|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Natural Law is (now) incomprehensible
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Disagreements about how we want to live are projected onto this "morality" as if it had some actual reality as an arbiter or force of its own, an "ought", when in fact it does nothing but reflect whatever values, preferences and opinions happen to be channelled through it.
Then, bluntly, who cares about it? Why should we bother to follow it at all?
quote:
Maybe there's value in such a device. Either way we seem stuck with it. But as far as I can see, it's unlikely to promote consideration of minority values and preferences on their merits. An appeal to morality is only ever a claim for majority support for some informal social policy.
In that case, then, we have no moral reason to consider minority values at all, and might as well stomp them into the ground.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
this does not need to result in a "struggle for supremacy" but is compatible with a pluralistic society within certain limits.
Yes. In the process we acknowledge that morality is our flexible friend, the "certain limits" reflecting how strongly our majority prefers particular options.
quote:
It is of course much more convenient to dance with straw men
That works both ways. It seems equally applicable to the claim that "ought" has any persuasive force other than majority support.
quote:
Prudence is a cardinal virtue, charity is a theological virtue, and both are much needed where we have to deal pragmatically with optimising both individual and common good.
If you say so (I'm not familiar with virtue ethics theory). The process of optimising individual and common good seems exactly what morality is about: a negotiation that carries forward preferred outcomes from generation to generation as the basis for the current round. quote:
It remains true though that not everything is negotiable, and that not everything can be left to the individual's choice. There is pragmatic prudence and supportive charity, and then there is moral decadence and negligent laissez faire.
As determined by majority enforcement. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Then, bluntly, who cares about it? Why should we bother to follow it at all?
Why indeed, as an abstract idea. I'm suggesting we acknowledge that we are deciding how to live because that is our choice, not because it is what we ought to do based on some external standard.
quote:
In that case, then, we have no moral reason to consider minority values at all, and might as well stomp them into the ground.
Isn't that what happens all the time, in any number of situations around the world, irrespective of morality? We can try to change that if a particular instance is a priority for us, not because we ought to but because that is how we want the world to be. I'm suggesting we don't need to justify our values in terms of morality.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Then, bluntly, who cares about it? Why should we bother to follow it at all?
Why indeed, as an abstract idea. I'm suggesting we acknowledge that we are deciding how to live because that is our choice, not because it is what we ought to do based on some external standard.
I can't acknowledge something I don't believe is true.
quote:
quote:
In that case, then, we have no moral reason to consider minority values at all, and might as well stomp them into the ground.
Isn't that what happens all the time, in any number of situations around the world, irrespective of morality? We can try to change that if a particular instance is a priority for us, not because we ought to but because that is how we want the world to be. I'm suggesting we don't need to justify our values in terms of morality.
Then I see no point in the whole thing; if there is no "oughtness" in reality, then any pretense to right, wrong, society, civilization, etc. is all just emotional garbage and there really is no reason not to kill ourselves and get over the ghastly illusion of meaning once and for all. (After all, there is no reason not to...)
[ 11. August 2014, 14:48: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
emotional garbage
A point of clarification here: I don't believe our emotions are garbage, but I believe that if they are not really reflecting something real, then they would indeed be illusory and thus meaningless garbage. I.e., our desire to take care of children, loved ones, make the world a better place in any sense of "better"--if none of that has any real reality beyond purely emotional feelings (themselves, in this notion of reality, meaningless), then there's no reason to follow them, to say or do one bit of kindness to anyone ever at all, or for that matter to go on living--as our impulses to do any of that are merely illusions with no "oughtness" behind them.
Happily, I don't believe that, and I believe that our instincts (emotional and otherwise) for self-preservation, for kindness to offspring and planning for the future, for society in any sense to go on, the urge to help take care of the environment, fairness to people in minority positions, and so on, are at least partly rooted in real right-and-wrong, this-is-truly-good, etc. morality.
[ 11. August 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Happily, I don't believe that, and I believe that our instincts (emotional and otherwise) for self-preservation, for kindness to offspring and planning for the future, for society in any sense to go on, the urge to help take care of the environment, fairness to people in minority positions, and so on, are at least partly rooted in real right-and-wrong, this-is-truly-good, etc. morality.
You may be right. But it no longer seems obvious to me that discerning those right-and-wrong positions is other than an individual or social choice.
That doesn't mean they're insignificant or not real - our choices change future reality for ever. But that's why I want to weigh the options and outcomes in terms of my own priorities, not those that others might wish to impose on me through their moralities.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yes. In the process we acknowledge that morality is our flexible friend, the "certain limits" reflecting how strongly our majority prefers particular options.
If we speak about what a democratic society enforces, yes. But that reflects our choice of political process. If instead I become the supreme dictator of the world, then you might find that the majority opinion on morals is rather irrelevant, practically speaking. None of which changes morals, merely how they play in society. If I dictate that child sacrifice is moral and indeed needs to be carried out in a regular fashion, and everybody obeys me, then this does not mean that child sacrifice is now moral. Rather, I as an immoral ruler have imposed my immorality concerning child sacrifice on society. Morals are not a matter of social agreement, but their recognition and application is.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But that's why I want to weigh the options and outcomes in terms of my own priorities, not those that others might wish to impose on me through their moralities.
