I believe that it is impossible to maintain a moral stance without the belief in the absolute validity of that moral stance.  Even people who say morals are relative or claim to be liberals are quite absolute in denouncing any forms of fanaticism or extremism.  To be liberal you need to be fanatically anti-fanaticism.

If right or wrong is relative then why fight tooth and nail for any position.

There is no justification for the passion we throw into what we believ is right if indeed Rightness is relative.

Morals/ethics IMO do not come into existence in a vacuum. They are not some abstract set of ideals that we seek to uphold because it makes us feel good, or because they tell us, absolutely, "right" from "wrong". They exist out of necessity. To enable members of the "moral community", to live as a society, under some "rules of the road" that attempt to ensure that people can live and pursue happiness, without impeding on anyone elses right to do the same. So the "validity" of a moral stance rests on how well it performs the function it is supposed to. . .which of course is often debatable. People may maintain a moral stance because they believe it serves its intended function effectively, and not because they believe there is some absolute authority, outside of the function it serves, on which its validity rests.

So when u say liberals are fanatically anti-fanaticism, it could be argued that what most liberals are fanatically opposed to is the violence, or the vitriolic rhetoric that sometimes comes with fanaticism, and not that others have different stances on a moral or ethical issue, or their right to voice their opinion in a way that does not threaten others  ability to do the same.

I think that the process that determines our moral position occurs so deep in our unconscious that we are not aware of it, and though we might rationalise it consciously, such rationalisation is only superficial.

I don't disagree with that. I think a lot (not all) of the moral decisions we make are not actually "thought through". We just "know" not to kill, steal, rape etc. What we seem to disagree on is the source of these impulses from our unconscious. I think it is conditioned (I concede certain dispositions or attributes can be hereditary e.g calmness, aggressiveness, intellectual capability etc), and you think otherwise - that there is some external authority which decides, for the individual, what is right or wrong (correct me if I'm wrong). 

IMO, we learn these things when we are little children. Until a  certain age children do a lot of absorbing of info, but not a lot of filtering, because they don't yet have a "database" with which to check the validity of anything. By the time the ego is fully developed, a lot of stuff has already been absorbed, though one is unaware of where they came from. Our parents teach us not to run around the house naked anymore, not to take a piss on the couch, not to spit your food back in the plate and rub it on your face, not to take someone else's candy just because it is within reach, not to tell lies, not to hurt your little sister, or kick the dog etc. Some of us go to Sunday school, pray at home everyday, etc. Children don't just innately know stuff. Neither do adults, IMO. Even though it may seem like that a lot of the time. . .it could just mean we have good home training. A lot of kids with irresponsible parents don't have these internalized values that some may describe as coming from the "spirit'.

Krayola:


Morals/ethics IMO do not come into existence in a vacuum. They are not some abstract set of ideals that we seek to uphold because it makes us feel good, or because they tell us, absolutely, "right" from "wrong". They exist out of necessity. To enable members of the "moral community", to live as a society, under some "rules of the road" that attempt to ensure that people can live and pursue happiness, without impeding on anyone elses right to do the same. So the "validity" of a moral stance rests on how well it performs the function it is supposed to. . .which of course is often debatable. People may maintain a moral stance because they believe it serves its intended function effectively, and not because they believe there is some absolute authority, outside of the function it serves, on which its validity rests.

So when u say liberals are fanatically anti-fanaticism, it could be argued that what most liberals are fanatically opposed to is the violence, or the vitriolic rhetoric that sometimes comes with fanaticism, and not that others have different stances on a moral or ethical issue, or their right to voice their opinion in a way that does not threaten others  ability to do the same.

I don't disagree with that. I think a lot (not all) of the moral decisions we make are not actually "thought through". We just "know" not to kill, steal, rape etc. What we seem to disagree on is the source of these impulses from our unconscious. I think it is conditioned (I concede certain dispositions or attributes can be hereditary e.g calmness, aggressiveness, intellectual capability etc), and you think otherwise - that there is some external authority which decides, for the individual, what is right or wrong (correct me if I'm wrong). 

IMO, we learn these things when we are little children. Until a  certain age children do a lot of absorbing of info, but not a lot of filtering, because they don't yet have a "database" with which to check the validity of anything. By the time the ego is fully developed, a lot of stuff has already been absorbed, though one is unaware of where they came from. Our parents teach us not to run around the house naked anymore, not to take a piss on the couch, not to spit your food back in the plate and rub it on your face, not to take someone else's candy just because it is within reach, not to tell lies, not to hurt your little sister, or kick the dog etc. Some of us go to Sunday school, pray at home everyday, etc. Children don't just innately know stuff. Neither do adults, IMO. Even though it may seem like that a lot of the time. . .it could just mean we have good home training. A lot of kids with irresponsible parents don't have these internalized values that some may describe as coming from the "spirit'.

My point is not that they come out of a vacuum or not come out of a vacuum. Neither has my point got anything to do with the functions of moral systems, or whether it allows members of a community to pursue happiness.

My point is that, for whatever reasons, we have a moral attitude that brings with it an absolute sense of validity. This absolute validity is not justified without an authority.

The question I ask of you now is : Does a moral agent belief that his moral beliefs are just relative and needn't really be adhered to? e.g it is wrong to steal, but only if you really don't want to steal. If you feel like stealing then I suppose 'don't steal' is only relative so steal away.

Pastor AIO:

My point is not that they come out of a vacuum or not come out of a vacuum.  Neither has my point got anything to do with the functions of moral systems, or whether it allows members of a community to pursue happiness.

My point is that, for whatever reasons,  we have a moral attitude that brings with it an absolute sense of validity.  This absolute validity is not justified without an authority. 

There was a comment u made in the other thread that deep sight started for you about this where u said conscience isn't conditioned, but comes from "the way God made him to be"

I disagree.

The Right thing is unique to each person.  It comes from the person's essential nature, the way God made him to be. 

That which arises from conditioning and environment is not the same as the Right thing. 

It is important to make that distinction between essential nature and Conditioned nature.

And on this thread you said 

Pastor AIO:


I want to hammer this point in for the sake of another thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html
Pastor AIO: Come teach us the Truth

The very fact that we are moral creatures means that we operate under the presumption that there is an author to existence.  That is the way our minds work whether we are theists or atheists. 

Now I appreciate that this does not amount to the proof of an author but it demonstrates that if one is to live a meaningful life then at the premise of his thinking, whether he is consciously aware of it or not, there must be an author.

I think conscience and morals are very related, if not even sef the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong. But this was about where the authority behind morality comes from. . .and I was pointing out that IMO the authority comes from the role they (morals) play in society, and one's internalized values, and not from an author.

Pastor AIO:

The question I ask of you now is : Does a moral agent belief that his moral beliefs are just relative and needn't really be adhered to?  e.g it is wrong to steal, but only if you really don't want to steal.  If you feel like stealing then I suppose 'don't steal' is only relative so steal away.

A moral agent (I'm using myself as an example. . . some people act a certain way for religious reasons or whateva other motivation, which could be absolute authority) could  believe his moral beliefs should be adhered to because of his conviction that they help maintain a just society, a belief from which the authority comes from. He believes it is wrong to steal because stealing deprives others of things that are rightfully (in most cases) theirs, and would not want to be stolen from. Should I decide to steal, it could be because I'm desperate, believe that society is unjust and so the moral code does not work in my favor, or whateva other reason. Moral beliefs could be absolute, or not, depending on the individual, or context, or both, IMO. . . . there isn't a general rule that applies across the board.

Krayola:

There was a comment u made in the other thread that deep sight started for you about this where u said conscience isn't conditioned, but comes from "the way God made him to be"

And on this thread you said 
I think conscience and morals are very related, if not even sef the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong. But this was about where the authority behind morality comes from. . .and I was pointing out that IMO the authority comes from the role they (morals) play in society, and one's internalized values, and not from an author.

I haven't used the word conscience and I think bringing it into the argument could confuse matters albeit in a subtle way. That said, I don't disagree that conscience and morals are related.

Krayola:
But this was about where the authority behind morality comes from. . .and I was pointing out that IMO the authority comes from the role they (morals) play in society, and one's internalized values, and not from an author.


A moral agent (I'm using myself as an example. . . some people act a certain way for religious reasons or whateva other motivation, which could be absolute authority) could  believe his moral beliefs should be adhered to because of his conviction that they help maintain a just society, a belief from which the authority comes from. He believes it is wrong to steal because stealing deprives others of things that are rightfully (in most cases) theirs, and would not want to be stolen from. Should I decide to steal, it could be because I'm desperate, believe that society is unjust and so the moral code does not work in my favor, or whateva other reason. Moral beliefs could be absolute, or not, depending on the individual, or context, or both, IMO. . . . there isn't a general rule that applies across the board.

Why should I care about society? Even if morals helped society wouldn't it be the smartest thing to do to profess the moral consensus while secretly acting in ways contrary to it. eg. Telling people not to steal when in fact I am the biggest thief of all.

The idea of not stealing because of depriving people of what is RIGHTFULLY their again invokes the idea of Right. What makes anything Right or Righteous? Who is to say what is rightfully anybodies? 'Your Right is what you can defend, if you can't defend it then it's not yours by right'. How is that for a moral stand point?

Maybe the best way for me to make my point is for you to give examples of justifiable ethical stances and for me to knock them down with the simple question, 'But Why?'.

Pastor AIO:

Why should I care about society?  Even if morals helped society wouldn't it be the smartest thing to do to profess the moral consensus while secretly acting in ways contrary to it.  eg.  Telling people not to steal when in fact I am the biggest thief of all. 

The idea of not stealing because of depriving people of what is RIGHTFULLY their again invokes the idea of Right.  What makes anything Right or Righteous?  Who is to say what is rightfully anybodies?  'Your Right is what you can defend, if you can't defend it then it's not yours by right'.  How is that for a moral stand point?

Maybe the best way for me to make my point is for you to give examples of justifiable ethical stances and for me to knock them down with the simple question, 'But Why?'.

Like I said, there isn't a general rule across the board, and pretending there is just oversimplifies things. People have different convictions, and the authority comes from what their convictions are. e.g A christian follows the laws in the Bible, and that could be where the authority comes from.

