A Conversion Story

[seer]

Seer, when you reply to my arguments, it helps if you actually reply to what I am saying. I did not say that I know a culture where cowardice was considered to be a good thing: I said I know of behaviors that are considered courageous in one culture, and cowardly in another.

And yes, that culture is called "Christianity." The insistence on turning the other cheek was considered cowardly by the Germanic pagans (among others).

Ok, so you know of no culture where cowardice is considered praiseworthy.

Empathy is not the source of local moral laws, though it is one possible influence. Other influences are the will to power (those in power want to keep it, and to expand their power if possible), the need for civic stability, cultural views of "outsiders," cultural concepts of propriety ... the list goes on.

When I brought up the fact that we find the golden rule in diverse cultures, with no necessary connection, you pointed to empathy as the source. The golden rule is in fact a moral rule.

[Outis]

Ok, so you know of no culture where cowardice is considered praiseworthy.

Did I not say as much? My point is that the definition of "courage" is not universal.

When I brought up the fact that we find the golden rule in diverse cultures, with no necessary connection, you pointed to empathy as the source. The golden rule is in fact a moral rule.

I pointed to empathy as a source, Seer--not as "the source." Again, please respond to what I am actually saying, and please do not try to make my words say something they do not.

[OingoBoingo]

Did I not say as much? My point is that the definition of "courage" is not universal.

So you agree that there are certain universal core virtues. You just believe that there is variation in the application of those virtues.

[Outis]

So you agree that there are certain universal core virtues. You just believe that there is variation in the application of those virtues.

As I indicated earlier, no. Two people may invoke an attribute by a common name, but if their definitions are different, they are actually not invoking the same thing.

[OingoBoingo]

As I indicated earlier, no. Two people may invoke an attribute by a common name, but if their definitions are different, they are actually not invoking the same thing.

You know of no culture where cowardice is considered praiseworthy. You don't agree that all cultures share a common definition of courage, but you do agree that all cultures have a concept of courage. Is that correct?

[Outis]

You know of no culture where cowardice is considered praiseworthy. You don't agree that all cultures share a common definition of courage, but you do agree that all cultures have a concept of courage. Is that correct?

I also agree that all cultures have a concept of food, but I'm not (for instance) eating raw meat, raw milk, and raw blood (the Maasai), nor do I care to indulge in a nice meal of lutefisk. Seriously, OB, if two cultures have a concept called "courage," but the behavior in one culture is the opposite of the behavior in the other, then the idea of a "common concept" is ludicrous.

[OingoBoingo]

I also agree that all cultures have a concept of food, but I'm not (for instance) eating raw meat, raw milk, and raw blood (the Maasai), nor do I care to indulge in a nice meal of lutefisk. Seriously, OB, if two cultures have a concept called "courage," but the behavior in one culture is the opposite of the behavior in the other, then the idea of a "common concept" is ludicrous.

How can you be so sure that you know of no culture that praises cowardice, if a common concept of courage is ludicrous?

[Carrikature]

How can you be so sure that you know of no culture that praises cowardice, if a common concept of courage is ludicrous?

I think you want to rephrase that.

[seer]

Did I not say as much? My point is that the definition of "courage" is not universal.

You see as a Christian I would not make the case for objective moral values with particulars. The reality of sin would preclude that. But moral concepts are a different story. The four Cardinal Virtues seem to be found most everywhere - even in the Tao, in one form or another. Application is less important than thinking in moral categories, or what you fill those categories with. We do believe that it is better to be just than unjust, courage is better than cowardice, self-control is better than no self-control, wisdom is better than foolishness.

I pointed to empathy as a source, Seer--not as "the source." Again, please respond to what I am actually saying, and please do not try to make my words say something they do not.

Well no you said: It certainly can be, especially if there is a common psychological foundation for such a rule, such as empathy.

Sounds like the common psychological foundation is the basis for the rule.

[OingoBoingo]

I think you want to rephrase that.

Why?

[Outis]

How can you be so sure that you know of no culture that praises cowardice, if a common concept of courage is ludicrous?

Two separate questions with no real connection.

I do know of several people who condemn the Christian insistence upon "turning the other cheek" as cowardice. But I cannot agree that such an assertion is correct OR incorrect. From where I stand, these are cultural differences ... and I have no clues, outside of my own cultural teachings, that either definition is "objectively" correct.

Both may be wrong. There may be no "objective" standard of what courage is, nor an "objective" standard of whether or not courage is praiseworthy.

I do not know. And I seriously doubt that those who claim they do know actually have knowledge. From where I stand, each view seems to be borne from the prejudices of the originating culture.

[Outis]

You see as a Christian I would not make the case for objective moral values with particulars.

Yet you base your argument upon particulars. Without particulars, the argument cannot be made. It may be accepted as an a priori belief, but it cannot be defended.

Well no you said: It certainly can be, especially if there is a common psychological foundation for such a rule, such as empathy.

Sounds like the common psychological foundation is the basis for the rule.

That is one interpretation, but your interpretation requires an over-arching presupposition. My interpretation does not make presuppositions ... but comes to no certain conclusions.

[OingoBoingo]

Two separate questions with no real connection.

I do know of several people who condemn the Christian insistence upon "turning the other cheek" as cowardice. But I cannot agree that such an assertion is correct OR incorrect. From where I stand, these are cultural differences ... and I have no clues, outside of my own cultural teachings, that either definition is "objectively" correct.

Both may be wrong. There may be no "objective" standard of what courage is, nor an "objective" standard of whether or not courage is praiseworthy.

I do not know. And I seriously doubt that those who claim they do know actually have knowledge. From where I stand, each view seems to be borne from the prejudices of the originating culture.

They're connected. Courage and cowardice are antonyms. You know you've never seen cowardice praised, but you're less certain about the definition of courage.

Looks like you're pretty sure a concept of cowardice is universal, just not courage, which is a little strange.

[Outis]

They're connected. Courage and cowardice are antonyms. You know you've never seen cowardice praised, but you're less certain about the definition of courage.

Looks like you're pretty sure a concept of cowardice is universal, just not courage, which is a little strange.

Looks to me like you're taking my words and attempting to twist them, instead of reading them for what they actually say.

You have two concepts that are antithetical:
* Courage consists of turning the other cheek when injured or insulted.
* Courage consists of responding to any injury with vengeance.

Which one is true? The only thing I can say is that these are the value judgements of the cultures from whence they originate.

The argument that both are examples of "courage" is nothing less than arguing that blue is actually orange when you need it to be.

[OingoBoingo]

Looks to me like you're taking my words and attempting to twist them, instead of reading them for what they actually say.

You have two concepts that are antithetical:
* Courage consists of turning the other cheek when injured or insulted.
* Courage consists of responding to any injury with vengeance.

Which one is true? The only thing I can say is that these are the value judgements of the cultures from whence they originate.

The argument that both are examples of "courage" is nothing less than arguing that blue is actually orange when you need it to be.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm following them to their logical conclusions. You keep saying that cultures have different definitions of courage, but dealing with your own definition of courage and cowardice, you know of no culture that praises cowardice. There is a universal that you acknowledge. Another culture may define "courage" or "cowardice" in some way that's foreign to you, but you do see that regardless of how another culture defines a word, you do see universals.