Happy Atheist Forum

Just before his death Pol Pot said to a journalist that he still believed his leadership had done more good than ill. In China the official line of the CCP is that Mao Tse Tung was 70% right and 30% wrong. Apologists for the Nazis claim fewer than six million Jews died in the concentration camps.

While there may be cynical reasons for these claims (eg much holocaust denial hides a murderous anti-semitism); there is also something significant going on here. It has to do with moral judgement. An interesting commonality of the three examples given above is that they are secular statements. Pol Pot does not claim his genocide was divinely ordered; the CCP is not claiming that Mao was the son of god and so above criticism; and holocaust denial does not require any claim about God's judgement. What is at stake here is not whether such and such an act was Right or Wrong, but whether the people themselves are Good or Bad. So Mao did bad things but only for 30% of his rule, the remaining 70% was good. Therefore Mao, on balance, is a Good Person.

Personal moral worth used to be decided in reference to divine judgement. Good People went to heaven; Bad People to hell. So the fact that King Edward the Confessor once ordered the people of Dover to be killed was irrelevant; his posthumous sanctification by the church defined him as a morally Good Man. In secular societies we have lost the idea of a divine law-giver (or any absolute law giver). Our ethics have become, in general, consequentialist. We look to the results of actions to determine their moral weight rather than holding to absolute moral laws. So a theist's ethical stance on abortion is guided by their belief in the inherent wrongness of murder and the sanctity of life. The secular person, on the other hand, looks at the consequences of an abortion to determine its ethical weight. Thus most theists want no abortion and most secular people allow it in certain circumstances (at its extreme, the only required circumstance being the woman's choice to abort). For the theist murder is wrong because God says so, for the secular person murder is wrong because of its consequences (NB the secular person might say they think murder is always wrong, this may sound absolutist but when pressed you will find that murder is always wrong because the consequences of making murder permissible are so bad. So the consequentialist method does allow for absolute sounding ethical dictums).

When Pol Pot says that he did more harm than good; he is trying to say that, taken as a whole, his actions were Good. Thus Pol Pot himself is really a Good Person. But that seems to me a bad way of deciding such an issue. After all we want to say that Pol Pot was a Bad Person. We could say this on the grounds that he actually did more harm than good. Yet this is unsatisfying. Does the Nazi regime become 'less bad' if we discover that only 5.5million Jew died in concentration camps? It seems to me that such a claim is absurd. Consequential method may be adequate for deciding if a particular action is Right or Wrong (though there is a serious debate to be had on this question â€" problem of counter-factuals); but it seems absurd to argue that it applies to people. The murderer gets no points for all the people he lets live...

So here's the question. How, without divine judgement, do we decide if a person* is Good or Bad? Or should we abandon the idea that people can have ethical worth and insist that only actions do?


* As opposed to an act

What is a person but the aggregate of their behaviour?

Quote from: "OldGit"What is a person but the aggregate of their behaviour?

In which case where does the pivot point lay? Is a good person allowed one murder? Is the Scrooge like individual who has never broken a law bad?

No amount of good actions can expunge a really bad action, such as murder. Possibly because the individual has transgressed the bounds of acceptable behaviour so for they are virtually irredeemable? Or maybe a murderer who goes onto carry out many selfless acts of courage can wipe their history clean and become good?

So a person is an aggregate of their behaviour, but some actions weigh more in the balance than others?

Quote from: "penfold"So here's the question. How, without divine judgement, do we decide if a person* is Good or Bad? Or should we abandon the idea that people can have ethical worth and insist that only actions do?

An interesting question...but you've jumped the gun, so to speak. First of all,  what is ''good'' and what is ''evil''?

What about Dexter?  A serial killer who kills killers.  He finds evidence the courts may never see due to laws against illegal searches.  He makes sure they are guilty beyond doubt.  Then he kills them.  He may have been wrong once or twice, but so have juries that have put people to death.  Is Dexter a good person?  At the very least he's very entertaining television.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "penfold"So here's the question. How, without divine judgement, do we decide if a person* is Good or Bad? Or should we abandon the idea that people can have ethical worth and insist that only actions do?

An interesting question...but you've jumped the gun, so to speak. First of all,  what is ''good'' and what is ''evil''?

[spoiler:1il38d12]Trust a Christian not to know the difference!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F9922%2Frimshot.gif&hash=77d5ac078a921ed7ff6be629eed7a4f2ac98bb10)

Sorry that was too easy.  [/spoiler:1il38d12]

Quote from: "AreEl"An interesting question...but you've jumped the gun, so to speak. First of all,  what is ''good'' and what is ''evil''?

Well I avoid the word evil, I find it too bound up in Christian notions of sin. As for what is "Good" and "Bad", that is a pertinent question.

I would make two points.

First I don't think you will find definitions of these words that are philosophically satisfying. I think any coherent definition of "good and bad" will fail to cover some behaviour we would want to call good or bad, and so be incomplete. A corollary of this is any complete definition of "good and bad" will contain contradictions and so be incoherent. "Good and bad" are best defined as being a set of behaviours, the boundary of that set can only really be defined by examples.

Secondly, while this definition by examples is seemingly weak, that should not tempt us to be sceptical of the meaning of "good and bad". While we can play the sceptic and argue to the conclusion that "good and bad" are meaningless terms, to do so seems to fly in the face of our actual experience of the world. So even a weak definition of "good and bad" is preferable to none.

Quote from: "penfold"So here's the question. How, without divine judgement, do we decide if a person* is Good or Bad? Or should we abandon the idea that people can have ethical worth and insist that only actions do? * As opposed to an act

Intent must be important, the legal system seems to think so.
Some start looking cool like Mugabe, maybe Mao.
The 70/30 thing doesn't look too good, I wouldn't like to share the road with a bunch of 70 percenters.
Probably need to balance actions, intent and outcomes.
So many problems are annoyingly complicated.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Intent must be important, the legal system seems to think so.
Some start looking cool like Mugabe, maybe Mao.
The 70/30 thing doesn't look too good, I wouldn't like to share the road with a bunch of 70 percenters.
Probably need to balance actions, intent and outcomes.
So many problems are annoyingly complicated.

Well I agree with all of this regarding the ethical question of whether a certain course of action is Good or Bad. But let's say we could resolve that problem (even in a weak way - by example); then assuming we can say "That behaviour was Bad", can we move from that to "This person is Bad"? Or are such statements meaningless?

Quote from: "penfold"Well I agree with all of this regarding the ethical question of whether a certain course of action is Good or Bad. But let's say we could resolve that problem (even in a weak way - by example); then assuming we can say "That behaviour was Bad", can we move from that to "This person is Bad"? Or are such statements meaningless?

I don't think there is an objective bad, subjective badness isn't uncommon.
Someone who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions, yes I'll call them bad.
An apple can go bad, a human can too.
It's probably a bit late to ask but what is our working definition of bad?

Quote from: "Tank"No amount of good actions can expunge a really bad action, such as murder. Possibly because the individual has transgressed the bounds of acceptable behaviour so for they are virtually irredeemable? Or maybe a murderer who goes onto carry out many selfless acts of courage can wipe their history clean and become good?

I think there's a blurry line here, and I'll throw in an example. My uncle, to whom I was very close, was considered a pretty "bad guy" when he was younger. He was into drugs and bar fights, had been to jail many times and was covered head to toe in tattoos. When he got older, by the time I was born, he had really calmed down, met his wife and started a family, and his home became a harborage for foster kids from really traumatic backgrounds. The way he was able to work with these kids who were so psychologically disturbed and get them to make progress was astonishing if you knew how he used to be.

Then out of the blue, he shot himself, and there was all this speculation that he might have killed a man where he worked. We still don't know what the heck really happened.

In my mind, he's always been a good person, since the only side of him I ever knew was the older, married, foster parent, awesome uncle side. I had only ever heard stories about his younger days, and his suicide (possible murder/suicide) was a shocking, traumatic incident for me. But in the minds of those who knew him when he was younger, the incident was not shocking, as if it was just a matter of time before it inevitably happened.

