The Relevance of the Concept of God

[Syne]

By their very nature, all religions, Buddhism included, embody a mystical prescription for spiritual redemption or final disposition, which is also the operating principle of your concept of god. So tell me again, how do the two essentially differ?

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.

Rather, Buddhism emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe which constitute the natural order and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study Nature in order to attain personal wisdom regarding the nature of things. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism​

Where exactly do you see anything "mythical" in that synopsis? Not all god concepts include ideas of "redemption or final disposition". Neither does mine rely on either of these as an "operating principle".

How can a concept of god govern conscience without including god as an element in the concept?

Who said anything about "governing"? I specifically assumed a god does not exist, so there would be no entity to "govern" anything.

Moral relativism is most notable among the various concepts of god that have come and gone throughout the ages. You should be grateful that cultural evolution weeded out much of the depravity associated with those traditional concepts of god.

You need to learn something about moral relativism. It is not about the variety of morals, but only how those who espouse it approach questions of morality. Since you seem to be saying that you view these various moralities as equal, you do espouse moral relativism, but each of these moralities do not share your sense of equality. Moral relativism is how a person views all morals, not just those they espouse.

You only associate "depravity" with a concept of god because you conflate it with religion.

One of the implications of Kohlberg's theory (which is still one of the main theories of the development of moral reasoning) is that people on a lower stage cannot understand arguments from a higher stage (while those on a higher stage have difficulty relating to arguments from a lower stage). ...

This post is the best I have ever seen from you. And yes, I was fully aware of the natural hurdles of such a discussion. I do not really expect any atheist to get it.

If you think that we aren't understanding your idea properly, then perhaps you need to explain it in more detail. You've said several times that you believe that belief in God has something to do with the development of conscience. So how does that work? What do you take the relationship between belief in God and human conscience to be?

I see you have finally read enough of my posts in this thread to find "more detail" yourself, so I will address your comments to those below.

Why is it those who do not understand a god concept have a strictly relative morality?

Do they? I don't think that I agree.

Why not? Is it not true that a large majority of atheists, who claim morals to be valid at all, assume that the basis for those morals are largely dependent upon circumstances and/or culture? Is this not how they view most moralities?

Now you may think that understanding a god concept is only coincidental, but that does not change the general trend.

Basically, in the right circumstances or culture anything may be morally defensible.

I'm not convinced that's true. Human beings possess broadly similar consciences.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it was true, how would belief in a god change things? The same sort of problems remain. If the god doesn't actually exist and doesn't actually speak to everyone in some obvious and objective fashion, then people could project anything that they want into their god's mouth and interpret his will as they see fit. If there are multiple ethnic or cultural gods, then what ensures that they all speak with a single voice?

Even if everyone's moral beliefs are all derived somehow from their religious beliefs, we still seem to have a relativism on our hands, except now it's a religious relativism.

It is trivially true from a moral relativism point of view, especially considering in-group vs out-group.

Again, I have specifically assume that a god does not exist, so there would be nothing to believe in. I will repeat for your benefit. Moral relativism is how a person views all morals, not just those they espouse. While you may very well view a variety of moralities as relative, I assure you those who espouse any give religious morality do not. "Religious relativism" is thus a nonsense phrase.

It is merely common sense that human institutions, on their own, can only instill a sense of "don't get caught". People only think they can do more because humans are smart enough to learn from their mistakes. But it is just a fear/threat response, in lieu of actual conscience.

That's not any 'common sense' that I recognize. I think that it's clearly false (and tremendously cynical).

Again, why? You seem to like opining without backing it up in the least little way. Are you saying that human institutions can instill conscience? How, other than by threat of consequences?

Without alternative explanations your opinions are vacuous.

What's the relationship between a fully developed conscience and a highly developed sense of self? It seems to me that on many occasions it's the sense of self with all of its desires and demands that's getting in the way of conscience.

And what's the connection between having a highly developed sense of self and believing in the existence of a god?

Really? You are the one who said conscience was innate. So how can you not understand the relationship between the self and conscience? Would it not simply follow that, if conscience were innate, the better one understands themselves the better they utilize conscience?

You seem to be sketchy, even on your own beliefs.

Again, no assumption of an existing god, thus no "believing in the existence of a god".

Again, not necessarily monotheistic and not necessarily actually existing to witness anything at all. I have already said that it serves as a pattern for personally internalized objectivity.

I kind of smell implicit Hegelian-derived ideas about the role of 'the Other' lurking behind the scenes.

You do not seem to know what you are talking about.

Fully developed conscience is seeing oneself as the final arbiter of your actions in fully confident objectivity (which is beyond self-assured justification).

That sounds Kantian. So, how are 'fully confident objectivity' and 'self-assured justification' different from one another?

Again, your philosopher name-dropping simply makes you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about. Elaborate or do not bother. Justification is easy, most people do it all the time. Personal objectivity must be cultivated and can often run counter to our desires.

I don't understand how believing in one of these concepts is supposed to move us from self-assured justification to fully confident objectivity. If the objects of our religious beliefs needn't actually exist and are just our speculative cultural posits, then where is the objectivity coming from?

