Morality vs. religiosity

[Isgrimnur]

The love vs. hell argument, to me, becomes the old carrot vs. stick argument. Either you are doing a thing to gain a reward or avoid a punishment (a reward of a different sort). To me, this mentality works great for small children. Presupposing the existence of a creator for the sake of this argument, would not my free will and reasoning ability gained as an adult be considered a gift from same? Would the same creator then do everything within his/her/its power to obviate from me the need to use these? If all I had to do was keep a pocket copy of the core book at hand, why do I need to be able to think for myself and reason? Why not just the "chosen" leaders who can give me all the guidance I would need?

Once you start getting into codified morals in religions, nothing holds together anyway. An old line of mine is to ask 10 members of the same church for an opinion about a religious matter and you are bound to get 11 opinions. The overarching Christian faith is split 5 ways from Sunday (sorry, too easy) at the top levels and that's before you get down to the real nitty-gritty like the snake-handlers and those who speak in tongues. I am not familiar with how stratified/fragmented any other religion is. Obviously we hear about Islamic extremism more than anything else these days. How split are the Hindus, the Chinese Universalists, et al.?

[Unagi]

the old carrot vs. stick argument. Either you are doing a thing to gain a reward or avoid a punishment

No.

I don't mean to derail things here (and likely wont), but this is something that just drives me nuts when on TV or here at work people use this analogy like this.

Pet Peeve. (I don't mean to attack you on this Isgrimnur)

The Carot is a reward for the Donkey.
The Stick keeps that reward forever out of reach.

So, the Donkey keeps walking the cart down the road... trying to get the carrot.


I can't stand that this idiom is used to describe 'punishment vs. reward'.


carry on.

[Isgrimnur]

Turns out I'm referring to the common error version.

The term is misused currently to refer to the act of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. The carrot represents the edible reward, while the stick refers to a punishing switch. This is actually a combination of 2 theories of diplomacy, Carrot and Stick and Big Stick Diplomacy.

Learn something new every day... Thanks, Unagi, I had no clue.

[paulbaxter]

I'm not discounting the attempts... but we have to recognize that they are attempts. When you take God out of the picture, how can we determine that any proposed moral code is 'correct'? Because it makes sense to us but not to someone else?

Well, now I've found a point of agreement (to some extent). Alasdair McIntyre's book, After Virtue (which I highly recommend) argues the thesis that what he calls the "enlightenment project" failed in its attempt to provide an account of ethics without reference to god, and thus we (western society at-large) no longer possess an account of ethics which has a coherent context.

[LordMortis]

Well, now I've found a point of agreement (to some extent). Alasdair McIntyre's book, After Virtue (which I highly recommend) argues the thesis that what he calls the "enlightenment project" failed in its attempt to provide an account of ethics without reference to god, and thus we (western society at-large) no longer possess an account of ethics which has a coherent context.

I don't get it. Can you give me the Cliff's notes version of how we conclude that an account of ethics fails without god?

[Dan_Theman]

Having read trough this thread, I'm left with the impression that either many people do not understand the concept of religion or I do not understand many people. Regardless, I'll keep reading on as I'm sure it must be the latter and perhaps eventually enligtenment will grace my mind.

[Isgrimnur]

*tongue firmly in cheek*

Bring your questions to class and we'll be sure to tell you where you went wrong.

Seriously, what definition/understanding of religion do you mean? Please elaborate, I'm curious.

[paulbaxter]

One other matter. Here is something I wrote a while back in a thread on the book of Job. Unfortunately it didn't spark any particular follow-up at the time, but it seems relevant here:

There are, it seems, two major ideas people have about what the book is really about. The more common interpretation is that the book is about theodicy, that is, how do we reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil. This has been discussed plenty in this forum in the past, so I won't elaborate further. The other major interpretation is that the book is about disinterested religion. Satan claims that Job is only religious because he is getting something out of it. In this view, the question of the book is, is it possible for a man to truly trust in God when he receives only grief and hardship for doing so. This seems to me to fit the content of the book better than the first interpretation.

[melencolia]

One other matter. Here is something I wrote a while back in a thread on the book of Job. Unfortunately it didn't spark any particular follow-up at the time, but it seems relevant here:

There are, it seems, two major ideas people have about what the book is really about. The more common interpretation is that the book is about theodicy, that is, how do we reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil. This has been discussed plenty in this forum in the past, so I won't elaborate further. The other major interpretation is that the book is about disinterested religion. Satan claims that Job is only religious because he is getting something out of it. In this view, the question of the book is, is it possible for a man to truly trust in God when he receives only grief and hardship for doing so. This seems to me to fit the content of the book better than the first interpretation.

If you're looking to spark discussion, I can see why people would refrain. The only relevant discussion would have to make an enormous amount of assumtions to discuss within the sphere of Job's story. Sure, we could assume that, since it is from the bible, it is merely metaphorical. But to somebody that doesn't truly believe that God or Satan are literal beings capable of speaking with mankind, it seems a rather silly argument in the first place.

But taken at a metaphorical value, I suppose I'm not afraid to assume all of the parameters of such a discussion...

And upon thinking about it, the only question I see being of interest is that of service: what 'reward' could there possibly be when God takes everything that you value away from you, merely in a test of faith? Was he merely investing in something far more eternal, as Satan would argue? Or was he merely acting out of stolid loyalty because his true purpose was in service to his Creator?

Personally, I can't even make sense of why blind service convinces people of their "morality". I find it quite disingenuous to the person - something which defines, purely, the significance of God in the first place.

[Crux]

Well, now I've found a point of agreement (to some extent). Alasdair McIntyre's book, After Virtue (which I highly recommend) argues the thesis that what he calls the "enlightenment project" failed in its attempt to provide an account of ethics without reference to god, and thus we (western society at-large) no longer possess an account of ethics which has a coherent context.

I don't get it. Can you give me the Cliff's notes version of how we conclude that an account of ethics fails without god?

What's your favorite color, LM?

[LordMortis]

What's your favorite color, LM?

Red. Did you make one of those paper finger thingies?

[Peacedog]

The Carot is a reward for the Donkey.
The Stick keeps that reward forever out of reach.

When he says stick, he isn't talking about the thing that holds the carrot out in front of the donkey. He's discussing the switch used to whip the animal into obeying.

[Isgrimnur]

The Carot is a reward for the Donkey.
The Stick keeps that reward forever out of reach.

When he says stick, he isn't talking about the thing that holds the carrot out in front of the donkey. He's discussing the switch used to whip the animal into obeying.

Asked and answered. After further review, there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

[Grifman]

Not all Christians do good deed because of love for God. Some avoid doing bad things because of fear of God.

And your evidence other than mere ill informed assertion? I would suggest that if one's motivation is fear of God, then they've never understood the Christian message to begin with.

Also we're not talking about people who convert to Christianity. I think most of those that converted will more likely to do it because of the "Love" thingy than fear.

We're all converted. At some point we have to make a conscious decision to follow Christ or not. I grew up in a church but there was a point in my life where I knew I had to say "yes" or "no" to following him. The choice was mine to make.

But for those that are brainwashed at home and church from early age, fear of God has sizeable followers.

Please spare me the condescending "brainwashed" comment. That's silly and ignorant on your part. And why should I accept anything you've said? After all perhaps you've been "brainwashed" against Christianity. Comments like that don't do much for discussion. And again, what proof do you have? I've not seen any evidence from you.

[Isgrimnur]

Not all Christians do good deed because of love for God. Some avoid doing bad things because of fear of God.

And your evidence other than mere ill informed assertion? I would suggest that if one's motivation is fear of God, then they've never understood the Christian message to begin with.

How about some Fire and Brimstone??

Today, preaching in more conservative branches of Christianity, such as many Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Restoration Movement and Church of Christ churches, may be described as "fire and brimstone" in style.[citation needed] In contrast, such styles would be out of place in quietist traditions, such as the Society of Friends (or Quakers). The term "fire and brimstone" is more often used in current language to stereotype fervent preachers (though such few preachers would label themselves that way).

It is still out there, however rare it may be these days.

[LordMortis]

My parents were (are?) Nazarene and they didn't preach all that all that sinner damnation stuff. The pastor was actually a great community guy. The parish (or whatever you call it) were often a different story, though. There were plenty of showy you're going to hell types and plenty of the lord will provide types. It was pretty varied.

[Isgrimnur]

Understandable. I don't think the citation was (and I certainly wasn't) trying to paint those entire denominations with a broad brush.

[Unagi]

The Carot is a reward for the Donkey.
The Stick keeps that reward forever out of reach.

When he says stick, he isn't talking about the thing that holds the carrot out in front of the donkey. He's discussing the switch used to whip the animal into obeying.

Yes, I totally understand that. I am not saying that is makes no sense, I am saying I worry about the original meaning being lost.

Hell, some day it could be used to describe people being forced to chose between buying Food and buying Building Material... And I won't like that either.

One could make better analogies for 'Punish vs. Reward' than just to hi-jack the one used for 'forever holding out a reward that will never be given'.

[Unagi]

Asked and answered. After further review, there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

Yeah, again - I understand the alternate use of the phrase. And if you force me to, I can even get on board the idea that we don't really know which meaning/use was used first.

I just think that "the idea of promising a reward" for behaviour, but not ever really wanting to give away the reward (so as to force the person to continue the desired behaviour) is in need of a 'quick description' and that "Give him the ol' Carrot-n-Stick" is quick, neat, and gets the whole point accross.

Where as "the idea of" Punishment vs. Reward is perfectly described by those two words. Hell, you could even do the whole "honey vs. vinegar" or "Good Cop vs. Bad Cop".... Just leave the carrot alone.

[LordMortis]

The citation (but not you) seemed to make the generalization. So I just made an observation. I generally liked the people. I have some lifelong friends from there. My parents are still semi religious and do have some skewed beliefs (IMO) and I've never seen someone doing God's work at cool as Patstor Parot(?) was. He was everything you wanted out of congregation leader type dude. He was funny, approachable, helpful, community building, no strings attached about helping the world, and always made his bible story relevant. Being at his service was as engaging and memorable as watching a stand up comic, even if he wasn't all about the comedy. He made going to church a good experience and that rubbed off on a lot of people. I've not seen anything like it since. If I did then I'd sign up in heartbeat. I might find a way to give up my Sundays and more of my life to a belief system that is not mine. I've been to several other services that have been promised the same or better experience. It's never happened. I always find myself feeling either argumentative or bored.

Honestly, I have no idea what seperates denomination. I swear someone told me that Catholics Celebrate Mary. But that sounds like false idol hood to me, so what do I know. Then people make jokes about baptists, being confused with methodists, being confused with southern baptists and I got nothing. I don't even JWs and Ladder Day Saints and Mormons and such except they all come to my door. I do know that Born Agains tend to rub me the wrong way until they've been Born Again for at least a decade and settle the fuck down and that's about it.

[Crux]

What's your favorite color, LM?

Red. Did you make one of those paper finger thingies?

Mine's blue. Which of us is right?

[Isgrimnur]

Asked and answered. After further review, there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

Yeah, again - I understand the alternate use of the phrase. And if you force me to, I can even get on board the idea that we don't really know which meaning/use was used first.

I just think that "the idea of promising a reward" for behaviour, but not ever really wanting to give away the reward (so as to force the person to continue the desired behaviour) is in need of a 'quick description' and that "Give him the ol' Carrot-n-Stick" is quick, neat, and gets the whole point accross.

Where as "the idea of" Punishment vs. Reward is perfectly described by those two words. Hell, you could even do the whole "honey vs. vinegar" or "Good Cop vs. Bad Cop".... Just leave the carrot alone.

From a literal interpretation, I would suggest that the donkey has greater odds of getting the carrot at the end of the day than not.

In actuality, I will probably find a new way to illustrate risk/reward in the future. 'Cause the honey vs. vinegar thing doesn't seem to work either...

[LordMortis]

What's your favorite color, LM?

Red. Did you make one of those paper finger thingies?

Mine's blue. Which of us is right?

I know I'm right. My favorite color is red. Unless set some other criteria I have no reason to doubt you are right either. Where are we going with this?

If we are making moral matters the subject of scrutiny we are trying to discern matters of truth or matters of value. If we presuppose the later then we have framed on sort of discussion. If we presuppose the former then we have a different discussion. If we don't presuppose either then we are open to a third and totally different kind of discussion. And then it becomes even more interesting when you mix the two. Which takes precendent? If you listen to Mill he'd say that truth is higher in his utilitarian frame. If you listen Rand or Marx they would tell you that value is higher in Mill's utilitarian frame.

[GuidoTKP]

The dietary restrictions were symbolic, not pragmatic.

There are quite a few cultural antrhopologists and food historians who would disagree with that statement. While it's certainly partially true (e.g., the Jewish restrictions upon mixing meat with dairy), it also seems to be partially false (e.g., Indian cow love and Jewish and Muslim pig hate).

[Crux]

I know I'm right. My favorite color is red. Unless set some other criteria I have no reason to doubt you are right either. Where are we going with this?

If we are making moral matters the subject of scrutiny we are trying to discern matters of truth or matters of value. If we presuppose the later then we have framed on sort of discussion. If we presuppose the former then we have a different discussion. If we don't presuppose either then we are open to a third and totally different kind of discussion. And then it becomes even more interesting when you mix the two. Which takes precendent? If you listen to Mill he'd say that truth is higher in his utilitarian frame. If you listen Rand or Marx they would tell you that value is higher in Mill's utilitarian frame.

Methinks you're missing the point. Who determines what is "truth"? Who determines what is "value"? In fact who determines anything as being an absolute? My entire point which you have repeatedly avoided addressing is this: in the absence of an authority figure to whom we can grant absolute powers of arbitration, how do we reconcile differences in people's espoused moral codes? How do we determine the superiority of one over another? What criteria can we use to determine correctness, purity, or much of anything?

That's what I want to hear your answer to. You keep acting as though I have 'set the framework and decided the answer'. No. I am trying to determine the framework. We need some basic rules or criteria by which to compare moral codes in order to be able to determine which is better. So either suggest one or shut up about the framework thing already

[paulbaxter]

Well, now I've found a point of agreement (to some extent). Alasdair McIntyre's book, After Virtue (which I highly recommend) argues the thesis that what he calls the "enlightenment project" failed in its attempt to provide an account of ethics without reference to god, and thus we (western society at-large) no longer possess an account of ethics which has a coherent context.

I don't get it. Can you give me the Cliff's notes version of how we conclude that an account of ethics fails without god?

No.

[paulbaxter]

One other matter. Here is something I wrote a while back in a thread on the book of Job. Unfortunately it didn't spark any particular follow-up at the time, but it seems relevant here:

There are, it seems, two major ideas people have about what the book is really about. The more common interpretation is that the book is about theodicy, that is, how do we reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil. This has been discussed plenty in this forum in the past, so I won't elaborate further. The other major interpretation is that the book is about disinterested religion. Satan claims that Job is only religious because he is getting something out of it. In this view, the question of the book is, is it possible for a man to truly trust in God when he receives only grief and hardship for doing so. This seems to me to fit the content of the book better than the first interpretation.

If you're looking to spark discussion, I can see why people would refrain. The only relevant discussion would have to make an enormous amount of assumtions to discuss within the sphere of Job's story. Sure, we could assume that, since it is from the bible, it is merely metaphorical. But to somebody that doesn't truly believe that God or Satan are literal beings capable of speaking with mankind, it seems a rather silly argument in the first place.

But taken at a metaphorical value, I suppose I'm not afraid to assume all of the parameters of such a discussion...

And upon thinking about it, the only question I see being of interest is that of service: what 'reward' could there possibly be when God takes everything that you value away from you, merely in a test of faith? Was he merely investing in something far more eternal, as Satan would argue? Or was he merely acting out of stolid loyalty because his true purpose was in service to his Creator?

Personally, I can't even make sense of why blind service convinces people of their "morality". I find it quite disingenuous to the person - something which defines, purely, the significance of God in the first place.

On this, I suppose I was just hoping that there was something here which could bear further discussion. Sometimes ideas get a bit more lively as people kick them around a bit. To review just a bit from that thread, these were some notes I took from a set of lectures on Job by a scholar who had made that book the center of his own studies.

Back to the issue. I'm not sure why you bring up "reward" at all (in your next-to-last paragraph). The second interpretation I mention, the one I've been leaning towards and which seems germane to me here, is that there IS NO reward promised to Job. The idea of eternal reward was not at all a part of Jewish theology at that time (at least not in a personal sense--God could theoretically pass blessing on to your descendants).

We should take it as given that for Jews (as for many other people ancient and modern) there was little to no difference between service to god and ethics. So the question is: is disinterested religion possible. Socrates, as you perhaps know, was interested in the same question, though of course within a different religious framework.

I believe I noted this in the other thread, but to remind us now: Job essentially accused god of theft. While god does not own up to the charge (and perhaps god's speech late in the book could be seen as a way of explaining why he is not properly subject to such a charge) he does give Job restitution as specified in the law regarding theft--a multiple return. I bring that up just to say that Job was not "rewarded" in a certain sense of the term, but rather he was compensated.

Within Christian theology Job is both pointed to as an exemplar in his own right (Ezekiel 14: 14 & 20, and particularly James 5:11), as an example of patient endurance, and is viewed as an anticipation of Jesus himself, an innocent sufferer.

There is a strand of Christian theology which has pushed this idea that one should pursue a righteous life quite apart from any concept of reward (as well as other strands which don't particularly like that way of thinking--John Piper being a current example). Some of the church fathers would say things like "I would serve God even if He were to send me to hell."

The question that seems to be behind much of the discussion in this thread is "Is ethical behavior tainted by motive?" I'm far from convinced that it is, but I hope I've pointed out that some religious people, Christians in particular, have dealt head-on with the question.

--edited to remove a double typed word

[Zarathud]

The morality of an atheist, I would say, is purer than that of a lot of religious people. The atheist do right because they know it to be right.

Both "know" right is the "right" thing to do. The pureness comes from the creation/acceptance of values and investing in that set of beliefs to fill the void of nihilism and hedonism. Its source does not matter, only the will to live according to a self-imposed worldview.

Thus Spoke Zarathud.

Neitzsche argued that the difference is between adopting a life-affirming or life-denying (Judeo-Christian) worldview, but Nietzsche was also demented.

[melencolia]

I'm not sure why you bring up "reward" at all (in your next-to-last paragraph). The second interpretation I mention, the one I've been leaning towards and which seems germane to me here, is that there IS NO reward promised to Job. The idea of eternal reward was not at all a part of Jewish theology at that time (at least not in a personal sense--God could theoretically pass blessing on to your descendants).

Fair enough. I find myself remiss to even correlate addressing this as I simply do not see how people convince themselves they are, first off, doing the bidding of some greater authority and secondly, that this vindicates them in some sense of their need for autonomy. I realize the question at hand, and I think you've done a fantastic job of distilling the question of this thread, but I'd like to see a solid argument [just as you would, I'm sure] for people to truly, "purely", believe out of, not want or desire or incentive, but of nothing short of absolute faith. the cynic in me says that this is not possible; That people will try to convince you they are pious, distract you with appeals of familiarity and flaw, digress into personal shame and moral self-degradation under the guise of humility and subservience to their God; but despite this socially-supported process of impractical ephemerality, I am still not convinced one bit that people do it without convincing themselves that something greater than mere existence awaits them.

Post-shamanistic values of "reward" are certainly prevalent in religion, but if we scrutinize "reward" itself, do not certain adages come to mind? I understand that with the advent of evangelism especially, recruitment is a tactic wrought with incentive: Go to heaven, please your God, Please the church, be part of a community, forfeit your money and identity - begin your life anew. So it's easy for religion to be obfuscated by seemingly spiritual commercialism, but even at any imaginable heart of it all, I am still not convinced it is out of nothing but blind faith. And this is not an argument for faith.

If you ask me, it boils down to the aspect that, even if there were a God, and even if He did love us as His children, we would either be worthy or unworthy of this love. If we are worthy of His love, then faith is unavoidably collecting what is due, even if it is a mutual relationship, and we suppose to "love" Him in return. If we are unworthy of His love, then our lives are spent in penance - the "reward" is that of spiritual relief or vindication in the eyes of a Perfect being; a subservient appeal to authority that I am afraid is not a unique dynamic amongst man's machinations.

[LordMortis]

Who determines what is "truth"? Who determines what is "value"?

Good questions. Do you have proposed answers? If you think that there are no absolutes then you pretty much have to think that morality can't be absolute either.

My entire point which you have repeatedly avoided addressing is this: in the absence of an authority figure to whom we can grant absolute powers of arbitration, how do we reconcile differences in people's espoused moral codes? How do we determine the superiority of one over another? What criteria can we use to determine correctness, purity, or much of anything?

I've not really intentionally avoided anything. I've been trying to figure out frameworks we are trying to work in. Different frameworks lead to different answers. Your framework is simple. Let's leave an authority figure out of the discussion entirely.

Justice (or in this case the enforcement of different moral codes) is the will of the stronger. -Thrasymachus

We need some basic rules or criteria by which to compare moral codes in order to be able to determine which is better.

Now that's what I've been saying.

And I don't have answers. I enjoy examining and trying to better understand questions. If I ever found an answer, with my memory I'd forget it anyway.

At the same time, I do have metaphyiscal beliefs that don't rely on God and yet give rise to part of my morality. That part I don't consider arbitrary. Part of my morality is arbitrary and is dictated by what we might call the "ick" factor. I find abortion to be morally offensive. That is certainly not according to logic or irrationality of my metaphysical beliefs. It's just a basic tenet of my worldview itself. Abortion is wrong. According to my metaphysical beliefs I have free will and the ability to choose means the moral action is any action that does not hurt the other. (In opposition to Rand who belives the selfish action is the moral action) I don't have huge depth to my thinking and in this case the moral action is incredibly vague working in an incredibly vague framework.

No.

Then sadly it doesn't help much.

[melencolia]

Both "know" right is the "right" thing to do. The pureness comes from the creation/acceptance of values and investing in that set of beliefs to fill the void of nihilism and hedonism. Its source does not matter, only the will to live according to a self-imposed worldview.

Thus Spoke Zarathud.

Neitzsche argued that the difference is between adopting a life-affirming or life-denying (Judeo-Christian) worldview, but Nietzsche was also demented.

The pureness in creation of a value system lies within appeals to a Natural order which courses through the veins of all organicism; tragedy so far as the human depth of understanding is concerned, but "pure" as the entire scope of exitence as we know it considers. "Investment" in beliefs implies that there is a payment, no? Perhaps the curreny of belief is self-supported survival, and that humans, in their groups, are stronger when unified under a supposed God to quell their vicious natures - a machine meant to draw lines in behaviour for the greater sense of perpetuation. If there is such a thing as "evil", it is not in religion, for religion and belief are merely tools.

Nietzsche's point was that established religions suppress personal growth in the sense that belief curbs Nature and instinct, thus corrupting the natural order of death as a means for culling the herd. Was he wrong? Judeo-Christian values have established a system of forgiveness and personal shame with incentive for self-imposed confession and concession of unapproved identity. This is not so much a fault of the religions, themselves, so much as it is a component of society so far as individuals are concerned though, if you ask me. Maybe Nietzsche was a tad demented [achemoverratedachem], but what is your basis of comparison? Cattle?

[melencolia]

At the same time, I do have metaphyiscal beliefs that don't rely on God and yet give rise to part of my morality. That part I don't consider arbitrary. Part of my morality is arbitrary and is dictated by what we might call the "ick" factor. I find abortion to be morally offensive. That is certainly not according to logic or irrationality of my metaphysical beliefs. It's just a basic tenet of my worldview itself. Abortion is wrong. According to my metaphysical beliefs I have free will and the ability to choose means the moral action is any action that does not hurt the other. (In opposition to Rand who belives the selfish action is the moral action) I don't have huge depth to my thinking and in this case the moral action is incredibly vague working in an incredibly vague framework.

