Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[guacamole]

Whoa. How dare the two of you sully the elegant doctrines of soteriology by slopping it around in the sewer muck of Civics. Do you two kiss your mothers with those mouths?

[carpedm9587]

Whoa. How dare the two of you sully the elegant doctrines of soteriology by slopping it around in the sewer muck of Civics. Do you two kiss your mothers with those mouths?

Well...sometimes...

[Starlight]

No that is still wrong Carp. Christianity teaches you can't please God with actions. Our best is like filthy rags compared to him. It is about sharing the love and mercy he gives us.

You mean your specific brand of Christianity does. Not Christianity in general.

[carpedm9587]

You mean your specific brand of Christianity does. Not Christianity in general.

Well - Sparko is correct that this is actually a pretty widely held tenet of Christianity. "Solo fide" may have been Luther's version of #MAGA, but it has penetrated back into Catholicism and most Christian sects as well.

The thing is - while this may be true, the concept that you CAN apparently "earn" damnation kind of undoes the whole thing. After all, while I may not be able to "earn" heaven/salvation, I can certainly, by choice of action/faith, ensure that I do NOT gain it - putting choices and actions front and center.

It's kind of like the kid who knows he can never TRULY earn approval in his father's eyes, but disapproval is right around the corner. It will still drive behavior.

[Starlight]

"Sola fide" may have been Luther's version of #MAGA, but it has penetrated back into Catholicism and most Christian sects as well.

Sure modern Roman Catholicism has been affected by Luther's theology. Not so much Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course not the 1500 years of Christianity prior to Luther.

It will still drive behavior.

Putting aside the issue of salvation itself, even most sola-fide Christians still have their behavior substantially influenced by trying to please God. e.g. if you asked Sparko if he thought there are behaviors God approves of, and behaviors God disapproves of, and that he personally actively in his everyday life tries to choose the behaviors he thinks God approves of over the behaviors he thinks God doesn't approve of, he would surely say yes. That would significantly inform his personal sense of morality. Whether he expects to be 'saved' due to said behaviors or whether he simply sees himself as trying to be obedient to God's will, seems beside the point - what he perceives as 'God-approved behaviors' vs not still drive his actions.

[carpedm9587]

Sure modern Roman Catholicism has been affected by Luther's theology. Not so much Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course not the 1500 years of Christianity prior to Luther.

Why would the first 1500 years of Catholicism have anything to do with a discussion about the faith position of existing Christian sects?

Putting aside the issue of salvation itself, even most sola-fide Christians still have their behavior substantially influenced by trying to please God. e.g. if you asked Sparko if he thought there are behaviors God approves of, and behaviors God disapproves of, and that he personally actively in his everyday life tries to choose the behaviors he thinks God approves of over the behaviors he thinks God doesn't approve of, he would surely say yes. That would significantly inform his personal sense of morality. Whether he expects to be 'saved' due to said behaviors or whether he simply sees himself as trying to be obedient to God's will, seems beside the point - what he perceives as 'God-approved behaviors' vs not still drive his actions.

Oh - there is no question about THAT. As I noted in previous posts - "solo fide" and "by their works you shall know them" have always had a sort of dynamic tension between them.

[seer]

Whoa. How dare the two of you sully the elegant doctrines of soteriology by slopping it around in the sewer muck of Civics. Do you two kiss your mothers with those mouths?

[seer]

I don't think I ever said that you said you were "following the herd," Seer. I'm sure you don't see yourself in those terms. I was describing the nature of what might be called "alignment morality," which is what any morality that seek to align itself to what someone else says reduces to.



As with all sentient beings - a "reasonable" moral code will be one that aligns to my own moral code - and a bad one is one that does not. We are not different in that respect. The only difference between us is that you have relatively/subjectively decided to align your moral code with your interpretation of what is written in the books of the Christian bible.



I think you mean "herd." And my morality is not an "align to the herd" morality, Seer. The difference is intention. There is a vast difference between someone who intentionally seeks to align with the herd, and someone who thinks through their moral positions and arrives at conclusions that are similar to, or the same as, the other members of their herd.

First Carp, don't correct my spelling mistakes, we all know your history with that. But again, you are missing my point. Why are your moral conclusions, via moral reasoning, any more correct, valid or insightful than what the herd believes of what Fred believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches? You suggest that such reasoning is somehow superior for coming to ethical conclusions. But why should we believe that, you certainly have not demonstrated that that it is so.

If you can say that, Seer, then I fear you are caught in a very juvenile form of morality. I don't mean that to be pejorative - though I know it sounds that way. But I think the vast majority of humans would see someone who is actively seeking to understand and reason their way to a moral conclusion as more morally mature than someone who is simply trying to align to someone else's morality. You might want to explore Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. What your describing is a combination of Stage 1 and Stage 4 moral reasoning. I am suggesting that "Stage 6" is a more mature form of moral reasoning. I'm not 100% in agreement with Kohlbergs model mind you - but it's not a bad starting place.

How can that be if such moral reasoning can lead to both helping your neighbor and sending your neighbor to the Gulags, given differing premises and moral goals? You are not telling me why your so called reasoning is any better or insightful for determining an ethical system than a juvenile form of morality.

