Dec 25, 2008
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
[Since he replied, I'll just include for the sake of completeness.]
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
[Why is that a "poverty"? Why is "sanctity of life" as a principle more important than "choice" as a principle? Isn't the imposition of the "sanctity of life" moral principle a "poverty of choice" and a "poverty of reason", and a "poverty of discretion"? If we impose "sanctity of life" as a moral absolute then there is no questioning, no reasoning, no need to make a decision. This may be better for some people. But it may not be best for all. For people who need religion to guide and rule their lives, it is good and necessary to have these moral absolutes to make these critical life decisions. But for those who do not need (or want!) these moral absolutes, then such absolutes bind and constraint their options and choices. It is fine to want such absolutes. It is not fine to decide that your absolutes should apply to all.]
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
[Yes. Question everything based on secular reasoning. You position may be based on your faith. But your attempts to persuade and convince must be based on reason. If you are unable to do that, you come across as a religious fanatic imposing your ways purely on religious grounds. How then are you any different from the PAS in Kelantan?]
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
[That is the most idiotic thing written in this letter. "Religious Pragmatism" is an oxymoron. "Secular Pragmatism" is redundant. Mutual respect is not the natural order of ALL religions. Someone knocks on your door in the evening and wants to share his or her faith with you. Is this person a) a Christian, or some deriviations thereof, or b) some other religion? Mutual respect means not believing that your beliefs are better, superior, or truer than other beliefs. No Christian "respects" other religions in that sense. Otherwise, they won't be evangelising. So the writer is wrong. Secularism IS the reason for religious "harmony" in Singapore, because secular laws does not hold any religion to be above any other and any attempt to denigrate any other religion is an offence.]
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
[Then explain "Singaporeans ignore Sanctity of Life at their peril". Or "Two wrongs do not make a right" (from the original letter). Those are moral arguments appealing to emotions.]
Alex Tan Tuan Loy
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
[Since he replied, I'll just include for the sake of completeness.]
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
[Why is that a "poverty"? Why is "sanctity of life" as a principle more important than "choice" as a principle? Isn't the imposition of the "sanctity of life" moral principle a "poverty of choice" and a "poverty of reason", and a "poverty of discretion"? If we impose "sanctity of life" as a moral absolute then there is no questioning, no reasoning, no need to make a decision. This may be better for some people. But it may not be best for all. For people who need religion to guide and rule their lives, it is good and necessary to have these moral absolutes to make these critical life decisions. But for those who do not need (or want!) these moral absolutes, then such absolutes bind and constraint their options and choices. It is fine to want such absolutes. It is not fine to decide that your absolutes should apply to all.]
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
[Yes. Question everything based on secular reasoning. You position may be based on your faith. But your attempts to persuade and convince must be based on reason. If you are unable to do that, you come across as a religious fanatic imposing your ways purely on religious grounds. How then are you any different from the PAS in Kelantan?]
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
[That is the most idiotic thing written in this letter. "Religious Pragmatism" is an oxymoron. "Secular Pragmatism" is redundant. Mutual respect is not the natural order of ALL religions. Someone knocks on your door in the evening and wants to share his or her faith with you. Is this person a) a Christian, or some deriviations thereof, or b) some other religion? Mutual respect means not believing that your beliefs are better, superior, or truer than other beliefs. No Christian "respects" other religions in that sense. Otherwise, they won't be evangelising. So the writer is wrong. Secularism IS the reason for religious "harmony" in Singapore, because secular laws does not hold any religion to be above any other and any attempt to denigrate any other religion is an offence.]
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
[Then explain "Singaporeans ignore Sanctity of Life at their peril". Or "Two wrongs do not make a right" (from the original letter). Those are moral arguments appealing to emotions.]
Alex Tan Tuan Loy
No comments:
Post a Comment