So anyway, I suppose what I'm getting at here is that what makes a person good or bad depends on who you ask. Everyone sees different sides, and in the end, we never see the inside at all. We can really only make judgements based on observable actions or spoken thoughts, and the complex nature of the "goodness" or "badness" of these actions make it difficult in many cases to apply these actions to the character of the person in such a black and white way as "good" or "bad."

What's the point in tagging a person with a Good or Bad label?

The way I see it, if the person is a threat to society then lock them up. If they have commited a serious crime then lock them up.
If you are writing a history book then write of their actions, let the audience decide for themselves if they must decide between good or bad.
There are alot of people that believe in what they are doing, even if they are grossly misguided.

@penfold.

Consequentialism is more sophisticated than deontological ethics purely because it's more complex. It takes into account the subtlety of circumstance, extraneous to action, which makes it a lot more versatile. But ultimately it's no more grounded. How do you determine whether a consequence is positive or negative? You can invent arbitrary imperatives here, ie. "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" or inversely "the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people" but how do you qualify these without a moral sense to validate them?

If we take the latter imperative, for instance, we could destroy the entire planet, kill everyone on it, and hey presto! No more suffering. Does this mean that we should destroy the world? Or does it mean that we should discard that idea and come up with a better one. If the latter, then why? Because destroying the world is 'bad'? And what does 'better' mean, unless you already have an established moral spectrum to measure it against? I might just as credibly say "the greatest suffering for the greatest number of people" and take that to be my imperative. But nobody would accept this.

We construct our moral systems around an already assumed, yet transient and difficult to express, set of moral certainties. It's not an attempt to discover the basis of morality but simply to define and rationalise what we already think we possess in entirety. We measure the worth of all moral systems against our assumed, ungrounded certainties, and this is the only thing that can give or take away their integrity. You illustrate that nicely, here:

Quote from: "penfold"When Pol Pot says that he did more harm than good; he is trying to say that, taken as a whole, his actions were Good. Thus Pol Pot himself is really a Good Person. But that seems to me a bad way of deciding such an issue. After all we want to say that Pol Pot was a Bad Person.

Ultimately consequentialism falls back on the same principle as deontological ethics. Be it actions, consequences or intentions; things are only good or bad, just because.

The various posters who have contributed to Penfold's discussion here have had interesting things to say about Good vs. Bad. I especially liked Melmoth's post; the wording is a bit dense but the ideas are crystal clear:

Quote from: "Melmoth"@penfold.

Consequentialism is more sophisticated than deontological ethics purely because it's more complex. It takes into account the subtlety of circumstance, extraneous to action, which makes it a lot more versatile. But ultimately it's no more grounded. How do you determine whether a consequence is positive or negative? You can invent arbitrary imperatives here, ie. "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" or inversely "the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people" but how do you qualify these without a moral sense to validate them?

In other words, ''goodness'' depends on the relation a thing has to human need or want, and on the value it has been accorded by social factors. Inversely, the same would be true for ''badness.''  Value judgements are by social consensus; there is no such thing as pure ''good'' or pure ''evil'' in the metaphysical sense.

Quote from: "Melmoth"@penfold.

If we take the latter imperative, for instance, we could destroy the entire planet, kill everyone on it, and hey presto! No more suffering. Does this mean that we should destroy the world? Or does it mean that we should discard that idea and come up with a better one. If the latter, then why? Because destroying the world is 'bad'? And what does 'better' mean, unless you already have an established moral spectrum to measure it against? I might just as credibly say "the greatest suffering for the greatest number of people" and take that to be my imperative. But nobody would accept this.

I made the word ''should'' bigger above because they surprised me! You can only let the word ''should'' into your vocabulary when you have adopted an ''established moral spectrum'' (to use your words). Disclaimer: I understand that you were making a point here.

Quote from: "Melmoth"We construct our moral systems around an already assumed, yet transient and difficult to express, set of moral certainties. It's not an attempt to discover the basis of morality but simply to define and rationalise what we already think we possess in entirety. We measure the worth of all moral systems against our assumed, ungrounded certainties, and this is the only thing that can give or take away their integrity.

Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion''  whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.'' The atheist conception of Good vs. Bad necessarily denies the possibility of absolutes in relation to moral knowledge. (Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

Quote from: "AreEl"Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion''  

I'm not sure who "the atheist" you're talking about is, but hastily generalizing does not a good argument make.

Quote from: "AreEl"whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.''

Do you have an objective means in which to acquire these "objectively" known good and evil determinations?

Quote from: "AreEl"The atheist conception of Good vs. Bad necessarily denies the possibility of absolutes in relation to moral knowledge.

You're responding to Melmoth, not to every single atheist. This is like me quoting the Cult of Cthulhu and saying "the theist believes there is no point to the world and we're all going to be devoured no matter what." You know, becuase they believe in the god Cthulhu, they are theists, you're a theist, therefore you share the same beliefs.

Quote from: "AreEl"(Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

In whose other words? Who said anything close to this?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"(Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

In whose other words? Who said anything close to this?

Paul McCartney  

Quote from: "Melmoth"Ultimately consequentialism falls back on the same principle as deontological ethics. Be it actions, consequences or intentions; things are only good or bad, just because.

@Melmoth,

thanks for your post. I should make clear, I am not happy with consequentialism and certainly would not advocate any kind of 'principle of utility' as moral method. I share your suspicion that consequentialism is a based upon moral certainty just as surely as any deontological system. It is no coincidence that most of the great consequentialist figures (Mill, Putnam, Butler etc...) find their methods justify the commonly accepted moral norms of their times!

My own view is that of G E M Anscombe: ethical statements are meaningful when spoken in the context of certain 'brute facts' and 'normal circumstances'. So 'Punishing a man' is ethically Bad if 'he is known to be innocent' (Brute fact) and if 'circumstances are normal'.

It might be pointed out that this system gives no definition of "Good" and "Bad"; such terms can only be defined as a set of behaviours, the boundaries of that set being only determined by examples. To me this actually a strength. I certainly do not like the idea that Good and Bad are 'things-in-themselves'; but I would not follow Hume in arguing they are meaningless. The nice thing about Anscombe's method is that without relying on moral truths, it rescues moral statements form meaninglessness.

But I digress...

I couldn't quite work it out from your post; given that you allow things to be Good or Bad 'just because' (and thus have meaning); would you allow the descriptions of ethically Good or Bad be applied to a person?

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion''

I'm not sure who "the atheist" you're talking about is, but hastily generalizing does not a good argument make.

I was talking about pure, unadulterated atheism; the atheism that is uncontaminated by religious holdovers insofar as morality is concerned. If you are aware of an atheism with such uncontaminated moral absolutes, present it to us.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "AreEl"whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.''

Do you have an objective means in which to acquire these "objectively" known good and evil determinations?

For a Christian, the Bible is the revealed word of God. So, what is in that book is considered objectively true for the Christian. For the atheist - and for all agnostics and most theists - what is in the Bible is considered of mythical interest (at best) and not objective at all. Now, did you not already know the answer to your own question?! (I'm sure you did!) I'm quite certain that most of the people who will participate in this discussion will be quite familiar with all this stuff already.

In other words, for an atheist/an agnostic/& most theists, morality is a judgement of value and will change according to one's culture; for a Christian, morality is a judgement of fact which is unchangeable because the Bible is seen as objectively true.

However, this discussion isn't about Christianity. Again, if you know of moral absolutes in atheism, present them to us for discussion.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Melmoth"We construct our moral systems around an already assumed, yet transient and difficult to express, set of moral certainties. It's not an attempt to discover the basis of morality but simply to define and rationalise what we already think we possess in entirety. We measure the worth of all moral systems against our assumed, ungrounded certainties, and this is the only thing that can give or take away their integrity.

Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion'' whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.'' The atheist conception of Good vs. Bad necessarily denies the possibility of absolutes in relation to moral knowledge. (Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

Just to clarify, because I think you may have misunderstood me slightly, my observation was directed at all moral systems, including, especially, religious ones. If we were only trying to describe morality as a natural phenomenon, conducting surveys and what not, coming up with a foruma to say, "this is generally how people judge right and wrong," then that would be an exception.

What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

It's no good just saying that a system works under its own terms, from a position of itself, because that would be true for any system and therefore banal. Yet to say that a system "does not work" would also assume a separate set of moral standards to wiegh it against. Eg. from a consequentialist perspective, I'd say that theism "does not work" because it holds actions to be innately 'good' or 'evil' regardless of their consequences. From a theistic perspective I might say that consequentialism "does not work" because of its double-standards - it proposes that under certain circumstances rape and murder could be OK.

You can only judge these systems against each other, therefore your choice is ultimately arbitrary. That's what I was trying to hint at. I don't think we are naturally amoral beings, so our attempts to prescribe morals onto others usually wind up being loose descriptions of our own moral, emotional framework. A Christian doesn't get their morality from Christ's teachings - they follow Christ's teachings because he supports a moral sense that they already possess.

If I had to choose, and I don't, I'd rather follow an atheistic system, simply because they tend to be more satisfyingly complex, more detailed, more fun to think about, and they don't involve impossible claims. Plus they come closer to describing my own innate, natural morality. But there's no more logic to this than simply making up my own list of absolutes and sticking to those. We only have our emotions to base this decision on.

@penfold
I'll get to you later today. Sorry I couldn't now - got a lot to do!

Melmoth,

thanks for your reply. I don't think I misunderstood you the first time because I agree with everything you said in your second post, even this:

Quote from: "Melmoth"What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

...although I don't see the ''massive problem'' with amorality. Animals are without morals,  we are fleshly beings, therefore we are born amoral (without innate morality).

Quote from: "Melmoth"You can only judge these systems against each other, therefore your choice is ultimately arbitrary. That's what I was trying to hint at. I don't think we are naturally amoral beings, so our attempts to prescribe morals onto others usually wind up being loose descriptions of our own moral, emotional framework. A Christian doesn't get their morality from Christ's teachings - they follow Christ's teachings because he supports a moral sense that they already possess.

I agree with reservation. My only question is whether you mean ''I don't think we are naturally immoral beings'' above. I'm fine with the lack of innate morality in animals (and man). Your statement about where a Christian gets his moral sense is profound and true...very profound, indeed.

I'll look forward to your answer to Penfold's reply. Thanks for your interesting input.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not sure who "the atheist" you're talking about is, but hastily generalizing does not a good argument make.

I was talking about pure, unadulterated atheism; the atheism that is uncontaminated by religious holdovers insofar as morality is concerned. If you are aware of an atheism with such uncontaminated moral absolutes, present it to us.

So you're correct until someone shows you otherwise? The one making the assertion supports their assertions.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.''

Do you have an objective means in which to acquire these "objectively" known good and evil determinations?

For a Christian, the Bible is the revealed word of God. So, what is in that book is considered objectively true for the Christian. For the atheist - and for all agnostics and most theists - what is in the Bible is considered of mythical interest (at best) and not objective at all.

Something objective is something that is not dependent on consideration. The bible is not objective at all. In fact all Christians demonstrate this by ignoring contradictions and innaccuracies.

Quote from: "AreEl"Now, did you not already know the answer to your own question?! (I'm sure you did!) I'm quite certain that most of the people who will participate in this discussion will be quite familiar with all this stuff already.

You stated that you have objective moral standards, but you derive those "objective" moral standards subjectively. Do you see the problem?

Quote from: "AreEl"In other words, for an atheist/an agnostic/& most theists, morality is a judgement of value and will change according to one's culture; for a Christian, morality is a judgement of fact which is unchangeable because the Bible is seen as objectively true.

So you stone people to death who do things on the Sabbath? You support slavery and see nothing wrong with selling daughters to cover debts? You think it's wrong to wear cotton blends? You don't have a cross?

Quote from: "AreEl"However, this discussion isn't about Christianity. Again, if you know of moral absolutes in atheism, present them to us for discussion.

You stated that Christians have objectively known morals, I'm challenging that statement.

Davin, the peculiar idiosyncrasies of Christian ethics are fascinating, but they are not the topic of this thread. Any chance you and AreEl could take it outside?

Thanks

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I don't think there is an objective bad, subjective badness isn't uncommon.
Someone who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions, yes I'll call them bad.
An apple can go bad, a human can too.
It's probably a bit late to ask but what is our working definition of bad?

I would agree there is no 'objective bad'. But 'Bad' has meaning. Take the statement: "It is unjust to knowingly punish an innocent man (in normal circumstances), and unjust behaviour is ethically Bad". You would have to travel far for this sentiment to lose its currency; its meaning is readily apparent to us.

My working definition of Bad is a set of behaviours defined by examples. (Eg. Using the above example we develop a paradigm case of 'unjust'. That which is unjust is Bad by any reasonable understanding of the terms). This is a pretty weak definition but I know of no better one.

You seemed to suggest that there was a balancing act going on, but that a person "who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions" is Bad. That, I assume, is based upon what a person has actually done (not merely what they got caught for doing). You also say that badness must be 'subjective'. Does that mean as long as you think you're Good then you are (at least from your subjective standpoint)?

To go back to Pol Pot. The problem here, is based upon his actions we would judge him (on balance) as Bad. He seems to judge, based upon his own actions, that he is Good. It should be noted that he has a fuller 'data-set' than the rest of us (as the only subject who knows everything a person has done is that same person!)

Is your position that both points of view (Pol Pot Bad vs Pol Pot Good) are equally valid? I would say that such a claim would render ethics meaningless.

Or would you say that we can make an objective list of things done by Pol Pot and determine he is Bad? If so you are making the case for objective ethics, and so an objective bad.

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"(Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

In whose other words? Who said anything close to this?

Paul McCartney  

...do we have a picture of Paul McCartney?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F26.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_kr7r59xefg1qz7um3o1_500.png&hash=ef7398e246804758bdda46cbb21ac4585393f65b)

Quote from: "penfold"I would agree there is no 'objective bad'. But 'Bad' has meaning. Take the statement: "It is unjust to knowingly punish an innocent man (in normal circumstances), and unjust behaviour is ethically Bad". You would have to travel far for this sentiment to lose its currency; its meaning is readily apparent to us.

My working definition of Bad is a set of behaviours defined by examples. (Eg. Using the above example we develop a paradigm case of 'unjust'. That which is unjust is Bad by any reasonable understanding of the terms). This is a pretty weak definition but I know of no better one.

OK I'll work with unjust for now, I'd probably see bad at one end of the spectrum and good at the other, all humans fitting somewhere between the extremes.

Quote from: "penfold"You seemed to suggest that there was a balancing act going on, but that a person "who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions" is Bad. That, I assume, is based upon what a person has actually done (not merely what they got caught for doing). You also say that badness must be 'subjective'. Does that mean as long as you think you're Good then you are (at least from your subjective standpoint)?

Ye I don't doubt certain types of people can see themselves as good, even after causing the death of 20% of their population in the name of social restructuring.  I don't know if these people are insane or just indifferent to the suffering of others.  They have an obsession so deaths can be ignored or disregarded.  I'd hope leaders such as Roosevelt and Churchill questioned their own good/badness.  The burning of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would deserve at least that.  I don't know if it is "just" to nuke or firebomb a city, to kill a thousand others to save one of your own.

Quote from: "penfold"To go back to Pol Pot. The problem here, is based upon his actions we would judge him (on balance) as Bad. He seems to judge, based upon his own actions, that he is Good. It should be noted that he has a fuller 'data-set' than the rest of us (as the only subject who knows everything a person has done is that same person!)

So Pol Pot has a fuller data set?
Maybe not, he didn't personally suffer millions of painful deaths.  He didn't experience the love for a child and then the anguish of watching them starve.  I think he would he query his data to get an answer that justified his actions.  I don't think he would be asking how many children died because of him, though it is possible he took pleasure in these things.

