tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post7123466798948359205..comments2023-10-30T07:45:43.656-04:00Comments on Thoughts and Ideas: The dialog continuesA Wiser Man Than Ihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-72603737171657949912008-05-15T16:27:00.000-04:002008-05-15T16:27:00.000-04:00Hi again,You ask, "What is Good, if not God?" I'v...Hi again,<BR/><BR/>You ask, "What is Good, if not God?" I've explained, at least to my satisfaction, that there are lots of goods, irreducible to one another, and that the reason an object (or an end, more generally) can appear as good is rooted in our biology. The sophisticated array of goods available to us today are the result of thousands of years of evolution and culture. One could add to this that society -- as the ontological foundation of the practices in which these higher goods subsist -- is the unconditioned good, without which there would be only a Hobbesian struggle for survival and none of the spiritual fulfillment of the kind supplied by recognitional networks. And, since society subsists only in and through its individual members, we all partake of this Kantian dignity.<BR/><BR/>The second fundamental question you identify: "Granted that there are a number of ethical systems which a man may utilize in striving to live ethically, why is he compelled to live ethically at all?" I say, first, that we each, as an inescapable matter of fact, pursue some conception of the good life. Our highest satisfaction can only be obtained from other people who recognize and affirm our achievements, recognition which can only count, by the way, if we in turn recognize and esteem the other as a legitimate source of ethical authority in her own right (the praise of someone we regard as a moron being effectively worthless). So, the rational pursuit of the good life necessarily happens with and for other people in just institutions (the phrase is Paul Ricoeur's) -- if only we all pursued what would make us truly happy. Some people, of course, neglect their own best interests in order to pursue, say, the death of their enemies, and our ability to reason with these people is often quite limited. So we have to step in to protect the dignity-conferred rights of the intended victim. We institute laws and support an executive branch to enforce them, to physically apprehend those who are a danger to other people and society as a whole. The existence of such a branch serves as a reason not to break the law, and, if someone exercises her freedom to break it anyway, well, there are the feds to do their job and protect the rest of us as best they can.<BR/><BR/>Structurally, then, our answers are quite similar. You would say, I expect, we ought to behave ethically because we are the children of God, and that God in his divine wisdom has ensured that when everyone behaves ethically in this way, that we will all get along without too much stepping on anyone's toes. This is very much analogous to my claim that because of what we are (satisfaction-seeking, self-conscious beings) and because of how the good life is structured and conditioned (in terms of social networks of recognition) it is overwhelmingly in our best interest to behave in an ethical way that also promotes shared social goods. You too acknowledge that some people exercise their freedom to harm others and that we cannot always reason with them, and you too can only point to the possibility of future punishment as a disincentive. (And, just as one may doubt whether she will be caught, so one may doubt whether there is a hell.) <BR/><BR/>So our disagreement comes back to divergent conceptions of selfhood or, if you prefer, human nature. I've already said quite a bit about my conception, and don't understand yours well enough to criticize it. The discussion of the cat, frankly, was rather cryptic. Further explanation of what a soul is and how you see it figuring in this debate would be most helpful. <BR/><BR/>I can, however, address your question about good and evil. I don't see these terms occupying quite the central position you do, but there is certainly a place for them in the system I'm suggesting we adopt. What is good is what contributes to human flourishing. What is immoral is what causes suffering. Evil is a narrower category than the immoral, and -- although I haven't thought too much about this -- I would suggest that what is evil is to cause suffering for its own sake. <BR/><BR/>So I do have something I can say to your 19th Century Indians. Self-immolation causes unnecessary suffering. There are other ways to organize society in which widows can grieve their husbands and go on to live fulfilling lives. The reason is essentially utilitarian: less suffering, more fulfillment. (Though again, my position is not utilitarian in the technical sense the term has in philosophy. It's more eudaimonistic, if you want a label for it.) <BR/><BR/>To promote ethical practices in other societies is no simple matter. One needs to identify troublesome practices, understand why they exist (both the official rationale and the individual rationales of those involved), then to explain how things can be better and to persuasively link this new vision to other elements of their existing traditions. If we can't do this, we need to seriously consider the possibility that our way is not so superior as we fondly like to think. Given what I recall of your views on Iraq, I find it positively weird that you suggest, however obliquely, that the way to improve the world is to march in and proselytize. <BR/><BR/>The reason -- or at least, one reason -- that the sort of relativism you're worried about can't take hold is that all cultures are shaped and constrained by our biology. They all bottom out at the same place, as it were. I am generally at pains to emphasize the autonomy of our universe of meaning from the natural realm of what is simply there. But it's just as important to see that these two realms are linked together. In a word, this occurs by virtue of our embodiment. We only begin to have meaning and value, you'll recall from Hegel's reconstructed social pre-history, when we have conscious, living creatures. The world of value that we constitute is underdetermined by what is simply there: things only acquire meaning in relation to our goals and projects, which we articulate with increasing cultural sophistication. Socialized into an historical world, we work within the traditions carved out by our predecessors. But we never leave our bodies behind. To inflict direct, bodily pain upon unwilling victim is clearly immoral, a violation of her basic human dignity. To inflict bodily pain upon a complicit victim is more complicated, but it seems clear to me that I have the resources to make the case to her for a better way of life, which relocates the case into the first category. <BR/><BR/>I should immediately note that, although the two examples you offer both involve physical harm, this is not the only kind of suffering we need to worry about. People suffer needlessly whenever they are denied the proper conditions for flourishing, whenever they are deprived of existing resources for free self-actualization. I would suggest that this is the true issue in most cases of physical violence as well, particularly the systematic, officially sanctioned kinds of violence you're concerned about. <BR/><BR/>You'll notice that what I've done is to shift most of the burden of moral theory into social and political philosophy. I'm persuaded by my own arguments, of course, but the move may appear slightly disingenuous of me, in this context, because social and political philosophy is still a new terrain for me. I don't have a comprehensive position. If you want to discuss these issues further, I'd be happy to do so in an exploratory way. But I think that they're somewhat tangential to our debate: whereas you're advocating for an eternal moral code that is concretely action-guiding, I deny that there is any such thing, and that we don't need one in any case. <BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/>PJPJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211470393162983933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-24911756640203144892008-05-11T12:50:00.001-04:002008-05-11T12:50:00.001-04:00A great conversation, given the format.Many thanks...<I>A great conversation, given the format.</I><BR/><BR/>Many thanks. I'm glad you're enjoying it.A Wiser Man Than Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-20502700131146933022008-05-11T12:50:00.000-04:002008-05-11T12:50:00.000-04:00I still would give you a good grade.Hooray! I am ...<I>I still would give you a good grade.</I><BR/><BR/>Hooray! <BR/><BR/><I>I am not sure how that can be, though, since I just joined the Church.</I><BR/><BR/>Wonderful! My prayers go with you.<BR/><BR/>Always remember that joining is only the beginning; God must complete the work He has begun in us through Christ Jesus, as Paul put it.<BR/><BR/><I>Blessings.</I><BR/><BR/>On you as well.A Wiser Man Than Ihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02405864709965908573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-32482318732664172922008-05-11T09:32:00.000-04:002008-05-11T09:32:00.000-04:00A great conversation, given the format.A great conversation, given the format.troutskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16020298501632120830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10835776.post-7945624205086138832008-05-11T03:56:00.000-04:002008-05-11T03:56:00.000-04:00Wonderful! Now, there are some things I will have...Wonderful! Now, there are some things I will have to consider. And yes, there was a time or two I thought your arguments were on target but not perhaps as sharp as they could be. Given the nature of what you are dealing with, however, and who you used for evidence, I still would give you a good grade.<BR/><BR/>I am back in the game, a bit, and it is a weekend, so, I am trying to catch up a bit. This was exciting enough that I may have to tack down through more of this debate. At first glance, given my new busier lifestyle added to my yet (if to a lesser degree) haranguing state of exhaustion, the material seemed too much. Reading back might leave me too far behind to add more than encouragement, I hope that is enough.<BR/><BR/>Now, and I say again, I only read this through once. And, there are some things of which I am unfamiliar (which I intend to rectify), but I think you did an excellent job of defending your position and then projecting that position forward where applicable. Beyond, it was a generally pleasant read. If we do not agree in all ways, we certainly have some very sincere and fundamental commonality. I am not sure how that can be, though, since I just joined the Church. I guess it is what I have arrived at after having searched through the muck of life, coming up with lemons using all the other combinations... until I arrived Home. You seemed to have been given roots, if they were withering for a bit, you turned that around through reading and conversation. Oh, and hello. And goodbye, for now. Blessings.Doomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392444624210801173noreply@blogger.com