"Hence morality is, broadly speaking, politics."
Besides the fact that I'm a theist, the above is just flat-out confusing. It seems to me that a basic and uncontroversial intuition men have is that they can ask this kind of question: "Are politics moral?" Or, "Is this political system or ideology moral?" Is a- or immorality a- or impolitical? Are we just asking of this or that politics is politics? That seems odd.
Many political scientists agree with Disraeli that "politics are the possession and distribution of power." It seems we can ask if any government whatever has possessed and distributed power ethically.
This can be seen, for example, in the words of Lord Acton,
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. "Regardless of the details, the above expresses the basic and common sense notion that morality is distinct from politics. Morality puts a check on power. It can check the goals and aims of politicians and politics.
It seems I can even ask if anarchist or anomiest "societies" are moral or immoral. It seems that some might be able to say that the less political the more moral something is. Or the more political, the less moral it is. It seems possible that everyone could be killed or made to disappear but me. If this happened, what sense would it make to say there were "politics?" But it also seems true that I would still be the subject of moral ascriptions. That I could still do something immoral or moral. Blameworthy or praiseworthy. Do we not ask if I oughtt to kill myself? Would I have obligations about how to treat other animals? Could I repeatedly torture Bambi for the fun it? Since there was no government or politics in this world, would we not be able to praise or blame my actions? Ask if torturing Bambi for the fun of it is right or wrong?
Perhaps I've misunderstood Edis, but his claim seems downright false.
"Hence morality is, broadly speaking, politics."
ReplyDeleteI think that from a secular liberal atheist point of view which is, broadly speaking, pragmatic in a Machiavellian kind of sense, his statement is at least honest, even if intellectually confused.
It does seem to fall in line with what atheists have been saying for a long time: that morality is a social construct.
ReplyDeleteHowever, supposing you were the only person left on Earth, I bet the atheists would extend "society" to include the animals you might torture.
The aboves do not answer the question about how it is that we judge politics as moral or immoral.
ReplyDeleteMy question isn't about honesty. I didn't wonder if he was being honest.
Again, even on an unbeliever's terms, the statement seems to make little sense.
Morality can be a social construct without being politics.
And, I doubt Edis would claim that I am in a *society* with animals, let alone a *political system* with them. That's stretching things a bit thin. I'd extend more charity his way.
Morality puts a check on power.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, Mr. Morality, sits on one shoulder, and that old devil Senor Power on the other.
Assume the Buscho gang lied, or at least greatly misrepresented the dangers of iraqi WMDs and terrorism. Isn't that immoral, regardless of consequences? (if not a crime, of a rather egregious sort). I suspect a real moral philosopher (say Kant) would say yes, regardless if "things turned out for the good." Consequentialism works in most cases, but not in ALL (especially in regards to truth telling), and it's not really about "morality" but Justice.
Bushcheney may have not, via their injustice and deception, earned a right to Champions' Row (ie Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) in the Malebolge, but around Nixon, LBJ, Churchill. Still rather nasty section of .....Hell-town .
Time of trials and tribulations, peoples
Peresozo,
ReplyDeleteJ came here and said the same thing about trials and trubulations. He also had the assertion game down pat like I see you do. I'll have to delete your comments too.
"Oh yes, Mr. Morality, sits on one shoulder, and that old devil Senor Power on the other."
Esoteric nonsense having nothing to do with my post.
"Assume the Buscho gang lied, or at least greatly misrepresented the dangers of iraqi WMDs and terrorism."
Nothing to do with my post. Trolls and their "talking points"...
" Isn't that immoral, regardless of consequences? (if not a crime, of a rather egregious sort)."
Suppose that it is, what of it? What does it have to do with my post and how does it affects my argument? Whadda joker.
"I suspect a real moral philosopher (say Kant) would say yes, regardless if "things turned out for the good."
Yeah, ole "J" liked to name-drop dead philosophers a lot. He dropepd Kant a few times. Anywho, say Bush claims this moral principle: All people with this set of fingerprints (Bush's) can invade Iraq without good evidence." No, that can be universalized and no contradiction drawn.
"Consequentialism works in most cases, but not in ALL (especially in regards to truth telling), and it's not really about "morality" but Justice."
I'm not a consequentialist or a deontologist.
"Bushcheney may have not, via their injustice and deception, earned a right to Champions' Row (ie Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) in the Malebolge, but around Nixon, LBJ, Churchill. Still rather nasty section of .....Hell-town ."
Yawn. Soap box. Talking points. Man on a mission. Crusader. Campaigner. Champion. Progressive. Agitator. Radical. Zealot
"Time of trials and tribulations, peoples
If you can't argue I suppose you can appeal to fear as the best tool in your rhetorical toolkit.
Buh-bye.
solve Hume's fact/value distinction first, sunday school. Or at least review the cliffsnotes, and perhaps Carnap for seminarians. "Morality exists" is not a fact as say the "rosary beads exist."
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point, anyway: "morality" even in your sunday school sense did not stop Bushco, supposedly xtian, from --apparently--deceiving the house and senate.
So your grand generalization--""morality serves as a check on power""--has a counterexample (in fact thousands--like say Pope Pious XII giving his blessing to mussolini.)
Rosary beads, LOL!
ReplyDeletePerezco,
ReplyDeleteHALIBURTON!1!!!!!ELEVEN!!!!1!!1
PEREZOSO SAID:
ReplyDelete“Solve Hume's fact/value distinction first.”
That disjunction is generated by Hume’s secular worldview.
Explain how that’s supposed to be a problem for the Christian worldview.
“You missed the point, anyway: ‘morality’ even in your sunday school sense did not stop Bushco, supposedly xtian, from --apparently--deceiving the house and senate.”
i) You’re making assumptions about “Bushco.”
ii) Bush is not a Christian ethicist.
iii) More to the point, you’re confusing the source of morality with the application of morality.
“o your grand generalization—‘morality serves as a check on power’--has a counterexample (in fact thousands--like say Pope Pious XII giving his blessing to mussolini.)”
i) Manata is not a Catholic.
ii) Once again, you’re confounding the de jure question with the de facto question.
iii) There was no Pope Pious XII. Perhaps you meant Pope Pius XII.
solve Hume's fact/value distinction first, sunday school.
ReplyDeleteSolve it?
" "Morality exists" is not a fact as say the "rosary beads exist."
Did I say, "morality exists?" At any rate, nice crackers in the pantry fallacy. To exist isn't contained in physical, spatial terms. There are ethical truths and we can know them.
"You missed the point, anyway: "morality" even in your sunday school sense did not stop Bushco, supposedly xtian, from --apparently--deceiving the house and senate. "
First, you seem to be under the impression that "supposedly Christian" = "never does wrong." care to justify that inference? Especially in light of, say, Romans 7.
Second, assume you're correct, what does that have to do with what I said in this post? Didn't I even admit that governments and politics could be immoral? I see 2nd grade reading comprehension is not your forte.
Third, it is ironic that you speak of morality when you lie. There's no proof Bush *deceived*. That claim involves knowledge of his internal motives. I find it hard to believe you can prove this claim. You're not doing yourself any favors here. Coming off like a neanderthal isn't too flattering.
"So your grand generalization--""morality serves as a check on power""--has a counterexample"
Self-refutation is always the most embarrassing kind. You're using morality to serve as a check on power in this very meta! Come back after you've wiped that egg off your face. Joker.
No, you're in error: When you say "morality serves as a check on power" YOU have made a claim about reality--you're discussing politics, not souls--and those claims are subject to confirmation (especially since you haven't/can't provide "a priori" proof of "morality," notwithstanding the aesthetic splendor of essencia). So, it's De Re. Indeed, sounds nearly sociological: where's the data?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it should be (as some of the secular outpost people claimed) the theist's burden to prove some a priori, objective moral realm (which of course they can't, except via dogma), and then to show how that moral realm influences judgments. To simply dismiss Hume and positivists' objections, is itself typical intellectual bad faith. Hume's point is not merely "secular"--he shows that moral claims are not themselves rational (google ought/is for starters)--there's no contradiction involved in supposed injust acts, except perhaps in a broad sense of prudence: sort of like the theological hypocrite who upholds Scripture, decalogue, and "don't bear false witness", be kind to neighbors, etc. but when a Cheney bends the facts a bit (or a lot) to sell an invasion, that's acceptable--indeed Hume upheld Realpolitik from way back. He's nearly calvinist in his dedication to amorality, but honest about it. Carnap extends that of course: ethical statements are meaningless, since incapable of being confirmed--.
We might disagree, but it takes some argument, not merely a wave of the priest's hands to refute--buena suerta. When things get rough for the theological businessman (like when asked to refute Hume, or positivists), they resort to dogma.
Thus, it's your responsibility to provide backing for the rather grand generalization that "morality serves as a check on power": not that that's likely to happen.
Keep checking Cheny & co. with morality and refuting yourself in the process.
ReplyDelete"Thus, it's your responsibility to provide backing for the rather grand generalization that "morality serves as a check on power": not that that's likely to happen."
ReplyDeleteMoral principles tell us what is right or wrong. I have nukes. I have power. I *can* drop them, but *should* I.
You're refuting yourself, as well as ducking the issue: you made a rather grand claim: "Morality serves as a check on power."
ReplyDeleteProof? That would not fly even among intelligent papists, I suspect. At best an I-- existential proposition-- not A (universal) proposition in terms of the Aristotelian nostalgia trip, if even capable of being translated into well-formed formula . If used as premise in a formal argument would have to be proven, which you have yet to do.
In fact, the proposition looks unconfirmable--and neither analytic, or really synthetic (since one term--"Morality"-- incapable of being demonstrated, the other "power" not really either, except in some vague psychological sense), so sort of pseudo-synthetic, like most theological belle-lettres.
Theological morality is not rational, anymore than the virgin birth or resurrection is.
PEREZOSO SAID:
ReplyDelete“To simply dismiss Hume and positivists' objections, is itself typical intellectual bad faith. Hume's point is not merely ‘secular’--he shows that moral claims are not themselves rational (google ought/is for starters)“
You need to demonstrate that a theistic universe, in which God designs things to function in a certain way, generates a fact/value disjunction. This is not a charge which you are allowed to assert, as it if were a given. You need to demonstrate how the teleological outlook of divine creation generates this disjunction.
“Sort of like the theological hypocrite who upholds Scripture, decalogue, and ‘don't bear false witness’, be kind to neighbors, etc. but when a Cheney bends the facts a bit (or a lot) to sell an invasion, that's acceptable.”
i) You need to demonstrate that Cheney dissembled.
ii) You also need to demonstrate that Cheney is a theological hypocrite who upholds Scripture.
“Carnap extends that of course: ethical statements are meaningless, since incapable of being confirmed.”
i) Ethical statements can’t be confirmed iff you accept the discredited verification principle. That’s something else you need to defend.
ii) And if you think that ethical statements are meaningless, then you claim that Cheney is a hypocrite is a meaningless statement.
You're refuting yourself, as well as ducking the issue: you made a rather grand claim: "Morality serves as a check on power."
ReplyDeleteProof?
Moral principles tell us what is right or wrong. I have nukes. I have power. I *can* drop them, but *should* I. No, of course you shouldn't, that would be wrong. Morality. Check. Power.
Get over it.
"In fact, the proposition looks unconfirmable--and neither analytic, or really synthetic (since one term--"Morality"-- incapable of being demonstrated, the other "power" not really either, except in some vague psychological sense), so sort of pseudo-synthetic, like most theological belle-lettres."
This theory of meaning is neither analytic or synthetic. Keep refuting yourself.
"but when a Cheney bends the facts a bit (or a lot) to sell an invasion, that's acceptable"
ASSUMPTION: Cheney had all the info, and so had the power. How should he use it? Well, he shouldn't lie, that would be wrong. Morality. Check. Power.
Keep refuting yourself.
I am a man. I can rape this woman. I have power. How should I use my power? Not to rape, that would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteMorality. Check. Power.
Guess, what, I have the power to delete all your posts? Should I? Morality. Check. Power.
Atheist. Refutes. Self.
[1] Moral principles are action-guiding principles.
ReplyDelete[2] There is a way to act with the power I have.
[3] Moral principles guide that action.
"you made a rather grand claim: "Morality serves as a check on power."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me a denail of that claim is grand.
People have a obligation to use their power in morally responsible ways.
To deny that claim is the shoulder the larger burden.
To deny that claim is to remove from yourself or society the ability to condemn actions such as rape, murder, and spousal or child abuse as immoral acts.
To deny my claim is grand. Care to defend your grand and counter-intuitary position. It's rather wild and out there.
Moral principles tell us what is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteAh another grand claim. Apart from the usual petitio principii (what-- and where-- are these moral principles, and how do they "tell us", or function? etc.), in many instances mere "moral principles" would not help us to determine the right course of an action, or proposed action. We need Knowledge of various things to make correct decisions: a good samaritan might decide to set a bone, or move an injured person, and thereby further injure someone due to his moral principles (in fact the law recognizes that). A doctor on the other hand possesses the appropriate knowledge and makes the right decision.
A starving mother might want to help her family, and so blows her paycheck on the lottery, or gambling, in vain hopes of bringing in thousands more. Her bad decision wasn't merely due to lack of "moral principles," but something like ignorance.
In a political or economic context, morality would often be of little or no hope. Bush perhaps wanted to help some taxpayers by slashing taxes, yet thereby increased the deficit, and endangered social programs. Is management following moral principles when they decide to pink slip 5000 employees before the company goes bankrupt? No. Rather more like Darwinian principles.
There are many other imaginable examples of this, so, like, you're mistaken.
> Too bad one gospel says "the
ReplyDelete> temple was rented,"
LULZ! You're full of 'em!
More!
Are you claiming the biblical record is infallible, and/or consistent? It's not.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, when some ancient text has some writing suggesting "pigs fly" (virgin birth, miracles, rez,etc) , and yet no witnesses from the time (say the roman historians, ala Tacitus, etc) offer any supporting evidence, it's probably a fairly safe bet that pigs didn't fly: when pigs do fly in a public demonstration, maybe Ill change my belief system.
Btw, that's not from some fancy continental filosophe (tho I think Spinoza and Hume said as much), but like Bayes Theorem, not to say Thomas Jefferson, and most of the founding fathers (irish fiddlers, and heathens of course). It's like you never bothered to read the Constitution.
Perezoso wrote:
ReplyDelete"For that matter, when some ancient text has some writing suggesting 'pigs fly' (virgin birth, miracles, rez,etc) , and yet no witnesses from the time (say the roman historians, ala Tacitus, etc) offer any supporting evidence, it's probably a fairly safe bet that pigs didn't fly: when pigs do fly in a public demonstration, maybe Ill change my belief system."
Your suggestion that you trust the textual transmission of Tacitus and his identity and authorship of the relevant documents is noted. I'll keep that in mind if you decide to question the text or authorship of Christian documents in the future. I'll also keep in mind that you consider somebody like Tacitus an acceptable witness to miracles predating his time by several decades. We'll see if you're consistent.
You're mistaken about "any supporting evidence", which is a broad category. Non-Christian sources corroborated much of what the early Christians were saying, including on matters related to the miraculous. See, for example, here, here, and here.