But how do you determine those priorities? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we speak about what a democratic society enforces, yes. But that reflects our choice of political process. If instead I become the supreme dictator of the world, then you might find that the majority opinion on morals is rather irrelevant, practically speaking. None of which changes morals, merely how they play in society.
For a society that chooses a supreme ruler to dictate social policy, that choice will reflect their morality. Of course you can introduce an external moral authority but that can only ever be expressed through some human agency, whatever claims it may make about the source of its authority.
quote:
Morals are not a matter of social agreement, but their recognition and application is.
I'm not convinced there's a real difference.
[ 11. August 2014, 16:07: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
how do you determine those priorities?
Our own values. Where we lean when habits and thought are taken out of the equation. If we have an eternal essence, I suspect that's most of what it is.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If instead I become the supreme dictator of the world, then you might find that the majority opinion on morals is rather irrelevant, practically speaking. None of which changes morals, merely how they play in society. If I dictate that child sacrifice is moral and indeed needs to be carried out in a regular fashion, and everybody obeys me, then this does not mean that child sacrifice is now moral. Rather, I as an immoral ruler have imposed my immorality concerning child sacrifice on society.
Fascinating - that's the exact opposite of what you were arguing when we were imagining Odin as supreme dictator of the universe.
The difference of course, was that then we were using the word "god" rather than "supreme dictator".
You seem to believe that "God defines good", that goodness is whatever God deems it to be (on an ongoing basis, as ruler of the universe, rather than as its architect).
Whereas I believe that "good defines God" - that God is the embodiment of goodness, goodness conceived as a person, personified. Anything less would be unworthy of worship, no more than a cosmic dictator.
Which doesn't stop us learning from our religious tradition more about what goodness is and how to apply it.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
how do you determine those priorities?
Our own values. Where we lean when habits and thought are taken out of the equation.
But... if those values are basically imaginary and meaningless, since they can't be actually true in any real sense... why bother using them for priorities?
quote:
If we have an eternal essence, I suspect that's most of what it is.
I can't make sense of that at all.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to believe that "God defines good", that goodness is whatever God deems it to be (on an ongoing basis, as ruler of the universe, rather than as its architect).
Yes, except that the distinction that you make is invalid for an eternal being engaged with a time bound world.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas I believe that "good defines God" - that God is the embodiment of goodness, goodness conceived as a person, personified. Anything less would be unworthy of worship, no more than a cosmic dictator.
You simply need to come to terms with the fact that God is Creator, not creature.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You simply need to come to terms with the fact that God is Creator, not creature.
Or maybe that's not it at all, and he just disagrees with you!
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But... if those values are basically imaginary and meaningless, since they can't be actually true in any real sense...
How are our values imaginary and meaningless? "Actually true" only means "reflects reality". Our values are what create meaning for us; they are at least as real as any other attribute of our humanity, probably more so. Perhaps we understand values differently?
quote:
quote:
If we have an eternal essence, I suspect that's most of what it is.
I can't make sense of that at all.
I don't know where to start explaining that further. Sorry.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
How are our values imaginary and meaningless? "Actually true" only means "reflects reality". Our values are what create meaning for us; they are at least as real as any other attribute of our humanity, probably more so. Perhaps we understand values differently?
Or you understand reality differently. I'm guessing that Chast means "actually true outside our heads."
Further if something creates meaning, how can it reflect meaning? A mirror reflects images created by other things, not by itself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or you understand reality differently. I'm guessing that Chast means "actually true outside our heads."
Perhaps. I certainly don't think the workings of our mind are not real.
quote:
Further if something creates meaning, how can it reflect meaning? A mirror reflects images created by other things, not by itself.
I didn't think I said values reflect meaning.
[cross-posted]
[ 12. August 2014, 00:05: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Perhaps. I certainly don't think the workings of our mind are not real.
Workings of our minds are real, but what they are about can be real or imaginary to one degree or another.
One can see a green parakeet outside the window, and have an idea of a green parakeet.
One can imagine a purple unicorn, and have an idea of a purple unicorn.
But the green parakeet is an actual real thing. The purple unicorn is imaginary.
(One might, of course, imagine an orange raccoon, and purely by coincidence there could be an orange raccoon (there is something like that: a red panda), but we're talking about a notion of reality which excludes from the outset the idea of there being an external reality for the idea of the orange raccoon to be true in.)
If we're talking about ideas which are only inside our heads--and made up, like the purple unicorn--then they might be pleasant (or unpleasant) stories, but not really meaningful if there is no connection to non-pretend reality.
It sounds to me as if you're talking about notions of right and wrong which are merely made up. They're real ideas inside one's head, but if they are not true ideas, or even an attempt at getting close to true ideas, then as far as I can tell they are as arbitrary and (for these purposes) as meaningless as the idea of a purple unicorn. They're pretend.
[ 12. August 2014, 00:34: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It sounds to me as if you're talking about notions of right and wrong which are merely made up.
No, that's not what I'm saying, although I can see how it might sound like that. I'm suggesting that notions of right and wrong are only ever the result of "social negotiations" that have gone on continuously since our ancestors' times. Each generation's values interact with those from previous generations to create the moral sensibility that determines in general terms what our time and culture thinks is right and wrong.
You could say that is made up rather than handed down from on high, but it is not arbitrary. It is a digest of what our culture's predecessors have found works best for our kind of society.
The morality of our society/community/family is very useful as a starting point for working out how to live in each context. Where we go from there, how much of their morality we choose to make our own, is up to us.
[ 12. August 2014, 01:27: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It sounds to me as if you're talking about notions of right and wrong which are merely made up.
No, that's not what I'm saying, although I can see how it might sound like that. I'm suggesting that notions of right and wrong are only ever the result of "social negotiations" that have gone on continuously since our ancestors' times.
But if they're only ever the result of those, and are not at all connected to something more real about good and evil beyond that, then they're still merely made up, just by more people. And once "following tradition is a good guideline, or at least starting place, to find out about real moral truth" is pitched out with the idea of "real moral truth," then why should anyone care what our ancestors have to say?
quote:
You could say that is made up rather than handed down from on high, but it is not arbitrary. It is a digest of what our culture's predecessors have found works best for our kind of society.
But if there is no real reason to care about what works best for society... then why bother? This is predicated on the idea that "what works best" (in some sense) "for our kind of society" ... well, matters in the first place. Why should we care about that at all? Maybe society is just trash, and preserving it is as irrelevant to reality as any other imaginary moral notion.
quote:
The morality of our society/community/family is very useful as a starting point for working out how to live in each context.
But, again if there is no real right and wrong, if it's only either a story we make up, or a story our ancestors made up and modified over the years, why should we care about any of that? It's equally illusory and pretend, whether we have stories about purple unicorns from long ago, or stories about indigo hippogryphs that have gradually been modified into stories about purple unicorns now, or make up purple unicorns out of our own heads individually.
For that matter, why care about something being useful in the fist place? If prudence isn't a virtue, then so what?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
But if they're only ever the result of those, and are not at all connected to something more real about good and evil beyond that, then they're still merely made up, just by more people.
But how is it any different from the morality that comes from people who think they there is something more real beyond it, if we cannot agree on what is? There has always been a plethora of moral beliefs out there from people who either believe they have a direct line from a god, who interpret religious works in their own way or just think they can access a universal morality through reason. Some of them are just batshit. Some just weird. And not all of them can be right. It doesn't matter one jot whether you believe there is a moral good hanging out there as a deity or anything else unless you have a good way of showing that your version is closer to it than all the other versions.
And as far as I can see, those with the strongest feeling that they have it right are the most dangerous.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
But if they're only ever the result of those, and are not at all connected to something more real about good and evil beyond that, then they're still merely made up, just by more people.
But how is it any different from the morality that comes from people who think they there is something more real beyond it, if we cannot agree on what is?
Because if there isn't something real that we're all at least trying to aim for, or head in the right direction of, there's no point--it's all just a game of "let's pretend there is right and wrong."
quote:
There has always been a plethora of moral beliefs out there from people who either believe they have a direct line from a god, who interpret religious works in their own way or just think they can access a universal morality through reason. Some of them are just batshit. Some just weird. And not all of them can be right.
But if there isn't something real, even if we can never grasp it fully, then none of them can be right, or even close to right. There can be no moral progress, or moral improvement. Heck, even the distinction between "batshit" and "non-batshit" is itself wholly illusory--if there is no real right or wrong "out there" to at least be aiming for, even vaguely, even imperfectly.
quote:
It doesn't matter one jot whether you believe there is a moral good hanging out there as a deity or anything else unless you have a good way of showing that your version is closer to it than all the other versions.
I think it matters quite a bit--either the various people with their various versions are trying, in some way, even some pitiful broken way, to aim at something real... or it's all a meaningless game. If there isn't a real moral good at all, then no version can be close or far from it because it doesn't exist.
quote:
And as far as I can see, those with the strongest feeling that they have it right are the most dangerous.
But that doesn't matter--unless we grant that "being dangerous" is something to be avoided. If they hurt people with that, well, if there is no real moral good out there, then who cares? Hurting people is no better or worse than helping them.
It's possible to say "no one except God has it perfectly right, but we're all trying as best we know how to aim for that transcendent moral good we occasionally get tiny glimpses of"--but if there is no genuine, not-just-made-up moral good that all of these notions and systems and ideas are at least trying to aim for or reach, then cruelty and kindness, hatred and love, greed or charity, self-righteousness or humility-- all of them are equally value-neutral. It's not like saying, "I don't know who's got it closer, Mother Theresa or Gandhi," but saying, "Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Nietszche, Ayn Rand, Charles Manson--their teachings are all morally the same because there is no right or wrong apart from what we make up like a pretty story." And I definitely don't believe that.
[ 12. August 2014, 12:36: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
if [notions of right and wrong] are only ever the result of [social negotiation], and are not at all connected to something more real about good and evil beyond that, then they're still merely made up, just by more people.