And to quote:

Kohlberg's theory centers on the notion that justice is the essential characteristic of moral reasoning. Justice itself relies heavily upon the notion of sound reasoning based on principles. Despite being a justice-centered theory of morality, Kohlberg considered it to be compatible with plausible formulations of deontology[18] and eudaimonia.

Kohlberg's theory understands values as a critical component of the right. Whatever the right is, for Kohlberg, it must be universally valid across societies (a position known as "moral universalism"):[7] there can be no relativism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawren...ent#Criticisms

Moral universalism? No relativism? Really Carp?

[Sparko]

You mean your specific brand of Christianity does. Not Christianity in general.

No. Christianity in general.

[Sparko]

Sure modern Roman Catholicism has been affected by Luther's theology. Not so much Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course not the 1500 years of Christianity prior to Luther.

Putting aside the issue of salvation itself, even most sola-fide Christians still have their behavior substantially influenced by trying to please God. e.g. if you asked Sparko if he thought there are behaviors God approves of, and behaviors God disapproves of, and that he personally actively in his everyday life tries to choose the behaviors he thinks God approves of over the behaviors he thinks God doesn't approve of, he would surely say yes. That would significantly inform his personal sense of morality. Whether he expects to be 'saved' due to said behaviors or whether he simply sees himself as trying to be obedient to God's will, seems beside the point - what he perceives as 'God-approved behaviors' vs not still drive his actions.

The question was about salvation. We obey God because he saved us, not to get salvation.

[carpedm9587]

First Carp, don't correct my spelling mistakes, we all know your history with that.

Sorry you are offended, Seer. I tend to assume that someone repeatedly making the same mistake will want to know, just as I assume a man with his fly down will want to be told. I'll try to remember that you would prefer not to be told.

But again, you are missing my point. Why are your moral conclusions, via moral reasoning, any more correct, valid or insightful than what the herd believes of what Fred believes or what a 2,000 year old book teaches? You suggest that such reasoning is somehow superior for coming to ethical conclusions. But why should we believe that, you certainly have not demonstrated that that it is so.

Again, Seer - if you cannot see that "following the herd" is a weaker form of moral maturity than "reasoning based on the issues," I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will convince you. And the outcome is no better or worse than the outcome of Christian ethics debates. We end up with differences - you end up with differences. Our differences are based in different initial valuing, and possible reasoning errors. Your differences are based in different interpretations of "what Fred wants." Our process has no guaranteed way to resolve differences. Your process has no guaranteed way to resolve differences.

How can that be if such moral reasoning can lead to both helping your neighbor and sending your neighbor to the Gulags, given differing premises and moral goals? You are not telling me why your so called reasoning is any better or insightful for determining an ethical system than a juvenile form of morality.

Yes - we all know subjective/relative moral frameworks cannot offer absolute/objective conclusions. You're repeating yourself, I've agreed with you a long time ago, and you're still not saying anything.

And to quote:

Moral universalism? No relativism? Really Carp?

As I said, I don't 100% align with Kohlberg. Most people, even atheists, still fall back on some form of moral absolutism/objectivism. Kohlberg does the same thing. But his stages of moral maturity are developmentally sound, despite that flaw.

And naturally it is the quest of any moral agent to experience moral universalism. We all believe our moral framework is correct, and believe the world would be better if everyone operated out of that same framework - hence the desire for moral universalism. I suspect this is why so many cling to this fiction of moral absolutism/objectivism. Understanding the distinction between universalism and absolutism/objectivism requires a bit of thought.

[seer]

Again, Seer - if you cannot see that "following the herd" is a weaker form of moral maturity than "reasoning based on the issues," I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will convince you. And the outcome is no better or worse than the outcome of Christian ethics debates. We end up with differences - you end up with differences. Our differences are based in different initial valuing, and possible reasoning errors. Your differences are based in different interpretations of "what Fred wants." Our process has no guaranteed way to resolve differences. Your process has no guaranteed way to resolve differences.

No Carp, you have not demonstrated, in the least, why moral reasoning leads to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd came up with. In other words, why, logically, should anyone believe that your moral conclusions are some how superior than the herds or Fred's?

Yes - we all know subjective/relative moral frameworks cannot offer absolute/objective conclusions. You're repeating yourself, I've agreed with you a long time ago, and you're still not saying anything.

But again that is not the point, the point being, why would your vaunted moral reasoning lead to a more insightful understanding of ethics than a juvenile or intuitive understanding of ethics?

As I said, I don't 100% align with Kohlberg. Most people, even atheists, still fall back on some form of moral absolutism/objectivism. Kohlberg does the same thing. But his stages of moral maturity are developmentally sound, despite that flaw.

And naturally it is the quest of any moral agent to experience moral universalism. We all believe our moral framework is correct, and believe the world would be better if everyone operated out of that same framework - hence the desire for moral universalism. I suspect this is why so many cling to this fiction of moral absolutism/objectivism. Understanding the distinction between universalism and absolutism/objectivism requires a bit of thought.

