by hamilcarr 28 Replies latest jw friends
What is your moral authority, FD?
And when it makes a ruling, do you obey it?
I won't try to speak for FD, but for me, I try think how others would feel if I carried out XYZ, how would I feel if they treated me or my family XYZ. I have a number of times gone agaisnt my better judgement, and I have regretted it each time. No kitties were killed, no volcanoes exploded, but I felt regret at not acting on what I felt was the better choice.
BurnTheShips:
What is your moral authority, FD?And when it makes a ruling, do you obey it?
As I wrote above, there's nothing moral about just obeying an authority. The fact that I have a sense of morality and much of the details of that sense are a result of evolution by natural selection. Some is, no doubt, influenced by my upbringing and other life experiences. Because I have a large brain capable of considering the long-term consequences of actions and because the world we now live in is very different to the one in which our ancestors (and their morality) evolved, the specific actions that I would consider moral or immoral do not always coincide with what my moral instinct tells me.
I won't try to speak for FD, but for me, I try think how others would feel if I carried out XYZ, how would I feel if they treated me or my family XYZ. I have a number of times gone agaisnt my better judgement, and I have regretted it each time. No kitties were killed, no volcanoes exploded, but I felt regret at not acting on what I felt was the better choice.
That really does not answer the question.
What is your moral authority?
And when it makes a ruling, do you obey it?
Burn
As I wrote above, there's nothing moral about just obeying an authority. The fact that I have a sense of morality and much of the details of that sense are a result of evolution by natural selection. Some is, no doubt, influenced by my upbringing and other life experiences. Because I have a large brain capable of considering the long-term consequences of actions and because the world we now live in is very different to the one in which our ancestors (and their morality) evolved, the specific actions that I would consider moral or immoral do not always coincide with what my moral instinct tells me.
OK. What you are saying is that your moral authority is your own moral sense, except when overidden by your brain, both of which are the product of natural selection; a moral sense that can be influenced and has been influenced by others (whose own morality could be suspect) and is subject to the information processing power of an organ that weighs approximately 1300 grams, and is 60% fat (relatively large). So, in your own words you obey your moral instinct, except when your brain's "higher" functions override it.
How do you know your moral decision making capability is adequate?
David was so righteous and generous that he gave Saul 200 foreskins instead of the requested 100.
If I wanna be moral, I just follow what the bible says!
Is the Bible telling you to collect foreskins here?
Burn
That really does not answer the question.
What is your moral authority?
And when it makes a ruling, do you obey it?
Well I think it does answer the question. So, What is my moral authority? I don't know how to draw a box around it and point to it. I can't define it. "an it harm none, do what ye will" could be a close aproximate. I try not to be rigid and absolute about it, and the word "authority" strikes me as the opposite of that.
Do I obey it? I think I aswered that too. Yes, most of the time I follow it. if I don't, I learn the lessons from not following it.
The term "moral authority" to me also seems like something used to bash others on the head with, and I want to stay away from that.
I think we all naturally have a moral code, compass, but some choose to surender their power and responsibility to authority. I took mine back from the WTS, JWs, god, the bible: I am still exploring what my code is, I am content with that.
BurnTheShips:
OK. What you are saying is that your moral authority is your own moral sense, except when overidden by your brain, both of which are the product of natural selection; a moral sense that can be influenced and has been influenced by others (whose own morality could be suspect) and is subject to the information processing power of an organ that weighs approximately 1300 grams, and is 60% fat (relatively large). So, in your own words you obey your moral instinct, except when your brain's "higher" functions override it.
Pretty much. Have you got a better suggestion?
How do you know your moral decision making capability is adequate
Ultimately, I don't. I can't know for sure if any of my faculties are adequate. My senses may be feeding me inaccurate information about the world or my brain may be interpreting the information inaccurately. Relying on logic and evidence helps to significantly reduce the uncertainty and compensates somewhat for the inadequacies of my brain. How do you overcome the same problems?
Ultimately, I don't. I can't know for sure if any of my faculties are adequate. My senses may be feeding me inaccurate information about the world or my brain may be interpreting the information inaccurately. Relying on logic and evidence helps to significantly reduce the uncertainty and compensates somewhat for the inadequacies of my brain. How do you overcome the same problems?
