Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.
You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.
So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).
I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).
If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.
I agree! Like the old saying goes; where there is smoke there is fire. Of course the Theist will see the Fire (source of morality) as God. While I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself; I see the source of morality (fire) as a human desire to live peacefully. I believe humans are for the most part peaceful and social creatures; and in order to live socially and in peace each has to feel they are treated fairly otherwise there will be no peace, IOW there has to be empathy for one another. I believe this is the source of morality, and morality is the source of human laws.
Ken
Thanks Ken,
I'm not sure how much further I can press matters if you really do see "the fire" as an innate "desire to live peacefully". But, let me try.
Hana raises a valid question I think: "where is the human desire to live peacefully from?"
For me, I find it hard to accept that the root of all morality stems from an innate sense to live peacefully.
This still seems like where dealing with the smoke. Perhaps smoke closer to the fire, but still smoke nonetheless.
Why do I say this?
Well, I'd put forward that there seems to be many who are quite happy to be angry.
Many do not want peace, but would prefer power, wealth and/or glory instead.
Many even who would quickly go to war and fight for their beliefs, their country or ideals.
So, this difference in values suggests to me that "a desire to live peacefully," while I too think is more morally desirable, is still a moral "gradation".
As such, my feeling is that such a response is too simple.
In other word, what you call the fire is actually still smoke, and there is some source still further that is actually the fire.
When I said there is a human desire to live peacefully; I meant within the society they are living. Those who prefer power, wealth, and glory even if it leads to war will still have peace within their society, Now as far as various societies getting alone, that is a different story.
Ken
Hi Ken,
I've reflected a bit on our discussion here.
Really, I think it is a hard push to believe that moral
feelings have any imperative like I see moral
values would.
It took me a while to realise this, but I see a clear distinction between the two.
Whether or not you agree, allow me to try unpack this distinction.
It seems a given, that without God one must accept what we call "morals" somehow evolved.
These morals at best are "feelings". It seems hard to see whether feelings arrived at by chance ought to be considered really as "moral values".
Of course, for practical purposes in discussion we may refer to them as "moral values", even if it is believed they are shared feelings that evolved.
However, strictly speaking, "value" actually seems to point to an existence in its own right.
The way I see it, evolution cannot provide "moral values" but it can provide "moral feelings".
The former is an "object" existing in its own right, the latter a mental state.
For example, consider numbers and colours.
Where do these exist? If no mind or light existed, then would they exist?
These are considered
abstract objects. Moral values are abstract objects.
If you've never read up on "abstract objects" then I'd encourage you to do so.
It is an interesting philosophical discussion.
For this reason, I remain unconvinced that morality can be naturally explained.
Feelings perhaps. But then, why prefer a "desire for peace" as a "moral" and a "desire to experience the greatest pleasure" not?
Humans seem to desire pleasure more than peace. Hedonism. You know?
Moral values have an extra qualitative feel to them that general feelings or desires do not.
Also consider that a more compatible moral feeling if we evolved would be survival.
Self-sacrifice just doesn't seem like a good trait to evolve. Or perhaps some other moral actions we consider to be good.
That said, let me assume that you still remain unconvinced.
Why "a desire for peace" as the most foundational?
It seems to me that this itself if derived from a desire for "love" itself.
That is, our desire for peace seems to be built upon Love.
Love can encompass friendship, family, companionship, romantically, erotically...
But, the most purest form of love is perhaps one of an unconditional love. Self sacrifice.
What is commonly referred to as
Agape.
In Christianity, we believe this is the type of love that God has for us, and desires for us to have for each other.
Surely, your identifying a "desire for peace" is built upon this?
To live peacefully, often requires a measure of self-sacrifice.
In any case, it seems Agape is more evidently closer to "the fire".
And you know what? The irony is on me,
Because initially I thought your words suspect.
But, you find odd support from Christian quarters for basing moral duties on one moral value.
Jesus replied when asked the question, "What is the greatest law?":
- Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So when you stated that you see "a desire to live peacefully" as the most foundational principle...
Well, this actually isn't as foolish as I first thought (and kept silent on
).
As you realised, I was hoping that you would see the source as God. No doubt, Hana was too when she asked her question.
But thinking on it, I saw that Jesus also seems to acknowledge one can fulfill all moral commands if they just Love because they're all based upon this!
So although I still believe there is a Divine source where they came from, it's not so silly to think most of morality is based upon one principle.
You'll probably find that a welcomed acknowledgement on my part I'm sure.
I think it's an easy step from your "desire for peace" to a "desire for Love".
Again, a desire for peace seems like it would be more based upon love, rather than a desire for love being based upon peace.
And then now, well, you're on solid ground with Christ.
Obviously as an Atheist (I'm not sure I've actually ever directly asked though??),
you don't acknowledge a moral value like "Love" being rooted in God.
But rather human moral feelings being rooted in evolution.
As I touched on earlier in this post, I'd expect our main shared moral values to be quite different if an unintelligent source was the cause.
That is, a loving intelligence seems to make greater sense to me that it would desire us "to live peacefully" and "love one another".
Whereas an unintelligence I'd think would be more about self-preservation and our own happiness.
The values expected from both would appear to be in quite opposite corners.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the "Love" connection as being more primary than a desire for peace.
Also, just your thoughts on what I presented here in general.
All the best, Kurieuo
