About Moral-Ethical (ME) Models, Christian Morals, and Artificial Intelligence

[Stephen3141]

>> I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God has a moral/ethical model. God does not have a model of anything; he has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything.

No. I'll have to suggest that neither the Bible nor God, has a moral/ethical model, or belief system, or theological beliefs about morality-ethics. God does not have a model of anything; He has absolute truth, and is the only one with absolute truth, of everything, or anything.

Whether or not God has "models" for anything, I won't speculate.
This thread is not about speculating about how God is, what he is.

Humans have "models", in order to organize "categories" (such as definitions,
in the hard sciences). If someone asks you what model of car or truck you drive,
this "model" is a human description, not having anything to do with how God
lives out being God. The Bible doesn't describe the characteristics of different
styles of vehicles, as "models".

In the same way, both Christian and non-Christian thinkers have, historically, developed models
of morality-ethics, that are template/descriptions of very different systems of moral beliefs.
Most Christian and non-Christian thinkers, who are familiar with the ME models that historical
thinkers about ME topics have used, would agree that the Judea-Chritian ME system fits into
the Divine Command model of ME. This should not be offensive or threatening, to anyone.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now some information on Natural Law Theory...
---------- ----------

"Natural Law Theory [Moral Theory, 65-]


“The idea that there are certain types of actions that are morally wrong in all circumstances is characteristic of the natural law theory of ethics, a moral theory that represents the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” [Moral Theory, 65]

“Unfortunately, the theories representative of the natural law tradition, because they differ over what is and is not essential to natural law ethics, make it difficult to provide a definitive characterization of this type of moral theory.” [Moral Theory, 66]

Timmons takes the version argued by Thomas Aquinas as representative of natural law theory. [Moral Theory, 67]

Note that one of the goals of Thomas Aquinas was to synthesize formal logic with biblical theology. And so, Thomas is concerned with what we should see as the core of formal logic, which is causality (such as in A ==> B). Because of this goal, it is understandable when the arguments of Thomas include concepts of causality.
Aquinas’ ME model has 3 parts: [Moral Theory, 67]

1 “... a perfectionist theory of value that is the basis for understanding right and wrong conduct.”
2 The principle of double effect, which involves the topics of intention and foresight.
3 A type of moral absolutism: “... the idea that certain kinds of actions are always morally wrong, regardless of whatever good might result from them.”

Aquinas builds his perfectionist theory of value from observing human beings. “... it is because we are creatures of a certain sort, sharing a common human nature, that certain kinds of states of affairs and activities are intrinsically valuable.” [Moral Theory, 67]

The principle of double effect (2) makes a distinction between means to an end, and the goal/end of an action. [Moral Theory, 77] It also distinguishes what our intention was (in doing something) from what we foresaw as the outcome from our action. [Moral Theory, 78]

If an action may have good and bad effects, then the action is permissible if:

the action itself must not be wrong
the agent did not intend the bad effect(s)
the bad effect(s) must not be “out of proportion” to the good effect(s). [Moral Theory, 78]

Obviously, Aquinas natural law theory (NL) can handle complicated situations, with the principle of double effect.


The moral absolutism of Aquinas focused more on avoiding evil actions, than on trying to attain/promote what is good. [Moral Theory, 80] Perhaps this is because many of the ME commands in the Bible are in the form of prohibitions “You shall not commit murder,” “you shall not lie,” “you shall not commit adultery”, ...).

“Moral propositions expressing truths about right conduct and value can be arranged in a hierarchy, with the most general propositions being the basis for deriving more specific ones.” [Moral Theory, 72] This is VERY important in Christian ME reasoning, as there are biblical “rules of thumb” that are very general, and so very easy to use in order to demonstrate the truth of conclusions." [Christian Logic, 237-239]
---------- ----------

Rather than seeing the Natural Law Theory as separate from the Divine Command
model, you should note that "natural laws" of ME that we could observe, are a form
of revelation from God. Those whose ME model follows Thomas Aquinas, still
accept the biblical moral-ethical commands.

Note that there are multiple versions of the Natural Law Theory, and there is no one
universal agreement on which one represents this category of thinking. Timmons accepts
that the thinking of Thomas Aquinas is the most prominent representative version.

Note that Aquinas' thinking (sometimes called "Thomism") is based on logic, and so can
point out to us all, what topics Christians should be considering, with regard to logic.
This is very useful.

As I underline in Christian Logic, deductive logic is at its core, a description of
CAUSALITY. And, because Aquinas is trying to synthesize logic into moral
thinking, YOU SHOULD EXPECT that he is concerned with CAUSALITY. (This is
often not obvious to modern Americans, who are not in the habit of carefully
studying logic.)

Note that conspiracy theories are an abandoning of careful attention to logical causality,
and the substitution of some nifty EXPLANATION, often with no connection to
logical causality.

Also note that this emphasis on logic and causality, has much to say with regard
to the modern concern of trying to build an ME model into (logical) computer
code, in some Artificial intelligence product. It would be MUCH MORE DIFFICULT
to program into an AI product, how to receive direct revelations from God as to
what is "right" and what is "wrong" (!!!)

Note that Thomas was more concerned with initially avoiding evil, THEN having the
right motivation for doing something, THEN trying to do something that would
have a proportional good effect.

Note that ...

“Moral propositions expressing truths about right conduct and value can be arranged in a hierarchy, with the most general propositions being the basis for deriving more specific ones.”

This fits into the idea of a fair rule of law (which may have very general,
abstract ME rules), then requires a competent judge to determine
more specific CONCRETE INSTANCES (precedents) of what that abstract rule means.

Note that Thomas' moral model requires that we believe that we live in a
shared reality.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Whether or not God has "models" for anything, I won't speculate.
This thread is not about speculating about how God is, what he is.

That is the point. The only righteousness is God Himself. No "models" are right.

Humans have "models", in order to organize "categories" (such as definitions,
in the hard sciences).

Humans of this world, devote themselves to flawed models, which, being flawed, always disregard much of the will of God. Humans of Christ the Lord, try not to do this.

If someone asks you what model of car or truck you drive,
this "model" is a human description, not having anything to do with how God
lives out being God. The Bible doesn't describe the characteristics of different
styles of vehicles, as "models".

In the same way, both Christian and non-Christian thinkers have, historically, developed models
of morality-ethics, that are template/descriptions of very different systems of moral beliefs.
Most Christian and non-Christian thinkers, who are familiar with the ME models that historical
thinkers about ME topics have used, would agree that the Judea-Chritian ME system fits into
the Divine Command model of ME. This should not be offensive or threatening, to anyone.

Interesting to meet someone who claims to know what "most Christian and non-Christian thinkers, who are familiar with the ME models that historical thinkers about ME topics have used", would agree with, would think, would know. You are claiming to know, at least, thoughts of hundreds of thousands of people of extremely different cultures. I was born and raised among one such culture, a rather large one featuring a large number of very public thinkers over the centuries, and indeed I know very well that your theory is not representative of the truth. For just one example, try a read of the Israeli Declaration of Independence; there are a great many who believe its content, and it is diametrically opposed to Divine Command. Here is the second paragraph:

The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

According to those powerful writers, thinkers, teachers, and leaders, whose words drive a great many people today, their original and current independences are achievements of human beings. According to them, their national and universal significance is a creation of human beings. According to them, the Bible itself, its writing and its delivery to the world, is credit to human beings. There is no divine command there. And there is no glory given to God there. They claim "trust" in God, in the very last paragraph, but this is very like the "trust" of many others whose thoughts have nothing to do with divine command, such as those who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

By divine command, no one is to think that they are good, that is, to deserve credit, except God. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to life is inalienable, except God Himself. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to liberty is inalienable, except God. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to pursue happiness, is inalienable, except God. All of these divine commands, are routinely treated as irrelevant, by enormous numbers of very public thinkers today.

 

[Stephen3141]

That is the point. The only righteousness is God Himself. No "models" are right.

Humans of this world, devote themselves to flawed models, which, being flawed, always disregard much of the will of God. Humans of Christ the Lord, try not to do this.

Interesting to meet someone who claims to know what "most Christian and non-Christian thinkers, who are familiar with the ME models that historical thinkers about ME topics have used", would agree with, would think, would know. You are claiming to know, at least, thoughts of hundreds of thousands of people of extremely different cultures. I was born and raised among one such culture, a rather large one featuring a large number of very public thinkers over the centuries, and indeed I know very well that your theory is not representative of the truth. For just one example, try a read of the Israeli Declaration of Independence; there are a great many who believe its content, and it is diametrically opposed to Divine Command. Here is the second paragraph:

According to those powerful writers, thinkers, teachers, and leaders, whose words drive a great many people today, their original and current independences are achievements of human beings. According to them, their national and universal significance is a creation of human beings. According to them, the Bible itself, its writing and its delivery to the world, is credit to human beings. There is no divine command there. And there is no glory given to God there. They claim "trust" in God, in the very last paragraph, but this is very like the "trust" of many others whose thoughts have nothing to do with divine command, such as those who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

By divine command, no one is to think that they are good, that is, to deserve credit, except God. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to life is inalienable, except God Himself. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to liberty is inalienable, except God. By divine command, no one is to think that any right to pursue happiness, is inalienable, except God. All of these divine commands, are routinely treated as irrelevant, by enormous numbers of very public thinkers today.