But why should we expect non-Christian sources to mention Christian miracles? Why should we expect them to mention miracles of any type, even if they believed that such events occurred? People write within particular genres. A historian covering the history of Roman wars, for example, isn't likely to go off on a tangent about the reported miracles of a Jewish religious leader. See my recent post on Matthew 27 for a fuller discussion of some of the problems with your reasoning.
Tacitus does refer to some miracles, though, as do other ancient non-Christian sources often cited by critics of Christianity. Do you accept those non-Christian miracle accounts? I've explained how I approach non-Christian miracle accounts as a Christian. I suspect you'll add many qualifiers to your comments above that you neither stated nor suggested previously. Why act as if you trust Tacitus more than you really do? Why even act as if you trust the textual transmission and authorship attributions of his documents, as well as those of other "witnesses from the time", when you'll most likely be far more critical of other documents that you perceive as more threatening to your belief system, like the gospels?
Paraphrasing Bertrand Russell, any Deity offended by those who would merely question His existence (given a dearth of evidence), or his supposed miraculous acts, does not merit our respect, or something to that effect, so I guess I'll take my chances.
ReplyDeleteMiracles are not logically impossible though the miracle-fetish (ala Virgin of Guatelupe, etc) does do palpable harm. Why aren't there some miracles like dropped into the red-light district of TJ....(or many other latin american slums).
I haven't claimed the New Testament or Old should just be dismissed either (except in terms of being wrong in terms of natural history): merely that it should be read more as literature and myth than history ala Tacitus (or a war prayer book for the likes of Hagees). The Gospel of John reveals the symbolism, really: like something found in Bulfinch, with Christ-Dionysius as the anthropic realization of the Spring Equinox. Io Io! You don't want to know the real roots of La Misa, however.
Perezoso,
ReplyDeleteI assume you don't want to take up my other arguments. Even granting your response was sufficient to defeat that one argument, you're still burried under the massive weight of the others.
"Ah another grand claim. Apart from the usual petitio principii (what-- and where-- are these moral principles, and how do they "tell us", or function? etc.), in many instances mere "moral principles" would not help us to determine the right course of an action, or proposed action.
How is it "grand?" It's virtually analytic. No matter what view of ethics you hold.
How is it a petitio principii?
Let's say I didn't know "what" they all were. What does that prove besides you can accuse others of fallacies while you argue ad ignoratio. Second, start with the basics. Third, I don't even know what it means to ask "where" are they. That strikes me as a stupid question.
"We need Knowledge of various things to make correct decisions:"
Yeah, I know. Thanks for that revelation, I'll alert the press.
"There are many other imaginable examples of this, so, like, you're mistaken."
Not one of your "examples" undercut my claim. All of those examples showed that people acted upon principles that guided their action.
Keep refuting yourself. Whatta spaz.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePeresozo,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I will delete every post of yours that doesn't contain quasi-descent arguments and fails to pay attention to prior posts. So, now you know the parameters you have to work in. You're also a troll. No trolls allowed; or fed.
"Nope: you're the one who has yet to prove an a priori ethics,
I didn't mention a priori ethics. Pay attention son. Indeed, my claim follows, as I said, on any view of ethics. Point of fact, ethical anti-realist Mark Timmons makes the same claim about action-guiding principles. I'd call you sophormoric, but I don't want to offend sophomores.
"Besides, biblical ethics is inconsistent"
Even if true, that's off-topic to the point I was making.
"Golden rule, vs. Leviticus?? nyet."
Can you (a) state the golden rule and (b) tell us where the Bible mentions it.
"For that matter, even New T. inconsistent: Golden Rule, etc vs. Book of Rev. and the great whore? Nyet). "
Case in point, another assertion minus the argument. Das vadanya.
"So are you claiming objective morality exists"
I do believe that, but that is irrelevant to the argument I made here. By the way, how's that foot taste?
"So, when you use the word morality you really aren't saying anything."
Then this sentence says nothing. Atheist. Refutes. Self. ...again.