The Unconditional Ought

[JohnDamian]

So, I guess this is one of those “tough questions, that challenge my beliefs?” Yea, my faith is really shaken by this sort of ****…as I said, straight from the Theology 101 mid-term.

So, you’re about 18 and you think you are a real brain buster. You think you have it all figured out and you’re really dazzling everyone with your brilliance. See how it all shakes out on judgement day.

I don’t care to dazzle anyone with anything. I merely wish to point out that you should take advantage of something called a library card before you postulate meaningless nonsense.

I certainly don’t have anything figured out - but from your assertive tone you appear to, care to answer my question?

 

[Leela]

What is your opinion about the unconditional ought? It is the use of the word “ought” in a statement like “You ought not to steal”/“Thou shalt not steal”. Do you think that these unconditional relationships ever exist? Obviously, we make use of them in everyday speech, but is there a way to make sense of them that makes them truly different from conditional oughts?

I’ll withhold my full opinion on the statement for now, but I’ll give my (name removed by moderator)ut after I see some of the feedback.

Why would it matter whether there are true unconditional ought-propostions given that when we act we always do so under some conditions? I suppose you are looking for something like “omni-conditional oughts”–things that are true under ALL conditions. I think we can be extremely certain that we ought not torture babies under any conditions we can now imagine, but what extra comfort is gained to in believing that there have never been nor could there ever be any situations where we ought to do so? Would that make it less true that we can ever be wrong in our day to day decisions? I don’t see how. One thing that we must certainly be right about is that we can sometimes be wrong.

 

[Leela]

See how it all shakes out on judgement day.

Right. At least you can take comfort in the fact that God loves you more than him.

 

[filled2bursting]

Given the context of the 10 commandments, from whence this “ought” example is taken and given the course of the discussion seems to be leaning towards “oughts” are only conditional on the source you recognize for your authority, I would like to add the following 2 points:

1. At mount Sinai, what were they doing? God was establishing a covenant relationship with the people he had just led out of slavery.

The covenant: I will be your God and you will be my people.
The understanding then was revealed to be:
Given that you intend to keep this covenant, these oughts or commands became very legal omni-conditional statements.
(and as we later saw were abused out right by the religious leaders of Jesus’s day)

As Jesus elaborates, the covenant became understood as not legalistic, but in spirit and in truth. The omni-ought rather became “you ought to strive to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” What we are striving to be depends on our image of our heavenly Father.

If that image is so imperfect that we would never want to be like that, then we should not pursue it, but rather pursue a better image. God the Father is the best image, communicating that is sometimes a challenge and requires God to give the grace to see.
This we are told he will do for all who ask it.

1. Human Beings have an interesting way of finding ways to “Border test and break” legal systems to their advantage. Focusing on the negative ought aspects of these commandments can easily lead to scruplosity and failure. These commandments flipped into their positive corrollaries. (positive ideologically not necessarily grammatically)
   the 7 relating to man:

Thou shall honor thy Father and thy Mother (and arguably other authorities placed over you)
Thou shall not kill becomes
thou shall bring life.
Thou shall not commit Adultery becomes
thou shall be faithful.
Thou shall not steal becomes
thou shall be generous and protective of others
Thou shall not bear false witness becomes
thou shall bear witness to truth
Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife becomes
thou shall strengthen the relationships around you
Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods becomes
thou shall help your neighbor prosper

This turns our border testing around into finding creative ways to full-fill these more fully. This I would argue is the advantage of Christian morality over secular morality.

 

[filled2bursting]

Right. At least you can take comfort in the fact that God loves you more than him.

I would argue that God’s infinite love is equal in measure for each of us. Some reflection for thought would be on the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
478, 1878, 2793

As to the judgment this implies, bear in mind circumstances. I presume you have been raised or come to know the truth and fullness of the Catholic Faith. Whereas AntiTheist has not. If you have that much of an advantage in learning, where are the fruits of your actions?
1790-1794
That is the kind of judgment we are warned about.

One thing I bemoan is how afraid we have become to act on our beliefs as this calls us to. What won the Roman empire was not some superior theological argument, (though now days more defense is needed) but that even greater inherent force of goodness and beauty that comes from living in the truth.
“Look how they love each other…” Tertullian quoting the pagans of his day

 

[WmJackP]

What is your opinion about the unconditional ought? It is the use of the word “ought” in a statement like “You ought not to steal”/“Thou shalt not steal”. Do you think that these unconditional relationships ever exist? Obviously, we make use of them in everyday speech, but is there a way to make sense of them that makes them truly different from conditional oughts?

I’ll withhold my full opinion on the statement for now, but I’ll give my (name removed by moderator)ut after I see some of the feedback.

You point up merely a problem with language. What one must do to avoid punishment is to not steal (and not get caught). What one must do to facilitate a moral and principled society is not steal (regardless of being caught or not).

The concept of a “cosmic policeman” (ie God) is quaint and perhaps even useful in order to disaude certain people from acting in ways deliterious to society ,but ,likely has no correspondence in reality.

 

[Betterave]

You point up merely a problem with language. What one must do to avoid punishment is to not steal (and not get caught). What one must do to facilitate a moral and principled society is not steal (regardless of being caught or not).

The concept of a “cosmic policeman” (ie God) is quaint and perhaps even useful in order to disaude certain people from acting in ways deliterious to society ,but ,likely has no correspondence in reality.

You are almost right. Let me correct you: The concept of God as a “cosmic policeman” is quaint (and simplistic)…but likely has no correspondence in reality (or anywhere else).

p.s.: I would argue that God’s love is not equal for each person. (See, e.g., Rev 3:16. “I love you but… blehh!” ) That would not be just.

 

[Betterave]

Why would it matter whether there are true unconditional ought-propostions given that when we act we always do so under some conditions? I suppose you are looking for something like “omni-conditional oughts”–things that are true under ALL conditions. I think we can be extremely certain that we ought not torture babies under any conditions we can now imagine, but what extra comfort is gained to in believing that there have never been nor could there ever be any situations where we ought to do so? Would that make it less true that we can ever be wrong in our day to day decisions? I don’t see how. One thing that we must certainly be right about is that we can sometimes be wrong.

Your explication of “unconditional” as “omni-conditional” is correct, but entirely otiose. The ‘comfort’ we gain from believing we ought never to do evil is that we believe what seems to us to be true. It’s pretty hard to dispense with such ‘comfort.’

 

[Leela]

Your explication of “unconditional” as “omni-conditional” is correct, but entirely otiose. The ‘comfort’ we gain from believing we ought never to do evil is that we believe what seems to us to be true. It’s pretty hard to dispense with such ‘comfort.’

“We ought never do evil” is a tautology as is “we believe what seems to us to be true.” Is that the sort of omni-conditional we are talking about? I don’t think that is what the OP had in mind.

 

[filled2bursting]

p.s.: I would argue that God’s love is not equal for each person. (See, e.g., Rev 3:16. “I love you but… blehh!” ) That would not be just.

Let me respond in two parts: 1) to the question of Love vs Mercy and 2) to the nature of that love

1. Is not [Rev 3:16] a statement on the Lord’s reaction to “lukewarmness or our inaction” (as opposed to a statement of his Love)?
   I believe this is found in another book by that author: John 3:16
   (For God so loved the world (all created) so much that he gave (through ultimate physical/spiritual suffering and sacrifice) his only Son that everyone who believes in him might not perish, but have eternal life.)
   -The payment was to give all of us a CHANCE at this. A chance we are commissioned to empower each other to take more fully.
   Does painting an image of a God with conditional love help empower anyone to believe more fully?

God is Justice and Mercy. The best explanation I have heard on how God can be all loving and yet just, comes from C.S.Lewis: “We either say God your will be done, or he will say to us your will be done.”
The lukewarm from Rev 3:16 could be likened to the man who shows up without proper garment in the parable of the wedding feast

The parable of the sower discussed in that article argues
“We are expected to be certain in our faith but to question our moral judgments.”

1. Again I would argue that God’s love is the love of benefaction, not love of Complacency standard has been purported.
   Catholic Encyclopedia (Summarized at end)
   This would imply, that the previous post would (presuming to know the mind of God),
   need to be reversed.

This topic is actually, rather relevant given the foremost of the commandments:
“Love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength”

 

[DaveBj]

Posted without comment, from Merrian-Webster’s 11th Collegiate.

Middle English oughte (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from oughte, 1st & 3d singular past indicative & subjunctive of owen to own, owe — more at OWE
Date:12th century

— used to express obligation ought to pay our debts, advisability ought to take care of yourself, natural expectation ought to be here by now, or logical consequence the result ought to be infinity

Well, almost without comment. When discussing things like this, we need to start with what the words actually mean.

DaveBj

 

[Leela]

Posted without comment, from Merrian-Webster’s 11th Collegiate.

Middle English oughte (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from oughte, 1st & 3d singular past indicative & subjunctive of owen to own, owe — more at OWE
Date:12th century

— used to express obligation ought to pay our debts, advisability ought to take care of yourself, natural expectation ought to be here by now, or logical consequence the result ought to be infinity

Well, almost without comment. When discussing things like this, we need to start with what the words actually mean.

DaveBj

Was there ever confusion about what “ought” means?

 

[DaveBj]

Was there ever confusion about what “ought” means?

There may have been. There isn’t now.

The dictionary entry shows that it is the past tense (used in English as subjunctive, since English doesn’t have a true subjunctive) for “to owe.” Some debaters might not have known that.

DaveBj

 

[Betterave]

“We ought never do evil” is a tautology as is “we believe what seems to us to be true.” Is that the sort of omni-conditional we are talking about? I don’t think that is what the OP had in mind.

That certainly seems to be what the OP had in mind. What did you have in mind in talking about the “extra comfort” to be gained from believing true statements?

 

[Leela]

That certainly seems to be what the OP had in mind. What did you have in mind in talking about the “extra comfort” to be gained from believing true statements?

(1) X is wrong in any situation I can now imagine
(2) X is wrong independent of context

I see no “something extra” that is gained in asserting (2) rather than (1). In fact, (1) to me is a much more mature view of morality. It suggests the perspective of someone who realizes that in the past she had not imagined all possibilities in making rash general claims and will therefore be more cautious about doing so in the future. It suggests someone who does not have the sadomasochistic urge to be handed rules and and to be punished for not always following them but instead tries to make thoughtful consideration about what is good and bad without being prejudiced by other people’s claims to have some knowledge that stands outside of time and place to make judgments in advance about all times and places. It suggests to me someone who takes personal responsibility for her moral discernment rather than wanting to hand that responsibility over to an external “rule-maker/punisher.”

 

[Betterave]

(1) X is wrong in any situation I can now imagine
(2) X is wrong independent of context

I see no “something extra” that is gained in asserting (2) rather than (1).

You may not see “something extra,” but you apparently see some difference. What is that difference? Is it conceptual, or just an emotive reaction you have (boo/hurrah) towards what you consider to be the probable “maturity level” (etc.) of the individual making each statement? If it’s conceptual (and I’m pretty sure it should be), can you explain what the conceptual difference is?

In fact, (1) to me is a much more mature view of morality. It suggests the perspective of someone who realizes that in the past she had not imagined all possibilities in making rash general claims and will therefore be more cautious about doing so in the future. It suggests someone who does not have the sadomasochistic urge to be handed rules and and to be punished for not always following them but instead tries to make thoughtful consideration about what is good and bad without being prejudiced by other people’s claims to have some knowledge that stands outside of time and place to make judgments in advance about all times and places. It suggests to me someone who takes personal responsibility for her moral discernment rather than wanting to hand that responsibility over to an external “rule-maker/punisher.”

Presumably you consider yourself ‘mature’ in writing this kind of thing? What justifies your presumption of your own ‘maturity’ when it comes to moral reasoning? Shouldn’t it have something to do with a willingness and an ability to accurately represent the positions of others?

 

[KrazyKaiju]

“We ought never do evil” is a tautology as is “we believe what seems to us to be true.” Is that the sort of omni-conditional we are talking about? I don’t think that is what the OP had in mind.

That is sort of what I was getting at. I thought about the unconditional ought for a while, and it just doesn’t seem to make sense (if you were to pick apart the meanings of the terms in a statement like “You ought not to steal” and try to find out what it really means). At least…it doesn’t seem to be very instructive.

I’m of an opinion similar to AntiTheist and ad altare Dei. Assume that the good life is “a life in which X is fulfilled” (fill in X with an arbitrary ethical theory). I think that every “unconditional-ought” statement “You ought to do E” has a hidden conditional like “If X is to be fulfilled”. You then have a statement like “If X is to be fulfilled, you ought to do E.” E is simply a necessary condition for - say - creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

I didn’t read the entire conversation between AntiTheist and ad altare Dei, but I think they nailed it on the head better than I could. I won’t reinvent the wheel and will just refer you to their conversation. It is on pages 1 and 2 of this thread.

 

[Betterave]

That is sort of what I was getting at. I thought about the unconditional ought for a while, and it just doesn’t seem to make sense (if you were to pick apart the meanings of the terms in a statement like “You ought not to steal” and try to find out what it really means). At least…it doesn’t seem to be very instructive.

I’m of an opinion similar to AntiTheist and ad altare Dei. Assume that the good life is “a life in which X is fulfilled” (fill in X with an arbitrary ethical theory). I think that every “unconditional-ought” statement “You ought to do E” has a hidden conditional like “If X is to be fulfilled”. You then have a statement like “If X is to be fulfilled, you ought to do E.” E is simply a necessary condition for - say - creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

I didn’t read the entire conversation between AntiTheist and ad altare Dei, but I think they nailed it on the head better than I could. I won’t reinvent the wheel and will just refer you to their conversation. It is on pages 1 and 2 of this thread.

You didn’t even read their whole conversation, but you ‘think’ they nailed it on the head? I can see you take this issue very seriously.