Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

Hippocampus problems?

Your posts are not memorable or frankly that interesting. I read hundreds of posts and if my reply requires context I have to click back to read it. This one didn't have a link and was in a different thread. I was never going to find it given the way you posted it.

Just more stonewalling,

Nope. Just not interested in your nitpicking and distractions.

deflecting,

You are ginning up an argument on "what is truth", not I. Stick to the topic (absolute morality) and quit complaining

poor attempts at being snarky,

I have not yet begun to snark. (In fact I haven't even tried in this convo. If you'd like I can deal with you that way. You've earned it.)

and a possible brain disorder.

always jumping to conclusions, you are. I would ask if you are a physician, but no physician would attempt such a diagnosis on such scant evidence.

So long.

delete your account

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*


* Actually, I am finding the exchange interesting, but the opportunity for a nice** bit of morphological parallelism for rhetorical effect was a temptation too far.

** I use "nice" in both senses of the word.***

*** It's 1:45 am here and I cannot get back to sleep. That's my excuse.

While I sympathize with your apparent felt loss of time, I'm not a believer that Critical Analysis always and only produces clarity. Sometimes, many times really, it produces more questions and less assurance of things we all thought we've known really well.

But I know. Someone needs to be held accountable. So, maybe take your complaints to various Existentialists and Critical Realists and other similar theorists who have influenced my own critical approach to studying the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're still not proposing anything. You're still not making any sort of argument whatsoever. You're not contributing anything at all.

How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?

No, I've made positive statements all through this thread (and in the other). I just haven't made any conclusive statements. And as for making discernible statements, I avoid doing so when I sense my interlocutors aren't really invested in engaging the topic or taking the time to understand what I'm actually saying.

My apologies for not playing the game according to your rules.

You are right about one thing, though: context ALWAYS matters. The twist is that the context that matters might not be the one we think matters most.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I've made positive statements all through this thread (and in the other). I just haven't made any conclusive statements.

We'll, try a couple out. Assuming that you've reached some conclusions.

And as for making discernible statements, I avoid doing so when I sense my interlocutors aren't really invested in engaging the topic or taking the time to understand what I'm actually saying.

I'll bein this thread as long as people are interested in discussing their opinions on absolute morality. Try being concise and specific about what your position is. As opposed to comments like this:

You are right about one thing, though: context ALWAYS matters.

That's good. We have an agreement. But...

The twist is that the context that matters might not be the one we think matters most.

What context that matters? What twist? How does it differ from what we think matters most? Why the riddle? Speak plainly.

 

[Ophiolite]

While I sympathize with your apparent felt loss of time, I'm not a believer that Critical Analysis always and only produces clarity. Sometimes, many times really, it produces more questions and less assurance of things we all thought we've known really well.

But I know. Someone needs to be held accountable. So, maybe take your complaints to various Existentialists and Critical Realists and other similar theorists who have influenced my own critical approach to studying the world.

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

 

[Bradskii]

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

Ah yes. 'The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true...'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

And how many truly substantive and personally engaged exchanges which equate to a nice little morning coffee chat have you and I had in the past? One? No, I'm not sure we've ever had even that.

Personally, I'm not going to take all of the blame in how certain folks read what I write and are amazed by my ingrained aloofness and indirectness, and only see in me an overloaded Jester:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We'll, try a couple out. Assuming that you've reached some conclusions.

I'll bein this thread as long as people are interested in discussing their opinions on absolute morality. Try being concise and specific about what your position is. As opposed to comments like this:

That's good. We have an agreement. But...

What context that matters? What twist? How does it differ from what we think matters most? Why the riddle? Speak plainly.

I'm an Existentialist for a reason, Bradskii.

The only 'conclusion' I have is that: no one, including me, knows everything that's needed. It's an unfortunate outcome of imbibing many of the considerations that reside within the field of The Philosophy of History. As well as those in the fields of both Epistemology and Ethics.

 

[Ophiolite]

And how many truly substantive and personally engaged exchanges which equate to a nice little morning coffee chat have you and I had in the past? One? No, I'm not sure we've ever had even that.

Personally, I'm not going to take all of the blame in how certain folks read what I write and are amazed by my ingrained aloofness and indirectness, and only see in me an overloaded Jester:

It seems I was too indirect. I am not suggesting you are Danny Kaye, or even the Hans Christian Andersen character he played, but the King. The King who was "in the all-together, all-together as naked as the day that he was born". You imply you wear this marvelous suit of philosophical clothing, radiant with enough ologies to power a small university. It seems increasingly that the main beneficiary of this erudtion and wisdom is yourself. It's benefits are otherwise invisible.
I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. Observations, as you know, are subjective. I'm the Jester in this piece, performing the time honoured role of Jesters. (Relax, there will be no fee.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems I was too indirect. I am not suggesting you are Danny Kaye, or even the Hans Christian Andersen character he played, but the King. The King who was "in the all-together, all-together as naked as the day that he was born". You imply you wear this marvelous suit of philosophical clothing, radiant with enough ologies to power a small university. It seems increasingly that the main beneficiary of this erudtion and wisdom is yourself. It's benefits are otherwise invisible.
I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. Observations, as you know, are subjective. I'm the Jester in this piece, performing the time honoured role of Jesters. (Relax, there will be no fee.)

Yes, I know you meant "the King." I purposely didn't post that little ditty of a video.

But yeah, I have two degrees and all I ever get is a handwaive away of anything which constitutes the structure of my own perspective (I.e. academic source, book, journal articles, etc.).

Despite your observation, is it any wonder that I refuse the interlocution? I ask others for their formative sources by which they've become educated so I can better understand their perspectives, but then all I get in return are criticisms, catcalls and dismissals. So, I'm left thinking: why try with these people?

Who knows? Maybe my wife is right. Maybe I am "just wasting my time trying to talk to people."

 

[Ophiolite]

Despite your observation, is it any wonder that I refuse the interlocution? I ask others for their formative sources by which they've become educated so I can better understand their perspectives, but then all I get in return are criticisms, catcalls and dismissals. So, I'm left thinking: why try with these people?

Get real. Try to pretend you have some common sense. I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology. That's because I have been a student and practitioner of geology for more than half a century. I have not spent the same amount of time, nor been exposed to such an extensive milieu when it comes to the formative sources for my position on morality. Someone who implicitly claims an understanding of espistemology ought to be aware of that probability. It's difficult to avoid the dichotomous conclusion that this seeming lapse on your part is either deliberate obscuration, or simple incompetence. I am willing to consider alternative explanations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get real. Try to pretend you have some common sense. I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology. That's because I have been a student and practitioner of geology for more than half a century. I have not spent the same amount of time, nor been exposed to such an extensive milieu when it comes to the formative sources for my position on morality. Someone who implicitly claims an understanding of espistemology ought to be aware of that probability. It's difficult to avoid the dichotomous conclusion that this seeming lapse on your part is either deliberate obscuration, or simple incompetence. I am willing to consider alternative explanations.

I don't believe in "common sense." Only non-sense is common.

And I'm glad to know that you're competent in Geology. That's a plus in my book.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology.

6/10: could use more irrelevant modifiers

 

[Ophiolite]

6/10: could use more irrelevant modifiers

I ran out of ink.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't believe in "common sense." Only non-sense is common.

And I'm glad to know that you're competent in Geology. That's a plus in my book.

I also reject common sense as a concept, but it served its purpose here.

Also, there is nothing in my post that indicated that I am competent in Geology, only that I can attest to the route to my current standing on the incompetent - competent spectrum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I also reject common sense as a concept, but it served its purpose here.

For one of us it did. I just don't accept the insinuation that I suffer from some form of Narcissism. To me, to toss that sort of atribution out toward another person like it's just so much low hanging fruit is a typical leftist form of rhetoric.

But, I'll take it with a grain of salt, extend you an olive branch and apply a little grace by not too firmly assuming you actually had such an insinuation in mind.

Also, there is nothing in my post that indicated that I am competent in Geology, only that I can attest to the route to my current standing on the incompetent - competent spectrum.

I could have sworn you said in the past you earned a degree in either Geology or Anthropology. Is my memory incorrect on this point?

 

[Bradskii]

The only 'conclusion' I have is that: no one, including me, knows everything that's needed. It's an unfortunate outcome of imbibing many of the considerations that reside within the field of The Philosophy of History. As well as those in the fields of both Epistemology and Ethics.

Do you talk like this down at the local bar?

I'm well aware of the dictum that says the more we know the more that we realise that we don't know. But what we have learned in the first place should still be available. It's not like you're Homer and have to forget a bunch of stuff to learn something new. So what good is all that book learnin' if it means that you don't generate some opinions on matters such as objective morality?

Throwing your hands in the air and suggesting that no-one can know everything that's needed is a cop out. It's an excuse not to put forward an argument. Because...what? You might find that someone has a better one? We'll, here's a heads up: That's how we make advances in our knowledge. It's a means to grow. We test what we have studied and what we think we know in the market place of ideas. One of those 'market places' where that happens is called a forum. So if you don't want to put your own ideas forward to test them here, in this forum, then I really don't know why you're here.

So, what's your current understanding of the concept of absolute morality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you talk like this down at the local bar?

I most definitely do, except when it becomes obvious that for the sake of education, I have to dumb something down.

I'm well aware of the dictum that says the more we know the more that we realise that we don't know. But what we have learned in the first place should still be available. It's not like you're Homer and have to forget a bunch of stuff to learn something new. So what good is all that book learnin' if it means that you don't generate some opinions on matters such as objective morality?

Throwing your hands in the air and suggesting that no-one can know everything that's needed is a cop out. It's an excuse not to put forward an argument. Because...what? You might find that someone has a better one? We'll, here's a heads up: That's how we make advances in our knowledge. It's a means to grow. We test what we have studied and what we think we know in the market place of ideas. One of those 'market places' where that happens is called a forum. So if you don't want to put your own ideas forward to test them here, in this forum, then I really don't know why you're here.

Originally, 15 years ago, my main reason for being here was to either encourage or to educate others who struggled toward the Christian Faith. I was never here to debate, and definitely not here to exchange hamfisted sarcasms with smart-alecky atheists.

But then, numerous Ex-Christians began to pop up with increasing regularity, necessitating a change of mode on my part. Even with that being the case, I'm not here to debate, and I leave it up to others to continually guess existentially what that means.

So, what's your current understanding of the concept of absolute morality?

My current understanding of it, such as my own limits will allow, is to realize that there was no sane reason why Lenina had to be murdered or that the Savage had to come to a bad end. Some of my realization in this comes out of the Religious Language Problem, but I would aver that it also comes out of what I'd likewise call the Ethical Language Problem. The term, absolute, is itself relative in certain ways and can be used with different connotations, depending, as you (and I) say, upon the specific set of contexts in which it is used, or by whom it is used. Particularly this last point.

The rest of what I might be tempted to say about Absolute Morality or about Normative Moral Relativism would be hashed out from the following sources, and others that I'd add in due time:

Sahakian, William S. Ethics: An introduction to theories and problems. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.​

​

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering right and wrong, 2nd Edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.​

​

Shafer-Landau, Russ. The fundamentals of ethics. Vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.​

​

Hare, R.M. Sorting out ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.​

​

Cooper, David. Value pluralism & ethical choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.​

​

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The elements of moral philosophy. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2007.​

​

Taylor, Paul W. The moral judgment: Readings in Contemporary Meta-Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.​

​

Harrod, Howard L. The human center: Moral agency in the social world. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.​

​

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. Thinking critically about ethical issues. California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1992.​

​

Rosen, Bernard. Strategies of ethics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.​

​

Rachels, James. Created from animals: The moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press, 1990.​

​

Epstein, Greg M. Good without God: What a billion nonreligious people do believe. New York: Harper, 2009.​

​

Gowans, Chris, "Moral Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), ( Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2021 Edition) ).​

​

Westacott, Emrys, "Moral Relativism", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy )​

​

**********************************************************************​

​

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009.​

​

Dershowitz, Alan M. The genesis of justice. Warner Books, 2000.​

​

Coady, C.A.J., "The Problem of Dirty Hands", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <The Problem of Dirty Hands (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2024 Edition)>.​

​

**********************************************************************​

​

Meeks, Wayne A. The origins of Christian morality: The first two centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993​

​

Crook, Roger H. An introduction to Christian ethics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.​

​

Outka, Gene H. and Ramsy, Paul (eds.) Norm and context in Christian ethics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968.​

​

Wogaman, J. Philip. A Christian method of moral judgment. Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1976.​

​

Hollinger, Dennis P. Choosing the Good. Michigan: Baker Books, 2002.​

​

Clark, David K. and Rakestraw, Robert V. Readings in Christian Ethics: Volume 1 Theory and method. Michigan: Baker Books, 1994.​

​

Mott, Stephen Charles. Biblical ethics and social change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.​

​

Boyd, Craig A. A shared reality: A narrative defense of Natural Law Ethics. Michigan: Brazos Press, 2007.​

​

Sittser, Gerald L. Loving across our differences. Illinois: IVP, 1994.​

​

Green, Joel B., Jacqueline Lapsley, Rebekah Miles, and Allen Verhey, eds. Dictionary of Scripture and ethics. Baker Academic, 2011.​

​

**********************************************************************​

​

Frankenstein – Mary Shelley​

​

Brave New World – Aldous Huxley​

​

Animal Farm – George Orwell​

​

1984 – George Orwell​

​

Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury​

​

The Scarlet Letter – Nathaniel Hawthorne​

​

The Lord of the Flies – William Golding​

​

The Screwtape Letters – C.S. Lewis​

​

**********************************************************************​

​

Revelation - John of Patmos​

​

​

 

[o_mlly]

It never gave me any "gifts".

His preferred pronoun is "He"; not "it".

The Holy Spirit's gifts are given but one must accept the gift to actuate its effects.

Other gifts include knowledge, wisdom and understanding. The fruit of "joy" follows. The pagan Aristotle knew as much, "Now what is characteristic of any nature is that which is best for it and gives most joy. Such to man is the life according to reason, since it is that which makes him man."

For the Christian, nothing gives more joy than to use the Holy Spirit's gifts to defend our beliefs against the worldly non-believers. John 15:18.

 

[Bradskii]

The rest of what I might be tempted to say about Absolute Morality or about Normative Moral Relativism would be hashed out from the following sources, and others that I'd add in due time:

As I said, all that book learnin' yet you can't even put forward a position on the differences that you see between objective and relative morality. Except to say 'Go read a book'.

What a complete waste of time (both yours and, more importantly, mine).