Carp, his system depends on the fact that there is some universal, non-relative definition, understanding, of justice. That is where his reasoning must lead. Without that you are dead in the water. We are back to moral reasoning leading to contradictions; Gulags/no Gulags. You are not merely disagreeing with a minor point since justice is the main thrust of his theory - a universal, non-relative justice.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you have not demonstrated, in the least, why moral reasoning leads to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd came up with. In other words, why, logically, should anyone believe that your moral conclusions are some how superior than the herds or Fred's?

It is superior to me because it is a reasoned conclusion. "Following the herd" simply locks to me to what the herd thinks - and makes me uncritically subject to whatever the herd's line of reasoning might be.

It's basically the same as the difference between writing my own answers on an essay, or copying the answer of the person next to me. When I write my own answers, I think through the issues, and demonstrate what I have learned and/or know. When I copy my neighbor's work, I an uncritical subject to whatever my neighbor may have written. If they happen to have a good answer - I'll be in good shape. If they happen to have a bad one, I'll uncritically copy it. If they have a mixture, I take the good with the bad with no real knowledge of which is good/bad.

But again that is not the point, the point being, why would your vaunted moral reasoning lead to a more insightful understanding of ethics than a juvenile or intuitive understanding of ethics?

There is no such thing as an "intuitive understanding of ethics," Seer. Ethics and morality are learned behaviors. We have the potential for this because we are sentient and have a brain capable of reasoning. But ethics develop over the course of a human lifetime. What feels "intuitive" is nothing more than mental habit.

Carp, his system depends on the fact that there is some universal, non-relative definition, understanding, of justice. That is where his reasoning must lead. Without that you are dead in the water. We are back to moral reasoning leading to contradictions; Gulags/no Gulags. You are not merely disagreeing with a minor point since justice is the main thrust of his theory - a universal, non-relative justice.

Again - there is a difference between "universal" and "absolute/objective. And his system doesn't "depend" on it. It merely is his position that morality should not be relative. As I said - I don't agree or align 100% with his position. I simply find his hierarchy developmentally sound. And justice is the thrust of my own moral framework, Seer - it doesn't make me an absolutist/objectivst for all of the reasons I have cited.

[seer]

It is superior to me because it is a reasoned conclusion. "Following the herd" simply locks to me to what the herd thinks - and makes me uncritically subject to whatever the herd's line of reasoning might be.

It's basically the same as the difference between writing my own answers on an essay, or copying the answer of the person next to me. When I write my own answers, I think through the issues, and demonstrate what I have learned and/or know. When I copy my neighbor's work, I an uncritical subject to whatever my neighbor may have written. If they happen to have a good answer - I'll be in good shape. If they happen to have a bad one, I'll uncritically copy it. If they have a mixture, I take the good with the bad with no real knowledge of which is good/bad.

Again Carp, none of this tells us, logically, why your answer would by more insightful. Yes, we understand that you prefer that process, but you can not tell us why/how the result would be superior or more correct.

There is no such thing as an "intuitive understanding of ethics," Seer. Ethics and morality are learned behaviors. We have the potential for this because we are sentient and have a brain capable of reasoning. But ethics develop over the course of a human lifetime. What feels "intuitive" is nothing more than mental habit.

So if monkeys show a sense of fairness, is that because of reasoning or is it intuitive? http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/032.html

Again - there is a difference between "universal" and "absolute/objective. And his system doesn't "depend" on it. It merely is his position that morality should not be relative. As I said - I don't agree or align 100% with his position. I simply find his hierarchy developmentally sound. And justice is the thrust of my own moral framework, Seer - it doesn't make me an absolutist/objectivst for all of the reasons I have cited.

Sorry Carp, it doesn't work for you. Kohlberg is reasoning towards a non-relative, universal notion of justice, you are reasoning about a private or collective notion of justice that is relative, and no more correct than opposing notions of justice. You are on completely different ground.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, none of this tells us, logically, why your answer would by more insightful. Yes, we understand that you prefer that process, but you can not tell us why/how the result would be superior or more correct.

No process guarantees outcomes, Seer. If my reasoning is sound, and my premises true - my conclusions will be valid. If not - they won't. Likewise, if I happen to follow a person who has sound reasoning, and the premises are true - then the conclusion will be valid. But I cannot know that if I am simply "following the herd." Not to mention that a premise that is true for them may be false for me, creating further problems.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. It seems fairly self-evident to me, and perfectly aligned with the principles of reasoning. I suspect you are still looking for "absolute/objective" outcomes, which we (of course) know a relative/subjective framework cannot produce.

So if monkeys show a sense of fairness, is that because of reasoning or is it intuitive? http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/032.html

Lacking the knowledge of what reasoning a monkey is capable of, I cannot answer the question.

Sorry Carp, it doesn't work for you. Kohlberg is reasoning towards a non-relative, universal notion of justice, you are reasoning about a private or collective notion of justice that is relative, and no more correct than opposing notions of justice. You are on completely different ground.

As you wish, Seer. As I said - I'm not fully aligned with Kolberg's philosophy. I find his morality categorizations to be developmentally sound and beneficial in assessing one's place (from a maturity perspective). The rest I leave to you.