Spirituality
12 Jun 16
Originally posted by vistesdTo describe a moral choice as a logical one, or an immoral choice an illogical one, already implies a process taking place which I do not accept as morality. It carries the implication that morality is a skill requiring training or special ability, and therfore our performance against moral standards must follow a normal curve as does performance in any other skill. We would not expect the same moral standards of a child, or a servant, or a mere woman. Indeed, moral failings could be reduced to a lack of skill and thus escape moral censure. Torturing children for fun would become silly instead of immoral. Even among educated adults, if morality can be described as a process of logical reasoning, then it must be possible for this to lead different people to different conclusions because they operate with different minds carrying different histories, assumptions, feelings etc, all of which shape the reasoning process.
It seems that you and I are—from somewhat different perspectives perhaps—converging to the same point. Suffice it to say that, from the point of view of a (perhaps neo-Stoical) virtue ethics, the proposition that torturing children for fun could in any way be considered moral would be a logical contradiction—and the mark of a delusional, pathological mind. ...[text shortened]... of a world in which that proposition would be moral—absent some divine command to the contrary.
The "mark of a delusional, pathological mind" is more interesting, since it goes to something quite different. It does not imply simply a mind with learning difficulties or one that is insufficiently well educated. It implies a mind that might well employ sweet reason to the highest logical perfection, yet arrive at the most disturbing and deviant conclusions because of a defective brain. Sadly, it is rather hard to determine if behaviour driven by delusion and madness can fairly be evaluated as immoral, in a sense that really helps us. We may as well rail angrily at the immorality of an earthquake or tsunami...
Also interesting is the expression: "...might wonder at the mind that could conceive of a world in which that proposition would be moral..." The reality is that psychiatrists and other professional people are asked to investigate and consider precisely that: the mind of people (who do exist) able to choose to torture children for fun. It is all very fine and dandy to say this is "immoral." What does that even mean? The evidence is that people can normalise the most bizarre, absurd and horrible behaviours. We may not want to admit this or even hear of it, for excellent reasons, but at least some people on our behalf find it necessary to try and understand. And of course I often sit here wondering why do Americans think that way, or Evangelical Christians, or Conservatives?
Yet again, I am interested that you include "some divine command to the contrary," since we know that people will do for religion things that (we hope) would otherwise never enter their minds. Those who think torturing children for fun could never be on the list need to think again, for example about people who pursue the notion that children are possessed and need to be exorcised. (The "fun" part may be harder to fit in with religious practice but it is close enough - people have funny ideas about what is fun.)
In all these cases, what I would say arises would be the operation of a moral decision making process which may well be universal**, but which produces diverse results based on diverse life experiences, ways of thinking, beliefs, influences, and at times severely distorted by a damaged, unhealthy or disturbed mind.
If moral decision making is a process, then it cannot be "absolute" because that implies that there is only one possible outcome and renders the process at best pointless and at worst delusional (we think we are using logic, but the outcome is fixed in advance). I can imagine some people choose this view in some form - such as the notion that we have the illusion of freedom in a world that is entirely deterministic. A variant is to say that Jesus / God will guide believers to make the right choices and leave non believers to make bad choices, which means that the only moral choice we can ever make is to believe or not believe - depending on that choice, everthing else is determined. I cannot imagine this view of "morality" has much value.
Another way to envisage "absolute" moral standards would be that our decision making process entails matching up our current moral dilemma with some table of approved standards. That would be an extraordinarily difficult process to implement. I have no idea how it could work.
If we are to have "absolute" standards, then they have to apply without any reference to the way people think, feel and behave. That being the case, where are they??? How do they ever come into play as a guide to human behaviour??? How does one implement - put into practice - a system of "absolute" moral standards??
To fit the example we are working on (torturing children for fun) there has to be a pretty detailed and comprehensive list in place, anticipating all the endless novelties reaching us with the advance of science, medicine and history in general. There has to be a totally objective and honest judge, capable of evaluating our behaviour fairly with reference to these standards, which are "absolute."
Another way to envisage "absolute" moral standards would be a table of approved standards held by an all seeing God, who will assess our moral choices by means of a check list. As already said, it would be impossible to make this table practically useful to humans for making moral choices. It could only be used to judge (and condemn) after the event, which is pretty unfair and unjust, as well as futile. We need moral standards when we make our decisions, not after we die.
If the list is not detailed, comprehensve and specific, then we need a moral decision making process to interpret the more general, less specific rules (Ten Commandments? Golden Rule?) and in this case the specific examples cannot be "absolute" for the reasons discussed already.
If there no absolute moral standards, then of course moral standards do become variable. They do not become "subjective" however, because that ignores our social context. Moral standards are not private and individual, but social and collective. We acquire them by being "socialised" which is what parents, families, communities and so on accomplish. We are not socialised by God: even if our society / community / family describes everything in terms of God, there are different societies / communities / families that do not rely on a God and yet do arrive at decent moral standards and socialise their children effectively.
** If our moral decision making capacity is "universal", it is because we are universally social - we are all born into and socialised by families / communities / societies. If we arrive separately and by many paths at common standards in key matters or morality, then we must look for an explanation in our shared humanity and the necessary constraints imposed by social life.
Originally posted by vistesd“Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy].
I believe that torturing children for fun is absolutely and unequivocally immoral. Although I appreciate Finnegan’s approach on the matter here, I understand the desire for some more philosophical argument in support [which “Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy]. But Finnegan is surely right in this respect: the argument of an Aris ...[text shortened]... rong—and to allow for the fact that differing moral matrices might validly convene on that view.
Why do you think that it fails to satisfy?
At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to nothing being absolute, that everything is random, and that everything is changing. In such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd the award for the most loaded question goes to...
Hypothetical:
Let's say IF you had to choose one knowledge or the other knowledge.
if you had a newborn baby left with a baby sitter, which would you desire that baby sitter be knowledgable of - [b] if it had to be one or the other ?
1.) Carbon atoms exist ?
2.) Torturing your baby for fun is absolutely wrong ?
I would prefer that if I ...[text shortened]... .
Do you prefer that they be conversant on the carbon atom instead if one had to be chosen ?[/b]
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour frequent statement, 'everything is random' just shows you haven't been listening.
[b]“Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy].
Why do you think that it fails to satisfy?
At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to ...[text shortened]... n such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.[/b]
Kindly link to one reference where it has been said 'everything is random' (apart from your own).
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by vistesdThe question here is not: "must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can.
I believe that torturing children for fun is absolutely and unequivocally immoral. Although I appreciate Finnegan’s approach on the matter here, I understand the desire for some more philosophical argument in support [which “Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy]. But Finnegan is surely right in this respect: the argument of an Aris ...[text shortened]... rong—and to allow for the fact that differing moral matrices might validly convene on that view.
Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI would much more to some silly "award" prefer the apparent answer to the problem. So far I see strong rationalization to make the less likely choice more logical.
And the award for the most loaded question goes to...
What is starring you in the face you can't recognize, and to help you recognize the rather obvious, you complain is loading the question.
But I get it. You'll fall back on your sarcasm rather than just admit that the moral matter of conscience is more strongly known than the material one.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAn analogy to moral standards could be the rule of law. An analogy does not mean they are the identical same thing, just to be clear before you respond (if you ever do). However the similarity is evident - there is not a single point in my list below that cannot be applied instantly to your discussion of moral standards.
[b]“Because (this or that) god so decrees” also fails to satisfy].
Why do you think that it fails to satisfy?
At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to ...[text shortened]... n such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.[/b]
Rule of law is objective but it is not "absolute" in your sense.
1. Law is writen by fallible humans to meet the specific rquirements of their contemporary world. Once we have writtten laws, that makes them "objective." The law is what it says it is and not something else. Plenty of armchair lawyers have trouble accepting this but any competent lawyer will tell them that they are objectively right or wrong with reference to the actual written law.
2. Law is interpreted objectively by diverse judges and the correct meaning of law is arrived at objectively thorugh a social process of debate among lawyers and law makers.
3. Laws will fail to remain just or relevant if they fail to change with changing needs. Everything is changing as a matter of fact. A law that fails to reflect and provide for change will become useless very rapidly.
4. There can sometimes be uncertainty about how the law applies to situations that are novel but this uncertainty can be resolved by a process of judgement and precedent setting which is provided for in every legal process. Medical practice supplies a stream of appeals for new legal decisions and precedents.
5. The development of law is not at all random and is not typically the product of whim. Whim has its place in the eccentric decisions of law makers and judges but does not adequately described the bulk of any law system. Even when the law is wrongly or unjustly applied, the objectivity of the law remains intact.