Good and evil only exist in the context of human perception. They're shorthand for things like "people doing good" or "evil corporations", abstract judgements that exist only in human minds. But the outcome of social negotiations can be very real. An agreement to not kill each other, for example, and a legal system to enforce it. You can say it's made up, but it is not imaginary.
quote:
And once "following tradition is a good guideline, or at least starting place, to find out about real moral truth" is pitched out with the idea of "real moral truth," then why should anyone care what our ancestors have to say?
I've settled on some definitions that allow me to make consistent sense (to myself) in most situations. "Real" or "reality" means how things are. "Truth" is a description of reality. "Morality" is harder to generalise about but a moral choice as one that affects others but is ours to make. So using these definitions, I wouldn't think in terms of "real moral truth".
But I think I get the jist of what you're saying, and I don't think what you mean by "real moral truth" makes sense. By my definition, it's a subjective reality. It's real to you (à la purple unicorn), part of how you make sense of the world, but it has no corresponding objective reality (green parakeet).
The other possibility, and I'm guessing this is what you mean, is that it has a correspondence with some feature of ultimate reality, whatever that might be. But we exist in physical reality and can only speculate about such things, and then only usefully about features that would be consistent with our physical universe. I don't think morality comes close to qualifying.
quote:
But if there is no real reason to care about what works best for society... then why bother?
There is a real reason if someone, anyone, cares. Why they care is irrelevant. The fact that some of us do care reinforces my belief that a socially negotiated morality is real. Things matter if they matter to us; we don't need an excuse for being who we are.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Good and evil only exist in the context of human perception. They're shorthand for things like "people doing good" or "evil corporations", abstract judgements that exist only in human minds.
Yes, as you may imagine, we disagree here.
quote:
But the outcome of social negotiations can be very real. An agreement to not kill each other, for example, and a legal system to enforce it. You can say it's made up, but it is not imaginary.
I would say that things "that exist only in human minds" is a pretty good definition of "imaginary."
quote:
I've settled on some definitions that allow me to make consistent sense (to myself) in most situations. "Real" or "reality" means how things are. "Truth" is a description of reality.
So far, we agree wholly.
quote:
"Morality" is harder to generalise about but a moral choice as one that affects others but is ours to make. So using these definitions, I wouldn't think in terms of "real moral truth".
I don't see how that follows--but since the phrase "moral choice" is part of the definition given, I still don't see what you mean there.
quote:
But I think I get the jist of what you're saying, and I don't think what you mean by "real moral truth" makes sense. By my definition, it's a subjective reality. It's real to you (à la purple unicorn), part of how you make sense of the world, but it has no corresponding objective reality (green parakeet).
Then as far as I can tell, there's no need to follow it whatsoever.
quote:
The other possibility, and I'm guessing this is what you mean, is that it has a correspondence with some feature of ultimate reality, whatever that might be.
Absolutely.
quote:
But we exist in physical reality and can only speculate about such things, and then only usefully about features that would be consistent with our physical universe.
I don't know what you mean there. We exist in physical reality, yes--and in more than physical reality. That's why it's called metaphysics. If you don't believe in metaphysics at all--if you believe that all that there is is physical reality--then I can see how you would arrive at:
quote:
I don't think morality comes close to qualifying.
Which is perhaps our point of disagreement?
quote:
There is a real reason if someone, anyone, cares. Why they care is irrelevant. The fact that some of us do care reinforces my belief that a socially negotiated morality is real. Things matter if they matter to us; we don't need an excuse for being who we are.
That's not what I'd call a real reason. Certainly, if I didn't believe in right and wrong beyond "notions inside human beings' heads that don't correspond to any external or transcendent metaphysical reality," there would be no reason for me to care at all--but then there would also be no reason for intellectual honesty for me to continue to pursue the question any more than there would be a reason for me to care what matters to anyone else, or about anything socially negotiated (or social, full stop)... or, arguably, to care about anything at all.
If every single other person on Earth, now and down through all of history, believed in some kind of morality, but I genuinely thought that there wasn't one beyond them making stuff up inside their heads (collective or otherwise, down through history or not), it would be irrelevant how many people believed it, and certainly no reason for me to follow it. There could be, I suppose, the notion that I might get in trouble if I did not pay lip service to their fallacious ideas, but since I would have no duty to self-preservation either... well, nothing would matter at all, as far as I am concerned. Indeed there would be, as far as I can tell, no reason to do anything, nor any reason to not do anything.
Again, fortunately, I don't believe reality is really like that. I believe there is a real goodness, which we did not just make up, that has connection to something outside of and/or transcending us. We may not get it perfectly in this world, but we're at least trying to aim at something real.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Dave Marshall said:
But I think I get the jist of what you're saying, and I don't think what you mean by "real moral truth" makes sense. By my definition, it's a subjective reality. It's real to you (à la purple unicorn), part of how you make sense of the world, but it has no corresponding objective reality (green parakeet).
Then as far as I can tell, there's no need to follow it whatsoever.
Except for utilitarian reasons: it's more fun not being in jail than being in jail.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But the outcome of social negotiations can be very real. An agreement to not kill each other, for example, and a legal system to enforce it. You can say it's made up, but it is not imaginary.
I would say that things "that exist only in human minds" is a pretty good definition of "imaginary."
So you think the legal system, if it's an outcome of a social negotiation based morality, exists only in human minds and is therefore not real?
quote:
quote:
I don't think what you mean by "real moral truth" makes sense. By my definition, it's a subjective reality. It's real to you (à la purple unicorn), part of how you make sense of the world, but it has no corresponding objective reality (green parakeet).
Then as far as I can tell, there's no need to follow it whatsoever.
There is no need to follow morality wherever it comes from.
quote:
We exist in physical reality, yes--and in more than physical reality. That's why it's called metaphysics. If you don't believe in metaphysics at all--if you believe that all that there is is physical reality--then I can see how you would arrive at:
quote:
I don't think morality comes close to qualifying.
Which is perhaps our point of disagreement?
I certainly don't believe that physical reality is all there is. It is however our only reliable check on subjective reality and the only solid basis for metaphysical theories about what ultimate reality might mean.
But that is probably as far as I want to take this. I do though wonder how you believe in metaphysics but dismiss socially negotiated morality. If anything exists only in human minds I would have thought it was metaphysics.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
So you think the legal system, if it's an outcome of a social negotiation based morality, exists only in human minds and is therefore not real?
But you see I don't believe that. In theory, the legal system is at least partly aiming--one hopes--for something like genuine justice (and mercy). If there is no real justice to aim for, then--well, see above.
If I didn't believe in some kind of real morality--well, for starters, then I'd be under no moral obligation to follow the law in the first place. Why should I care what those people have made up? Just don't get caught. Or worse thoughts. (Again, I don't believe this way at all; and, of course, if there is no right and wrong, then "worse" and "better" become wholly meaningless words.)
quote:
There is no need to follow morality wherever it comes from.
I don't agree at all. If it is real (in the sense I'm trying to get at), if there is a real right and wrong apart from people making stuff up, then by definition we are obligated to--we need to--at least try to do our best to do the right thing.
quote:
I certainly don't believe that physical reality is all there is. It is however our only reliable check on subjective reality and the only solid basis for metaphysical theories about what ultimate reality might mean.
I don't agree at all, as you may imagine.
quote:
But that is probably as far as I want to take this. I do though wonder how you believe in metaphysics but dismiss socially negotiated morality. If anything exists only in human minds I would have thought it was metaphysics.
I don't know how to explain myself better without essentially repeating what I say above. If there is no metaphysics, just a meaningless jumble of physical atoms that happens to have formed a temporary "pattern" called "human existence," then that socially negotiated reality--including the whole "idea" of having the free will to negotiate anything--is just as much a pointless accident as the rest of it. Heck, even this discussion would be just empty words. There'd be no real "I" or "you" to accept or dismiss anything...
Again, happily, I don't believe that way. If we have reached an impasse I am sorry but I don't know what else to say here.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
if there is a clear "right action" inbuilt into our existence then we must also have the sensory tools necessary to know what that is, and when we are in accordance with it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
which is paraphrase of a statement contained in the preparatory document for the Synod of Bishops coming up in the RC Church.
This statement is part of a summary of some of the results of the Pope's questionnaire which was distributed world-wide recently.
quote:
“In a vast majority of responses and observations, the concept of natural law today turns out to be, in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible.”
from
from Mark Silk writing in Religion News Service
further quote:
quote:
In other words, the way to make reason more comprehensible in today’s world is through revelation. I suppose this comports with St. Anselm’s thousand-year-old notion of “faith seeking understanding.” But it doesn’t say much for natural law as a self-sufficient, universally graspable system of thought
Should be good for some discussion. Go for it. I'm not particularly aware of the concept of "natural law" in the first place, so an explanation of that might help get us started.
There is a question missing in this.
Natural Moral Law is not a hard concept to understand. It's IMO a flawed concept. But it isn't hard. On the other hand Roman Catholic "Natural Moral Law" is an almost impossible concept to understand. This is because it adds various factors from Roman Catholic Tradition to Natural Moral Law. Ideas like the one saying you must assume things to have a primary purpose and use them for that - which is the direct opposite to what we see in nature and evolution and is therefore contrary to Natural Moral Law. (And that it leads to clear and obvious harmful nonsense like an opposition to contraception being claimed to be good makes the whole thing clearly wrong).
Is Natural Moral Law incomprehensible? No. Is Roman Catholic "Natural Moral Law" incomprehensible without first understanding the Roman Catholic part? IMO yes. You need to swallow uncritically a whole raft of Roman Catholic assumptions before it makes sense.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Is Natural Moral Law incomprehensible? No. Is Roman Catholic "Natural Moral Law" incomprehensible without first understanding the Roman Catholic part? IMO yes. You need to swallow uncritically a whole raft of Roman Catholic assumptions before it makes sense.
This is close to my take on the question. Natural moral law ought to be based on premises that are self-evident, or pretty darned close to it. From my POV, even not-so-Catholic NML has a hard time justifying its premises.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Justinian's point about primary purpose is interesting, and I've seen a lot of discussions about examples, such as using ears to wear glasses, which are not reckoned to be sinful, although the primary purpose of ears is not to wear glasses. But using your bottom for sex is. Hmm.
I think evolution itself, if I can personalize it, is quite able to use one element for multiple purposes, as with the jolly old penis itself, obviously.