The objectivity is cultivated through a pattern that is not liable to human limitations. Belief is not necessary, but perhaps expedient, especially considered the trouble atheists seem to have with things like conscience and universal ethical principles (in contrast to moral relativism).

If conscience were a natural, innate instinct there would be no need for such relativism. Instinct, developed by all the organisms of a species being subject to the same evolutionary pressures, would inform morality much more similarly than not.

The precise list of behaviors that are labeled 'good' and 'bad' does seem to be culture-specific to some extent. ...

But I think that there is a common core of what I've called 'virtues' that seem to exist pretty much everywhere, among all humans in all cultures. People all over the world have some sense of fairness. People all over the world have some sense of reciprocity - the so-called 'golden rule' is found in many places. People all over the world feel empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be affirming a moral relativism ("culture-specific"), but idealistically ignoring moral relations to out-groups. If your vague "virtues" were as ubiquitous as you imply, then why does that not explain why morals often do not apply equally to out-groups?

And I have already said, repeatedly, that things like empathy and compassion have social pressures/motivators.

 

[wynn]

The objectivity is cultivated through a pattern that is not liable to human limitations. Belief is not necessary, but perhaps expedient, especially considered the trouble atheists seem to have with things like conscience and universal ethical principles (in contrast to moral relativism).

One specific point to atheists discussing theism and morality:

The moral development of a particular person may not be even in all areas of life. For example, the same person can be on stage four in matters of work, but be on stage five in matters of interpersonal relationships. They might even be on different levels.

It is also conceivable that when people feel pressured, threatened, they sometimes regress to a lower stage of moral reasoning.

It seems that when some atheists engage in conversations about theism and morality, they feel threatened, and regress (bad experiences from earlier in life probably play a role in this regression as well). This would explain why they are decent, mature people in ordinary worldly matters, but become childish when talking about "God."

 

[wynn]

The objectivity is cultivated through a pattern that is not liable to human limitations.

But for all practical intents and purposes, no person is ever actually in a position where they would not be liable to human limitations.

While we can temporarily resort to the ivory tower, nobody can actually live in it (hence the derogatory connotation of the "ivory tower"). Instead, we have to engage with the world - breathe, eat, work, interact with other people and other beings, etc. etc. - and in all these, our human limitations are the defining factor.

 

[cole grey]

I thought we were talking about morality, not law. Of course there are religious laws on the books, and there are plenty of laws that aren't on the books solely because of religious influence. But those laws (and lack of laws) are being corrected steadily by secular moral pressures. I shudder to think of where women and minorities would stand in the west without secularism. Indeed, there wouldn't be a west without secular values.

since an incredible amount of the basis of western thought was contributed by the greeks (who had all kinds of animistic, religious and spiritual ideas), aquinas, and a bunch of deists, lutherans and unitarian types i shudder to think what the west would be without those people. An argument for a purely secular morality is going to take a long time to have historicity. It hasn't started yet. A joint morality has sensibility, any other view is not supportable. You simply cannot judge what religious influences were being tapped when these people had an idea that wasn't quoted from a religious document.

Certainly not exclusively. Secular morals are also implemented, unless you're suggesting that "it could be said" all of our morals are religious in nature. In truth, we have a mix of both. The secular ideals, however, are the bedrock of our society. Gender and racial equality, freedom of and from religion, freedom of expression; these are things that do not exist without secular influence.

this is unfounded. trying to separate secular morals from religious ones is impossible. Many of the great minds who made your so-called secular values accessible intellectually to the masses were religious people operating from religious principles. In modern times, racial equality has been in a large way, advanced by church groups (the link between protestant whites and black church groups in the south was a huge driver towards racial equality in the usa). Not sure how you separate out "love thy neighbor" from pretty much any of the common positive regards people share for each other. To suggest that secular humanism, a very recent development, is the ideological birthplace of morality is as spurious as someone claiming that people without religion will necessarily lack morality.

So you see these as instances where a lack of religiosity or adherence to religious morals caused immoral behavior?
You're going to have to justify that one.

Higher principles are not necessarily religious morals. As i have pointed out earlier, i am arguing for the value of higher principles vs mob rule. Maybe this thought will connect later more directly to the op, but for now i am just working with some things that seem obvious to me, rather than speculating and playing with maybes.

Can you give me an example of religious morality being implemented without human interpretation?

well of course there is no human action that doesn't have at least one human involved, but i am assuming a person can be assumed qualified to have at least one (their own) religious interpretation just based on basic human rights. If you are talking about the need for all religious ideas to be interpreted by others, there are plenty of mystics who had interpretations of scripture or personal experience that were inconsistent with commonly "imposed" religious ideas. If you are talking about the politics involved with dealing with masses of people who need to feel they all agree with each other, and how the human post-primate applies social domination (just like their non-religous primate ancestors do) then maybe we should talk about politics.

Since there are no historical examples of God stepping down out of the clouds and explaining the what, how, and why of his moral system, any appeal to a higher authority is necessarily an appeal to a human interpretation of that authority. In fact, appealing to that higher authority is arguably the leading cause of mobs.

i would say that in the U.S. the appeal to the higher authority of the law is the only thing that protects minorities (such as gays) from the mobs.