We're talking about VERY DIFFERENT TOPICS.

I am presenting the historical models for morality-ethics, that Christian
(and non-Christian) thinkers have used for centuries, to discuss morality-ethics.
You are (it seems) unfamiliar with these ME models.

I am talking about a history of writers, within the discipline of Moral Theory.
You are talking about who you consider to be "thinkers", but it seems obvious to
me that you are not talking about this history of writing in Moral theory.

When I talk about the Divine Command model, you are unfamiliar with what that is.
You are talking about what you think God commands, which is a very different topic.

None of your objections are engaging with the historical ME models.
(This is one reason why I am presenting them here, in this thread.)

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Hmmm, I see you have "Christian Morals" as within the original topic...and yet omitted from your most recent post. I'll consider it deleted if desired.

 

[Stephen3141]

I don't think it would be too hard to program a computer system to follow the Ten Commandments. Possibly a smarter computer could also be programmed in accordance with the teachings of Christ and Paul's guidelines as well. There isn't much of a need for a model in the middle.

For example, a robot could simply be programmed to avoid human beings and to not touch or use weapons (thus "thou shall not kill") and also to keep a record of ownership of objects in its environment so that it doesn't steal anything.

I understand what you are asserting. But I think that it is naive.

"You shall not murder a human being" is a command, in human language,
that includes a very abstract concept ("murder").

A computer has no idea what "murder" means.
I have never encountered a Computer Science book, or programming book, that
explained how to get a computer program to recognize all the situations that a
human being would call murder.

It's the same with stealing. Ownership is an abstract idea, which is only SOMETIMES
accompanied by some formal document (of ownership). A computer program could
NEVER be designed to know what all people on earth "own", and so to avoid "stealing"
by checking the ownership of every object it encounters. And, a one-time database
of "owned" items would not do. The computer would have to have real-time updates
on all then changes of ownership, that go on daily. (Trying to get a computer to avoid
using ANYTHING, is not the same as getting it to knowledgeably NOT STEAL.) God's
moral-ethical law does not command us: "You shall not use anything!"

For a non-programmer, your answer may seem possible. But for programmers, they
would find your conclusion impossible.

Your answer gets worse, when you get to "You shall not bear false witness".
I think that you have to define "lying" (from a Christian point of view), as
misrepresenting our shared reality, in some way. THIS MEANS THAT YOUR
COMPUTER HAS TO HAVE A DETAILED MODEL OF WHAT OUR SHARED REALITY IS!!!
That would be a comprehensive, and TRUE, model of everything!!! (A method for
determining whether or not a specific claim is TRUE, or a lie, would be just as
difficult. Such an algorithm is not taught in Computer Science programming
classes. Saying that it would be easy to do, is the speculation of a non-programmer.

It is one thing to do fact-checking of some specific claim, against some database
of facts. But this is only a small subset of determining what "lying" is. And a model
of Epistemology is required, in order for someone to compile that comprehensive
database of "facts". And, the database would have to be constantly updated, to
be valid. For computer programming, this would be impossible.

(By the way, for your conclusion to work, you will also have to explain to a computer
program what a "weapon" is, so it can avoid all weapons. But then, tools can be
used as weapons. So the computer must avoid using all tools. There seems to be
no end to the problems of your conclusion.)

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I don't think it would be too hard to program a computer system to follow the Ten Commandments.

The first commandment, is not one which a machine can follow. Though it can be programmed to lie, as many human beings have told themselves and their friends to lie about the Creator throughout history. There are problems with other commandments, too.

 

[Stephen3141]

There are more, very common Moral-Ethical models, that Christians need
to think about. You will encounter them.

One is Utilitarianism.
---------- ----------

"Utilitarianism [Moral Theory, 101-131]

The utilitarian models of morality/ethics are important because they are so often appealed to by modern people. And, they lead to computationally intractable problems (if you are thinking of making computer models of morality/ethics for research or artificial intelligence applications).

When thinking about utilitarian models, remember that the hierarchy of “goods” that the particular model has, could accommodate the racial superiority models of Nazi Germany and Japan (before WWII), repressive slave cultures, forced eugenics, the oppressive rule of the rich (or some other arbitrary class of people), and the oppressive intolerance of modern Communist China. Do not be naive, about how these models have been used in past history!

