Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 12:41:00 GMT -4
Hence my "beautific vision" comment earlier. That's a Christian term not necessarily used in LDS theology; it's the notion that when you die, you instantly acquire a full and complete knowledge of God and of the whole scheme of things: right and wrong, sin and virtue, etc. If I recall correctly, that's part of Mormon belief. No, not really. LDS theology holds that when you die you will be much as you were here on Earth. Obviously you'll have some idea that there is an afterlife at that point, and your perspective on life may change as a result, but you won't instantly have a full and complete knowledge of God and so forth. There will be a point in the future where the veil which has been placed on our memories of our pre-mortal existence will be removed, and at that point we may experience something akin to the "beautific vision" you describe, but that will be at the Final Judgment, which is still some distance in the future, not immediately upon death.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 9, 2007 13:19:20 GMT -4
Not necessarily: some ascetic sects regarded any care for bodily affairs as tantamount to Gluttony. And those sects are wrong. Negelecting the body is as much a moral evil as gluttony. Moderation is nearly always the best course. Yet another question which seems to boil down to a subjective "Because I say so."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 13:32:08 GMT -4
It is true that he has given different guidance at different times, but what is and is nor moral has not changed.
Under that premise, how would one know if it did? God's dispensation of morality bears a very striking resemblance to the kind of morality humans discover on their own.
...some people learn in time to ignore it completely, but it is there.
So everyone has an innate moral compass, and the only reason one person's behavior differs from another's is because people's environment differs, or because different people apply that compass differently than others, or because some people simply ignore it? How do you know your innate moral compass is the same as mine?
How is that not begging the question? How is that not subjective?
In my church there is a boy of about ten or twelve who is developmentally disabled. He occasionally disrupts the service by speaking aloud. My conscience tells me that's wrong, so I don't do it. But no one in the service seems to argue that he is suppressing his conscience by exhibiting that behavior. Is his "light of Christ" broken? Is he morally wrong and is thus responsible?
Yes the manifestation may take a different form. Does that mean it is not valid?
Of course it doesn't. It simply means it's not objective. Moral philosophers don't require a moral imperative to be universal, self-existence, or uniform in order to be valid. A religion that tailors the moral imperative to the capacity of an individual and the needs of a situation isn't invalid in the least, and actually fits rather well with what has been thought among secular philosophers in the past couple hundred years.
Much like the various theories of how the physical laws work, the ultimate test will be which one proves most correct in the end.
Beautific vision doesn't help, either in physics or in philosophy. It's not important what's proven correct in the end, but what's proven correct in the middle while there's still time to learn and act. A physical theory that predicts after the need to predict is over is useless.
By saying "I believe in an absolute moral law" that doesn't necessarily mean I beleive it's a simple and uses a "one-size-fits-all" approach, or in other words that individual circumstances don't matter at all.
Then it's not objective. It seems we've devolved to splitting hairs. You say there's an objective moral compass out there, but you can't point to any property of it that differs from a subjective moral compass. You're just redefining "objective."
It's kind of funny because we both seem to believe that morality doesn't depend on God, but we voted essentially the opposite on the subjective-objective dichotomy if God were disregarded. You say that without God there would still be a morality and it would be objective. I say that without God there would still be morality and it would be subjective (because it always was). This is why philosophy gives me a headache.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 13:56:00 GMT -4
LDS theology holds that when you die you will be much as you were here on Earth.
Yeah, I just asked the guy in the next cubicle, who is LDS. I should have asked him before posting earlier. I remember some passage somewhere about "having a perfect knowledge of your guilt," and recalled that it had something to do with judgment. But he cited another doctrine that established that you'll essentially know no more after death than you did before. I keep forgetting how extensive the LDS afterlife is.
Obviously you'll have some idea that there is an afterlife at that point, and your perspective on life may change as a result...
So I gather; and that's not the beautific vision taught in some Christian traditions.
The point is that one's approach to right conduct is useless unless it can actually guide the conduct on a basis other than presumption. If a beautific vision, however delayed, only serves to tell someone retrospectively how badly he screwed up, then it serves only to give purpose to the theological idea of a final judgment.
The final-judgment scenario is older than Christianity, older than Judaism, and even older than the Egyptians. The Egyptian judgment scene is a commonly-reproduced element of art: I have it on papyrus in my office at home. The candidate places his heart on a scale balanced by a feather, knowing only then whether his heart has been light enough in life to pass to the afterlife. If it isn't as light as the feather, he is devoured by jackals -- too late to do anything about it.