 

[cole grey]

Are you talking about law or morality here? Because the concept of mob rule seems particularly linked to the formation of laws and rules for people to follow. Do I have a problem with a society or culture forming its own laws without a God telling them to? Not at all, seeing that is exactly what has happened in cultures all over the world since the beginning of time. What you fear as "mob rule" I see as a natural democratic process. Centuries upon centuries of prescribed and proscribed behavior based on that society's traditions and values and the evolving majority moral sense. No God is necessary in this process. Societies base their laws on the majority morality of it's members. That's just a fact. If the majority begins to view women as equals with men deserving of equal pay, then laws will be passed enforcing that. Ask a society why it passed that law and they will not say "because a God commanded them to do it." They will likely cite the basic principle of their morality: "Because women and men are equal." A sort of self-evident logic that in no wise depends on some higher will mandating it as true.

so why should people in california respect gay marriage when the majority had passed a law opposing it? Again, I am not talking about god, although some ideas attributed to god could certainly be used as a mandate.

I already cited one principle most societies take to be self-evident: the equality of all persons. Can you tell me in what sense that principle has to be mandated by a higher will in order to be accepted as true? It doesn't. People don't say they believe in equality because God said it. They just accept it as a natural rule of their experience. Just like they do logic.

again you guys keep suggesting that i am saying a higher principle must come from god, and that isn't what i have argued for here, as i've already pointed out. In fact, in matters of state, religious people should be a lot more concerned with matters of state and not religion. Perhaps in some metaphysical or "behind the scenes" sense it could be said that god requires x, or that morality comes "from god", but a person most certainly wouldn't be able to show that. Also, if you believe people are basically logical you need to meet more people.

Are your moral actions REALLY dependent on them being commanded by a higher will? Do you help a stranded driver on the roadside because someone somewhere said that is what you are supposed to do? No..People by and large do the right thing because they sense it to be the right thing. They rationally extrapolate their ethical duties and responsibilities from a core set of values and a few heuristic rules of thumb like the principle of reciprocity (Golden Rule). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic And this inner moral sense and practical logic is where our laws came from, not the other way around.

so when people kill and steal and do the wrong thing? When groups of people commit genocide, is their "inner moral sense" justified? Because those people also have an "inner moral sense", it is just different from yours or mine. You present this as if the majority of people are good, loving, helpful people, and i would say you need to look around at our planet and realize we have a very dangerous balance of good and evil happening here. The mob couldn't even acknowledge gay rights in california (california!) a few years ago, and i'm sure many people were actually oppressed in important ways and suffered, before the state courts had to fix the problem.

On the contrary, the majority (what you contemptuously call "the mob") did exactly what you say it didn't do and had a bloody civil war and freed the slaves in accord with the majority moral sentiment of the time. Note this morality, of the equal rights of people regardless of race, was not something derived from religion either. Nothing in Judeo Christian tradition spoke out against the enslavement of other races. It was a moral decision that emerged from the evolving consciousness of our society at large. Noone commanded it. And yet it is globally accepted as true now. How did THAT happen?

this is of course entirely incorrect. A very tiny group of appointed elite experts interpreted the law (the higher principle) and another elite forced the southern states to comply, by commanding either an army (in the case of slavery), or threat of legal punishment.

P.S. Also, as i've pointed out before, the jews were soft on slaves, compared to the romans who didn't consider their slaves as human beings, but rather property, and completely abusable.


EDIT - oops i had some more time and then i guess i went back too far and answered an older post and then missed your newer post - my moral actions, and immoral ones, are a matter of self-responsibility, but i am very much influenced by existential philosophers, and nietzsche is actually an intellectual hero of mine (who thought the nazis were idiots BTW).

 

[cole grey]

Can you say a bit more about why you think that "us vs. them" is "a very problematic and unfair morality"?

i am just saying that when people are defined in such a manner, they are often not afforded the same human rights as the "us" group. Which has the problem of abandoning one clear basic principle (equal rights), without which simple logic is abused, for another more esoteric one. And the "us" group seems to have the problem of eventually defining itself into so small a minority that they would have to be considered historically negligible. The "anti-immigrant" policies of republicans are an example of how this can become a problem. It is great to have an enemy for these people, until they have too many enemies, and then they are not so happy.

 

[Seattle]

so why should people in california respect gay marriage when the majority had passed a law opposing it?

Why should people respect Methodists in a place where the majority are Catholics?

 

[cole grey]

Why should people respect Methodists in a place where the majority are Catholics?

i hope you read that question i posted knowing that i am arguing for the imposition of higher principles (such as human rights) over mob rule and was using that as an example of the "majority as mob" not affording people their basic human rights.
And catholics should respect methodists for the same reason they should respect any minority when the mob doesn't want to - human rights, a higher principle than imposing your theology. (bad theology to impose a theology anyway, even the worst religious nuts generally only forced confessions of sin, as opposed to confessions of faith.)

 

[Seattle]

i hope you read that question i posted knowing that i am arguing for the imposition of higher principles (such as human rights) over mob rule and was using that as an example of the "majority as mob" not affording people their basic human rights.
And catholics should respect methodists for the same reason they should respect any minority when the mob doesn't want to - human rights, a higher principle than imposing your theology. (bad theology to impose a theology anyway, even the worst religious nuts generally only forced confessions of sin, as opposed to confessions of faith.)

My mistake Too much reading (or rather not enough)

 

[Yazata]

Is it not true that a large majority of atheists, who claim morals to be valid at all, assume that the basis for those morals are largely dependent upon circumstances and/or culture? Is this not how they view most moralities?

I think that the fact that the details of social mores and moral codes differ pretty dramatically from culture to culture, and from historical period to historical period, is an empirical observation based on history and ethnography. That's accepted by pretty much everyone familiar with these fields, atheist or not.

But I think that most people familiar with these things do see broad underlying similarities in human nature underlying these more superficial differences. Again, that's widely accepted whatever the observer's religious adherence happens to be or not be.

In other words, I don't see any dramatic differences between atheists' and non-atheists' views of these matters. It typically isn't possible to discern an author's religious adherence, or lack of it, simply by reading the author's books or journal articles, unless the author explicitly reveals it.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, how would a belief in god change things? The same sort of problems remain. If the god doesn't actually exist and doesn't actually speak to everyone in some obvious fashion, then people would project anything they want into their god's mouth and interpret his will as they see fit. If there are multiple ethnic or cultural gods, then what ensures that they all speak with a single voice?

Even if everyone's moral beliefs are derived somehow from their religious beliefs, we still seem to have a relativism on our hands, except now it's a religious relativism.

Again, I have specifically assume that a god does not exist, so there would be nothing to believe in. I will repeat for your benefit. Moral relativism is how a person views all morals, not just those they espouse. While you may very well view a variety of moralities as relative, I assure you those who espouse any give religious morality do not. "Religious relativism" is thus a nonsense phrase.

The Oxford Guide to Philosophy' begins its discussion of ethical relativism this way:

"Relativism, ethical. The view that moral appraisals are essentially dependent upon the standards that define a particular moral code, the practices and norms accepted by a social group at a specific place and time. Given that there is in fact a plurality of social groups, with differing mores, the relativist argues that there exists no point of view from which these codes can themselves be appraised, no 'absolute' criteria by which they can be criticised." [p.800]​

My point was that religious groups are social groups. It's probably true that most members of religious groups do share ethical norms native to their particular group in common with other members of the same group. The problem is that members of different religious groups probably embrace a number of different norms, native to their own groups. In the absence of clear and objective revelations from an actually existing supernatural moral authority, 'absolute' and non-culturally-specific means of appraisal don't seem to be any more available in religion than they are in the rest of human culture. Whatever problems of relativism afflict the relationship between ethics and culture generally, remain present if we turn our attention specifically to religious ethics and to religious culture.

Turning to religion doesn't offer a way out of the problem.

I don't understand how believing in one of these concepts is supposed to move us from "self-assured justification" to "fully-confident objectivity". If the objects of our religious beliefs needn't actually exist and are just our speculative cultural posits, then where is the objectivity coming from?

The objectivity is cultivated through a pattern that is not liable to human limitations. Belief is not necessary, but perhaps expedient, especially considered the trouble atheists seem to have with things like conscience and universal ethical principles (in contrast to moral relativism).

"A pattern that is not liable to human limitations"? Where can such a thing be found? How can human beings like ourselves recognize it if we do encounter it?

Obviously members of a particular culture, whether secular or religious, often do believe for no particular reason beyond their own membership in their culture, that the norms they are familiar with are both natural and right, and that everyone else's are both bizarre and wrong. The issue of relativism might not arise very often in these people's thinking.

Problems only arise when these individuals encounter other people whose cultural norms are significantly different than their own. That's when the shortage of culture independent assessment criteria makes itself felt. In these problem cases, people have the choice of either launching themselves into conflict, or else centering themselves at a more fundamental level of shared humanity where they might be able to agree on actions that they all perceive as fair, compassionate and humane.

 

[Magical Realist]

so why should people in california respect gay marriage when the majority had passed a law opposing it? Again, I am not talking about god, although some ideas attributed to god could certainly be used as a mandate.

Thanks for conceding that God or the belief in God isn't necessary for morality. So why should people in California respect gay marriage? Because the majority of Americans, expressed in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, ruled in favor it. And if you look at the polls, the majority of Californians now SUPPORT gay marriage, as do the majority of Americans. So once again, the laws reflect the majority moral sense of the people. The growing swell of support for gay marriage over the past decade indicates a bottom-up sea change in our cultural morality that is occurring without anyone commanding it from the top. The people are way ahead of the "higher authorities" on this one.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...s-majority-california-voters-support-same-sex

again you guys keep suggesting that i am saying a higher principle must come from god, and that isn't what i have argued for here, as i've already pointed out. In fact, in matters of state, religious people should be a lot more concerned with matters of state and not religion. Perhaps in some metaphysical or "behind the scenes" sense it could be said that god requires x, or that morality comes "from god", but a person most certainly wouldn't be able to show that. Also, if you believe people are basically logical you need to meet more people.

