Sources of Ethics and Morality

[Bravus]

Richard, if you have not yet had the opportunity to read 'The Abolition of Man', I do strongly urge you to do so. It is short, but it is essentially made up of three lectures, and each is a logical argument in itself, with the latter also building on the former. You need to have a clear picture of the whole, even if you wish to continue to challenge Lewis' conclusions or methods.

[Amelia]

*GP

Is the problem with the word "morality/morals"?

Are morals and Christianity directly connected in such a way that those who don't practice Christianity can't follow anything defined as moral?

[cardw]

Let me start with my own quote...

Quote:

Deny the Tao, deny the existence of objective value, and you deny the validity of the objective standards which nearly every religion depends on to govern conduct. We require these objective standards, and not surprisingly all religions have arrived at roughly the same ones, because in their absence man has no internal regulators to make him behave in a moral fashion:

Ok, how did these religions come to this standards? Why did they find these particular moral precepts valuable? And exactly what are these standards?

And how do we know that man has no internal regulators? Do we have a control subject by which we can reference all other men?

Now, if we take objective value and apply it to God's actions in the OT, what is the result? That is where this whole discussion started?

Apparently you are claiming that you are among this enlightened elite that understands the "Tao." So let me ask you this, "What does this enlightenment tell you about God ordering genocide?"

[fccool]

Richard,

Do you ever delete files on your computer? Oh... the immoral being, you. :)

[there buster]

Quote:

Are morals and Christianity directly connected in such a way that those who don't practice Christianity can't follow anything defined as moral?

Now there's a question I can address. No, Lewis' point is that although differing religions differ in the details of the Tao, they are at base the same.

For example, Christianity says a man may have one wife; Islam says four. But there is no moral system that says a man may have any woman he wants. All cultures hold that we have an obligation to our parents. Shintoism worships ancestors, Christianity does not, but both agree we have an obligation to our forbears.

[there buster]

Quote:

Apparently you are claiming that you are among this enlightened elite that understands the "Tao."

Quite the contrary. We are all under the Tao, but we do not all accept its claims upon us. You do not accept its claims, yet desire to pass judgment on God's behavior in the OT.

Quote:

So far from being able to harmonize discrepancies in its letter by penetration to its spirit, he merely snatches at some one precept, on which the accidents of time and place happen to have riveted his attention, and then rides it to death—for no

reason that he can give.

YOu have 'snatched at one precept,' opposing genocide, and are riding it to death--for no reason that you can give.

You have said it is not effective, I gave you an instance where it was. But even if it is ineffective or counterproductive, you have no basis on which to declare it 'wrong' or 'evil.' Something may be ineffective, and still be the right and moral thing to do. Many who resisted Hitler did so to no effect; killed early in his tenure, their deaths unknown and unheralded, they were 'ineffective.' But they were morally just.

I anticipate that you will just go back and repeat your questions, but there are no answers to your questions that you recognize.

When a boy asked his father, "What makes things fall to the ground?" the father replied, "The law of gravity."

"What did they do before they passed that law?" The boy inquired.

You keep wanting to know who passed the laws of morality, which, like the boy's question on gravity, has no answer. No one passed the law of gravity, it just is.

thus: "the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.6 He may be hostile, but he cannot be critical: he does not know what is being discussed."

[cardw]

Quote:

Quite the contrary. We are all under the Tao, but we do not all accept its claims upon us. You do not accept its claims, yet desire to pass judgment on God's behavior in the OT.

Ok, then is God under the Tao?

Quote:

I anticipate that you will just go back and repeat your questions, but there are no answers to your questions that you recognize.

When a boy asked his father, "What makes things fall to the ground?" the father replied, "The law of gravity."

"What did they do before they passed that law?" The boy inquired.

You keep wanting to know who passed the laws of morality, which, like the boy's question on gravity, has no answer. No one passed the law of gravity, it just is.

What you are suggesting is that the Tao is just as obvious as gravity. This breaks down when I ask you to apply the Tao to something. We don't have to think about applying the law of gravity. We just drop something. Its not quite that simple with choices related to morality.

The reason you won't apply it is because it will become apparent that you have no rational basis for determining whether something is right or wrong. Even C.S. Lewis states that rational means can never determine right and wrong. Again you are playing a shell game and you are avoiding an answer because you are unable to give one within a rational framework. You have to appeal to the subjective and that subjective is what you are calling the Tao.

[cardw]

Richard,

Do you ever delete files on your computer? Oh... the immoral being, you.

Are you suggesting that a human person is of the same value as a text file?

[cardw]

Quote:

Are morals and Christianity directly connected in such a way that those who don't practice Christianity can't follow anything defined as moral?

Now there's a question I can address. No, Lewis' point is that although differing religions differ in the details of the Tao, they are at base the same.

For example, Christianity says a man may have one wife; Islam says four. But there is no moral system that says a man may have any woman he wants.

Well evidently Solomon could have any woman he wanted as long as he married her. It is quite evident that women were considered property in the bible. And in terms of conquered nations and their women, God himself gave the Israelites permission to take any woman they wanted from the captives for a wife. This was the moral system of the parts of the OT. This system did not consider women to be of the same value as men. How do you explain this? Its not working like the law gravity here.

[cardw]

Quote:

So to ask 'Why be moral?' is to miss the point. Ichabod is stating that morality is something external to us, to which we can come or not, but it will exist nonetheless. The 'ought' exists independently of any utilitarian reasons to support it.

This is an assumption only by necessity, not by observation. Its like trying to determine the composition of the atom by the reactions of its parts when split. We have to admit that we don't know how it works, but some parts of what we understand empirically are useful in some cases. Those parts that are more predictable tend to become used more and given more confidence.

But, in my concept of reality, we have to make choices on how to apply our moral assumptions. These require that we evaluate on some rational basis through either interpretation or reasons based on subjective presuppositions.

One can talk all they want about the Tao, but when you start telling people what they should do, you are going to need a lot more than claims of mystical understanding. I don't see anything different in application between the Tao and subjective preferences.

[there buster]

Quote:

Well evidently Solomon could have any woman he wanted as long as he married her.

Evidently not, as evidenced by the condemnation David received when he took Bathsheba.

[there buster]

Quote:

This is an assumption only by necessity, not by observation.

Wrong as usual. It is observed that these principles exist across cultures. Every culture has some definition of 'right' and 'wrong' which do not equal "effective" and "ineffective," but which are wrong for their own sake.

Quote:

I don't see anything different in application between the Tao and subjective preferences.

You cannot see because you will not see. Preferences and moral precepts are opposites.

It is readily observable that people 'prefer' to have everything they want, when they want it, and strike out at whatever or whoever gets in their way. But the Tao tells them stealing is wrong. In fact every moral prohibition runs contrary to subjective preferences.

A 'prohibition' prohibits behavior. But if the perpetrator did not prefer his behavior, he wouldn't need admonition to forego it.

People 'prefer' to eliminate others that get in their way. Yet the Tao tells us murder and genocide are wrong. Even you appear to think genocide is wrong, though for no actual reason.

If moral precepts were simply subjective preferences, then there would be no need for moral precepts. We would simply all do what we prefer, winner-take-all. The whole point of moral precepts is that they hold our desires in check.

[there buster]

Quote:

What you are suggesting is that the Tao is just as obvious as gravity. This breaks down when I ask you to apply the Tao to something. We don't have to think about applying the law of gravity. We just drop something. Its not quite that simple with choices related to morality.

No, I am not suggesting that the Tao is as obvious as gravity. Although the statement 'as obvious as gravity' overlooks the simple fact that gravity wasn't so obvious. Gravity was so 'obvious' it wasn't described until Newton, a bare 3 centuries or so ago. Gravity was--and is-- so obvious that the notion of two objects of different weights falling at precisely the same speed is counterintuitive and it took Galileo to prove it.

As pointed out, dropping a helium balloon, or a feather, makes gravity a good deal less obvious.

All those obvious mistakes aside, I was not suggesting that the Tao is as obvious as gravity. What I stated I stated. No one passed -- or 'preferred'-- the law of gravity. It exists whether we recognize it or not. The Tao is like gravity in that respect. No one passed or preferred it. It exists whether we recognize it or not.

Now, there are people who are blind and do not recognize color. There are those who do not hear sound. But that does not make color and sound disappear.

[cardw]

Quote:

Wrong as usual. It is observed that these principles exist across cultures. Every culture has some definition of 'right' and 'wrong' which do not equal "effective" and "ineffective," but which are wrong for their own sake.

Ok, let me ask you this. What happens to a society that has no moral guidelines? Is it more likely to survive or less likely to survive?

[cardw]

Quote:

Well evidently Solomon could have any woman he wanted as long as he married her.

Evidently not, as evidenced by the condemnation David received when he took Bathsheba.