The purpose, of course, is to scare people emotionally into accepting begrudgingly some moral imperative by explicitly deferring the supposed consequences beyond all hope of rational investigation. By the time you realize you're going to go to hell for watching "Family Guy," it's too late to go back and not watch it; so don't watch it now, just in case.
Morality, even as taught in Judeo-Christian theology, is still about one's proximal responsibility to one's "neighbor" in the here and now, not in the there and then. That's why any beautific vision argument doesn't really apply.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 14:04:22 GMT -4
It is true that he has given different guidance at different times, but what is and is nor moral has not changed.Under that premise, how would one know if it did? Because when God reveals the best answer rather than being surprised we look at it and say "of course - I really knew it all along." Our own sense of right and wrong, when we listen to it, confirms that what is right and wrong doesn't vary from day to day, and when we come across greater truth we can recognize it as such. How do you know it's different? Are you objecting to the idea that everyone has a conscience, or that everyone's conscience tells them the same things? It's not subjective if it's objectively correct - if everyone does indeed have a moral compass that gives the same guidance as to what is right or wrong. The difficulty, admittedly, is in proving that it's there, but in the only thing we can all be sure about - our own self - we find it there. As you said, he is developmentally disabled. Essentially yes, his conscience is broken. Someone without the mental capacity to understand right and wrong cannot act immorally. I agree that a physical theory that predicts after the need is over is largely useless, but I disagree that what is correct in the end is unimportant. And religions do provide predictions of what is and is not moral that are available and useful now. Not at all. I use "objective" as a synonymn for "not affected by human opinion". But "not affected by human opinion" is not the same thing as "unaffected by circumstances". The law of gravity has objective reality. The fact that a human being with the correct tools and in the correct circumstances can appear to violate it by flying doesn't mean that it is subjective.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 15:05:21 GMT -4
This is why philosophy gives me a headache. Well if you're tired of philosophy you could go speculate how far into space we'll get over the next 50 years. I started a thread about that in General Discussion and no one's posted any replies.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 16:22:24 GMT -4
Because when God reveals the best answer...
Let me clarify my question. If we don't get to see the supposed perfect moral kernel, and we see only the changing, adaptive "manifestation" of it from time to time as attributed by men to God, then by what means can an observer infer the existence of the kernel and its properties from it? Other ethical frameworks manifest changing, adaptive norms without requiring a strong, self-existent imperative.
Again, you describe the results of a classical ethical system to which you are trying to tack on a strong, central, self-existent imperative, apparently just so you can say you have one. Fine: there can be one; but it doesn't really change the system much if there isn't. If parsimony matters, then universal morality is at best not a liability and at worse an utter disaster.
Our own sense of right and wrong, when we listen to it, confirms that what is right...
And how is this not subjectve?
How do you know it's different?
It's your construct: I make no representation to know anything about it. But you seem to say that everyone has the same built-in knowledge of right and wrong. Is there evidence of this? Or is it a religious doctrine taken on faith, existing only to provide something for the invisible, ineffectual strong central imperative to act upon?
You're the one calling it into existence, so you have to be the one to prove the properties you attribute to it. If you say everyone's conscience is the same, then it's your burden to prove it.
Are you objecting to the idea that everyone has a conscience, or that everyone's conscience tells them the same things?
I don't really object to the notion that everyone has a conscience. Sure, you can point to ferals and sociopaths and quibble along those lines, but I'd rather not.
I object to the notion that you, Jason, can determine what someone else's conscience is telling him. Your argument is based on the premise that everyone everywhere gets the same basic moral framework, which you term "the light of Christ," and that this is the basis for recognizing disparate moral codes as somehow having a singular moral backbone.
Now in practice moral philosophy requires searching for any such common ground. But lacking evidence, the practitioners long ago gave up hope that such thing was innate and invariant. Common principles indeed arise and generate a moral imperative, but it's more likely they are engendered and not pre-existing. They are nurtured into existence and vary from culture to culture.
...but in the only thing we can all be sure about - our own self - we find it there.
And that's exactly what makes it subjective. You beg the question that everyone naturally believes as you do, and any apparent departure is the result of unseen nefarious forces, rather than simply natural variation.
You've constructed a nicely circular argument deriving the singular moral imperative from the identical conscience, and the identical conscience as a required consequent of an effectual (but hidden) singular moral imperative. How could the singular imperative manifest itself in true form through the cloud of adaptive rulings and mutable norms if not in something innate to every observer, so that despite the confusion of observation he simply "knows" that some particular thing is right? And how can the hidden imperative retain the presumption of singularity unless the conscience is similarly presumed identical? What confusion would result otherwise! The singular imperative has to be there in order for the equivalent conscience theory to have a form and basis; and the equivalent conscience theory serves to establish the singular imperative that wouldn't have any evidence but for it.
That's exactly the kind of circularity that the philosophers of the Enlightenment could never overcome, hence the wholesale abandonment of the notion of natural law or rights.
Someone without the mental capacity to understand right and wrong cannot act immorally.
So would it be fair to say that all God's children do not receive an equivalent dispensation of moral boot-ROM? Is it fair to say that moral compasses are indeed different from person to person? Is the light of Christ the same as a "mental capacity to understand right and wrong?" Or does the light of Christ require a formed intellect?
I think I see where you're going. If I interpret your belief correctly, you're saying that developmental disability constitutes a circumstance and not an opinion, and thus doesn't fall under your definition of "subjective." If so, then it's not a very helpful definition. I've been defining subjective as, "legitimately varying from person to person." That can, of course, encompass circumstances; but that's exactly why we respect the distinction. One person's moral imperative that arises according to his capacity and in reflection of his circumstances, may be legitimately valid yet different from another's imperative that arises according to his (possibly diminished) capacity and in reflection to his (almost certainly different) circumstances. The boy's moral imperative is justified in his context, as mine is in mine.
In terms of Christian theology I interpret that according to the parable of the talents. The master starts his servants off on blatantly uneven ground, and each servant performs variously. The master judges each not according to an absolute standard that applies equally to all, but according to individualized criteria. Thus those who are endowed with a brighter light of Christ are commensurately more accountable. Those whose light of Christ appears to be burned out are not judged according to the same standard.
Now you call it circumstance, and that's fine: there is still no fundamental difference in behavior, expectation, or outcome from a subjective moral system. So trying to tack on presumptive appendages to it in order to give it the vague illusion of objectivity simply doesn't work.
And religions do provide predictions of what is and is not moral that are available and useful now.
Agreed. That's what I consider most valuable about my religion. However, it's not objective. And my further point is that a moral compass doesn't have to be objective in order to be valuable. It doesn't need to be objective in order to justify influencing others to conform to it.
The law of gravity has objective reality.
And when morality can be as objectively testable as gravity, then we can similarly assert that it has objective existence, but not until. Joe fails to brush his teeth and suffers trips to the dentist as a result. That creates a subjective imperative to improve his hygeine. My brother never brushes his teeth, has odorless breath and undecayed teeth, and thus never acquires the imperative to care better for them. That's different from gravity, which acts equally on you, me, Joe, and my brother. Similarly in the U.S. we dislike body odor. We exert pressure on others through negative stimulus or absence of positive stimulus (e.g., ostracization) that creates in them a moral imperative. In other countries nobody cares what others smell like and no moral imperative issues. That's subjective.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 16:24:43 GMT -4
...you could go speculate how far into space we'll get over the next 50 years.
Cynicism gives me even more of a headache. My cynicism, that is.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 9, 2007 16:34:45 GMT -4
I'm not sure. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. These "methodology guys" are guys who advocate one or the other method of attacking programming problems, right? Do you mean that various moral philosophers, both religious and irreligious, should be compared to these?
Yeah, something like that.
I am trying to understand what each person thinks morality is, what its function is, and how we might acquire it. I offered two analogies: (1) There is a moral code that God has, and any act that accords with that code achieves the sacred status of “Moral.” (2) You have to discover what works and what doesn't by learning from experience and learning from others. You have to develop techniques for living yourself. You might learn some techniques that are relevant to your situation from one or more of the “methodology guys.” Morality is a methodology, a methodology of living.
The difference between the two has a bearing on the objective-subjective dichotomy (or the worthlessness of it, if you'll pardon my cynicism). The first case cannot be objective because God's word is taken on faith, as I understand it. Perhaps the label "subjective" does apply here, but if so, it would be ironic.
Regarding the second case, my morality is unique to me because it is tailored to myself in my particular circumstances. That would seem to doom it to being subjective. Yet, the consequences of my actions are not determined by my personal opinion. I have to pay attention to both myself and to the world. I would think that qualifies as objective.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 9, 2007 16:41:02 GMT -4
Quote:They all have different ideas on morality. None are better or worse than any of the other ones. So a religion that says you will actually gain points with God by blowing up children to forward your religious causes is no worse than a religion that says God would be horrified if you blew up children for any purpose?024: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 025: And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 026: And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.Yeah, the OT God was a nice guy too. Stoning and burning a family - kids and all- plus their livestock. It is in passages like this that clues you in that the OT God is not really God at all. Maybe someone can justify his actions? In context, what Achan had done was hide some of the 'Lord's Treasure' in his tent. Is this divine justice? Or mythology? A) That example doesn't actually involve blowing anyone up. :)And Christianity today doesn't stone anyone. B) Achan's disobediance had resulted in the deaths of 36 other people earlier in the chapter, and he confessed to Joshua what he had done, probably knowing full well what would happen. His execution was essentially a civil matter - he broke the law, so he paid the penalty. It wasn't God who killed him, but his peers. C) Mankind's circumstances change over time. The Israelites were given the Law of Moses with its strict provisions and numerous death penalties because they could not abide a higher law. There was no point in God giving laws to them like "love your enemies, bless them that cures you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you" that they could not obey. In New Testament times the higher law was given, and though many still have trouble obeying it even today some can and do. Blowing up - stoning - burning, same darn thing isn't it. Jason, under what circumstances does God have a reason for killing children out of anger ? DH, maybe you can answer that one.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 9, 2007 17:09:54 GMT -4
By saying "I believe in an absolute moral law" that doesn't necessarily mean I beleive it's a simple and uses a "one-size-fits-all" approach, or in other words that individual circumstances don't matter at all.Then it's not objective. Let's say that I asked you to design and build a bridge near where I live. You would need to know the circumstances that the bridge will reside in, that is, what it is bridging, the length of the span, how it will be used, the budget, etc. Must discovering and adapting to a particular context be “subjective”? I view morality as discovering and adapting to the context of an individual's life in the world. I suspect that the objective-subjective dichotomy might be forcing a false alternative on us here. I think I understand why you are strongly cautioning Jason not to impose his own morality on everyone else. But in your attempts to relegate all morality to the subjective, I fear you have removed any justifiable basis for each of us to act in one way in preference to another.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 17:45:58 GMT -4
Let me clarify my question. If we don't get to see the supposed perfect moral kernel, and we see only the changing, adaptive "manifestation" of it from time to time as attributed by men to God, then by what means can an observer infer the existence of the kernel and its properties from it? Well, without the actual truth we could only infer its existence by the unsatisfactory nature of the moral reasoning attributed to God rather than actually from God. Essentially an almost instinctual feeling that something is not quite satisfactory with the knowledge we have accepted for the present because we haven't found any better alternative - our own moral sense revolting at the untruths that we find in our culture. True, the differences are not immediately evident. But the question was pretty esoteric to start with, rather than practical. You mean because of the few number of individuals who actually would be able to divine the universal laws and obey them? It's not for nothing that the Christian position is that no one is without sin. It is not subjective in the sense that it can reflect an objective truth. So evidence to this effect would be things like universal contants in what societies consider moral. Would basic things like valuing courage over cowardice, or honesty over lying be evidence? Attempts at justification and rationalization of one's own actions? The nature vs. nurture argument is an old one, but has it ever really been decided one way or the other? People today are still arguing that they like sex with their own gender because of their genes. And do the morals of cultures really differ that much, or do they differ in the details? How many cultures out there view stealing from one's family (however the particular culture defines "family") as honorable? That's basically what I'm saying, that people, at least to begin with, do know what is right. However people don't all act the same on this knowledge, and sometimes rationalize their own actions and desires to the point that this knowledge is no longer useful to them. It would be fair to say that although everyone has a conscience not everyone has the same ability to act on what it prompts. Effectively the software is the same but the hardware may not provide the same results, especially if it is damaged or defective hardware. I'm not sure if I was going there, but yes, that seems basically correct. Ah, well there's our problem. Conflicting ideas of what "subjective" means. I would say that essentially the moral law is objective in the sense that it is independent of human opinion - it doesn't matter how many people believe in it or have different interpretations, but how it is applied does vary from person to person because of their individual circumstances. So by your definition it is in a way subjective. But you could view the injunction to produce as much as what they were given while the master was away as the standard the master demanded, just with different numbers plugged in for what they started with. Whether that still qualifies as "absolute" depends on wether you can call a demand for a 100% increase as "absolute", I guess. That's not quite how the LDS would use the term. The Light of Christ represents the basic moral sense that everyone is given as they enter the world. Having additional knowledge beyond that is where the additional accountability enters the equation. So it would be more along the lines of "each is judged against the standard with consideration taken for the amount of ability and knowledge they were granted to begin with. If they were given little to begin with than little is required, if they were given much, then much. But in all cases they are required to do as much as they can." Luke 12:48 "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." I can agree here. However, can we agree that some codes of morality are not as valuable as others?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 17:48:46 GMT -4
Let's say that I asked you to design and build a bridge near where I live. You would need to know the circumstances that the bridge will reside in, that is, what it is bridging, the length of the span, how it will be used, the budget, etc. A good analogy. Though no two bridges would be identical in detail, because of where they were situated and when they were built, yet the same basic principles apply to all bridges of the same design.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 19:17:02 GMT -4
Well, without the actual truth we could only infer its existence by the unsatisfactory nature of the moral reasoning attributed to God rather than actually from God.
And since only subjective means are available to distinguish all of this, it is subjective end-to-end. The problem is precisely our utter inability (by design) to avoid seeing through a glass darkly.
It is not subjective in the sense that it can reflect an objective truth.
Word play. If you just feel that it's right, it's subjective. If you argue that everyone's "true" feeling is the same, then you bear the burden to prove it.
So evidence to this effect would be things like universal contants in what societies consider moral.
No. Similarity of outcome is not by itself evidence of a common a priori genesis. You can argue that humans evolve similar notions of right and wrong because there are certain things common to all manifestations of humas living together and would thus engender similar morals responsively rather than a priori.
The nature vs. nurture argument is an old one, but has it ever really been decided one way or the other?
In the field of moral philosophy nature arguments are invariably circular. Hence people have stopped looking for them.
And do the morals of cultures really differ that much, or do they differ in the details?
Depends on what you want to call a detail. Capital punishment is a global hot button. Basic or detail?
Moral philosophy doesn't care about the big no-brainer morals. It cares about the questions that are hard to decide, which often take the form of details but just as often expose underlying differences in fundamental belief. Most Christians aren't concerned with moving mountains either; they want answers to moral questions like whether to punish their drug-addicted offspring harshly. All morals are local.
That's basically what I'm saying, that people, at least to begin with, do know what is right. However people don't all act the same on this knowledge, and sometimes rationalize their own actions and desires to the point that this knowledge is no longer useful to them.
Tautology.
It would be fair to say that although everyone has a conscience not everyone has the same ability to act on what it prompts.
So then it follows that responsibility for right conduct is a product of the combination of conscience and intellect, not of conscience alone. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the conscience (or light of Christ) is identical because it's only one part of the moral agency engine. Moral responsibility depends also on the capacity of the intellect, which you've agreed varies, and thus varies with it. Therefore moral imperatives are subjective in the sense that they vary legitimately from person to person.
I would say that essentially the moral law is objective in the sense that it is independent of human opinion
But it nevertheless depends on the kinds of circumstances that are responsible for variation in opinion. Hence it's just word play. Do you agree that changes in circumstances often result in changes of opinion? Would you agree to that dependency?
Case in point: My new soprano showed up on Sunday and remarked on how rude the young boy in question was and how indulgent the parents were. She judged him by a moral standard not normally considered unreasonable in modern American culture. She assumed (wrongly) the circumstances that applied to the moral question. I told her the boy was developmentally disabled, whereupon she withdrew her criticism. Her knowledge of the circumstances changed, and her opinion of the moral defensibility of his actions changed. Subjective.
Circumstances dictate opinions. Circumstances dictate right conduct. I think it's a hair-split to disavow the dependency.
So it would be more along the lines of "each is judged against the standard with consideration taken for the amount of ability and knowledge they were granted to begin with.
In other words, one's moral duty differs legitimately from person to person. Subjective.
However, can we agree that some codes of morality are not as valuable as others?
We can; but I have to insist that the evaluation of moral systems is an important meta-problem in moral philosophy. There is no universal notion of the Good Life and therefore no external basis on which to judge comparatively how effectively various moral systems ensure the Good Life reasonably for all. This usually initiations the perennial malum in se versus malum prohibitum debate in philosophy of law classes.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 11:31:52 GMT -4
The problem is precisely our utter inability (by design) to avoid seeing through a glass darkly. Well, I do agree there. The difficulty in proving an objective moral code, and the existence of God, is by design. So how do we tell whether it is indeed due to common manifestations of humans living together or to similar notions that humans have of what is right and wrong? Or are they the same thing in this case? Detail. It's simply a society deciding where the limit of punishment is, not a society deciding that an action is not deserving of punishment. Do you mean the application of all morals is local? Yes. Responsibility for right conduct does depend in part on cognizance of right and wrong. True as far as it goes, except that there is effectively a threshold below which a person is basically incapable of knowing right from wrong and above which they are capable, and this is a rather low threshold. In LDS theology the age of accountability is eight years old. Beyond this age the vast majority of people are above the intellectual threshold that means they are capable of discerning right from wrong and are therefore accountable for their actions. Her opinion changed, but his actions were not wrong (because of his circumstances) all along, regardless of what her opinion of them was. The morality or immorality of his action was independent of her opinion of it. Subjective in the sense that they all started at a different point and so end at different points, yes. Objective in the sense that the moral duty is independent of the person's opinion of what his duty may be.
|
|