Does “A Well-Lived Life” Have Meaning?

_{Barry Arrington

March 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Charles Murray recently recounted an experience in Europe:

Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase “a life well-lived” did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.

It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality. Let me emphasize “spreading.” I’m not talking about all Europeans, by any means. That mentality goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible.

Today’s class assignment: Comments should start with one of two statements, either: (1) “The mentality Murray describes is true, because . . .” or (2) “The mentality Murray describes is false, because . . .” Obviously, what you write after “because” will the only interesting part of your comment.

Comments

absolutist [103], We'll have to agree to disagree. I think my previous posts respond to your arguments. Thanks for taking the time to engage my thoughts.QuadFather_{March 24, 2009
March
03
Mar
24
24
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST}

Quadfather [98]: "you can do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody" But you're hurting me, so that statement doesn't work. Hitler believed he was not hurting others. He was making the world better. But we know he wasn't. Is killing an embryo hurting somebody? Some try justifying the act of killing by making the personhood of the individual subjective to their own beliefs, their own pleasure. They may say I will have more pleasure not having children at this time. It's wrong but they justify it by saying "this isn't hurting anybody." Maximizing pleasure is not what we should strive for. Adulterers do this kind of mental gymnastics all the time. Kids get hurt. Practicing homosexuals (getting way off the UD subject here and I'll stop here...) always justify their actions by saying no one is getting hurt. What about their parents? What about the nurse who really would rather not know what anal warts are? What about the father who lost his son to suicide because he was so promiscuous he couldn't live with AIDS? You absolutely have no ability when it comes to the "weighing of positive and negative consequences." The idea that things aren't the way they ought to be, and the concept that things ought to be a certain way should be evidence enough for the existence of universal moral law. When you keep asking "Why?" you start sounding like the skeptic who keeps on asking why. You give him a valid answer and instead of a valid argument against he says "yes but why is that?" You answer that and he goes on this infinite regress of "yes but why is that?" There are things we know are wrong. We simply know them to be wrong and don't need to keep justifying why we know them. With that said we need to know what we believe and why, and be able to answer others. So in that vein, I admire you for taking the time to think through this and answering everybody.absolutist_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PST}

Seversky [97], We are in agreement. I would add that even a religious approach begs the question of "why" divine decrees exist. If this questioning is followed, I believe that the answer is invariably that there is some material benefit undergirding these decrees. Thus, we see that the difference in approach is not that one is pleasure-seeking while the other is not, it is that one is experiential while the other is revelatory - two approaches to arriving at the same conclusion. For the religious theist, we might say that God has revealed how we might achieve maximum pleasure as individuals and as a society, but that this only reveals a pre-existing reality. This pre-existing reality is the materialist observation that pleasure is affected by social interaction. It seems to me, therefore, that the materialist view is far more fundamental to the human experience than the religious view. The religious view, it seems, merely elucidates the materialist view. A lot of detail is missing from that opinion, but that's very basically it.QuadFather_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST}

mullerpr [96], You should know that I am speaking almost entirely from the top of my head; I am not familiar with "externalist" or "internalist" epistemology, though I can guess at their meaning. If you would care to elaborate at all about the significance here, or at least how this presents a conflict with the ideas I've expressed, I would be very interested. Up to now, however, I do not see that there is any conflict. Sorry for the double post above! If anybody wants to delete one, please delete the fist one.QuadFather_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee [95], If the goal of our actions is fundamentally to maximize pleasure, how can this not be the purpose of life? Consider the Christian: Why does the Christian choose to take on God's character? Because God's character is "better" than the alternative, yes? And if God's character is the "better" choice, and that is the reason that we select this option, are we not making a decision based of the maximization of pleasure? All iterations of the purpose of life, even religious ones, seem to provide instances of pleasure-seeking, not alternatives to it. Is it not more appropriate, then, to simply say that life's purpose is to maximize pleasure? I will not get into your comments about morality, though I do find this interesting. But I will point out, as I have in previous comments, that even altruism is pleasure-seeking: While the individual is choosing to experience pain, the alternative has been deemed even less pleasureful. Jesus would hate to see his creation burning in hell even more than he would hate to be nailed to a cross. Therefore, even the altruistic individual is seeking to maximize pleasure. I know that this will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but this discomfort is immaterial. We have already established that there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking one's own pleasure. It is only when one seeks pleasure without regard for others that pleasure-seeking becomes problematic. I don't think anybody has shown me that we can make choices that are not pleasure-seeking. And if all of our choices are pleasure-seeking, how can this not be the fundamental purpose of life? I know it's not as eloquent as a life of self-sacrifice and what-not, but I'm just thinking logically. And logically, it seems to me that the lifestyle described by Murray is a correct understanding of life's purpose, for materialists and non-materialists alike.QuadFather_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee [95], If the goal of our actions is fundamentally to maximize pleasure, how can this not be the purpose of life? All other iterations of the purpose of life seem to be an instance of pleasure-seeking. Is it not more appropriate, then, to simply say that life's purpose is to maximize pleasure? I will not get into your comments about morality, though I do find this interesting. But I will point out, as I have in previous comments, that even altruism is pleasure-seeking: While the individual is choosing to experience pain, the alternative has been deemed even less pleasureful. Jesus would hate to see his creation burning in hell even more than he would hate to be nailed to a cross. Therefore, even the altruistic individual is seeking to maximize pleasure. I know that this will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but this discomfort is immaterial. We have already established that there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking one's own pleasure. It is only when one seeks pleasure without regard for others that pleasure-seeking becomes problematic. I don't think anybody has shown me that we can make choices that are not pleasure-seeking. And if all of our choices are pleasure-seeking, how can this not be the fundamental purpose of life? I know it's not as eloquent as a life of self-sacrifice and what-not, but I'm just thinking logically. And logically, it seems to me that the lifestyle described by Murray is a correct understanding of life's purpose, for materialists and non-materialists alike.QuadFather_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PST}