And yet David still kept Bathsheba and his son Solomon was born of that union. According to the moral law David should have been killed as well, but its obvious because he was King that this moral law could be bent. This is only evidence of a lack of morality in the Bible. And this is morality by your definition.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Richard,

Do you ever delete files on your computer? Oh... the immoral being, you.

Are you suggesting that a human person is of the same value as a text file?

Now, now. I'm pretty positive that you are intelligent enough to pick up what I'm trying to say, but I'll explain anyway. On human-human relationship... human is more valuable than a text file. On God-human relationship, human is a textfile. That's what analogy is aming to point out. If God is indeed a creator, why would it be "immoral" for Him to optimize HIS creation. We are merely "text files" on his hard drive. I know it might be uncomfortable for some to view it that way, but your perceived value and perceived ideas of fairness are irrelevant in that case. The law was not created for God, but for humans. To say that God is somehow constrained by something is to put something that we don't fully understand in a box. Omnipotence has no constraints.

If God indeed exist, I look at the positive side of it and I am thankful for existence with all of the pleasure and fun that comes with it. Even in the most difficult times of my life, I think I'd choose life and experience over non-existence. What says you?

[John317]

On human-human relationship... human is more valuable than a text file. On God-human relationship, human is a textfile. That's what analogy is aming to point out. If God is indeed a creator, why would it be "immoral" for Him to optimize HIS creation. We are merely "text files" on his hard drive. I know it might be uncomfortable for some to view it that way, but your perceived value and perceived ideas of fairness are irrelevant in that case. The law was not created for God, but for humans. To say that God is somehow constrained by something is to put something that we don't fully understand in a box. Omnipotence has no constraints.

If God indeed exist, I look at the positive side of it and I am thankful for existence with all of the pleasure and fun that comes with it. Even in the most difficult times of my life, I think I'd choose life and experience over non-existence. What says you?

What you say about the law not being created for God but for humans is quite true. The laws are eternal principles that reflect God's character but they are specifically for human beings in the particular environment in which we find ourselves. Those same principles would take a different form on a different planet where totally different kinds of beings live.

It seems obvious to me that God is above the laws that are made to govern our lives. By definition, He is above the laws because He created them, and it makes sense that the Creator is above the things He has created. He's not accountable to any power or law or person, because neither things nor persons are above Him. All derive their existence from Him and operate according to laws which God has created for them. God is Being-Itself and therefore exists outside and above all law.

[fccool]

And yet David still kept Bathsheba and his son Solomon was born of that union. According to the moral law David should have been killed as well, but its obvious because he was King that this moral law could be bent. This is only evidence of a lack of morality in the Bible. And this is morality by your definition.

Hmm, it did not make the act OK. But you assume it because of the lack of direct "spanking" of a punishment. Less we be reminded that...

"Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."

I think it's fairly clear that God did not approve of the act.

There are many immoral acts DESCRIBED in the Bible, but it does not mean that Bible or God endorse these. Could you give a better example?

[there buster]

Quote:

What happens to a society that has no moral guidelines? Is it more likely to survive or less likely to survive?

cite an example of such a society

[there buster]

Quote:

According to the moral law David should have been killed

Oh? What moral law would that be?

[olger]

Touche'

[olger]

Many people endeavor to discuss the topic of morality while at the same time denying the existence of a Moral Lawgiver.

The longer I work with people, the more I realize that intellectual struggles are merely the hazardous waste of life, blocking the heart from truth.

og

[cardw]

Quote:

What happens to a society that has no moral guidelines? Is it more likely to survive or less likely to survive?

cite an example of such a society

Lets say we have a theoretical society that has no moral guidelines. What would be the chances they would survive?

[cardw]

Quote:

According to the moral law David should have been killed

Oh? What moral law would that be?

Well, since David is considered under the moral laws of the Bible it would be the moral law set up for the Jewish nation as a theocracy. Its your example.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

And yet David still kept Bathsheba and his son Solomon was born of that union. According to the moral law David should have been killed as well, but its obvious because he was King that this moral law could be bent. This is only evidence of a lack of morality in the Bible. And this is morality by your definition.

Hmm, it did not make the act OK. But you assume it because of the lack of direct "spanking" of a punishment. Less we be reminded that...

"Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."

I think it's fairly clear that God did not approve of the act.

There are many immoral acts DESCRIBED in the Bible, but it does not mean that Bible or God endorse these. Could you give a better example?