I confess I may have misconstrued what you meant by "higher authority", seeing that among men there really IS no higher authority on what is moral. So who ARE these higher authorities from whom we supposedly derive all our morality? And where do THEY get their morality from?

so when people kill and steal and do the wrong thing? When groups of people commit genocide, is their "inner moral sense" justified?

If you'll notice the only times people kill and commit genocide en masse is precisely WHEN they are commanded to by a higher authority. Nazi germany is one example. The Crusades is another. These people would not normally go on war campaigns to commit such atrocities. It took the specific ideology, propaganda, and commands of a higher authority to spur them into this madness. For the Crusaders there was even the guarantee of eternal life by the Vatican if they participated in the war campaign to invade the Holy Land. Obviously then there is no guarantee that a commanded morality is ever really a true morality in any sense if this can happen. How do you account for this?

Because those people also have an "inner moral sense", it is just different from yours or mine. You present this as if the majority of people are good, loving, helpful people, and i would say you need to look around at our planet and realize we have a very dangerous balance of good and evil happening here. The mob couldn't even acknowledge gay rights in california (california!) a few years ago, and i'm sure many people were actually oppressed in important ways and suffered, before the state courts had to fix the problem.

I DO look around the planet and I see the majority of the people living their lives dutifully and raising families and peacefully coexisting with each other. I see a human race that is overall much more advanced in its moral sense than in the past. A moral sense that does not have to be commanded by some political power structure or restrained by police state restrictions. I guess I'm just not a cynic like you are. Sure not everyone is moral. We hear on the news about people that kill and steal and cause suffering. I never said that doesn't happen. I'm talking the majority overall moral status of the people.

EDIT - oops i had some more time and then i guess i went back too far and answered an older post and then missed your newer post - my moral actions, and immoral ones, are a matter of self-responsibility, but i am very much influenced by existential philosophers, and nietzsche is actually an intellectual hero of mine (who thought the nazis were idiots BTW).

So then you admit you do not have to be commanded by a higher authority to take moral action? Don't you think that is true for just about everyone else?

PostScript--So what do you think of Nietzsche's distinction between "master morality" (power-based) and "slave morality" (empathy-based)?

"Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. What he meant by 'morality' deviates from common understanding of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation. Master–slave morality provides the basis of all exegesis of Western thought.

It is disputed whether Nietzsche advocated either of the two moralities."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

 

[Yazata]

Also, any morality not (purportedly) imposed by some higher authority will always have a problem deciding who gets to decide what is moral, and avoiding an ochlocracy whereby the mob can dedice a minority population is expendible or has fewer rights.

Will it?

The phrase "mob rule" seems to be cole grey's personal perjorative that he uses to refer to what both you and I would rather term 'democracy' or 'individual liberty'. He appears to me to be arguing against these ideals in favor of some sort of Iran-style religious totalitarianism.

I happen to live in a world of western secular morals, and see no evidence of such a problem.

I think everyone would agree that injustices do arise in free societies, but democracies seem to have been pretty good about addressing them. Our societies are imperfect works-in-progress. As somebody (Winston Churchill?) once said, 'Democracy is the worst system there is... except for all the others'.

and although some would argue that human interpretation of the religion results in the same problem, the religious morality doesn't actually depend on interpretation since in the end (purportedly) god will judge.

And citing God's authority doesn't help when the opposition believes in a different God, believes in the same God but a different interpretation of the moral law, or doesn't believe in a God at all.

Right. Systems where ethics supposedly come from God instead of man might (arguably) be plausible provided that God truly is good (the Euthyphro problem) and provided that God reveals his ethical principles clearly, unambiguously and indisputably to everybody. Unfortunately, the first condition is questionable and the second obviously doesn't pertain.

What we have instead is a planet in which religious diversity is the norm, and where supposedly higher religious truths are mediated through a host of emphatically human preachers and social institutions. They assert the transcendent and unchallengeable truth of incompatible doctrines whose divinely guaranteed validity is only discernable through the eyes of their own faith.

That's a situation where Syne's problem of moral relativism moves front and center. While it's true that devotees of individual traditions might believe that their own tradition possesses unique divine revelations and occupies a unique position from which to judge everyone and everything else, not everyone else agrees. And there isn't any tradition-independent criterion that we can use to adjudicate rival religious claims.

So the supposedly superior religious rulers who believe that they possess the one true revelation that must rightfully guide everyone and everything else, would-be rulers who stoutly insist that they represent the only true alternative to moral relativism and to 'mob rule', seem to be left with little alternative to maintaining their divinely-ordained hegemony by force.

It's a dynamic that we can all watch being played out as we speak in the Middle East, with the rise of militant Islamism.

I don't think that's a model that we should emulate.

 

[cole grey]

Thanks for conceding that God or the belief in God isn't necessary for morality. So why should people in California respect gay marriage? Because the majority of Americans, expressed in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, ruled in favor it. And if you look at the polls, the majority of Californians now SUPPORT gay marriage, as do the majority of Americans. So once again, the laws reflect the majority moral sense of the people. The growing swell of support for gay marriage over the past decade indicates a bottom-up sea change in our cultural morality that is occurring without anyone commanding it from the top. The people are way ahead of the "higher authorities" on this one.

you obviously don't know how the gay marriage thing played out in California. The voting majority insisted gays should not be married. The state Supreme Court said, "not ok." You literally cannot even know how many Californians changed their minds because they were told by the higher authority that their idea was unfair.

I confess I may have misconstrued what you meant by "higher authority", seeing that among men there really IS no higher authority on what is moral. So who ARE these higher authorities from whom we supposedly derive all our morality? And where do THEY get their morality from?

and stopped your ears from listening as I stated multiple times I have not been arguing for claims of a divine morality! I tried to explain that in most of my posts. My claim continues to be, despite all the massive arguments you are having with someone other than me obviously about divine command, that higher principles are necessary, mob rule is not our system, nor should it be.

If you'll notice the only times people kill and commit genocide en masse is precisely WHEN they are commanded to by a higher authority. Nazi germany is one example. The Crusades is another. These people would not normally go on war campaigns to commit such atrocities. It took the specific ideology, propaganda, and commands of a higher authority to spur them into this madness. Obviously there is no guarantee that a commanded morality is ever really a true morality in any sense if this can happen. How do you account for this?

like I said before, a system which violates first principles is corrupt, and the people should revolt. I am certainly not a proponent of following blindly.

I DO look around the planet and I see the majority of the people living their lives dutifully and raising families and peacefully coexisting with each other. I see a human race that is overall much more advanced in its moral sense than in the past. A moral sense that does not have to be commanded by some political power structure or restrained by police state restrictions. I guess I'm just not a cynic like you are. Sure not everyone is moral. We hear on the news about people that kill and steal and cause suffering. I never said that doesn't happen. I'm talking the majority overall moral status of the people.

I propose that for every hundred good people there is enough bad in one person to ruin 100 lives, or at least damage them. If 99 good people "stand aside and do nothing" when the one bad guy acts, are they good? Seeing the balance we have here on earth between good and evil is pretty obvious to me. I definitely wouldn't get into a real argument proposing the basic goodness or badness of humanity. Like bonobos and dolphins maybe are basically good, if they were to be considered responsibly sentient (I have a hard time with that idea) and still acted the way they do. Humans are a balance.

So then you admit you do not have to be commanded by a higher authority to take moral action? Don't you think that is true for just about everyone else?

I not only admit it, I have been saying that from the beginning. And no, I don't think that is true for "just about everyone else". I see a lot of people handing over their personal responsibility to their church leaders or social group leaders, or gods, or whoever else they can find.

PostScript--So what do you think of Nietzsche's distinction between "master morality" (power-based) and "slave morality" (empathy-based)?
"Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. What he meant by 'morality' deviates from common understanding of this term. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation. Master–slave morality provides the basis of all exegesis of Western thought.
It is disputed whether Nietzsche advocated either of the two moralities."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

of course pulling a short quote isn't going to give anyone an explanation of Nietzsche. My opinion is that his main point in all his discussion of morality, from which everything else was derived, was to claim personal responsibility for actions. Any other method was seen by him as immoral basically. His opinion was that weak slaves get along with each other, while noble strong people actually choose their friends or who they will give aid to, and so are actually morally superior. I don't know that he actually got past, "destroy irresponsibility", whether he ever got to a decent definition of stage 2 of being a super human. He seems to have expended his energy and sanity working on stage 1. BTW, I believe he is the most thoroughly misrepresented philosopher of all time, and he had some very important points.

 

[Magical Realist]

So I take it you are retracting your preliminary point made in your first post on this topic?

Also, any morality not (purportedly) imposed by some higher authority will always have a problem deciding who gets to decide what is moral, and avoiding an ochlocracy whereby the mob can decide a minority population is expendable or has fewer rights.

Note in my last post I referred to exactly what you referred to: "higher authority". Are you saying you no longer believe this to be true, that higher authorities are needed to impose morality from above to avoid mob rule?

 

[cole grey]

The phrase "mob rule" seems to be cole grey's personal perjorative that he uses to refer to what both you and I would rather term 'democracy' or 'individual liberty'. He appears to me to be arguing against these ideals in favor of some sort of Iran-style religious totalitarianism.

anyone who can read can tell I am not in favor of any kind of totalitarianism, religious or otherwise. This is just too weird. I certainly didn't make up the word "ochlocracy", or the phrase "mob rule". Look up nomocracy. This is old stuff, back in the founding fathers time they knew about this stuff. I cant remember which of the founding fathers favored a pure democracy, but we didn't get one. We certainly didn't have one in 1776 when a few smart people set this thing up. Our great experiment has been riding the rails ever since. Democracy has its place, but as I have been trying to point out, the minority should be protected by higher principles, and if only 30%, or even whatever % the Supreme Court represents, wants to protect the minority, that is still what needs to be done. Hopefully everyone understands by now what I am saying.
Let me offer an example. If 85% of the people want buffalo hides for rugs, and 15% of the people need the buffalo to be maintained as a viable food source, should we go with the higher principle, or the democracy? If everyone can answer this question fully before arguing with me about things I haven't said, that would be great.

I think everyone would agree that injustices do arise in free societies, but democracies seem to have been pretty good about addressing them. Our societies are imperfect works-in-progress. As somebody (Winston Churchill?) once said, 'Democracy is the worst system there is... except for all the others'.

i am pretty sure they don't have a pure democracy in england either but I am certainly not an expert on England.

Right. Systems where ethics supposedly come from God instead of man might (arguably) be plausible provided that God truly is good (the Euthyphro problem) and provided that God reveals his ethical principles clearly, unambiguously and indisputably to everybody. Unfortunately, the first condition is questionable and the second obviously doesn't pertain.
What we have instead is a planet in which religious diversity is the norm, and where supposedly higher religious truths are mediated through a host of emphatically human preachers and social institutions. They assert the transcendent and unchallengeable truth of incompatible doctrines whose divinely guaranteed validity is only discernable through the eyes of their own faith.

good, the more we let people make their own judgments about their own souls, or lack of souls, the better.

That's a situation where Syne's problem of moral relativism moves front and center. While it's true that devotees of individual traditions might believe that their own tradition possesses unique divine revelations and occupies a unique position from which to judge everyone and everything else, not everyone else agrees. And there isn't any tradition-independent criterion that we can use to adjudicate rival religious claims.

you and syne need to decide whether or not religious relativism even exists.

So the supposedly superior religious rulers who believe that they possess the one true revelation that must rightfully guide everyone and everything else, would-be rulers who stoutly insist that they represent the only true alternative to moral relativism and to 'mob rule', seem to be left with little alternative to maintaining their divinely-ordained hegemony by force.
It's a dynamic that we can all watch being played out as we speak in the Middle East, with the rise of militant Islamism.
I don't think that's a model that we should emulate.

horrible. And actually a good representation of what happens when the first principles of a religion are abandoned due to interpretation of 2nd or 3rd tier principles.
Let Me break it down for you - what we know is that we are all here needing air food water. If your religion, or science, or mob, interferes with that, you are immoral.

 

[Magical Realist]

of course pulling a short quote isn't going to give anyone an explanation of Nietzsche.

Ok..then how about this?

"Master morality

"Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British ideology, that good is everything that is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. He argues that this view has forgotten the origins of the values, and thus it calls what is useful good on the grounds of habitualness - what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences"[1] but ultimately, "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."[2] For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. The essence of master morality is nobility. Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating."[3] In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things.[citation needed] Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.

Slave morality

Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention".[4] As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:[5] the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity."[6]—the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.

"...the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination--their prophets fused 'rich', 'godless', 'evil', 'violent', 'sensual' into one and were the first to coin the word 'world' as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for 'poor' as a synonym for 'holy' and 'friend') that the significance of the Jewish people resides: with them there begins the slave revolt in morals."[7]
Society[edit]

This struggle between master and slave moralities recurs historically. According to Nietzsche, ancient Greek and Roman societies were grounded in master morality. The Homeric hero is the strong-willed man, and the classical roots of the Iliad and Odyssey exemplified Nietzsche's master morality. He calls the heroes "men of a noble culture",[8] giving a substantive example of master morality. Historically, master morality was defeated as the slave morality of Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire.

The essential struggle between cultures has always been between the Roman (master, strong) and the Judean (slave, weak). Nietzsche condemns the triumph of slave morality in the West, saying that the democratic movement is the "collective degeneration of man".[9] He claimed that the nascent democratic movement of his time was essentially slavish and weak. Weakness conquered strength, slave conquered master, re-sentiment conquered sentiment. This resentment Nietzsche calls "priestly vindictiveness", which is the jealousy of the weak seeking to enslave the strong with itself. Such movements were, to Nietzsche, inspired by "the most intelligent revenge" of the weak. Nietzsche saw democracy and Christianity as the same emasculating impulse which sought to make all equal—to make all slaves.

Nietzsche, however, did not believe that humans should adopt master morality as the be-all-end-all code of behavior - he believed that the revaluation of morals would correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality - but simply that master morality was preferable to slave morality, although this is debatable. Walter Kaufmann disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a much harder time, but this is partly because he believes that slave morality is modern society's more imminent danger. The Antichrist had been meant as the first book in a four-book series, Toward a Re-Evaluation of All Morals, which might have made his views more explicit, but Nietzsche was afflicted by mental collapse that rendered him unable to write the latter three books.[citation needed]

In other philosophy

The notion that the strong-willed is not kind or helpful contrasts with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, who holds charity[10] as "the greatest of virtues."[11] According to Aquinas, a charitable man is happy and virtuous.[12] Aquinas holds that the class of virtues denoted by fortitude is compatible with charity, and not in opposition to it.[12][13]

An extreme notion that a virtuous man is "value-creating" contrasts with Aquinas's conception of a last end. According to Aquinas, man's last end is not determined by man: "all men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness."[14] Aquinas holds the choice of useful means to reach this last end as determined by man's free will, although he holds that certain habits are virtuous and thus predictably lead to happiness, provided that they are not pursued to excess.[15] According to Aquinas, free will is thus a means to an end, but not the last end, as it can be helpful or unhelpful to the pursuit of happiness:[16][17][18][19] those who choose to perform non-virtuous acts "turn from that in which their last end really consists: but they do not turn away from the intention of the last end, which intention they mistakenly seek in other things."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%...slave_morality

 

[cole grey]

So I take it you are retracting your preliminary point made in your first post on this topic?
Note in my last post I referred to exactly what you referred to: "higher authority". Are you saying you no longer believe this to be true, that higher authorities are needed to impose morality from above to avoid mob rule?

certainly not. Higher authorities definitely need to oppose mob rule. In the USA that is thankfully what we already do. Let's just say there were 75% of people who thought we take evolution out of schoolbooks in Texas. Do we just drop the texts or do we rely on the higher authority to insist evolution should be in the book? I am confused as to why people are going to such great lengths to defend something I see as indefensible, I.e. Ochlocracy, and how it is at all difficult for learned people to know how our government works in general and in the specific case of California. Higher principles have to come from, or are made legitimate by someone claiming to "know better". Some small group of people has to ultimately pull the trigger, even on ideas that come from the public. Luckily I believe our founding fathers actually knew better, and took that responsibility. If we had called American Indians, and black slaves, (and actual Asian american citizens in ww2), human citizens of the USA from the beginning, I think our system, based on the rule of law, would have been really incredibly exemplary, a true work of art.

 

[Magical Realist]

certainly not. Higher authorities definitely need to oppose mob rule. In the USA that is thankfully what we already do. Let's just say there were 75% of people who thought we take evolution out of schoolbooks in Texas. Do we just drop the texts or do we rely on the higher authority to insist evolution should be in the book? I am confused as to why people are going to such great lengths to defend something I see as indefensible, I.e. Ochlocracy, and how it is at all difficult for learned people to know how our government works in general and in the specific case of California. Higher principles have to come from, or are made legitimate by someone claiming to "know better". Some small group of people has to ultimately pull the trigger, even on ideas that come from the public. Luckily I believe our founding fathers actually knew better, and took that responsibility. If we had called American Indians, and black slaves, (and actual Asian american citizens in ww2), human citizens of the USA from the beginning, I think our system, based on the rule of law, would have been really incredibly exemplary, a true work of art.

You've drifted from morality to law all the way to politics now. Nice of you to change the goal posts like that. We WERE discussing where a society gets its moral values from and then you decide to start talking about how the democratic process doesn't exactly work in all cases necessitating a top down decision by "higher authorities." We all know that. But that has nothing to do with where a society derives its sense of right and wrong. Perhaps you agree with Nietszche that democracy is a morality of weak slaves? Who exactly then is going to step up to the role of playing superman to decide for us what is right and wrong in the end? I still want you to define who these "higher authorities" in morality are that we are supposed to just listen to and obey. The philosophers? Which one? Marx? Nietszche? Bakunin? Rousseau? Confuscius? Jesus?

 

[cole grey]

Re Nietzsche - I am certainly not going to defend every word the guy said, he had cancer of the brain or syphilis or whatever, but I will still say that he was mainly writing about personal responsibility.
The dude attacked anything that hinted at lack of personal responsibility. I have to say that his attacks on Christianity are quite valid, although I consider myself a Christian. Any lack of personal responsibility is bad.
I don't know if the part in bold was made bold by you, but directly following it is actually some Nietzsche expert saying some of what I just said about Nietzsche.

Nietzsche, however, did not believe that humans should adopt master morality as the be-all-end-all code of behavior - he believed that the revaluation of morals would correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality - but simply that master morality was preferable to slave morality, although this is debatable. Walter Kaufmann disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a much harder time, but this is partly because he believes that slave morality is modern society's more imminent danger. The Antichrist had been meant as the first book in a four-book series, Toward a Re-Evaluation of All Morals, which might have made his views more explicit, but Nietzsche was afflicted by mental collapse that rendered him unable to write the latter three books.[citation needed]

thanks for making me feel like I know what I am talking about, even though i am not a specialist.

Did you have a specific point here?

 

[Magical Realist]

Re Nietzsche - I am certainly not going to defend every word the guy said, he had cancer of the brain or syphilis or whatever, but I will still say that he was mainly writing about personal responsibility.
The dude attacked anything that hinted at lack of personal responsibility. I have to say that his attacks on Christianity are quite valid, although I consider myself a Christian. Any lack of personal responsibility is bad.
I don't know if the part in bold was made bold by you, but directly following it is actually some Nietzsche expert saying some of what I just said about Nietzsche.
thanks for making me feel like I know what I am talking about, even though i am not a specialist.

Did you have a specific point here?

Do you agree with him that democracy is mere mob rule--a slave morality of the weak and the jealous?