absolutist [94], Simply ask "Why?" to all of your conclusions, and I think you will see that all of your examples are instances of pleasure-seeking. Why would we tell Jeffrey Dahmer not to kill people? Because we are seeking to maximize pleasure, and we recognize murder as an impediment to that goal. You ask a number of questions that seem unanswerable within a strictly materialist mindset, but that does not mean we are not pleasure-seeking; that is my first point. Also, there may be no material basis on which to judge the behavior of others, but we still impose limits on others' behavior in order to maximize pleasure. And, in a materialist mindset, there are no grounds for making moral judgments about behaviors limited to the individual. But when behavior affects others, it is this interaction between individuals that serves as the basis for materialist morality: If you seek your own pleasure at the expense of others, this is selfish. IE, you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. In this way, individuals and society operates in such a way as to maximize pleasure. That is the materialist view. A non-materialist view may justify moral judgments by way of authority rather than the weighing of positive and negative consequences. But note what I said in my earlier comments: Is it not true that revelation is the revealing of things that are true even without the revelation? And if these things are true regardless of whether or not they have been revealed, perhaps revelation is not the only way to ascertain this truth. Again, we must ask the question, "Why?" Why does God tell us not to murder? Why does God tell us not to steal? In my experience, the Christian response is almost invariably that these decrees result in some material benefit. Do you not see this? The only other sort of answer is an appeal to simon-says: God says it, I go with it; I do not consider that to be much of an answer. And there you have the sum total of Christian responses that I have ever seen to the question of "Why does God say this or that?" So yes, there are obvious differences between a materialist and a non-materialist approach to life's purpose and morality, but I am not convinced that the difference is that one approach seeks pleasure while the other does not. It seems to me that both are pleasure-seeking, while the real difference is that one is experiential and the other is revelatory. As to the moral dilemmas you've presented, these are moral dilemmas for both approaches. And they are moral dilemmas precisely because it is difficult to determine which option will maximize pleasure.QuadFather_{March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

Quadfather @ 93
You argue that “good” and “evil” reside only in the minds of the observers. In the same breath, you acknowledge and even exercise your own ability to distinguish “good” from “evil”.
I use the words "good" and "evil" because they are convenient shorthand and a common reference point. Some people believe they refer to objective phenomena like forces or even purposive agents that exist in external reality. I believe that they are simply value judgments that we make about what we observe - evil is as evil does.
I am curious: What, for you, is the basis of these judgments? And what, in your opinion, is the value of morality derived from religious inclinations?
When considering the source of such views I believe we should try to discern what purpose they appear to serve. A common view, and one that I share, is that they serve to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society so that the interests of individual members are protected. That moral codes from different cultures have some common features is evidence only of certain basic interests that all human beings have in common, not of some universal morality. I believe that a moral code developed by a truly atheist culture might differ in some details from that of a religious culture but that, in terms of basic tenets, they would be essentially the same. The only significant difference would be that believers could claim a divine warrant for their views while secularists could only argue a common interests justification for theirs. The difference is significant because, for believers, divine authority provides an unshakable foundation for the structure of their beliefs while, for atheists, the is/ought problem precludes the possibility of anchoring their beliefs to any such axiomatic certainty. I would not object to being described as Epicurean to some extent. I believe that society should be arranged so as to allow all members to do whatever pleases them up to the point at which such activity harms the interests of others. Of course, the pursuit of pleasure should not be limited to just 'sex, drugs 'n' rock'n'roll' as critics of the belief usually imply. It could mean painting pictures, composing music, performing a work of art before an audience, exercising handicraft skills, playing sports, thinking about the world, investigating the world, healing and caring for the sick, caring for stray animals or just about anything else that people do just because they enjoy it. If we can break free of that lurking Puritan suspicion that anything remotely pleasurable is inherently evil, where is the harm?Seversky_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PST}

