Original sin

[siam]

And so what if there is no god to ground metaehtics? What if we are just part of a natural world and what is right and wrong is dependent upon that which is in our overall best interests in relationship to the world we live in. That doesn't mean that it's arbitrary rules, it just means that we don't know what it is that may ultimately be in our best interests and so therefore we often get it wrong.

For instance, we may believe torture to be the right thing to do, we might believe torture to be in our best interests, but be wrong. Or vice versa, we might think torture to be the wrong thing to do, we might believe that torture is not ultimately in our best interests, and also be wrong about that. But that doesn't mean that one of those options isn't the right thing to do, and that the other is the wrong thing to do in the best interests of humanity as a whole. It just means we don't know, we haven't figured out whats best.

I don't see how putting god into the picture changes anything. Ethics still comes down to ourselves trying to figure out what is in our overall best interests, i.e. what is in our best interests as a human society living together in this natural world we happen to be a part of.

I don't see why metaphysics requires a "God" concept. Some philosophers substitute "Nature" for God.
In science, one uses a hypothesis to ground the experiments---it creates a perimeter or framework to base tests on....Otherwise one randomly stabs in the dark in a hit or miss fashion to test this or that hoping one thing or other "works". It makes the difference between consistent and arbitrary.

Torture---The Quran says oppression is worse than death---so that would mostly put torture in the unethical/immoral category...science also says torture is a useless tool. It does not yield trustworthy results...rather incentives lead to more trustworthy results compared to torture. So with or without God we can "reason" to the same conclusion. Basing ethics on science can be arbitrary or inconsistent because it is constrained in time but metaphysics/religio-philosophies work over longer periods of time. (difference between knowledge and wisdom). By giving meaning to human existence, we also open up space for idealistic/altruistic aspirations for humanity.

Human mind fits pieces into a larger whole to make sense of it. That is just how we are. We can try to fit metaethics into some idea of "humans as animals" one of a large number in a mutually dependent ecosystem? or, we can define human purpose as that of a higher calling/duty...as having the responsibility of caretakers---language can define it as karma, mandate of heaven, trusteeship....etc and build our metaethical values base on such a premise? or perhaps find other creative metaphyics premises?

[JimL]

I agree that God doesn't necessarily add anything to the moral force of what is right or wrong. But it may also be true that what is right and wrong doesn't just depend on what is in "our" ie humans' "best" interest. First of all, determining what "best" means is itself an ethical question, and secondly, there may be other moral considerations than just what effects humans, such as all sentient life forms.

I think that perhaps that is where the problem lies, i.e it's not that there is no right and wrong ways to behave, natural morality, but we lack the knowledge or ability to determe with certainty what moral behaviors are in the best overall interests of human society. What is best in the moral sense for society as a whole I don't believe is dependent upon what individuals might themselves believe to be best, because morality, I don't think, is about what is best in any particular circumstance for any particular individual, I think what is best is what it is that's in the best interests of the whole of society. How we come to those moral conclusions is the difficult part, but that doesn't mean that there aren't correct conclusions, absolute right and wrongs, or that those conclusions don't have only to do with ourselves as a human society, not simply about obedience to a higher power, or external supernatural force.

[JimL]

I don't see why metaphysics requires a "God" concept. Some philosophers substitute "Nature" for God.

Though not an educated philosopher, that's what I believe as well.

In science, one uses a hypothesis to ground the experiments---it creates a perimeter or framework to base tests on....Otherwise one randomly stabs in the dark in a hit or miss fashion to test this or that hoping one thing or other "works". It makes the difference between consistent and arbitrary.

.
Either way, hit or miss, we can still arrive at correct conclusions though, no?

Torture---The Quran says oppression is worse than death---so that would mostly put torture in the unethical/immoral category...science also says torture is a useless tool. It does not yield trustworthy results...rather incentives lead to more trustworthy results compared to torture. So with or without God we can "reason" to the same conclusion.

I agree with that, but there must be an underlying reason to come to that conclusion in either case.

Basing ethics on science can be arbitrary or inconsistent because it is constrained in time but metaphysics/religio-philosophies work over longer periods of time. (difference between knowledge and wisdom).[/QUOTE]
Not sure why that would be so?

By giving meaning to human existence, we also open up space for idealistic/altruistic aspirations for humanity.

Not sure exacty what you mean by meaning here. A reason for being I assume. But I think there is space for idealistic/altruistic aspirations, if you will, regardless of supernatural reasons for our being. That I think is within ourselves, otherwise it isn't altruistic.

Human mind fits pieces into a larger whole to make sense of it. That is just how we are. We can try to fit metaethics into some idea of "humans as animals" one of a large number in a mutually dependent ecosystem? or, we can define human purpose as that of a higher calling/duty...as having the responsibility of caretakers---language can define it as karma, mandate of heaven, trusteeship....etc and build our metaethical values base on such a premise? or perhaps find other creative metaphyics premises?

I guess I can agree with that, I assume we just have different perspectives concerning the nature of the base framework of morality, i.e. natural or supernatural.

[siam]

Though not an educated philosopher, that's what I believe as well.

.
Either way, hit or miss, we can still arrive at correct conclusions though, no?

I agree with that, but there must be an underlying reason to come to that conclusion in either case.

Basing ethics on science can be arbitrary or inconsistent because it is constrained in time but metaphysics/religio-philosophies work over longer periods of time. (difference between knowledge and wisdom).
Not sure why that would be so?


Not sure exacty what you mean by meaning here. A reason for being I assume. But I think there is space for idealistic/altruistic aspirations, if you will, regardless of supernatural reasons for our being. That I think is within ourselves, otherwise it isn't altruistic.

I guess I can agree with that, I assume we just have different perspectives concerning the nature of the base framework of morality, i.e. natural or supernatural.

Baruch Spinoza (apparently Einsteins favorite philosopher) substitutes God for Nature....
Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philos...Baruch_Spinoza

To clarify...from the Muslim perspective, neither the Quran nor nature are "God"---they are revelations/message from God.

Hit or miss normative ethics can be done...but it becomes more open to abuse because it is random/arbitrary. Power can abuse it for their own convenience. The problem with ISIS and their idiocy, according to some Muslim scholars, was that they disconnected law/ethics from metaphysics principles. (The primary (Islamic) principle being Tawheed/Unity) When laws/ethics are forced onto a group of people using fear/coercion it becomes oppression.

Consider the example of stem cell research---the definition of "human" dictates the conclusion---this definition is arrived at from a metaphysical foundation. Islamic and Christian metaphysical premise is different but it is there---so, various parties can see how they arrived at the conclusion they did. It is like a math problem---if u can see all the steps that lead to the answer---you can see how it was worked out. That is also why there is a "scientific method"---so that other people can evaluate. What I am interested in is the methodology of arriving at normative ethics using a value system of metaethics that are derived from metaphysic premises.

No--not natural vs supernatural---rather physical vs metaphysical (or practical vs abstract.) To have an abstract base or framework upon which to base practical ethical considerations gives it a "method" or path that can be evaluated from the outside. A premise from which metaethical values can be derived is a helpful framework.

[Jim B.]

I think that perhaps that is where the problem lies, i.e it's not that there is no right and wrong ways to behave, natural morality, but we lack the knowledge or ability to determe with certainty what moral behaviors are in the best overall interests of human society. What is best in the moral sense for society as a whole I don't believe is dependent upon what individuals might themselves believe to be best, because morality, I don't think, is about what is best in any particular circumstance for any particular individual, I think what is best is what it is that's in the best interests of the whole of society. How we come to those moral conclusions is the difficult part, but that doesn't mean that there aren't correct conclusions, absolute right and wrongs, or that those conclusions don't have only to do with ourselves as a human society, not simply about obedience to a higher power, or external supernatural force.

