Eric Harris Was Just Paying Attention

_{Barry Arrington

July 17, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Thank you to all of the materialists (and there were several) who rose to the challenge of my last post [Materialists: [crickets]]. We will continue the discussion we began there in this thread.

Before I continue, please allow me to clear up some confusion. Several of my interlocutors seem to believe that the purpose of my post is to refute metaphysical naturalism. (See here for instance) It is not. Please look again at the very first line of the paragraph I quoted: “Let us assume for the sake of argument that metaphysical naturalism is a true account of reality.”

Please read that line again carefully. I am NOT arguing that metaphysical naturalism is false (though I believe it is; that is an argument for another day). I simply wish to explore the logical consequences of whole-heartedly embracing metaphysical naturalism. I thought this was clear, but apparently it was not, so I will repeat my argument step by step:

Step 1: What metaphysical naturalism asserts

Metaphysical naturalism asserts that nothing exists but matter, space and energy, and therefore every phenomenon is merely the product of particles in motion.

Step 2: Consequences of naturalism vis-à-vis, the “big questions”

Certain consequences with respect to God, ethics and meaning follow inexorably if metaphysical naturalism is a true account of reality. Perhaps Will Provine summed these up best:

1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract)

Dawkins agrees:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, 133.

Step 3: Why Not Act Accordingly?

What if a person were able to act based on a clear-eyed and unsentimental understanding of the consequences outlined above? If that person had the courage not to be overwhelmed by the utter meaningless of existence, he would be transformed. He would be bold, self-confident, assertive, uninhibited, and unrestrained. He would consider empathy to be nothing but weak-kneed sentimentality. To him others would not be ends; they would be objects to be exploited for his own gratification. He would not mind being called cruel, because he would know that “cruelty” is an empty category, the product of mere sentiment. Is the lion being cruel to the gazelle? No, he is merely doing what lions naturally do to gazelles.

In my original argument I suggested this person would be a psychopath. That is not quite accurate. A psychopath, by definition, lacks empathy. Our Übermensch, however, might well have the capacity for empathy which he suppresses. It is more accurate, therefore, to say that the actions of the person who acts based on a clear-eyed and unsentimental acceptance of naturalism would be indistinguishable from the actions of a psychopath.

Step 4:

Finally, I raised the issue I would like to explore:

Why should our Übermensch refrain from hurting other people to achieve his selfish desires.

Mark Frank takes a stab at answering the question:

Do you mean “why should I?” in the sense of why is it right for me to do it? If so, that is tautology, of course it is right to do what is right.

Or do you mean “why should I” in the sense of “what is there in it for me?” In this case the pay-offs include:

* The intense satisfaction of having done the right thing.
* The congratulations of those that will approve of your action
* The firm example you will set for others to treat you the same way
* If done repeatedly an excellent basis for persuading others to do what you think it is right for them to do etc…

Thank you Mark. I believe your answer is about as good an answer as a naturalist can give. Let’s explore it and find out why it is wholly unsatisfactory as a logical matter.

Do you mean ‘why should I?’ in the sense of why is it right for me to do it? If so, that is tautology, of course it is right to do what is right.

Readers, notice the equivocation at the base of Mark’s argument. It is always “right” to do what is “right” is indeed a tautology if the word “right” is used in the same sense in both instances. But it is not. Remember, Mark is a metaphysical naturalist. The word “right” has no objective meaning for the metaphysical naturalist. It is purely subjective. For the metaphysical naturalist the good is the desirable and the desirable is that which he actually desires. In other words, Mark has no warrant to use the word “right” as if it had an objective meaning. Yet that is exactly what he does.

To see this, let us re-write Mark’s sentence using different words for the two senses of the word “right” that he uses: “of course, it is right [i.e., it conforms to a code of objective morality] to do what is right [i.e., that which I subjectively prefer].” Written this way, amplifying the inconsistent ways in which Mark uses the word “right,” exposes the fallacy.

Now let us turn to the second part of Mark’s argument. “What’s in it for me?” I want to thank Mark for unintentionally making my point for me. He says our Übermensch might refrain from hurting another person in order to achieve his selfish ends because he has engaged in a cost/benefit analysis. Mark points to certain “benefits” of refraining from hurting another person to achieve selfish ends. Presumably, the point of Mark’s argument is that “what’s in it for me” (i.e., the benefits received from not hurting the other person) outweighs the cost (failing to achieve a selfish end).

But of course Mark’s argument fails, because the benefits he suggests may not outweigh the cost. It depends on what selfish end the Übermensch wishes to achieve and how badly he wants it. Indeed, some of the so-called benefits are not really benefits at all to our Übermensch. Consider the first one: the intense satisfaction of having done the right thing. Here again Mark is employing a concept he has no right to employ. Our Übermensch understands that “the right thing” is a meaningless concept. Why should our Übermensch feel satisfaction at having conformed his behavior to a non-existent standard? That is the whole point of the exercise after all. Once we understand that there really is no such thing as “the right thing” why should we not do exactly as we please even if it hurts another person? Mark has no answer, because there is no answer.

Eric Harris was paying attention when someone taught him Nietzsche. He believed he was an Übermensch. He believed he was a lion and the other students at his school gazelles. On what grounds can a metaphysical naturalist say “Eric Harris was wrong”? Is it not true that the most a metaphysical naturalist can say is “I personally disagree with what he did and would not do it myself”?