QuadFather #92, Then I concede that I have not communicated clearly, even though I really tried. From the personal experience you shared it becomes even more clear that I have not communicated clearly because I also had to find Christ's righteousness also for its own value and not for the value forced onto me by external factors (nothing to do with externalist epistemology), like the church and my society in general. English is not my first language so I will use this as a clumsy excuse for my inadequacy. Looking at externalism the why you seem to think of it would mean that I should now conclude that my effort was unrighteous because of what you concluded. That is not at all what externalist epistemology is all about. Then I hope you accept my apology if I caused you any displeasure and trust that it was not my intention. I take full responsibility for my actions, which has nothing to do with internalist approach to knowledge even though you might see it like that. From #89 "From here you can approach it with either an internalist epistemology that thinks there is no external knowledge to be gained (everything is subject to an individual’s brain chemistry) or you can approach it from an externalist epistemology that confirms the existence and interaction with objective external knowledge." I can sympathize with someone who lose their faith because of people's judgments, because I know how much it means to be righteous. It is for that reason that I place such high premium on righteousness attained from the most objective source who clearly created all objective truths and pleasures.mullerpr_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

QuadFather:"The fact that we are pleasure-seeking does not preclude suffering. The poor and suffering desire hope, and hope is pleasureful, is it not? Therefore, it seems to me that your own example reinforces my point. I agree that religious faith can offer more hope than materialism. My point is that by seeking this hope, we are seeking pleasure. And if we are pleasure-seeking, even in our religious faith, on what grounds can we say that the pleasure-seeking lifestyle described by Murray is wrong, or “false”?" Well, nothing makes it false from a materialist perspective, I suppose. But that's the point. No moral code can be true or false from a materialist perspective, because all morality is relative to the individual. Therefore, laws are really meaningless if we take materialism to the extreme. From a theist perspective, however, the designer is also the law giver. Morality is then solely from the perspective of the law giver. So the character of the law giver forms the basis for all morality, and that character is not self-seeking, but concerned with the welfare of others. More refined, from a Christian perspective, that character is illustrated in the concept of Trinity. Three persons as one because each person is other-directed - and not self-seeking. If you read the gospels, this relationship is explicit: The Son lays down his life for the sheep. It is the other-directed choice of the Son to lay down his own life. So the character of the designer is the goal of the Christian. It is not the Christian's goal to seek the rewards of this life or the next, but to be transformed and to reflect the character of the designer: to be completely other directed. Now I would have to agree with you that ultimately even the Christian seeks the rewards, and as such, can never attain perfection in this life as the designer is perfect, but this is because of the sinful nature - and the gospels are also explicit on this point. And this is why humans should worship the designer, because He is the only being who is perfectly other-directed. We can't hope to be like him although we strive. There is a humility in that. If all persons truly strived to be other-directed, then we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves.CannuckianYankee_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PST}

QuadFather [82] "What is so wrong with seeking pleasure, anyway?" "I have seen no evidence from anyone that the purpose of life is anything but to seek pleasure." Neither does Jeffrey Dahmer. You and I would probably say to Jeffrey that he ought not to fulfill the kind of pleasure that comes from killing other human beings. But if the purpose of life is nothing other than seeking pleasure, who are we to tell Jeffrey, who is just another pleasure-seeking collection of chemical in the great scheme of things, that he can't fulfill his own wishes? Pleasure for you and I but not for organism Jeffrey seems very selfish. Who are we to set limits? Where do we set them? Who has the authority to say what is a good pleasure and a bad pleasure? Enters: universal absolute moral law and the origin of ought tos. You ask, "why our lives should be focused on finding a universal moral law or law giver?" If you knew there was the possibility of a universal moral law, shouldn't you try to know the giver of the moral law? Blaise Pascal might say it is "a matter which is of so great consequence to us and which touches us so profoundly that we must have lost all feeling to be indifferent about it." He was talking about the immortality of the soul but I think it's fair to say his words apply to other important matters, such as the existence of ought tos and absolute moral law. First, I would shy away from anyone who tells you that you can't enjoy life to the fullest. I do. You and your family should too. In fact, the world around us appears rigged, so that we can enjoy our surroundings to the fullest. Fruits, for example, are truly simple amazing things that just happen to be there for our enjoyment. Snowflakes are another. That said, the very fact that you "would not teach [your] kids to be selfish" says a lot about you. It says that you believe in moral absolutes. You're also essentially saying that selfishness is wrong, that it is a vice, that we ought not to be selfish. That's an absolute. The problem is now that moral absolutes and ought tos don't arise out of clumps of matter. If humans evolved, the existence of absolute moral values is a problem for the materialist. Survival of the fittest encourages selfishness. As a materialist, you do not want to start being inconsistent in your worldview and claim that you are not selfish for the sake of your safety within your society. So on the one hand you claim unselfishness but on the other, in order to ensure the survival of you and your family, you would do anything, place yourselves first ahead of other families for example. The Jews during WWII were really inconvenienced by this. Preferring that others die for our benefit is wrong and instead we find that giving our life for another is a virtue. Ought tos do not sprout out of thin air or collections of chemicals. We should strive to know where they come from. PS: make a list of things you think are right or wrong and present it to a kid (I did this with mine, 5 and 8). Ex: Is it OK to take someone's life if they killed an innocent person? Is it OK to murder a baby while it is in mommy's belly? Is courage a virtue or a vice? Is goodness a vice? You will find that universal moral law is palpable that its real and that you better know it, if not for you at least for your kids' sake.absolutist_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PST}