I agree with you that there are objective answers to what is right and wrong in any particular situation. I make a distinction, however, between "objective" and "absolute." And I agree that what is right and wrong is so not out of obedience to a higher power or supernatural force. I also agree that it's hard to know what is right and wrong and that we can't base what's right and wrong on individual beliefs. More has to be known. I question whether the good of 'human society' is necessarily the ultimate moral consideration. Other species have rights too. And what if we encounter an alien race that is conscious and rational and poses no threat to us? Don't we have the responsibility to treat them as part of our moral universe?

[Jim B.]

2) Public space of mutual tolerance---I think "law" might be a better way to carve out such a space in a pluralistic society than the veil of ignorance? In the example you gave where different metaphysic positions create different degrees/weights of values, treaties can be made between groups to create peaceful spaces? Even today treaties and rules define the use of air, land,and sea spaces by multiple groups....

Those are more for official, governmental uses at the macro scale. I think Rawls was talking more about interpersonal interaction at the micro scale. I am less likely to mistreat you simply because of an accident of my and your birth, whether of religion, economic class, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc, if I have internalized the Veil of Ignorance and the resulting minimal distributive justice as part of the way I see the world.

[JimL]

I agree with you that there are objective answers to what is right and wrong in any particular situation. I make a distinction, however, between "objective" and "absolute."

By absolute I only mean to say that what is right and or wrong is objectively right and or wrong only in so far as they pertain to the best overall interests of human society as a whole and not because they are absolute laws layed down from above wherein they are punishable by a higher power. The punishment or reward to human society, I think, is a direct result, derived from, what we do to ourselves as a society.

I question whether the good of 'human society' is necessarily the ultimate moral consideration.

Well, I agree, I question it too, because it's a complex question to answer. But it seems so to me, and human society in this sense could consist of just two or more people. In other words it's like a pact we make with each other in order to safeguard both or all of our interests.

Other species have rights too.

We certainly don't take them into account, nor they us.

And what if we encounter an alien race that is conscious and rational and poses no threat to us? Don't we have the responsibility to treat them as part of our moral universe?

Not sure it works that way. Social animals have developed their own moral rules of behavior as well, but those rules don't take other species into account.

As far as aliens are concerned, I think we could take them into account, or vice versa, they could take us into account, and doing so could play into our over all scheme of what is in our own best interests. I also think that we can believe/feel that certain behaviors are wrong in and of themselves, but I don't think that that belief/feeling stems from outside of our own minds, but say from an evolved sense of empathy.

[siam]

Those are more for official, governmental uses at the macro scale. I think Rawls was talking more about interpersonal interaction at the micro scale. I am less likely to mistreat you simply because of an accident of my and your birth, whether of religion, economic class, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc, if I have internalized the Veil of Ignorance and the resulting minimal distributive justice as part of the way I see the world.

Perhaps so...but if I understand correctly...Rawls is pro social contract theory and his theoretical presumptions are in favor of a) democracy as a political system, b) Justice = "fairness" c) reason can bring agreement b) tools of reason such as veil of ignorance and reflective equilibrium can bring coherence leading to a co-operative neutral space.
....while I do not have strong disagreement with any of these as individual statements---together they begin to form a "world-view" or metaphysic. (a bias towards---secular democracy) Which brings us back to the original problem that the concept of "neutral space" is itself an illusion.

This video illustrates an interesting problem---start at 40 min....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uV3p9bMD4I

Here the critic of Rawls explains that using the veil of ignorance---one can conclude that a state that has no established religion is better than a state with an established religion because when there is no established religion there is freedom for all religions---and the examples he gives are the U.S. (bill of rights) and Saudi Arabia. However this is only true in the political context of a "modern state". In the modern state---law is established and enforced by the "state" and this law applies to all the citizens of that territory. Historically---during the "Islamic" period---this was not true because the "state" did not have a monopoly on "law". Thus all established religions in the Islamic territory (which was vast) had their own laws and court systems. (The state too had a court and laws). In this concept of pluralism---it is not one religion that has rights---but all religions have rights.(all the religions of that territory are equally "established") ....So, Rawls inevitably brings presumptions---and this is only natural because that is how the human mind works---we fit pieces into a bigger whole in order to make sense of it.....

In math---a + b = c---this formula may remain the same but depending on the values that are plugged into a and b, the concluding value of c will be different. That is why this whole concept of neutral space is an illusion.

Rawls has another interesting idea---reflective equilibrium in which general (ethical) principles and particular judgments can "cohere" (come to agreement).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/r...e-equilibrium/
It seems another interesting tool (with reservation) in formation of ethical methodology?....what do you think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aikmQJSsz_Q

[Anomaly]

Where does “compassion and mercy fit into a worldview which presumes human beings are evil and their actions are deliberately malicious”? It doesn’t. This concept is merely the Christian notion that human beings are inherently wicked…or “totally depraved” as Calvin would have it.

But this is not true. Good behavior is innate. It is a product of the evolution of the necessary social behavior of humanity to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species. Studies of children prior to their acquiring speech, ages 2 to 3, have consistently shown children display a sense of right and wrong independently before such can be taught.

The Christian view of fallenness or depravity does not rule out room for virtue. I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. Most discussion of sin and evil within Christianity today is at best ambiguous because this sort of discussion centers on effects. Someone in an earlier thread offered the idea that "pride" is a cause of "sin", but pride is also an effect and the ambiguity proceeds because we have effects causing effects.

A reasonable answer which explains why it's perfectly natural for humans to be simultaneously good and evil is considered archaic and largely rejected by modern standards by both most Christians and non-Christians. The problem solver: Aquinas (Summa Theologica Part One, Q. 16, A. 1) quoted a single sentence from Avicenna's Metaphysic: "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." Starting with this simple idea that value (truth and falsity) is inherent as a condition of existence in all the information of the created universe--and everything is information--gives effects like "evil", "pride" and "sin" the cause they lack in theology. A fragmentally falsified human being will naturally display "good" and "bad" components of their psychological makeup because goodness derives naturally from the true and evil from the false. This idea is dismissed by "smart" people because it posits a non-empirical quality [value] as the prime mover of human behavior where according to academia only empiric things are supposed to have causal efficacy.

Nonetheless, when followed out logically this view offers rational answers to a lot of questions that still circulate; the aforementioned cause for normative and moral effects, why atheists can naturally be moral people (value as falsification is "localized" in brain states; i.e., it can effect one area of belief (God does not exist) while its lack of presence in other areas give rise to moral virtue in that same person. Conversely, this localization also grants belief in God to another who might at the same time be cold and far less caring toward others than his atheist neighbor.

The hypothesis of a value-endued information [soul] also offers a reasonable answer to the question in the OP: Adam and Eve introduced falsity into an otherwise wholly true (Gen 1:31) creation. Whether literal or myth--Genesis might be a metaphor for the natural process of a human from infancy (innocence) to adulthood (falsified)--falsity provides a logical cause for all normative effects. It fits perfectly with the Genesis account. Falsity as a causal power introduced to human essence would proceed to stain the intellectual processes; i.e., falsification created shame within Adam and Eve. They made clothes and hid from God after having sinned. I find especially interesting the decline in human longevity (Gen 5) which would be expected from the introduction of falsity into creation. Where no connection can be found between empiric and non-empiric substances, the passing of value from one domain [essence or soul] to another [matter] is not as problematic. Example: addiction arguably begins in mind [decision to experiment with drugs despite knowledge of its dangers] and this defect in mind contributes to defect in body. We didn't inherent Adam's "sin" because sin is an effect. We inherited a falsified existence. We inherited a spiritual disease, but we all live or die by our own choices from within the fallen [falsified] state.

[Jim B.]

Perhaps so...but if I understand correctly...Rawls is pro social contract theory and his theoretical presumptions are in favor of a) democracy as a political system, b) Justice = "fairness" c) reason can bring agreement b) tools of reason such as veil of ignorance and reflective equilibrium can bring coherence leading to a co-operative neutral space.
....while I do not have strong disagreement with any of these as individual statements---together they begin to form a "world-view" or metaphysic. (a bias towards---secular democracy) Which brings us back to the original problem that the concept of "neutral space" is itself an illusion.

This video illustrates an interesting problem---start at 40 min....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uV3p9bMD4I

Here the critic of Rawls explains that using the veil of ignorance---one can conclude that a state that has no established religion is better than a state with an established religion because when there is no established religion there is freedom for all religions---and the examples he gives are the U.S. (bill of rights) and Saudi Arabia. However this is only true in the political context of a "modern state". In the modern state---law is established and enforced by the "state" and this law applies to all the citizens of that territory. Historically---during the "Islamic" period---this was not true because the "state" did not have a monopoly on "law". Thus all established religions in the Islamic territory (which was vast) had their own laws and court systems. (The state too had a court and laws). In this concept of pluralism---it is not one religion that has rights---but all religions have rights.(all the religions of that territory are equally "established") ....So, Rawls inevitably brings presumptions---and this is only natural because that is how the human mind works---we fit pieces into a bigger whole in order to make sense of it.....

In math---a + b = c---this formula may remain the same but depending on the values that are plugged into a and b, the concluding value of c will be different. That is why this whole concept of neutral space is an illusion.

I dodn't get the impression that the speaker was a 'critic' of Rawls (?) I think the space he advocates is "neutral" in that we don't know into what condition we will be born, so as far as our knowledge goes that space is neutral. As far as the way we would want to structure society accordingly, given our ignorance, it is not neutral, because we are naturally self-interested and want the greatest advantage for ourselves no matter what position we are born into. That's why disestablishment of religion works to the greatest advantage of the least advantaged.

Of course Rawls was writing about modern societies, because he was writing in the 20th century! And he believed that secular democracy was the best way to realize the principles of fairness and of the veil, I assume, in which believers in all comprehensive doctrines would be least disadvantaged.

I haven't had a chance to read your other links yet.

[Jim B.]

By absolute I only mean to say that what is right and or wrong is objectively right and or wrong only in so far as they pertain to the best overall interests of human society as a whole and not because they are absolute laws layed down from above wherein they are punishable by a higher power. The punishment or reward to human society, I think, is a direct result, derived from, what we do to ourselves as a society.

I agree with you about the higher power, but I don't necessarily agree with you that it's all necessarily about human society.

We certainly don't take them into account, nor they us.

Sure, we take animal rights into account, and to the extent that we don't, I think that we should. They don't take us into account because they're incapable of moral reasoning, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them ethically. Two year old kids can't consider other humans morally either but we should treat them morally.

Not sure it works that way. Social animals have developed their own moral rules of behavior as well, but those rules don't take other species into account.

As far as aliens are concerned, I think we could take them into account, or vice versa, they could take us into account, and doing so could play into our over all scheme of what is in our own best interests. I also think that we can believe/feel that certain behaviors are wrong in and of themselves, but I don't think that that belief/feeling stems from outside of our own minds, but say from an evolved sense of empathy.

I think morality is rooted in rationality and sociality, in empathy and care, and extends beyond humanity. We include other species as morally considerable. It's wrong to torture and otherwise abuse animals.

[JimL]

I agree with you about the higher power, but I don't necessarily agree with you that it's all necessarily about human society.

What do you suspect morality is based on other than the best interests of human beings and human society, or with respect to other species, their best interests as individuals and as a social group?

Sure, we take animal rights into account, and to the extent that we don't, I think that we should. They don't take us into account because they're incapable of moral reasoning, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them ethically. Two year old kids can't consider other humans morally either but we should treat them morally.

I agree, I think in either case morality is a matter of learned or evolved behavior, and when it comes to either our fellow human beings or animals we have an evolved sense of empathy as well.

I think morality is rooted in rationality and sociality, in empathy and care, and extends beyond humanity. We include other species as morally considerable. It's wrong to torture and otherwise abuse animals.

I agree, acting morally towards others is what we generally have come to believe, feel, understand to be right or wrong behaviors when taking both our own good as well as the good of others into consideration. The only thing i don't see is the necessity of an objective law giver, an external source to root morality in. That seems to be the case some are making, I'm just not seeing it.

[Jim B.]

What do you suspect morality is based on other than the best interests of human beings and human society, or with respect to other species, their best interests as individuals and as a social group?

No, I agree with you it's about the best interests of all parties involved, but from a disinterested or third-person point of view as much as possible. But the problem comes in determining what the "best interests" are and who "all parties" include.

I agree, acting morally towards others is what we generally have come to believe, feel, understand to be right or wrong behaviors when taking both our own good as well as the good of others into consideration. The only thing i don't see is the necessity of an objective law giver, an external source to root morality in. That seems to be the case some are making, I'm just not seeing it.

I agree that we don't need an objective lawgiver.

[Jim B.]

Here the critic of Rawls explains that using the veil of ignorance---one can conclude that a state that has no established religion is better than a state with an established religion because when there is no established religion there is freedom for all religions---and the examples he gives are the U.S. (bill of rights) and Saudi Arabia. However this is only true in the political context of a "modern state". In the modern state---law is established and enforced by the "state" and this law applies to all the citizens of that territory. Historically---during the "Islamic" period---this was not true because the "state" did not have a monopoly on "law". Thus all established religions in the Islamic territory (which was vast) had their own laws and court systems. (The state too had a court and laws). In this concept of pluralism---it is not one religion that has rights---but all religions have rights.(all the religions of that territory are equally "established") ....So, Rawls inevitably brings presumptions---and this is only natural because that is how the human mind works---we fit pieces into a bigger whole in order to make sense of it.....

To be a true veil of ignorance, it seems like you would have to be ignorant not only of what condition you personally would be born into but of when and where you were born as well. Given this historical and geographical ignorance on top of ignorance of your personal status, you would want the best possible situation for the most disadvantaged in any society, due to self-interest, meaning the "fairest" and most just distribution of opportunities. As the speaker mentioned, it seems that irrespective of historical period, you would want disestablishment because it's far less harm to the most fanatic believer to live in a disestablished tolerant society than it is for the non- or heterodox believer to live in an intolerant theocracy.

[siam]

To be a true veil of ignorance, it seems like you would have to be ignorant not only of what condition you personally would be born into but of when and where you were born as well. Given this historical and geographical ignorance on top of ignorance of your personal status, you would want the best possible situation for the most disadvantaged in any society, due to self-interest, meaning the "fairest" and most just distribution of opportunities. As the speaker mentioned, it seems that irrespective of historical period, you would want disestablishment because it's far less harm to the most fanatic believer to live in a disestablished tolerant society than it is for the non- or heterodox believer to live in an intolerant theocracy.

As we both agreed---veil of ignorance may be an interesting ethico-moral tool---with reservations...
1) However...I must admit I have some problem seeing how establishment or de-establishment is related to tolerance/intolerance. France, for example, apparently is an intolerant de-established society.....
2) If there is an intolerant theocracy (in theory) then there must also be a tolerant theocracy? If so, is it a better option to live in a tolerant theocracy than an intolerant non-theocracy? (China for example?)
3) Also, a point to consider is that Christianity has had a history of "theocracy"---Islam has not. Therefore, judgments of good/bad theocracy might be made within a "Christian" historical framework...but this does not necessarily apply to the Islamic historical framework....therefore it cannot be "irrespective of history" since this is part of our stories.
4) de-establishment is an illusion because it simply replaces the "established" metaphysics for another one (secularism) that claims "universality" and superiority. Under such a metaphysic foundation, certain assumptions are laid such as definitions of justice, liberty, equality, human beings...etc upon which meta-ethics (or lack thereof) is justified.