Non-theistic foundation of morality!

[Pallas_Athene]

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately.

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. In other words: “live and let live”. Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Competition brings the world forward. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others.
2. Help them when they ask for help.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If adultery is ok with me, and not with you, there is a conflict.

The golden rule only works if there is a set of moral principles, and virtues that people can live by. And, teach their children so that the children can grow up knowing how to treat others.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Does a fetus in the womb count as another to respect or only the mother?

 

[jmcrae]

Does a fetus in the womb count as another to respect or only the mother?

Good question, which raises another: who are classed as “persons” and how do they acquire basic rights?

 

[KEP1983]

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately.

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. In other words: “live and let live”. Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Competition brings the world forward. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others.
2. Help them when they ask for help.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life.

I’m a rational person who believes that I only have one chance to live, and one chance to gather as much happiness as I can. I also believe in Social Darwinism and subscribe to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. Thus, I’m now a billionaire who lives for money and power. That’s my own moral code. I desire to make you a wage slave for me and take your property. I pay off all the government and law enforcement officials, so you can expect no sort of justice any time soon.

Your moral code may be nice for you, but why should I be compelled to follow your code? Why should I accept your own arbitrary moral code over Ayn Rand’s moral code?

 

[CrossofChrist]

The problem is that your propositions are based upon utility, not upon them actually being the right thing to do. Or phrased differently, under your proposal the golden rule is good because it works not because there is something inherently good about treating others with respect. (Or at least that’s how I’m reading it.)

How is this reconciled with Darwin’s survival of the fittest? On what basis do you say that point #3 is achieved by treating others with respect? Seems like a pack mentality that is formed for selfish reasons would do better–something that thousands of years have proven to be true (under survival of the fittest assumptions). Why should a group of corrupt billionaires care about the poorest of the poor?

 

[fhansen]

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately.

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. In other words: “live and let live”. Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Competition brings the world forward. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others.
2. Help them when they ask for help.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life.

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Destroying my neighbor-perhaps a whole tribe or nation-can diminish my own pain and suffering even as I increase theirs in the process of procuring their property.

 

[pgepps]

Sounds as though you’ve satisfied yourself on the subject. I hope you’ll forgive those of us who are not satisfied.

For starters, though, let me just suggest that it is Catholic teaching–ordinary and serious Catholic teaching–that you don’t need to mention God, or appeal to glowy miracles, to know that there is right and wrong and that it matters whether you choose what’s right (prominently including believing the truth you know and seeking the answers you need in order to choose what’s right). So actually you’re preaching to the choir (some Christians really do think that without specific divine commands there is no morality, but they aren’t very well read in the tradition). Here, digest this for a while before we continue:

Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad depending on whether it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end—the telos or final goal at which all human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness, where “happiness” is understood in terms of completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of happiness and motivate us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.

Now, with that in mind, I have a few questions that I think you might like to reflect on.

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately.

1. Yes. What else would we be? Would you agree that we are justified in our concern for a human life as a whole, from beginning to end, as well as its current state of maintenance?
2. Sure. Would you agree that we also intentionally embrace pain and suffering, not pathologically, but because it achieves ends we consider worth that suffering? Are we ever justified in doing so?
3. Sure, except when we can’t. Right? And except when we don’t want to. Actually, do we have solid evidence for this? Hmmmm. Who is “together,” here? All humans, living and dead, or all the living, or all the ones on my continent, or all the ones under my regime, or all the ones in my region, or all the ones I like, or all the ones I have sworn oaths of fidelity to, or only the one I married, or our whole extended family, or the Mystical Body of Christ, or…who? How do we judge which “togethers” are more worthy than others? Are any particular groupings not subject to interference from others, or subject only on certain conditions? How are we justified in determining those conditions?

OK, that ought to keep you busy through at least an M.A. But really, it’s just the case that tidy answers only work until real life asks them questions.

