Bad day
I had a pretty crappy day…but I don’t want to talk about that…Seems…unseemly when there are so many other important things going on in the world.
Mark Foley. Wtf is going on.
On NPR this morning they had some poll results of the “value voters”. Appearently the Mark Foley incident and the idea that perhaps key Republicans in congress knew what he was up to, and did nothing to stop it…well that has no bearing on how they will vote. It was pathetic, and lends creedence to something I have long thought. Most people do not arrive at conclusions about right and wrong and then act in way which they believe to be the moral high ground…first they FEEL things and then look for ways to make those feelings seem rational. I am guilty of it, but I am also cognizant of it and make an effort to not engage in cognative dissonance.
I am sure there are republicans and value voters out there that really believe in thier ideas, and for them I feel sorry that the party that seems to represent them at this time has failed them so dearly, but if you can, in good conscience look at our current political landscape and think “Aw shucks, everything is dandy”, you have failed as a rational being to use your intellect.
It seems the problem our country has is that we have no single moral measuring stick. Everyone judges morality in their own way and then it becomes pretty easy to change the way your stick measures to meet your feelings or through the stick out entirely. Feelings are definitely not a good way to evaluate morality, but what is? Rhetorically, why should pedophillia be worse than telling on a friend, particularly when you know it will ruin their career?
Hmm, I am not sure I follow your entire comment…but I’ll try.
“we have no single moral measuring stick.”
I am not sure I agree. I think there are objective ways to reach moral imparitives. Infringing on others rights is definately immoral.
What I believe you are describing is moral relativism. And that is not morality. But then you switch gears and bring up a scale of morality. And you prefaced it with Rhetorically…so I am not sure I am supposed to resond :)…I will anyway of course.
You are describing a dilemma that is not fully fleshed out. Mitigation matters. What are you telling on? That he is a pedofile? If that is the case, you almost as guilty as the perp was in commiting the act. Did you tell that he took some paper clips? I would guess we would agree that ruining a child is worse.
I am not sure I “get” where you are going with this. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate?
And..no offense…but are defending Mr Foley?
First, I’m pretty tired so my words are perhaps clumsy. Sorry about that. I’ll try to do a better job of posing my point. If I’m still off, I’ll try again after some sleep. I’m going from your political comments to a philosophical question.
No, I’m not defending Foley. I agree with you that he’s wrong and that his friends who let him get away with it are wrong. My question is more to “why”. I guess I am touching on moral relativism, but only in that the general distorted American sense. Meaning, the approach to morality that is a distorted moral relativism that doesn’t make sense because it is trying to make a hybrid out of it with traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. In truth, I don’t believe this to be morality, rather the appearance of it for selfish advancement in a marketplace/career.
You say, in reference to me, “You are describing a dilemma that is not fully fleshed out.” I’m saying either we have moral authority or we don’t. I don’t think that our country has a moral authority, at least not as a country. Morality isn’t something to be decided upon or it is that hybrid I mentioned above. At no point will the cultures of the world be able to agree. If we’ve learned anything from the war in Iraq, that’s it.
As long as morality is based on humanity, it will be a flexible and flawed concept. I refer to God for morality as a central and stable platform upon which to judge moral concepts, but recognize that many do not. What God has to say and the natural laws He put in place answer a lot of these things. The family structure setup and ordained by God is at odds with pedophillia. That’s how I know pedophillia is wrong instead of just a disgusting habit. How do you know that pedophillia is bad? What authority says so? If it’s just yourself or society, then why should society have any right to judge a pedophile and further enforce punishment?
I’m honestly asking those questions above. I don’t understand the basis of our entire justice system (or society in general) outside of God. It seems to simply be a barbaric method of the powerful enforcing their opinions on the weak unless somehow there is an authority that has put it in place that all people recognize. I reject this because I believe there is true goodness in this world, though it can be hard to find.
So did I just make the waters muddier? I’m going to sleep, but I’ll try to check back later to see if I need to try again with a rested mind. :-)
Hmm, I am not sure this is exactly on topic. What it sounds like you want is for me to explain to you how people arrive at moral conclusions in the abscence of a god?
First of all, I do think that is possible, however, it’s not exactly related to the post. I also think you may be confusing the idea that without god there are no objective moral imparitives, and again I would disagree.
Regardless of how one arrives at the conclusion that trying to have sex with children is wrong, the idea that it shouldn’t affect your vote is hypocritical. That was my point.
Josiah, an atheist might consider individual happiness as a basis for morality. Every individual seeks happiness. If everyone adopts the policy of helping others achieve happiness everyone benefits. Or as Jesus put it, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Having sex with children does not seem to make their lives happier overall therefore it’s immoral. This kind of morality has the advantage of being based on results rather than dogma. Thus, it is more adaptable to changing circumstances.
Okay, I see your point.
I don’t understand how anyone can come to any moral conclusions and apply it to anyone else, even if it is sex with kids, without an authority. If you’d rather I not wander off topic I’ll stop here.
Josiah, No…that’s ok with me. People can talk about whatever they want here :) I was just trying to answer questions related to what I had posted in relation to your comment. So it looks like that is out of the way and you wanted to talk a little more about how one arrives at moral conclusions without an authority.
I would argue, much as David did, there are other authorities (though I might not use that word) than a god. Similar to David’s assertion that happiness can be a moral compass, I would probably expand that a bit and say that happiness is only derived from doing things in line with one’s nature. Moral people who don’t have a god might look at “What does it mean to be human”. Based on their conclusions there they could determine what will lead to happiness and then decide right and wrong. (Again though, this is basically what David said above).
The idea that morality should be flexible comes through in what you guys posted. I gather that is because it needs to fit the individual, but morality is usually considered a consensus in other circles. Is morality an individual thing or a group thing?
It is interesting to me that personal happiness takes such a high position in your philosophy. Certainly this is important, but the idea that it drives action rather than action driving happiness is a notable difference in our philosophies.
My historical perspective suggests that someday having sex with kids will be acceptable. The way pedophiles are viewed today seem to be much the same way that gay people were viewed in the centuries past. Now, many consider this a “lifestyle”. I wonder when pedophilia will be a lifestyle. During the transition will it be morally right for some and not for others based on the degree of happiness it provides or takes away?
Hey Josiah,
I am not sure I understand what you mean by flexible. I think there are objective truths about which lasting moral decsions can be made. Please don’t confuse atheism with moral relativity.
Again in the second paragraph I think you are missing the point. Personal happiness is not “Do what ever feels good”. I would posit, that being a member of a community is foremost in human nature and those things that make one turn inward on oneself are detrimental to my nature (ie hedonistic seeking of sex with children).
I think you are missing the point with this sentence: “but the idea that it drives action rather than action driving happiness is a notable difference in our philosophies”. So the things you think are right or wrong don’t cause you to act in a certain way? And when you do act in a moral way, you don’t gain happiness? I think you misspoke there. Please explain that.
As for your homophobia at the end there…that is your cross to bear. I can’t help you there.
As long as sex with children destroys the child, it will be immoral. I don’t think that will ever change.
The usage of the term flexible flowed from David’s last sentence, “Thus, it is more adaptable to changing circumstances.” I am equating adaptable with flexible.
I’ll try to drop relativism. I think of atheism as a worldview absent of a supreme being. Would you change that or add any qualifiers?
When you use the phrase “those things that make one turn inward on oneself” do you mean something that draws you away from the group? If I understand that correctly, happiness is based on the higher value of unity? If so, what makes unity and how do you know when you’ve acheived it?
Heh, this font sucks…anywho
First paragraph…I think morality can change…in light of new evidence and such yes.
Second paragraph…I think that sounds about right.
Third paragraph…No I don’t think that is exactly what I meant. I would say it’s more along the lines of the difference between being slefish or being aware of ones place in the community (and I don’t mean carlisle, I mean other people :)
Murder is selfish, it puts your desire to kill at a higher value than the person who you killed. (as an example).
I agree about the font. The size of the comment box is a bit awkward for multiple paragraphs too :-).
I understand and echo your definition of community. It’s about the people, not the place. I’m going to try again to echo what you said in my words. Maybe I’ll get closer. :-) Morality is based on the self-perception of ones position in a community. That has some scary ramifications in communities that are heavily unbalanced under a dictatorship-like model. Still trying to stay away from relativism, it seems to suggest a morality based on the unique individual.
I sense a dis-harmony in our view of a person’s original state. I believe a person is born bad. Put to their own devices they will do evil. I gather we agree that the tendency is for humans to gather and agree to a certain set of rules. I understand the motivation of this gathering into a community to be that they are much more vulnerable as an individual and so they are compelled for self-preservation reasons to unite. I understand self-preservation to be selfish. Still, there are discensions in the community that cause strife and splits due to the evil nature.
I’m gathering from you comments that you do not consider people to be inherently evil. I don’t gather if you assume a neutral state or an inherent goodness from birth. Either way, the self-preservation motive must be replaced by something else or it needs to not be considered selfish. How do you fill that void?
Define postition.
second paragraph…When I said I didn’t mean Carlisle I was hoping you would understand that I was talking about the community of humanity, not a nation, or town, or whatever. This is not morality based on the individual, if you realize that we all have the same nature then we can draw OBJECTIVE truths about good and evil, and then follow them. It would make them true across all people.
Third paragraph…I don’t think people can be born bad or good or nuetral I suppose. I think I would lean closest to neutral. But I don’t know. What I AM saying is that following ones nature is good, not following it is bad.
If I follow, community is meant to represent a global humanity. It seems pretty hard to grasp my “place” in such a large and disorganized set. When I say “ones place in the community”, I’m connecting it with your “ones place in the community” from the 12:28 post. Are they not equal?
I agree that we have the same base nature, but I believe that nature includes evil and selfishness which are at odds with other natures due to an interest in power over the other. I also believe that their is a unique personality layed on that nature. In this scenario, objective truth is unreachable simply because you can’t divorce personal interests from the base of truth. It’s built into the nature. In other words, the fact that we are evil disqualifies us from being eligible to identify objective truth.
I think my walk down this path of understanding leads next to the question, where do you believe the urge to do evil comes from if not our nature?
“When I say “ones place in the community”, I’m connecting it with your “ones place in the community” from the 12:28 post. Are they not equal?”
I wanted to make sure we meant the same thing here, that is why I wanted to hear your definition. I mearly meant that we are members of that community and by our nature we are commuintiy, or outwardly directed…toward others.
Oh and I don’t deny that all those things are part of what it means to be human. I just happen to think that doing things inline with that will not lead to happiness (and no I don’t mean pleasure). Human nature is the authority…doing things that do not lead to happiness, are immoral.
Ok, I am not going to reply again…basically now I am starting to parrot Plato. There is a wealth of knowledge out there on this subject. I think you need to read something outside the little narrow view your church has allowed you.