Quote from: "penfold"Is your position that both points of view (Pol Pot Bad vs Pol Pot Good) are equally valid? I would say that such a claim would render ethics meaningless.

Or would you say that we can make an objective list of things done by Pol Pot and determine he is Bad? If so you are making the case for objective ethics, and so an objective bad.

His point of view isn't valid to me, my definition of just would give some weight to the interests of others.  I think he's playing by different rules, something is just if it serves his will.

Phew. @Penfold, sorry about the delay. Had a very important deadline to meet.

Quote from: "Penfold"I couldn't quite work it out from your post; given that you allow things to be Good or Bad 'just because' (and thus have meaning); would you allow the descriptions of ethically Good or Bad be applied to a person?

That's a very difficult question to answer. Not one I'm 100% decided upon, truthfully. For now, I probably wouldn't describe a person, as a sort of general entity, as either good or bad.

I think that for a person to be one or the other would require the existence of a soul. And I don't necessarily mean anything metaphisical or supernatural by that. When I say a soul, I mean an anchor of some sort. Something that fixes a person to one consistent identity.

When I look at myself in the mirror, it seems that no matter how much I change physically, no matter how much my opinions change, now matter how much my memories change, no matter how much the way I think, the way I percieve the world, the way I percieve others, the way they percieve me, and the way I percieve myself changes, I am still, somehow, indefinably, the same person. This evasive anchor is what I mean by the 'soul.' And I'm not just talking about DNA.

I think the soul is a very convincing illusion but that the 'self' is really very plural and amorphous. You can talk specifics, say that it's been good here or bad there, but I don't think you can generalise it.

I hope that answers your question and that I haven't missed anything - it's bound to happen sooner or later. So many things are being said by everyone. There's so much to take in.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Melmoth"What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

...although I don't see the ''massive problem'' with amorality. Animals are without morals, we are fleshly beings, therefore we are born amoral (without innate morality).

Once again, purely in the interest of making sure I'm not misunderstood: I have no problem with amorality either, by which I don't mean 'immorality', to answer your other question. Amorality is blissful. :raised:

Melmoth,

I agree that the following is true for the vast majority of people, atheist, agnostics and theists (even Christians)*:

QuoteThe only thing we can base morality on - indeed, the only thing we ever do base morality on - is subjective, emotional instinct. The only essential difference between an atheist and a Christian, with regard what I've said, is that it isn't typically required of atheists to deny this, nor typically allowed for Christians to admit it.

The idea that ''everything is relative'' has popular favor at this time in the West. With this in mind, I would add that whatever morality one chooses can be neither ''good'' or ''bad'' because there can be no such thing as absolute good & bad. What is ''good'' today (gay marriage for example) was ''bad'' 50 years ago; pedophelia was ''good'' in ancient Greece but you'd have to have big balls to say that it is ''good'' today.  (I don't condemn gay marrage or pedophelia between consenting individuals; I am just presenting these two as examples of the ''values hypocrisy''  which is part of most worldviews.) If morality really is subjective, hell! why not live it up? You determine your morality. It isn't ''the greater good'' (Utilitarianism) as some have suggested that must determine your conduct for that would be just replacing one god with another.  You - and you alone - determine which road you will follow,  and ''good''/''bad must also be determined by you. If ''the greater good'' is served by your morality, fine; if it isn't, that's fine as well.

Another thing, if your worldview includes the paradigm of evolution, then you must accept that good and bad must also change according to circumstance. If every evolved thing is constantly changing - the universe itself, life on Earth, technology, politics, etc. - then ''good''  and ''bad'' also evolve through time. Good and Bad are subjective as Penfold and others have seemed to imply.

Do I agree with this? No, but I understand the reasoning.

QuoteDevin made a brilliant point here:

Devin wrote:
You stated that you have objective moral standards, but you derive those "objective" moral standards subjectively. Do you see the problem?

The point isn't brilliant; it only appears so because both of you have within the meta-narratives** of your worldviews the idea that: all is relative/subjective. Most people would now agree that ''everything is subjective'' and that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth.

I have to be bold indeed to affirm that morality as a science can be objectively known!

 

*My observation is that most people accept a worldview which fits their feelings, then rationalize it. Few do things the other way around.
**meta-narrative: an overarching story accepted as true.

"Bad" and "good" have no meaning aside from morality.  And for most of us here, there is no absolute, objective morality.  So calling someone "bad" means that you don't like his actions and that he's violated your own individual moral standards.  Someone else, with a different moral worldview, wouldn't necessarily call him "bad".  We as a society tend to have similar moral ideas, with some variations, so if someone has violated the moral standards of the community, then most of us - but not all - will agree that he is "bad".  But it's not an absolute.

I think the general approach for most of us - those of us blessed and cursed with the capacity for empathy - is indeed "the greatest good for the most people and the least harm".  It's all pretty subjective and impossible to define qualitatively and quantitatively.  And we naturally give greater weight to some people than others, so that muddies the waters.  Trolleology is helpful in trying to work out the math.  But just do the best you can and be aware that there's no final answer as to whether someone is good or bad - just, at best, a consensus.

Quote from: "Melmoth"I probably wouldn't describe a person, as a sort of general entity, as either good or bad.

I think that for a person to be one or the other would require the existence of a soul. [...]

[...] I am still, somehow, indefinably, the same person. This evasive anchor is what I mean by the 'soul.' And I'm not just talking about DNA.

I think the soul is a very convincing illusion but that the 'self' is really very plural and amorphous. You can talk specifics, say that it's been good here or bad there, but I don't think you can generalise it.

From an analytical view your position is an attractive one. The vague edges of the 'self' are indeed a huge problem for ethics. However there is a danger here. You claim that the self is required to anchor moral judgement. Yet if the self is something ultimately beyond our grasp then we risk losing the capacity for moral judgement.

If self X performs action Y; and Y is Bad (by whatever moral mechanism) we want to be able to hold X to account for Y. This is the basis of all judgement. The problem is that you seem to doubt whether we can meaningfully talk about X at all. It seems to me that, following your argument, as well as not being able to place a judgement like “Bad” on X we cannot blame X for any action (like Y) either. Just as we need an X to anchor “Bad” so too do we need an X to anchor responsibility for action Y. So here are the options as I see them:

1) We abandon all moral judgement, because while we can call Y a Bad action we cannot meaningfully identify an self (X) to anchor it too. So, literally, have no one to blame for Y.

2) We reconstruct morality allowing us to punish person X for action Y even though there is no coherent notion of self to 'anchor' Y on X.

3) We allow that even though our notion of X is vague and evasive, we stand by the principle that it is none the less a sufficient anchor to allow us to make X responsible for Y.

Of these options (3) seems to me most palatable. If we accept (1) then all judgement is arbitrary, which seems to run contrary to our experience of life: to go back to my earlier example: we could call the deaths and social upheaval in Cambodia Bad, but we could not blame any individuals for it. If we accept (2) then morality becomes a very queer beast indeed; where we would have to try and find some mechanism other than responsibility to link person X to action Y; personally I can think of no adequate substitute.

If, however, we do go with (3) then we accept that the 'self' as ill-defined as it is, does have moral weight, at least to the extent that we can hold people responsible for their actions. But surely, if we can go that far, why can we not also assign the self qualities like Good and Bad?

Quote from: "AreEl"The idea that ''everything is relative'' has popular favor at this time in the West. With this in mind, I would add that whatever morality one chooses can be neither ''good'' or ''bad'' because there can be no such thing as absolute good & bad. What is ''good'' today (gay marriage for example) was ''bad'' 50 years ago; pedophelia was ''good'' in ancient Greece but you'd have to have big balls to say that it is ''good'' today. (I don't condemn gay marrage or pedophelia between consenting individuals; I am just presenting these two as examples of the ''values hypocrisy'' which is part of most worldviews.) If morality really is subjective, hell! why not live it up? You determine your morality. It isn't ''the greater good'' (Utilitarianism) as some have suggested that must determine your conduct for that would be just replacing one god with another. You - and you alone - determine which road you will follow, and ''good''/''bad must also be determined by you. If ''the greater good'' is served by your morality, fine; if it isn't, that's fine as well.

In a nutshell. Only, I'd say that "the greater good" itself is no more concrete than the sense of moral purpose that serves it (or doesn't as the case maybe). As I said in one of my earlier posts: destroying the planet along with all life on its surface could arguably be for "the greater good," in some people's philosophies.

EDIT: Also, to say that 'you determine your own moraity' would be a little off, in my terms. I said that morality is instinctive and emotional. You can no more determine it than you can control what makes you happy or sad. If you want to make it 'objective' on the ther hand, regardless of what system you set up or what God you summon to back it, then unless you really have done this - somehow built a castle on the amoral quicksand - then all you'rereally doing is 'carving your own path' as you put it. You'd only be scrambling for ways to give those instincts more apparent value than they actually have, and to extend your own ego out into a universal level.

Quote from: "AreEl"The point isn't brilliant; it only appears so because both of you have within the meta-narratives** of your worldviews the idea that: all is relative/subjective. Most people would now agree that ''everything is subjective'' and that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth.

I have to be bold indeed to affirm that morality as a science can be objectively known!

I'm glad you make that claim because, though I couldn't call it 'good' or 'bad', at least it's interesting! Which is the most we can aspire to be, I think.

So, that leaves me with the question, how?

You could be saying, simply, "There is a source of objective morality out there, which can be understood, although I don't necessarily understand it myself. My own moral opinions are still, if not subjective, at least extremely fallible." However a truly bold claim would be, "There is a source of objective morality out there and I also possess an objective, personal understanding of it." So I could divide this into two or three questions, really:

1) How do you know objective morality exists to be understood?
and if applicable
2) How do you then go about, objectively, understanding it?

3-ish. Sort of an incidental question) You say you follow the teachings of Jesus because they match an innate, instinctive morality that you already possess. This sounds like an admission of subjectivity to me. What about those of us whose innate 'moral compass' does not match those teachings? If they were truly objective, then there ought to be a reason for us to believe them, and to follow them, regardless of how we feel. Is there such a reason?

Quote from: "penfold"If self X performs action Y; and Y is Bad (by whatever moral mechanism) we want to be able to hold X to account for Y. This is the basis of all judgement. The problem is that you seem to doubt whether we can meaningfully talk about X at all. It seems to me that, following your argument, as well as not being able to place a judgement like “Bad” on X we cannot blame X for any action (like Y) either. Just as we need an X to anchor “Bad” so too do we need an X to anchor responsibility for action Y. So here are the options as I see them:

1) We abandon all moral judgement, because while we can call Y a Bad action we cannot meaningfully identify an self (X) to anchor it too. So, literally, have no one to blame for Y.

2) We reconstruct morality allowing us to punish person X for action Y even though there is no coherent notion of self to 'anchor' Y on X.

3) We allow that even though our notion of X is vague and evasive, we stand by the principle that it is none the less a sufficient anchor to allow us to make X responsible for Y.

Of these options (3) seems to me most palatable. If we accept (1) then all judgement is arbitrary, which seems to run contrary to our experience of life: to go back to my earlier example: we could call the deaths and social upheaval in Cambodia Bad, but we could not blame any individuals for it. If we accept (2) then morality becomes a very queer beast indeed; where we would have to try and find some mechanism other than responsibility to link person X to action Y; personally I can think of no adequate substitute.

If, however, we do go with (3) then we accept that the 'self' as ill-defined as it is, does have moral weight, at least to the extent that we can hold people responsible for their actions. But surely, if we can go that far, why can we not also assign the self qualities like Good and Bad?

I'm more in favour of 1. It's easy to call actions and/or their consequences 'bad' but it's too difficult with people. The self may be defined enough, however, for you to judge whether or not  person X is likely to recommit action Y, and to intervene. Or you might see things like punishment as functional, regardless of accountability; merely a tool of the social engineer. In other words, although person X cannot be held accountable for action Y, and although s/he is not likely to recommit, punishing them for it will still provide a strong disincentive to others.

Quote from: "Melmoth"I'd say that "the greater good" itself is no more concrete than the sense of moral purpose that serves it (or doesn't as the case maybe). As I said in one of my earlier posts: destroying the planet along with all life on its surface could arguably be for "the greater good," in some people's philosophies.

Agreed. You said it better than I could have. Wilson expresses the same idea:

Quote from: "Wilson""Bad" and "good" have no meaning aside from morality. And for most of us here, there is no absolute, objective morality. So calling someone "bad" means that you don't like his actions and that he's violated your own individual moral standards. Someone else, with a different moral worldview, wouldn't necessarily call him "bad". We as a society tend to have similar moral ideas, with some variations, so if someone has violated the moral standards of the community, then most of us - but not all - will agree that he is "bad". But it's not an absolute.

Quote from: "Melmoth"So, that leaves me with the question, how [can you affirm that morality as a science can be objectively known]?

You could be saying, simply, "There is a source of objective morality out there, which can be understood, although I don't necessarily understand it myself. My own moral opinions are still, if not subjective, at least extremely fallible." However a truly bold claim would be, "There is a source of objective morality out there and I also possess an objective, personal understanding of it."

I am making the truly bold claim that you resumed quite well:  ''There is a source of objective morality out there and I also possess an objective personal understanding of it.''

Quote from: "Melmoth"1) How do you know objective morality exists to be understood?
and if applicable
2) How do you then go about, objectively, understanding it?

3-ish. Sort of an incidental question) You say you follow the teachings of Jesus because they match an innate, instinctive morality that you already possess. This sounds like an admission of subjectivity to me. What about those of us whose innate 'moral compass' does not match those teachings? If they were truly objective, then there ought to be a reason for us to believe them, and to follow them, regardless of how we feel. Is there such a reason?

I'll answer and comment your question #3 above: (re italics portion, above) There are plenty of people who follow the teachings of Jesus (Christians and others) who can be some of the meanest, vilest people you'll ever meet. The ''instinctive morality'' you speak of is the one we are born with and all possess. While this is biblically correct and many non-Christians would agree it exists, the idea of instinctive morality does not sit well with some atheistic worldviews (Naturalism and Darwinism are the two that come to mind). The instinctive morality we were born with doesn't make us nice people - as human history will attest! - rather, it makes us pine for the Good. I'll repeat that so it sinks in: the morality we are born with makes us pine for the Good but we remain incapable of it. History is a witness that we as a species are given to hatred, discord, religious mumbo jumbo, egotism (personal & national), substance addictions, murder, incest, rape...I could go on for a long time! Atheists have chosen to blame organized religion for all this mayhem while turning a blind eye to the poor (a euphemism!) human rights record of atheist states like the ex-USSR, China, Mongolia, North Korea, to name only a few. Religion isn't the problem, and atheism isn't the problem; human nature is the problem.

As far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned, they are largely useless and wasted by most people, professing Christians or otherwise. They are impossible to live by for the vast majority. Christianity abused as a mantle of self-righteousness will produce the a type of sorry individual who will abuse and insult others. Such people have nothing to do with Christ. They can be found among other religions and among atheists as well. Christianity isn't the culprit; human nature is the culprit.

(re boldface portion, above) This will always sound like an admission of subjectivity to those on the outside! No one's innate moral compass matches any worldview's teaching, even less so the teachings of Christ! Remember: you'll pine for the Good but you'll never be good. Your nature prevents you. You may give intellectual assent to The Human Manifesto or the Bible or Buddhism,  but when your neighbor rapes your wife will you restrain him and wait for the police? or will you beat the shit out of him and then call the police?

(re underlined portion, above) No, we will not believe (objective moral teachings) nor want to follow them for that is our nature. We'll keep looking for some other way; we'll keep asking bizarre questions like, ''If Pol Pot did 80% good and 20% bad, does this make him a bad man?'' By this standard, we are all good.

By our standards, whatever they may be, we pronounce ourselves ''good''.

Objective morality, or a real morality will could never evolve, either in phenotypes or memes because it will always be subverted by mutations. A constant in our perception of good and evil would leave us susceptible to moral infiltration by parasites. Our ability to accept or reject ideas as good or bad have to be fluid and adaptable. Our behavior is going to be constantly reshaping as our environment changes. The most we can hope for are basic psychological constants, but I think that even deep irrational emotions are more taught than inherited. Things like shame, and guilt, pride and envy I think are not inherited adaptations but learned adaptations that help young people understand the complexity of moral understanding needed in order to be a functional part of the current culture.

Quote from: "Melmoth"

Quote from: "penfold"[...]
1) We abandon all moral judgement, because while we can call Y a Bad action we cannot meaningfully identify an self (X) to anchor it too. So, literally, have no one to blame for Y.

2) We reconstruct morality allowing us to punish person X for action Y even though there is no coherent notion of self to 'anchor' Y on X.

3) We allow that even though our notion of X is vague and evasive, we stand by the principle that it is none the less a sufficient anchor to allow us to make X responsible for Y.
[...]

I'm more in favour of 1. It's easy to call actions and/or their consequences 'bad' but it's too difficult with people. The self may be defined enough, however, for you to judge whether or not  person X is likely to recommit action Y, and to intervene. Or you might see things like punishment as functional, regardless of accountability; merely a tool of the social engineer. In other words, although person X cannot be held accountable for action Y, and although s/he is not likely to recommit, punishing them for it will still provide a strong disincentive to others.

This is awfully bleak. Even if I could imagine a 'social engineer' making cynical policy decisions I do not think your view accurately describes reality.

You said in a previous post that things are Good or Bad "just because"; a view I strongly associate with. Given that we can meaningfully discuss bad actions, does that not presuppose notions of responsibility and intention?

To take a recent pair of examples: the Japan earthquake and the recent cluster bombing of civilians in Misrata. We, I assume, can all agree that these are both Bad. However I also think we would agree that we mean different things by Bad in each context. The use of cluster bombs in Misrata engages us in notions of 'justice' in a way that an earthquake does not. The crucial difference is that the horror of Misrata involved human agency.

It would seem to me absurd to abandon any coherent notion of human agency and responsibility. Else in ethical terms there is no difference between what St Augustine called man-made and natural evils.

I should point out that what I am appealing to is our intuitive 'common-sense' notions of justice (and at a deeper level our notion of 'the self'). This defence does, of course, beg the question. It may be that we have to completely abandon ideas like justice and responsibility because we cannot draw a coherent notion of 'the self'. All I would say is that I think your position is ducking the issue; your account fails to account for that vast set of human behaviour dealing with justice. You may be right that it has no analytical basis, but that does not account for our experience of the world. Whether we like it or not we all feel a sense of justice; those few who genuinely do not we call sociopaths.

Quote from: "AreEl"I'll answer and comment your question #3 above: (re italics portion, above) There are plenty of people who follow the teachings of Jesus (Christians and others) who can be some of the meanest, vilest people you'll ever meet. The ''instinctive morality'' you speak of is the one we are born with and all possess. While this is biblically correct and many non-Christians would agree it exists, the idea of instinctive morality does not sit well with some atheistic worldviews (Naturalism and Darwinism are the two that come to mind). The instinctive morality we were born with doesn't make us nice people - as human history will attest! - rather, it makes us pine for the Good. I'll repeat that so it sinks in: the morality we are born with makes us pine for the Good but we remain incapable of it. History is a witness that we as a species are given to hatred, discord, religious mumbo jumbo, egotism (personal & national), substance addictions, murder, incest, rape...I could go on for a long time! Atheists have chosen to blame organized religion for all this mayhem while turning a blind eye to the poor (a euphemism!) human rights record of atheist states like the ex-USSR, China, Mongolia, North Korea, to name only a few. Religion isn't the problem, and atheism isn't the problem; human nature is the problem.

As far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned, they are largely useless and wasted by most people, professing Christians or otherwise. They are impossible to live by for the vast majority. Christianity abused as a mantle of self-righteousness will produce the a type of sorry individual who will abuse and insult others. Such people have nothing to do with Christ. They can be found among other religions and among atheists as well. Christianity isn't the culprit; human nature is the culprit.

To my mind the problem with Christian ethics is the capacity for judgement is vested solely in God. God is only known (in a public sense - obviously many Christians have deep personal understanding of their God) through scripture. But much scripture is arcane; I don't meet many Christians who feel the appropriate ethical response to insanity is to drown a heard of pigs; for all we know Jesus's dealing with Legion may represent the best wisdom of his times, but it is hard to understand how such a story applies universally to ethics. To make such a move Christians have to interpret scripture.

Interpretation of the ethical message of Christian scriptures have been adopted by everything from Marxist community organisers in Latin America (who interestingly defined the murder of Abel as original sin, not the fruit eating of Eden), to the use of the Genesis tale of Ham by the Dutch Reform Church to justify slavery. Scripture was used by MLK to help fight for civil rights but also by the Catholic church to justify genocides of the Maya and Inca civilisations.

If the same scripture can be used by all these different folk then it is not really providing a clear guide on morality. As we have no other evidence of God's judgement it follows we do not have a clear guide to God's judgement. In that sense there is absolutely no good reason to base a moral system on scripture even if you believe in God.

edit
--------

Mongolia's original revolutionary leader was Sükhbaatar who was (and, to this day, is) loved. The terrible purges (and they were terrible, up to 8% of the population was killed) started after the USSR became involved appointing a vassal government. Since the end of the cold war Mongolia has emerged as a stable secular democracy (elections, independent judiciary, free press etc...). Apart from the occasional starvation following a hard winter (zuud) it is inaccurate to imply it is a bad place. Most of the population still live the traditional nomad lifestyle, the government impinges little on their lives. Given the realities of Western Russia to the North and China to the South it has a remarkably benign government.

Quote from: "penfold"To my mind the problem with Christian ethics is the capacity for judgement is vested solely in God.

I'm not sure what ''judgement'' you are talking about. If it is judgement about who is saved from hell and who is not, then yes, that judgement is solely God's.

Quote from: "penfold"God is only known (in a public sense - obviously many Christians have deep personal understanding of their God) through scripture.

You stated the ideal situation, that ''God is only known through scripture [the Bible].''  As for the part of your quote in brackets, ''obviously many Christians have a deep personal understanding of their God,''  such a personal understanding must only come through study and prayer. Nothing more. I would be be suspicious of any Christian who tells me that he hears God in an audible voice, or receives messages in the form of dreams or automatic writing. Any mystical experience whatsoever is to be considered false. The canon of scripture is closed and has been for almost 2000 years, so anyone who claims new divine knowledge is not to be trusted.

Quote from: "penfold"But much scripture is arcane;

Arcane as in mysterious?...no, not at all! The Bible was - for the most part - written by simple men not given to mysticism. I know that many churches and most detractors claim that the Bible must be interpreted according to their rules; or, that there is no accepted correct interpretation of the text. Both positions are false.  The best way to read the Bible is as you would a newspaper, taking everything at face value and within the context.

Quote from: "penfold"I don't meet many Christians who feel the appropriate ethical response to insanity is to drown a heard of pigs; for all we know Jesus's dealing with Legion may represent the best wisdom of his times, but it is hard to understand how such a story applies universally to ethics. To make such a move Christians have to interpret scripture.

You are refering to the story in Luke 8:26-40. From your own interpretation, above, I can see that you didn't understand it. The story of the insane man and the pigs relates an event, nothing more. It isn't a parable - which is meant to teach a great ethical truth - it is only a news story telling of what happened when Jesus met the crazed man.

By analogy, if I tell you that my telephone number is 514-662-6395, this would be nothing more than information. On the surface, if you dial that number, I'll answer the 'phone. If you read between the lines, you'll see that I live in Canada, in Montreal, in the northern part of the city, and you'll be able to estimate my socio-economic level. That is the only information you'll get if you dig a little. There is no more information than that.  Now, if you are of a mystical bent, you may do a numerological study of my phone number and come up with all kinds of nonsensical information about me and my life, my past lives, my ultimate destiny and my relation to you! Would any of this be accurate? No! Unfortunately, many churches and non-believers pursue biblical studies this way. It's all crap. Just crap.

There is a proper way to interpret scripture and there is are many improper ways. The proper way is called the Normal method, AKA the grammatical-historical method, AKA the literal method. Any other method (Mystical, Allegorical and admixtures of these) will produce perversions in understanding the Bible.

Perversions in understanding: you're in a very big club populated by most people in the world. It includes theists, agnostics, atheists and most Christians.

@ AreEl, I note with interest you decided not to address my point about the historical divergence of interpretation of scripture. A point which underlies both that question and all I have to say that follows is this: How do you know you are right in your particular interpretation of scripture?"

Quote from: "AreEl"You are refering to the story in Luke 8:26-40. From your own interpretation, above, I can see that you didn't understand it. The story of the insane man and the pigs relates an event, nothing more. It isn't a parable - which is meant to teach a great ethical truth - it is only a news story telling of what happened when Jesus met the crazed man.

The meaning of this passage is highly debated amongst Christians. You chose to interpret it as a 'news report' but here are a few suggestions it is talking about something more. The pig is a Jewish symbol of uncleanness. The insanity in the text, is clearly of demonic origin. The sea in Semitic culture is seen as symbolic of primordial chaos. Here are two other possible interpretations:

1) Evil is a real present force and can manifest in a person as insanity. By the power of God and through Jesus Christ, unclean demons (pigs & legion) can be banished into primordial chaos (sea). ie Insanity can be cured by exorcism.

2) Jesus's particular act symbolically stands for the removal of what is unclean in all of us (foreshadowing the resurrection) by taking the unclean and destroying it. ie Our sinful natures, will through the sacrifice of Jesus be brought to harmony (the kingdom of God).

Both of these interpretations are ethical in tone. How do you know your 'news report' one is correct and not them?

QuoteArcane as in mysterious?...no, not at all! The Bible was - for the most part - written by simple men not given to mysticism. I know that many churches and most detractors claim that the Bible must be interpreted according to their rules; or, that there is no accepted correct interpretation of the text. Both positions are false.  The best way to read the Bible is as you would a newspaper, taking everything at face value and within the context.

This is just factually false. This thread is not the place to discuss the HUGE hermeneutic problem that is scripture. But if you are interested there is so much material out there (wikipedia is a reasonable starting point, but any academic theology department should have whole libraries on the topic). But suffice to say the following; every few years we discover more texts and sources that shed light on the world the bible was written in, and each discovery has profound impact. We are no where near able to read scripture with the same contextual confidence we do a newspaper. To claim we can is just wrong - an untruth peddled by preachers who require the notion of authoritative interpretation. We know very little about the world of the authors of the bible, we know less about the individuals themselves, we do not even know how many people were involved in the writing. And that does not even touch on the problem of how it was complied...

I've been a pilot for over 25 years - since 1984 - and whenever a friend is with me in the cockpit, he will invariably ask ''Is flying difficult?'' My stock answer is ''No'' to which I then offer to hand over the controls. Men always accept! After about 30 seconds, the 'plane is out-of-control and I must take over. The really good ones will last over a minute before losing it. However, if I talk them through, if I keep saying, ''you're turning, correct it!''  ''you're climbing, correct it!''  ''you're descending, correct it!'' then they can go for quite a long time. I inwardly chuckle as I see their white-knuckled grip on the controls!  So, did I lie to them when I said that an airplane is easy to fly? Absolutely not! I find it very easy...but that's because I have the knowledge and the skill to do so and I don't confuse flying with driving.

You asked me questions about biblical interpretation. I'll try to answer them as succinctly as possible because that is my style. You will be like my friend in the cockpit. If you insist that you know it all, you will crash and burn. I can talk you through correct biblical interpretation but I'm well aware that you will not cry Eureka! because there will be a lot of mental blockage in the way. The ride is important, as is seeing familiar sights from new perspectives. With that in mind, let us start:

 

Quote from: "penfold"AreEl, I note with interest you decided not to address my point about the historical divergence of interpretation of scripture.

I didn't address it because I didn't see it as important. There was no other reason. Since this appears to interest you, there have been over the centuries a number of schools of interpretation. They are - in no particular order - the Halachic, Hagadic, Allegorical, Accomodation, Mystical, Moral, Naturalistic, Dogmatic, Mythical, Grammatico-historical/Literal. The earliest of these (in New Testament times) is the Literal method. This Literal method which - as its name implies -  interprets the Bible literally, was the method Jesus used himself. That Jesus uses the Literal method of biblical understanding is significant in itself. Literal interpretation was also the method of the early (Jewish) church and remained the standard method of interpretation until Origen. Thereafter, the Bible gradually loses its importance as the Roman Church's teachings become the prime source of knowledge about God. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) continues to use - to this day - the allegorical method of biblical interpretation.

If the history of biblical interpretation interests you, may I suggest: Biblical Hermeneutics, by Milton S. Terry.

Quote from: "penfold"How do you know you are right in your particular interpretation of scripture?"

There have been many different methods of interpretation over the years but today there are only two major schools left: the Allegorical and the Literal. The RCC, the Eastern Orthodox Churches (EOC) and many Protestant denominations use the Allegorical method. (There are also elements of Mystical interpretation in EOC and RCC.) The Literal method is used by some Protestant denominations and by Messianic Judaism.

What is the Allegorical method?  Let me quote an authority:

''Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual, more profound sense'' (B. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation.)

This method divests the literal and historical significance of a biblical passage and every word is then made the vehicle of some other ''deeper'' meaning (as in your bizarre explanation of Jesus' encounter with the crazed man will attest!). The advantages of the allegorical method are:

1. theological difficulties arising from a literal interpretation are avoided,
2. the plasticity of meaning infused into the text means that any peculiar religious view may be promoted.

The dangers of the Allegorical method are:

A. the Allegorical method does not interpret scripture. It ignores the common meaning of words and infuses a passage with other meanings at the whim of the interpreter. In other words, once the principle of allegorical interpretation is seen as valid,  the only basis of exposition is found in the mind of the expositor.
B. The interpreter's psyche, his culture, his education, his personal situation will all influence his interpretation of scripture. The Bible's words cease to have any set meaning. A peculiar denomination's doctrinal positions may then be promoted even though there is no biblical basis for them. In other words: it is a simple matter to twist the words of scripture into mystical imaginings. Or into nonsense. The choice is yours!
C. The Allegorical method makes it impossible for the conclusions of the interpreter to be validated. Anything goes. To assume that the true meaning of the Bible lies beyond its words is to encourage undisciplined imagination and speculation.

So, the Allegorical method makes true interpretation impossible, leaves no basis for the testing of these interpretations, leaves interpretation subservient to pre-established doctrinal positions and removes authority from the Bible and places it in an interest group.  All atheists and most Christians use the Allegorical method and it admirably serves their varying positions! Don't you just love the irony?!

To be continued

AreEl,

Thank you for your post. Lots of stuff to say about it. However scriptural hermenutic is not the topic of this thread. I will split this discussion off into a new thread in the Religion forum (i will entitle it "AreEl Scripture debate"). I very much hope you will join me there.

I am still alive, just about. Been having problems with the internet connection in my house.

Quote from: "penfold"

Quote from: "Melmoth"I'm more in favour of 1. It's easy to call actions and/or their consequences 'bad' but it's too difficult with people. The self may be defined enough, however, for you to judge whether or not person X is likely to recommit action Y, and to intervene. Or you might see things like punishment as functional, regardless of accountability; merely a tool of the social engineer. In other words, although person X cannot be held accountable for action Y, and although s/he is not likely to recommit, punishing them for it will still provide a strong disincentive to others.

This is awfully bleak. Even if I could imagine a 'social engineer' making cynical policy decisions I do not think your view accurately describes reality.

You said in a previous post that things are Good or Bad "just because"; a view I strongly associate with. Given that we can meaningfully discuss bad actions, does that not presuppose notions of responsibility and intention?

My view describes what I think I can understand about reality, without metaphysical embellishment, that's all. I'm not saying that people should play the cynical, 'social engineer,' or that they shouldn't, just that if we want to hold people 'accountable' for being 'good' or 'bad' in a sort of general and impersonal sense ('murderers should go t jail,' and not just 'you murdered my friend, therefore I will murder you'), then that would be, in my opinion, our best excuse. And that's only if we need an excuse, which I'm not saying either. If we need a reason, then we can rely on this one because it's a pragmatic and not a moral approach. Morally, I think that all we have is 'just because,' which isn't a reason at all.

Quote from: "penfold"It would seem to me absurd to abandon any coherent notion of human agency and responsibility. Else in ethical terms there is no difference between what St Augustine called man-made and natural evils.

Indeed! That's a lovely way of putting it. And don't we also tend to hold nature personally accountable in the same way that we do human beings? Isn't that basically what God is all about, or gods as the case may be? My loved ones will not die, because I have prayed to God, and God is good. Or what if your computer crashes before you get a chance to press 'save?' Then is it not a "fucking narcoleptic bastard piece of shit"? After all, you were muttering to it, "please don't crash, please don't crash, please don't crash" when it went ahead and did it anyway, the swine! It's nice to have something to negotiate with, a god, or a person, or a sense of 'self'.

No, I don't think there is much difference. And yes, I agree, it is absurd. I wouldn't call it bleak though - I find this stuff more uplifting than depressing.

Quote from: "penfold"I should point out that what I am appealing to is our intuitive 'common-sense' notions of justice (and at a deeper level our notion of 'the self'). This defence does, of course, beg the question. It may be that we have to completely abandon ideas like justice and responsibility because we cannot draw a coherent notion of 'the self'. All I would say is that I think your position is ducking the issue; your account fails to account for that vast set of human behaviour dealing with justice. You may be right that it has no analytical basis, but that does not account for our experience of the world. Whether we like it or not we all feel a sense of justice; those few who genuinely do not we call sociopaths.

I know sociopaths lack a sense of empathy but I'm not sure if 'justice' really requires one. I think justice can be, and often is, very cold.

But you're right of course, and I see why you would think I'm 'ducking the issue', though it isn't what I'm trying to do. I don't want to just say, we evolved to see things this way because it's how we survive. That would be a true statement, and I think it does account for our experience of the world, but it still feels a bit bland and insubstantial. So I'll try to give you a purely present-tense answer. I think our sense of justice can come from one of two things:

1. Base emotional responses. We assign blame because it's empowering; it gives us a reason to act, and the feeling that we're accomplishing something, which we need to maintain any semblance of sanity, even if that blame is pointed at ourselves. And I'm not pretending that I don't do this myself, by the way, in case you were concerned. I think it would be impossible for anyone not to do this.

2. Self decoration. We not only express but sincerely believe moral directives because they help us to establish our identity within a group. Ie. "I think eating meat is bad"/"I disapprove of vaccines"/"I am a nihilist" because it's an interesting thing to say, it makes me unique, it spurns a conversation, it gives me something to talk about with others. I think murderers should go to prison and that the Earthquake in Japan is bad because not to do so, or worse, to think the opposite, would make me stand out a little too much. I believe in God because it makes me feel closer to others who also believe in god, and every sunday we can get together to remind ourselves of this; yet at the same time it makes me feel glamorously one-apart from what I shall always condescendingly refer to as 'secular society,' again, to emphasise my own identity, my own place in the world. I am an atheist because that is the most 'rational' position, and I am rational - would you believe - because it is congruent with my sense of self to try or claim to be such. That's all there is.

Is that an improvement?

I'll engage more with what I've missed later, in a different post. Don't want to produce too much of a wall.

I think the problem here is we have tried to socially evolve a little faster than we are consciously and mentally able to. Let me try to explain my point from our evolutionary roots and then apply it to the stutter step we are having now.

Evolutionarily we are still at tribal level. We function well in smaller subgroups but can function within a larger common subgroup but as a species we REALLY like to be grouped. This is for good reason, 5000 years ago, you just didn't make it very long alone. You got sick and couldn't hunt, you were screwed. That is aside from other predators and adjacent tribes. Now, living in your group, you knew there was a tribe over the hill that was always hunting and foraging on your land. Those bastards. So you went over the hill and killed/beat up who you could and raped their women. This was okay, they weren't in your IN group. They weren't going to take care of you while you were sick. They may have your kids but that just spreads survival of the fittest. It wasn't your problem and they probably high 5'd their buddies around the camp fire about it. I think this opinion is further shown by Dan Ariely's Ted Talks on our buggy moral code.

Bringing this into a discussion about modern behavior. I don't think most human men have empathy for people outside our IN groups. I really don't. I believe women have brought this into being with their natural maternal nature and as they begin to shape public policy more and more. Men may be staying in line but our minds and cognative processes are very easy to slip back into our tribal thinking. Both of these incidents are obviously the complete lack of empathy for a group of people who were not in a leading males in group and whom he felt a threat somehow.

To answer your question, good or evil? I don't think people who are leaders think about those sort of things. They are more concerned with making sure their group comes out on top. I also don't think this will be a popular view as some may feel it somehow justifies the holocaust or rape by saying its just in our "nature." All people are in control and responsible for their actions.

Pol Pot btw I don't think was evil. I believe he was just a piss poor idealist who happened to get a country and then set the standard for how not to run a country.

Quote from: darkcyd on June 10, 2011, 10:20:51 PM
I think the problem here is we have tried to socially evolve a little faster than we are consciously and mentally able to. Let me try to explain my point from our evolutionary roots and then apply it to the stutter step we are having now.

Evolutionarily we are still at tribal level. We function well in smaller subgroups but can function within a larger common subgroup but as a species we REALLY like to be grouped. This is for good reason, 5000 years ago, you just didn't make it very long alone. You got sick and couldn't hunt, you were screwed. That is aside from other predators and adjacent tribes. Now, living in your group, you knew there was a tribe over the hill that was always hunting and foraging on your land. Those bastards. So you went over the hill and killed/beat up who you could and raped their women. This was okay, they weren't in your IN group. They weren't going to take care of you while you were sick. They may have your kids but that just spreads survival of the fittest. It wasn't your problem and they probably high 5'd their buddies around the camp fire about it. I think this opinion is further shown by Dan Ariely's Ted Talks on our buggy moral code.

Bringing this into a discussion about modern behavior. I don't think most human men have empathy for people outside our IN groups. I really don't. I believe women have brought this into being with their natural maternal nature and as they begin to shape public policy more and more. Men may be staying in line but our minds and cognative processes are very easy to slip back into our tribal thinking. Both of these incidents are obviously the complete lack of empathy for a group of people who were not in a leading males in group and whom he felt a threat somehow.

To answer your question, good or evil? I don't think people who are leaders think about those sort of things. They are more concerned with making sure their group comes out on top. I also don't think this will be a popular view as some may feel it somehow justifies the holocaust or rape by saying its just in our "nature." All people are in control and responsible for their actions.

Pol Pot btw I don't think was evil. I believe he was just a piss poor idealist who happened to get a country and then set the standard for how not to run a country.

I had watched the TEDTalks video sometime ago, especially when it comes to religious morality which is bound by a rigid structure, heavenly incentives and religious social honor codes. Just the mere thought of no heaven makes people see things differently, which seems to be more important for some than social honor codes and community ties.

It is a good framework for some kinds of people, though that generalization does not extend to all religious people and the motivations they have for being religious.