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

Why not prefer Kant’s 3rd formulation of the Categorical Imperative: “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends”?

Because here again we have the problem of the choice of “others” to consider, and in addition the question of whether “what you would want” is the sort of hypothetical judgment that can bear the weight of universal law.

Let us imagine that I seriously would want every rapist, everywhere, to be hanged by the feet until dead; and that I seriously would want every person’s accusations of rape to be taken seriously. I will immediately create a conundrum for the laws, and if we make the pragmatic adjustment–dismiss more claims of rape, or punish less severely–then we will have to start looking at much more serious questions than “what * would want.” These questions will fall into two basic categories:

1. 
   *]questions of proportion
   *]questions of fact
   
   That is, how do we justify our judgment that such-and-such crime requires such-and-such response, and when is it too much response, and when is it too little? When are we justified in making this the enforcement priority, or in making rigorous processes of justice the priority, over against other pressing concerns? What weight does “what * would want” have in this context?
   
   And then, in what exactly does this crime consist? How is it possible to be sure that it was committed? How is it possible to hold this person guilty of this crime, and when is somebody else or nobody actually guilty, even if what appears to be this crime has occurred? When we inquire into the basis for a belief about law, we call it a hearing or a trial, the process “forensic” examination. When we do the same with regard to morality, we call it casuistry or self-examination.
   
   So while the Golden Rule is good, it seems neither to be sufficiently robust in its expression nor sufficiently illuminating in its application to stand alone as moral guidance.
   
   Kant and Sartre, of course, agree with me on this point without being Catholics!
   
   (just like Catholic teaching predicts)
   
   [CONTINUED]**

 

[pgepps]

1. Respect others.
2. Help them when they ask for help.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule.

I see no reason we should think those follow from the above, actually. I assume you can see that I have no definitions from your previous statements for terms such as “Respect” and “Help,” and no basis for skipping from the baseline of measured cooperation in optimizing pain/pleasure as experienced biologically to the meta-analysis of degrees of conscious/existential participation in each of those acts.

From the initial premises, taking a step that is “what * would want” everyone to do in that situation should meet with your approval, but you seem to have smuggled in a condition that those affected must not only be helped, but must also agree that they are helped. How do we justify this additional layer of ethical reasoning?

However, your attempt to speak simply on the matter would meet with the approval of the young Benjamin Franklin.

Cheers,
PGE*

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If adultery is ok with me, and not with you, there is a conflict.

Only if we would be married to each other. Otherwise there is no conflict.

The golden rule only works if there is a set of moral principles, and virtues that people can live by. And, teach their children so that the children can grow up knowing how to treat others.

No, the golden rules ARE the moral principles.

Does a fetus in the womb count as another to respect or only the mother?

That is for the mother to decide. If you are the father of that fetus, you two can jointly decide. If you cannot agree, the mother has two votes, and you have one. The fetus has no vote. After all it does not even have a working brain for quite a long time.

Good question, which raises another: who are classed as “persons” and how do they acquire basic rights?

A person must have a working brain. Otherwise it is just hollow body. The phrase “basic rights” needs to be explained. There should be only one basic “right”, to be left alone. Every other “right” imposes itself on some others. And if a “right” is not enforced, it is just a suggestion.

I’m a rational person who believes that I only have one chance to live, and one chance to gather as much happiness as I can. I also believe in Social Darwinism and subscribe to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. Thus, I’m now a billionaire who lives for money and power. That’s my own moral code. I desire to make you a wage slave for me and take your property. I pay off all the government and law enforcement officials, so you can expect no sort of justice any time soon.

Sorry, it is not a rational assumption that you can “buy” all the politicians and all the judges and the whole police force. And if you are familiar with Rand’s philosophy, you know that she never advocated using force, except in self-defense. So your starting parameters are impossible.

Your moral code may be nice for you, but why should I be compelled to follow your code? Why should I accept your own arbitrary moral code over Ayn Rand’s moral code?

