»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
In Harm’s Way
| Philosophy 101 |
|
In Harm’s Way |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
What moral obligation does one have to risk his life for a stranger in danger? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
/pip/Forum8/HTML/000575.html |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Do you mean moral imperative? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I'm not speaking about sharing food but rather burning building. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Moral obligation is an oxymoron. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Not if you practice what you preach. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
To practice or not is a choice. Ron's point. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How does that exempt it from being an obligation? I never meant it wasn't a choice. But rather that it is a binding between saying and doing. To me that is an obligation and a choice. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I may be obligated to pay my taxes. To pay my taxes though, is a choice. |
||
|
Mandamus Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13 |
One's moral position might compel a person to risk his life for another. I don't have a problem with the idea of a "moral obligation" as long as it is understood as an internal force that compels a person rather than an external influence. Regarding the burning building, there might be social pressures that push us to rush into the burning building to save a stranger, but that isn't a moral obligation ... it is a social, or possibly and ethical, one. Mandamus |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Rebel "I may be obligated to pay my taxes. To pay my taxes though, is a choice. " That's what I hoped were shown, Local: That there is both an obligation and a choice. You are obligated (obligation) to pay, and you choose (choice) to pay. Isn't it the cooperation of both that works best? Mandamus, "that isn't a moral obligation ... it is a social, or possibly and ethical, one." "social" and "ethical" aren't moral??  |
||
|
Mandamus Junior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 13 |
Social and ethical influences are about what ought to be. Moral is a description of what is. Ethics and morality are terms with different meanings. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I don't believe at the time, one thinks about morals or obligation, it's a reflex/reaction deep within us that drives us on to help someone in harm's way? |
||
|
Cloud 9 Senior Member
since 2004-11-05
Posts 980Ca |
I agree with LeeJ. Here is a story for you. A couple of months ago, a man was on his way to work in the mist of traffic. He sees ahead of him an accident and a car has went off the embankment. He pulls over, calls 911 and helps this woman. She has kids with her. During this time of him "helping someone in harms way", his work truck that he was driving is stolen with all of his tools in it. The end to this story is the woman and her kids came out with only minor injuries. However, because of his heroism, he was given a truck from one of the local dealerships and HomeDepot replaced all of his tools. Oh and they found his truck totaled. So is this considered a "moral obligation?" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“I don't believe at the time, one thinks about morals or obligation, it's a reflex/reaction deep within us that drives us on to help someone in harm's way?” Are we suggesting an instinctive morality that overcomes the urge to preserve personal life? Is this somehow an evolutionary distinction between a higher and lower form of the species Man? “A couple of months ago, a man was on his way to work in the mist of traffic. He sees ahead of him an accident and a car has went off the embankment. He pulls over, calls 911 and helps this woman. She has kids with her. During this time of him "helping someone in harms way", his work truck that he was driving is stolen with all of his tools in it. The end to this story is the woman and her kids came out with only minor injuries. However, because of his heroism, he was given a truck from one of the local dealerships and HomeDepot replaced all of his tools. Oh and they found his truck totaled. So is this considered a "moral obligation?" ‘ Don’t understand; how was he to foresee an award; besides was his life ever in danger? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I don't understand this. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
categoricalimperative quote: This is why I think imperative is a better word than obligation here. Though I'm not completely happy with the example given above ('Do your duty!' is an imperative), the basic idea is that there is a right thing to do in all circumstances and regardless of outcome. The problem with obligation is already touched on: quote: --Mandamus Why muddy the waters? If a moral act is freely chosen that choice is already internal. How much you really want to do it or why you chose it isn't really the issue --I think. Imperative is better because, again I think, John isn't really asking whether the right thing to do is something you have to do but whether the right thing to do is right regardless of outcome or circumstance. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, "Imperative" is the better word. John |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: quit sneaking in that telos, that materialistic evolutionists aren't allowed. What does "higher" or "lower" have to do with evolution? quote: Already touched on perhaps, but not established, or really explained. Why is the idea of obligation problematic, when it comes to the question of moral behavior? quote: "Having to do" something would constitute coercion, not obligation. But, I think I know what you mean. However, even if we only ask whether an action is "right" regardless of outcome, we will soon ask ourselves what "obligation" we have to moral rightness. So the question, is inextricably involved, if you ask me. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Kant viewed the "categorical imperative" as a function of pure reason, therefore making it a universal, since reason (in Kant's thinking) was the unifying theme of reality. Conversely, he also spoke of this in terms of "autonomy" ... "Autonomy of the will is that property of it by which it is a law to itself independently of any property of objects of volition. Hence the principle of autonomy is: Never choose except in such a way that the maxims of the choice are comprehended in the same volition as a universal law" (from "Funamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals") But wasn't Kant trying to have his cake and eat it? If "Pure Reason", as abstraction, is the source of the categorical imperative, then it is much more like the heteronomy that he was trying to avoid. Either his autonomy was only apparant, or his "imperative" was only apparant. I really don't think Kant ever explained adequately why one should accept his imperative, as really and truly imperative, without resorting to a subtle form of heteronomic morals. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I have to defend Kant? Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Stephen. As I understand it, the only way to be autonomous is to act in terms of universal law. Anything less is heteronymous. I see this is a definition, not a sloppy shift in thinking. This may not make much sense as we use the words today, but I think his point was that autonomy of will (self-directedness) isn't autonymous if you don't conform to universal law (Reason). Easy example: I want to have a drink tonight. Today, we might argue that having a drink even if my wife gets angry is being autonomous, "I don't care what other people think." But Kant's point is that urges and whatnot aren't truly a part of the self (or at least triggered by other than the self). Thus, having a drink is heteronomous (other directed) precisely because it is an urge. Or to put it another way, as a self-directed individual, I don't really want to have a drink. Is that what you mean? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No, Brad, you don't have to defend Kant. I just digressed to a discussion of Kant, since it caught my interest a bit more than the current discussion of whether "imperative" or "obligatory" is the better word. Incidentally, I think Kant's choice of "imperative" over "obligatory" is of no real significance, other than the fact that the former seems more impersonal, and thus rings better with his non-authoritarian view of ethics. Otherwise the words are pretty much synonymous. I guess it just seems to me that (whether you agree with Kant or not) a discussion of his views on ethics may cut to the underlying issues of this thread, more directly. Because whether or not morals come from "reason" or not, the anti-rational philosophers (Shopenhaur comes to mind) at least taught us to question what authority lies in reason. What makes any of the dictates of reason truly "imperative"? As far as your example of having a drink ... I don't think that actions or urges would necessarily correspond to reason, based upon the categories of "internal" and "external". The urge to drink is itself an internal desire. One may disregard what people think, in order to make the right choice. But one may also disregard what people think, in order to make the wrong choice. ... "I'm going to have another drink, I don't care what people think." My understand of Kant's use of "heteronomic" has to do with external authority ... such as moral teachers, religious institutions, God as orthodox Christian Theism holds, etc ... Man becomes autonomous, in the sense that he must "by his own reason" make moral decisions. Yet Kant crosses his own Phenomenal / Noumenal divide, when he speaks of reason being universal. Maybe he escapes that charge when he says "as if" ... but then it begs the question, why "as if universal" , if it's only "as if"? Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Meanwhile, the house burns down and the person inside dies, which is a kind of solution . . . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
And you stood by, John, waiting to see how others would choose? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Oh I think you can make a pretty good guess . . . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
It seems so many of these discussions end with a Gordian Knot created by participants who become focused on the words used; all the while, when it becomes real, there being an underlying hope or faith that some Alexander will cut through it all and do the right thing. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sometimes they are used synonymously, sometimes they aren't. I think this is one of the times when they aren't. quote: Yes, I agree. The difference between an urge and a truly moral choice isn't one between the external and the internal, but between the ephemeral and the eternal. Reason is seen as eternal. Thus, if a dog runs into the house and saves the guy (while John was watching us argue), it isn't a truly moral act. The dog acted on instinct, not on moral grounds. quote: That's partly it, but also bodily sensations and such are ephemeral. quote: Well, I'm not sure. Reason, properly speaking, is not in the noumenal world. It's not a thing, it's a concept. Should we nevertheless treat it as a 'thing as it is'? Should we see something as true and permanent even though it is, by definition, flawed and fleeting? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"(while John was watching us argue)" Oh Brad, think of me as dead, having no more than the ability to witness, (I spent a year in Okinawa, albeit there they believe the dead have more influence than the living). John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sure. Do you have to go into a burning house to save someone? No. Should you? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Would you? Only if it was someone important to me. If not, and my life was in obvious danger, I most likely would not try to save the person. Why? Priorities. I have other human beings who depend on me John, you're questions aren't any fun unless they are Gordian knots. quote: When it becomes real? Are you joking? Do you honestly believe that this thread is going to change anyone's mind if the real thing happened? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems so many of these discussions end with a Gordian Knot created by participants who become focused on the words used; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Sure. Do you have to go into a burning house to save someone? No. Should you? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Would you? Only if it was someone important to me. If not, and my life was in obvious danger, I most likely would not try to save the person. Why? Priorities. I have other human beings who depend on me” Brad I respect that, and it’s perhaps because there is no one that depends on me so much for their material well being that I saw, (and still perhaps, though unhappily, see) things differently. I, a very long time ago, decided that the existence of a good caring god was not a concern of mankind but rather whether one, whether He existed or not, was deserved. In that context the capacity for self-sacrifice played an important role. I grant that if the person in that burning house was an adult male there might be reservations, but if that person was a woman, (damn me for being chauvinistic ), or a child, (almost by definition innocent of anything that deserves being burned alive), then it becomes a matter of what beliefs, (leap of ), faith in the value of mankind one is willing to die for so as to protect that belief, faith, in others after. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all the while, when it becomes real, there being an underlying hope or faith that some Alexander will cut through it all and do the right thing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "When it becomes real? Are you joking? Do you honestly believe that this thread is going to change anyone's mind if the real thing happened?" I had the good or bad fortune to experience someone to whom such incidentals did matter. I was lucky; she lives. I am more concerned with another like her reading. John |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, I think heroism, to some degree, must remain a necessary ingredient of our thinking. If not, heroism in experience dies completely. There's still a reason that hero stories, as art, move us emotionally and connect with a deep conviction within us all ... namely that, heroism represents moral excellence, if not moral obligation. And yes John, I believe that conviction (that makes our stories so salient) has much to do with the self-sacrificing of God in Christ. Without it, we are bound to look out for number one, and confuse chivalry with chauvinism, and heroism with foolhardiness. Though theory does very little to make heroism a present reality, at least believing that such excellence is real and not imagined, may allow it to peek in from time to time. I'm just one to believe that contemplation influences actions. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, I'm not sure heroism should be defined by a single event. A murderer, whether in thought or deed, who saves another at risk to themselves, whether in thought or deed, isn't necessarily a hero in my eyes. At best, they're just a little schizophrenic. At worst, they are playing God, taking it upon themselves to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. I, too, believe we need heroes, Stephen, but I'd like to hold them to a higher standard than that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I see your point. But I feel that all heroism contains personal risk. That's why it doesn't mix so well with egoism. That seems to be the tension of this thread, despite the problems of extreme theoretical examples. Perhaps it's easier if we move away from the extreme of pulling someone from a fire, to the parable of the good Samaritan. What do you think Jesus was trying to say? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe every human equally deserves life and the safety and saving of his or her life from danger. But I also believe this must be in the most reasonable safety and protection of the lives of those involved in working to help save that person as well. In other words, the people coming into the danger to help must have an advantage over it. People have a moral obligation to risk their lives, but the risk must be under conditions that they have advantage over and ability to minimize the dangers of, with as little harm to anyone involved as possible. Safety and saving of life is not just due to the other person in danger, but it is also due to yourself and everyone else involved. You deserve your life just as much as the person that deserves to be saved. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, quote: He was trying to show that a member of a perceived lower social standard could have a higher moral integrity regardless of his religious or political beliefs. He was also trying to prove that there is a universal moral law. While I agree with the first premise the second seems a little harder to swallow - the supposed universal moral law for instance didn’t stop the Samaritans from being exterminated to near-extinction by the Christians – they’ve dwindled from several hundred thousand to less than 650. I guess the Christians believed that the only Good Samaritan was a dead Samaritan. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, Jesus wasn't trying to "prove" a universal moral law. Those he spoke to were Jewish. He took for granted that they believed in a universal law, and imaginatively appealed to that inner knowledge when he told the parable. But seeing that you deny a universal morality, I want you to at least notice one thing about your arguments ... Your moral censure of those who ill-treated the Samaritans, actually presupposes a universal moral law. What you are saying only has it's effect, when others agree with your ethical complaint, and experience the indignation it invokes. The thunder of your argument only resounds, if this cloud covers us all. If particular violations discredit the moral law in you eyes, I think you're misunderstanding the whole idea of morality. It is, by nature, volitional. For someone who truly understands the nature of the moral law, both transgression and compliance, confirm it. Also, discrediting a math teacher, by pointing out the wrong answers of those who skip class and don't do their homework, doesn't really work. I would think the antithesis between what Jesus actually taught, and the dispicable behavior of men (even men who claim to be Christian, or are Christian only by cultural heritage and not inward illumination), ought to validate what Jesus said. Why? Because you have to agree with his standard, in order to make your case. Stephen. |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
Isn't there some middle ground? Instead of running into the burning building, couldn't one feel an obligation or responsibility to do something...even if it's a bucket of water or a garden hose. I would. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"even if it's a bucket of water or a garden hose." At some point you know a bucket of water won't do . . . Then things and who and what you really are become too real for denial. Essorant, In the Marine Corps, in war, I knew I would never be left behind, as I knew I would not leave someone else behind; it's what mattered . . . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you 100% sure of that Stephanos? I’ll admit my comment was just an interpretation – I read the parable and took a stab in the dark at the most likely meaning. Without any solid evidence that’s all I could do, how did you come to your conclusion? What makes your stab in the dark any closer to the truth than mine? quote: Actually I don’t and that’s my point, you see I don’t expect everyone to be shocked outraged or shaken by the revelation because I don’t think everyone shares a universal moral law. The very fact that people exhibit differing moral standards is evidence that a universal moral law doesn’t exist, you may try to explain this by saying that the law exists but people are choosing to ignore it. Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate Why complicate things – isn’t it more likely that people have differing moral standards because they don’t share one universal standard? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I don't know what you mean exactly by "solid evidence", but considering the audience is an important part of interpreting what any teacher's aim is. His listeners were primarily Jewish. That tells us two things ... 1) They believed that God was concerned about human behavior, and set forth moral absolutes (remember the 10 Commandments)? and 2) They tended to view Samaritans contemptuously, because of a misinterpretation of their own privileges. These generalities are not "a shot in the dark", if you consider what we know historically. The Jews were monolithically a religious people, therefore believing in absolutes. Even the Sadducees (who represented the most theologically "liberal" of the Jews) believed in God, and the 10 commandments. That's why it can be said with a fair amount of certainty, that Jesus was not at all trying to "prove" a universal moral law. He didn't have to. Another clue, is the text itself. Does Jesus speak as a man trying to convince skeptics of a moral absolute, or does he speak like a man who is appealing to assumptions about morality, already held in earnest, by those who were forgetting that their application was valid even toward those they don't particularly like? An argument for universal right and wrong, would naturally contain some hint of metaphysics, or abstraction, or something like that ... But we see nothing like that in Jesus' words. That much is the backdrop, the implicit assumption, upon which this parable is built. quote: My point was ... whether or not you believe in a universal moral law theoretically, you assumed Jesus' moral standard long enough to rebuke the behavior of certain "Christians", in order to state your argument. Thus the very impetus of your argument, is the moral indignation that ill-treatment of others naturally produces. In essence, presuming upon the Judeo-Christian view of morality, in order to refute it. See what I mean? Either ill-treating Samaritans really IS despicable behavior, or your point about those particular mean-spirited "Christians" doesn't penetrate. quote: Overcomplicating things is indeed a troublesome habit. But so is oversimplification, or, as in the case of relativistic morals, non-explanation offered as explanation. The differences between moral codes of pretty much all cultures, have been far less profound than their similarities. The Judeo-Christian view of morals, explains such differences by acknowledging humanity's sin and imperfection ... imagine a room full of artists, ranging from very unskilled to very good, all trying to copy a masterpiece. Differences? Sure. Similarities? Striking. Also, the existence of guilt, is proof that people do act against their own common moral sensibility, and are not merely adopting an alternate standard of morality. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t have any solid evidence that the origin of the parable was Jesus and that the audience was Jewish – and I suspect that you don’t either. So all I have to work with is the parable itself, which isn’t a problem because all versions of the parable maintain the same basic framework: A A person in need of help B A person (or persons) who dislikes A C A person who is disliked by A & B If you like you can use the original topic and re-write the parable to encompass the original question. A Muslim is in a burning building and a Christian walks past without helping, a member of the Jewish faith does the same but an Atheist rushes into the building to help. If there exists a universal moral law the Atheist made the right choice – if moral standards are non-standard and variable they all made the right choice according to their own standards. A variable standard would suggest that different people would make different choices; some good some bad, it would also suggest that other people would judge those choices by reference to their own standards. Sound familiar? quote: I understand what you mean – I just don’t accept that a universal moral law constructed by God is necessary to explain what’s happening. Some people are sympathetic to the idea that ill-treating Samaritans is despicable based on their own gauge of morality, there’s no need to reference Jesus, God or a universal imperative. Your seem to be saying that God has the copyright on moral standards, that any reference to morals is a reference to God’s standard and that no moral standard other than Gods can exist - I don’t agree. A moral standard that is a construct of man, fashioned by interaction and necessity and used to determine choices by individuals is a more plausible theory. The fact that such a theory predicts variable outcomes when faced with moral choices and the fact that that prediction mirrors what we see in the real world adds weight to that plausibility. quote: My money’s on the original artist being human, inventing a supernatural painter is unnecessary. quote: If that were the case how would you explain instances where individuals commit despicable acts and feel no guilt? A variable standard would suggest that in some cases people are likely to commit the most depraved acts and feel no remorse or guilt at all. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Funny, even the majority of non-Christian scholars attribute the parable to Jesus, and are assurred that the audience was Jewish. The New Testament has more manuscript attestation than any other work of ancient literature. Some things are so well established, that the burden of proof is probably yours, if you want to say that the original audience wasn't Jewish, and that someone other than Jesus spoke the parable. So my original points stand. Jesus wasn't trying to prove a universal morality. That much was assumed by his hearers. quote: It's not like the parable is free floating in space, without any grammatico-historical context. You're conveniently forgetting the remainder of the Gospel from which the parable is taken, the remainder of the New Testament, and other concurrent literary works, such as Josephus, among others. There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that the primary audience of "The good Samaritan" was a Jewish one AND that the parable was originally told by Jesus of Nazareth. quote: Not sure what you're getting at here. But I do notice that your "variable standard" would necessarily entail that the Levite who coldly and knowingly passed by a wounded man in need, also made the "right" choice. Intriguing theory, only nobody really agrees with it. quote: Helping a man in true need is not a necessity of interaction. Arbitrariness carries with it nothing imperitave. If morality is merely a construct of man, then egoism wins the day. In your framework, there's no reason why the Levite, or the uninterested passer-by should worry about rescuing anyone, if it slows down his progress. You may say that others will therefore not rescue him, when the time comes. So? That's a gamble many may be willing to take. The odds aren't so against them, seldom coming into such dire straits. Another strike against you, is the psychology of those who help others. How often do people say, afterwards, "I felt like it would be the best thing for myself". No they rather say things like "I knew it was the right thing to do". Also, I have no idea what you mean by predictions mirroring "what we see in the real world". How does the theory that morals are humanistically determined predict anything? quote: Exactly why do you feel the differences in moral standards are more significant than the similarities? If everyone in a room paints something pretty much like the Mona Lisa ... would it really be irrational to think that they've seen it? You never did comment on C.S. Lewis' juxtaposition of the moral codes of ancient civilizations, in the Abolition of Man. Did you think he was wrong, and why? You'll have to humor me here, and give me more than just your wager. Because as you know, I already think that many who call themselves atheists, are literally betting there's no God, in spite of some of their own better moral insights. quote: The question is, which is the predominate case? If more do feel guilt than not, then the absence of it is the exception to the rule. It is an abnormal state which leads them into moral error. The Christian explanation is that sin and depravity can darken the intellect and conscience so much, in certain individuals, that they seem to have no conscience at all. Again, the exception to the rule. One broken clarinet doesn't stop the orchestra. quote: The thing that belies your position, is that you really do feel that such acts are vile and not merely a "different moral standard". You forget that we call people who don't have consciences "sociopaths". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-09-2006 12:24 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The majority of non-Christian scholars? I’d have said ‘some’ and I believe that even those would admit that there’s no solid evidence either way. Just because people propagate myths and legends in literature doesn’t mean that they’re all factually correct. The fact that the myths and legends are well established doesn’t make them true. Take your claim about Josephus, he allegedly mentions Jesus once in the Testimonium Flavianum but even the authenticity of that is highly questionable the oldest copy dating from the 9th century and probably highly edited. The New Testament could be a work of religious propaganda or fiction or a compilation of myth and hearsay – you can claim it as evidence of fact but that still doesn’t make it true. quote: Nobody really agrees with it? What about the Levite? quote: Helping a man in true need is a consequence of social interaction and a necessity for interaction to survive. quote: A man runs into a burning building and saves a child’s life, in a television interview he says, “I knew it was the right thing to do”. A man runs into a burning building to save a child, the fire department arrive and end up saving the man but the child dies, in a television interview he says “I thought it was the right thing to do” A man runs into a burning building to save a child’s life, the man, the child and four firemen perish when the roof collapses. In a television interview a spokesman for the fire department says “ If the guy hadn’t have gone into the building nobody would have been hurt”. For every one of the people saying they knew it was the right thing to do there’s another saying “I thought it was the right thing to do” when the consequences of their actions turn out less than well. Added to that there are a whole bunch of people who might just say, “ I didn’t know it was the wrong thing to do” if they’d actually lived to ruminate on their choice. quote: It’s fairly simple Stephanos, if I theorise that alcohol increases the chance of violence I can predict that there’ll be an increased incidence of violence in and around bars. Of course my theory isn’t proven if violence is increased in and around bars but it is evidence to support it. If I theorise that moral standards are variable I can predict that there’ll be a variation in the choices people make based upon those standards. As it happens there is evidence of such a variation, which is what I alluded to in my ‘mirrors the real world’ statement. A universal standard on the other hand would suggest universally similar choices based on that standard, so why doesn’t the real world reflect such a prediction? And if one standard exists what is the correct thing to do when faced with a child trapped in a burning buiding? quote: Because the differences suggest that moral standards differ. quote: Not at all, my objection is in the unnecessary presumption that God painted it. quote: I can’t recall you asking me to, start another thread with a summary of his ideas and I’ll be happy to oblige. quote: Whereas you’re betting that there is a God and he happens to be Christian. 1 God exists and he’s Christian – you win 2 God exists and he isn’t Christian – you lose 3 God doesn’t exist – you lose 1 God exists and he’s Christian – I lose 2 God exists and he isn’t Christian – I lose 3 God doesn’t exist – I win In one sense the real gambler here is you, you’re betting your whole way of life that a God exists and that he’s Christian, if you win you get the chance to be judged. I’m risking nothing and stand to gain nothing; you’re risking everything on a chance to get more. quote: I feel that such acts are vile when gauged against my own moral standard, which is obviously different to the moral standard of the person(s) that commit such acts. If he, she or they had the same moral standards as me they wouldn’t commit the acts. Just because I see something as vile doesn’t make it universally vile. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Sorry, Grinch, but the belief that the man Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist is a fringe belief. It is usually found among the kinds of scholars who give credence to conspiracy theories, and raving historical revisionists. And those who believe that Jesus existed, absolutely would not say "There's no solid evidence either way". If you really think that there's no solid evidence, it shows me that you haven't really looked into the evidence. BTW, Josephus is not the only non-Christian source that mentions Jesus as a historical person. Really, this tit for tat ... "IS"... "IS NOT" ... "IS SO" ... "IS NOT", isn't getting us anywhere. If you are prepared to refute the established fact of the historicity of Jesus, then post a new thread entitled "Did Jesus exist"? I am prepared to give you plenty of historical information to reckon with. But as I said before, firmly established historicity, leaves the burden of proof upon anyone who would deny it. quote: Actually, if you knew your stuff, you would be aware that most serious Biblical scholars do not deny the historicity of the person Jesus ... they only deny things in the text which hint at the miraculous. They do so, of course, only because they hold a philosophy of history which tacitly disallows anything supernatural. But you do need to be aware of this, because your proposal that there is nothing historical about the gospels is such a miniscule minority among scholarship, that you might want to reconsider. Again, believing and unbelieving scholarship is on my side here. If you want to say that there's no certainty in historical scholarship, then fine. That would be taking a stand in the shadows of historical agnosticism, in which case most of history will be doubtful to you, and off limits for any serious discussion. But don't continue to lead others to believe that there is a serious segment of historians who deny the existence of Jesus ... unless you want to back it up with more than just "The Grinch says so". quote: That's my point. No one agrees that this is a morally upright approach to legitimate needs, except the person who does it ... and then, it's only when he does it, when the rationalization is holding sway. Rationalization usually diverts the moral question, in exchange for thoughts about one's own immediate interests, rather than "establishing another moral code". The Levite, was also a man of the priesthood in Judaism ... more accountable than most to a high moral standard. Most likely he was acting against his good conscience. Which, in the case of wrongdoing is true of most, including you and I. You erroneously assume that people are incapable of acting against their moral better judgement ... only doing what was "right" for them at the moment. That doesn't match up with our psychology, including our regrets, and our whole approach to others when they wrong us. When the puzzle piece doesn't fit the whole, maybe it doesn't belong. It's a lot easier to discard the piece than to try and construct a whole new puzzle around it. quote: How does passing up an unfortunate soul, make it harder for the Levite to survive? It is not strictly necessary, that's why we call it morality, and not necessity. There are many cruel people doing just fine, according to their own standards. Do you deny it? quote: Do you really think that's a likely scenario? Most people who attempt rescue, and are unsuccessful, have some regretful feelings to work through about their failure, for sure. But regret about their attempt? I doubt it. And I'm quite sure that man who tried to save a baby in a fire, would have had much more remorse if he had never tried. "I knew I had to try", or "I'm sorry I couldn't save the child", are more likely musings from such a person, than "I thought it was the right thing to do". quote: Why would anyone have to predict the variation of choices people make? That's an already known fact. People make moral choices, immoral choices, and everything in between. There again, this is not predictive but descriptive. It's just stating the obvious. What you lose when you make moral standards variable, is the ability to choose among them, and to say which are better. Of course I know you have a strong opinion about which are better. And though you would say it's all pragmatic and result oriented, I would still note that interpreting results involves a moral standard. What makes your moral standard better? It's only variable when you theorize here. It is much more absolute when you tell us how you really feel. I read your reply in the Alley about how reprehensible the Roman Catholic response was to cases of Child Molestation by the priesthood. So did you have a really valid point, or was that just YOUR moral standard? Was the RC church merely operating upon their variation of morals (which case you lose all serious ability to protest), or were they violating even their own moral standards about justice and right action, as taught in the Bible as universally binding? If the former is the case, then all is pretty much subjective. If the latter is the case, then you may have a real and valid ground for moral protest. If the former is the case, then tit for tat. There's a reason why your observations about child molestation resonates within us all ... because it is morally detestable, period. quote: How many times do I have to repeat myself on this point? A universal moral standard does not dictate moral choices, it only categorizes certain elements of them as moral or immoral. A universal moral standard does not rule out immoral behavior. Conscience is not to be confused with will. Morality does not rob us of volition. Therefore why do you keep insisting that deviant behavior proves it to be non-existent? Your conclusion is only correct if you prove your premise ... which is, a universal moral standard would necessarily cause universal moral behavior. But since morality, is by nature volitional, that can't be the case. Such a premise would be more plausible, if we never acted against our conscience, or better moral judgment. But the autobiographical data of millions and millions of people refute you on this point. Guilt and regret are very real. The universality of morals, gives rise to a universal belief in real right and wrong, guilty concience, feelings of vindication, and an awareness of justice. And such IS reflected in the real world, transculturally, at every turn. quote: Not really. I just explained that. We often act against our moral insights, therefore differences cannot be rightly used to refute the idea of universal morality. The best of philosophers have admitted that humans are often scoundrels. This is in line with the Judeo-Christian belief in original sin, and the fall. quote: I'll let you read it yourself. Read the entire book if you get a chance (the book is readable online here). Whether you end up agreeing with him or not, Lewis will engage you. And "The Abolition of Man" is one of his best. The following link just gives you an appendix where he has illustrated the many similarities between moral codes of ancient cultures, showing that differences pale before the likenesses. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm quote: obliteration is your victory? I'm not the biggest fan of Pascal's wager, since it leaves to one side the certainty of faith and revelation, and the accountability and knowledge of even unbelievers. But I think there's some truth, and validity lurking in it. No matter which way you cut it, believers are no worse off than unbelievers, if they proved to be wrong. But believers are infinitely better off than unbelievers, if they prove to be right. Call it sophistry if you wish, but there's never been an "atheist's wager" that gets anyone in line at the casino. quote: You did say "depraved" and "despicable" in your descriptions earlier. I guess you need to alter your language to fit your real beliefs ... and say that the serial killer, or child rapist is doing something "opinionatively vile", or "preferentially depraved", to indicate that there is really nothing superior in your view, above the perpetrator's view. I'll try and remind you of that next time you mount the ol' soap box. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: How did you get from my statement that there is no solid evidence that Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan to the accusation that I posited the notion that Jesus never existed? Twisting my words to try and paint me as a conspiracy theorist or raving historical revisionist is a neat trick, do you want to ask me when I last beat my wife or kicked a puppy while you’re at it? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I took for granted that if you did believe in the historicity of Jesus (based primarily upon the gospel narratives) that you would have no real reason to doubt that the parable of the good Samaritan was spoken to a Jewish audience, and that it was spoken originally by Jesus. You did such a good job of convincing me of your historical agnosticism, that it wasn't clear to me whether you believed in the person of Jesus. You did call it "myth", and I was taking you at your own words. I hope you take no offense at my misunderstanding. I'm glad you've cleared it up somewhat. But you didn't leave me with much to go on, that might convince me you actually believe in at least some historical validity surrounding the Gospels. quote: I was meaning to ask you; Have you pushed any old ladies down lately, while crossing the street? (lol). Easy there ... I wasn't really trying to liken you with conspiracy theorists, or historical revisionists. I was rather trying to spare you the scorn that is typically heaped upon them, for their second-rate scholarship.  Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“A Muslim is in a burning building and a Christian walks past without helping, a member of the Jewish faith does the same but an Atheist rushes into the building to help.” Doesn’t that then suggest the Atheist’s concepts of the values human and humanity were less corrupted by qualifiers. “A man runs into a burning building to save a child’s life, the man, the child and four firemen perish when the roof collapses. In a television interview a spokesman for the fire department says “ If the guy hadn’t have gone into the building nobody would have been hurt”.” The man runs in because there are no firemen around at the time; the firemen arrive after and are killed trying to save not just the child but the man as well. The man and the firemen are acting in response to a similar imperative that is allowed to overcome their urge to self-preservation; it is not instinctual; it is a conscious, (though perhaps decided previously), choice about what world they want to personally live in evidenced by their own personal actions the motivations for which only they can appreciate the depth and sincerity of. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: Yep, right again. There is a universal moral law, and as you have used the example of carious religious faiths (or lack) as an example, allow me to do the same: Christianity: He said unto him ,What is written in the law?...Thou shalt... love thy neighbor as thyself. Luke 10:26-27 Judism: ...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself Leviticus 19:18 Islam: Allah loves those who do good to others Koran 3.152 Confucianism: This is brough about by the concept of Jen (wren) which is a sense of dignity of human life- a feeling of humanity towards others and self-esteem towards yourself. A man will sacrifice himself to preserve Jen. Taoism: Love the world as yourself; then you can care for all things Tao Te Ching Chapter 13 Buddhism: This is shown through the concept of Sila (virtue, conduct, morality) which has 2 principles: 1) All living things are equal and 2) Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Bill And Ted: Be excellent to each other Great Adventure. There is actually, I believe 1 more major theological dogma, however it has been too long since my comparative religion courses. Anyhow, If you will look not too closely (or even more closely, if you wish), you will notice that there is a comon thread that runs through ALL of these differing views of morality and spirituality: Treat the entirity of the world, and all of its inhabitants as if they were yourself, do to others what you would want them to do to you, etc. By looking at the reality of this Universal Moral Law, then (getting back to the original question) it is incumbant upon every individual to rush into that burning building to save someone else... even if he does not know that person. The reality of the situation is, though, that not everyone will. Of the 20 people found at a fire scene (non-rescue personnel), 2 will go diving into the flames, 1 will attempt to control the scene outside, 1 will panic, 3 will attempt to calm the other down, 1 will contact emergency services, and 12 will stand there watching. These are not just my numbers, they are the numbers of a study I was required to read as part of my fire training when I was in the Marine Corps (actually it was civilian training) as a fire fighter. To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the merciful. www.impressionsintime.net |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