Wait, so your moral worldview is not according to logic... nor is it according to irrationality... and how do you mean "the moral action is any action that does not hurt the other"? Like, infliction of physical pain or abrasion of metaphysical belief?

[LordMortis]

Wait, so your moral worldview is not according to logic... nor is it according to irrationality...

Some of it is not according to logic nor irrationality. Like I said, it's according to things like an "ick factor." There is no rational nor irrational reason I think abortion is immoral. I just do. I can only assume that this was given to me by my enviornment or I am programmed with it. It's just icky. Making that choice is an icky choice.

and how do you mean "the moral action is any action that does not hurt the other"? Like, infliction of physical pain or abrasion of metaphysical belief?

It's a vague answer to a vague question. When you behave morally you bahave in such a way that you are considering the needs of the other and placing them above your own. I get stuck dancing around with the answer because the questions are always so squirmy. And I do consider Jean Luc Piccard, that sometimes the moral thing to do is not the right thing to do. Star Trek spent a lot of time looking at morality actually. I think that is one of the things sucked people in. The movies have always been about the examination of utilitarianism. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Any means to an end. And all that.

[melencolia]

If you've no rationale behind your supposedly moral revulsions, then by the literal meaning of the word, I'd say you are being irrational. But that's semantics... I think I know what you mean. In essence, your revulsion is what comes naturally to you - it is an instinct without known environmental influence, for all intents and purpose. Perhaps it could be posited that it is a God-imparted reaction, if it is natural, assuming that "God" is merely a creator and not a moral arbiter. In that case, however, do you not think it is possible for a different reaction to be just as moral? If empathy or understanding or rationality with regards to your fellow man in a moral Christian sense [just for example, as always] is what is considered of true value, then do you not see the homogeny in such literal irrationality? What if somebody feels, say, hunger when they consider abortion? Or perhaps sexual arousal? If these are merely instinctual inclinations, are they not just as morally justified as your own, even if they are different? Or is the selfishness of your particualar inclinations too strong of a judge to allow you to accept others within that same moral sense?

[LordMortis]

If you've no rationale behind your supposedly moral revulsions, then by the literal meaning of the word, I'd say you are being irrational. But that's semantics... I think I know what you mean. In essence, your revulsion is what comes naturally to you - it is an instinct without known environmental influence, for all intents and purpose. Perhaps it could be posited that it is a God-imparted reaction, if it is natural, assuming that "God" is merely a creator and not a moral arbiter. In that case, however, do you not think it is possible for a different reaction to be just as moral?

On the "ick factors" of morality, which I do not attibute to reason, I still do not think other options are just as moral. However, it is not my place to stop people from making those sorts of choices. I pretty much have to think their morality is inferior to my own otherwise I wouldn't consider their choice a moral one. This is exactly how I can consider myself very very much prolife while at the same time thinking their should be no laws against abortion. The choice is moral one of ick and not reason. At the same time if I held the choice to abort as equal to my own I wouldn't consider it moral and wouldn't be offended by it.

Or is the selfishness of your particualar inclinations too strong of a judge to allow you to accept others within that same moral sense?

It's not selfishness but the judgement inclinations themselves are so strong. I see what you are capable of and I compartmenalize you as an object. I do the same thing to you when you lie.

At the same time we can look at moral decisions which are more rational. It's generally immoral to be the last minute merger in traffic. That moral decision is founded in reason where you are intention is inflate your importance against a collection of the other, where your decision is actually a microcosm for the break down of society.

Or we can look at morality of irrationality. The world is the most interesting here but I don't have time to formulate thoughts. In short my belief system is founded in free will. It is my version of religion, except I don't need church nor even diety to believe in freewill. I just have to believe the universe is not wholly rational. In this sense I do require a spirit, as it were, or more plainly a universe full of first causes/free agents that do not behave randomly. In a universe that has free agents, for the free agents to get along they have rules to get along.