Again, if you are a rational person, you know that no one person is an island. Both the total “cooperation” and the total “competition” are inferior strategies in the “game of life”.

So if you wish to make everyone a wage-slave, you will lose that fight. People will resent your attitude, and fight against it. There is proverb which says: “A lot of geese will conquer even the strongest pig”. Besides the aim you describe is already irrational. As Steven Wright said: “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”

If you would just look at the history as it happened, you would see that powerful and selfish people all lost on the long run. Sometimes they lost due to an uprising, sometimes they lost due to a peaceful process. But the trend is unmistakable. Selfish seeking of power may work for a short time in a limited environment. But it does not work on the long haul - precisely since it is irrational and self-defeating. How many tyrants have been killed during the millennia?

The problem is that your propositions are based upon utility, not upon them actually being the right thing to do.

How do you decide what is “the right thing to do”? Please share the epistemology of this process.

Or phrased differently, under your proposal the golden rule is good because it works not because there is something inherently good about treating others with respect. (Or at least that’s how I’m reading it.)

It is inherently good, because “what goes around, comes around”. Just try to approach people with a kind, smiling attitude and they will reciprocate it. Try to be hostile from the get-go, and they will reciprocate that, too.

How is this reconciled with Darwin’s survival of the fittest?

The naïve interpretation of the “survival of the fittest” has been discredited a long time ago. It does not say that “trample everyone else underfoot”.

On what basis do you say that point #3 is achieved by treating others with respect? Seems like a pack mentality that is formed for selfish reasons would do better–something that thousands of years have proven to be true (under survival of the fittest assumptions). Why should a group of corrupt billionaires care about the poorest of the poor?

Ah, the “pack mentality” works both ways. Do you know what is the definition of “democracy”? We speak of democracy when two wolves and one sheep VOTE, and the ballot has one question: ‘what shall we have for dinner tonight’? But what if there are two thousand sheep? How many tyrannical systems have been around a thousand years ago? One hundred years ago? Today? Tyranny cannot survive in the information age, when everyone has instant access to the latest information on their smart-phone.

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Destroying my neighbor-perhaps a whole tribe or nation-can diminish my own pain and suffering even as I increase theirs in the process of procuring their property.

Only on the short run. Read what I wrote above about the history of mankind.



I think that you guys and gals expect too much. There is no way to create a system which is foolproof both on the short run and the long haul. Which cannot be circumvented even by malicious people. I am sorry to say that such expectations are impossible to meet at our level of technology. What the future technology will bring still remains to be seen.



Sufficient unto the day. PGEpps said quite a mouthful, so I will have to wait until at least tomorrow to compose an answer.

 

[Hatikvah]

But the phrase “working brain” needs to be explained! There are people who some may consider to have a working brain, and others would not. There’s quite an array of mental conflicts, issues and disorders out there, unfortunately.

 

[CrossofChrist]

How do you decide what is “the right thing to do”? Please share the epistemology of this process.

Perhaps I should’ve said “inherently good” rather than “right thing to do”. Regardless, I would say the issue at hand is rooted in metaphysics more than it is in epistemology, although I’m sure we differ there as well.

It is inherently good, because “what goes around, comes around”.

So the value of being charitable is not in the act itself, but because I will (eventually) receive some personal benefit from it? What’s to stop–I’ll call her Susie–from taking advantage of others in certain situations, if it appears it will never “come around”? (Unless you are arguing for some form of karma, but I don’t think that is the case.) Even granting that Susie never takes advantage of others, a system of morality that is based on self-reward isn’t very satisfying to me.

I’ll let the rest of the discussion die since you seem to have a lot on your plate already.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

From the initial premises, taking a step that is “what * would want” everyone to do in that situation should meet with your approval, but you seem to have smuggled in a condition that those affected must not only be helped, but must also agree that they are helped. How do we justify this additional layer of ethical reasoning?*
Just a very short reply in the form of a joke that I consider pertinent.