“Like natural law theory, utilitarian moral theories are value-based: considerations of value are prior to considerations of right and are a basis for the theory of right conduct. But unlike natural law theory, utilitarianism represents a version of consequentialism because it makes the rightness of an action depend entirely on facts about the values of consequences of actions.” [Moral Theory, 104] Rule utilitarianism is based on the consequences of trying to keep rules. [Moral Theory, 129]

There seem to be 3 main concepts in utilitarianism:

1 “right actions are those that, compared to the alternative actions open to one in a
situation, would produce the greatest amount of value.” [Moral Theory, 104]

2 “the sorts of consequences that utilitarianism is interested in have to do with the
welfare of individuals...” [Moral Theory, 104]

3 Utilitarianism is universal, and impartial. The value of one’s individual action is judged as to its effect on all people, and should not be weighted according to the effects on those in our family, or friends, or who live around us. All effects of our actions, on all people, are morally relevant. [Moral Theory, 104]"
[Christian Logic, 241-242]

---------- ----------

Although Utilitarianism may seem to be "practical" and "down-to-earth",
the problem is that no one can agree on the definition of "utility".

Another problem is that it is impossible to define (especially in a computer
program) how to compute which possible action that I can carry out, will
have the greatest "good" for the most amount of people. You would have to
compute the total good for all people possibly affected by my action, to the
end of their life. And then, somehow, sum up all the "good". For someone who
thinks about this, and especially for a computer programmer, this is impossible.
(This ignores that other people may do things, that completely annul any good
action that I choose to do.)

Another difficulty that Utilitarianism has for younger Americans, is that it is
impartial (to cultures) and universal. So there is the problem of figuring out
which habitual actions from which cultures, have more "utility" and are the
"best" for all people, all over the world. Younger Americans are adverse to making
ANY SORT OF DECISION ABOUT THE UTILITY OF HABITS IN DIVERSE CULTURES!

Although it is good for Christians to be practical, and to try to plan out a productive
and righteous life, the values that Christians accept as righteous, are very different
than the values that many non-Christians accept (as having utility).

It is clear to me, that Christians are called to live out righteousness, and not to
live according to the expectations of "utility" that the average American has.
That is, for a Christian, our moral-ethical system is very different than the
pagan concepts of "utility" that are common in America. Even though many
Americans use some concept of "utility" to define what they think is "right"
and "wrong".

 

[Stephen3141]

Now for the model of Hedonistic Utilitarianism.

This is a very common ME system among American citizens, and Christians
need to think about how to frame Christian apologetics, with regard to all
the problems of this ME model.
---------- ----------

"Hedonistic Utilitarianism

This is a version of utilitarianism that
1 Identifies welfare with happiness
2 Identifies happiness as pleasure. [Moral Theory, 106]

The framers of the American system of government identified “the pursuit of happiness” as a basic human right. However, they defined “happiness” within a heavily Judeo-Christian ME system. “Happiness” to them, was not hedonism.

Although the more noble philosophers looked down on crude hedonism, and promoted the attaining of admiral virtues, much of modern utilitarianism has fallen into forms of crude hedonism that has little to do with the welfare of all human beings.

The Christian virtue of self-control (egkrateia) is the concept of the mind controlling the physical body, and imposing upon it admirable behavior. This is not hedonism. [But this is a Christian virtue.]

John Stuart Mill tried to refine the cruder form of hedonism, to include the maximizing of the pleasure of seeking for much more noble goals in life (than physical pleasure). But he ran into the dilemma that hedonism is based on pleasure, and feeling pleasure over pursuing higher ideals in life is a very relative thing. If the individual feeling pleasure is the greatest goal, then what is it (outside of the raw pleasure) that defines this moral theory?

If, in Mill’s thinking, happiness is whatever each person’s happiness is, then how do we have any universal and impartial standard of happiness?" [Christian Logic, 245-246]
---------- ----------

Note that in America, the "pursuit of happiness" is written into our founding
American documents. But, NOTE that the philosophers who referred to this
phrase, DID NOT MEAN THIS LANGUAGE TO REFER TO ANY DEFINITION OF
"HAPPINESS"!!!!!

In America's founding documents, the pursuit of happiness is fully embedded in
Judeo-Christian morality-ethics, and so does not refer to some sort of crude hedonism.
It is the same with the documents' use of "freedom" and "justice".

When American Christian congregations fail to properly teach children and new
converts, that much of the language of the founding American documents refer
to noble virtues that were commonly discussed by the philosophers during the
European Enlightenment, these congregations fail in their catechism.
When Christian congregations do not understand what this historic language
meant, Christian congregations allow ANY definition of "freedom" or "justice"
or "the pursuit of happiness" to be held by the next generation of Christians.
And this, leads to a common discussion of what "democracy" is, that is
incompatible with historic Christianity.
---------- ----------

"Problems with Utilitarianism

“One objection to utilitarianism that may have occurred to many readers is that the principle of utility is not useful. In order to apply it in a concrete situation in an effort to determine the deontic status of an action [whether we ought to do the action] one would have to figure out the utilities of all the available alternative actions one might perform in the situation.” [Moral Theory, 121] “... the calculation of utility seems beyond our powers.” [Moral Theory, 121]

So, the utilitarian ME model lacks a basic decision procedure, that any person could use in any situation, to decide what they should do. [Moral Theory, 122]

Note that all sorts of political models (including secular Socialism and Communism) claim to use a sort of utilitarian model (doing what is “best for the people”). But the historic record of classic Socialism and Communism is that it leads to economies that cannot compete or be productive, and so end up destroying the welfare of the people.

Note that in America, economic success in life is heavily tied to early success in K12 education. And the heavy determining factor of whether or not a child will succeed in K12, is the “social capital” of the home life (you may read, the ME situation of the home life). Throwing money at K12, does not improve the performance of students. This ongoing failure in K12 performance is a classic case of secular Americans not knowing what causes what. The result is an inability to predict the consequences of government and state actions.
Although many utilitarians believe in the use of commonsense moral rules, Mill seems to think that these moral rules from our childhood do not particularly reflect the utility of the actions that we live out, as a result of those moral rules. [Moral Theory, 127] I suppose that secular classic utilitarians would not think that the Ten Commandments have much use, in real life." [Christian Logic, 246-247]
---------- ----------

Note that if the Utilitarian models have no clear decision algorthm to compute
all the future results of some action I choose to do, today, then, the Utilitarian
models CANNOT BE CODED INTO SOFTWARE, OR AI PRODUCTS.

*** Note that the utilitarian models typically demand that the "utility" of an action
BE EXPERIENCED IN THIS LIFE! In contrast, the Judeo-Christian ME system
teaches that we should live out righteousness in this life, WHETHER OR NOT
WE EXPECT SOME UTILITARIAN PAYOFF IN THIS LIFE.

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us. 19 For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; 20 for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; 23 and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ro 8:18–25.

Note that while there are some benefits of living out the Christian ME model in this
life, what we are REALLY looking forward to is the reward (if any) that we receive
from Christ, at the final judgment. And, obviously, this is a sort of "utility" that
cannot be computed, in this life.

 

[Stephen3141]

One of the more interesting ME models, is from Immanuel Kant.

He formulated an ME model that is not hedonism, is based on logic,
and is admirable in a number of ways.
---------- ----------

"Kant’s Moral Theory [Moral Theory, 151-]

“A leading idea of Kant’s moral theory is that moral requirements are requirements of reason.” [Moral Theory, 151] “As we shall see, Kant thinks that principles of practical rationality expressing moral requirements are unconditionally valid.” [Moral Theory, 154] That is, the duty that these requirements express, do not depend on one’s desires. [Moral Theory, 156]

Kant does not see morality as a doctrine of personal happiness. [Moral Theory, 156]

“The two most general duties are (1) the duty of self-perfection and (2) the duty to promote the happiness of others.” [Moral Theory, 158]
“Finally, perfecting our moral natures has to do with ... progressing toward a state of moral virtue.” [Moral Theory, 160]
“So act, that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [Moral Theory, 157]

There are disagreements among scholars over what Kant means by autonomy. “... there is a basic unconditional requirement to respect the autonomy of agents.” [Moral Theory, 157]

Kant views what Christians may call vices or virtues, as duties to be avoided, and duties to be fulfilled:
Envy, Ingratitude, Malice, Arrogance, Defamation, Ridicule
Beneficence, Gratitude, Sympathy, Respect for others as ends in themselves.
[Moral Theory, 161]

Kant does hold to a hierarchy of duties, both to pursue one’s own perfection, and to pursue the happiness of others. [Moral Theory, 162]

For Kant, our capacity of free will is what grounds our capacity for unconditional morality/ethics. [Moral Theory, 178]

Many philosophers recognize the conflict in Kant’s theory, between doing one’s duty, and pursuing one’s own happiness or the happiness of others.

It is interesting that many historical societies have held duty-based values (such as the Chinese). And so the surface language of Kant’s ME could be very appealing to these cultures/societies.

“... because Kant’s theory features both duties of self-perfection and duties concerning the happiness of others, it combines the best of natural law and utilitarian traditions.” [Moral Theory, 184]

It seems that Kant’s idea of the “greatest good” would need human beings to be immortal, and the existence of God. [Moral Theory, 178]
[Christian Logic, 249-250]
---------- ----------

Note that Kant asserts that all rational beings have the moral-ethical OUGHT
to perfect themselves, which means to grow toward perfection in the virtues.
This goes against the trend of hte younger generations to claim some sort of
entitlement, to be considered morally perfect, without any effort.

Note that Kant asserts that all people should work for the good of other people.
This is a noble humanitarian goal, and is somewhat compatible with the
Christian ME model.

Note that Kant does NOT think that doing the right thing, must make us feel good.
Kant's ME model IS NOT A MODEL OF FEELING GOOD.
---------- ----------

Note that Christians who do not value the idea that the valid reasoning methods are
part of our shared reality, and that human beings HAVE AN ME OUGHT TO PROPERLY
USE THEIR MIND, will probably have problems embracing Kant's way of thinking.

Note that Kant would hold that morality can be logically explained. This is not
incompatible with the Divine Command model, but would require a Christian to
recognize that the Logos (Word, or Reason) of God, took on a human form
in the Incarnation. In the gospels, Jesus often quotes the commands of God from
the Scriptures, BUT THEN he goes on to rationally explain what they mean.

5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, 6 knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, 7 devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. 8 If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 Anyone who lacks them is blind and shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more eager to make your call and election firm, for, in doing so, you will never stumble. 11 For, in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 2 Pe 1:5–11.

 

[Infirmus]

Christians who do not value the idea that the valid reasoning methods are
part of our shared reality, and that human beings HAVE AN ME OUGHT TO PROPERLY
USE THEIR MIND, will probably have problems embracing Kant's way of thinking.

Kant wouldn't have been able to think or reason if God hadn't endowed him, in the first place, with the ability do so. Now, the problem - as I see it - lays in the question whether human beings, whose ability to reason and all the intellectual faculties are God's gift to them, should use those very faculties and abilities to construct moral-ethical systems entirely detached from God. That's what I would indeed have a problem embracing.

 

[rocknanchor]

My main focus will be on how the ME model is ordered,

“The main practical aim of a moral theory is to discover a decision process that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning about matters of moral concern.”

When Christians are familiar with standard ME models, they will recognize all sorts of arguments that are connected with different ME models. This will help Christians to orient arguments with specific ME models, and identify much that is incompatible with the biblical ME model.

How does proposed models of such complexity differ from the simplicity of His shaping “, ,until Christ is formed in you”? Or how does it supplant, or pick up after His falls short, seeing that the NT model “, ,comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (Gal 4:19, 2Cor 3:18)? For how does it fall short when He assures us, there is no need to “argue” endless scenarios. On the contrary, our endeavors to correct and contend for the faith are also greatly limited by a very low number, 2-to-3, submissions, after that, reject all other contemplation. Just curious.

 

[Stephen3141]

How does proposed models of such complexity differ from the simplicity of His shaping “, ,until Christ is formed in you”? Or how does it supplant, or pick up after His falls short, seeing that the NT model “, ,comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (Gal 4:19, 2Cor 3:18)? For how does it fall short when He assures us, there is no need to “argue” endless scenarios. On the contrary, our endeavors to correct and contend for the faith are also greatly limited by a very low number, 2-to-3, submissions, after that, reject all other contemplation. Just curious.

Yours is a good, and pertinent question.

I would use the analogous argument...

If the Holy Spirit is our guide to truth,
Why do we need theologies, AT ALL???

(The logical outcome of beliving this, is that we also cannot
describe heresies.)


Although I have not mentioned this in the ME thread, yet, one could lay out some
common options that many Christian accept...

1 God is not "logical", the Incarnation is not really the coming of God's reason/logic
to earth in a human form, so we can BYPASS all reason/logic in trying to explain
truth from God (including entire theological systems), and substitute for all this
careful thinking "God told me this truth."

2 OR, God gave us the mind and valid reasoning skills, by which we may analyze the
truths that God gave to us. AND, God expects us to use these valid reasoning skills
when we think about all sorts of things (including the universe, morality-ethics,
theological systems, and basic topics shuch as "what is reality?" and "what is
truth?").

Option (1) is the anti-intellectual approach.
Option (2) reflects all the biblical language of thinking, and choosing, and weighing
options, and testing what is TRUE.
---------- ----------

Some Christian denominations are historically anti-intellectual (whether or not they
admit this) and so reject the applying of logic to biblical teaching. They tend to characterize
ALL careful logical thinking that they don't like, as "useless arguing". I believe that they do
not understand what this text of Scripture is talking about.

Christian denominations that DO accept the goodness of valid reasoning methods, and the
proper use of the mind, make a clear distinction between "useless arguing" and the
rightful application of logic, to test all things, and hold onto what is good.


Galatians 4.19 refers to the new Christians in a local congregation. It seems to be a
type of goal, but not a statement of moral-ethical perfection, that should be the goal
of a person trying to become a mature Christian. Describing how ME values are
ordered, is not the same as describing that new Christians need to develop some sort
of "stability", by moving beyond the baby phase.

2 Corinthians 3.18 deals with "being transformed" into the image of the Son, and
refers to a process, that is ongoing, and will not be finished until the exaltation of
the physical body in the resurrection (in biblical language, this is the end of the
process of salvation, that is to come in the future). You can understand this text
as referring to where the power for this transformation, comes. This also does not
refer to how ME models describe order in the values of an ME system.
---------- ----------

I think that most Christians who object to talking about ME models, are
uncomfortable simply because they never have studied them before.

There is the same uncomfortableness in Christians who begin to learn
the biblical languages, and SUDDENLY realize that biblical Hebrew and
biblical Greek ARE NOT MODERN ENGLISH, and that many of the mental
associations that they commonly make about an English translation of the
Bible, are not relevant to the original text of the Bible.

There is a difference between "useless wrangling", and useful discussion.

 

[Stephen3141]

Kant wouldn't have been able to think or reason if God hadn't endowed him, in the first place, with the ability do so. Now, the problem - as I see it - lays in the question whether human beings, whose ability to reason and all the intellectual faculties are God's gift to them, should use those very faculties and abilities to construct moral-ethical systems entirely detached from God. That's what I would indeed have a problem embracing.

There is nothing inherently authoritative, about CONSTRUCTING a ME system.

But, an ME model can be used to DESCRIBE what many people think, about
"right" and "wrong".

I would reply that it is improper to construct an ME model that dispenses with
careful logic, as valid reasoning methods are part of our shared reality (and so God
holds us morally-ethically responsible for bearing true witness about valid reasoning
methods). AND, I would assert that it is improper to construct a ME model that is
APART from God, as God is also a part of our shared reality.

As I present in the book Christian Logic, it is improper for a Christians to dispense
with formal logic, and to dispense with the authoritative moral-ethical commands
that God has given us. I don't see why a Christian must abandon either of these
aspects of morality-ethics.

 

[Stephen3141]

Now for an ME model that is a bit different, Virtue Ethics.
---------- ----------

"Virtue Ethics [Moral Theory, 211-]

“... there is a tradition in ethics, going back to Plato and Aristotle, in which the primary focus of moral inquiry is on questions of what sort of person to be: excellence of character rather than right conduct is of primary concern here.” [Moral Theory, 211]

This emphasis on excellence of character, is built around the concept of a virtue.

“A virtue can be roughly described as (1) a relatively fixed trait of character or mind (2) typically involving dispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways in certain circumstances, and which furthermore (3) is a primary basis for judging the overall moral goodness or worth of persons.” [Moral Theory, 212]

A virtue may involve an intellectual definition, a feeling or disposition toward doing (or not doing something, and a behavior associated with the virtue. [Moral Theory, 212]

Note that the possible “parts” of a virtue, can account for the different understandings of concepts in different theologies. (For example, having faith in God may be seen as a virtue. But does this mean the intellectual definition of faith, a feeling associated with having faith in God, or a behavior that expresses having faith in God? Although different theologies make a distinction between a mental choice, and living out an act of faith in God, I’m not sure that we have to make this distinction.)

Some philosophers think that there are different categories of virtues, while others have a difficult time distinguishing moral and non-moral virtues. [Moral Theory, 231]

Some commonly recognized virtues are:

benevolence, conscientiousness, courage, generosity, gratitude, justice, honesty, loyalty, temperance, open-mindedness, intellectual courage, perseverance, wit, obedience, thrift, .... [Moral Theory, 231]

Some philosophers recognize cardinal virtues, that are more important than others. Aquinas identified faith, hope, love, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. [Moral Theory, 214]

Note that a lot of these virtue labels are not quite the concepts that the biblical authors are writing about, when they use concepts such as “faith” and “hope” and “love”. Abraham had faith in God, but this was more specific than the virtue “faith”. We hope for the resurrection of the dead, but this is quite a bit more specific than “hope”. The Apostle John says that the person who loves God, keeps his commandments, but this is not quite the general “love” that is thought of as a virtue." [Christian Logic, 254-255]
---------- ----------
And, here is a dysfunctional argument by some literary characters in the book
Christian Logic, for your analysis...

Harry: I am a virtuous snake.
Therefore, anything I do, is a virtuous act.
Loretta: So, by what standard of virtues, are you a virtuous snake?
A virtue (typically) has a fixed definition, a physical affection associated with the virtue, and
behavior associated with the virtue. Do these exist, for the virtues you claim to have?
Harry: I steadfastly assert that I am virtuous.
I think that this steadfastness, is the base virtue.
I am steadfast in asserting this,
therefore, I am virtuous.
Loretta: You do realize that most convicted criminals are steadfast in proclaiming
their innocence of the crime they were convicted of?
Harry: If I lack virtues, it is because I am misunderstood and oppressed.
Loretta: You do know that living a rational life in accord with the virtues,
is considered part of a properly balanced, virtuous life?
Harry: What does reason have to do with it?
I am steadfast.
Therefore, I am virtuous!
Loretta: Sigh...

Note that some virtue-ethics systems are based on caring for oneself, and others. These models have a different flavor than ME models that are based on justice. [Moral Theory, 226]

Note that the ministry of Jesus had a strong flavor of caring for those who were lost. However, this was because those who sin, deserve the justice of God. And the justice of God (at the final judgment), is not something that we want to experience! The Church has taken the attitude that it is a rescue mission, not a haven for perfect righteous people.

One problem with the ethics of caring is that the motivation of the caring, might not be moral/ethical. That is, proper knowledge is necessary before one can “care” properly. [Moral Theory, 229] Therefore, the version of virtue-ethics that embraces a dynamic of caring, is not the same as a ME system based on personal feeling. Do we care more about stray cats and dogs, than unborn children?"
[Christian Logic, 257-258]
---------- ----------

(Note that the literary characters are Harry, a big snake, Loretta,
a vulture, and another character, who does not appear in this argument.
Dysfunctional arguments like this, are presented so that readers can
practice identifying basic assumptions and definitions of the argument,
and can evaluate whether or not the argument is logically VALID, and
if it is compatible with the Judea-Christian ME system.)

 

[Stephen3141]

(Sorry for the format whacking in the previous post.
The entered post, does not have the formatting that the interface showed,
when I was entering the post.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Note that Virtue Ethics models are interesting. BUT, there is a
lot of differences in what different versions of virtue ethics consider
to be "virtues".

There is no reason why some model of Virtue Ethics has to be compatible
with orthodox Christian belief.

 

[Stephen3141]

Biden to issue executive order to bolster AI infrastructure in the US

The order will direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to lease federal sites where the private sector can build AI infrastructure, he said.

abcnews.go.com

Note that EVERYONE wants to try to jump on the Artificial Intelligence
band wagon. BUT, if you consider that ...

1 NONE of the software developers has created a Moral-Ethical model,
to try to constrain AI products from being used in criminal enterprises
2 Creating a software ME model that would render AI products "safe",
would be very expensive, and theoretically near-impossible
3 The billionaires who own the big AI software companies, have no wish
to try to morally-ethically constrain the use of their products.

Much of the productivity increase that COULD happen in the American
economy, is not specifically connected to artificial intelligence, but to
the automation of human jobs.

There is valid automation of human jobs, and INVALID automation of
human activities (criminals). Americans need to wake up, to realizing this
difference.

 

[rocknanchor]

Yours is a good, and pertinent question.

Thank you!

If the Holy Spirit is our guide to truth,
Why do we need theologies, AT ALL???

One of my favorites. In addition, the HS
will also teach us all things according to
God's will.

The logical outcome of beliving this, is that we also cannot
describe heresies.

Coming from one who exhibits the
extensive handling of info, I find that
comment lacking.

Some Christian denominations are historically anti-intellectual (whether or not they
admit this) and so reject the applying of logic to biblical teaching.

No doubt, would be interesting to wait for
the response by them when the Apostle
spoke for hours on end till the listeners
fell asleep.

 

[Stephen3141]

Thank you!

One of my favorites. In addition, the HS
will also teach us all things according to
God's will.

Coming from one who exhibits the
extensive handling of info, I find that
comment lacking.

No doubt, would be interesting to wait for
the response by them when the Apostle
spoke for hours on end till the listeners
fell asleep.

I have no problem with someone alluding to a text in the Bible.

12 “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Jn 16:12–15.

But, I DO have a problem with someone trying to make an objective model
of Epistemology, from this allusion.

What Jesus said is true. BUT, Jesus does not give us a "decision algorithm" to
clearly indicate whether someone has been lead by the Holy Spirit, and whether
or not that person has appropriated (or even considered) the truth to which the
Holy Spirit has lead that person.

As an example, it remains a truth that some who qualify as "elders" are
qualified to teach, and some are not. Although we could argue that the
Apostles will be lead by the Spirit..., this, apparently, does not change the
inherent capability of the individual to understand the truth that he has been
lead to.

Much, much more, is needed in a Christian model of knowlede and truth,
than the statement that the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth.

And, if we are conservative about the language that Jesus used, the "you"
in this entire paragraph is plural. It is more circumspect, that Jesus is
talking about the Holy Spirit leading the Apostles to all truth.

“The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, 25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: 28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, ...."
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ac 15:23–28.

We could argue a point of theology from the unified agreement of the
apostles and elders and the Holy Spirit, but it is prudent NOT to try to
extend this text to apply to each individual Christian.