I'm lost

I'm a Junior in college and I've now take two philosophy/ethic courses and they've confused me. I understand the subject matter, it's my beliefs that are confused. I feel like there's something wrong with my beliefs now because for every reason I give on believing something there is easily a counter argument. I have this feeling that I need to justify my beliefs now with things other than "because it's right, or good". Is this bad?

Maybe I'm just persuaded easily, I'm unsure. Are there any ethical views that are widely accepted that are not based on religion? I could go on and on with questions I have now, ugh.

Sorry if this rambling, just a little confused now.

[Borodog]

You might try Secular humanism.

[RJT]

Remote,

Some things to keep in mind:

Basically, there are no concrete answers in Philosophy (P for short). P can help you sort out your core beliefs into a coherent thought or even aid you in coming to a belief or no belief. At the end of the day P falls short of answers as does Science. Religion does not give answers either. Religion offers answers. Believers find answers in Religion. There is a difference.

If you have core beliefs now or some foundation of a belief; the thing to do is to use the tools of P to help you formulate those thoughts somewhat coherently (along with any texts of your beliefs if applicable). If you firmly believe in something analyze it and if it still makes sense to you then make it work.

I would guess that the trouble you might be having in defending your beliefs is either you don’t believe passionately in those things or more probably the case: you simply need to hone your skills in defending what you believe.

As far as ethics that are accepted - it doesn’t matter the source. It is subjective. There are no absolute rules so to speak. Religion provides “rules” in a way. Those of each Faith agree that these are their ethics they wish to follow (along with other things, obviously.)

Another thing I would like to stress is that no one has the answers. So don’t be overly shy in your opinions. Don’t be afraid to make a fool of yourself in a debate. I find that I learn a lot when I make a mistake. (But, then again I am one who hates to make mistakes, so I make a special effort to learn from mine.)

One last thing. You can carry things your learn in your P courses - even if only how to think, to formulate thoughts - with you the rest of your life. Take in as much as you can now, while you have the opportunity.

Good luck to you,

RJT

Thanks for the responses. A typical day in my class was here's theory A.

Me - "I like that theory"
Teacher - "Implications of A"
Me - "Maybe that's not so great"

After never really solving the problem it left me frustrated. I just can't believe that there's no ethical view out there that doesn't have some "wrong" implications.

RJT, you said it was subjective right? I know we went over some views that stated that there were objective moral facts. I would like to believe that but like the rest there's always some negative or wrong implication.

Thanks for listening

[Lestat]

Why not throw up some examples on here? I've found there are a lot of good debaters as well as philosophers on this forum. Sometimes hearing what other people say and how they justify their beliefs is helpful to you.

I'm kinda tired right now and don't have specific examples ready, but I will think of some. I know I came to the conclusion of all the views we discussed that I felt my views were somewhere b/w Kant's(from duty) and Utilitarianism(sp?).

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
After never really solving the problem it left me frustrated. I just can't believe that there's no ethical view out there that doesn't have some "wrong" implications.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s probably true. At least there is always an argument against any ethical view.

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, you said it was subjective right? I know we went over some views that stated that there were objective moral facts. I would like to believe that but like the rest there's always some negative or wrong implication.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are non - no objective moral facts. If you add Religion to the equations you can have objective moral facts (although even these can get milky); or even once one takes a position then the facts can be objective to that person based on his position - using his standards. But, I am assuming you are talking outside a Religious context. Anything you say that is moral and ethical, I can argue another point of view. Just so long as I am not “chained” to my Religion by a position or by a position I have already taken on the topic.

Once I say, x is the most important thing to me, then I am chained to that position. But, if you come to me with a position you take and I take no position then I have the advantage. I can give an argument against your position, just so long as we don’t have to measure the conclusion based on your standards. I can take a position that has different standards or no standards at all.

This does not necessarily negate your position. You simply can't prove your position. And I simply show another way of looking at the same issue.

Make sense?

RJT

You did lose me a little there. Can you simplify that with an example mabye?

To clairfy, I did mean objective moral facts w/o religion.

[RJT]

Sure, I'll try it tomorrow, though.

My writing skills aren't the best. Sometime I get bogged down and muddy the waters and make it more confusing rather than less.

Someone else might do a better job at it then I anyway.

[Token]

There is nothing wrong with your beliefs. There is no need to justify your beliefs. Whenever you feel confused, my advice would be go on a morning hike and have some hot cocoa.