The young boy scout goes home, and his father asks him what good deeds he performed during the day. He proudly answers: “with the help of six friends of mine I helped an old guy to cross a busy street.” The father says: “That is very nice, but why did you need your six friends?” Whereupon the kid: “Because that old bugger did not WANT o cross the street”. I hope you get the point. Helping someone against their wishes is disrespectful. It insinuates that the person to be helped - even if lucid - cannot be trusted to make a decision for himself, and some form of a “nanny-state” (or its equivalent) should take over.

Does this explain the additional proviso?

---

The other part of your post I am still digesting. Though I have a quick observation. Why on Earth do you think that Aristotle and Aquinas should be taken seriously? Do you think that no other thinker made a valid contribution to the field of philosophy in the last few thousand years? Do we have to go back to Aristotle for “guidance”?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Perhaps I should’ve said “inherently good” rather than “right thing to do”. Regardless, I would say the issue at hand is rooted in metaphysics more than it is in epistemology, although I’m sure we differ there as well.

Metaphysics without an accompanying epistemology is useless. So how do you decide if an act is “inherently good” without taking its effects into consideration?

So the value of being charitable is not in the act itself, but because I will (eventually) receive some personal benefit from it?

That is not the way I see it. It is good because it increases the amount of goodwill even if it does not “come back” directly to the one who initiated it. The phrase “what goes around, comes around” should not be taken in such a narrow context. A few years ago I visited an ex-communist country, where people simply were not accustomed to see smiling faces. I made a direct effort to be extra nice to the sales people and the ones in the offices, whose job was to help the citizens. In a few days the effect was astonishing. The smiling and helpful attitude became the norm (at least in those shops and offices). Everyone gained, no one lost.

What’s to stop–I’ll call her Susie–from taking advantage of others in certain situations, if it appears it will never “come around”? (Unless you are arguing for some form of karma, but I don’t think that is the case.) Even granting that Susie never takes advantage of others, a system of morality that is based on self-reward isn’t very satisfying to me.

Nothing at all. There is no way to “fix” all the problems immediately. (Well, God supposedly could, but he does not seem to be interested. ) One must be patient and take small steps to make small changes.

 

[KEP1983]

Only if we would be married to each other. Otherwise there is no conflict.

No, the golden rules ARE the moral principles.

That is for the mother to decide. If you are the father of that fetus, you two can jointly decide. If you cannot agree, the mother has two votes, and you have one. The fetus has no vote. After all it does not even have a working brain for quite a long time.

The mother has two votes and the father has none. According to whom? What makes your idea of two votes vs one vote objective? Sounds like more non-theistic subjectivity to me.

A person must have a working brain. Otherwise it is just hollow body. The phrase “basic rights” needs to be explained. There should be only one basic “right”, to be left alone. Every other “right” imposes itself on some others. And if a “right” is not enforced, it is just a suggestion.

You realize that this same argument can be applied to newborns, right? It can also be applied to people in comas and other sorts of brain injuries-- injuries which people can recover from.

Sorry, it is not a rational assumption that you can “buy” all the politicians and all the judges and the whole police force. And if you are familiar with Rand’s philosophy, you know that she never advocated using force, except in self-defense. So your starting parameters are impossible.

You ignored that I stated BOTH Social Darwinism AND Ayn Rand’s objectivism. Nothing compells an atheist to be totally wed to only one belief system. There most certainly ARE powerful atheists who live exactly like I’ve stated.

And I’m sorry, but you don’t think the rich and powerful buy off politicians and law enforcement? Have you ever heard of Mexico? Colombia? George Soros? The KGB?

Again, if you are a rational person, you know that no one person is an island. Both the total “cooperation” and the total “competition” are inferior strategies in the “game of life”.

You’re assuming the other person has a utilitarian view, rather than a selfish view. Your utilitarian view might be nice for you, but nothing you’ve said is objective and therefore has no power to compell the rich and powerful to follow it.

So if you wish to make everyone a wage-slave, you will lose that fight. People will resent your attitude, and fight against it. There is proverb which says: “A lot of geese will conquer even the strongest pig”. Besides the aim you describe is already irrational. As Steven Wright said: “You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?”

Really? What history books have you been reading? The rich and powerful have dominated society since pre-history. And when a so-called democratic uprising occurs, inevitably another group of rich powerful people take over. Look at Ukraine, Egypt, USSR, revolutionary France, Mexico, etc.

If you would just look at the history as it happened, you would see that powerful and selfish people all lost on the long run. Sometimes they lost due to an uprising, sometimes they lost due to a peaceful process. But the trend is unmistakable. Selfish seeking of power may work for a short time in a limited environment. But it does not work on the long haul - precisely since it is irrational and self-defeating. How many tyrants have been killed during the millennia?

The rich and powerful all lost in the long run? Again, which history books have you been reading? History is the succession of generations of the rich and powerful people.

How many tyrants have been killed during the Millennia? Very few. How many average people have been killed by tyrants? Hundreds of millions.

The idea that the rich and powerful don’t last long, are eventually deposed, thus creating peaceful utilitarian societies is just historically false.

How do you decide what is “the right thing to do”? Please share the epistemology of this process.

Natural law rooted in the objectivity of truth.

It is inherently good, because “what goes around, comes around”. Just try to approach people with a kind, smiling attitude and they will reciprocate it. Try to be hostile from the get-go, and they will reciprocate that, too.

This is completely subjective. Nothing you say here should compel the rich and powerful to follow it.

 

[e_c]

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings.Is that all?
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.Not always true.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately. DEFINITELY not always true.

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule) Unless it is good for them, whereas it would not be good for you in your state of life.
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)See above, but reverse it.

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. False. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside. And how will we determine who is a lunatic? Is it just the people who disagree with us? What if we become the minority? Etc.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. This is hard enough to do in a marriage between two generally balanced persons. So now I guess we’ll just “do it” with 7 billion. OK. In other words: “live and let live”. Unless someone’s hurting you… or something? Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Just a second ago we were just living and let live, but now we’re competing? Competition brings the world forward. Only if it’s good. There is such a thing as bad competition. Look at pure capitalism - it leads to slavery, extreme corruption, etc. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances. After which point, we just do whatever we want and say the circumstances called for it. Sounds wonderful.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others. This has a meaning so breathtakingly broad you can’t possibly expect people to understand what you mean in any detail.
2. Help them when they ask for help. Unless it would hurt them, or hurt me, or… Maybe it’s just not that simple.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish. Never become a parent.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule. And what determines whether or not they are in that position? You, of course.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life.

So… pretty unconvincing. Admit that things might be just a tad more complex than you care to imagine.

How many bad threads on this topic have there been in the past 6 months? This is it: morality depends on order, order depends on will. Will can be of human origin, or divine origin. If it’s only human will shaping the universe, we are ultimately in control of what is “right and wrong,” but if there is a divine will that orders the universe through instilling purposes in it, then God determines “right and wrong.”

The crucial problem that all of these threads have had is that they fail to start with a discussion about the one undisputed universal human good - happiness. This is where Aristotle starts in the Ethics (after some introduction) and it’s for a reason.

Tolle lege.

Peace…

 

[oldcelt]

It is quite simple.

Facts:

1. We are biological beings.
2. We try to avoid pain and suffering.
3. Together we can achieve more than separately.

Ethical propositions:

1. Do not do unto others, that you would not want others do unto you. (Negative version of the golden rule)
2. Do unto others that you would want others do unto you. (Positive version of the golden rule)

These ethical propositions (guidelines) come closest to being universal. Being almost universal does not mean that everyone, under any and all circumstances will accept them. Lunatics will not accept anything. But their opinion can be safely tossed aside.

Other considerations:

The optimal human behavior will be a certain level of cooperation to allow minimizing the pain and suffering and raise the level of well-being. In other words: “live and let live”. Sometimes competition is better than cooperation. Competition brings the world forward. Where to draw the line between cooperation and competition is a practical question, which can be only decided by examining the actual circumstances.

Summary in a few words:

1. Respect others.
2. Help them when they ask for help.
3. If they explicitly decline your help, respect their wish.
4. If they not in the position to ask or decline your help, use your best judgment using the golden rule.

That is all. No mention of any deity, a practical guideline to lead a “moral” life.

Thank you…very well stated,

John

 

[oldcelt]

So… pretty unconvincing. Admit that things might be just a tad more complex than you care to imagine.

How many bad threads on this topic have there been in the past 6 months? This is it: morality depends on order, order depends on will. Will can be of human origin, or divine origin. If it’s only human will shaping the universe, we are ultimately in control of what is “right and wrong,” but if there is a divine will that orders the universe through instilling purposes in it, then God determines “right and wrong.”

The crucial problem that all of these threads have had is that they fail to start with a discussion about the one undisputed universal human good - happiness. This is where Aristotle starts in the Ethics (after some introduction) and it’s for a reason.

Tolle lege.

Peace…

I’d like to see what the definition of “happiness” truly is, through all these centuries. Personally, I can’t think of one that would apply to all people…and Aristotle was a Pagan…at least by the standards of this board.

John

 

[e_c]

I’d like to see what the definition of “happiness” truly is, through all these centuries. Personally, I can’t think of one that would apply to all people…and Aristotle was a Pagan…at least by the standards of this board.

John

He was a pagan. It’s not really a dispute…?

Again: tolle lege. Pick up and read. You will be surprised at how plainly obvious what he says is.

If you want to argue about right and wrong in their general nature before talking about what makes actions desirable or undesirable in general (do they ultimately lead to happiness/human flourishing), it’s not going to work. Look at the past 700 threads on the topic at CAF.

 

[pgepps]

…Why on Earth do you think that Aristotle and Aquinas should be taken seriously?

I guess you should ask why I should take you seriously, right? Or why you should take me seriously? Do any of us need each other?

Oh, wait, that’s one of your premises.

But I do understand that your goal wasn’t actually to undertake any extensive study of the real problems humans face when they try to live together with each other in harmony. If so, you might have paused enough to notice in what register and for what purpose I suggested you become acquainted with the tradition (because Catholic teaching has always agreed, no insisted, that humans do not need special revelation to know that there is a moral law, a “how it is when it’s working” that is baked into the kind of creatures we are, and that they are responsible to come to understand and be governed according to that law). And you might have been familiar with the material from Kant and Sartre that I alluded to, and possibly alert to the way that I never cited divine authority (just “how it is” observations). You might even have taken more notice of the quite deliberately patronizing Ben Franklin pat on the head I ended with than the intentionally complimentary suggestion that you have grasped something that the whole of good philosophy and Catholic moral theology have always affirmed: that the ability and obligation to follow sound moral reasoning in our social life is “baked in,” is natural for humans, and does not require divine law to be intelligible and binding. And we screw it up anyway.

Everything specific to Catholic moral theology begins after that point.

My points about your “smuggled in” premises go to the inconsistency of your claims; you claim to offer that tiny bundle of premises, but your own summation has to introduce at least three or four additional premises. Those cannot be reached solely from your stated premises, which leads me back to the question I asked about fifty different ways: How are we supposed to justify arriving at the results we term morally desireable? Because mere negotiations over possibly irreconcileable “what you would want” principles do not, either formally or experientially, produce respectful cooperation; and from your principles we cannot even deduce what level of cooperation is the relevant one.

But as I said in opening, you seem to have satisfied yourself, however lacking in rigor and wisdom your presentation may be; so I do not pretend to expect that you will engage in a real reasoning process. Do look up the term “conclusory,” though.

Best,
PGE