There is no absolute "right" and 'wrong". . . in the context of societies, which develop moral codes based on their needs, right and wrong are defined to some extent, based on what values the society thinks would benefit it. Whether from ancient times or today sef, societies have seen that certain types of conduct are beneficial and certain are not. We learn these, accept them, and teach them to our kids.  They are human inventions that grow out of a human need. So the issue isn't whether there is an absolute "right" or "wrong', it is about what effect the action has on society.  Which is why I said morals do not come into existence in a vacuum. . . they are invented to serve a function. And the consensus around their ability to sustain societies is where their authority comes from.

But it still doesn't explain the fact that moral convictions are convictions and come with the strength of convictions. For something that isn't absolute the sense of conviction is odd. If you know that your ethics are not absolute but in fact it is no big deal if it was something opposite then where does the sense of conviction come from.
Why should I care about society? You say that ethics develop from their utility to society. But I am not society. I am me. Besides not every ethical code holds society in such high esteem. Some teach that society will stunt your individual growth and the goal is to 'find yourself', or develop your individuality. Some see society as outright evil. Others less so, but just a little bit evil.
Many mystical traditions warn against the quest for social status and society's approval. Not all ethical systems hold society in high regard.

Pastor AIO:

But it still doesn't explain the fact that moral convictions are convictions and come with the strength of convictions.  For something that isn't absolute the sense of conviction is odd.  If you know that your ethics are not absolute but in fact it is no big deal if it was something opposite then where does the sense of conviction come from. 
Why should I care about society?  You say that ethics develop from their utility to society.  But I am not society.  I am me.  Besides not every ethical code holds society in such high esteem.  Some teach that society will stunt your individual growth and the goal is to 'find yourself', or develop your individuality.  Some see society as outright evil.  Others less so, but just a little bit evil. 
Many mystical traditions warn against the quest for social status and society's approval.  Not all ethical systems hold society in high regard. 

Depending on what u subscribe to, u may have different convictions. I can't account for everyone's belief system. Bottomline is that people can do whatever they please, but this can be harmful to others. If u want to live in society, u will have to play by the rules of society. I doubt anyone, regardless of what they subscribe to, wants their daughter raped, or their home robbed etc. he strength of our convictions is from wanting to protect our interests, especially when we play by the "rules".

I try to leave this out of a religious context because i believe morality can exist outside of religion. If no one in the world was religious I doubt we would be going around raping, stealing and killing just for the hell of it. We would still want to live in peace with one another. If not we wouldn't need a moral code.


If u feel that u don't need society to be happy, fine, do what pleases u. . . But there is a larger community that has signed on to a sorta moral contract with the rest of society, to behave in a certain way, and have their right protected as long as they obey the "rules".


haha. i'm not sure if this post makes sense cause i gotta run to class and am just typin as i'm thinkin it.  but i know u'll figure out what i'm tryin to say. 

Krayola:

Depending on what u subscribe to, u may have different convictions. I can't account for everyone's belief system. Bottomline is that people can do whatever they please, but this can be harmful to others. If u want to live in society, u will have to play by the rules of society.

Says who? I don't have to play by any rules if I can get away with it. Catch me if you can.

Krayola:
I doubt anyone, regardless of what they subscribe to, wants their daughter raped, or their home robbed etc. he strength of our convictions is from wanting to protect our interests, especially when we play by the "rules".

Says who? Have you not heard of Honor Killings? Have parents not sold their children into the sex industry and still do as recently as right now? What are one's interests? What are the self interests of a suicidal man? Or of a suicide bomber.

Krayola:

If u feel that u don't need society to be happy, fine, do what pleases u. . . But there is a larger community that has signed on to a sorta moral contract with the rest of society, to behave in a certain way, and have their right protected as long as they obey the "rules".

I don't think anybody signed up to anything. We were all born into our various societies. and most of us haven't given it a thought since then. But that isn't the point. The point I'm making is, "Why does any moral attitude come with a sense of conviction?". What is that sense of conviction based on?

Okay, that isn't actually the point. Whatever the cause of our ethical convictions the fact that it is a conviction suggests that it is backed by an authority.

That is my point.

Being convinced of something does not necessarily suggest an external authority. The authority comes from the conviction . . . Me being CONVINCED that stealing is bad (regardless of where the notion comes from, is the authority by which I proclaim my belief) I am convinced, therefore I strongly believe it is wrong, and will defend my position.

What u said was that

The very fact that we are moral creatures means that we operate under the presumption that there is an author to existence.

That is what i disagree with. That being moral creatures means that we assume there is an author to existence. Can you please explain that to me?  . . . . How being moral creatures and believing in an author to existence MUST go hand in hand.

Krayola:

Being convinced of something does not necessarily suggest an external authority. The authority comes from the conviction . . . Me being CONVINCED that stealing is bad (regardless of where the notion comes from, is the authority by which I proclaim my belief) I am convinced, therefore I strongly believe it is wrong, and will defend my position.

Usually when I am convinced it comes from one external authority or the other. (An Authority is something that you take for it's word without needing to ask for further proof or any more questions, right?) I am convinced that the sum of the angles of a triangle makes 180 degrees. I have been been convinced by the authority of mathematics and geometry. I accept mathematical proofs as authority. I don't need to go any further and question the validity of mathematics. Someone else might, but for me mathematics is Authority enough.

If my best friend tells me that his sister fancies me I might or might not take his word on the matter as authoritative (after all he is the girl's brother). That too is an external authority. In fact I cannot think of anything that I am convinced about which isn't based on an external authority.

What is an internal authority?

I don't get how authority can come from conviction. Usually it is the other way around. Conviction from authority. Perhaps you can give me an example.

If your convictions are questioned do you refer to an authority or do you say the sheer fact that you are convinced is an authority in itself. If you say I mustn't steal and I ask you 'why not', what do you say? Because it's not right? What if I say, says who? Will you tell me that because you are convinced that I shouldn't steal that is good enough reason for me not to steal.

Krayola:
  . . . . How being moral creatures and believing in an author to existence MUST go hand in hand.

Morality comes with conviction. Convictions can always be questioned and questioned and questioned until we push it back all the way to an authority.

Like when your father tells you to go to bed, and you impertinently ask him Why. He doesn't have to explain to you that a growing child needs plenty of sleep, and a schoolboy needs to get up early to go to school. All he has to say is 'Because I say so'. That makes him an authority over you. Authority doesn't need to give further explanations.

The ultimate basis of Authority is Authorship. Your father can say, ' This is my house, I built it with my money, and I pay all the bills so Go to Bed'. Of course there are many Authorities whose authority is actually derivative of a more basic authority.

Pastor AIO:


Usually when I am convinced it comes from one external authority or the other.  (An Authority is something that you take for it's word without needing to ask for further proof or any more questions, right?)  I am convinced that the sum of the angles of a triangle makes 180 degrees.  I have been been convinced by the authority of mathematics and geometry.  I accept mathematical proofs as authority.  I don't need to go any further and question the validity of mathematics.  Someone else might, but for me mathematics is Authority enough.

If my best friend tells me that his sister fancies me I might or might not take his word on the matter as authoritative (after all he is the girl's brother).  That too is an external authority.

Those are not moral issues. If I read in a car magazine that a ferrari f-50 is faster than a porsche 911, I take their word for it because i assume that they have driven the car and know what they are talking about. If i drive both cars and see that the Porsche is faster, I can change my mind. If you can observe a triangle and see that it does not have 180% degrees you are free to change your mind as well. The authority, by which u proclaim how many angles are there, imo, ultimately rests on how convinced you are. .  not on where the "prescription' comes from.

Pastor AIO:

In fact I cannot think of anything that I am convinced about which isn't based on an external authority.

Are you convinced that you are reading this post? why not? If you are, where is the authority coming from?

Pastor AIO:

What is an internal authority?

As far as morality is concerned I'll say a conviction or rationale on which a free agent bases decisions, or opinion, or whateva.

Pastor AIO:

I don't get how authority can come from conviction.  Usually it is the other way around.  Conviction from authority.  Perhaps you can give me an example. 

Morals are for rational beings and are intended for a purpose. they can be for convenience (safety, comfort), to resolve or avoid conflicts, and are adopted by mutual consent. If the moral principles do not help to achieve the purpose(s) for which they were adopted, they can be reevaluated and abandoned or modified. The authority rests on how well they achieve the purposes, and how well the moral agents who mutually consent to their adoption are convinced that it does.

For example, in pre islamic Arabia, tribal vendettas were the way of life. Murder, rape, robbery, were all permissible as long as it wasn't against a member of your tribe/clan. It was harsh desert life with limited resources, and stealing and killing were absolutely necessary for survival. Loyalty was to your clan and anyone else was potential prey. And every provocation/assault MUST be revenged to preserve clan/tribal honor. This worked fine because they were nomads, moved around a lot, and never had to unite as a big community. . .so getting along with their neighbors was not important. As they started to adopt agriculture and settle in larger units, the vendettas were tearing them apart, and they lived in constant fear and paranoia.  Principles that they had used for millenia were no longer useful. Prophet Mohammed, at Medina/Yathrib, unified them around a faith, and, by mutual consent, they adopted principles of fairness to all regardless of tribe. They wanted to build a nation, and they adopted new moral principles that helped to serve that purpose. They were convinced robbing from each other and killing each other were no longer a practical way to get by, and adopted new principles.

Prohibition, and it's later abolition, is another example that comes to mind. People were convinced it would stop drinking. But when it didn't and only caused more crime, they were convinced otherwise and changed the laws.

Pastor AIO:

If your convictions are questioned do you refer to an authority or do you say the sheer fact that you are convinced is an authority in itself.  If you say I mustn't steal and I ask you 'why not', what do you say?  Because it's not right?  What if I say, says who?  Will you tell me that because you are convinced that I shouldn't steal that is good enough reason for me not to steal. 

If someone asks me why they shouldn't steal, i will tell them why i think they shouldn't. My convictions guide me and not other people, the decision is ultimately theirs.  But like i said, there is mutual consent, for the most part, that certain types of conduct are not beneficial to society, and they are frowned upon and discouraged, and in some cases even punished.

Humans are not a homogeneous group and it seems u are suggesting that we all make our decisions the same way. Some people accept a religious moral authority, I don't. And i think that insisting that all moral authority comes from a creator, or some unconscious belief in one, is kinda absurd.

Pastor AIO:

Morality comes with conviction.  Convictions can always be questioned and questioned and questioned until we push it back all the way to an authority. 

Like when your father tells you to go to bed, and you impertinently ask him Why.  He doesn't have to explain to you that a growing child needs plenty of  sleep, and a schoolboy needs to get up early to go to school.  All he has to say is 'Because I say so'.  That makes him an authority over you.  Authority doesn't need to give further explanations. 

