Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Friday, February 4, 2011

Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism

C.S. Lewis, atheist-turned-Christian, came to faith pondering what he called “a universal sense of oughtness.” (Mere Christianity) The idea that in every situation, people tended to think, “There oughtta be a law!” They had an idea about “fairness” and appealed to some standard out there somewhere –though they didn’t necessarily agree about that standard. He noted that some cultures allowed more than one wife, but no culture said men could have any women they wanted —e.g. if they belonged to somebody else. He noted that when there is one seat left on a bus, people would disagree as to who should have it of those getting on –the first person on, the one who had been standing, the pregnant lady, the elderly lady, the crippled man –and so on. But they would all appeal to some notion of fairness about it. He came to believe this moral sense of “oughtness” was evidence of a God programming this sense into our minds. (No, programming wasn't a term when he was writing --I'm neither quoting or paraphrasing here--just repeating the gist of his point.)

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective standard for our views as to what is right or wrong, fair or unfair. That everything “just depends...” on the situation (situational ethics.)

The absolutist, of course, says SOME things are beyond debate –that it would always be wrong to murder an innocent. He might say it is ALWAYS wrong to hate, to not forgive, to abort, lie, steal, cheat, rape, have any sex outside of marriage, have sex with your own sex, with children, close relatives, animals –and always wrong to be arrogant and selfish at other’s expense.

Christ resolves the sin issue: “All we like sheep have gone astray; there is none righteous, no not one.”

From the beginning, we are all punished by death for our sin tendencies, preferences, and actions. “the wages of sin is death –but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

We have GRACE (unmerited favor and mercy) from God in the sin-atonement by Christ’s death.

We have direction over both our absolutist views and our relativism –in the command to love –which Christ said is the fulfillment of all the Law. But we are also told to “Go and sin no more,” and be filled with acts of charity. We still are to avoid the sins of commission and omission by following King Jesus.

I confess to being both absolutist and relativistic. Meaning? Take abortion. I think it’s ok for a rape victim to go straight to the hospital and flush out the foreign invasion –before conception is known for sure to have occurred –it could have happened –it could happen a few hours or days after the rape or not at all –at that point, we don’t know. But in no way is the rape God’s will. (I’m not a Calvinist and thus less absolutist than they.) ON the other hand, if there is a conception, and the baby is born, it could be a wonderful person and a blessing to its mother. I do believe God operates in concert with our free will –guiding us, helping us to decide rightly, and ready to forgive when we err and are contrite about it. I don’t believe all things in the future are set in stone –there are Old Testament verses which confirm this dynamic relationship between God and man –where man is not a pawn of fate, but in relationship with free will with God.

Other examples of relativism are lies to protect someone from evil –to hide Jews in your attic as Corrie ten Boom did –and lie about it if asked. Not that she lied ( I don't think she was asked); I would have lied in such a circumstance if it would have prevented the death of my attic-dwellers. I think God would have forgiven that lie without me being terribly remorseful.


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Argument for an Immaterial Mind/Soul

I'm going to post this now and edit for mistakes later.

This is a challenge to those who believe that we are nothing but matter, chemistry in action and so on, or that a human can be completely reduced to chemical components. It is also a counterexample to those who suppose the natural sciences compose a complete epistemology, that is a theory of knowledge. Such a position leaves much out that is essential to the human experience and it is ultimately self defeating since there is no scientific experiment that can prove that all knowledge should be justified by science, hence the truth of the adequacy of a completely scientific epistemology cannot be verified within that epistemology. This is more or less the same problem that logical positivism ran into in the early 20th century. Logical positivism claimed that all knowledge must somehow be based upon observable facts. The problem is that there is no observation that can validates this requirement, thus logical positivism invalidated itself.

The form of the argument for an immaterial mind is based upon a classical argument for libertarian freedom, or freedom that is not compatible with determinism.

The argument goes something like this:

1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If determinism is true, then everything I do is a result of events that took place long before I was born.
3. I am not in control of anything that happened prior to my birth.
4. If determinism is true, then I am not in control of my actions(2,3)
5. If determinism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, determinism is false. (5,6,7)

The argument against materialism and for an immaterial mind/soul follows a similar form:

1. If I am morally responsible for an action, then that action is within my control.
2. If materialism is true, then everything that I do is a result of the laws of physics.
3. I am not in control of the laws of physics.
4. If materialism is true, then I am not in control of my actions. (2,3)
5. If materialism is true, then I am not morally responsible. (1,4)
6. Moral responsibility is a necessity of human nature.
7. I am human.
8. Since there are humans who are morally responsible, materialism is false. (5,6,7)

Perhaps the most important claim here is that we are morally responsible. If one wants to suggest that we aren't, I'd like to see him argue that after getting punched in the nose for a birthday present. But if he still insisted as if it wasn't true that he shouldn't have gotten punched in the nose, then these arguments do not work. And that's okay. The arguments are intended only for those who believe in moral responsibility, that there are ways that we ought to behave.

As of the 17th or 16th posts, this thread is under scrutiny and off topic posts will be deleted. And it's no trouble to me to do some house cleaning every now and then.