But maybe things like wearing glasses (and ear-rings) are rather trivial counter-examples?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A bit late, I remembered one possible reply to the example of wearing glasses - that sight is an intrinsic good, and therefore glasses are an aid in that. On the other hand, procreation is an intrinsic good, and contraception prevents it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the other hand, procreation is an intrinsic good, and contraception prevents it.
The thing here is, expressing affection for your partner through sex is an intrinsic good too. As is sleep. Choose two out of three.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
if there is a clear "right action" inbuilt into our existence then we must also have the sensory tools necessary to know what that is, and when we are in accordance with it.
I think this would be more a spiritual rather than biological matter--and also, I believe it is complicated by the Fall. So we often (individually and societally) get some things more right and some things more terribly wrong. Even the matter of some Old Testament laws, understood to be given/approved by God, take on a different light when Jesus tells us that Moses' laws for divorce were given because of the hardness of human hearts.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is close to my take on the question. Natural moral law ought to be based on premises that are self-evident, or pretty darned close to it. From my POV, even not-so-Catholic NML has a hard time justifying its premises.
Agreed.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
if there is a clear "right action" inbuilt into our existence then we must also have the sensory tools necessary to know what that is, and when we are in accordance with it.
In this case I think it would be at least partly if not wholly spiritual, and as we are afflicted with the Fall, then it means that this perception is damaged along with everything else. Not, I believe, as in some notions of total depravity, annihilated, but just damaged, both individually and otherwise. I think as Paul says in Romans 2, we do have the law written on our hearts (14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (http://biblehub.com/romans/2-15.htm)), but I do think that's not the same as the fullness of moral understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is close to my take on the question. Natural moral law ought to be based on premises that are self-evident, or pretty darned close to it. From my POV, even not-so-Catholic NML has a hard time justifying its premises.
Agreed.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
if there is a clear "right action" inbuilt into our existence then we must also have the sensory tools necessary to know what that is, and when we are in accordance with it.
In this case I think it would be at least partly if not wholly spiritual, and as we are afflicted with the Fall, then it means that this perception is damaged along with everything else. Not, I believe, as in some notions of total depravity, annihilated, but just damaged, both individually and otherwise. I think as Paul says in Romans 2, we do have the law written on our hearts (14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (http://biblehub.com/romans/2-15.htm)), but I do think that's not the same as the fullness of moral understanding.
If that's the case, free will has no real meaning and it amounts to an abandonment by God. Do you really subscribe to that?
[Code fix -Gwai]
[ 13. August 2014, 18:24: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Because if there isn't something real that we're all at least trying to aim for, or head in the right direction of, there's no point--it's all just a game of "let's pretend there is right and wrong."
There is something real. Billions of people on a tiny planet with hopes, dreams, love, loss, suffering, pain, happiness, sadness and much more besides. Trying to navigate a way through a life that balances our wants and needs with theirs and striving to leave the world in a decent state for the next generation is direction enough.
quote:
But that doesn't matter--unless we grant that "being dangerous" is something to be avoided. If they hurt people with that, well, if there is no real moral good out there, then who cares? Hurting people is no better or worse than helping them
That's one of the batshit notions. Who cares? Everybody who is not a sociopath cares. We don't need a transcendent notion of good and evil to grant that danger is to be avoided. We kind of get that quite early on in our lives. Empathy helps with the rest.
It's really funny that you finish off your post trying to mark out the difference between "what we make up like a pretty story" and the reality of your right and wrong, with a statement of your belief. In the absence of empirical confirmation all beliefs are just stories we tell ourselves or share with others.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the other hand, procreation is an intrinsic good, and contraception prevents it.
Is it? If the population exploded to where even one more mouth to feed, let alone millions, would mean that more people would starve, would procreation be good? I don't think so. There is nothing intrinsically good about every fertile woman making the maximum number of babies at all times.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Is Natural Moral Law incomprehensible? No. Is Roman Catholic "Natural Moral Law" incomprehensible without first understanding the Roman Catholic part? IMO yes. You need to swallow uncritically a whole raft of Roman Catholic assumptions before it makes sense.
This is close to my take on the question. Natural moral law ought to be based on premises that are self-evident, or pretty darned close to it. From my POV, even not-so-Catholic NML has a hard time justifying its premises.
Let's be clear that the "natural" in "natural moral law" does not indicate "nature" in the sense of our non-artificial environment, in particular the biological parts. It's not "nature" in the sense of what you enjoy when having a walk in the woods. What is meant there instead is what we ask with "What is the nature of this effect?" It's about the essence of something, its core functionality, etc. So to complain that "natural moral law", shouldn't be about the purpose of things is just plain silly. That is exactly what "natural moral law" is about. Whether that is a good or bad approach is a different question, but it is what it is. Sociobiology, for example is not natural moral law, though it might provide data for it.
The idea that all of natural moral law has to be intuitive is also odd. Some parts of it certainly are. Other parts are not. This is really very much the same as with natural physical law. There is such a things as "intuitive physics", as every baller knows. And then there is string theory.
