1Z wrote:
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:<celqqo$57l$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>...
1Z wrote:
The problem, of course, is that each of us entertains a different notion
of a common rule. Even for the classical Golden Rule and its various
manifestations throughout history there is a problem. We clearly would
not want a sado-masochist to "do unto others as he'd have them do unto
himself." So the crux of this problem is that there are some among us
who have a more nobler, humane, altruistic, compassionate or kindly
visualization of a common rule than others. And there are some among us
who more readily achieve this behavior than others.
A bunch of practical issues which don't fatally impinge on moral objectivism
as a theory.
When ethics and morality are *not* largely practical, therein lies the
problem.
The problem is (a) how to get people to identify their own weaknesses
and (b) how to model themselves after the most socially responsible
behavior.
Who gets to define 'socially responsible' ? Is it subjective or objective ?
I don't think objectivity is possible. But perhaps there's a means to
transcend the dualism of this pair of opposites. Whoever can figure
this out will earn his position in history. It'll likely come from a
person or class of persons outside the realms of politics, wealth, or
religious fundamentalism -- which all seem to require various
permutations of chauvenism, jingoism, fear, ignorance, intolerance or
greed in action, despite claims to higher conduct in ideology. To them,
belief is more important than action.
For them, it is better to profess belief in a particular religion,
allegiance to a particular flag, than to behave themselves. A murderer
who professes his faith will go to heaven, whereas an avowed atheist who
spends his life giving to charity might burn in Hades. For them,
(static) belief and identity is paramount. It's simple, and the sort of
thing that can be turned off and on like a switch in some people --
whereas changing their behavior is all but impossible. Flip the switch
and you're saved, redeemed of your wrongdoing. This idea must change.
Belief should be seen as generally inconsequential compared to action in
terms of moral codes.
Yes, but again it seems to occur after some sentiment has been laid.
For example, be good to others because it'll further your own interests
(a thinly veiled greed motive, surely destined for implosion at some point).
I am proscribing moral objectivism, not describing general behaviour.
Moral breakdown, then, has one of two possibilities: (a) the
moral code is ignored or is stated ambiguously or (b) logical fallacy
afterwards (e.g. killing, stealing, coveting, etc. in spite of its
acceptance as stated).
So the solution from my perspective is to re-write our moral codes in
very clear modern and everyday language. Don't rely on millenia-old
religious texts which are automatically sectarian or do not easy apply
to members of other faiths -- or on modern day legalese which is
understood only by a handful of legal experts. Secondly, train people
on basic logic, educate them as to the consequences of their actions,
and their behavior by "proxy": either how they invest their retirement
savings, how they vote, the products they buy and consume, and so forth.
We need to see the big picture -- and clearly.
Philosophers have been attempting that sort of thing for some time.
I believe they've often failed because few in the modern era have been
activist-philosophers, and in classical times many were employed by
rulers or lived in sensitive times -- so some could never deliver the
final "punch" in their arguments. Philosophy in academia today, for
example, lacks a "studio" component like art, architecture or music
schools. Western philosophy is something to merely read, a specialized
branch of history perhaps, not something to typically practice beyond
economics.
Why would 're-writing moral codes' require an active component ?
Morality is action, dynamic and real behavior. I, for example, love
theory. But while I'm spouting off my notions, my wife donates to a
county agency which assists battered women and children. For all of my
theory I accomplish nothing. In my opinion, she has it right. Direct
action should come first, or be a living component of theory.
Another reason for a living component would be in recognizing that a
culture's ability to understand its own moral codes changes over time.
Language, interpretation of ambiguity, cultural references and icons,
ways of life, etc. -- all changing. Sometimes they go 180 degrees, as a
means for justification of the most heinous homocide, ethnic cleansing,
Manifest Destiny, warfare, etc.
Clearly, there is only a poetic or metaphorical meaning left in the
Christian crucifixion. It makes no sense. Like screwing in a light
bulb to make water flow. Kill a man-god to save the unlucky sinning
world. Two totally unconnected events. But there's a key component
which does bring these two unrelated events together -- if you subscribe
to the age-old (pre-Christian) concept of sacrifice. If you actually
believe in killing the best of your flock of animals, or crop, and
giving it to the gods for good fortune, etc. If you believe that
ruining the best of what you have, leaving it to the elements (the gods)
will bring good fortune, then the
sin-crucifixion-ressurection-redemption pathway somewhat makes sense.
But nearly nobody subscribes to this today. Anyone ruining his most
prized possessions (at regular intervals too) today, for whatever
reason, would be seen as an idiot. And, so, the whole moral theory
offered by Christianity needs to be re-written in language, culture,
metaphor (or possibly no-metaphor, to reduce future ambiguity) in terms
which make it more understandable.
Ambiguity arises when the code is written in language and terms blind to
the current real-world situation. There needs to be an active component
in the code which keeps current not the letter of the law, but its
spirit. Since the gods seem to have forsaken us, we need to start
hammering out some new moral codes in clear and unambiguous everyday
language.
.
|
