Moral motivation

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I prefer to think of it as a system of values that provide guidelines as to how to act correctly in society, so as not to be shunned or hated by those around you. Society dislikes immoral people because they are often disruptive.

Too bad im afraid.

 

[Blackguard_]

^^^
Yeah, wasn't it Caligula who said "let them hate so long as they fear"?

 

[The Nihilist]

I prefer to think of it as a system of values that provide guidelines as to how to act correctly in society, so as not to be shunned or hated by those around you. Society dislikes immoral people because they are often disruptive.

Your position is closest to the one Aristotle presents in Nichomachean Ethics. I have no problem with it, because it's a sort of provisional ethics.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ataraxia was the goal of the stoics, the epicurians, and I think maybe the skeptics, too. Eudaimonia is the goal of the Aristotelians, who have taken to calling themselves Eudaimonists. This is also called virtue ethics.

Ah, you beat me to saying this. Thanks.

And, yes, ataraxia was the goal of the Skeptics too.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

What exactly is the worth of gold or a dollar?

Oh, I so want to pull out a large quote from Atlas Shrugged right now...

The true master is the one who masters his life and mind beyond the material world.

I'd say that the true master is the one who masters his life and mind in the material world. Such a master would rule money, not be ruled by it as is so common.

The true slaves to money are the people who hate money and look to the "non-material" only. They are horribly dependent on money (or any form of wealth) for their survival. Money rules them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Silenus]

If your motivation to be a moral person is "a fear of God" or "to get to heaven" then are you truly a moral person?

Interesting question. It reminds me of Kant's insistence that anything done outside of duty can't be moral. I vehemently disagree with Kant that desire and duty are antithesis. It seems that, if duty is the basis of morality, than there is a split between my will and my desire, and in many cases, this is true. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, sometimes we are satisfied by lesser things when greater desires await us. But, the ultimate moral person would desire the good, and duty would become delight. My point, I guess, is that this can be a start of moral consciousness, but at some point, the good must be seen as the good and desired because it is good. One must go from following a set of rules to embodying a morality. The fear of the lord can be a beginning of wisdom, but is not the end of it.

I'd say that the true master is the one who masters his life and mind in the material world. Such a master would rule money, not be ruled by it as is so common.

The true slaves to money are the people who hate money and look to the "non-material" only. They are horribly dependent on money (or any form of wealth) for their survival. Money rules them.

Nice post. Enjoyed reading that immensely.

 

[Theogonia]

If your motivation to be a moral person is "a fear of God" or "to get to heaven" then are you truly a moral person?

I think Silenus summed it up pretty well.

 

[Theogonia]

Interesting question. It reminds me of Kant's insistence that anything done outside of duty can't be moral. I vehemently disagree with Kant that desire and duty are antithesis. It seems that, if duty is the basis of morality, than there is a split between my will and my desire, and in many cases, this is true. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, sometimes we are satisfied by lesser things when greater desires await us. But, the ultimate moral person would desire the good, and duty would become delight. My point, I guess, is that this can be a start of moral consciousness, but at some point, the good must be seen as the good and desired because it is good. One must go from following a set of rules to embodying a morality. The fear of the lord can be a beginning of wisdom, but is not the end of it.

Spot on.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Morality can be an admirable thing. The moral man is the one who is constantly seeking to be a judge of good and evil. He needs to be a judge so he can see what is evil and avoid it, and see what is good and do it. Doing this, truly doing this, requires subjugating his entire life to this operation. So he will spend his time either dealing with decisions he has to make or anticipating decisions between good and evil in the future. This view is represented in the Bible by the Pharisees

The Christian morality, however, is somthing quite different. Jesus was always being questioned by the phairisees. They were trying to decide wether he was good or bad. Ultimately, they would decide he was bad, and he would be put to death. It is notible to observe that he never involves himself in their world. His answers always go above and beyond their questions, such as to make them appear small minded. Rather than being concerned with right and wrong- legalism or works- that is, our God is concerned with his love for us, which he wishes to express by relating to us (grace and the personal relationship.) Therefore, the foundation of christian morality is a relationship with christ, and a relationship with eachother (the church.) A christian does not need to constantly 'judge' between good and evil. He just 'knows' what he must do. He doesnt need to swear oaths or make promoises. He understands what he must do without that.

The moralist, with everything set before him, with his maps and guns and a stock of provisions that will last for years, is a remarkably anxious and unsure man. The christian, with nothing but his daily bread, is yet marked by a certain kind of certainty within himself.

Sadly, most moralists have been unable to adhere to the pharisitic standard. Most Christians have been unable to become saints, though we are confident that there is another time where there will be some time for that.

I think, however, that this problem could be well put out if people did a little bit more reading. I credit Bonhoffer for a lot of these insights I just gave you. I really believe that if everyone read the great apologies, only a few would be left with real doubts about the truth of Christianity.

Likewise, it might also be observed that if certain christians could be made to read books on science and other religions, their tolerance and subjection to reason might thereby be considerably increased.

Ah, sorry for that tangent.

 

[Theogonia]

Morality can be an admirable thing. The moral man is the one who is constantly seeking to be a judge of good and evil. He needs to be a judge so he can see what is evil and avoid it, and see what is good and do it. Doing this, truly doing this, requires subjugating his entire life to this operation. So he will spend his time either dealing with decisions he has to make or anticipating decisions between good and evil in the future. This view is represented in the Bible by the Pharisees

The Christian morality, however, is somthing quite different. Jesus was always being questioned by the phairisees. They were trying to decide wether he was good or bad. Ultimately, they would decide he was bad, and he would be put to death. It is notible to observe that he never involves himself in their world. His answers always go above and beyond their questions, such as to make them appear small minded. Rather than being concerned with right and wrong- legalism or works- that is, our God is concerned with his love for us, which he wishes to express by relating to us (grace and the personal relationship.) Therefore, the foundation of christian morality is a relationship with christ, and a relationship with eachother (the church.) A christian does not need to constantly 'judge' between good and evil. He just 'knows' what he must do. He doesnt need to swear oaths or make promoises. He understands what he must do without that.

The moralist, with everything set before him, with his maps and guns and a stock of provisions that will last for years, is a remarkably anxious and unsure man. The christian, with nothing but his daily bread, is yet marked by a certain kind of certainty within himself.

Sadly, most moralists have been unable to adhere to the pharisitic standard. Most Christians have been unable to become saints, though we are confident that there is another time where there will be some time for that.

I think, however, that this problem could be well put out if people did a little bit more reading. I credit Bonhoffer for a lot of these insights I just gave you. I really believe that if everyone read the great apologies, only a few would be left with real doubts about the truth of Christianity.

Likewise, it might also be observed that if certain christians could be made to read books on science and other religions, their tolerance and subjection to reason might thereby be considerably increased.

Ah, sorry for that tangent.

That is pretty off to be honest.

The Pharisees were not truly moral. Morality is not set doctrine, laws, and judgeing.

True morality is one of love. Morality is actions. The true moral person is one who does what he knows to be right because he knows it makes a difference in the world and he helps people out of love.

Sadly, nowadays the christian tends to be your view of what a moralist is, and vice versa.

Your view of Christianity is true moralism.

 

[LibraryOwl]

So wait, do you agree with me or not?

Uh, anyway, I was trying to say that, there is somthing admirable in what I called 'moral.' it requires a lot of work, and a lot of self control. But of course, the yoke of Jesus Christ is light, it is the true way in which there is light, though as I have said, I feel that it is disdinctively beyond the problem of right and wrong.

One thing that I find interesting is our Christian view of politics. I feel that for the Christian, the right political program is the one that carries out the orders of the lord Jesus Christ.

For instance, he says to feed the hungry and house the homeless and uplift the opressed, therefore I support socialism and new-deal economics as the best way to support this. However, I know that other Christians disagree with me on this topic, and that is okay, because when you really go behind it, we agree. We are trying to do what he says we should do, and that is how we find that some things are right for one christian and other things are right for another. That is how, in the words of the apostle paul, 'if it is a sin to you, then it is a sin to the eyes of god also.'

A few months I was talking to one of my atheist friends. She was also a socialist, as it so happenend. I had just been explaining to her that the ancient doctrines of reason and scientific inquiry were actually embraced and improoved upon by christianity, and explaining why I believed in evoloution.

She was fine with that but then she got a little angry "I wish all those other christians were more like you. At least ONE christian seems to know what he's talking about."

But I couldn't accept this statement. I told her that they were just as good as I was in the eyes of god. By banning abortion and sodomy and evoloution and all that, they were trying to do the will of God.

"Honestly"" I told her "our god would rather that you were one of them, one of the ignorant, who didn't know what his will was, than that you did know what his will was and rejected it."

That gets across my line of thinking near as I can. Within the church, there is actually a kind of respectful relativism, since we operate by grace and not works. That is how Abraham who wanted to murder a baby for god could also be loved by god, though of course god didn't want him to murder the baby.