Since - predictably - we have also turned to what one can do with penises, and what not, here a couple of clarifying comments. A penis has at least two main purposes, elimination and procreation. That is no problem at all for natural moral law, and it is a complete mystery to me why people seem to think that it is. There is also no problem of principle with allowing Viagra but not condoms. Repairing a motor restores a car to its functionality, driving with a pulled handbrake impairs a car's functionality. Interference is not bad merely because it is interference, interference is judged by what it attempts to achieve.
Finally, the problem with "sex for fun" or "sex for bonding" while artificially excluding procreation is precisely that these are not independent purposes, like peeing is. You are not misusing a penis if you wee with it, even though that has no effect on procreation. It's simply a different thing to do with a penis. But the reason why sex is fun, why sex increases bonding between partners is precisely the procreative purpose. This is biologically clear. Sex is fun so that you end up having children, sex increases bonding so that the children have a better chance to grow up to reproduce themselves. As far as fun and bonding is concerned, the question is hence not whether you can do something independent of procreation with the penis, like peeing. The question is whether you can licitly enjoy the fun and bonding of sex while artificially eliminating the purpose they are ordered to, procreation. To make an analogy, it is not like asking whether you can both eat and sing with the mouth (sure, those are independent). It is asking whether you can eat food for the pleasant taste sensation and then vomit it up again because you want to avoid metabolising it. Can you separate the pleasure from the behaviour it is supposed to induce? Natural moral law, or at least the RC version, says that you cannot. If you don't like that, argue against it. Fine. But stop pretending that this is somehow a failure to accept that things can have multiple independent purposes. It isn't.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the other hand, procreation is an intrinsic good, and contraception prevents it.
Is it? If the population exploded to where even one more mouth to feed, let alone millions, would mean that more people would starve, would procreation be good? I don't think so. There is nothing intrinsically good about every fertile woman making the maximum number of babies at all times.
Well, I agree with you, but you missed out the 'as if' context of this, as it's part of my 'one possible reply to the example of wearing glasses', the bit you chopped off, in fact.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The idea that all of natural moral law has to be intuitive is also odd.
Good thing I didn't make that claim, isn't it? I said its premises need to be intuitive. Hardly the same thing, unless you're one of those idiot savants who can look at a set of premises and see the theorems that will be derived on page 472.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I agree with you, but you missed out the 'as if' context of this, as it's part of my 'one possible reply to the example of wearing glasses', the bit you chopped off, in fact.
How does this change what I said, or indeed apply to it? I "chopped [it] off" because it seemed to be a separate issue, and one can't be expected to respond to every single issue another person makes. But if you think it changes what I said, or somehow disproves part of what I said, let's hear it; I do try to be rational most of the time.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the other hand, procreation is an intrinsic good, and contraception prevents it.
Is it? If the population exploded to where even one more mouth to feed, let alone millions, would mean that more people would starve, would procreation be good? I don't think so. There is nothing intrinsically good about every fertile woman making the maximum number of babies at all times.
Once more, this misses the point. We are not talking about "nature" as in the natural environment. We are talking about "nature" as in what things are like. There is no question that procreation is an intrinsic good, a final cause, of every living being. Life reproduces, that is one of its key characteristics. The question whether there is too many of one particular life form is simply a completely different sort of question. Certainly that question also can influence our sexual behaviour. But it is a different evaluation concerned with population wide outcomes.
Practically speaking, natural moral law tells you what sort of sex you can licitly have. Considerations of the world population, or for that matter of your own financial situation, may influence how much offspring you want to have. How you realise the latter in terms of the former is a problem that you need to solve, but the point here is that these are different constraints.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Good thing I didn't make that claim, isn't it? I said its premises need to be intuitive.
So, which natural moral law premises do you find counter-intuitive?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That there is a "final cause" for every human behavior, and that what we do can be moral or immoral based on that "final cause."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the reason why sex is fun, why sex increases bonding between partners is precisely the procreative purpose. This is biologically clear. Sex is fun so that you end up having children, sex increases bonding so that the children have a better chance to grow up to reproduce themselves.
Go tell it to the bonobos. Who quite clearly use sex for more than just that.
For that matter if your claim were accurate no one would be gay. Your rendition of Roman Catholic teachings about Moral Law means that homophobia is a necessity. Once more people don't understand the Roman Catholic version of Natural Moral Law because it involves swallowing obvious evil and many people refuse to do that.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Anyway, your interpretation may well be coherent considered by and in itself
Thank you, that's all I wanted to know. I take it that with this, I've answered the question you posed here sufficiently.
quote:
IngoB: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Under the crucial condition that you believe child sacrifice is commanded to you by your god, I react by declaring your god to be a false god. It does no good telling you that by natural moral law sacrificing children is immoral. If your god were the true god, he could override such concerns. For that matter, you may never have heard of natural moral law (it's a rather advanced philosophical concept) and you have stated that child sacrifice is two millennia old established practice for you, meaning that most natural moral feeling you may have had concerning this will have been corrupted by your culture. Hence while it is true that child sacrifice is against the natural moral law, there is no point in arguing that against your false god's false revelation.
I may be a bear of little brain, but 'Natural Moral Law' in the sense you use it seems something that's mostly invented by your church. There seem to be other Natural Moral Laws as well. I've read about Islamic Natural Law; I suspect that that's different from yours. There are also people who don't believe in Natural Law at all, I guess I'm in that crowd.
