Posted on 04/10/2009 4:43:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ping!
The issue is not the end of morality, the issue is the hijacking of morality.
First morality was hijacked by conservatives, who tried to make all sorts of silly things — like smoking cigarettes — immoral.
Then, once the conservatives had abandoned the true meaning of morality the leftwingers stepped in and claimed it for themselves, elevating equality of outcomes and environmentalism into a new type of morality.
We are suffering from an abundance of moral absolutes in our society about all sorts of ridiculous stuff, and consequently people have gotten sick of all the moralizing and the result is that the major moral issues are mostly ignored.
The original guys who wanted to ban stuff were Progressives. But conservatism has glommed onto those types of causes too, from the best of intentions but with mixed results.
Great link Loman
[[A prominent form of moral relativism today is cultural relativism. This is the belief that each culture chooses its own values regardless of the values other cultures choose]]
Precisely- how many times do we watch Nat Geo, or hte discovery channel, and see the authors of documentaries praising ‘native cultures’ that show no inhibition or aptitude for moral ethics, while denigrading Western cultures as ‘oppressive’ and ‘domineering’ simply because they are based on unioversal moral values?
They seem to try to advance the idea that there really is no universal moral code, and that we really have no right criticising other cultures if they don’t follow our values system.
I’ve argued time and time again here on FR that even in such cultures, there is ALWAYS a universal moral code, but that those that live lives contrary to the code, have simply pushed it far far and away- This is proven out by hte fact that people who come to Christ in such cultures ALWAYS testify that they knew right along that there was something higher, somethign more moral, but that they were duped into thinking that living a Godless life was ‘just how htigns were supposed to be’ (Even htough htey knew deep down their moral bankruptcy was wrong).
[[Lewis claims that all the supposed differences are exaggerated. The idea that “cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all” is a lie, he says; “a good, solid, resounding lie.” He elaborates:
If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics he will soon discover that massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Samos, from the Laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborigines and Redskins, he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery and falsehood, the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty. He may be a little surprised . . . to find that precepts of mercy are more frequent than precepts of justice; but he will no longer doubt that there is such a thing as the Law of Nature. There are, of course, differences. . . . But the pretence that we are presented with a mere chaos . . . is simply false.{3}]]
Bingo! “We still have a knowledge of good and evil.” While cultures can suppress this knowledge, it is STILL present! The universal moral code still exists regardless of how someone chooses to live hteir life! I find it funny that people accuse me of ‘judging’ other cultures, and say “You have a lot of gall supposing you know what other beliefs think”, but the simple plain hard fact of hte matter is that God TELLS us what EVERY person thinks- and why! The Holy Spirit convicts EVERY person equally! The end Amen men Brother Ben
Thanks for the ping!
>>The universal moral code still exists regardless
>>of how someone chooses to live hteir life!
Yep, and history is littered with the wreckage of societies that failed because they wouldn’t RTFM (that’s Read The Field Manual) - and follow the directions.
Got Shemitta?
The author seams to have overlooked some parts of the original article in his “review”
Like this for example:
“The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.”
The author failed to mention that article states, “ in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups.”
That statement nullifies the rest of the arguments the author brings up.
Here is a link to the full article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=1
The rest of his review is full of out of context quotes, and incorrect assumptions regarding evolution.
The fact is that the author of article you cite makes a claim without any evidence to show how ‘moral ethics’ can evovle- He does nothign to show that the universal moral code isn’t still inplace despite cultural subjective itnerpretations of hte objective code- so no- the IRC article is not ‘nullified’- not by a logn shot
But how can you show a universal moral code without reference to humans? That's what I thought was the weakness of the article--it assumes the separate existence of an objective moral code, but of course there's no way to demonstrate that any more than the existence of an evolved moral code. In either case, the only real evidence is human behavior.
[[but of course there’s no way to demonstrate that any more than the existence of an evolved moral code.]]
Sure htere is- read my post a couple of posts ago- people who have walked away from their culturally accepted practices have testified to the fact that deep down they always knew they were wrong- this testifies to hte fact that there is a universal moral code- social subjetive interpretations not withstanding-
CS lewis hits it right on the head- look at the link a few posts up
In the philosophy discussions abotu subjective/objective origins for morals, the discussions revolve aroudn distinguishing “Ought’s” from “Is’s” - Man knows what he ‘aught’ to do, and these ‘oughts’ differ from culture to culture- but there is an ‘is’ that exists beneath the ‘oughts’ which shapes the oughts- or vice versa- can’t recall just now
I’m too tired tonight to even attempt this- but basically these ‘oughts’ existed right fro mthe start- otherwise, species woudl have wiped themselves out long long ago- subjectivism is simpyl far too self-centered for species survival (You’ll also note that cultures that ignore the ought, the universal code, do so for self-gratifications (after all that’s what sin is- self-centeredism)
just one more point- there are ‘personal moralities’ ‘social moralities’ but these are not ‘objective moralities’ which are universal- I’ll try to weigh in on this a bit tomorrow- I posted on it quite a bit in some philosophy forums awhile back- I’ll see if I can find them again- it was a huge thread- quite interesting- going back and forth, but in the end I think the case was made quite strong for objective morality, and if I remember right, it hinged on the fact that people born into societies which were less inhibitted, and more morally bankrupt, had to ‘learn’ to suppress their sense of ‘ought’, and this was universal throughout hte world accordign to testimonies
Actually, fighting for clean air and clean water is a very moral thing to do in the name of human health.
With regards to "equality of outcomes", the Right shoots itself in the foot by clinging to the myth that this is something the Left actually wants, much less pursues. Do you believe that feminists want "equality of outcomes" with men? Hell no. They want legislated and court dictated advantage for themselves at the mortal expense of men. That is the Left: pure unethical tribalism, not even remotely close to "equality of outcomes".
I don't understand the distinction you're making. Please elaborate.
note that aside from AG all your tepid repliers have only been here a couple of years...
boy this forum sure moderated after 9-11
equivocation sucks
any fool can see we have zilch for morals compared to 40 years ago
” brainwashed equivocator retort”: “but, but , there was racism then!!!!!!!” ...like there’s not now or was for the previous 20,000 years....
"Universal" is not the same thing as "objective"--not the way I think the author means it, anyway. I think that when he refers to "objective" morality, he means a moral code that exists in the absolute, abstract somewhere, regardless of whether anybody follows it. And I'm not necessarily denying that it exists, just that it is impossible to tell it from an evolved moral code, since the only evidence we have is what people do.
Unless one believes that the only reason people do the right thing is because they're following the objective code as written down for them--if they didn't have this set of rules to follow, there's no telling how they'd act. I don't happen to believe that.
Another way to put it: I agree there's a generally universal conscience. I don't think it's possible to tell an evolved conscience from an implanted conscience, as the author seems to think it is.
==The author failed to mention that article states, “ in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups.”
You obviously didn’t even bother to read the article. The author mentions it in the third paragraph:
‘So the question naturally arises, “What shapes our moral emotions in the first place?” And with this question Brooks, ironically, in this particular week, knows not what he does. He gives the standard Darwinian answer that evolution shapes our moral faculties; and Brooks, like most Darwinists, seems to think that this is no detriment to objective morality since Darwinians now think that evolution is not just full of ruthless competition but also “cooperation within groups.’
And then he proceeds to destroy the illogic of the Evo you seem intent on defending in the remainder of the article. Tell me IL, do you think God intends man to live according to fixed moral laws of right and wrong, or do you think God evolves them over time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.