How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t really like the way that post went, which is why I took a break over the last week, but incredulity only plays a small role in my objection to the thrust of your argument. I maintain that if morality is more than a human construct, the question “why be moral” is still answered in a manner that invokes a set of subjectively desired consequences, which is just a longer way to consequentialism. Further, our limited ability to apprehend moral truths as fallible humans seems to devalue any infallible objectivity of the moral source itself, regardless of its metaphysical validity. This is why arguments for a theistic moral foundation that invoke uncertainty or subjectivity of secular morality don’t carry much weight with me. You’re still here on Earth trying to figure it out with us, you just value different outcomes.

So yes, while I do ultimately disbelieve that there is any transcendent Being as a source to morality and so anyone invoking its superiority to my moral values will be meaningless to me, that’s not why I ground my morality in consequences. I think it’s all anyone does, despite what they may say. Maybe you can explain a meaningful difference between orienting your morality toward the creation of certain desired outcomes, and following a pre-written moral code because you believe it will lead to certain desired outcomes.

I think you've misunderstood the angle of thrust in my entire outlook on human Ethics and morality. What's more, I'm not convinced that you really want to know or care to know what I think about it, either.

No, I think we've all come to a time where those who are skeptical of religion and saavy in their skepticism have put on their political socialist pants and decided to knock Christianity in all of its variety off of its perch. All it really boils down to here is whether Jesus is who He said He was. If He is not, then you already know that you have your cake and you'll gladly can eat it too.

So, why should I waste your and my time arguing my perspective or even attempting to spell it out? That part of the human moral deliberation is epistemogically futile, especially if, on the one hand, Biblical Epistemology plays a partial role in how we define Subjectivity on the whole where and when Christianity is being scrutinized as an object, and on the other hand, we now have those like Pinecreek or Mythvision and a host of other atheistic friends and affiliations leading the more grassroots, apostatical charge ...

 

[gaara4158]

I think you've misunderstood the angle of thrust in my entire outlook on human Ethics and morality. What's more, I'm not convinced that you really want to know or care to know what I think about it, either.

No, I think we've all come to a time where those who are skeptical of religion and saavy in their skepticism have put on their political socialist pants and decided to knock Christianity in all of its variety off of its perch. All it really boils down to here is whether Jesus is who He said He was. If He is not, then you already know that you have your cake and you'll gladly can eat it too.

So, why should I waste your and my time arguing my perspective or even attempting to spell it out? That part of the human moral deliberation is epistemogically futile, especially if, on the one hand, Biblical Epistemology plays a partial role in how we define Subjectivity on the whole where and when Christianity is being scrutinized as an object, and on the other hand, we now have those like Pinecreek or Mythvision and a host of other atheistic friends and affiliations leading the more grassroots, apostatical charge ...

Well, I had assumed you were here to “fill a void” in your life that was missing this sort of dialogue, but if you’ve now had your fill that’s fine. You’re certainly under no obligation to waste anyone’s time pontificating on your own moral framework and how it might be viewed by nonbelievers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I had assumed you were here to “fill a void” in your life that was missing this sort of dialogue, but if you’ve now had your fill that’s fine. You’re certainly under no obligation to waste anyone’s time pontificating on your own moral framework and how it might be viewed by nonbelievers.

... it amazes me just how open to varied interpretation some concepts are. My screen name has always been an allusion to both Philosophy, generally speaking, and Frank Close's book, The Void.

That's it. Nothing less. Nothing more. Dialogue with others is something I've thought of as a possible (formerly 'hopeful') bonus. But with politics in the way these days, such as it is, I've noticed it dampens the possibiliites quite a bit. I guess that's just one of the outcomes, with the attending consequences, of pushing 'Jesus' in a world that's gone awry.

But seriously, if you really want to have a friendly, even mutually sensible discussion, I'm always up for that, time and wife permitting.

 

[gaara4158]

... it amazes me just how open to varied interpretation some concepts are. My screen name has always been an allusion to both Philosophy, generally speaking, and Frank Close's book, The Void.

That's it. Nothing less. Nothing more. Dialogue with others is something I've thought of as a possible (formerly 'hopeful') bonus. But with politics in the way these days, such as it is, I've noticed it dampens the possibiliites quite a bit. I guess that's just one of the outcomes, with the attending consequences, of pushing 'Jesus' in a world that's gone awry.

But seriously, if you really want to have a friendly, even mutually sensible discussion, I'm always up for that, time and wife permitting.

Politics is always touchy when both sides are deeply invested in their own entrenched factions, and religion can be the same. But no, I really was looking for another perspective with regards to the difference between defining morality as A) that which contributes to, let’s say, human flourishing, and B) following a “transcendent” moral code because you believe it is the best way toward human flourishing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Politics is always touchy when both sides are deeply invested in their own entrenched factions, and religion can be the same. But no, I really was looking for another perspective with regards to the difference between defining morality as A) that which contributes to, let’s say, human flourishing, and B) following a “transcendent” moral code because you believe it is the best way toward human flourishing.

You're potentially misunderstanding @2PhiloVoid and his ethics, and presenting a false dichotomy between "transcendent moral vision" and "human flourishing".

He seems to believe in following the ethics of Jesus, which is really a kind of virtues ethics based on something like an Ethics of Care. It's not an arbitrary "transcendent moral code", though this particular articulation of an Ethics of Care does point towards the transcendent (and also human flourishing, this is what Jesus' "Kingdom of God" really is), it doesn't come external to humanity, but from within the human experience: the human experience of Jesus Christ.

 

[Bradskii]

...it doesn't come external to humanity, but from within the human experience: the human experience of Jesus Christ.

And I don't see why anyone wouldn't give his words (I'll use a lowercase 'h' in this instance) due consideration as one would to anyone who made recommendations as to how to live a good life. A close contemporary like Marcus Aurelias comes to mind. And we have a great deal more from him (and first hand) than we do from Jesus. So unless you insert the transcendent into what Jesus was meant to have said, then there are others who I would turn to first.

Let's face it, 'be good to your neighbour' and 'do unto others...' aren't exactly seismic moral pronunciations. I doubt that there were gasps of astonishment during His sermon on the mount. More like lots of stares at the ground and shuffling of feet.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Politics is always touchy when both sides are deeply invested in their own entrenched factions, and religion can be the same. But no, I really was looking for another perspective with regards to the difference between defining morality as A) that which contributes to, let’s say, human flourishing, and B) following a “transcendent” moral code because you believe it is the best way toward human flourishing.

May I interject here for one moment and provide two clarifications about my own perspective on ethics and morality?

One point I need for us to be clear on is that I'm not one who has claimed that "only Christians" have the ability to be moral. What I have claimed is that different persons, if they're not sociopathic, will often hold to different Ethical outlooks and express different [SETS] of moral practice. They can all commonly hold to some general notion about human flourishing as part of the moral impetus, but their use of the same term doesn't necessarily denote the same referents or the same social goals or outcomes.

Secondly, as I've said elsewhere, I am not a Divine Command Ethicist and I never have been.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I don't see why anyone wouldn't give his words (I'll use a lowercase 'h' in this instance) due consideration as one would to anyone who made recommendations as to how to live a good life. A close contemporary like Marcus Aurelias comes to mind. And we have a great deal more from him (and first hand) than we do from Jesus. So unless you insert the transcendent into what Jesus was meant to have said, then there are others who I would turn to first.

Let's face it, 'be good to your neighbour' and 'do unto others...' aren't exactly seismic moral pronunciations. I doubt that there were gasps of astonishment during His sermon on the mount. More like lots of stares at the ground and shuffling of feet.

I doubt there weren't some seriously raised eyebrows during "the Sermon" (whether it took place upon yon Mount or Plain, ...or wherever).

As for Marcus Aurelius, I think the jury is still out as to whether or not and to what extent he may have persecuted Christians. If he did.........then guess what?

If he didn't, then give the guy a posthumous applause for reflecting a semblance to Paul the Apostle. I think Paul would have recommended as such.

 

[FireDragon76]

And I don't see why anyone wouldn't give his words (I'll use a lowercase 'h' in this instance) due consideration as one would to anyone who made recommendations as to how to live a good life. A close contemporary like Marcus Aurelias comes to mind.

Marcus Aurelius was basically a warlord, in comparison. He's not equivalent to Jesus. He is more like Tony Robins. A motivational speaker, teaching Roman noblemen how to reconcile themselves better with the cruelty of their society and harsh vicissitudes of their lives.

And we have a great deal more from him (and first hand) than we do from Jesus. So unless you insert the transcendent into what Jesus was meant to have said, then there are others who I would turn to first.

We have a good idea what Jesus said, in terms of its historical reliability.

Let's face it, 'be good to your neighbour' and 'do unto others...' aren't exactly seismic moral pronunciations. I doubt that there were gasps of astonishment during His sermon on the mount. More like lots of stares at the ground and shuffling of feet.

That's not what's most salient to Jesus' teachings. The salient part is how he treated non-persons in his society as persons, and expanded his disciples vision for human community and human flourishing.

 

[Bradskii]

Marcus Aurelius was basically a warlord, in comparison. He's not equivalent to Jesus.