Convictions can be questioned, and they can change. That is why I say morality is not absolute. If it stops working for us, we can change them . . but we need some level of mutual consent, at least as far as society goes. It has to be for the common good, and not cause some "author" said so.

Pastor AIO:

The ultimate basis of Authority is Authorship.  Your father can say, ' This is my house, I built it with my money, and I pay all the bills so Go to Bed'.  Of course there are many Authorities whose authority is actually derivative of a more basic authority. 

My moral decisions are not based on some order from above. Thank goodness!! 

Consider this Quote from Jean Paul Sartre, the Great existentialist Philosophy and Ego.

I Find it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist; for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven . . . blah blah blah . . . Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn; for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself . . . . blah blah blah . . . This is what I mean when I say that Man is condemned to be Free.

From L'existentialism est un humanisme.

[b]Sartre's Existentialism and the Meaning of Life, Part One
[/b]Suppose we divide theories of the meaning of human life into the exogenous and the endogenous. According to the exogenous theories, existential meaning derives from a source external to the agent, whereas on endogenous theories, meaning and purpose are posited or projected by the agent. Classical theism provides an example of an exogenous theory of meaning: because man was created by God for a purpose, namely, to serve and glorify him in this world and commune with him in the next, the purpose of human life is to live in accordance with the divine will so as to achieve one's higher destiny of unending bliss. Jean-Paul Sartre's theory as presented in the manifesto "Existentialism is a Humanism" is an example of an endogenous theory. Indeed, it is the polar opposite of a theistic theory of existential meaning: "Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position." (369, Kaufmann anthology) Herewith, some critical commentary on Sartre's theory as we find it in the essay mentioned.

1. Existence Precedes Essence. This is Sartre's central slogan. In the case of an artifact produced by an artisan for a definite purpose, essence precedes existence: the artificer works from a design-plan which is logically antecedent to the actual existence of the artifact. So the essence or nature of the thing to be produced — Sartre gives the example of a knife — precedes the existence of the thing produced. But man according to Sartre has no essence or nature prior to his existence. Having no nature, man has no Aristotelean proper function. So man qua man has no purpose; any purpose an individual human being has he has given to himself. In man, then, existence precedes essence. But why exactly? ". . . there is no human nature because there is no God to have a conception of it." (349) The argument seems to be:

There is no God
Essences or natures are divine concepts
-----
There is no human nature.

Another argument Sartre may have in mind is this:

Man has a nature only if man is a divine artifact
There is no God and hence no divine artifacts
-----
Man has no nature.

Neither argument is persuasive. As for the first, why must natures be divine concepts? As for the second, it is not clear why man must be a divine artifact to have a nature. (In Aristotle's system there are natures, but man is not a divine artifact.) Of course, if man is a divine artifact, then he has a nature. But what Sartre needs for the second argument to be sound is the converse of this proposition, namely, if man has a nature, then he is a divine artifact.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/sartres-existentialism-and-the-meaning-of-life-part-one.html


It seems to me that the writer of the web page above has as much difficulty understanding the difficulties of existentialism as you have, Krayola. His is an interesting argument to explore. I haven't properly read it yet, but I'll come back to it this evening and hopefully you'll find it interesting as well and will have much to say about it.

One more reference on Sartre:

In order to identify examples of Schulz’s philosophy, a bumper-sticker version of existentialism should prove helpful. In his seminal 1946 work L’Existentialisme est un Humanisme, Sartre outlines some of the core aspects of his theories. A key aspect is the idea of abandonment. Kierkegaard felt that there was an unbridgeable gap between God and Man. Sartre goes even further, and argues that even if there is an unknowable and unreachable God, it wouldn’t make any difference to the human condition. Ultimately, we exist in an abandoned and free state. We are responsible for our actions, and since Sartre argues that there is no God to conceive of a human nature, we are responsible for our own creation.

How does this apply to Peanuts? Like the existential human in a world of silent or absent deities, Schulz’s characters exist in a world of silent or absent adult authority. In fact, the way the strip is drawn (with the child characters taking up most of each frame) actually prevents the presence of any adults. Schulz argued that, were adults added to the strip, the narratives would become untenable. While references are sometimes made to full-grown humans (normally school teachers) these characters are always out of frame, and silent. The children of Peanuts are left to their own devices, to try and understand the world they have found themselves thrust into. They have to turn to each other for support – hence, Lucy’s blossoming psychiatric booth (at five cents a session, a very good deal).

An ideal example of abandonment is the relationship between Linus and The Great Pumpkin. Every Halloween, Linus faithfully waits by a pumpkin patch, in the hopes that he will be blessed with the holy experience of a visitation by The Great Pumpkin. Of course, The Great Pumpkin never shows up, and He never answers Linus’ letters. Despite this, Linus remains steadfast, even going door to door to spread the word of his absent deity. Does The Great Pumpkin exist? We can never know. But from an existential point of view, it doesn’t matter if he exists or not. The important thing is that Linus is abandoned and alone in his pumpkin patch.