One thing I could do of course, is to stipulate here a Quetzalcoatlan Natural Law, which states that child sacrifice is a-ok as long as the laws of nature are concerned (although I admit this would be a bit hard to do).
What I do ask myself is: who would be the arbiter here? There are different takes on Natural Law. Who decides what's the real Natural Law, and which ones are corrupted? And who determines whether something is against it or not? Your church?
quote:
IngoB: What I can do, and I have mentioned that in my previous post, is to use remaining natural feelings (basically "parental" protection instincts) as emotional leverage to make a switch away from your false revelation more attractive.
What I can do is to use remaining natural feelings (basically the "equality" of men and women, gay and straight) as emotial leverage to make a switch away from your false revelation more attractive.
[ 14. August 2014, 01:38: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If that's the case, free will has no real meaning and it amounts to an abandonment by God. Do you really subscribe to that?
(1) I don't see how having an imperfect understanding of morality means we have no free will. Indeed, I believe that we are to follow what we understand to be right even when that understanding is faulty; as Lewis puts it in Screwtape Letters, "[God] often makes prizes of humans who have given their lives for causes he thinks bad on the monstrously sophistical ground that the humans thought them good and were following the best they knew.”
(2) I don't think we've been abandoned by God at all; that's why Jesus came.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
There is something real. Billions of people on a tiny planet with hopes, dreams, love, loss, suffering, pain, happiness, sadness and much more besides. Trying to navigate a way through a life that balances our wants and needs with theirs and striving to leave the world in a decent state for the next generation is direction enough.
But--and again, this is speaking in terms of a world in which there is no real right and wrong outside of things human beings just make up, which I do not believe in--the ideas that balancing our wants and needs with others' and leaving the world in a decent state are to be sought are, without there being a real right and wrong, meaningless things.
I emphatically believe that we ought to do those things. But again I say that, if there is no right and wrong, if it is all just people making stuff up that has no intrinsic meaning, then all of the stuff about love, hopes, dreams, etc. are meaningless too. I don't believe they are meaningless at all!!
quote:
That's one of the batshit notions.
I agree; but I think, and no offense meant to you personally, that the idea of an intrinsically amoral universe is itself a "batshit notion."
quote:
Who cares? Everybody who is not a sociopath cares.
I agree with this wholeheartedly--so much that I could set it to music and sing it from the rooftops. (... actually, now that I think of it... it's been done. Behold!)
Pierre
I believe that indeed, the notion that there is no right and wrong, that kindness is not really right and cruelty is not really wrong--is, indeed, the mark of a sociopath. I believe that this notion of reality posits a sociopathic universe not only worthy of H.P. Lovecraft, but in fact what Lovecraft really believed:
"...my philosophical position [is] that of a mechanistic materialist of the line of Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius--and in modern times, Nietzsche and Haeckel..."
"There are no values in all infinity--the least idea that there are, is the supreme mockery of all. All the cosmos is a jest, & fit to be treated only as a jest, & one thing is as true as another. I believe everything & nothing--for all is chaos, always has been, & always will be. Ease, amusement--these are the only relative qualities fit to be classed as values."
"A great part of religion is merely a childish and diluted pseudo-gratification of this perpetual gnawing toward the ultimate illimitable void."
"The cosmos--is simply a perpetual rearrangement of electrons which is constantly seething as it always has been and always will be. Our tiny globe and puny thoughts are but one momentary incident in its eternal mutation; so that the life, aims, and thoughts of mankind are of the utmost triviality and ridiculousness. We are conscious by accident, and during the unfortunate instant that we are so, it behooves us only to mitigate our pain and pass our time as agreeably as we may. Since good sense shows us, that pleasure is but a balance betwixt desire and fulfillment--tis the part of reason to avoid the needless labour by having as few wants as possible, and gratifying them in a manner so quiet as not to encroach on the pleasure of others and stir them up against us."
All of the above excerpted from here.
Remember, please, that I don't believe the universe is like this at all. That's... kind of my point, actually.
quote:
We don't need a transcendent notion of good and evil to grant that danger is to be avoided. We kind of get that quite early on in our lives.
We are taught that and we have instincts toward that; unless there is something more than that, though, it doesn't make it true. Again, I believe it is true.
quote:
Empathy helps with the rest.
Which, again, I agree with you in the strongest possible way--I just say that, again, unless it is more than "the way we happen to feel a lot of the time," unless it is somehow really right to feel empathy, and really wrong to not have empathy, it is meaningless. I don't believe in, nor would I ever want to live in, such a universe. I think it would be horrible to the point of driving one to madness. If empathy and kindness and love are wrong, I don't want to be right, and so on.
quote:
It's really funny that you finish off your post trying to mark out the difference between "what we make up like a pretty story" and the reality of your right and wrong, with a statement of your belief.
Not to me, but I'm trying to use "I statements" (I believe, I think, etc.) when I can without going overboard with them.
quote:
In the absence of empirical confirmation all beliefs are just stories we tell ourselves or share with others.
What sort of empirical evidence would be convincing, for you, of the existence of at least some kind of right and wrong?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
