Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How do you derive moral principles from theism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Usually this is not a topic I deal with, but an UD commenter gently asked such interesting question in another thread.

Theism states a transcendent Principle, which is One and Infinite. This Unity is the First cause of the universal existence, of all beings and all things (for this reason He is also the Great Designer of the universe).

This Supreme Principle is the Self “who stays within the heart of any being; who is the principle, the mean and the end of all beings”. Besides, this Self is also absolute Truth and supreme Knowledge.

Given this fundamental Unity, this Center, where “all beings are fused but not confused” – as M. Eckart said -, it is straightforward to derive moral principles for all men.

The first moral principle is “love”. In fact “hate” can exist only where there is multiplicity and antagonism. In Unity no multiplicity and no antagonism, then no hate. Moreover if a being practices “love” he faster approaches Unity, which is his final end. “Love” is the first moral principle in theory because conceptually it is directly derivable from Unity, God. But “love” is also the first moral principle in practice because it is what helps more the beings in their path towards God. This is the reason Christ preached love, Ramakrishna said “love is the easiest method of spiritual realization”, and all orthodox religions tried to establish love among men.

(Nota Bene: the fact that in history some religions were implied in wars and persecutions is not due to wrong principles, or principles of hate, rather to bad application by some of their representatives. Unavoidably all organizations are made of men, and also if the organizations are based on good principles, men – who are weak – may behave bad. But one cannot charge the organization’s principles of the misdoings of its members.)

All other moral principles are corollary of love and all are stated to help the beings to reach Unity. In facts to practice virtues leads to Unity, while to practice bad habits withdraws from Unity.

The strict connection between Unity and Knowledge can help to understand why so often ignorants are also evil. More a being knows (in the spiritual, intellectual sense) more is good. In fact he sees all other living beings as his own “brothers” in Unity, the shared Center of all things. “For whom stays in the Center, all is unified, because he sees all things in the unity of the Principle”.

In short, morality derives, almost mathematically, as an application of metaphysics because metaphysics is the “doctrine of Unity”, and all evils, all bad moral habits, pertain eminently to multiplicity, egoism, antagonism, disconnectedness and the instinct of disunity of individuals.

Comments
JDH 13 and 14
Given materialism ( or any other philosophy which denies libertarian free will and the divinity necessary to implant it ) all principles are based on “natural” desires.
#13 I don't think morality is based on principles at all. They come later. But setting that aside I agree that all morality is based on natural desires. But this true whatever your philosophy. What other desires are there? Even the desire to be unified with God or whatever is natural. If you want something you desire it. But that doesn't mean they are all on the same basis. The desire to eat nice ice cream is quite different from the desire to rescue a child from poverty. #14
even if these people would loudly protest to the ends of the earth that they thought they were doing something morally right, it does not change the fact that they are just finding some way to allow their intellect to go along with their base desires. The fact that they justified their base desires with religious language does not change the fact that the root cause of their behavior is both “natural” and abhorrent when incorrectly applied
You and I may have abhorred their behaviour but I very much doubt they abhorred it. Let us concentrate on the 9/11 bombers. The question is were they genuinely following what they believed to be right or were they pretending it was right when really they were looking forward to a few milliseconds of glory before their certain death. (I am assuming that they believed they would only be rewarded in an after-life for genuinely moral behaviour) Neither of us can be certain but there is zero evidence for your theory while at least my theory conforms with what they said.Mark Frank
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
And Mark, even if these people would loudly protest to the ends of the earth that they thought they were doing something morally right, it does not change the fact that they are just finding some way to allow their intellect to go along with their base desires. The fact that they justified their base desires with religious language does not change the fact that the root cause of their behavior is both "natural" and abhorrent when incorrectly applied.JDH
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Mark - You fail to see the main problem with your argument. Given materialism ( or any other philosophy which denies libertarian free will and the divinity necessary to implant it ) all principles are based on "natural" desires. So, your denial of theism, makes all of your principles on the same footing. Call it "natural" call it "moral" they all must come about from molecules. This makes your entire argument moot.JDH
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
#10 Axel
Why don’t you have a stab at answering your own questions?
OK. 1. Moral imperative to resist the rise of non-believers and their immoral behaviour. 2. Moral imperative to find and eliminate heresies which are hateful to God (and with luck save the soul of the sinner) 3. Moral imperative to rid the city at the core of Christianity from the unbelievers who have polluted it for so long. 4. They are grown ups and they know how I ought to behave.Mark Frank
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
'Mark – Why do you ask such simple questions in words that would seem to represent them as profound or difficult.' You have a wicked tongue, JDH.Axel
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
My two penn'orth would be: * Proximately: hatred * Proximately: hatred * Proximately: hatred * Proximately: hatred Ultimately, they all relate to wars of one kind or another, geopolitics, viz territory and/or natural resources. Why don't you have a stab at answering your own questions?Axel
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
#8 JDH Is it not just as plausible that each of these groups thought they were doing what was morally right? How do you know they weren't?Mark Frank
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Mark - Why do you ask such simple questions in words that would seem to represent them as profound or difficult. Fortunately all of the answers to your question fall into essentially the same camp. 1. Pride - the natural desire of a being to prove himself better. 2. Tribalism - the natural desire of a being to find like beings to form a group that is better or more deserving. 3. ( For lack of a better phrase ) Honor-wanting - the natural desire of a being to want others in his tribe to revere him. I am sure, given these natural desires, you can take all those examples and fill in the blanks.JDH
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
JDH
Bad principles, whether from theism or from atheism, become dangerous precisely because they appeal to ( hatred, selfishness, greed, gluttony, ) or any other of our base desires.
Which of those base desires were the following appealing to: * The 9/11 bombers * The inquisition * The crusaders who massacred most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the end of the first crusade * The Taliban child suicide bombersMark Frank
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Well, maybe "foolproof" too strong; it is at least very compelling. I have long resisted the idea that "love" is an innate component of god's nature, but your reasoning of "love" as the experience of unity is really remarkable.William J Murray
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
And if we suppress those reactions because of theist principles or indeed any other principles we are on the road to doing things that we or others will eventually describe as horrendous.
IMHO this is a truly ignorant statement and shows the great danger of non-theism. Certainly it is true that someone can advance principles such as Nazism, communism, racism, slavery ( i.e. insert great evil that has caused many deaths or immense suffering ) and that wrong headed principle can put a society on the road to "...doing things that we or others will eventually describe as horrendous." But for you to blame this on theism seems to indicate to me why you are able to maintain your non-theist position in spite of the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. Im my opinion, your ignorance ( and please excuse me for the condescension, but I am amazed that someone would make such a statement ) comes from an inability to accurately assess the reason for mass tragedy. Bad principles, whether from theism or from atheism, become dangerous precisely because they appeal to ( hatred, selfishness, greed, gluttony, ) or any other of our base desires. Morality must be learned. The suppression of the natural base desires is not a bad principle that leads to disaster. Rather it is the proper choice of what natural desires to suppress that fends off chaos. Man left to himself without moral guidance does not produce Utopia. Golding's book was popular and award winning, not because it was improbable, but because it was perfectly reasonable that disaster would occur with children left on their own without any moral guidance. "Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend called Piggy."JDH
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
niwrad, I agree that you've offered a virtually necessary derivation of morality from a unity monotheism, but that's not a necessary derivation of morality from "theism". I would say that if one rationally (and without a priori bias) examines their experience of the moral state they find themselves in, they can then infer that a unity monotheism is the only kind of theistic worldview that justifies that experience, and from that premise what you argue above (morality derived from that prmeise) is foolproof. Unfortunately, it's not "free will proof". Free will can be employed to deny anything.William J Murray
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Mark Frank
Suppose I have two children and one is much easier to love than the other – happy, attractive, positive in all things – while the other is withdrawn, rejects my love, and appears unhappy – then I can do the most loving by concentrating my efforts on the first one. But somehow this seems morally wrong.
Yes, you do the most loving by concentrating your efforts on the second one. In fact the second one is unhappy because he is more distant from Unity. More you are near Unity, more you are happy.
Some people pour immense amounts of love into their dog or cat while neglecting people. While harmless and, perhaps, endearing, this doesn’t seem to be very moral.
Yes, loving animals while hating people is somehow contradictory. You are right that love is difficult and sometimes the situations are so complex that one is unable to do the right moral thing. However if your strategy is trying "to reintegrate Unity" always, everywhere and with all beings you are on the right track. Even you will see that your "enemies" disappear and you will fear nothing.niwrad
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Mark Frank - What you call "love" is a preferential feeling towards something. You seem to be ignorant of the "agape" Love which comes from a Unity which niwad described. For example to favor a dog or cat at the expense of doing the correct thing is not Love it is selfishness. I don't fault you for this ignorance, I should not expect a non-theist to understand love as anything more than a preference. It's not that the principle of Love should admit "..no question of accommodating the principle to difficult examples..." It's that those who misunderstand the concept of Love misapply it. "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."JDH
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
“love” is also the first moral principle in practice because it is what helps more the beings in their path towards God.
Loving sounds like a good thing - most of us are in favour of it - but is hard to turn it into a satisfactory moral principle. A couple of examples. Suppose I have two children and one is much easier to love than the other - happy, attractive, positive in all things - while the other is withdrawn, rejects my love, and appears unhappy - then I can do the most loving by concentrating my efforts on the first one. But somehow this seems morally wrong. Some people pour immense amounts of love into their dog or cat while neglecting people. While harmless and, perhaps, endearing, this doesn't seem to be very moral. Now my point is not to start a moral debate. My point is that we use the examples to test the principle - not the other way round. Only the most committed theist would not at least try to clarify how love would fit in with our usual moral judgements. But if love really were the first principle there should be no question of accommodating the principle to difficult examples. The only thing that makes them difficult is because we have a moral reaction to them which is not based on love. Our natural (subjective!) moral reactions are deeper and more fundamental than any principles(theist or otherwise) and we can't help judge any principles by those reactions. And if we suppress those reactions because of theist principles or indeed any other principles we are on the road to doing things that we or others will eventually describe as horrendous.Mark Frank
July 30, 2013
July
07
Jul
30
30
2013
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply