behavior.  These commandments are 613 in number and they run the gamut of personal, interpersonal, and social relations.  While logically a belief in a God who relveals His will to man is at the core of this system, the rabbinical compilers of the 613 Biblical precepts nowhere listed "belief in God" as one of these commandments.  They understood "belief" in the peculiarly Jewish meaning of the word;  no man could be commanded to believe abstractly and no human tribunal could punish him for not believing.  The Jew accepts "God's Kingdom" by building it on Earth."
:Please don't lecture us with this essay writing on Jewish principles of faith; that has nothing to do with this topic. RK 18:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
That's about the right level of detail for this article, and the rest of the space re: Judaism should go into the 613 precepts in some summarized way.  Then set up the comparison to Christianity: "In a fairly remarkable piece of Biblical exegesis, a Talmudi rabbi resoundingly summed up the Jewish position:  "In the book of Jeremiah it is written:  For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of ISrael:  'Me have they forsaken and they have not kept My law.'  This is what God is really saying:  'Would that men forsook Me, if only they kept My law...In Judaism's view, the Kingdom of God is definitely of this world, and man's tasks and responsibilities are centered here."  This is the polar opposite of the Christian view of it which was defined a lot later.
The satanist section sounds a lot more like an induction into how to be one rather than just what it is. The writing style seems very relaxed almost as if someone is talking. Maybe it's been cut and pasted from somewhere else?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.18.30 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV balance

message: I've removed "P.B.U.H." from the "Islam" section per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-related_articles%29#Islamic_honorifics Etcetera 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: P.B.U.H.

message: "Western philosophical works on ethics were written in a culture whose literary and religious ideas were BASED in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. As such, there is a connection between the ethics of the Bible and the ethics of the great western philosophers."
This sentence is far too strong.  First of all,  note the lack of qualification of 'based' -- at the VERY least, it should be 'based in part', though, really, even this is too strong.  No one sat down and decided to spin ethics out of the bible, to base the former on the latter.  Rather, the bible INFLUENCED, strongly, the cultural milieu out of which SOME western ethics and philosophy was born.  SECOND, it is a mistake to suggest, as BOTH sentences above do, that all western philosophy (first sentence) and all great western philosophers (second sentence) take influence, strong or weak, from the bible.  The second sentence is particularly egregious as, to be true, Plato, Aristotle, the pre-Socratics, indeed Socrates himself, the progenitor of philosophy, would all have to be counted as NOT great western philosophers.  Now, of couse, there is a connection to SOME great western philosophers.  OVERALL, the mistake here is the fact the passages seems not to recognize how many other vital sources shaped, often to a greater degree than the bible (and, in fact, often shaped the bible itself), western philosophy and the great western philosophers.
   -->Stone cairn 05:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a far overstrong sentence on the history of western ethics 

message: "This is particularly true of Augustine, who proceeded to thoroughly develop along philosophical lines and to establish firmly most of the truths of Christian morality."  Pacifists would disagree.  Why such a thoroughly doctrinal statement from Catholic ethics and theology?  I don't care what tradition you come from, but an encyclopedia entry is not the place for evangelizing.Landrumkelly 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV??=

message: The article is a general one comparing ethics in religions and how each answers the question of ethics not wether or not a particular view is right or wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.181 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...or that biblical morality is itself wrong." 

message: There ought to be a separate article on moral theology (instead of a redirect), which includes the more general approach of social morality, family morality, public morality, sexual morality and ecclesial morality, and not just biblical morality. At the same time, it is more specific to the Catholic Church and takes into account the very hierarchical and sacramental character of the institution. ADM (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral theology

message: Christian ethics is far more varied than the rather conservative Roman Catholic position that seems implied here, although it doesn't even get Roman Catholic ethics right. The notion that Christian ethics is primarily personal, private, and individualistic is simply historically wrong. Roman Catholic Natural Law, and the various Protestant forms of it in Lutheran and Anglican traditions, are not merely norms for private, individual behavior, but have been used by Christians of those traditions as norms for social, political and economic behavior of groups, organizations, and nation-states. 
The Reformed and Conservative Evangelical traditions also have attempted to govern social life and practice by "Christian" norms for group and national behavior. It is true that many Christians (especially Conservative Evangelical Christians) have believed and taught that only personal ethics is appropriate for Christians, but that more restricted view has never been the official position of the major traditions in Christianity-- including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican (Episcopalian), Methodist, and Reformed (Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed) churches. Even the heirs of the Anabaptist tradition, even though many are in principle opposed to governments, have a social ethic not reducible to individual moral behavior.
The idea that Christian ethics is understood by Christians to work at a social, national, or international level only through the good behavior of lots and lots and lots of individuals is laughable. Has the writer ever bothered to read papal encyclicals on social issues like war, economic life, the uses of science and technology? Has he or she ever read the voluminous social statements calling corporations, ethnic groups, political leaders and international bodies to task that have been issued by every major Protestant denomination in the past century? Has he or she bothered to read the countless statements delivered to political leaders and corporations by thousands of local, national and regional councils of churches all over the world, including and especially the World Council of Churches, which speaks to nation states and international bodies with social norms it claims are derived from Christian faith? 
The problem with this section is not that it doesn't simply balance things between religions. The problem is that it is misinformed and misinforming.Comsources (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Ethics Section Too Error-Ridden and Polemical

message: The article claims that Shinto does not have many teachings on ethical issues. This, as far as I know, is uncontroversial. However it quite unambiguously makes the claim that this is in virtue of the fact that Shinto is highly polytheistic and animistic. This is a total non sequitur. It is an empirical claim that needs separate justification and has no place in the article without said justification or a reference to a work that provides said justification. 78.146.70.46 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinto Ethics 

message: The section on Hindu ethics is far too short and far from accurate. To call Mohandas Gandhi a vaishnava is the limit! Also, considering the fact that he was assassinated in 1948, the timeline cited (mid-20th century) is also not correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.200.245 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu Ethics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ethics in religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723211924/http://www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis_index.html to http://www.moralobjectivity.net/thesis_index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617232906/http://scientologyethics.org/scientology-ethics.htm to http://www.scientologyethics.org/scientology-ethics.htm
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5QgCzLc0I?url=http://www.draknet.com/proteus/rede.htm to http://www.draknet.com/proteus/rede.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should it be added as a section to this page? Doremon764 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judeo-Christian ethics 

message: I do NOT believe that articles should be redirected to this article without a long, serious, disciplined, and scholarly discusson (and debate).  I believe that all unvetted redirects to this article should be reversed.MaynardClark (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongful redirects