Perhaps you are missing my point. I used Aurelius because he was of that era and produced a truck load of writing. So we know exactly what his views were and we have his actual words. But he is one of a library full of people (mostly men) who are worth reading. Who are worth listening to. From the last 2,500 years. You could literally spend a lifetime studying them. Whereas, remove the divinity from Jesus and what is claimed that He said might be worth an hour or so of my time. If indeed anyone would have actually bothered to make a note of it.

It is only because the message is meant to be divinely sourced, only that it is to be considered transcendent that people bother with it at all. So to say 'It's not an arbitrary "transcendent moral code" ' is completely rejecting why it's treated as worth listening to in the first instance.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps you are missing my point. I used Aurelius because he was of that era and produced a truck load of writing. So we know exactly what his views were and we have his actual words. But he is one of a library full of people (mostly men) who are worth reading. Who are worth listening to. From the last 2,500 years. You could literally spend a lifetime studying them. Whereas, remove the divinity from Jesus and what is claimed that He said might be worth an hour or so of my time.

This is just sounds like the "fallacy of personal incredulity". I say that as somebody that doesn't identify as an orthodox Christian, but wants to take the history of ideas seriously in a spirit of dialogue and open inquiry.

Jesus teachings have inspired many reforms in western culture away from the kind of cruelty that people like Marcus Aurelius accepted as par for the course. If you don't believe me, go read Tom Holland's recent book, Dominion. Holland is not a religious person, he's an historian and a religious "none", and has no metaphysical qualm with atheist skepticism, but he does have something against this "New Atheist" notion that Jesus' teachings are irrelevant to understanding the course of world history, or the transformation in human consciousness they produced.

If indeed anyone would have actually bothered to make a note of it.

It is only because the message is meant to be divinely sourced, only that it is to be considered transcendent that people bother with it at all. So to say 'It's not an arbitrary "transcendent moral code" ' is completely rejecting why it's treated as worth listening to in the first instance.

There have been religious liberals that don't take Christian mythology at face value but nonetheless are inspired by Jesus' teachings. Again, you seem to be setting up Christian Fundamentalism as the frame by which you judge Christianity's "Truthiness", instead of looking at how Jesus' teachings contain psychospiritual tools for personal and social transformation. That's not steelmaning Jesus or Christianity, but strawmaning, taking the most ignorant or distorted versions of a religion and portraying it as the only possible interpretation worth considering.

 

[Bradskii]

Jesus teachings have inspired many reforms in western culture away from the kind of cruelty that people like Marcus Aurelius accepted as par for the course. If you don't believe me, go read Tom Holland's recent book, Dominion. Holland is not a religious person, he's an historian and a religious "none", and hasno metaphysical qualm with atheist skepticism, but he does have something against this "New Atheist" notion that Jesus' teachings are irrelevant to understanding the course of world history, or the transformation in human consciousness they produced.

Again, you are missing my point. I have no problem with the fact that Jesus' teachings have had a profound impact. But they did so because He is meant to be the earthly representation of God Himself. People stress what He is meant to have said because of who He claimed He was. His words carry so much weight for people because they accept Him as such. And only because of that.

Remove the divinity and His words carry hardly any weight at all. Reword his sermon on the mount and put them in the mouth of some minor prophet of any time and any place and they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. The words would hardly be justified being included as a foot note in any moral treatise.

 

[FireDragon76]

Again, you are missing my point. I have no problem with the fact that Jesus' teachings have had a profound impact. But they did so because He is meant to be the earthly representation of God Himself. People stress what He is meant to have said because of who He claimed He was. His words carry so much weight for people because they accept Him as such. And only because of that.

Remove the divinity and His words carry hardly any weight at all. Reword his sermon on the mount and put them in the mouth of some minor prophet of any time and any place and they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. The words would hardly be justified being included as a foot note in any moral treatise.

Have you considered the possibility you put the cart before the horse, that people became convinced of his divinity because of what he said and did within the cultural context in which he lived, that the claims of divinity have something to do with that?

Or is this just some kind of fallacy of incredulity again? Mythic symbolism can intimate important insights about the human condition, which can be powerful and transformative when embodied through participatory ways of knowing the world. "Son of God" or "Son of Man" are less propositions, in that respect, and more like provocations.

 

[Bradskii]

Have you considered the possibility you put the cart before the horse, that people became convinced of his divinity because of what he said and did within the cultural context in which he lived, that the claims of divinity have something to do with that?

'Judge not less ye be judged'. So I read that, or 'love your neighbour' and I meant to conclude that the person who said that is a god? That He sacrificed Himself as countless others have done for their beliefs through the ages I am to going to be convinced that He is divine?

What He said was unexceptional. In the sense that many had said and have said much the same. Remove the divinity and you're not left with a great deal that can't be found elsewhere in greater detail and with more weight of reason.

I was brought up as a Christian and although I felt from an early age that the supernatural aspect of faith was a problem to be solved, I had no problem is accepting what Jesus taught. It made a lot of sense to me. Apart from what my parents passed on to me, it was the only moral instruction I had for many years. Now I have had a lot more. So no, there is no cart before the horse. I treat what He said for what it's worth. I don't grant who said it any greater authority than it deserves.

 

[FireDragon76]

'Judge not less ye be judged'. So I read that, or 'love your neighbour' and I meant to conclude that the person who said that is a god? That He sacrificed Himself as countless others have done for their beliefs through the ages I am to going to be convinced that He is divine?

Not Jesus' words as mere propositions about ethics, but as provocations within a spiritual vision of the world that we as human beings are called to participate in.

What He said was unexceptional.

What he did, what he embodied in his mission was exceptional. He confronted religious hypocrisy, abuse, and superficiality, healed and restored the outcasts of his society, and created an enduring religious movement of people that attempt to follow his teachings to this day, imbuing many with a sense of openness to the future and agency in their lives. And the most amazing thing about this is that this movement persisted, despite his crucifixion. It's sheer blindness to dismiss that as unexceptional. It would be like saying Gandhi wasn't exceptional, or that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't exceptional.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'Judge not less ye be judged'. So I read that, or 'love your neighbour' and I meant to conclude that the person who said that is a god? That He sacrificed Himself as countless others have done for their beliefs through the ages I am to going to be convinced that He is divine?

What He said was unexceptional. In the sense that many had said and have said much the same. Remove the divinity and you're not left with a great deal that can't be found elsewhere in greater detail and with more weight of reason.

I was brought up as a Christian and although I felt from an early age that the supernatural aspect of faith was a problem to be solved, I had no problem is accepting what Jesus taught. It made a lot of sense to me. Apart from what my parents passed on to me, it was the only moral instruction I had for many years. Now I have had a lot more. So no, there is no cart before the horse. I treat what He said for what it's worth. I don't grant who said it any greater authority than it deserves.

It sounds like you're not one who goes in for the study of Hermeneutics. You should. It'll make the 'true intellectualizing' you're handing us all the more robust and meaningful because it'll show that you've actually cared about the literature you were taking up in your thoughtful hands.

I mean this: Consider what would happen if you took the writings of, say, Paul, and held them up for reading with the same amount of historiography, historical contexts, social contexts and reasonable literary valuation as you do the Meditations of Aurelius. Sometimes, Hermeneutics and Historical sensibility bring out what wasn't formerly recognizable in the writing of any one person; in fact, I'd say that sometimes it's equally important to know about and read what other people say about a person as is it in knowing what a person has thought and written himself (or herself).

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, especially where comparative Ethics and Morality [and Historical sensibility and Hermeneutics] are concerned, wouldn't you say? I DO !!

In our speaking about the comparative ethics and morality of Marcus Aurelius and Jesus, or of any other early figure of the Christian movement, and in taking into account the various contextualizing historical references I've touched base upon so far in my own studies, Marcus Aurelius is measuring up fairly well on the side of sexual morality [more or less]. Of course, I'm only on the 4th page of the chapter that addresses the sexual life of Aurelius. If Aurelius was really all that much of a boy-scout, I'm wondering if this fact has rubbed off on any of those atheists and moral agnostics who feel a strong impulse to draw upon Aurelius and his Meditations for the purpose of injecting moral principles into their own lives?

... now I'm off to finish the chapter.

Reference

Cawthorne, Nigel. (2006). The Faustinian pact. Sex Lives of the Roman Emperors (pp. 156-165). New York, NY: Barnes and Nobles.

(edit: Wow! That Faustina seems to have really gotten around the town ... ... poor Marcus!
Then again, if Faustina actually bore 14 children ... ... poor Faustina!)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/faustina-ii-130-175-ce]

 

[Bradskii]

What he did, what he embodied in his mission was exceptional.

If you believe Him to be God...obviously. If not...then His proclamations were unexceptional.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you believe Him to be God...obviously. If not...then His proclamations were unexceptional.

That says more about your disinterest in other ways of knowing the world, other than the propositional, than the value of Jesus of Nazareth as a human being and religious figure.

Good luck with that.

 

[perplexed]

If you believe Him to be God...obviously. If not...then His proclamations were unexceptional.

I think "love your enemies" was an exceptional and revolutionary idea, Extorting taxes from your defeated enemies is better than enslaving them, much less rape.

I also think the teachings of Jesus can really help some people have what I think is a great perspective in life. You should you think people are precious in general but this does not mean people are perfect you need to fight against your selfish desires and help other people fight against their selfish desires.

 

[Bradskii]

I think "love your enemies" was an exceptional and revolutionary idea,

And one which I reject.