6. Despite radical developments, legal principles characterise a society and have ancient roots. American legal practice, for example, has a huge debt to its origins in British law, which in turn has roots going back into the mists of time. While that shows consistency across centuries, there are also consistent differences compared with - let us say - French law and the French way of doing law.
[7.My father was a lawyer in Ireland with a specific interest in administering wills. He frequently observed that Irish people (especially farmers and rural people) had a sense of what is just and proper in a will that was often at aodds with English legal practice and principles. It was not just that they disliked English lawyers, but that they could not reconcile it with their Irish traditions of what is fair and just.]
8. One of the mistakes Americans make is to believe (or act as if they believe) that American legal traditions are absolute and should be universally applied without respecting alternative legal traditions. The appeal to such absolute universals is typically designed and applied to conceal an exploitative or oppressive agenda. It really means - 'you have to see things my way.'
9. The more general mistake is to overlook that law is not only social but also political. It is framed to meet the needs of some interests and to neglect the needs of other interests. Just as law [like morality] is a social process, not a sacred and unchanging scripture, so its development and imposition reflects powerful political and economic interests.
10. Americans appeal to an original founding set of laws in their constitution and Christians to an original and unchanging scripture as though to a final authority. This spurious conservativism is a way to conceal the reality, which is a radical uprooting of social values and collective welfare in the interests of a powerful and supremely wealthy elite. Your ultimate, absolute, final authority is wealth. The rest is confusion and distraction.
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipNot the first time he is resorting to sarcasm either. I see a trend emerging.
I would much more to some silly "award" prefer the apparent answer to the problem. So far I see strong rationalization to make the less likely choice more logical.
What is starring you in the face you can't recognize, and to help you recognize the rather obvious, you complain is loading the question.
But I get it. You'll fall back on your sarcasm ra ...[text shortened]... n just admit that the moral matter of conscience is more strongly known than the material one.
Originally posted by sonshipMay I recommend the King James edition of the Bible - it is widely regarded as a model example of beautifully expressed English and regular reading would enhance your skills of comprehension and communication.
I would much more to some silly "award" prefer the apparent answer to the problem. So far I see strong rationalization to make the less likely choice more logical.
What is starring you in the face you can't recognize, and to help you recognize the rather obvious, you complain is loading the question.
But I get it. You'll fall back on your sarcasm ra ...[text shortened]... n just admit that the moral matter of conscience is more strongly known than the material one.
[If you were a lucky English school child, you would have had access to a new edition with a forward written and signed by a Conservative government minister, Michael Gove, had not the plan been ditched late in the day. A hilarious FT article on the episode is available here: https://next.ft.com/content/7483fa3a-a0d1-11e1-9fbd-00144feabdc0
"In the King James Bible, every event is a story worthy of a Charlton Heston movie. In its pages, illiterate fishermen speaking Aramaic, recorded in street Greek, become rhetorical giants. David Cameron said last year: “I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations.” ]
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by finnegan1. Law is writen by fallible humans to meet the specific rquirements of their contemporary world.
An analogy to moral standards could be the rule of law. An analogy does not mean they are the identical same thing, just to be clear before you respond (if you ever do). However the similarity is evident - there is not a single point in my list below that cannot be applied instantly to your discussion of moral standards.
Rule of law is objective but it ...[text shortened]... ite. Your ultimate, absolute, final authority is wealth. The rest is confusion and distraction.
I am arguing that there are 'unwritten laws' that any sane human being would have to admit is objectively true regardless of context, which makes them absolute.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Jun 16
2 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
Christians to an original and unchanging scripture as though to a final authority. This spurious conservativism is a way to conceal the reality, which is a radical uprooting of social values and collective welfare in the interests of a powerful and supremely wealthy elite. Your ultimate, absolute, final authority is wealth. The rest is confusion and distraction.
I don't want to get into politics, but Jefferson was not much of an evangelical Christian, as I am sure you would be eager to point out. He appealed to "self evident" truths rather than sacred unchanging Scriptures. Am I right ?.
I think he was more of a Deist. And his own self made New Testament "scripture" was bereaved of every verse he found objectionable.
I think at issue is something deeper than just arriving at "American Christians are right-wingers" with powerful political and economic interests. Don't you think we're touching something deeper than that ?
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkGoogle the word "analogy" my dear boy
[b]1. Law is writen by fallible humans to meet the specific rquirements of their contemporary world.
I am arguing that there are 'unwritten laws' that any sane human being would have to admit is objectively true regardless of context, which makes them absolute.[/b]