A final note:
Many of the comments at the other thread concerned whether “objective morality” exists. I believe that it does, and those comments are very interesting. However, whether objective morality exists has no application in this thread. Again, the question I want to explore in this thread is “Why shouldn’t a metaphysical naturalist do exactly what he pleases even if it hurts another person?”

Comments

SB & SA: I think I should elaborate on the issue of mainstreaming of evils, which in the past generation led to the wide acceptance of the ongoing abortion holocaust of a global cumulative total in the hundreds of millions, the rise of a porn-perversion agenda and now destructive distortion of what is left of marriage and family (cf. Masha Gessen here and the Whiteheads on the my genes made me do it thesis, here). A couple of generations before, the astute marketing of cigarettes got a good fraction of the world's population addicted to paper tubes filled with a noxious, toxic weed and ignited in order to inhale the smoke. This helps us understand just how dangerous is reliance on social or institutional "consensus" or "leadership" or even "rights" movements to define our understanding of good and evil. Let me clip from some of the thoughts that first attracted the ire of some of the more unhinged of the evo mat advocates, who set about a well-poisoning tactic (which makes it, of course soooo convenient to avoid dealing with core matters):
. . . increasingly, acceptance of "anything goes" amorality on sexual matters seems to be the accepted thing here in the Caribbean and in the wider world. Q: Why is that? A: Kupelian's Marketing of Evil Strategy in action: 1 --> Desensitise to evil (benumb the conscience) by gradually increasing exposure and through glamourisation, making the abnormal, disordered, bizarre and destructive appear to be sympathetic, acceptable or even normal and even attractive behaviour. Once the proverbial camel's nose is admitted under the tent, pretty soon, the whole beast will be inside; and the former owner of the tent will be shivering out in the dark, cold night. 2 --> Jam out the messages of those who make objections, by using the classic trifecta rhetorical/propaganda strategy: distract attention from inconvenient truth through red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in slanderous and often cruel ad hominems. Ignite to cloud, choke, and poison the atmosphere, polarising the community against objectors, now increasingly perceived as evil kill-joy hypocrites and threats to "freedom." (It helps to muddy the waters by conflating liberty with license.) 3 --> Convert a critical mass into tolerators, supporters and even advocates, by exploiting the perceived moral high ground captured in phases 1 & 2, so that evil is rationalised as if it were acceptable or even good. When this is laid out in cold hard terms, it sounds ruthless and mechanical. Ruthless it certainly is, but it is not mechanical at all; the desensitisation- jamming- conversion strategy works by so framing issues, ideas, alternatives, views and people that our emotions and impressions pull us to support what we would not otherwise wish to support. And if inhaling smoke from shredded leaves wrapped in paper that at first cause us to get sick can be successfully marketed as a mark of glamour, coming of age and "cool" iconic Marlboro Man manhood -- then, sustained for decades in the face of mounting evidence of the deadly diseases that smoking causes -- almost anything can be "sold" to us.
This pattern should be sadly familiar. To counter it, we need to insist on addressing foundational matters in foundational terms. Are we governed by OUGHT? Or effectively the same, do we have rights to life etc that must be respected due to the inherent dignity of a human being? If we have rights, we are under the government of ought. If we are governed by ought, then we can face Hume's IS-OUGHT gap argument and have an answer. In the root of the world, there is a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. As I have repeatedly pointed out above and elsewhere (and as has been studiously ignored, or distracted from by a jamming out tactic of twisting into ad hominem laced strawman caricatures), there is exactly one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator God, the root of reality, who is a necessary, maximally great being. (If you dispute that, simply explain either how we are not under the government of ought, or else how an alternative IS can ground OUGHT, without reducing to the nihilistic absurdity, might and/or manipulation make 'right.' [The studious silence here, speaks volumes.]) Arthur F Holmes has aptly summed up:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments . . . . If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1984), pp. 70 – 72; p. 81.]
So, now, we face a stark choice. KFkairosfocus_{July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

SA – you have been a pleasure to discuss things with so I will keep this up a bit longer but if I stop please don’t interpret it as a rudeness to you (or a concession you are right ). I am simply running out of time.
Are you saying that there cannot be an ultimate justification for any single moral belief?Or are you talking about “for an entire system of morals”? or do you mean “for a moral code that covers every possible human act”? Those are three different things.
All of these.
If you’re talking about “any single moral act”, then there is one objective justification – “compliance with the truth.”
The following sequence about “the truth” is hard to understand. Can you give an example of a single moral act, what “the truth” is in this case, and show how this is an ultimate justification for that act.
In that case, you’re talking about a single act – torturing a puppy. You then explain that “no standard is required” to judge that act – no more than you need a standard to feel that a book is interesting or a film is funny.
That’s true. I don’t understand your point.
This is quite a lot different than what you said above. We have a“deep seated and permanent” desire. There are some films that I found to be very funny in the past, and now I don’t find them funny. But that may change the next time I watch the same film. Some directors’ films I don’t find funny while other people do. There’s no objective basis here. I don’t have a justification. There is nothing like a “deep seated, personal desire” to laugh at one film and not another.
I use “funny” as an analogy to “morally good” because it has some aspects in common but it is an analogy and differs in other respects. So, as you write, humour tends to be more ephemeral and short term than moral feelings.
We’ve been discussing this because subjectivism, as many on this thread have argued, is “making up one’s morals for oneself”. It doesn’t recognize a standard to comply with for reasons external to the self. That’s like finding a film funny or a book interesting. There’s no standard. But it’s not like a universal moral sense embedded in human beings that universally recognizes good and evil in certain human acts.
Those who argue that it is “making up one’s morals for oneself” are wrong. Subjectivism is about the ultimate justification for morality. I agree that human beings (almost) universally agree that some acts are evil and others good. There are also a wide range of acts over which there is much more disagreement – particularly where sex is concerned.
Wikipedia says: “The most common forms of ethical subjectivism are also forms of moral relativism, with moral standards held to be relative to each culture or society (c.f. cultural relativism), or even to every individual.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivismThat’s what we’ve been talking about. The most common form where moral standards, relative to every individual.You’ve chosen a different view where subjectivism is not about choosing morals but about finding an ultimate justification.
Yes. I would not describe myself as a moral relativist.
The answer here is that it claims only that general moral principles are known by all – not that, by nature alone, we can understand the moral quality of every possible human act. That’s why we look at the most general, universal norms and recognize an objective moral law.
As I said above – subjectivism is compatible with adopting the natural moral law as a set of moral principles and also with the belief that it expresses moral opinions held by (almost) all of humanity. As it happens I think that any attempt to codify morality is dangerous but that does not follow from my subjectivism.
It’s not a debate tactic. The natural moral law deals with general principles. So, it’s right to look for acts that are recognized universally. To expect the natural moral law to give precise answers on every possible human act is to expect more than it claims. Religious revelation, for example, gives greater insights on moral values that philosophy alone cannot reveal. But revelation is not part of a natural moral law known by all.
My problem was with choosing extreme and obvious moral acts as proof that there is an objective morality. All it shows is that there are acts on which almost everyone strongly agrees.
I mentioned above that the existence of truth is a fact that gives an ultimate justification to a moral act.“In order to defend or prove my philosophical position, I do not need to have any regard for the truth.” That statement is necessarily false. One cannot arrive at a proof of anything without a clear understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood. That’s an ultimate justification for the moral values that follow. There can be no rational discussion – in fact, no reasoning at all, without a regard for the distinction between truth and falsehood. Reason itself is based on this.
As I said at the top of this comment – I think this can be clarified through an example.
The standard is inherent in human nature. We measure achievements on a scale of values known by all. That’s how we know the difference between a woman who cares for her family and the poor of the community and a woman who kills her husband and children for no other reason the fun of doing so. The human response to those two cases indicates the presence of a scale by which actions can be measured.
We are discussing whether purposes was the ultimate justification. I was asking by what standard you judge the purpose. It would appear to be something else which is inherent in human nature. It follows that purpose is not the ultimate justification. The essence of subjectivism is that whatever standard of morality you propose it is always necessary to justify that standard. Hence you have an infinite regress. There can be no ultimate justification.
If human beings had no purpose, then it would be wrong to proscribe any possible human behavior. But we do create laws and punish certain behaviors, as if humans had a purpose. Society functions as if human beings had a purpose and not as if humans are as meaningless as any inanimate object.
Uou are assuming the very thing we are debating. I don’t believe that people need a purpose to be the subject of moral praise and blame and not having a purpose does not make them meaningless.
I’m not following you here. You asked why it is morally right to fulfill one’s purpose. We answer why something is morally right by explaining the moral responsiblity. “Why is it morally right to feed my children?” The answer that in justice and fairness is certainly correct – that explains the moral responsibility.
The key question we were debating was does the purpose of human beings (which I take it means God’s purpose for human beings) provide an ultimate justification for morality. You then want to justify that standard (fulfils God’s purpose for human beings) in terms of another standard justice and fairness. It follows that God’s purpose was not the ultimate standard because it was necessary to justify in terms of another.
Again, I’m not understanding. You’re taking a theistic position here. What do you mean “creating Hitler”? If you’re talking about God and what he did or didn’t do — then we could talk about that. But I think you’d have to explain first what you mean by God and what his nature is and what you know about his actions in creation. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know what you mean.
I am exploring the logical implications of your position, not adopting it myself. You wrote:
But the simple fact that the act of creation (bringing something into being) is necessarily a ***good action****
You didn’t specify what was created or who did it. You seemed to be claiming that any act of creation of anything by anything is necessarily good. I provided some apparent counter-examples. Mark Frank_{July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

SA: Authentic, sound revelation will lead us aright. There is that which claims to be revelation but which will lead us astray. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

SB & SA: It's probably helpful to highlight a point I cited at 274 above from Wiki: ___________________ >> More on peer pressure from Wiki:
An explanation of how the peer pressure process works, called “the identity shift effect”, is introduced by social psychologist, Wendy Treynor, who weaves together Leon Festinger’s two seminal social-psychological theories (on cognitive dissonance, which addresses internal conflict, and social comparison, which addresses external conflict) into a unified whole. According to Treynor’s original “identity shift effect” hypothesis, the peer pressure process works in the following way: One’s state of harmony is disrupted when faced with the threat of external conflict (social rejection) for failing to conform to a group standard. Thus, one conforms to the group standard, but as soon as one does, eliminating this external conflict, internal conflict is introduced (because one has violated one’s own standards). To rid oneself of this internal conflict (self-rejection), an “identity shift” is undertaken, where one adopts the group’s standards as one’s own, thereby eliminating internal conflict (in addition to the formerly eliminated external conflict), returning one once again to a state of harmony. Even though the peer pressure process begins and ends with one in a (conflict-less) state of harmony, as a result of conflict and the conflict resolution process, one leaves with a new identity—a new set of internalized standards.[14]
Sounds familiar? Mix in desensitisation through glamourising and drumming in the formerly outrageous and outlandish. Add, jamming out of those few lone voices in the wilderness who dare object or say the Emperor is only pretending to be wearing gorgeous robes, and see how soon we have conversion — even mass conversions. Hey presto, early C21 society just swum into sharp focus. >> ____________________ Cognitive dissonance through a gap between initial belief and behaviour one is induced to take up, pulls one to shift initial beliefs and values. Bad company and their rationalisation for their behaviour feeds that process. This inter alia means that personal sense and/or group or community consensus are not reliable guides to right and wrong, true and false. So, again, we are right back at the need to examine world-foundations, in search of an IS adequate to bear the weight of OUGHT. And, though it obviously angers many today, it remains the case -- I am compelled to acknowledge the truth as I have found it (without thereby implying any general claims to perfection of thought and life . . . which it seems I have to say as there is such a tendency to project strawman caricature stereotypes) -- that there is precisely one serious candidate, after centuries of debate. Namely, the inherently good Creator God, the root of reality and a necessary, maximally great being. (If one objects, simply put up a candidate that can ground good without arbitrariness, and also can ground such without reducing right to might and manipulation make 'right.') It really looks like our choice is Candidate no 1, or else, implicitly the nihilist's credo; by one way or another. Where of course we can take it to the bank that there are binding OUGHTS such as respect for innocent life. A stark choice. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic
The answer here is that it claims only that general moral principles are known by all – not that, by nature alone, we can understand the moral quality of every possible human act. That’s why we look at the most general, universal norms and recognize an objective moral law.
Precisely. Thank you. The natural moral law cannot possibly provide a precise solution to every moral problem. If that was the case, we wouldn't need our conscience to shape our moral intuitions or the virtue of prudence to inform our moral calculations, both of which are required to make a sound moral decision. The natural moral law addresses the universal principle; the virtue of prudence addresses the particular application.
Religious revelation, for example, gives greater insights on moral values that philosophy alone cannot reveal. But revelation is not part of a natural moral law known by all.
Exactly right. The conscience, which testifies to the natural moral law, is vulnerable to change: it can be fine-tuned and developed with sound religious instruction, or it can be compromised and silenced with bad teaching and bad behavior. The law, on the other hand, is impervious to change: Error changes; truth doesn't.StephenB_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

MF 321
By what standard to you judge the “highest achievements”? You cannot define it as fulfils the purpose of the human beings.
The standard is inherent in human nature. We measure achievements on a scale of values known by all. That's how we know the difference between a woman who cares for her family and the poor of the community and a woman who kills her husband and children for no other reason the fun of doing so. The human response to those two cases indicates the presence of a scale by which actions can be measured.
We could also start with the negative argument: “Is it possible that human beings have no purpose?” Everything in human life argues against this. I am sorry but I do not find that “everything in human life argues against this”.
If human beings had no purpose, then it would be wrong to proscribe any possible human behavior. But we do create laws and punish certain behaviors, as if humans had a purpose. Society functions as if human beings had a purpose and not as if humans are as meaningless as any inanimate object.
Oh well – at least you are being clear. In particular you are not claiming that people have some sort of intrinsic purpose. It is God’s purpose.
I guess I wasn't being clear. I didn't claim anything. I provided three scenarios for the origin of purpose. You either agreed with them or not, I don't know. But additionally, humans having an intrinsic purpose is not incompatible with God having given humans a purpose.
You are using another standard “justice and fairness” to justify fulfilling God’s purpose. So God’s purpose is not the ultimate justification.
I'm not following you here. You asked why it is morally right to fulfill one's purpose. We answer why something is morally right by explaining the moral responsiblity. "Why is it morally right to feed my children?" The answer that in justice and fairness is certainly correct - that explains the moral responsibility. If you're asking "why are we morally required to do anything at all?" -- then that makes this simpler. You would be talking about subjectivism as moral relativism -- and thus open to the critique you've seen already.
Was creating Hitler and the smallpox virus necessarily a good action? Good by what standard?
Again, I'm not understanding. You're taking a theistic position here. What do you mean "creating Hitler"? If you're talking about God and what he did or didn't do -- then we could talk about that. But I think you'd have to explain first what you mean by God and what his nature is and what you know about his actions in creation. Otherwise, I wouldn't know what you mean.Silver Asiatic_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Mark, I took some time this morning to read through all of your comments on this thread – trying to sort out where we might have a misunderstanding and where I’ve been confused. I will quote from some of your previous responses.
I think there is a problem throughout your responses. Recall that my case is that there cannot be an ultimate justification for a moral belief.
I’m looking at the phrase “a moral belief”. Are you saying that there cannot be an ultimate justification for any single moral belief? Or are you talking about “for an entire system of morals”? or do you mean “for a moral code that covers every possible human act”? Those are three different things. If you’re talking about “any single moral act”, then there is one objective justification – “compliance with the truth.” The truth exists. Logically, that cannot be denied. The truth, although not a moral value, corresponds with what right or correct. What is right or correct, corresponds with what is good. Since the truth exists, then good exists. Since good exists, then a hierarchy of values exist. We are morally required to conform to the truth. You’re looking for a set of facts that justify a moral act – and there you have it. The moral act is “corresponding with the truth”. The set of facts given show that there is an ultimate foundation for that moral act. The fact that the truth exists cannot be logically denied. Objections: “The truth does not exist”. The classic paradox. Contradictory and self-refuting. “I do not have to conform to the truth”. This is also self-refuting. When a person seeks answers about any topic, by asking questions, he has already committed himself to the truth of things. To then claim that there is no responsibility to accept the truth is to contradict the entire rational enterprise. A person cannot have a rational discussion if there was no regard for the truth . In order to prove or demonstrate anything, there is a moral requirement to accept the difference between truth and falsehood. Here are some of the problems I encountered: 1. Are you talking about choosing individual moral acts, choosing a moral code? It seemed that you were talking about justifying a moral code, but you also offered this:
You presumably think it is wrong to torture puppies. I have explained that for me to say it is wrong is to express about my feelings about puppies being in pain. No standard is required anymore than you need a standard to state a book is interesting or a film funny. You on the other hand presumably think it is wrong to torture puppies because the act fails to meet some standard. My second question simply asks how do you know that standard is a good one. What standard do you judge the standard against?
In that case, you’re talking about a single act – torturing a puppy. You then explain that “no standard is required” to judge that act – no more than you need a standard to feel that a book is interesting or a film is funny. 2. Are there “deep seated, permanent desires” which direct our moral values, or are we driven by feelings as in the way we find a film funny? (and I’m not accusing you of minimizing any immoral act but only looking at the foundation of the choice). You wrote earlier:
For example almost all humans have a deep-seated and permanent desire to limit the suffering of those close to us, culture and logic extends that desire to those we do not know and even to other species. There are similar desires for fairness and the keeping of commitments (such as promises and oaths). Of course we also suffer from drivers to be selfish (and also to value the short term at the cost of the long term) and we have to have the moral courage to overcome these alternative drivers if we are to be moral. That’s no different to your moral philosophy. We all sometimes behave less well than we ought to and struggle to do the right thing.
This is quite a lot different than what you said above. We have a“deep seated and permanent” desire. There are some films that I found to be very funny in the past, and now I don’t find them funny. But that may change the next time I watch the same film. Some directors’ films I don’t find funny while other people do. There’s no objective basis here. I don’t have a justification. There is nothing like a “deep seated, personal desire” to laugh at one film and not another. We’ve been discussing this because subjectivism, as many on this thread have argued, is “making up one’s morals for oneself”. It doesn’t recognize a standard to comply with for reasons external to the self. That’s like finding a film funny or a book interesting. There’s no standard. But it’s not like a universal moral sense embedded in human beings that universally recognizes good and evil in certain human acts. 3. What is subjectivism? Wikipedia says: “The most common forms of ethical subjectivism are also forms of moral relativism, with moral standards held to be relative to each culture or society (c.f. cultural relativism), or even to every individual.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism That’s what we’ve been talking about. The most common form where moral standards, relative to every individual. You’ve chosen a different view where subjectivism is not about choosing morals but about finding an ultimate justification. 4. What does the objective moral law claim? The answer here is that it claims only that general moral principles are known by all – not that, by nature alone, we can understand the moral quality of every possible human act. That’s why we look at the most general, universal norms and recognize an objective moral law. You seemed to object to this:
Why do you choose ethical examples on which there is almost universal agreement? The first part of this sentence is a standard move in this particular debate. Take some issue on which there is almost universal agreement that it is wrong and then emphasise that is REALLY WRONG and not just mere disapproval or whim. This is argument by moral pressure. It makes it look as though any attempt to challenge the objectivist view of ethics is also condoning behaviour we all find unacceptable. In fact there is a world of difference between mere disapproval and passionate condemnation based on reasons and a confidence that almost everyone else also condemns that behaviour.
It’s not a debate tactic. The natural moral law deals with general principles. So, it’s right to look for acts that are recognized universally. To expect the natural moral law to give precise answers on every possible human act is to expect more than it claims. Religious revelation, for example, gives greater insights on moral values that philosophy alone cannot reveal. But revelation is not part of a natural moral law known by all. 5. Are there observable facts that give ultimate justification to moral actions? I mentioned above that the existence of truth is a fact that gives an ultimate justification to a moral act. “In order to defend or prove my philosophical position, I do not need to have any regard for the truth.” That statement is necessarily false. One cannot arrive at a proof of anything without a clear understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood. That’s an ultimate justification for the moral values that follow. There can be no rational discussion – in fact, no reasoning at all, without a regard for the distinction between truth and falsehood. Reason itself is based on this.Silver Asiatic_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

MF: I, again, invite you to address the foundational question of warrant on merits, that grounds OUGHT. You have chosen to inject well-poisoning personalities above, I have spoken in answer and on your own testimony you have not been fair minded enough to bother to look. That is your privilege. It is ours, to note what remains clear on the table, on the merits. Good day, KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

KF #335 "And all agreed that someone should advise you To leave the morals of the world alone, And worry rather more about your own." The Misanthrope - by Moliere - trans Richard Wilbur (Part of Celimene's speech to the religious prude Arsinoe)Mark Frank_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

F/N: Thoughts on Critical Thinking:
"Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably and empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world." ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007
Food for thought for us all. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Mung, I found the phil of Religion book maybe the most impressive of all. There are several others that have been in it over the years, e.g. on the idea of God and it looks like two on phil of sci. I wonder if IVP could be persuaded to do an ebook compendium similar to the collected works of Schaeffer? KF PS: Kreeft is a treat, especially his modern Socratic dialogues. The old, original ones from Plato are often good even entertaining, too.kairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

MF: with all due respect, you are walking away rather than dealing with the material issues and while leaving a neglected duty to acknowledge and correct a willful smear on the table. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

Stephenb #331 There comes a point when the debate has to stop. We have lives to lead. I am happy to let you have the last word. To be accused of ignoring your arguments when I do so seems a bit rough.Mark Frank_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

SB: Well summarised. The issue seems to be to caricature, and/or well-poison, and dismiss. At no point is there a serious engagement of the worldview foundation issue. Sad, and sadly revealing in light of Plato's warning on clever arguments pushing evo mat, dismissing the legitimacy of ought, reducing to might and manipulation make right, thence leading to factions and domineering. We need to ask ourselves some pretty obvious questions, on whether it is sound to yield power to activists and agendas that undermine rationality and right alike, that reject that we have responsible freedom to think, know, and decide, or the right to our lives, liberty, innocent reputation, and more. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

PPPS: Just to remind on the issue of grounding the reasonable mind, here -- again -- is Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
kairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

I address Stephenb’s argument in some detail in many places e.g. 310.
That's just silly. I have refuted five our your points. Here they are: First, you tried to say that one cannot derive an "ought from an "is" in the context of worldview foundations, and I corrected you with several examples. You had no answer. Second, you claimed that morality cannot be justified. I provided detailed examples to the contrary. You had no answer. Third, you ignored the point that dictionary definitions of right and good are legitimate and clear while subjective definitions are illegitimate and contrived. You had no answer. Fourth, you claimed that Purpose was being defined in moral terms, when the fact is that morality is being defined in terms of purpose. So far, you have not answered that one. Fifth, you claimed that praise and blame defines right and wrong. I reminded you that it is the other way around: right defines what is worthy of praise and wrong defines what is worthy of blame. You had no answer. I didn't just pull these points out of a hat. They were responses to your subjectivst philosophy.StephenB_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

PPS: Plato on the record, c. 360 BC, in The Laws, Bk X: _____________ >>[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne] . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [--> evolutionary materialism, c. 360 BC] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made. - [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles driven by that nihilistic credo], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> [NB: he goes on to a cosmological design inference to a world shaped by a good soul (rational, self-moved being), here. Notice, Aquinas' interesting definition of law relevant to laws of our nature as morally governed creatures: "law is an ordinance of reason made by one who has care of a community." Where, of course, an ordinance -- per Collins ED -- is "an authoritative regulation, decree, law, or practice." The links back to grounding OUGHT in the IS who is the inherently good Creator God, the root of reality, who is a necessary and maximally great being, are plain. Such a being is Reason Himself, and Love himself, who having created creatures and implanted creative reason and testifying conscience that points out that if by nature I require love and respect, I too must render same to those who are my equals in nature, thus teaches and ordains for us that which is for our good. The good is not capricious or independent of the root of reality. Nor, is there a case of an alienation between IS and OUGHT in that root.] _______________ The matter has been on the table for a long time, and the plain implications of evo mat have been known, with cases in point for a long time too. The pivot, repeat, is: are we actually bound by OUGHT? (Such as in respect of murder etc.) Once, that is so, the rest follows, there is a world-foundational IS capable of bearing that weight. For which there is just one serious candidate. (Notice, the studious silence and/or side tracks and strawman caricatures in reply to the challenge to provide an alternative compatible with evo mat that does not end in might and manipulation make 'right.') So, we know the choice in front of us, and its consequences. If we are under law, if we are morally governed, that points to a lawmaker at the root of reality. If not, if we are the result of a blind chance and necessity process in a material reality, we are left to might and manipulation make right, among ever so many other absurdities including, that the self-aware self is a delusion, and the notion that we are able to responsibly contemplate in rational fashion and reason is also a delusion. Such, are our choices and consequences. I will say this much: obviously, any view that saws off the branch on which we must all sit, is self-refuting. So, let us see if the advocates of evolutionary materialism can give us a good reason to accept that they are not sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

KF - I ignored 304 (and the 5 subsequent comments) because they written by you. I address Stephenb's argument in some detail in many places e.g. 310. I continue to have what seems to me like a constructive debate with SA most recently in 321. As I say - don't confuse the fact that I am ignoring you with ignoring the argument that you and SB put forward. Like many people I do not have time to read your many, many comments which are frequently very hard to understand and almost always cannot be addressed without asking for further clarification.Mark Frank_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

PS: Nor is this an argument assignable to dissmiss-able Internet commenters who can be deemed of little or no credibility by suitable well poisoning and the self-evidently fallacious appeal, we ignored and/or caricatured and dismissed n times which justifies such on the n + 1th iteration. Apart from Plato's on the record since 360 BC (one of the top ten all time minds) and the correction to Hume's error on grounding that is obvious, as well as too many historical cases in point of where undermining of moral foundations leads, let me again cite, for instance Holmes from 304:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . . R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . . Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments . . . . If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: 1984), pp. 70 – 72; p. 81.]
There is a lot at stake, hard bought lessons that we dare not ignore. On pain of yet another monumental, bloodily expensive march of folly.kairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

MF: Above, with all due respect that is exactly what happened when at 304 I took up your posing of the Hume assertion. And indeed, you just revealed the same problem. You chose to dismiss the step by step warrant provided (it's "unrewarding"), in order to pounce on something you could reframe and dismiss while ignoring context. And meanwhile, I have also responded to some well poisoning, and find myself seriously not satisfied with your initial and onward behaviour. But then, it is a direct implication of evo mat that if you can get away with it it must be okay. Ironically, you have actually provided an in-miniature case on why the opening of the door to "might and manipulation make 'right' . . . " is so dangerous and grounds sobering moral concerns over lab coat clad evolutionary materialism and linked scientism. (Plato's concerns in The Laws, BK X, c. 360 BC -- as are highlighted above, just [as usual] studiously ignored -- are plainly on target.) KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

KF You and SB have made this argument many times and I have tried to address it. I may have failed. I may have misunderstood what you are saying. But I certainly have not "studiously ignored" it. What I have done is ignore you personally because I find your writing to be unrewarding (I happened to notice your #318 because it was very brief). Maybe you are confusing the two?Mark Frank_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

MF, simply repeating the mantra that Hume says that you cannot ground OUGHT in IS, does not make that claim right. The issue is, is OUGHT real, which is manifestly so. It therefore must have a basis at world-foundation level capable of adequately supporting it. I have already made the case on what best fills that bill. If you have an alternative that does not reduce to might and manipulation make 'right,' let us hear it. There is no IS capable of grounding OUGHT is a case in point of saying OUGHT is groundless which points to might and manipulation make 'right' -- an absurdity well known as the nihilist's credo. And, it is not in my view or "intuition" etc either, those end in the same place. KF PS: You have also put on the table some insinuations that I have responded to, showing why they are ill-founded and seem to point to well-poisoning, which is an improper move. I think you have an unmet duty of care to address.kairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

MF. for more details kindly cf 304 above. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

MF:
Recall that my case is that there cannot be an ultimate justification for a moral belief. SB and others propose that the purpose of human beings is the ultimate justification for morality.
MF, neither SB nor I have argued thusly. With all due respect, you have reframed what SB (and I) have argued in a way that is caricaturing. So, I can freely speak and ask that you correctly reframe your summary. SB's point is that the moral framework for a human being is embedded in his or her [prime] purpose; which of course points back to our roots at origins. It is our purpose as embedded in our nature that gives us worth and commands respect for rights, also entailing mutual duties tied to such respect. Those duties, e.g. to respect the life, liberty, innocent reputation, etc. are directly connected to providing room for fulfillment of purpose. Robbing a child of her life as Merah did in the case cited, is a capital illustration of how evil frustrates or perverts purpose. Where also, it is patent that if X has purpose P, to say but I reject P and wish to pursue Q (which is incompatible) instead is simply to propose to wrench X's nature out of purpose . . . pointing straight to the nature of evil as the perversion, frustration and privation of good. For instance, eight year old Jewish girls in schoolyards on Toulouse France are not for the purpose of getting their brains blown out by Islamist terrorists, nor are Muslim men for the purpose of using skill and strength to make themselves judge, jury and executioner at will for those guilty of the imagined capital crime of breathing while being Jewish. And even if it had been an eighteen year old Jewish woman or an eighty year old one who invited assistance in suicide, that too would have been a frustration of purpose. (There was an actual case in Jamaica of a man who sought a gunman to do a contract killing. Price agreed and payment arrangements made, the gunman -- a murderer for hire -- asked who. Me. The gunman stopped him and said, you are sick, you need to go to Dr XXXX, a well-known and highly effective counsellor. Even a contract murderer knows better. And yes, this is a real-world case, the man went to Dr XXXX, who helped him. Suicide is a permanent false "solution" to a temporary problem, prompted by a false sense of hopelessness and pointlessness. A classic instance is well known Christian spokesman Ravi Zacharias who, as a struggling teen in High School in his native India, tried to kill himself to get out of the shame of failure. He did not succeed and found a different path, fulfilling himself in life in later decades as a leading, articulate spokesman for the Christian Faith.) However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the root of morality in the cosmos -- the ultimate source of/grounds for morality -- can only be found in the foundations of the world. At any other level, the grounding objection, why A? requiring B, thence C, D etc, can be applied. (I need not detain myself elaborating on why turtles all the way down or turtles in a circle don't work.) The valid part of Hume's objection, is that the grounding IS must also simultaneously and by its nature ground OUGHT. Given, that cases such as murder vs the right to life point quite plainly to OUGHT being real and binding. As has been pointed out but conveniently glided over [cf. above], after many centuries of debate there is but one serious candidate to fill the bill as grounding IS capable of adequately bearing the weight of ought: the inherently good, Creator God who is the root of reality and a necessary, maximally great being. If you deny this, simply propose a candidate that is adequate to ground morality (thus, world- foundational) and does not lead to the absurdity, might makes 'right' who is not equivalent to such. In short, you are invited to the table of comparative difficulties. KFkairosfocus_{July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

it’s drearily and sadly familiar to see the studious ignoring of the challenge to ground OUGHT on the table other than with the candidate to beat
It is not clear what it mean to "ground OUGHT". I suspect it means provide some kind of ultimate justification for morality. The subjectivist case is that it is not possible to provide such a justification. So it would be rather strange to rise to the challenge to do so! I have repeatedly made the case that it is not possible above.Mark Frank_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

SA #314 I think there is a problem throughout your responses. Recall that my case is that there cannot be an ultimate justification for a moral belief. SB and others propose that the purpose of human beings is the ultimate justification for morality. If you define purpose or justify purpose in moral terms then it is no longer the ultimate justification. I think you have done this throughout and marked each place with an ***. I will expand on that below.
By observing human nature and asking “why” about aspects of it. We seek the truth. There are universal characteristics of human life and a hierarchy of ***values (e.g. “the highest achievements of human nature”).***
By what standard to you judge the “highest achievements”? You cannot define it as fulfils the purpose of the human beings.
We could also start with the negative argument: “Is it possible that human beings have no purpose?” Everything in human life argues against this.
I am sorry but I do not find that “everything in human life argues against this”.
There’s only one possible answer here. The human being cannot create its own purpose because it didn’t create itself. It received life. Society cannot create a purpose because it was created by human beings. Evolution or natural laws cannot create purpose because they cannot possess an intent or reason.
Oh well – at least you are being clear. In particular you are not claiming that people have some sort of intrinsic purpose. It is God’s purpose.
Look at certain universals. Look at what we recognize as ***the highest values – what it means to have “lived a good life”.*** Men and women are praised in every culture for ***having lived by doing good for humanity and/or God. ***“Fulfilling human potential”.
How do you define what a good life is? What standards to you use assess whether values are the highest? How do you decide what is good for humanity and/or God?
It’s the difference between ***good and evil. Virtue and sin. Love and hate. Praise and condemnation. Reward and punishment.***
You are using moral terms as a justification for conforming to God’s purpose.
If a human being received life – life is a gift. Through simple ***justice and fairness, the gift ought to be responded to appropriately and not violated.***
You are using another standard “justice and fairness” to justify fulfilling God’s purpose. So God’s purpose is not the ultimate justification.
Interesting question. You might frame it a different way:“How do we know that human beings were created for a good purpose and not an evil one?” Yes, because if humans were created for an evil purpose, then it would be immoral to fulfill that purpose.But the simple fact that the act of creation (bringing something into being) is necessarily a ***good action****, then humans could not have been created for an evil purpose.
Was creating Hitler and the smallpox virus necessarily a good action? Good by what standard?
“Ought” means “have a responsiblity to do it”. The only way we can conclude “I ought to do X” is that X aligns with our nature and purpose.“I understand my purpose: to become a ***better person, achieve more good, make best use of my talents, be a benefit to humanity and the world,*** but … I ought to damage myself?”
By what standard a better person?
That it easily refuted because it’s illogical.
There is nothing particularly illogical about it – surprising perhaps but not illogical. Mark Frank_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

kf:
The IVP intro to phil series is wonderful.
Finished Metaphysics and now Epistemology. I think next it's on to Philosophy of Religion. I also really enjoy the books by Peter Kreeft. StephenB:
Mung, I am impressed by the breadth and range of ideas in the books that you read. It is unusual to find someone with both feet planted securely in the philosophical and scientific disciplines.
Thank you. I am sure I have far more books accumulated than I can ever read. Know of a good home for a library, lol?Mung_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

SA, welcome, a real treat full of food for thought. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

NB: it's drearily and sadly familiar to see the studious ignoring of the challenge to ground OUGHT on the table other than with the candidate to beat; and of course, silence also holds on the snide distortions and accusations front (never mind things that set the record straight). Noted for record, a day having now passed. KFkairosfocus_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Mark
How do you determine what the purpose of a human being is?
"Having discovered why you are disappointed, you take the next step of trying to avoid disappointments entirely. You ask yourself: "What do I desire above all things?" You want perfect life, and perfect truth, and perfect love. Nothing short of the Infinite satisfies you, and to ask you to be satisfied with less would be to destroy your nature. You want life, not for two more years, but always; you want to know all truths, not the truths of economics alone, to the exclusion of history. You also want love without end. All the poetry of love is a cry, a moan, and a weeping. The more pure it is, the more it pleads; the more it is lifted above the earth, the more it laments. With your feet on earth, you dream of heaven; creature of time, you despise it; flower of a day, you seek to eternalize yourself. Why do you want Life, Truth, Love, unless you were made for them? How could you enjoy the fractions unless there were a whole? Where do they come from? Where is the source of light in the city street at noon? Not under autos, buses, nor the feet of trampling throngs, because their light is mingled with darkness. If you are to find the source of light you must go out to something that has no admixture of darkness or shadow, namely, to pure light, which is the sun. In like manner, if you are to find the source of Life, Truth, and Love, you must go out to a life that is not mingled with its shadow, death; to a Truth not mingled with its shadow, error; and to a Love not mingle with its shadow, hate. You go out to something that is Pure Life, Pure Truth, Pure Love, and that is the definition of God. And the reason you have been disappointed is because you have not yet found Him!" ----Fulton J. Sheen
How do you refute the person who says –”Yes I understand my purpose is X but I don’t think I ought to do X.”
You explain that it is an illogical argument. What a thing is supposed to do is inextricably tied to its nature and purpose. If a ball-point pen could talk, would it say, "I don't think I ought to write, I would prefer to open cans? Would a spoon say, "I don't think I should serve food to humans, I would prefer to dig post holes. Even so, humans often try to pervert their own nature by acting like animals. If they do it long enough they, become like an animal and lose their power of reason and self control.StephenB_{July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply