The need for a system of values

[dr.p]

The reason I say it is a system is because you clearly have a system for applying this principle. IOW, you have a system for recognizing what needs others have, and to understand how to go about helping others. You may not be fully conscious of this system, but this understanding guides you when you are in those situations.

Regardless, I doubt that Maslow had in mind a "set of laws or rules" when he spoke of a system of values. Values aren't necessarily "laws or rules". Fundamentally, moral values are goals that are recognized as worthwhile and therefore choice-worthy. By "a system of values", Maslow probably meant an understanding that could be used as a guide, much as you have an understanding of how to help others.

He probably would not have thought that a basic value applied to many situations is any less a system of values. So we are probably just quibbling over semantics instead of content.

That is precisely the point.

Though I'll bet he was thinking of an ethics that aims at psychological health rather than something like a traditional religion. Since you too are advocating an ethics (perhaps a simpler one), you are taking a stance similar to his. It seems that you both have a medicine to hand out.

I doubt that Maslow would disagree. Please keep in mind that he is against promoting an ethics that we are exhorted to "believe and have faith." Nevertheless, it can't hurt to have someone shine a light of understanding to aid one's reflection, just as it couldn't hurt for you to suggest the idea that "helping others" is a good moral value. One's experience and reflection is not made any worse for this.

Well said. We are arguing semantics I looked up Maslow and read some other stuff of his, re-read your quote from him, etc. As I said before, I agree with his observations. They are scientific; impartial; good stuff.

- EDIT - Argument retracted. Pushing the wrong point.

 

[stranger]

you have a system for recognizing what needs others have, and to understand how to go about helping others. You may not be fully conscious of this system, but this understanding guides you when you are in those situations.

Simple observation indicates a plethora of such systems in the world , some are called churches, some are called humanist, and some 'Jewish' ones cling to an old covenant .... but not one of them solves the problem of 24,000 pathetic scraps of humanity starving to death every day ... are they all hypocrisy then ? or just wrong because they do not work?

Equally if God gave all truth to all men [and one has to find out why He doesn't!] then men who followed that truth [as many claim to do] would be united in one truth [clearly this does not happen] and they would live as saints [we do not see this in any group of men today either , only in the groups in scripture who followed Jesus]

How then can men of thought be satisfied with subjective ill-defined moralities , unbased, relative,...????

 

[TeddyKGB]

Simple observation indicates a plethora of such systems in the world , some are called churches, some are called humanist, and some 'Jewish' ones cling to an old covenant .... but not one of them solves the problem of 24,000 pathetic scraps of humanity starving to death every day ... are they all hypocrisy then ? or just wrong because they do not work?

Equally if God gave all truth to all men [and one has to find out why He doesn't!] then men who followed that truth [as many claim to do] would be united in one truth [clearly this does not happen] and they would live as saints [we do not see this in any group of men today either , only in the groups in scripture who followed Jesus]

How then can men of thought be satisfied with subjective ill-defined moralities , unbased, relative,...????

It depends on the context of the term "satisfied." While I might prefer a list of rights and wrongs handed down from on high (whatever that means), it nonetheless is more consistent with the facts to consider morality some kind of ad hoc rationalization for evolved behaviors. Thus, while I might be somewhat emotionally unsatisfied that there is no objective right and wrong, I am relatively intellectually statisfied that the answer I get makes the most sense to me.

 

[Danhalen]

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you agree with Maslow? Disagree? Explain your response.

I disagree with the quote as applied to all of humanity. There are those who hold to nihilism or are apathists. Myself, I'm pretty much an absurdist when it comes to metaphysical propositions, so I fall back on pragmatism. Simply put, there are those of us who do not need to find meaning in order to live healthy lives.

 

[David Gould]

I am unclear how someone cannot have a system of values. But maybe I did not understand the op.

I agree with nadroj that you cannot have a system of values that is justified in the sense that Maslow is talking about.

This is because the basis of your system needs justification.

 

[stranger]

It depends on the context of the term "satisfied." While I might prefer a list of rights and wrongs handed down from on high (whatever that means), it nonetheless is more consistent with the facts to consider morality some kind of ad hoc rationalization for evolved behaviors. Thus, while I might be somewhat emotionally unsatisfied that there is no objective right and wrong, I am relatively intellectually statisfied that the answer I get makes the most sense to me.