Sartre did not deny the existence of God triumphantly. Instead, he considered it “, extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven.”. Without God, everything we do as humans is absurd, and without meaning. Certainly, spending all night in a pumpkin patch would qualify as embarrassing as well. In the absence of any parental edicts, the characters in Peanuts have had to become very philosophically minded in order to establish for themselves what is right and wrong. When Linus gets a sliver in his finger, a conflict erupts between Lucy’s theological determinism (he is being punished for something he did wrong) and Charlie Brown’s philosophical uncertainty (when the sliver falls out, Lucy’s position crumbles). At Christmas time, Linus dictates a letter to Santa, questioning the validity of Santa’s ethical judgments regarding the goodness or badness of the individual child. “What is good? What is bad?” asks Linus. Good questions.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue44/44radke.htm

I think you'll like this one.

Oh looky what I've found here. Nietzsche tackling the exact same problem in his posthumous book The Will To Power.

The nihilist's question, "Why?" is a product of his earlier habitude of expecting an aim to be given, to be set for him, from without- i.e. by some superhuman authority or other. When he has learned not to believe in such a thing, he goes on, just the same, from habit, looking for another authority of some kind that will be able to speak unconditionally and set goals and tasks by command. The authority of Conscience now is the first to present itself (the more emancipated from theology, the more imperative morality becomes) as compensation for a personal authority. Or the authority of Reason. Or the Social Instinct (the herd). Or History, with an immanent spirit that has a goal of its own, to which one can give oneself. One wants, by all means, to get around having to will, to desire a goal, to set up a goal for oneself: one wants to avoid the responsibility (-accepting fatalism). Finally: Happiness, and with a certain tartuffery the Happiness of the Majority. . . . . .

Nihilism is of two faces:
A. Nihilism as the sign of a heightened power of the spirit: active nihilism.
B. Nihilism, as a decline and regression of the power of the spirit: passive nihilism

Nietzsche's method, it seems, is to attack the question "why?". Why asks for authority, it demands an authoritative basis and what Nietzsche was saying was that "Why" was for wimps. The Superman does it because he Can.

Actually I think that nietzsche was running away from the issue. The question "Why" applies not only to morality but also to every object of enquiry that man has ever undertaken. Why did the Chicken cross the road? The question itself presupposes that there is a cause and things do not just happen randomly but there is a reason Why?

Morality is what we turn to when we are faced with options. We seek to maximise value. When faced with two paths, left or right, we hope to choose the best path and our reasoning is simply trying to find out with is the good, or better over the bad or worse.

I don't believe that you can consciously invent your moral code but it is something that you arrive at instinctively (for want of a better word).

Krayola:



Morals are for rational beings and are intended for a purpose. they can be for convenience (safety, comfort), to resolve or avoid conflicts, and are adopted by mutual consent. If the moral principles do not help to achieve the purpose(s) for which they were adopted, they can be reevaluated and abandoned or modified. The authority rests on how well they achieve the purposes, and how well the moral agents who mutually consent to their adoption are convinced that it does.

I think that by answering this part, I'll also answer the read of your post. I understand that by following his moral code a man can maximise what, according to his moral code, is the best result, the highest good. It is his purpose to maximise the Good.

But in order to maximise the Good he must first have an idea of what the good is. So he must first have a moral code before he pursues his purpose of maximising the Good.

What you've done is given the moral code itself a moral evaluation. So you might have a moral code that emphasises Safety as the better value.

But that is still open to the question. Why should safety be so worthwhile? The entire moral code is called into question. I hope you see my point.

Hello, pastor. I haven't read your posts yet but I will. I have exams tomorrow and Monday and I'm nerding it up today and all weekend. I'll read and respond on Monday or Tuesday. Thanks.

Success wishes. Champion the exams and let's drink to it!

hahahahaha. So i just found out my "Monday" exam is tonight. In four and a half hours. I had my dates all wrong. I just happened to run into someone in my class right when i walked out of my 1st exam. I would have just headed home. I haven't read Jack S.H.It. I am royally screwed. Oya. . .all u religionists. . .start to dey Fire prayer for me!!

On the bright side i'll be done school two days earlier than i thought. I can get wasted tonight.

krayo . . . no troway my hand o!

haha. Never. I just moved back home from school today. Gotta unpack all my stuff and enjoy my 1st day as a free man. . . . eat some nice Naija food. I never have to enter another classroom again unless I choose to. It feels great. 

I actually want to think about your posts and read up on existentialism and all that stuff. I've not studied a lot of philosophy so a lot of all these terms are new to me, and though I may have a general idea of what they mean, I want to make sure I understand what I'm talking about so my response actually speaks to what u're getting at. I'm just trying to organize myself before I come and sit down on Nairaland. 

Pastor AIO:

But in order to maximise the Good he must first have an idea of what the good is.  So he must first have a moral code before he pursues his purpose of maximising the Good. 

What you've done is given the moral code itself a moral evaluation.  So you might have a moral code that emphasises Safety as the better value. 

But that is still open to the question.  Why should safety be so worthwhile?  The entire moral code is called into question.  I hope you see my point.

I think I (finally) see what u are saying. That we must have some idea of the absolute (Good), and then strive towards it. And that when ever we make a moral judgement we evaluate it based on this "absolute". Am I mistaken? ----- I still disagree.

I think meaning of anything is relative to context. I don't think there necessarily has to be some absolute good or bad, right or wrong, strong or weak (though I admit some might conceive of one. . .but anyone can conceive of anything they want. Doesn't make it real for everyone else). . These are labels we employ to describe things so we can get by without driving ourselves crazy. I think if we look close and hard we will notice that all these value judgments are not identical across all cultures and societies. What is considered good is what enables the society as a whole to thrive, and what is bad is what hinders their "progress", whatever they conceive that to be. I think if we read the texts of the old testament we will realize that the "liberator" God of the Israelites, would have been the "tyrant" God of the early Canaanites. Whose category should we take as the "absolute" to either strive towards, or avoid? The liberator God that helps one set of people thrive? or the tyrant that destroys another set of people?

Man is a social creature. Without the rest of our society to distinguish ourselves from, there is no individual (as we currently know it). . . At least not in my opinion. If u think u are tall, it is because of your contact with short people. If you think you are decent, it is because of your contact with others. . . your conception of these values isn't relative to some abstract idea of an absolute "tallness", or "decency", but on your actual experience with others who possess these qualities to varying degrees. Can u conceive in your head of such an absolute? possibly, but does that necessarily mean our moral judgments are based on such? I'm not convinced, at all.

Morality is, IMO, a matter of experience. We decide if something is good based on our experience of it's consequences, and teach it to others, our children etc. Morality is a part of culture as it helps to preserve a society. That is part of why u find subtle differences in moral codes within different cultures.

While morality is about classification (what is good, bad, right, wrong ets), moral judgements are about how our actions affect others, or how our interests should be weighed against the interests of others. Again, context.  Is killing one to save 5 ok? I doubt there is an absolute right or wrong answer to these things. We should do what we think we should based on our own experiences. . . we should try our best based on what we know. Someone from a deprived society's first thought might be to let them all die so he and his family has more to eat . . . would this be wrong? based on his own reality and experience of the world, or on ours?

We may decide safety is a better value because accidents could result in pain, grief, expenses, etc. Societies that don't provide free health services may not mandate helmets and knee pads until it becomes an embarrassing problem. A society that does provide these services may mandate safety equipment right off the bat to reduce costs.

We maximize the good based on what our cultures have taught us is good. . . and that is all based on experience, and evolves with the culture.

Have I just said  whole lot of nothing? 

Krayola:

I think I (finally) see what u are saying. That we must have some idea of the absolute (Good), and then strive towards it. And that when ever we make a moral judgement we evaluate it based on this "absolute". Am I mistaken? ----- I still disagree.

sorry, you're still mistaken. We instinctively idealize things and the resultant moral code shapes our behaviour and what we strive for. Whatever ever is the ideal is what we strive towards.

The Moral code in itself is not subject to moral evaluation. We cannot say that the reason why they have such a code in the siberian wastelands is because of so and so in order to achieve so and so, because that would be evaluating the moral code. By what moral code would you be evaluating the moral code. Moral codes are themselves not subject to evaluation.
In other words moral codes are not relative, no sir, not relative to context, not relative to era, not relative to anything. They stand by themselves. So I guess in that sense they are absolute in themselves, but they can not be subjected to a moral evaluation. Otherwise we have to ask, 'what is the moral code by which we are evaluating our moral code'?

What is this "evaluation" based on? some abstract ideal, or some measurable, desirable effect?

I say the latter. . . which is derived from consensus of individuals living in a community. Not from some external author. We evaluate our moral codes based on whether or not they help us to build the type of society we want. . . Morals codes are a like product (used to make society livable and sustainable), and what we do when we evaluate them is quality control.

People, from experience, see that they would rather have life be a certain way, and seek to create a society where life can be like that. I believe in human potential, u seem to believe we need a babysitter.

Pastor AIO:

We instinctively idealize things and the resultant moral code shapes our behaviour and what we strive for. 

What we idealize could be products of our conditioning, and not "instinct". To be honest I find the idea that we instinctively know what is "ideal" behavior, without influence from our family/ schools/ society etc, kinda ridiculous.

Pastor AIO:


In other words moral codes are not relative, no sir, not relative to context, not relative to era, not relative to anything. 

spot the difference

"Moral" code/evaluation in 5th century BCE Arabia vs Moral code/evaluation in 2009 UK.

Why, in your opinion, do moral codes evolve over time, and at different rates in different societies?

Why do we have this phrase "he/she just doesn't know any better" ?

Krayola sir,  I think sometimes the best way forward is to go back.  May I refer you to some of my earliest posts on Nairaland.  It will help matters immensely.

JayFK:

If you want to quote, when you click on reply scroll down to topic summary, by the person's post you'll see "insert quote"

Thank you

JayFK:

Me I do not believe in god, and I do good because I'm a moral person, apathetic at times but moral.  I do good because well, its the right thing to do and I expect it to be reciprocated, it's like altruism.  Even among animals, the mother bison defenders her young from the lion, she's not doing it for a higher power its more like she's bound to it.

We are all moral people, it is ingrained in us. And you are right we are BOUND to it.  This is a complex subject and I fear that I might do it injustice if I don't tread carefully and take things step by step.  Being Moral means that we will always pursue what we believe to be the highest value.  or as some like to put it, The Greatest Good.  This highest value is different from individual to individual (and from society to society) but each one pursues his/her own highest value.
A lot of the time what you call the 'good' is merely what you have been taught by society as good.  A word of warning though. If you really expect the good you do to be reciprocated you will get mightily disappointed.  I just think you ought to know that, it might help buffer the shock.
I don't think the mother Bison is a good example though.  Her actions may be explained as instinctive rather than moral.  With morality I see a subject having a choice between two actions and choosing the superior one.  A mother's fierce protection of her young is not a choice but rather an instinct.