I labor under the same difficulties as you. But you claim:
real one of course has no morals at all. All he has is obedience, the opposite of morality. Someone who obeys rules simply because they come from an authority figure can make no pretense at being a moral person.
I hate to sound like I am speaking on his behalf (shudder) but it seems that real one claims an external objective standard that he uses to guide his moral decisions (even if this is not true, please allow the assumption for the sake of argument). Yet you claim that to do this makes the state of being a "moral person" impossible. I think you fail to distinguish, FD, that in your own moral framework morality is independent of authority and is completely subjected to your own sense and logic, which itself has been informed and molded by others--to an unknown degree. Under that scheme, something you yourself find morally abhorrent would possibly not be so to a different moral agent residing in a different time or place whose own moral sense and logic had been molded and informed by a completely alien formative experience than your own. If you conform to the best of your ability to your own sense of morality, and the other moral agent to his, and your actions are contradictory, who is immoral and who is not?
Let me add, you wrote:
Even if I believed the entire bible was inspired (i.e. dictated by the creator of the universe) I would still not obey those rules because I would still be a moral person and would still find most of those rules morally repugnant.
So what you are saying is that even if there was a creator of the universe (yourself included, along with the moral sense and reasoning ability you possess), and it was personally involved enough to provide a moral code to you, and your own reasoning, sense and desire were somehow opposed to some rule in that code (possibly due to a formative experience), you would elect to follow a derivative of that creator (you own sense and reasoning) rather than the direct creator's code itself?
Burn
Is the Bible telling you to collect foreskins here?
No, it's not telling me to collect foreskins. It's telling me that a guy can go out and kill 200 men, collect their foreskins, use them to buy a bride, and still be considered "righteous" by God.
W
BurnTheShips:
I hate to sound like I am speaking on his behalf (shudder) but it seems that real one claims an external objective standard that he uses to guide his moral decisions (even if this is not true, please allow the assumption for the sake of argument).
Agreed. Or at least assumed, in the absence of a statement by real one to the contrary.
Yet you claim that to do this makes the state of being a "moral person" impossible.
Being a moral person requires making decisions about matters of morality. real one does not do this. At most he has made one decision, to always obey a particular source.
I think you fail to distinguish, FD, that in your own moral framework morality is independent of authority and is completely subjected to your own sense and logic, which itself has been informed and molded by others--to an unknown degree.
I'm quite aware of that. This is ultimately the case for everybody. Being aware of this reality allows us to make more informed, better decisions.
Under that scheme, something you yourself find morally abhorrent would possibly not be so to a different moral agent residing in a different time or place whose own moral sense and logic had been molded and informed by a completely alien formative experience than your own.
Agreed.
If you conform to the best of your ability to your own sense of morality, and the other moral agent to his, and your actions are contradictory, who is immoral and who is not?
Well, how do we decide? If the solution is to check the correct answer in a book, then how do we decide which book (or which interpretation where several exist) contains the correct answers? (Appeal to any authority has the same problems.) It seems we're back where we started (or at least where I started.) We need to use our admittedly limited brains to come to the best solution we can find. Using reason will - as it always does - produce better results than a simple appeal to an arbitrary authority.
So what you are saying is that even if there was a creator of the universe (yourself included, along with the moral sense and reasoning ability you possess), and it was personally involved enough to provide a moral code to you, and your own reasoning, sense and desire were somehow opposed to some rule in that code (possibly due to a formative experience), you would elect to follow a derivative of that creator (you own sense and reasoning) rather than the direct creator's code itself?
A universe in which there was a creator who had an interest in human affairs and whose wishes and intentions were known would be very different from the one in which we live. As we have already established, my being born in a different time or place, or having read different books, would change my standards of morality (which do actually change from time to time as I acquire new information and an ever-changing perspective). So living in a universe so different from ours would inevitably alter my perspective on the matter.
But, if tomorrow were to dawn and a god were to finally reveal itself and its purposes, how would I react? It would obviously be foolish of me to ignore this world-changing information, but there is no reason to believe that the morality of that creator would correspond with my own. It could, for example, be the sadistic god of the Catholics, and while I might modify my behaviour to avoid spending eternity in hellfire, one's behaviour under threat of torture is not necessarily a good indication of true morality. I like to think I would do what I believe to be right regardless of the consequences.
