From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 13:23:48 BST
Arlo:
Thanks for a thoughtful post on the subject of morality. I'm constantly
amazed that in a discussion of a metaphysics in which morality is the
cornerstone there seems to be a great reluctance to talk about it. In
hopes that this will change, I offer this as a new thread.
> [Platt]
> Well, I don't think it's necessary to pour over all your past posts. Do you
> deny that you consider Christian moral principles worthy of following in
> your own dealings with others?
>
> [Arlo]
> What I've always said, Platt, was that I agree with many "Christian moral
> principles", but not out of agreement or acceptance with their religion.
> Hence, I would never call for the "adoption" of a "Judeo-Christian moral
> code". To do so would be deceitful.
In the past I've said that in lieu of the MOQ the moral principles that
most here seem to believe stem from Christianity, as you suggest. I'm not
sure, however, that it's necessary to believe in the Christian religion to
"adopt" the Judeo-Christian code. Would you call for the adoption of any
moral code other than the Christina one? Or is it a matter of individual
choice?
> [Arlo]
> Instinct? Ai yi yi... It means nothing more than if my choice is to be a
> vegetarian or Buddhist or whatever, I do so. I don't focus that choice
> outwards into a mandate for others.
This suggests to me that you believe that it's up to each individual to
determine right and wrong, just as each individual determines what has
value and what doesn't. Am I correct?
> If I believe "killing is wrong", then I
> don't kill. If society believes it to be a benefit for the enforcement of
> this "moral" by social power, then so long as that "moral" was accepted by
> a majority, having provided opposing views fair voice to air opposition,
> and to continue to air opposition, then I support the right of society to
> enforce it. That's a little overgeneralized, but its the jist.
We agree on the high morality of democracy vs. alternatives.
> If, in arguing that a particular "moral" should be adopted based on the
> will of supernatural deity is what some want to do, that is their concern.
> But for morals that are adopted soley on the claim of the Supremeity of a
> God, then I usually find that that moral does not serve society, but serves
> a particular, narrow power base. If someone needs the christian god to tell
> them that "murder" is immoral, who am I to care? I don't. I find its value
> through both secular rationalism, and the MOQ.
What are the moral principles of secular rationalism. Are they written
down anywhere? Are they "scientific" because they are based on psychology,
sociology or anthropology?
> When laws against "murder"
> are adopted by the state, I support them, because I see that they serve the
> entire social base. "Gay marriage", as its opponents argue, is immoral
> because of the Words of a Supernatural Being. Given that, I see no evidence
> that it serves society to enforce this "moral". It serves only the narrow,
> individual religion power base. If you, or anyone else, can prove to me
> that allowing gays to marry threatens society irrespective of a
> Supernatural Commandment, you are welcome to try. But remember, we are not
> just talking about social change, or that some parts of society would be
> altered... but social destruction. If its only social change, then society
> (as a MOQ level) is not really threatened, is it? With murder, on the other
> hand, it is easy to see that if society did not enfore laws against it, a
> complete collapse of the social layer would likely result.
I believe society has an obligation to foster child-bearing families
because that is the basic unit required to sustain a viable society. But,
we've had this discussion before. Am I correct to presume you would
support a democratic vote on the issue of gay marriage rather than a court
decree?
> How do I explain terrorists? I think that most (from McVeigh to Bin Laden)
> are hypotized by the allure of very simplistic, fundamental, and extremely
> nationalistic responses to a feeling (real or imagined) of
> disenfranchisement or powerlessness. Within this framework, they become to
> themselves the Hero and they amass power (symbolic, or ego, power) by
> displays of resistence to whatever threat they fear. But that is simplistic
> too. Because organized terror, I believe, has a hypocritical zenith. That
> is, the leaders manipulate the rhetoric not out of the advancement of some
> moral agenda, but are addicted to the power (material power and symbolic
> power) such a position brings. This is (partly) why Hamas will never
> transition to peace, or will never do so without significant alterations in
> its power structure. Alterations, I hasten to add, that must come from
> *within*, as people "loss faith" in serving the power of the terrorist
> leaders, and "establish faith" in others means of resistence (not "peace",
> I do have to say).. of which "voting" is one.
You seem to frame most human behavior as power struggles. Is that they way
you view the human condition?
> As for "headhunters", I believe the practice has its roots in particular
> tribal religious beliefs, that as horrid as the appear to outsiders, appear
> normal within the tribal context. The practice, as I understand it, was to
> not just defeat the enemy in battle, but to somehow capture their warriors'
> essence, or spirit, or something, and they did this by mummifying the
> severed heads of the enemy dead, believing that they would be beneficial
> amulets that could be used to garner benefits for the tribe.
>
> I got news fer ya, Platt. If you'd've been born into a tribe that had this
> cultural practice, you'd be one too. The practice, are as all
> cultural-historical activities, is not "instinctual" for them, but
> appropriated during their emergence within that cultural milieu.
This suggests that morality has its roots in cultural tradition, giving
the individual no alternative. Am I wrong to think this contradicts what
you said at the beginning about your personal choice?
> [Platt]
> Again I ask, do you not find the Judeo-Christian morality a basis for your
> own actions? What other basis would you suggest we use?
>
> [Arlo]
> This is, of course, a difficult answer to put into a paragraph. Of course,
> I "came into being" within a Judeo-Christian tradition. So, how can I say
> that exposure to the philosophical moral issues of the tradition had no
> impact on me? However, as an adult I have sought further justification on
> individual moral issues from sources other than "supernatural demands".
> What you call "secular rationalism" is one such source. Another is, of
> course, the MOQ. Thus, I oppose morality that serves only the power needs
> of a particular religious structure without providing any reasonable social
> benefit. This is, I believe, one function of the emergent Intellectual
> level. To argue whether a particular "moral" is a necessary social
> enforcement, or not, so as to free people from blind, unnecessary social
> constraints.
A difficult question and answer indeed. But, to my mind a discussion long
overdue on this site supposedly devoted to "an inquiry into morals.".
> [Platt]
> Is secular rationalism your answer for the basis of a moral code? Or the
> authority of past practices. Or a moral instinct? Or some combination?
>
> In sum, how do you decide that some things are better than others?
>
> [Arlo]
> Its a basis for which moral codes are enforced by social power, and which
> are left to individuals to argue for or against without social power
> interference. "Killing", as I've said, can easily be shown with a secular
> rational framework to be devastating to society, even to threaten the very
> fabric of its existence. And so should be placed in the hands of social
> power to enforce. "Gay marriage" (to continue using our beloved example)
> can not be shown to threaten the fabric of society and so should be left
> for individuals to choose to accept or deny for their own lives, and have
> public discourse on, without the interference of social power.
>
> How do I, personally, decide that some things are better? Empathetic
> intuition resting on critical observations and examinations.
Worth exploring further I think. I presume "empathetic intuition"
translates in the current vernacular as "sensitivity" and that "critical
observations and examinations" is an appeal to use the scientific method.
I'm not sure a moral code can be built on those foundations. That's why
the MOQ appealed to me I guess. Phaedrus didn't come across to me as a
very "sensitive" person. And he challenged science as having no provision
for morals. But I'll try to keep an open mind about it.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 13:30:14 BST