Seversky [87], You argue that "good" and "evil" reside only in the minds of the observers. In the same breath, you acknowledge and even exercise your own ability to distinguish "good" from "evil". I am curious: What, for you, is the basis of these judgments? And what, in your opinion, is the value of morality derived from religious inclinations?QuadFather_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PST}

mullerpr [91], Fine then. Let's examine your comments and see if you really did define your terms:
I would also not expect any materialist to really understand what it means to act righteously within the full compliment of our reality. Therefore I can only witness to the fact that the experience of righteousness through Jesus Christ clears the mind completely and prepares it for perfect, harmonious engagement with ALL the wonders of reality. I can tell you practically how wonderful it feels to experience complete righteousness from the only true Judge But from personal experience and the experience of millions of witnesses over the ages, I can assure you that “forgetting our own attempts to achieve righteousness” and accepting Christ’s redemption is truly “a well-lived life”. I have to agree that it takes a lot of maintenance to experience the elation of the choice to accept righteousness through Christ. All the choices that ends up in a mess has the tendency to completely remove our righteousness whether it is when we convict ourselves or being convicted by other people or God himself I prefer to relate pleasure to my state of righteousness from which I can find true pleasure in everything no matter how simple or unimportant it might seem. In closing I have to admit that since I have a very deep understanding that Christ’s righteousness did not came cheap and is not at all a blanket pardon to a complete licentious life, I make very sure about the consequences of my actions. I have simplified it to 1.)a method from the righteousness attained through Christ that I explain in enough detail or 2.)what seems like a plethora of methods that all actually boil down to seeking pleasure from a state of self righteousness. But since God presence in our reality is very real to me I personally stick to the “righteousness through Christ” method - it works just fine for me. If you “prepare” or base your actions on your state of righteousness then I suppose the you can act selfless of selfish regardless of your state of righteousness. Righteousness is ultimately a legal term and it applies to all obligations not just the moral ones. That is because all obligations to act that ever cross your path will inevitably affect your state of righteousness. I can argue that “external righteousness” only has a single logical binding value in Christ who claimed and proofed himself to be God…
Among these comments about "righteousness", you explained: 1) That you wouldn't expect certain people to understand it: materialists. 2) Its effects: how it makes you feel; how it affects actions. 3) How it is affected: removed by messy choices; affected by obligations to act. 4) What it requires: maintainence. 5) How it is attained: "through Christ" 6) That it was costly, at least "Christ's righteousness" 7) Its category: legal term. 8) Its source: Christ. It looks like you've said an awful lot about righteousness, but you have not actually said what it is. Unless you can provide a single example that I may have overlooked. I have tried very hard to understand your arguments and to correct myself when I don't feel like I'm understanding you. I do feel that your addition to my opinion was valuable. You, on the other hand, refuse to define your terms. How can we resolve our points of view if you refuse to define a term that is apparently so critical to your argument? I'll have you know that I was raised in a Christian family, and even though I hesitate to associate myself with the term, I do consider myself to be a "Christian". You are not describing anything that I myself have not also experienced first-hand. You, however, have not given me any reason to believe that you understand the experiences that I have described. My father drove my sister away from Christianity with his huffs and snide remarks he would make when my sister would watch a particular tv show or listen to certain music. No explanation of why he was responding that way was ever given, except the standard simon-says appeal. So forgive me if I get a little irritated with Christians who can't do anything but smack people in the head with the ten commandments. I have witnessed first hand how a strictly "external" source of knowledge about righteousness has led to grievious emotional, familial, and spiritual damage (a net loss of pleasure). If you deny that this is a problematic result of an overly anti-materialist Christian mentality, then you are denying reality, probably because your view is limited to your own experience. It is quite a shame that you have refused to engage my questions and observations about common Christian responses, as I had anticipated a fruitful exchange. I think I have been fair, and have offered a balanced view of competing approaches to "righteousness". By ending this discussion on grounds that you already defined your terms, when you clearly have not, is unfair. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you have not communicated clearly.QuadFather_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST}

QuadFather, I have given my working definition of righteousness in more than enough detail, so excuse me if I feel that asking again for a definition is very patronizing. The rest of your discussion concludes that your do prefer your Christian or religious stereotypes over the well established concepts of internalist or externalist epistemology. If you want to have a discussion based on the accepted definitions of these two views in epistemology then we might have a fruitful interchange. (Again my condensed definitions are sufficient and you interpreted it wrongly.) What is important for me is that you might not even understand the full consequences of your "pleasure philosophy". I know this is a very patronizing tone to end, but I have given you all you need to contemplate in regards to your certitudes on this matter. Whether you digest it is up to you. Please accept this not as patronizing but as a sincere attempt that will end with the ball in your hand. I know the "dish" I placed before you might not look tasty, I can only give your my word that it is truly wholesome. P.S. If you want to delve into the internalism vs. externalism aspects of epistemology please read more than the Wikipedia paragraphs that only position Descartes' version of internalism and no real view on externalism. Wikipedia even create the impression that materialist philosophy is critical towards internalism. If you want a true scholarly view you need to consider someone like Alvin Plantinga's Warrent series. # Warrant: the Current Debate, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, 1993. ISBN 0-19-507861-6 (1987-1988 Gifford Lectures, online) # Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, 1993. ISBN 0-19-507863-2 (1987-1988 Gifford Lectures) see introduction to Plantinga at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantingamullerpr_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PST}

mullerpr [89], I actually agree that "righteousness" increases our ability to experience pleasure. But let me ask a question: What is righteousness? I would like to see how your answer compares with mine. Now, whether the source of our knowledge about "righteousness" is internal or external is immaterial to me. Either way, we all seek pleasure, and either way, it seems inevitable - to me, at least - that man can discover the sort of behavior that maximizes pleasure. The only difference is how fast. If a person uses some external source of knowledge, such as the Bible, then the value of self-sacrifice is revealed to them. If a person uses some internal source of knowledge, such as trial and error, then the value of self-sacrifice is figured out. So in the one case, righteousness is revealed; In the other, it is figured out. And here is why I think the difference between internal and external are largely immaterial: They are two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion. We could think of it another way: God reveals righteousness to us in order to maximize pleasure, and righteousness maximizes pleasure whether or not God reveals this to us. In other words, God reveals a truth to us that is true regardless of whether God reveals it to us. And if this thing is true with or without revelation, then perhaps it is possible to discover at least some semblence of this truth independent of revelation. I believe this to be true. And indeed, is this not how Christians often justify the decrees of the Bible? When asked, "Why does the Bible say not to do this or that?" does the Christian not respond that there is some material benefit? Think about it. When I ask why the Bible says not to eat blood, it is because blood is an unhealthy thing to eat. When I ask why the Bible says not to be homosexual, it is because human physiology was not designed to operate in that way. And so on. These are a few real-life examples from conversations that I have had with Christians. So now, I think we can start to recognize the benefits of both internal and external methods: The benefit of external revelation, let's say, is that it eliminates a lot of the grunt work; the answers are given to you. The benefit of internal revelation is that you are able to more easily justify your behavior without invoking a simon-says explanation; this is because you've figured it out for yourself. And naturally, the down side of external revelation is that many Christians - our example here - are not able to justify many of their moral beliefs. I experience this first hand - gosh, it is awfully irritating! The down side of internal revelation is that a person may very well get stuck in an excessively self-centric mentality; Also, it takes much more work and time to discover the value of self-sacrifice. So, I think that this is a very fair view of two very different methods of a) living righteously, and b) maximizing pleasure. An external method gets a person behaving righteously now, and they figure out why they should later. An internal method gets a person figuring out why they should behave in certain ways now, and this results in righteous behavior later (please see footnote). Your thoughts? footnote: Please do not get caught up on the fact that not all people who "figure it out" arrive at righteousness. I am only saying that it is possible; I am only saying that it is inevitable when the logic is followed through to its conclusion. But I want to focus more on external and internal as two methods to arrive at the same truth about reality.QuadFather_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST}

QuadFather #86: "A person’s righteousness determines their ability to maximize pleasure?" Yes, righteousness in its fullest sense. You cannot achieve pleasure without it or you have to try to revert to nihilism. That is because all obligations to act that ever cross your path will inevitably affect your state of righteousness. From here you can approach it with either an internalist epistemology that thinks there is no external knowledge to be gained (everything is subject to an individual's brain chemistry) or you can approach it from an externalist epistemology that confirms the existence and interaction with objective external knowledge. Indecently, internalist epistemology only has materialism to support it. If you find a successful non-materialist support then let me know. If you manage to mix the two approaches... I would like to see the rational defense of such a point as well. Now... you have "self righteousness" that comports only with internalist epistemology and you have "external righteousness" that only comports with an external source of knowledge. You have to choose and accept the consequences. I can argue that "external righteousness" only has a single logical binding value in Christ who claimed and proofed himself to be God... the Creator of all objective knowledge that we possibly can observe. This is simply because all other religions and ideologies claim a "self righteous" approach to happiness or truth, in effect internalist in its logical outcome. Don't get too emotional if I claim that all scientific knowledge supports this "Christ righteous" view. Show me where it does not. You can be sure that there is evidence that would convince me other wise, like a mechanism for life to arise from energy... or some proof that internalist epistemology comports with reality. Subjective religious stereotypes brings nothing to the argument, so don't use it.mullerpr_{March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PST}

Seversky, "Also, to say that God is goodness is like saying the sky is ‘blueness’. It is confusing a property of a model in the mind of an observer with a property of the object being observed." Or like saying that what you say is "rightness" :). Just kidding Seversky. Really though, Lewis's explanation is sound, it removes the categories of a law and a law giver when we are talking about God. To say that this is not sound, means that you have positive knowledge of the real relations of goodness and Godliness. God has to be good all the way through; that is, after all, one of the defining attributes. What we call good and what we call God must converge at an infinity. Considering goodness and Godliness to be two separate categories was our mistake in the Euthyphro Dilemma to begin with, and the mistake has now been seen, and should stop being repeated.Clive Hayden_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PST}

vjtorley @ 67
The two alternatives you describe do not exhaust all possibilities. Both alternatives assume that morality is something that God constructs - either on a whim or as a result of rational deliberation. There is a third possibility, argued for by C. S. Lewis and defended by Steve Lovell in an article entitled “C. S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma” at http://www.theism.net/article/29 - namely, that God is essentially good.
As I read it, that does not escape the Euthyphro Dilemma, it simply cleaves to one horn. It chooses the option of assuming that good is anything that God does and justifies it by the tautological argument of claiming that God cannot do anything but good. Also, to say that God is goodness is like saying the sky is 'blueness'. It is confusing a property of a model in the mind of an observer with a property of the object being observed. In the case of 'blueness', light from the Sun is scattered and absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere in such a way that certain wavelengths predominate when they reach the planet's surface. Our visual system represents those wavelengths in our mental model of the outside world as what we perceive as blue. The sky is not blue or 'blueness' outside of our mind. As for the case of good or goodness, again, they are descriptions of judgments made in the minds of observers about observed actions or behaviors. There is no reason to think that good or evil inheres in anything other than the predicate structure of the English language. Guns are thought by some people to be inherently evil and certainly a gun in the hand a criminal who shoots dead innocent bystanders could be so described. But would that same gun in the hands of a policeman who shoots the gunman dead before he can kill others also be evil? I would say not. Again, I would say good and evil reside in the mind of the observer. They are properties of our mental model of the world not the world itself.
Good question. First, God didn’t “work out” morals;...
Lovell would seem to disagree:
We responded to the Euthyphro dilemma by pointing out that the commands of an omniscient, loving, generous, merciful, patient and truthful being would not be issued without reason,...

God is essentially moral. Second, although humans can often work out what’s right and what’s wrong, our reason is notoriously fallible. God is perfectly intelligent by nature; we are not.
The only documentary evidence we have for God's morality is the Bible and that is notoriously contradictory if the Old Testament is taken into account. As for the fallibility of human reason, it may be viewed, not as a fatal impediment to any search for a 'universal morality' but as a virtue in that it constrains us to be humble in the light of our obvious imperfections and wary of any claims to Absolute Truth which can lead all too easily to complacency and arrogance.Seversky_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PST}

mullerpr [84], After re-reading your posts a few times, I think I might have a better idea of what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that: A person's righteousness determines their ability to maximize pleasure?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

mullerpr [84], I would be glad to humor you on the subject of "righteousness". It's just that "righteousness" is a moral category, and I don't think a clear connection has been made between this and "the purpose of life", which is the topic here. I ask you to help me out, and your otherwise mild-mannered tone suddenly explodes all over the forum ... that's a little weird. In any case, here is my challenge to all who answered "false": Explain to me what life's purpose is in a way that does not involve the maximization of pleasure. As for your righteousness, it is strange to think that a fallen world operates within divine moral standards. A materialistic interpretation of moral behavior easily accounts for moral universals, while a spiritual interpretation must also wrestle with moral diversity. This begs the question: Why are some morals universal while others are not? A materialist view is not troubled by such things. There is nowhere else to find support for a spiritual explanation for moral behavior other than the Bible or some other sacred text. And here, we find a great variety from which to choose. So in my humble opinion, it appears that the spiritual view of morality so common in these forums is on far more shaky ground, rationally, than a materialistic view. But that is beside the point, as far as I can tell, so let's get back to the topic: What is the meaning of life?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

QuadFather #83, From this response from you I am conclude that you don't want to engage the argument I was discussing with you. Morality never entered any part of my argument. Then you avoid the question about righteousness... Why??? I was trying to discuss the card house of pleasure you are trying to erect by pointing out what better ways there might be of achieving what you profess as the ultimate objective. Not engaging the glaring issue of righteousness is dangerous because it might guide you or someone under your influence to the wrong side of the law, what ever law that has rightful jurisdiction over you, me and all humans. Righteousness is ultimately a legal term and it applies to all obligations not just the moral ones. All obligations you choose for yourself or that is forced onto you by your environment/society etc., will inevitably influence your state of righteousness. Even if you are in a complete selfish state and act to maximize your pleasure... if you fail this self imposed obligation you loose your righteousness, then you are unrighteous according to your own law. Ignoring this can only hypothetically be achieved within a nihilist world view and that you can digest for yourself. It might therefore be a good place to end my discussion by prompting everyone again to have a look at the visions that Nietzsche saw for a pure materialist world.mullerpr_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PST}

mullerpr [80], I think that if you explore my view more deeply, you will see that it results in something similar. But I'm having a hard time relating morality to the topic of the original blog post. Can you tell me why you and some others in here are so preoccupied with morality in the context of this discussion?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PST}

absolutist [81], I would not teach my kids to be selfish, but I would teach them to live life to the fullest. Does that mean I'm teaching them to be self-centered, selfish, and childish? What is so wrong with seeking pleasure, anyway? Particularly when I find benevolence to be pleasureful? Like a few others I've responded to, it sounds like you're responding to the connotations of certain words and phrases rather than to what I'm actually saying. I think you're changing the question by getting into the origin of morality. My understanding of the question has been: Is the purpose of life to seek pleasure? I think this is far more easily derived from the original post than questions about the origin of morality. And I have seen no evidence from anyone that the purpose of life is anything but to seek pleasure. As I already explained, I'm starting to believe that this is because we're dealing with a definitional conundrum. On the one hand, we like to think that we can forget about our own pleasure by putting God and others first. On the other hand, a choice that we make is preferred by definition over the competing options. To prefer means to derive more pleasure from. With that, I would ask you why our lives should be focused on finding a universal moral law or law giver?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST}

FrankH [29]: "I am indeed confused about why one needs a 'higher authority' outside of humanity to have a well lived life." "I am more than able to give myself a purpose" "That is to love my wife, my kids and help them and their offspring survive and thrive." The SS in Nazi Germany felt the same way you do. I'm sure they went home and hugged the kids at night, kiss the wife, probably drove something German too... Their defense for their atrocities was that they were doing what was right in light of German society's rules. The international tribunal saw it differently, as we are all subject to a universal moral law. This is the same type of law that tells you that helping your wife around the house is a virtue not a vice. This type of moral law cannot emerge from mere atoms and molecules coming together by chance or for the sake of keeping society together. This type of universal moral law can only come from a universal moral law giver. Without a universal moral law, the outcome of the Nuremberg trials would have been drastically different. FrankH [29]: "I didn’t need any supernatural agency to tell me differently [that surviving and thriving is best done through cooperation with others to make everyone’s life better]." and hazel [38]: " In all societies there is a small percentage of people who just don’t get social norms and who don’t have empathy for others." Fortunately, the rules are already in place and universal moral law does not care whether we get it, cooperate with it or contribute to it. mullerpr [33]: "our thoughts have a profound effect on the testable physical world." Indeed. When I say: "But since the comments above are just philosophical assertions not scientifically testable or quantifiable in the lab, it will be difficult for some to believe them as true or rational." I am bringing up the irony that those who argue against ID are themselves, more often than not, making philosophical assertions not scientifically testable or quantifiable in the lab. Philosophical assertions are indeed valuable and necessary if we truly want to know the origin of man. Why would we throw away all other knowledge when doing science? We don't do that in any other discipline. Anthropology is glad to make philosophical assertions. For instance, an anthropologist finds an arrowhead and asserts that an intelligent agent made it at some point in the past to fulfill a purpose. The assertion is itself not scientific. QuadFather [42]: "The people you describe sound selfish [...] Am I selfish for [enjoying life?]" No you're not. Loving one's wife, kids and cars are all fine things. I enjoy them myself and yes I do drive a fine German 337. But it's self-centered and self-serving. No one leans over their kids' crib and says "I hope you grow up to be a self-centered, self-serving, pleasure-seeking, childish, human being." To get back to the question, if "Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate" then, where do morals come from? We couldn't answer "Is loving my wife a virtue?" or "Is selfishness a vice?" It is whatever floats your boat, whatever society dictates at that particular time. Comments at Domoman [6] are helpful here. Again, our lives should focus more on finding out whether there is in fact a universal moral law and by implication a universal moral law giver. That life would have more meaning than playing with the kids and loving the wife or driving the car. Again, all these other things are fine, but on their own, they just come short.absolutist_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

Hi QuadFather #79, I don't think the selfish and selfless distinction you made is at all similar to "righteousness through Christ" vs. "self righteousness". Again I agree that both your concepts are in fact compatible with pleasure seeking. If you "prepare" or base your actions on your state of righteousness then I suppose the you can act selfless of selfish regardless of your state of righteousness. The only question is which of the two approached of pleasure seeking is going to keep you well prepared for the next action? I would suspect that selfish action will lead to pleasure but it might erode away your state of righteousness and leave you ill prepared for the next attempt to find pleasure. From experience selfishness even erode most "self righteous" people's ability to achieve righteousness. If Christ is your source of righteousness then selfishness is just as lethal or even more lethal to "Christ righteousness" in your life. It should be clear now that the "preparedness models" available is not similar to selfless and selfish approaches in our search for pleasure. The only selfish people that I know that consistently act selfishly without any regard to their state of righteousness are called psychopaths or sociopaths.mullerpr_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PST}

mullerpr [75], I make a distinction between selfishness and selflessness, though I consider both to be pleasure-seeking. In the former, a person puts his own desires first as a rule, and sometimes at the expense of others. In the latter, a person's own desires are secondary to others', and sometimes at his own expense. The former is more self-centric; The latter is less self-centric. So you see, just because we are fundamentally pleasure-seeking does not mean that we are fundamentally selfish. It's difficult to separate selfishness from pleasure-seeking, and I think that's the biggest problem that folks like CannuckianYankee have with this interpretation of human behavior. Anyways, I'm a little off point. I originally brought up selfishness and selflessness because I suspect that it is similar to the distinction that you are making. Do you agree?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee [77], The fact that we are pleasure-seeking does not preclude suffering. The poor and suffering desire hope, and hope is pleasureful, is it not? Therefore, it seems to me that your own example reinforces my point. I agree that religious faith can offer more hope than materialism. My point is that by seeking this hope, we are seeking pleasure. And if we are pleasure-seeking, even in our religious faith, on what grounds can we say that the pleasure-seeking lifestyle described by Murray is wrong, or "false"?QuadFather_{March 19, 2009
March
03
Mar
19
19
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PST}

QuadFather: "So whether you are a materialist or a non-materialist, it all comes down to enjoying your life (and/or afterlife). What is the meaning of life, if not this?" So what do we do with those who are not enjoying life, but suffering? In the materialist philosophy don't they have anything to look forward to beyond suffering? Christianity offers hope. People don't need just enjoyment, but hope. Materialism does not offer hope for those who suffer. It only offers pleasure and enjoyment to those who can afford it. I suspect that the majority of the world's poor or suffering are much more religious than the wealthy, for they yearn for hope, relief, light out of darkness, and materialism doesn't offer that. Are you saying then that there really is no meaning to life if we suffer? I would beg to differ.CannuckianYankee_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PST}

Glancing over the discussion it starts to look like a typical scenario from the movie "The bucket list"... and I did not even intended it to be so, since my method is much older that the "The bucket list". Maybe there is something universal about this discussion?mullerpr_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PST}

QuadFather, I agree that we have a lot in common, that is why I don't even disagree with our pleasure-seeking hypothesis. What I propose is regarding the method. I have simplified it to 1.)a method from the righteousness attained through Christ that I explain in enough detail or 2.)what seems like a plethora of methods that all actually boil down to seeking pleasure from a state of self righteousness. Call it the "preparedness for pleasure" method. Without it pleasure has no certainty and depending on the method of preparedness your level of certainty is determined. I have to admit that some of the people using the "self righteousness method" sometimes are very convincing to the point that I don't judge their method as flawed. But since God presence in our reality is very real to me I personally stick to the "righteousness through Christ" method - it works just fine for me. (Myself and other Christian are prone to divert to the "self righteous method" with all its consequences of which you have already mentioned that your observed. I admit that it is a very sorry sight to see someone professing to use the one method while in fact using the other. It is almost as bad as someone professing that he/she has no free will and yet act according to it and expect people to respect that free will.)mullerpr_{March 18, 2009
March
03
Mar
18
18
2009
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply