Towards a Common Ethic

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*But I can agree that nearly everyone (excluding those with genetic defects) is wired to feel that certain things are good and others bad. *

We agree. Catholics call this the natural law.

*The decision to value and abide by these instincts, however, is subjective. *

We don’t agree. The decision is not subjective. It is personal, which is not the same thing. The decision belongs to us, but the decision we make can be objectively true or subjectively false (as when a straight stick appears bent when half of it is submerged in water) and objectively right or subjectively wrong (as when the pro-choice person comforts himself that the slaughter of the unborn is not the slaughter of a human being.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

I am in complete agreement with those Christians who feel that we’ve lost our way. The only difference is that Christians meet this challenge by saying that we must turn back to God, while my own view is that we need to build a morality that is based less on individualism and more on the collective good.

But why is there a difference? Christians don’t believe in aggressive individualism. They do believe that charity begins at home. If we are not clean ourselves, how can we help others be cleansed. If we do not produce our own food, how can we give to others? If you’ve read the Gospels, you know that Jesus was all for the good of the community as well as the single suffering person. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Atheism never promoted the collective good the way Jesus did … and if it does so now, it is coming late to the party.

 

[Oreoracle]

In fact, speaking of utilitarianism, many of its early proponents held that if a society’s needs were incompatible with the needs of the individuals of which it was comprised, it was the society that needed to change. This is why the likes of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were keen advocates for social change.

This actually makes sense to me. If a society is structured such that it systematically denies the needs of part of its population, that is clearly unjust, and should be reformed. I realise this may sound contradictory in view of the fact that I just dissed contemporary Western society, with its rampant individualism, in my previous post. But in truth, I think there is a large proportion of individual good which can only be achieved in community - things like a sense of belonging, of being part of something larger than yourself, and the security that comes from healthy reciprocal relationships. These things can’t happen when people are completely focused only upon their own desires.

Ah, Sair; you’re once again the voice of reason. Deontologists and individualists seem to ignore why morality is formed in the first place: to improve the state of the world. Thus, morality’s goal, as it is commonly perceived, is to yield better results, improve the consequences, etc. We can’t expect to accomplish this with a “live and let live” system of contractual rights, which is little better than allowing the stronger to thrive and the weaker to suffer. It’s possible for everyone to be happy so long as they have reasonable goals and moderate wealth, and capitalism is endangering both criteria.

The “communist” countries people use as examples did not fail because they were communist. They failed because they were ran by tyrannical, warring dictators. The communism did not cause the dictatorship, the dictatorship exploited communism so that they would fare better in war.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*The communism did not cause the dictatorship, the dictatorship exploited communism so that they would fare better in war. *

This is not so. Communism by its nature develops dictators because people don’t really want communism. It has to be imposed on them from the top, either cleverly by politics or overtly by violence.

The only communist communities that work well are in monasteries, but that is because the monks voluntarily embrace poverty and submit to the authority of one person (the abbot).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ah, Sair; you’re once again the voice of reason. Deontologists and individualists seem to ignore why morality is formed in the first place: to improve the state of the world. Thus, morality’s goal, as it is commonly perceived, is to yield better results, improve the consequences, etc. We can’t expect to accomplish this with a “live and let live” system of contractual rights, which is little better than allowing the stronger to thrive and the weaker to suffer. It’s possible for everyone to be happy so long as they have reasonable goals and moderate wealth, and capitalism is endangering both criteria.

The “communist” countries people use as examples did not fail because they were communist. They failed because they were ran by tyrannical, warring dictators. The communism did not cause the dictatorship, the dictatorship exploited communism so that they would fare better in war.

actually they failed because command economies are extremely ineffecient. the tyrannical warring dictators wont fly inn the face of history. the ussr, the red chinese, etc all have systems of government that leave poweer in the hands of a political party, composed of millions of people, those people poiltic among themselves just as our systems politicians do.

strong personalities like stalin, and mao stand out, but they were not the first nor the last in the line of political leaders of their respective nations.

communism fails for economic reasons, check out the chinese, who now try to use limited capitalism in order counter the ineffeciences of a command economy.

the question becomes ‘are they still communists’? who knows? they seek to maintain one party rule, i suspect that the stresses of such an arrangement will eventually overcome them

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*the question becomes ‘are they still communists’? who knows? they seek to maintain one party rule, i suspect that the stresses of such an arrangement will eventually overcome them *

The strongly socialists countries of Europe are struggling to survive, so I don’t think they fare all that well compared to our own system.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

*the question becomes ‘are they still communists’? who knows? they seek to maintain one party rule, i suspect that the stresses of such an arrangement will eventually overcome them *

The strongly socialists countries of Europe are struggling to survive, so I don’t think they fare all that well compared to our own system.

no they aren’t doing well at all, essentially the level of taxation they have kills economic developement.

our own attempts to salvage bad economic actors, is going to hurt a lot more in the long run than the short term pain would have.

the taxes from these incessant bailouts, and gigantic budgets are going to put us in the same shoes as the europeans. it may take a generation or more to recover, and the greater regualtory structure being proposed is likely to stifle developement even more.

 

[Ender]

Deontologists and individualists seem to ignore why morality is formed in the first place: to improve the state of the world. Thus, morality’s goal, as it is commonly perceived, is to yield better results, improve the consequences, etc.

Well right here we see proof of the impossibility of forming a “logical” common ethic. First, it would require religious people to abandon their belief that God is the author of morality but still accept the notion that morality exists; next it would require them to believe that it is the state rather than the individual that needs to be “improved”; then it would require acceptance that morality is based on outcomes (better results) where the act is irrelevant (precisely the mindset that led to the worst atrocities of the 20th century); and finally it would require that they swallow the claim that everyone will eventually see the logic of a single best solution - as if the proliferation of political parties doesn’t argue for just the opposite.

We can’t expect to accomplish this with a “live and let live” system of contractual rights, which is little better than allowing the stronger to thrive and the weaker to suffer. It’s possible for everyone to be happy so long as they have reasonable goals and moderate wealth, and capitalism is endangering both criteria.

This hyperbolic description notwithstanding, capitalism depends on just two rights: the right to private property and the right to freely enter agreements with others. It is ultimately based on the right to keep the wealth one creates and to freely exchange that wealth with someone else in trades that both see as personally beneficial. Which of those freedoms do you wish to curtail?

Ender

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ender

That was brilliant analysis.

I would add one more freedom: the freedom to be charitable with one’s own money but not with the plundered tax money of others.

We have seen enough thievery with the tax collectors, and growing poverty to boot! Take charity away from the government and give it back to the churches. You may then see a magnificent resurgence of the work ethic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well right here we see proof of the impossibility of forming a “logical” common ethic. First, it would require religious people to abandon their belief that God is the author of morality but still accept the notion that morality exists; next it would require them to believe that it is the state rather than the individual that needs to be “improved”; then it would require acceptance that morality is based on outcomes (better results) where the act is irrelevant (precisely the mindset that led to the worst atrocities of the 20th century); and finally it would require that they swallow the claim that everyone will eventually see the logic of a single best solution - as if the proliferation of political parties doesn’t argue for just the opposite.
This hyperbolic description notwithstanding, capitalism depends on just two rights: the right to private property and the right to freely enter agreements with others. It is ultimately based on the right to keep the wealth one creates and to freely exchange that wealth with someone else in trades that both see as personally beneficial. Which of those freedoms do you wish to curtail?

Ender

dead on

 

[Oreoracle]

Well right here we see proof of the impossibility of forming a “logical” common ethic. First, it would require religious people to abandon their belief that God is the author of morality but still accept the notion that morality exists

Geez…another believer in an objective morality. It’s not a matter of preference, it’s logically impossible.

It’s possible to form a logical deductive argument while at the same time admitting that one or more of your premises is subjective. Check out Hume’s is-ought gap if you’ve not already…who am I kidding? You won’t do that, stubborn as I’m sure you are.

This hyperbolic description notwithstanding, capitalism depends on just two rights: the right to private property and the right to freely enter agreements with others. It is ultimately based on the right to keep the wealth one creates and to freely exchange that wealth with someone else in trades that both see as personally beneficial. Which of those freedoms do you wish to curtail?

So you’d say that Robin Hood, for example, was wrong when he stole from the rich and gave to the poor?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Geez…another believer in an objective morality. It’s not a matter of preference, it’s logically impossible.

It’s possible to form a logical deductive argument while at the same time admitting that one or more of your premises is subjective. Check out Hume’s is-ought gap if you’ve not already…who am I kidding? You won’t do that, stubborn as I’m sure you are.

if one of your premises is subjective, you cant really call the conclusion objective can you? am i missing something?

as to the hyperbole, chill dude. disagreement isn’t a crime or even an insult.

So you’d say that Robin Hood, for example, was wrong when he stole from the rich and gave to the poor?

yes robin hood was wrong, he stole.

 

[Oreoracle]

if one of your premises is subjective, you cant really call the conclusion objective can you? am i missing something?

You aren’t missing anything. I didn’t say the conclusion is objective, I said it is logical.

It just upsets me when Christians look at subjectivists as though we prefer the subjectivity of morals. We don’t; we find it logically impossible for them to be otherwise.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You aren’t missing anything. I didn’t say the conclusion is objective, I said it is logical.

ok

It just upsets me when Christians look at subjectivists as though we prefer the subjectivity of morals. We don’t; we find it logically impossible for them to be otherwise.

i dont happen to know wha tthe arguments in favor of subjectivism are, i reject it on the basis what it historical results are.

what are the logical arguments for it? why are you convinced?

 

[Ender]

Geez…another believer in an objective morality. It’s not a matter of preference, it’s logically impossible.

Your statement about what I believe cannot be logically deduced from what I said; it may be a reasonable assumption but it is not a logical deduction. As for whether objective morality cannot logically exist I should like to hear that argument as we obviously have different perspectives on what is logical.

It’s possible to form a logical deductive argument while at the same time admitting that one or more of your premises is subjective.

It’s also possible to form a logically deductive argument while at the same time admitting that one or more of your premises is wrong. Have we made progress here?

Check out Hume’s is-ought gap if you’ve not already…who am I kidding? You won’t do that, stubborn as I’m sure you are.

Another non-logical conclusion. That’s a decent insult, though.

So you’d say that Robin Hood, for example, was wrong when he stole from the rich and gave to the poor?

For someone arguing for the triumph of logic you don’t seem adept at employing it. I made some fairly uncomplicated statements that I’m sure you could understand; why not address what I said? I like the reference to Robin Hood; it creates a very noble image. Just what we all conjure up in our minds when the government curtails our freedoms - all for our own good to be sure.

Ender

 

[grannymh]

Oreoracle

*But I can agree that nearly everyone (excluding those with genetic defects) is wired to feel that certain things are good and others bad. *

We agree. Catholics call this the natural law.

*The decision to value and abide by these instincts, however, is subjective. *

We don’t agree. The decision is not subjective. It is personal, which is not the same thing. The decision belongs to us, but the decision we make can be objectively true or subjectively false (as when a straight stick appears bent when half of it is submerged in water) and objectively right or subjectively wrong (as when the pro-choice person comforts himself that the slaughter of the unborn is not the slaughter of a human being.)

One of the earlier posts mentioned that one of the problems is that different people use words in different ways. To be honest, I’m having a hard time understanding subjective and objective. as used above. So please be patient with me.

My dictionary defines subjective as proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world, e.g., a subjective decision. It also means particular to a given person or personal, e.g., subjective experience. Subjectivism can be defined as a theory holing that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. I should add the common usage of subjective reasoning.

In other words, “*The decision to value and abide by these instincts, however, is subjective.” *can be a possibility.

Humans have the ability to make personal subjective decisions. These decisions can be either right or wrong or a combination of right and wrong. There may even be times when decisions can be neutral. It follows by definition that a subjective personal decision can be either right or wrong, etc.

So what is meant by “but the decision we make can be objectively true or subjectively false” (from above quote.) when a subjective decision can be either right or wrong etc.?

Technically, a straight stick appears bent because of our perception of it. We can choose to accept or refuse the perception. Comfort can be seen as an emotion which results from a decision.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[Sair]

Technically, a straight stick appears bent because of our perception of it. We can choose to accept or refuse the perception. Comfort can be seen as an emotion which results from a decision.

I think I have finally found a question that I can legitimately and in honest curiosity pose to both Catholics and atheists alike (and anyone in between).

To give a bit of background - realising that our base assumptions and our perceptions of how the world works are (perhaps) fairly irreconcilable, I think most of us would agree that there is a certain virtue - honesty, if nothing else - to acting according to our personal convictions. I am in the middle of reading an overview of ethical philosophies, and a concept I stumbled across this morning got me thinking. The suggestion - raised in relation to the 17th-century philosopher Hugo Grotius, and his work On The Law of War and Peace, is that while theists may not deny that atheists can tell right from wrong, they are still concerned that without a belief in God, one has insufficient motive for doing what one sees as right.

So here’s my question: What motivates you to act according to your own ethical principles? For Catholics, to what extent does your personal awareness of God compel you to do what is right? Do you feel a sense of personal ownership over the ethical principles taught through the Church? For atheists, what do you hope to achieve by what you believe to be right actions, if not unity with God?

Now, I realise that these are highly personal questions, so please feel free to answer to whatever degree you feel comfortable with, or excercise your right not to answer at all! I will, however, break the ice by offering my own answers - since one of my personal principles is that I should not expect others to do what I am not prepared to do myself

Ever since I was a child, I have struggled with the belief that I am essentially a selfish person. Despite assurances to the contrary from others, I maintained that they could not see inside my head, therefore could not see the duplicity of my motives.

As I have grown up (I’m now on the wrong side of 30 - or the right side, depending on your perspective!) I have gradually become reconciled to the idea that it’s okay to do good things because doing so makes you feel good. I don’t think it’s an accident that altruistic actions tend to make us feel happy, even if only for a brief moment.

I find that for me, happiness is a strong motivating factor. By happiness I don’t just mean pleasure, although of course pleasure has its place. The way I conceive of happiness is as an overall feeling of wellbeing, of being at rights with one’s own nature and the world around us. What I want to achieve is a measure of happiness that is not undermined by the knowledge that I have achieved it at the expense of another’s happiness. It is my firm belief that the kind of happiness I seek cannot be achieved in isolation, therefore in order to achieve my own happiness, I must work towards the happiness of others also, especially those with whom I share my life - family and friends.

Ultimately, to answer a question posed by JDaniel in another thread, what I hope for, as an atheist, is to know contentment at the end of my life. If I can look back and honestly say that I made others happy as well as myself, I believe I will be content.

 

[Ender]

I have gradually become reconciled to the idea that it’s okay to do **good **things because doing so makes you feel good.

How do you know which things are good if goodness itself is subjective? You have used the word as if it has objective meaning but it is not clear this is what you intended. Further, if goodness is subjective then is there any difference between the sentence you used and the same sentence with the word “good” removed?

For Catholics, to what extent does your personal awareness of God compel you to do what is right?

If God does not exist then right and wrong are concepts empty of meaning and the belief that one can “do good” is as foolish as believing that praying to a non-existent god can be beneficial. In such a universe actions can be helpful or harmful but they cannot be right or wrong. In fact, I’m not even sure the word moral could be uniquely defined. (I’ll just point out that you have again used a moral term as if it had objective meaning.)

Ender

 

[grannymh]

I think I have finally found a question that I can legitimately and in honest curiosity pose to both Catholics and atheists alike (and anyone in between).

Good morning, Sair,

What a fun idea to wake up to. Especially since it tickles my sense of humor. Not only am I on the wrong side of 30, I’m on the wrong side of every number.

And since today is when I receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) as part of my Lent practice, honesty is definitely something at the front of my mind. In fact, I told a friend that it was o.k. to send me a list of my sins. I’m also sure that a few of the posters on this thread would be happy to do likewise.

Yes. You do have an excellent question and I liked the way you handled it. The most timid of us can find a way to contribute. As for me, the Sacrament of Reconciliation not only addresses what I have done previously to today, but it is a preparation for what I will do tomorrow and beyond. The Sacrament’s graces can give me wisdom, strength, and motivation to act according to ethical principles. Of course I have to choose. The Sacrament will definitely help me to answer your question. It’s like an old time cheat sheet.

I also find it interesting that you are reading ethical philosophies. I just checked my very old philosophy survey books and found 157 small print pages on David Hume. I assure you that my content memory is smaller yet.

As for highly personal questions, I have two ways of looking at them. The common ground is that we all have to look at them periodically. So why not now? The second way is that anyone can ask me any kind of a personal question. I especially appreciate being asked for clarification since I have a tendency to use words or phrases from my distant past which have now changed in meaning. For example, one winter my date asked me why I was carrying my coat. My reply was that I get hot in the car.

Seriously, Sair, thank you for your legitimate question which can be answered universally. I look forward to the answers since they will teach me.

Blessings and good thoughts,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Spock]

How do you know which things are good if goodness itself is subjective?

Goodness is objective, just not absolute. Do you think that we could agree on just what “good” is?