The thing about our morality is that it determines our behaviour.

JayFK:

Also, I think "morality" as we know it is an innate behaviour, something that we do not need a "holy book" to guide us for, do you understand my point? 

Having a moral/value system is innate, but just what is contained in that system is arbitrary.  Everybody values some things higher than others, some actions higher than others, but just which things lie at the top of the morality scale differs from person to person, and from culture to culture.  For instance, in some societies bravery in battle/hunting is highly esteemed as is speaking and acting directly face to face.  In other societies Cunning might be higher esteemed than Upfrontery (my word that i've just made up. nice uh?).  In yet another society diplomacy may be higher esteemed than the sword while for their neighbours diplomats and people who talk are regarded with derision while the sword is respected. 
These various value systems are what give each culture it's characteristics.  And to the extent that individuals differ in their values, our various value systems give us our individual characteristics. 

Morality is a value system that shapes our character and behaviour.  That is all I was trying to say.
This value system that we carry around with us is informed by our environment and yes, accepting the bible as a guide in your life will influence your morals.  I'm that Bush feels no qualms about dropping bombs on Iraqi babies, his moral codes supply him with plenty of precedents that say it is okay. 

I suspect that you are coming from the school of 'Deep down in Everyone's conscience we know what is Good'.  I disagree.  If you were raised as an aborigine in Papua New Guinea you would have no qualms about having another human being for dinner.  I don't mean as a guest for dinner, but actually having him on the table, salted and peppered.  I don't believe in an Absolute Morality that lies within all of us.  Morality is relative.  Your so called innate moral behaviour is a product of your upbringing and your environment.

JayFK:

.  I believe that "morality" is innate and is constantly molded by the society we live in,.  Definition of "morality" is constantly changing I guess,  but my position remains that the bible is not needed for morality contrary to what many Christians may think.

I'm in total agreement with you here.  Everybody has a Moral structure, it is ingrained, innate, and hardwired into what we are.  It informs the way we think and the choices we make and the actions we commit.  There is no such thing as an A-moral human being.  And yes there have been moral codes in all societies since the dawn of time without the need of the bible.  And as immoral behaviour is shocking in christian society, so are behaviours that violate their moral codes shocking in non christian society.  And to the same degree of shock and revulsion and disgust. 

Where I think an important distinction must be emphasised is that the actual articles of any moral code are not fixed, absolute or universal.  Murder is not always despicable, not even in biblical Israel.  I've heard arguments from humanists claiming that everyone agrees that murder is wrong.  Yes every society disapproves of murder, but only within the society.  Theft, only within the society etc.  It's okay to kill the neighbouring tribe, and to steal their cattle and to take over their land flowing with milk and honey.  The injunction not to kill or steal was the code of conduct to be applied by israelites within the Israelite community.  It makes perfect sense that any society that allows it's members to kill each other is not going to last very long.  The bible has proved to be no different from the moral guides of other societies on this matter. 

The definition of Morality is a scale of Values with Good at the top and Evil at the bottom.  This is fixed and true for everyone.  The Specific articles that are contained within a morality, ie what is considered Good and what is considered Evil, is not fixed and neither is it true for everyone.  We are all moral creatures. In any situation every human being will always try to do what he thinks is best.  It's just that one man's morality is another man's immorality. 

I also do not think that if a man despoils a woman that he must then marry her.  The sheer fact that he had to resort to despoil in the first place would suggest that the woman wasn't much interested in the guy in the first place.  That laws comes from a mindset that does not take the feelings of women into much consideration.  My mindset is rather different.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=124453.msg2121735#msg2121735

My point is not about what the contents or articles of the moral code is. Rather it is about the fact that there is a moral code at all regards of it's articles.
The fact that we are essentially moralistic creatures suggests that we function as if there is an author. The relativity of the various moral codes does not come into the argument at all.

PastorAIO:
I've nearly passed out from holding my breath for your reply. Anyway, Like I promised I have a part 2 which brings us up to the first 10 minutes of his interview. I hope that I'll have demonstrated why I refuse to acknowledge that he's an intellectual but rather a conjecturer. My dismissal of him was not without reason, or just to be rude and I do not want to discourage you from posting links or suggest that I don't appreciate your links because I do appreciate them, probably more than what anybody else on this forum has to offer.


Part II)
At 7:20 he makes some humungous sweeping comments that convinces that not only does he know little about philosophy but he also knows even less about religion. What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems? Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures. I think that he is picking and choosing, like they all do, which ostensible aspects of religion he is going to pit himself against. It is a lot easier to challenge those demagogues and religiously derived ideologies that have little in fact to do with religion. All religion and philosophy that I'm aware of teach that there is an essential nature or aspect to man. And that man has deviated from this essential nature.

Reading back on this I can't believe the arrogance with which I wrote then. These guys are very informed and highly intellectual guys that don't deserve to to dismissed just like that. I was coming from a personal perspective and understanding that was different from his but that didn't mean that Mine was necessarily Right and his was necessarily wrong.