I have observed that even people who are deeply sceptic in outlook, examining alomst everythinbg in depth and questioning all aspects, still content themselves with a purely relative subjective 'morality' as a 'way of life'... as though the criteria of truth dsiappear once on is considering morality, free-will, justice, ethics.... it is a major flaw in huamn philosophy that ranks alongside our misplaced faith in language [proven 'incomplete' and used in contradictory ways to establish things in men's minds]...

As with our 'Psychology' and 'Social Science' then one ends up with inconsistent theories being adopted beacuse they are popular, as if the truth could be 'normalised [as in religious 'dogma']

The casualty then is any hope of finding an absolute by these methods , and the irony is that the truth of God MUST be absolute...

The problem that must then be faced eventually if there is a god, is that intellectual satisfaction with oneself, one's ways, is not what God is 'seeking' to instill in us eventually, but rather His absolute truth

Job 11:10 If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?
11 For he knoweth vain men: he seeth wickedness also; will he not then consider it?
12 For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass’s colt.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste mark,

interesting. i've not read much of Maslows' work before.

perhaps it is a quirk of the language, however, this view seems predicated upon the idea that a really existing, substantial self exists. i do not know if he held to a Cartesian "I" or if he believed in an eternal soul or self, some identifiable "me".

so, i would say that if a being held the view that an "I" existed and also felt that their current system of ethics was insufficient, then this could be a valid path by which they can gain the moral and ethical fulfillment which they desire.

metta,

~v

 

[TeddyKGB]

I have observed that even people who are deeply sceptic in outlook, examining alomst everythinbg in depth and questioning all aspects, still content themselves with a purely relative subjective 'morality' as a 'way of life'... as though the criteria of truth dsiappear once on is considering morality, free-will, justice, ethics.... it is a major flaw in huamn philosophy that ranks alongside our misplaced faith in language [proven 'incomplete' and used in contradictory ways to establish things in men's minds]...

Though I don't particularly see what skepticism has to do with it, I don't consider morality "purely relative." Morality has a substantial social component, and while it ultimately relies on the individual to incorporate behavioral standards, it seems like there is a great deal of intersubjective agreement.

As with our 'Psychology' and 'Social Science' then one ends up with inconsistent theories being adopted beacuse they are popular, as if the truth could be 'normalised [as in religious 'dogma']

Sure, it's hella lame that something so seemingly important as morality lacks an obvious logical basis, but them's the breaks. Very few concepts are accessible purely by deductive logic.

The casualty then is any hope of finding an absolute by these methods , and the irony is that the truth of God MUST be absolute...

And the further irony is that Euthyphro makes a mockery of this position.

The problem that must then be faced eventually if there is a god, is that intellectual satisfaction with oneself, one's ways, is not what God is 'seeking' to instill in us eventually, but rather His absolute truth

If God really wants me to overcome that "problem," he'll find a way to make it happen.

 

[nadroj1985]

Why is that?

Well, on the simplest level, because a value is needed to justify a system of values. I don't think a value system can be "empirically justified" without colliding head on with the is-ought fallacy. So, if a value justifies a system of values, that justifying value must be outside the system, and therefore unjustified. How do we keep this from becoming an infinite regress?

 

[stranger]

It depends on the context of the term "satisfied." While I might prefer a list of rights and wrongs handed down from on high (whatever that means), it nonetheless is more consistent with the facts to consider morality some kind of ad hoc rationalization for evolved behaviors. Thus, while I might be somewhat emotionally unsatisfied that there is no objective right and wrong, I am relatively intellectually statisfied that the answer I get makes the most sense to me.

My point is that it is intellectually unsatisfactory too to believe in subjective morality ... and that scripture does not support it either [because God Himself created evil and men cannot resist temptation to sin until God give the baptism of the spirit to all men, not until the new earth]

Thus scripturally the sense of satisfaction with human judgement of humans by sinners on subjective basis is simply delusion , however common, however 'normalised' in society by it common [irrational] practice and the irrational belief in 'free-will' [in the common misunderstanding that men behave randomly, making decisions in uncaused manner]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[stranger]

Though I don't particularly see what skepticism has to do with it, I don't consider morality "purely relative." Morality has a substantial social component, and while it ultimately relies on the individual to incorporate behavioral standards, it seems like there is a great deal of intersubjective agreement.

normalisation does not exclude subjectivity ... it is not a matter of even a large group agreeing on some relative morality... things do not become true just because many people might agree on a convention ... that does not remove its subjectivity or conditional nature ...

More importantly, in the spiritual context, God accepts all creation of evil is by Himself and that men cannot resist Satan's tenmptations before He gives them belief in His 'law of love' , faith in His truth... thus how could men be responsible in relation to any ethical system when they have no means to be 'good' even by God's measure of good-ness , love ?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Sure, it's hella lame that something so seemingly important as morality lacks an obvious logical basis, but them's the breaks. Very few concepts are accessible purely by deductive logic.

You missed the point, there is no basis for morality at all except the delusion set on men by God, it ain't important at all, it is a myth, provably contradictory in nature with God's scripture and with men's observation that men's beliefs on which we act are just as caused as everything else we observe... hence men simply are what we are made to be as God moves us by giving or with-holding his spirit... we are all in service to god, used by him as-it-were in His apparent and declared purpose in this earth and beyond this earth

And the further irony is that Euthyphro makes a mockery of this position.

If God really wants me to overcome that "problem," he'll find a way to make it happen.

Not ironic at all, but scripture actually describes how and when men will overcome the temporary delusion set on most men by God... the 'problem' is that men will not raed , nor can most understand , the scripture and find out their lot ,,, the irony then is that christians say that they believe the scripture when they disbelieve most of it completely and follow the tales of sinners who by definition are in slavery through sin to Satan [who equally is driven by God of course, but most men equally hardly begin to understand that , obviously]

 

[stranger]

I disagree with the quote as applied to all of humanity. There are those who hold to nihilism or are apathists. Myself, I'm pretty much an absurdist when it comes to metaphysical propositions, so I fall back on pragmatism. Simply put, there are those of us who do not need to find meaning in order to live healthy lives.

Indeed, very pragmatic indeed, even God points out that natural man simply cannot understand and finds the spirit a foolish idea :-

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Thus if scripture is true these men have found a true way to live in this world by its apparent rules, and will be given baptism of the spirit into all truth of God only after resurrection... in the next life...

So if one is resurrected it may well change one views of metaphysics [that there are things beyond our limited physics which are nonetheless very real indeed] , but what need has anyone of belief in these things until God reveals them to men , there is no such need !

On the other hand the divided teachings of sinners on what scripture menas are obviously logically false, there can be only one truth of God and it MUST agree with ALL scripture, not just the bits men fish out to support pagan dogma and even philosophy of sinners as in modern christainity....

Thus the atheist of absurdist or agnostic may end up being less of a sinner than the average christian who just follows other sinners [ignoring most of the scripture] ... there is an irony in that < Satan has more use for christians than for atheists and absurdists

 

[stranger]

I am unclear how someone cannot have a system of values. But maybe I did not understand the op.

I agree with nadroj that you cannot have a system of values that is justified in the sense that Maslow is talking about.

This is because the basis of your system needs justification.

The reason and belief that no-one has a consistent system of values can be derived through raesoning that all such systems are relative, conditional, inconsistent, or by simply raeding the scripture and accepting god's word that he created evil, not mankind ... thus God is 'responsible' if anyone is responsible for sin...

[One might go on to see that God's creation of evil is simply a result of His knowing all things and thus that it is inevitable, not a question of 'responsibility at all! ..., and notice that the reality of God, the spirit, is our ultimate reality, not what we view as reality now , a realisation that could change one's view of what this apparent life is about]

Thus i ahve no difficulty whatsoever living without an 'ethics', or 'morality', but solely looking toward the fulfillment of the desire to love in myself that cannot be fulfilled without God's gift, baptism of the spirit into all His truth ,as promised to all men eventually, but not in this 'life' - Joel 2:28- ]