[Austin]

Wait, wait, wait... Without God there really cannot be morality. You see we're really just a bunch of bits and pieces all controlled by chemical reactions. Each thought I have and each thing I do when you get to basics is just as simple as blowing up a balloon with a mixture of vinegar and baking soda in a plastic bottle. How can I be held responsible for what a bunch of chemicals have me doing depending on what a bunch of chemicals have you guys doing? If everything is sorta' one big complicated chemical reaction than everything is already as good as played out.

[LordMortis]

Wait, wait, wait... Without God there really cannot be morality. You see we're really just a bunch of bits and pieces all controlled by chemical reactions. Each thought I have and each thing I do when you get to basics is just as simple as blowing up a balloon with a mixture of vinegar and baking soda in a plastic bottle. How can I be held responsible for what a bunch of chemicals have me doing depending on what a bunch of chemicals have you guys doing? If everything is sorta' one big complicated chemical reaction than everything is already as good as played out.

I concurish. In a wholly rational world prescriptive morality and, more concretely, accountability as we think of it are problematic because all cause is approximate. There is no free agency. Where we vere away is that I don't think God is necessary to abandon reason. God is not required for me to be irrational.

[melencolia]

Or does irrationality fail to exist outside of an abstraction if you rationalize everything as an accordance to Nature? "Nature" being a term practically interchangeable with the supposition that we are substantiated merely by chemical inertia and not by a conscious creator.

Perhaps Reason as we know it is only a social contruction, not one ordained by any God, and it cannot be abandoned, only changed?

[paulbaxter]

LM,

I hope I didn't seem to snippy. Forgive me if I did. My "no" was simply from not trusting myself to adequately summarize MacIntyre's arguments. He is orders of magnitude smarter than me (he's a past president of the American Philosophical Association), and I would hate to have my poor presentation lead someone to think that his position is easily dismissed.

I can summarize the general flow of the book a little bit more if you like.

He begins by describing a post-apocalyptic scenario in which the majority of our technical knowledge has been lost and all that remains are little snippets, odd pages of journals, bits of old machinery, etc. Without the entire apparatus of our current society, these little bits are not enough to make sense of or able to be used for their original purposes. He postulates that this is the position modern western ethics is in now. Our general views of ethics are the leftovers from what was once a coherent system, but now that the system is lost, the odd leftover bits aren't able to function as they once did and don't seem to make much sense.

He goes on to examine the history of ethical philosophy with particular attention to Kant and his followers. MacIntyre argues at some length that post-medieval/enlightenment philosophers tried as best they could to give an account of moral behavior without reference to God. He argues that they were not successful in doing so.

One interesting portion of his book is about Nietzsche and his total rejection of this project. Nietzsche took the position that if god does not exist, then it is really pointless to even try to uphold anything resembling Christian morality; that the only proper motive for human behavior is the pursuit and exercise of power. Some have taken this point as one of the great challenges of this book: is it possible to reject theistic accounts of ethics and still avoid "genealogy" (this being his code word for Nietzsche's position).

So there's your summary, as best as I can present it. You'll have to read it yourself if you wish to see if his arguments are sound.

edit for some errors and to point out that this also seems to be a good summary-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue" target="_blank

[LordMortis]

Or does irrationality fail to exist outside of an abstraction if you rationalize everything as an accordance to Nature? "Nature" being a term practically interchangeable with the supposition that we are substantiated merely by chemical inertia and not by a conscious creator.

I don't think think that solely sustained by "chemical inertia" and "concscious creator" an either/or situation. I'll accept that at the situation when I know whether or you leave the light on when you make sweet love to chickens.

Perhaps Reason as we know it is only a social contruction, not one ordained by any God, and it cannot be abandoned, only changed?

Reason is one way we have of interpreting data. It works really way. Sure we can change reason. We can say that a reasonable world is one where causal connection is not maintained and consistant. I don't think any one is going to go for it but I'm game.