[quote]kamui wrote:<<< That being said, Tirib’s theology (if i understand it correctly) should not have a problem with this either. Since spiritually dead sentient beings only have an extrinsic value anyway. >>>[/quote]Yer killin me man. Jist killin me. Absolutely so. The Christian God’s very ontological essence is by definition pure and perfect and by position of authority singularly empowered to command and enforce conformity to that being as the only option. Those who share His life (2nd Peter 1:4) through Christ are living that conformity through Him and will be finally so ontologically conformed at the end of time. Yes, spiritually dead sentient beings (non Christians) are of extrinsic value only if the object of that statement is the divine being Himself. They are separated from Him by sin and yet in His exalted perfections He still makes use of them as the just recipients of His judgments in terrible hatred of all that is not as Himself. In a nutshell. I believe that’s pretty much what you expected me to say.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Not sure how catholicism deal with this. If it does. [/quote]Not the same as me to be sure. Aristotle’s analogy of being as delivered through Aquinas in the end rules the day.
Indeed.
I hardly see how it could avoid some kind of “equivocity of being”.
Something we both try to avoid at all cost.
For different but parallel reasons.
In your case because it would undermine the very concept of omnipotence and supereminence of God. (and because that’s a greek pagan concept, anyway).
In my case because it would imply that “is” doesn’t mean the same thing for “the one” and for “the many”, which make the whole problem insolvable.
[quote]kamui wrote:
LOL! Got me on lingo. Yes, that is correct. However, the value of said being is something different than the being itself. While the value is intrinsic, it is not the same as the being itself.
I agree.
Catholicism recognizes the dualistic nature of sentient beings of course. Of course this means in the sense that while mans spirit is a part of man, the spirit is not the same as the flesh. In the same way that the intrinsic value if the sentient being is intrinsic to the being, but the being and it’s value are two separate things, not one in the same. Doesn’t of course mean that they are not dependent on one anther, for each component helps define the other, but still two things not one.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]
And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]
And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”[/quote]
That’s the usual punishment / reward dialectic we use to teach them ANYTHING.
Morality included (Among other things).
That doesn’t prove that “morality has everything to do with emotion”.
It only shows that (anecdotically) emotion are used to enforce it at a familial (and probably tribal) scale.
To decide the morality of more complex “course of actions” in more complex contexts, you need to intellectually understand its rules.
“Feeling” it isn’t enough.
That’s why “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Let’s try something else :
you do not need to admit that morality is “divine” (whatever that means)
you do not need to admit that morality is “supernatural” (whatever that means)
YDNNTAT morality is “independant from man” (WTM)
You do not even have to accept a specific definition of morality.
BUT
you DO need to acknowledge that some moral propositions are intrinsically wrong.
Once you’ve done it, you know that you know the existence of evil.
And that’s enough for most relevant purposes.
It means that morality is objective and not “man-made”.
But the problem here is not the “man” part, it’s the “made” part.
It means that we don’t choose morality as we see fit.
It’s not “made” at all. It’s here, as a part of our very nature as sentient agents.
And, i insist : our nature, not our culture(s).
History doesn’t change Morality.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
[/quote]
Fred is lost in a cave. Everyone acquainted with Fred, except Ralph, thinks that Fred is dead. Ralph sneaks up behind Fred and kills him so suddenly that Fred never sees it coming and does not feel a thing. Ralph is happy that Fred is dead. Nobody is any sadder, because everybody else already thought that Fred was dead.
-
Did Ralph do something that is objectively immoral?
-
If the answer to #1 is yes, where is the associated negative emotion?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]I believe that’s pretty much what you expected me to say.[/quote]Indeed.
[quote]Not the same as me to be sure. Aristotle’s analogy of being as delivered through Aquinas in the end rules the day.[/quote]I hardly see how it could avoid some kind of “equivocity of being”.
Something we both try to avoid at all cost.
For different but parallel reasons.
In your case because it would undermine the very concept of omnipotence and supereminence of God. (and because that’s a greek pagan concept, anyway).
In my case because it would imply that “is” doesn’t mean the same thing for “the one” and for “the many”, which make the whole problem insolvable.[/quote]You know what the problem with talking with you is for me? The temptation to intellectual idolatry is so strong. You are an absolute joy Kamui. It would be so easy for me to banter for the mere fun of it and forget that I’m serving the triune God for whom “is”, DOES mean the same thing for the one AND the many. I don’t see myself in the same ontological bind that you are because I don’t include finite created being in the the same “many” as the eternal uncreated many in the ontology of God. I don’t require (though you’ll say I do) the same type of continuity from lowest being to highest that you do. The biblical ontology declares two distinct species of being. Infinite, uncreated and non contingent in the case of God and finite, created and utterly dependent upon God for everything else. Man bearing the image of God is uniquely related to this creator in that he is a morally accountable agent of godlike (small g) high intellectual capacity. By design.
The eternal uncreated triunity and hence the eternal uncreated one and many-ness of God’s being is reflected in all the finite contingent being that He has made. His signature and fingerprint if you will. Right down to the Higgs boson. If it exists which is ultimately irrelevant to my system. In the biblical view there is no scale of being with super micro particulate matter (maybe ) at the bottom and God at the top. There are two distinct ontologies with one brought into existence, maintained by AND historically contingent upon the other. I can hear you thinking. You are going to hit me with infinitude as indeed requiring the above mentioned comprehensive exception-less scale of being after all. For if “being” does not include “all” than it is not infinite. Is it? You have yourself quite rightly declared the ultimately tautological nature of every humanly discernible proposition of knowledge, it all comes down to where one puts, or I should say “sees” his tautologies. Doesn’t it.
Everyone (except God) is eventually reduced to circles, that is, contradiction. The difference lies in where they are in the system not who has them and who doesn’t. Faith is the only resolution and it’s only a matter of what in. Which is what I just said about circular logic and contradiction viewed a posteriori. Or is it? Because at the most foundational and defining level of our ability think at all, faith is both the necessary axiom AND the inescapable consequence.
Saying that ontological dissimilarity in the one and the many renders the problem unsolvable is simply to state that you don’t like that particular tautology.
EDIT. I can’t get to your "Let’s try something else post tonight.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
[/quote]
Fred is lost in a cave. Everyone acquainted with Fred, except Ralph, thinks that Fred is dead. Ralph sneaks up behind Fred and kills him so suddenly that Fred never sees it coming and does not feel a thing. Ralph is happy that Fred is dead. Nobody is any sadder, because everybody else already thought that Fred was dead.
-
Did Ralph do something that is objectively immoral?
-
If the answer to #1 is yes, where is the associated negative emotion?
[/quote]Pretty good man. I did answer your question about a sinless world and man’s ability then to naturally find the tribune God of Christianity in general revelation from a page or 2 (three?) back.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…
I did answer your question about a sinless world and man’s ability then to naturally find the tribune God of Christianity in general revelation from a page or 2 (three?) back.
[/quote]
I saw it. Thanks for answering.
This thread is an example of how a thread morphs , it is good 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This thread is an example of how a thread morphs , it is good :)[/quote]
If you like what this one is becoming you should check out the epistemology and the metaphysics threads. They’re the ones that basically give the background to what Tirib. and Kamui or talking about now.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This thread is an example of how a thread morphs , it is good :)[/quote]
If you like what this one is becoming you should check out the epistemology and the metaphysics threads. They’re the ones that basically give the background to what Tirib. and Kamui or talking about now. [/quote]
I wish I had more time to play this game
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
[/quote]
Fred is lost in a cave. Everyone acquainted with Fred, except Ralph, thinks that Fred is dead. Ralph sneaks up behind Fred and kills him so suddenly that Fred never sees it coming and does not feel a thing. Ralph is happy that Fred is dead. Nobody is any sadder, because everybody else already thought that Fred was dead.
-
Did Ralph do something that is objectively immoral?
-
If the answer to #1 is yes, where is the associated negative emotion?
[/quote]
God has emotions, too.
Actually, your ontology does have this type of continuity. At least initially.
Then Man is ousted from Eden and the Fall introduce a radical, ontological separation.
Everything else (the idea of Grace, denial of free will, the concept of covenant and related ecclesiology) follows from this point.
The main difference between our systems is your belief in the Original Sin.
My view acknowledge the existence of evil, even radical evil. But it doesn’t (and can’t) have the ontological cosequences it has in your theology.
That’s one point, yes. But it’s “only” a metaphysical one.
My main concern with your theology is, believe it or not, moral in nature.
I understand that the “source” of morality has to be “extraneous”, independant from our will. Heteronomous as you would call it. But your system put this principle so far it end up “reversing” itself with the unavoidable conclusion that “sentient beings” only have an extrinsic value.
That means that in last analysis, you don’t respect a child because he is a child.
The child is, like everyone else, a spiritually dead sinner who do not reserve any kind of respect.
You’ll absolutely respect him, but only because it’s God’s monopoly to destroy him or to save him.
Strictly speaking, God is the ONLY thing that possess some kind of intrinsic value.
The ethical “cost” of the concept of transcendance is that moral respect is always indirect, mediated. And i find this conclusion properly… immoral.
[quote]
Everyone (except God) is eventually reduced to circles, that is, contradiction. The difference lies in where they are in the system not who has them and who doesn’t. Faith is the only resolution and it’s only a matter of what in. Which is what I just said about circular logic and contradiction viewed a posteriori. Or is it? Because at the most foundational and defining level of our ability think at all, faith is both the necessary axiom AND the inescapable consequence.[/quote]
I won’t disagree with the last sentence.
But there is no contradiction in a circle. At least not if the circle exists at the “deepest” possible level. It’s just that, at such levels, demonstration is no longer possible.
But at the same time, it’s no longer needed.
[quote]
Saying that ontological dissimilarity in the one and the many renders the problem unsolvable is simply to state that you don’t like that particular tautology.[/quote]
Yes and no.
Can i prove i’m right and you’re wrong ? No, obviously not.
Does this mean i just choose the tautology i prefer, without any real reason ? No. Absolutely not.
There is a few metaphysical and ethical reasons to prefer this one to another one. Even if the other one can’t be disproved.
And i do NOT think that one way is really “easier” than the other one.
I suppose you would agree that morality can not be man-made. Cause it would scream “autonomy”.
You won’t agree that acknowledging the objective existence of evil is “enough for most relevant purpose”.
And in a way i would agree. There is more to it than that, but for a relativist, it would at least be a start.
Why ya gotta do this right when I’m getting ready to walk out the door to church? =] A couple very quick things for now though. You have a misconception of the state of creation before the intrusion of sin which may be my fault. Also, as I reread my post I realized that I sort of inadvertently equated circularity with contradiction which strictly speaking they are not identical. They are however both symptoms of finitude. They are also both recruited for service when useful and denied when not. By every thinking man. It’s only a matter of which particular parts of his system either is convenient for. Which is yet another way of saying that everyone builds their beliefs on a foundation of faith and the differences lies in what in. I GOTTA go. I definitely have to address some more of that you said here though.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]undoredo wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”
[/quote]
Fred is lost in a cave. Everyone acquainted with Fred, except Ralph, thinks that Fred is dead. Ralph sneaks up behind Fred and kills him so suddenly that Fred never sees it coming and does not feel a thing. Ralph is happy that Fred is dead. Nobody is any sadder, because everybody else already thought that Fred was dead.
-
Did Ralph do something that is objectively immoral?
-
If the answer to #1 is yes, where is the associated negative emotion?
[/quote]
God has emotions, too.
[/quote]
Still not sure that morality has everything to do with emotion. But the response immediately above seems like a fair enough rebuttal to the particular objection implied by my scenario and questions.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]
And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”[/quote]
Those are methods of teaching based on emotion, but that’s not what it is. Emotion is frequently misplaced and very subjective. Indeed many people feel many different ways about many different things. Something as static as morality, cannot be based on a moving target like emotion. As the afore mentioned rape and murder of a child. After the murder the child presumably feels nothing, yet the act was still immoral.
Even if a slave doesn’t mind being a slave, it does not make slavery moral.
Morality can effect emotions, but emotions do not drive what is moral and what is not. You have to many psychos out there who think that immoral acts are just fine. Their feeling on the matter is irrelevant.
Take for example, the head of NAMBLA, is there anything you can think of that would make such acts moral? Yet, that guy thinks it’s perfectly ok. Hell it makes him feel good.
Further, the driving force for many immoral acts are emotions. If emotions are the basis, then those acts are then moral, not immoral.
Again, relativism disregards the victim. It by definition, qualifies one persons experience to hold more value than another and such thought processes have been the driving force for some of the most immoral acts in the world.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Let’s try something else :
you do not need to admit that morality is “divine” (whatever that means)
you do not need to admit that morality is “supernatural” (whatever that means)
YDNNTAT morality is “independant from man” (WTM)
You do not even have to accept a specific definition of morality.
BUT
you DO need to acknowledge that some moral propositions are intrinsically wrong.
Once you’ve done it, you know that you know the existence of evil.
And that’s enough for most relevant purposes.
It means that morality is objective and not “man-made”.
But the problem here is not the “man” part, it’s the “made” part.
It means that we don’t choose morality as we see fit.
It’s not “made” at all. It’s here, as a part of our very nature as sentient agents.
And, i insist : our nature, not our culture(s).
History doesn’t change Morality.
[/quote]
Yep!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]
And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”[/quote]
Those are methods of teaching based on emotion, but that’s not what it is. Emotion is frequently misplaced and very subjective. Indeed many people feel many different ways about many different things. Something as static as morality, cannot be based on a moving target like emotion. As the afore mentioned rape and murder of a child. After the murder the child presumably feels nothing, yet the act was still immoral.
Even if a slave doesn’t mind being a slave, it does not make slavery moral.
Morality can effect emotions, but emotions do not drive what is moral and what is not. You have to many psychos out there who think that immoral acts are just fine. Their feeling on the matter is irrelevant.
Take for example, the head of NAMBLA, is there anything you can think of that would make such acts moral? Yet, that guy thinks it’s perfectly ok. Hell it makes him feel good.
Further, the driving force for many immoral acts are emotions. If emotions are the basis, then those acts are then moral, not immoral.
Again, relativism disregards the victim. It by definition, qualifies one persons experience to hold more value than another and such thought processes have been the driving force for some of the most immoral acts in the world.[/quote]
You’re still only looking at one side of the coin, pat.
-
There is the emotion of the ‘do-er’, which is the least important in terms of morality.
-
Then there’s the emotion of the ‘do-ee’, which is the entire basis for morality among atheists, and a major consideration among the faithful (Christ exemplified love and compassion, even to the detriment of the ‘do-er’)
-
And then you have the trump card; how does The Father feel about it? This will mostly come into play when both the ‘do-er’ and ‘do-ee’ feel good about it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Morality is all about emotions, it is about how something makes you feel, that is why we have developed a vastly (but not completely) different moral platform at every stage of the development of human civilization. [/quote]
And this sums up the error of you entire thought process. Morality has zero to do with emotions. Often, doing the moral, or right thing, is often painful. You cannot undo harm by being happy about it. Feeling good doesn’t make anything moral. Indeed the rapist feels good and powerful. The problem is he has a victim that has been destroyed.
Like I said before, relativity has a dehumanaizing aspect to it. It requires that somebody’s values or will trumps another. Since it cannot in reality, it cannot exist.
The intrinsic value of a sentient being doe not lie in the being itself.[/quote]
Morality has everything to do with emotion. You just have to look at both sides of the coin.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or as we teach our kids “how would you feel if someone did that to you?”[/quote]
Those are methods of teaching based on emotion, but that’s not what it is. Emotion is frequently misplaced and very subjective. Indeed many people feel many different ways about many different things. Something as static as morality, cannot be based on a moving target like emotion. As the afore mentioned rape and murder of a child. After the murder the child presumably feels nothing, yet the act was still immoral.
Even if a slave doesn’t mind being a slave, it does not make slavery moral.
Morality can effect emotions, but emotions do not drive what is moral and what is not. You have to many psychos out there who think that immoral acts are just fine. Their feeling on the matter is irrelevant.
Take for example, the head of NAMBLA, is there anything you can think of that would make such acts moral? Yet, that guy thinks it’s perfectly ok. Hell it makes him feel good.
Further, the driving force for many immoral acts are emotions. If emotions are the basis, then those acts are then moral, not immoral.
Again, relativism disregards the victim. It by definition, qualifies one persons experience to hold more value than another and such thought processes have been the driving force for some of the most immoral acts in the world.[/quote]
You’re still only looking at one side of the coin, pat.
-
There is the emotion of the ‘do-er’, which is the least important in terms of morality.
-
Then there’s the emotion of the ‘do-ee’, which is the entire basis for morality among atheists, and a major consideration among the faithful (Christ exemplified love and compassion, even to the detriment of the ‘do-er’)
-
And then you have the trump card; how does The Father feel about it? This will mostly come into play when both the ‘do-er’ and ‘do-ee’ feel good about it.[/quote]
There is no coin here. Emotion does not play in to objective morality in terms of what it is. Emotion is can be an affect, or it can be a driving force for a behaviour, but the object is reflected by action not emotion.
You can feel a certain way and not act on it. You can experience something and it arouse your emotions in a certain way, but it’s not objective at all.
Emotion is a very small player in objective morality. It can exist, it cannot exist, and neither makes an action moral or immoral.
You’re looking at the wrong coin all together. Emotion doesn’t make something moral or immoral. Since it does not, it’s irrelevant in terms of what makes an action moral or immoral.