Moral values
Can moral values be legislated?
Are they relative or absolute? Are moral values dependent upon
some authority?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Moral values
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 14:30:42
Previous
post by Robert Tolz:
Your comments imply an external basis for
ethics, imposed on the individual by someone else who has made
the decision for him, is preferable. I find that in itself objectionable
and an imposition on the freedom of the individual. That dogma
contains within it the seeds of distrust of the individual and
tends to result in authoritarian relationships.
I respectfully disagree. Your insistence upon
a purely subjective and relative ethic opens the door to moral
abuse and no way to make cross-cultural value judgments of a
moral nature. For example, if ethics are merely subjective and
relative to the individual, and by extension, to that individual's
culture, then how can 1990s American culture consider the extermination
of 6 million Jews by 1940s German culture to be a moral abomination?
One culture cannot judge another culture's morality, unless the
basis for ethics transcends the individual and cultures. This
of course limits human freedom but not in a negative sense. Unrestrained
moral choices and actions would lead to anarchy and moral chaos.
Each person is left to determine for themselves
what values there are, if any.
Sounds tolerant, but results in moral impotency.
If I am left to determine if there are any values, then if I
choose that African Americans are sub-human, and then choose
to exercise my moral choice in the expression of violence against
this group, this is morally "true" for me. You may
not like it because that is not your moral value, but please
don't force your values on me. (Sound familiar?)
I think that's better than having someone accept values by
blind faith. Not having an external prescription for ethics and
morality doesn't leave people at sea without a compass. There's
loads of cultural pressures to dissuade against complete
A theistic basis for values is not to be equated
with blind faith. There are many fine philosophical works dealing
with metaethical arguments for an objective absolute ethic. And
I think it can be validly argued that relativistic ethics does
indeed lead to a morality that is not truly liveable in daily
life. Moral relativists often decry moral absolutes, but they
then turn around and live their lives as if they existed.
Thanks for your comments.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 10:48:56 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Bob Tolz]
Your comments imply an external basis for
ethics, imposed on the individual by someone else who has made
the decision for him, is preferable. I find that in itself objectionable
and an imposition on the freedom of the individual. That dogma
contains within it the seeds of distrust of the individual and
tends to result in authoritarian relationships.
[John Morehead]
I respectfully disagree.
[Bob Tolz]
Respectfully, I expected you to disagree.
:-)
[John Morehead]
Your insistence upon a purely subjective
and relative ethic opens the door to moral abuse and no way to
make cross-cultural value judgments of a moral nature. For example,
if ethics are merely subjective and relative to the individual,
and by extension, to that individual's culture, then how can
1990s American culture consider the extermination of 6 million
Jews by 1940s German culture to be a moral abomination?
[Bob Tolz]
Easily.
[John Moorehead]
One culture cannot judge another culture's
morality, unless the basis for ethics transcends the individual
and cultures.
[Bob Tolz]
I agree with you.
Where we differ is that I think that the basis
for these ethics which transcend the individual and cultures
exists independently of an external moral arbiter. They are "in
the air," and any sane person should be able to come to
those ethics freely and independently, without having them imposed
from without. Indeed, the experience of having ethics imposed
from without, as opposed to being chosen and accepted voluntarily,
leads to rejection and rebellion.
For instance, communism/marxism could be viewed
from some perspectives as an extremely "loving" philosophy,
yet it required authoritarianism and totalitarianism for it to
be imposed on populaces around the world. What was the inevitable
result of that?
There are loads of ethical structures in this
world which rely on authoritarianism (without the totalitariansim)
to impose their ethics on their followers. I respectfully submit
that such a relationship between a system of ideas and its followers
is harmful to the human spirit.
[John Morehead]
This of course limits human freedom but
not in a negative sense.
[Bob Tolz]
I further submit to you that requiring an
individual to think, believe and feel a certain way numbs that
person's capacity for -- dare I say it? -- critical thinking.
If I am supposed to accept blindly what my
church or guru says is correct, simply because of the authority
that my church or guru claims, then what happens to my personal
responsibility for what is right? What prevents this from leading
to an "Ordnung ist ordnung" mentality? Doesn't this
prevent me from questioning something that I think is wrong?
[John Morehead]
Unrestrained moral choices and actions
would lead to anarchy and moral chaos.
[Bob Tolz]
That is speculation with which I do not agree.
You have less confidence in the basic goodness of human nature.
Besides, our choices are constrained by limiting factors other
than an external moral arbiter: secular laws, cultural conventions,
peer pressures, etc.
[Bob Tolz]
Each person is left to determine for themselves
what values there are, if any.
[John Morehead]
Sounds tolerant, but results in moral impotency. If I am left
to determine if there are any values, then if I choose that African
Americans are sub-human, and then choose to exercise my moral
choice in the expression of violence against this group, this
is morally "true" for me. You may not like it because
that is not your moral value, but please don't force your values
on me. (Sound familiar?)
[Bob Tolz]
There are ethical/moral/spiritual ideas and
ideals which cannot die and in fact spread throughout humanity:
ideas and ideals such as love, tolerance, democracy, freedom,
fairness, justice....
They are "objective" ideals, because
they exist independently of any individual. They do not require
the authority of any religious organization or gurus who command
followers.
They spread throughout humanity because they
are "right" for us and touch a basic chord within us.
If they were not so, then they would not spread throughout humanity,
regardless of how strongly an external "strongman"
would try to impose those ideals.
If any of us thinks those ethical/moral/spiritual
ideals is "good" for anyone or everyone outside of
ourselves, then we ought to work for the fruition of those ideals
not by making sure that they exist in others, but by making sure
they truly exist in ourselves, not only in thought, but also
in action.
I'm not saying that we let those who hurt
others get away scot-free; rather, that the most basic field
of our work is our own selves, not other people. To prevent other
people from hurting others, a society enacts laws, but those
laws do not require (nor could they cause) everyone to think
or feel a certain way.
[Bob Tolz]
I think that's better than having someone
accept values by blind faith. Not having an external prescription
for ethics and morality doesn't leave people at sea without a
compass. There's loads of cultural pressures to dissuade against
complete
[John Morehead]
A theistic basis for values is not to be equated with blind
faith.
[Bob Tolz]
I agree with that as well.
What I call blind faith is when a religious
(or non-religious) adherent accepts as truth something which
has been handed up to him or her on a silver platter, without
testing whether it honestly strikes a chord within: "My
leader says it's so; therefore it must be." I do not suggest
that all those who receive such guidance fail to test whether
they really have that harmony, but I'd bet a New York hot dog
that there are more people who act that way than you would prefer.
[John Morehead]
There are many fine philosophical works
dealing with metaethical arguments for an objective absolute
ethic.
[Bob Tolz]
With all due respect, I'm not interested in
reading fine philosophical works dealing in metaethical arguments.
I'm interested in what works, not philosophical works.
[John Morehead]
And I think it can be validly argued that
relativistic ethics does indeed lead to a morality that is not
truly liveable in daily life.
[Bob Tolz]
Argue all you want, but I find my life quite
liveable, as I suspect virtually all other participants in this
list who do not subject themselves to an absolute external authority
would claim for their own lives, whether they are secular humanists,
atheists, anthroposophists, Jews, Christians....
[John Morehead]
Moral relativists often decry moral absolutes,
but they then turn around and live their lives as if they existed.
[Bob Tolz}
Take away your theological terms of art: "moral
relativists" and "moral absolutes" and we might
have something close to an agreement.
Maybe we can shake hands on: People who decry
an external authority for ethical and moral behavior often live
their lives ethically and morally, not because of any external
philosophical/religious/legal authority but because they independently
and freely arrive at their conclusions. They behave well because
as human beings they find it the "right" thing to do,
not because they expect to be rewarded in an afterlife.
They don't do it to get to heaven. They do
it for the hell of it.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 14:03:48
At 10:48 AM 5/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
I agree with you.
Where we differ is that I think that the basis for these ethics
which transcend the individual and cultures exists independently
of an external moral arbiter. They are "in the air,"
and any sane person should be able to come to those ethics freely
and independently, without having them imposed from without.
Indeed, the experience of having ethics imposed from without,
as opposed to being chosen and accepted voluntarily, leads to
rejection and rebellion.
How are they "in the air"? Are they
mere Brute Givens in the structure of the universe which have
evolved just as the rest of the cosmos? This is difficult to
envision and I think you'd have a tough time arguing for this.
If they are not rooted in a transcendent reference point beyond
the individual and culture, then what is their ontological status
and ground?
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Moral values
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 09:12:12 -0700
On 2 May 99, at 14:30, John & Wendy Morehead
wrote:
Your insistence upon a purely subjective
and relative ethic opens the door to moral abuse and no way to
make cross-cultural value judgments of a moral nature.
There are some ethical principles that seem
to be applicable across cultures, because human societies have
certain things in common. We are social animals, and have created
complex societies which vary widely in various ways. But all
societies have certain things in common, and there are certain
acts that cannot be tolerated in any society because they are
inherently threatening to the social order. Murder, for example.
I think of these as true moral principles, and they are generally
based on the "golden rule."
If I understand you correctly, this is a moral
relativist position, in that the ethical rules do not come from
a source external to humanity. They do, though, come from a source
external to any particular individual. They are culturally transmitted.
Other moral principles do not seem universal.
In one society it is immoral to have more than one spouse, but
in another society it is quite acceptable.
But it matters little whether morality has
evolved as a set of rules in a particular society, or comes from
some external source. If morals come from an external source,
we must still depend on ourselves to ascertain what those moral
rules are, or abdicate that responsibility to some authority
figure. Those who believe that there are external, absolute moral
values nevertheless often disagree as to what those values are.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 20:45:06 +0200
An interesting topic. What is this objective
morality, or code of ethics, that should rule over us, or that
we all should sign under some coercive social contract, that
is being distinguished from a so-called "subective,"
"relativistic," or "relative" morality? The
Ten Commandments? The Sermon on the Mount? The Declaration of
Human Rights?
Let's start with the Christian ethos as spelled
out in the Sermon on the Mount, Mattew 5::
5:38 You
have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth:
5:39 But
I say unto you, That you resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And
if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let
him have your cloak also.
5:41 And
whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.
5:42 Give
to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you turn
you not away.
5:43 You
have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor,
and hate your enemy.
5:44 But
I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
5:45 That
you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain
on the just and on the unjust.
This code of ethics demands not only a non-resistence
to evildoers, to criminals or whatever, but it also demands an
active, passionate love toward those who even torture us to death.
It demands that the Kosovo-Albanians love the Serbian soldiers.
The problem with the argumant of "objective",
authoritative morality is that the ethos is made into a military
order to be obeyed without question. This problem is increased
considerably when applied to religion, because it is not possible
to force someone to love, or to act out of love. Christ sums
up the entire "law" as follows: "Love you neighbor
as much as you love yorself." It is a call to selflessness,
or unselfishness - something that per definition cannot be legislated.
What Christ describes in the above quote from Matthew are some
of the things that a person filled with self-sacrificing love
for all creatures would do. There are many other possibilities,
and this is what Rudolf Steiner means by "moral imagination"
in "Philosophy of Freedom." Guru St. Rudy also says
that in the future, humanity will evolve the capacity for unsurpassed
acts of self-sacrificing love, literally beginning to shine from
within, and eventually this love-shining from human beings will
transform the earth into a new star, a new sun. (Christ said
that his disciples and followers would accomplish even greater
things than he had done himself.)
This kind of morality - the morality proceeding
from selfless love - cannot evolve or thrive without freedom
- unfettered spiritual freedom. Of course we need traffic regulations
and practical rules and so on to get things done on the physical
plane, but in the moral-spiritual sphere there cannot be any
authority whatsoever. Try to impose one; it won't get you anywhere.
You'll end up talking to yourself in the mirror. It's an anachronism.
If anyone is trying to stop progressive evolution and put civilization
back into the Dark Ages, it's the moralists - not the anthroposophists.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:07:21 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Bob Tolz]
Where we differ is that I think that the
basis for these ethics which transcend the individual and cultures
exists independently of an external moral arbiter. They are "in
the air," and any sane person should be able to come to
those ethics freely and independently, without having them imposed
from without. Indeed, the experience of having ethics imposed
from without, as opposed to being chosen and accepted voluntarily,
leads to rejection and rebellion.
[John Morehead]
How are they "in the air"? Are
they mere Brute Givens in the structure of the universe which
have evolved just as the rest of the cosmos?
No. They are consensual ideas which evolve
through human thought and discourse. They are in the air because
there are enough people who feel them and believe in them, independently
of any external authority, and they cannot die if an individual
espousing them is put to death, or the moral authority changes
its/his/her mind.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:25:36
At 10:07 AM 5/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
No. They are consensual ideas which evolve
through human thought and discourse. They are in the air because
there are enough people who feel them and believe in them, independently
of any external authority, and they cannot die if an individual
espousing them is put to death, or the moral authority changes
its/his/her mind.
So they are not objective Brute Givens which
have evolved as objective moral values as a part of the fabric
of the univere. They are merely ideas which have developed as
a part of the evolutionary development of consciousness in homo
sapiens, and therefore have utilitarian value in the survival
of a given culture and by extension the species.
But if this is the case, then once homo sapiens
dies out as a race, then these values die as well. So we are
back to a subjective and relative ethic. If this is indeed the
case, then as I stated before, one culture cannot make moral
judgements against another culture with a different moral consensus
(e.g., the holocaust, racism, slavery, etc.).
I don't think you have provided an adequate
philosophical foundation for your metaethical perspective, and
as it stands it is surely inadequate when compared with the foundation
for ethics within Christian theims, wherein ethics are rooted
in the nature of a Personal and transcendent God who is the definition
of the Good.
Thanks for your thoughts and the opportunity
to comment.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 04:01:28 +0200
Bob Tolz wrote:
No. They are consensual ideas which evolve
through human thought and discourse. They are in the air because
there are enough people who feel them and believe in them, independently
of any external authority, and they cannot die if an individual
espousing them is put to death, or the moral authority changes
its/his/her mind.
John Morehead wrote:
So they are not objective Brute Givens which have evolved
as objective moral values as a part of the fabric of the univere.
They are merely ideas which have developed as a part of the evolutionary
development of consciousness in homo sapiens, and therefore have
utilitarian value in the survival of a given culture and by extension
the species.
But if this is the case, then once homo sapiens dies out as a
race, then these values die as well.
That is a materialistic superstition. It is
assumed that moral and spiritual values are totally dependent
upon chemical biology, that they are in fact merely products
of chemical processes, and that they will cease to exist along
with the cessation of physical human incarnations.
So we are back to a subjective and relative
ethic. If this is indeed the case, then as I stated before, one
culture cannot make moral judgements against another culture
with a different moral consensus (e.g., the holocaust, racism,
slavery, etc.).
A culture cannot make moral judgements. Only
individuals can do that.
I don't think you have provided an adequate philosophical
foundation for your metaethical perspective, and as it stands
it is surely inadequate when compared with the foundation for
ethics within Christian theims, wherein ethics are rooted in
the nature of a Personal and transcendent God who is the definition
of the Good.
The foundation of Christian ethics is love,
not authority, not a metaphysical pope or emperor. To demonstrate
this, Christ washed the feet of his disciples and said he would
call them friends (i.e. brothers, equals). By a "personal
and transcendant God" you seem to mean an all-powerful deity
external to man who who is doing all the moral thinking and judging
for us. This is an anachronism from Old Testament times.
"But this shall be
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After
those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people." (Isaiah
24:31:33)
When the law is written in your heart, you're
an anarchist with no need for authority. Such is the path to
freedom seen from the vantage point of "Old Age" religion
(versus "New Age" of course).
Now, let's turn to Steiner's epistemology.
In POF he writes:
"Monism will have
to recognize that naïve realism is partially justified because
it recognizes the justification of the world of percepts. Whoever
is incapable of producing moral ideas through intuition must
accept them from others. In so far as a man receives his moral
principles from without, he is in fact unfree. But monism attaches
as much significance to the idea as to the percept. The idea,
however, can come to manifestation in the human individual. In
so far as man follows the impulses coming from this side, he
feels himself to be free. But monism denies all justification
to metaphysics, which merely draws inferences, and consequently
also to the impulses of action which are derived from so-called
"Beings-in-themselves". According to the monistic view,
man may act unfreely-when he obeys some perceptible external
compulsion; he can act freely, when he obeys none but himself.
Monism cannot recognize any unconscious compulsion hidden behind
percept and concept. If anyone asserts that the action of a fellow
man is done unfreely, then he must identify the thing or the
person or the institution within the perceptible world, that
has caused the person to act; and if he bases his assertion upon
causes of action lying outside the world that is real to the
senses and the spirit, then monism can take no notice of it."
"The moral laws which
the metaphysician who works by mere inference must regard as
issuing from a higher power, are, for the adherent of monism,
thoughts of men; for him the moral world order is neither the
imprint of a purely mechanical natural order, nor that of an
extra-human world order, but through and through the free creation
of men. It is not the will of some being outside him in the world
that man has to carry out, but his own; he puts into effect his
own resolves and intentions, not those of another being. Monism
does not see, behind man's actions, the purposes of a supreme
directorate, foreign to him and determining him according to
its will, but rather sees that men, in so far as they realize
their intuitive ideas, pursue only their own human ends. Moreover,
each individual pursues his own particular ends. For the world
of ideas comes to expression, not in a community of men, but
only in human individuals. What appears as the common goal of
a whole group of people is only the result of the separate acts
of will of its individual members, and in fact, usually of a
few outstanding ones who, as their authorities, are followed
by the others. Each one of us has it in him to be a free spirit,
just as every rose bud has in it a rose."
This is not only anthroposophy - it is also
true humanism, and at the same time genuine Christian spirituality:
"And you shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
"If the Son therefore
shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36 )
John was the most occult and esoteric of the
apostles, initiated by Christ himself. He understood that God
is love and that love is freedom. Legalism and moralism, called
objective ethic or whatever, just does not work anymore. The
more it is preached, written, coerced, the more immorality and
evil flourishes. And punishment does not work. But if you love
people and teach them to love, you set them free, and they will
develop high codes of ethics. Call it subjective or relativistic
that doesn't make sense anyway, but it's without consequence.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry, plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana,
criminality, death, skulls, skeletons, banners, links, links,
links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:27:47 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[Bob Tolz]
No. They are consensual ideas which evolve
through human thought and discourse. They are in the air because
there are enough people who feel them and believe in them, independently
of any external authority, and they cannot die if an individual
espousing them is put to death, or the moral authority changes
its/his/her mind.
[John Morehead]
So they are not objective Brute Givens which have evolved
as objective moral values as a part of the fabric of the univere.
They are merely ideas which have developed as a part of the evolutionary
development of consciousness in homo sapiens, and therefore have
utilitarian value in the survival of a given culture and by extension
the species.
But if this is the case, then once homo sapiens dies out as a
race, then these values die as well.
I was about to use one of my 13-year old's
favorite comments: "Your point being?" But then you
continued with the following:
So we are back to a subjective and relative
ethic. If this is indeed the case, then as I stated before, one
culture cannot make moral judgements against another culture
with a different moral consensus (e.g., the holocaust, racism,
slavery, etc.).
And I still don't believe you've made a point
here. Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
The fact that any idea could be viewed as
dependent on the existence of human beings has not a scintilla
of bearing on whether or not any individual or group of human
beings are entitled to judge or condemn the actions of one or
more other human beings.
I don't think you have provided an adequate
philosophical foundation for your metaethical perspective, and
as it stands it is surely inadequate when compared with the foundation
for ethics within Christian theims, wherein ethics are rooted
in the nature of a Personal and transcendent God who is the definition
of the Good.
With all due respect (once again), I don't
care one whit about "philosophical foundations" and
"metaethical perspectives". What I care about is the
nitty gritty of human relationships on the individual level,
as well as what implications those relationships have for broader
human and group interaction.
The problem with any "ism" is that
it tends to supplant personal responsibility with dogma. I asked
a question in my last post which you declined to address, so
I'll restate it here. If I am expected to accept an external
moral authority without question, isn't that in direct conflict
with the collective judgment of society, evidenced in the Nuremberg
trials, that it is not permissible to excuse oneself from responsibility
for one's actions by claiming that my leader told me to do it?
And it should be obvious that one cannot sidestep
this problem of abdication of personal responsibility by saying,
"Well, my leader is not Hitler."
I personally cannot accept any form of "ism"
which requires me to abdicate personal responsibility for what
I think, feel or do.
What I say on these issues does not dismiss
the possibility that morals and values might be generated from
a theistic source independent of human beings. But there are
many human beings and institutions who *interpret* what has been
perceived to be divinely transmitted. It seems that your position
is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's OK for those
people/institutions to tell their followers that what is said
must be believed without critical thinking.
I have a big problem with that.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 14:54:14
And I still don't believe you've made a
point here. Your conclusion does not follow your premise.
...the point being if objective moral values
do not exist independent of the individual who holds the value,
then moral values are merely human creations as an aid to survival.
They would be purely subjective and relative to the individual,
and by extension the culture, with no objective existence beyond
those holding to the mental construct of the value.
The fact that any idea could be viewed
as dependent on the existence of human beings has not a scintilla
of bearing on whether or not any individual or group of human
beings are entitled to judge or condemn the actions of one or
more other human beings.
It most certainly does. Let's say I choose
not to go along with your moral value of whatever type. Let's
say I'm a radical subjectivist in my moral epistemology, and
I happen to enjoy molesting children, and for me in my created
moral code this is ethically permissible. Now, you may judge
me and say this is "wrong," and the larger culture
may judge me, but so what? Don't force your subjective moral
construct on me. And by extension, how dare we force our collective
moral judgments on another culture which has created a moral
code which works for them. It's not as if we can appeal to some
objective, transcendent source for morality and determine that
such an act is wrong, *if* morality is merely subjective and
relative. As a believer in objective moral absolutes certain
moral acts are wrong regardless of whether an individual or culture
believes it to be so.
With all due respect (once again), I don't care one whit about
"philosophical foundations" and "metaethical perspectives".
What I care about is the nitty gritty of human relationships
on the individual level, as well as what implications those relationships
have for broader human and group interaction.
And with all due respect, one needs a proper
foundation for one's ethics, just as one does for other philosophical
issues. The foundation provides the very basis for the "nitty
gritty of human relationships."
What often happens is that moral relativists
often live as if they believe in moral absolutes, and then when
challenged, fall back to moral relativism.
The problem with any "ism" is
that it tends to supplant personal responsibility with dogma.
This could happen with any "ism,"
whether you're preference for moral relativism or my preference
for moral absolutism. Both can be as well reasoned and both can
be equally dogmatic.
I asked a question in my last post which
you declined to address, so I'll restate it here. If I am expected
to accept an external moral authority without question, isn't
that in direct conflict with the collective judgment of society,
evidenced in the Nuremberg trials, that it is not permissible
to excuse oneself from responsibility for one's actions by claiming
that my leader told me to do it?
It depends on the external moral authority,
doesn't it? If the moral authority were by nature the essence
of the Good, then the moral law which flowed from this source
would be good and could serve as the reference point for moral
values. So you wouldn't find yourself in the above historical
situation.
But I think you're complaint here is counterproductive
to your position. Why didn't those on trial at Nuremburg merely
thumb their noses at the trial by the Allies? After all, if we
all define the moral good subjectively and relatively, who cares
if the Allies thought it was a Holocaust. Germany had defined
the Jews as sub-human so in their worldview and the resulting
moral code, this made perfect sense.
I personally cannot accept any form of
"ism" which requires me to abdicate personal responsibility
for what I think, feel or do.
I agree. I advocated no subject abdication
of personal responsibility. But this begs the question, How does
one define the moral responsibility that one should or should
not keep? If it's not an external source, then simply redefine
your moral code so that you don't abdicate your own responsibility.
For an interesting discussion of the issue
of the basis of morality, I'd recommend the book _Does God Exist?_,
the transcript of a debate between atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen,
and Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland. They have an interesting
exchange over the basis for morality.
What I say on these issues does not dismiss
the possibility that morals and values might be generated from
a theistic source independent of human beings.
Agreed.
But there are many human beings and institutions
who *interpret* what has been perceived to be divinely transmitted.
It seems that your position is (and please correct me if I'm
wrong) that it's OK for those people/institutions to tell their
followers that what is said must be believed without critical
thinking.
No, this is not my position. Critical thinking
is a responsibility within the worldview of Christian theism,
even if it isn't practiced with great consistency on the part
of Christians! :)
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:31:49 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
[John Morehead]
...the point being if objective moral values
do not exist independent of the individual who holds the value,
then moral values are merely human creations as an aid to survival.
They would be purely subjective and relative to the individual,
and by extension the culture, with no objective existence beyond
those holding to the mental construct of the value.
[Bob Tolz]
Both you and Tarjei posit the thought that
an idea or thought exists independently. You know what? I don't
dismiss that at all, and I'm actually inclined to agree with
both of you. But it is not necessary to agree with you to be
moral and ethical, and those who do not agree with you are neither
amoral or immoral.
[Bob Tolz]
The fact that any idea could be viewed
as dependent on the existence of human beings has not a scintilla
of bearing on whether or not any individual or group of human
beings are entitled to judge or condemn the actions of one or
more other human beings.
[John Morehead]
It most certainly does. Let's say I choose
not to go along with your moral value of whatever type. Let's
say I'm a radical subjectivist in my moral epistemology, and
I happen to enjoy molesting children, and for me in my created
moral code this is ethically permissible. Now, you may judge
me and say this is "wrong," and the larger culture
may judge me, but so what? Don't force your subjective moral
construct on me.
[Bob Tolz]
That's OK. I won't force my subjective moral
construct on you. We'll just keep you in jail for the rest of
your life. That's what laws are for. We won't tell you what to
think or feel, but we'll sure as hell keep our children safe.
Laws are an expression of the collective judgment
as to what makes a just and safe society. They don't always work
that way, but that's one of their principal purposes.
Laws are also a means of communicating society's
morals and values. The radical subjectivist (whatever that means)
in your example ought to know that the morals and values of society
are contrary to what he is thinking. He ought to know that in
society's views, what he is thinking is wrong. The laws are an
argument against his morals and values, and the arguments which
the laws make can be persuasive in undermine the confidence with
which he holds his own wierd views.
In a democratic and pluralistic society such
as the United States, laws evolve over time as morals and values
change, as different interest groups come to power or fade away,
etc. They are not pronounced by some infallible interpreter of
the truth.
A society's rights to enact such laws has
nothing to do with whether or not its views on morals and ethics
are based on any independent or absolute foundation.
[John Morehead]
And by extension, how dare we force our
collective moral judgments on another culture which has created
a moral code which works for them.
[Bob Tolz]
We dare to do so because in some instances,
such as genocide and "ethnic cleansing", the international
consensus is that the behavior and the consequences of that other
culture's actions is so repugnant and reprehensible that any
obstacles to interfereing with those actions are worth hurdling.
The international consensus thus becomes the broader society
which governs behavior.
[John Morehead]
It's not as if we can appeal to some objective,
transcendent source for morality and determine that such an act
is wrong, *if* morality is merely subjective and relative. As
a believer in objective moral absolutes certain moral acts are
wrong regardless of whether an individual or culture believes
it to be so.
[Bob Tolz]
It is not necessary to "appeal to some
objective, transcendent source for morality" to determine
that an act is wrong.
Here is the problem with believing in "objective
moral absolutes," even if one believes they exist: *Who*
decides what those moral absolutes are?
No person is infallible. No group of people
is infallible. With all due respect, the Pope is not infallible.
Neither was Rudolf Steiner. Jim Jones' followers probably thought
he was infallible. Do you?
I just don't get what I infer to be your argument,
which is that, assuming objective moral absolutes exist, it is
unnecessary for each of us to struggle to determine what the
content of those objective moral absolutes really is.
[Bob Tolz]
With all due respect (once again), I don't
care one whit about "philosophical foundations" and
"metaethical perspectives". What I care about is the
nitty gritty of human relationships on the individual level,
as well as what implications those relationships have for broader
human and group interaction.
[John Morehead]
And with all due respect, one needs a proper
foundation for one's ethics, just as one does for other philosophical
issues. The foundation provides the very basis for the "nitty
gritty of human relationships."
[Bob Tolz]
That foundation needn't be philosophical or
theological. The foundation can be found in the group of values
and ethics which society has presently attained, and we go forward
from that as society evolves and as each individual grapples
with the advancement and understanding of those values and ethics.
[Bob Tolz]
The problem with any "ism" is
that it tends to supplant personal responsibility with dogma.
[John Morehead]
This could happen with any "ism,"
whether you're preference for moral relativism or my preference
for moral absolutism. Both can be as well reasoned and both can
be equally dogmatic.
[Bob Tolz]
It's true that any "ism" can become
dogmatic, but I wasn't complaining about dogma, which has its
place, if kept in its place. I was complaining about dogma supplanting
personal responsibility. It is *not* true that a strong belief
in personal responsibility will tend to cause someone to abdicate
personal responsibility.
Aside: You've probably heard the phrase "My
karma ran over my dogma."
[Bob Tolz]
I asked a question in my last post which
you declined to address, so I'll restate it here. If I am expected
to accept an external moral authority without question, isn't
that in direct conflict with the collective judgment of society,
evidenced in the Nuremberg trials, that it is not permissible
to excuse oneself from responsibility for one's actions by claiming
that my leader told me to do it?
[John Morehead]
It depends on the external moral authority,
doesn't it?
[Bob Tolz]
No, I really think it does not depend on who
or what the external moral authority is.
Let's take an example. Suppose a religious
institution holds itself out as the supreme moral authority and
demands obedience from its followers in thoughts, feelings and
actions. Anyone who strays from what is dictated is accused of
not accepting the objective moral absolute and of being a moral
relativist. In order to advance its power and sway, it conducts
crusades, inquisitions, burnings at the stake, and so forth.
Centuries later, the religious institution officially recognizes
the error of its conduct.
Was a person who challenged the authority
of the religious institution a moral relativist, without foundation
for ethics and morals? Was that person heretic or hero?
How should the authority of that religious
institution be viewed by someone who today professes that religion.
Should that person assume that the institution and the people
who speak for it are infallible and beyond error?
[John Morehead]
If the moral authority were by nature the
essence of the Good, then the moral law which flowed from this
source would be good and could serve as the reference point for
moral values. So you wouldn't find yourself in the above historical
situation.
[Bob Tolz]
Again: *Who* has the ability and the infallibility
to tell me what that "essence of the Good" is really
saying to me? Why don't I have the right and responsibility to
determine that myself?
[John Morehead]
Why didn't those on trial at Nuremburg
merely thumb their noses at the trial by the Allies? After all,
if we all define the moral good subjectively and relatively,
who cares if the Allies thought it was a Holocaust. Germany had
defined the Jews as sub-human so in their worldview and the resulting
moral code, this made perfect sense.
[Bob Tolz]
We care because the international consensus
found the Holocaust reprehensible, regardless whether or not
any individual, group or nation believed in an external moral
authority.
[Bob Tolz]
I personally cannot accept any form of
"ism" which requires me to abdicate personal responsibility
for what I think, feel or do.
[John Morehead]
I agree. I advocated no subject abdication
of personal responsibility. But this begs the question, How does
one define the moral responsibility that one should or should
not keep?
[Bob Tolz]
The individual has to derive the basics from
whatever resources are at hand: society, religion, laws, family,
peers, etc. .... and go from there.
[John Morehead]
If it's not an external source, then simply
redefine your moral code so that you don't abdicate your own
responsibility.
[Bob Tolz]
No, it's not that simple. If your redefined
moral code is reprehensible to those who have power to legislate
and to enforce that legislation, you're in trouble.
[Bob Tolz]
What I say on these issues does not dismiss
the possibility that morals and values might be generated from
a theistic source independent of human beings.
[John Morehead]
Agreed.
[Bob Tolz]
But there are many human beings and institutions
who *interpret* what has been perceived to be divinely transmitted.
It seems that your position is (and please correct me if I'm
wrong) that it's OK for those people/institutions to tell their
followers that what is said must be believed without critical
thinking.
[John Morehead]
No, this is not my position. Critical thinking
is a responsibility within the worldview of Christian theism,
even if it isn't practiced with great consistency on the part
of Christians! :)
[Bob Tolz]
Then if you agree with me, let's try to refocus
the subject, and maybe we can come to some further resolution.
This whole discussion started when you complained
that it was not possible to have a non-dualistic view of the
universe without being a "moral relativist" and, by
implication, either amoral, immoral or, at the very least, too
slippery to label.
I indicated that to accept the notion that
"all is one" is not contradictory to the dualities
of everyday existence. Nor does it prevent someone from being
moral or ethical.
You have claimed that morals and ethics need
an external foundation, independent of the existence of human
beings. I have replied that although I accept that such an external
foundation may exist, I do not think it is a pre-requisite for
morals and ethics but that society's consensual values and laws
provide a sufficient starting place for anyone who is grappling
with such issues.
I expressed my concern that even if there
does exist such an external foundation as you suggest, it is
impossible to rely completely on the pronouncement of any individual
or group of individuals as to what that foundation has to say
to us, because to do so both (1) presupposes the infallibility
of someone who tells me what that means and (2) abdicates my
personal responsibility.
What say you?
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 07:29:27
[Bob Tolz]
That's OK. I won't force my subjective
moral construct on you. We'll just keep you in jail for the rest
of your life. That's what laws are for. We won't tell you what
to think or feel, but we'll sure as hell keep our children safe.
But is there a proper foundation for those
who have the power to enforce such moral infractions? That's
the question. Not whether we recognize the existenct of moral
values, but do objective moral values exist outside of what individuals
care to think of them? A moral relativist says no, and is therefore
vulnerable to moral relativism.
We dare to do so because in some instances,
such as genocide and "ethnic cleansing", the international
consensus is that the behavior and the consequences of that other
culture's actions is so repugnant and reprehensible that any
obstacles to interfereing with those actions are worth hurdling.
The international consensus thus becomes the broader society
which governs behavior.
Yes, yes, yes, we recognize certain moral
notions. That much is agreed. But the question remains, are they
objective or subjective. If subjective, then one cannot validly
critique another individual's or culture's moral code.
[Bob Tolz]
It is not necessary to "appeal to
some objective, transcendent source for morality" to determine
that an act is wrong.
But it is to have an objective reference point
for defining right and wrong.
Here is the problem with believing in "objective
moral absolutes," even if one believes they exist: *Who*
decides what those moral absolutes are?
It goes back to the transcendent reference
point and ground for the good.
[Bob Tolz]
Again: *Who* has the ability and the infallibility
to tell me what that "essence of the Good" is really
saying to me? Why don't I have the right and responsibility to
determine that myself?
Maybe we're getting somewhere. You acknowledge
that an objective reference point for defining the good exists?
Then we just need to sharpen our ability to bring our moral values
in harmony with that reference point?
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:21:29 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: John & Wendy Morehead
But is there a proper foundation for those
who have the power to enforce such moral infractions? That's
the question. Not whether we recognize the existenct of moral
values, but do objective moral values exist outside of what individuals
care to think of them? A moral relativist says no, and is therefore
vulnerable to moral relativism.
Objective moral values may indeed exist outside
the individuals who care to think of them, but I don't think
it matters. I don't think the "moral relativsm" is
*relevant* to or diminishes the right of a society to legislate
and to punish those who commit infractions of the code.
We dare to do so because in some instances,
such as genocide and "ethnic cleansing", the international
consensus is that the behavior and the consequences of that other
culture's actions is so repugnant and reprehensible that any
obstacles to interfereing with those actions are worth hurdling.
The international consensus thus becomes the broader society
which governs behavior.
Yes, yes, yes, we recognize certain moral
notions. That much is agreed. But the question remains, are they
objective or subjective. If subjective, then one cannot validly
critique another individual's or culture's moral code.
I can and I do, regardless whether the moral
notions are objective or subjective.
[John Morehead]
But it is to have an objective reference
point for defining right and wrong.
[Bob Tolz]
Right and wrong change over the course of
eons, at least the *interpretation* by individuals and societies
changes of right and wrong changes over time. What's objective
about that?
[Bob Tolz]
Here is the problem with believing in "objective
moral absolutes," even if one believes they exist: *Who*
decides what those moral absolutes are?
[John Morehead]
It goes back to the transcendent reference
point and ground for the good.
[Bob Tolz]
But it's not enough to have a transcendent
reference point. If such a point exists, and I'm not going to
deny that it does, someone has to *tell* me what it is, or I
have to figure it out. And even if someone does tell me, I have
to take it with a grain of salt because I don't believe in their
infallibility. But if I then take it with a grain of salt, you'll
label me a "moral relativist."
[Bob Tolz]
Again: *Who* has the ability and the infallibility
to tell me what that "essence of the Good" is really
saying to me? Why don't I have the right and responsibility to
determine that myself?
[John Morehead]
Maybe we're getting somewhere. You acknowledge
that an objective reference point for defining the good exists?
Then we just need to sharpen our ability to bring our moral values
in harmony with that reference point?
[Bob Tolz]
Oh yes, I do agree with that. But before we
sharpen our ability to bring our moral values in harmony with
that reference point, we have to sharpen our powers of discernment
to determine what that reference point is.
But I disagree with your dismissal (as amoral/immoral)
of any philosophy or cosmology which has within it the "all
is one" type of idea. In fact, the objective reference point
for defining where the "good" exists could be said
to be locatable in the "all," and the fact that in
this cosmology we are each inextricably part of the all does
not prevent that objective reference point from existing, as
it seems you argue.
Furthermore, I don't believe that everyone
has to believe in some external reference point in order to be
moral and ethical. For instance, look at the following description
of "Secular Humanism" gleaned from http://members.aol.com/jimspeiser/nontheism/sechum.htm
[obsolete url] (I have no idea whether that's an authoritative site;
it's just one that popped up near the top of my Alta Vista search):
<Begin Secular Humanism quote>
"Secular Humanism
is a nonreligious philosophy that seeks to achieve human progress
through self-reliance and enjoyment of life within a context
of ethical behavior. Secular humanists are convinced that human
problems are neither caused by, nor alleviated by, supernatural
realms or deities. Thus, while the philosophy does not directly
address the existence of god, it makes a statement that the concept
of god is of little or no usefulness in meeting the challenges
of human existence.
"Secular humanism
can be said to be an extension of atheism, one of several possible
answers to the question, "If not God, then what?" It
can be viewed as "applied atheism," a set of principles
suggested by the realization that mankind is responsible for
his own destiny. Rather than dwell on questions that will never
be answered in our lifetime, the secular humanist seeks to deal
with life as it is presented to us: utterly devoid of design
or intrinsic purpose, yet full of possibilities for enjoyment
and enhancement.
"Besides atheists,
the secular humanist movement includes under its umbrella agnostics,
deists, freethinkers, and others who reject religion as a guide
to knowledge and behavior. "
</End Secular Humanism quote>
Can you honestly say to me that someone who
considers himself a Secular Humanismist, which considers the
concept of <lower case> god of little or no usefulness
in meeting the challenges of human existence, to be amoral, immoral
or a moral relativist because his ethics and morals might not
be based on some external objective, theistic standard? I certainly
wouldn't.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:27:31 -0700
On 5 May 99, at 14:54, John & Wendy Morehead
wrote:
...the point being if objective moral values
do not exist independent of the individual who holds the value,
then moral values are merely human creations as an aid to survival.
They would be purely subjective and relative to the individual,
and by extension the culture, with no objective existence beyond
those holding to the mental construct of the value.
I hate to jump in here when Bob is doing such
a *great* job of debating this, and I pretty much agree with
everything he's said. Having said that, I'm jumping in anyway.
Suppose that certain moral values are important
to the proper functioning of any society, so those values are
not merely limited to one culture, but apply cross-culturally
to all humanity. They are not external to humanity, in that they
would "die out" when humanity dies out, but they are
external to the individual and to the particular culture. Such
values are "objective" in the sense that any individual
who denies the moral force of the particular rule is mistaken.
Nevertheless, I think you would consider such rules to be subjective
and relative, correct?
The question of judging other cultures usually
comes up when a particular culture believes that moral rules
apply only in dealing with other members of the same society,
and that other rules apply when dealing with some group that
lives outside that society. This is the thinking that allows
the Serbs to kick the Albanians out of Kosovo, allowed the Germans
to slaughter Jews, and allowed the Catholic Church to slaughter
Jews and witches during the Inquisition. It is also the thinking
that allowed Martin Luther to call for the death or expulsion
of Jews.
It appears that moral absolutists are as likely
to engage in this sort of behavior as moral relativists. They
may, in fact, be more likely to engage in such atrocities, because
they believe the proclamations of their leaders as to God's will.
What else can they do, since they have no personal access to
God's mind?
Let's say I choose not to go along with
your moral value of whatever type. Let's say I'm a radical subjectivist
in my moral epistemology, and I happen to enjoy molesting children,
and for me in my created moral code this is ethically permissible.
Now, you may judge me and say this is "wrong," and
the larger culture may judge me, but so what? Don't force your
subjective moral construct on me. And by extension, how dare
we force our collective moral judgments on another culture which
has created a moral code which works for them. It's not as if
we can appeal to some objective, transcendent source for morality
and determine that such an act is wrong, *if* morality is merely
subjective and relative.
The problem is that even if an objective,
transcendent source for morality exists, you can't appeal directly
to that source to determine whether an act is wrong. All you
can do is appeal to some religious leader who you believe to
have access to the mind of God, either directly or through infallible
scripture. And if you're referring to infallible scripture, you've
got to have someone with access to the mind of God to determine
that it is infallible.
Since those who claim to have access to the
mind of God often come to differing views of morality, particularly
with respect to sexual practices such as homosexuality, premarital
sex, and bigamy, you've still got to decide who to believe. So
you're back in the same boat.
As a believer in objective moral absolutes
certain moral acts are wrong regardless of whether an individual
or culture believes it to be so.
As a believer that there is a morality which
transcends culture, and which is probably based on principles
that are necessary for the survival of any society, I agree that
certain acts are wrong regardless of whether an individual or
culture believes it to be so.
Bob wrote:
If I am expected to accept an external
moral authority without question, isn't that in direct conflict
with the collective judgment of society, evidenced in the Nuremberg
trials, that it is not permissible to excuse oneself from responsibility
for one's actions by claiming that my leader told me to do it?
It depends on the external moral authority,
doesn't it? If the moral authority were by nature the essence
of the Good, then the moral law which flowed from this source
would be good and could serve as the reference point for moral
values. So you wouldn't find yourself in the above historical
situation.
But the moral authority is never the essence
of Good. The moral authority is some dude who claims access to
the essence of Good, or a cultural or religious belief that the
essence of Good is recorded in a book.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Moral values
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:50:27 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo
But the moral authority is never the essence
of Good. The moral authority is some dude who claims access to
the essence of Good, or a cultural or religious belief that the
essence of Good is recorded in a book.
Thanks for chiming in. I was beginning to
think this discussion was of no interest to anyone else on this
list.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
I prefer the quote from Superman, something
on the order of "There's a good and a bad in this universe,
and it's not hard to tell the difference." Right on point
here.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah
Stein
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 02:11:28 -0500
John Morehead and Bob Tolz have been discussing
the basis of morality...
and if no one minds, I would like to add a few comments:
For an interesting discussion of the issue
of the basis of morality, I'd recommend the book _Does God Exist?_,
the transcript of a debate between atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen,
and Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland. They have an interesting
exchange over the basis for morality.
What I say on these issues does not dismiss
the possibility that morals and values might be generated from
a theistic source independent of human beings.
Isn't it possible that what people feel is
an innate sense of morality -- a basic trait shared by most humans
(related perhaps to Jung's idea of the "collective unconscious"?)
-- is there because it was designed into people by an external
source; i.e., God? I realize that atheists will not find common
ground here, but it seems to me (as a religious person) that
just as we do not have to *learn* to see or hear or exercise
other basic human faculties (although some, like walking, do
need to *develop*), we also do not necessarily have to *learn*
to be moral -- it is already "built in" to our systems
(and it develops as we mature). Most people tend to be moral,
or at least to want to do good. That, I believe, is human nature,
and it is why even *without* religion, the majority of people
do fine in terms of their basic morality.
Of course, someone who does not see the world
as "created" or "designed" will not be in
agreement here at all. And the Christian world-view may well
differ from the Jewish one (correct me if I'm wrong, please),
which has no concept of "original sin" and sees people
as inherently, innately good.
The first set of laws given in the Torah (Five
Books of Moses) was *not* given to the Jews, but rather to the
world at large -- through Noah. (At the time of Noah, the Jewish
people were not yet a people.) When Noah began to rebuild the
human population, he was given a set of seven basic commandments
(with lots of detailed sub-laws), known as the "Noahide
Laws." I don't have a reference in front of me to list them
all, but they include not murdering, not stealing, not worshipping
idols, not being cruel to animals, not having illicit sexual
relations, and a positive commandment to set up a system of civil
justice... hmm... that's six... sorry to leave you hanging but
I better stop there, before I say something that's not accurate.
At any rate, these laws encompass much, if
not all, of what most people would consider to be the fundamentals
of morality.
Bob Tolz said:
Laws are an expression of the collective judgment as to what
makes a just and safe society. They don't always work that way,
but that's one of their principal purposes.
Laws are also a means of communicating society's morals and values.
The radical subjectivist (whatever that means) in your example
ought to know that the morals and values of society are contrary
to what he is thinking. He ought to know that in society's views,
what he is thinking is wrong. The laws are an argument against
his morals and values, and the arguments which the laws make
can be persuasive in undermine the confidence with which he holds
his own wierd views.
In a democratic and pluralistic society such as the United States,
laws evolve over time as morals and values change, as different
interest groups come to power or fade away, etc. They are not
pronounced by some infallible interpreter of the truth.
A society's rights to enact such laws has nothing to do with
whether or not its views on morals and ethics are based on any
independent or absolute foundation.
First of all, the Founding Fathers were religious
people who wrote the Constitution in the context of their religious
views. I don't remember learning that they intended for the laws
to change with the changing morals of society...? Even if the
external, objective authority is, say, the Constitution of the
United States, it *still* would not make sense to have "morality
by consensus."
If the majority of Americans cheat on their
spouses, should we then decide (by a vote? or by default?) that
it's moral to commit adultery? Or should we say instead that
people have wandered away from their moral grounding on that
one? If an "interest group" such as the KKK "comes
to power" (think David Duke -- he's back), and grows in
influence, so that, over time, the consensus of the American
people "evolves" into a white-supremacist morality
-- is that just another example of how things happen in a "democratic
and pluralistic society such as the United States"?
That foundation needn't be philosophical
or theological. The foundation can be found in the group of values
and ethics which society has presently attained, and we go forward
from that as society evolves and as each individual grapples
with the advancement and understanding of those values and ethics.
Your words sound good, but in practice the
ideal falls apart. I don't see American morality, as a whole,
"evolving" by consensus into a more moral and just
morality.
[John Morehead]
If it's not an external source, then simply
redefine your moral code so that you don't abdicate your own
responsibility.
[Bob Tolz]
No, it's not that simple. If your redefined
moral code is reprehensible to those who have power to legislate
and to enforce that legislation, you're in trouble.
Why should being in a position of political
power give one the right to decide what is moral? If the government
is corrupt, and the common folks are moral, then corruption wins?
What if a government wants to impose, let's say, a "charity
tax," in which the government gets fifty percent of all
charitable donations made by its citizens, with the tax revenue
earmarked for the development of biological weaponry (if that's
the correct term)?
People have the personal responsibility to
act morally. But if the basis for morality is also personal,
then there is no morality. I'm *not* talking about the big stuff
here -- murder, stealing. (Although even those "obvious"
examples of immorality aren't really so obvious these days; ask
a teenager if there's ever a reason that murder or stealing would
be OK.) I'm talking about the "little" stuff -- the
stuff that really tests someone's goodness. Do you give charity?
(Always, or only when you're feeling generous?) Do you visit
sick people in the hospital? (What if you hate hospitals?) Do
you comfort someone who is in mourning? (What if you find it
depressing or it makes you uncomfortable?) Do you care about
how animals are treated on factory farms? (What if you're in
the mood for a Big Mac?) Do you treat your parents with respect?
(What if they're weak, whiny, nagging, unpleasant people?)
My point is that it's in the finer points
of morality that a person really has to exercise his responsibility
and his free will to choose to be good. Even the most religious
person has his own personal sense of morality and responsibility
tested many times every day; the advantage is only that he has
objective criteria to use as a guide, a moral compass.
An external source of morality has nothing
to do with coercion; individuals, in order to be moral, must
*choose* to do what is right.
I've gone on more than long enough.
Respectfully,
Sarah
*****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:23:03 -0700
Sarah, you wrote,
it seems to me (as a religious person)
that just as we do not have to *learn* to see or hear or exercise
other basic human faculties (although some, like walking, do
need to *develop*), we also do not necessarily have to *learn*
to be moral -- it is already "built in" to our systems
(and it develops as we mature). Most people tend to be moral,
or at least to want to do good. That, I believe, is human nature,
and it is why even *without* religion, the majority of people
do fine in terms of their basic morality.
I disagree with this romantic view of humanity.
Morality is built into our *cultural* systems, not our physical
inheritance. It has to be taught, by example (best) and social
pressure (when necessary). A romantic view of childhood like
this leads teachers in some Waldorf schools to neglect monitoring
playgrounds in the belief that it's best to let the children's
"natural" impulses "work things out." This
policy has led to horrific abuses; I recall a story told here
some time ago about a child found hanged (not seriously injured).
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:23:23 -0700
On 7 May 99, at 10:23, Dan Dugan wrote:
A romantic view of childhood like this
leads teachers in some Waldorf schools to neglect monitoring
playgrounds in the belief that it's best to let the children's
"natural" impulses "work things out."
Thanks, Dan, for bringing the thread back
to Waldorf. I'm enjoying it a great deal, and I'd hate to give
it up because it's off-topic!
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 16:02:14 -0400
On 7 May 99, at 10:23, Dan Dugan wrote:
A romantic view of childhood like this
leads teachers in some Waldorf schools to neglect monitoring
playgrounds in the belief that it's best to let the children's
"natural" impulses "work things out."
Thanks, Dan, for bringing the thread back
to Waldorf. I'm enjoying it a great deal, and I'd hate to give
it up because it's off-topic!
Whether it's true or not is another matter.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 08:44:58 -0700
On 7 May 99, at 2:11, Sarah wrote:
Isn't it possible that what people feel
is an innate sense of morality -- a basic trait shared by most
humans (related perhaps to Jung's idea of the "collective
unconscious"?) -- is there because it was designed into
people by an external source; i.e., God? I realize that atheists
will not find common ground here, but it seems to me (as a religious
person) that just as we do not have to *learn* to see or hear
or exercise other basic human faculties (although some, like
walking, do need to *develop*), we also do not necessarily have
to *learn* to be moral -- it is already "built in"
to our systems (and it develops as we mature). Most people tend
to be moral, or at least to want to do good. That, I believe,
is human nature, and it is why even *without* religion, the majority
of people do fine in terms of their basic morality.
Actually, those who believe that we were "designed"
by God and those who believe that we evolved to our present state
may find common ground here. (Evolution, of course, is not inconsistent
with the concept that God created the world - it can be seen
as a description of God's methods.)
People who live in groups with moral codes
have a greater chance of survival than those who live in groups
without moral codes. Thus, some basic morality, and a desire
to follow moral codes, may be "built in" to human nature,
whether God exists or not.
First of all, the Founding Fathers were
religious people who wrote the Constitution in the context of
their religious views.
That's certainly what Christians have been
telling us. I'm not so sure, though. I believe that many were
Deists, who believe that God has no particular interaction with
us or with the world. And Thomas Jefferson wrote this to John
Adams:
"The day will come
when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as
his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
I don't see American morality, as a whole,
"evolving" by consensus into a more moral and just
morality.
Do you not? A few generations back, slavery
was considered to be an acceptable practice by most people; it
is now considered morally abhorrent. Discrimination on the basis
of race was considered acceptable in part of the country when
my parents were growing up; it is now considered unacceptable.
It has not disappeared, but the consensus is that it is wrong.
Even more recently, it was considered only
proper to exclude women from business and professional positions
of responsibility. That is now considered to be wrong.
So I think American morality has evolved.
On the other hand, as our society becomes more urbanized, the
social pressures on people to conform to a moral code have diminished,
so perhaps people aren't doing as well at following that morality.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:13:15 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo
[Sarah]
I don't see American morality, as a whole,
"evolving" by consensus into a more moral and just
morality.
[Steve]
Do you not? A few generations back, slavery
was considered to be an acceptable practice by most people; it
is now considered morally abhorrent. Discrimination on the basis
of race was considered acceptable in part of the country when
my parents were growing up; it is now considered unacceptable.
It has not disappeared, but the consensus is that it is wrong.
Don't forget the evolving environmental consciousness,
which could be thought of as part of a moral/value system.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:03:13 -0400
[Bob Tolz]
As an aside, before responding to Sarah, I
think it's time to make comments as to how this thread has any
bearing on the mainstream of this list, regarding Waldorf education
and the associated discussion. I have some thoughts on that,
but may not be able to bring them to the list until the end of
the weekend.
[Sarah]
Isn't it possible that what people feel
is an innate sense of morality -- a basic trait shared by most
humans (related perhaps to Jung's idea of the "collective
unconscious"?) -- is there because it was designed into
people by an external source; i.e., God? I realize that atheists
will not find common ground here, but it seems to me (as a religious
person) that just as we do not have to *learn* to see or hear
or exercise other basic human faculties (although some, like
walking, do need to *develop*), we also do not necessarily have
to *learn* to be moral -- it is already "built in"
to our systems (and it develops as we mature). Most people tend
to be moral, or at least to want to do good. That, I believe,
is human nature, and it is why even *without* religion, the majority
of people do fine in terms of their basic morality.
[Bob Tolz]
Good point. I've often thought that Jung's
idea of the collective unconscious was an intutitively satisfying
explanation of many things.
[Sarah]
First of all, the Founding Fathers were
religious people who wrote the Constitution in the context of
their religious views. I don't remember learning that they intended
for the laws to change with the changing morals of society...?
[Bob Tolz]
The framers of the Constitution (hereafter
the "Framers") displayed their intention of flexibility
in permitting laws to be changed by their descendants is displayed
by (1) that the Constitution on its face is amendable, even the
amendments (2) the Constitution creates a legislative body to
make laws (and one would assume that the Framers did not expect
the legislature to finish its work and abolish itself in a few
years) and (3) in the concept of "State's Rights,"
the Constitution permits a modicum of decentralization that permits
laws to differ state by state (to the extent they do not conflict
with national interests, as those national interests themselves
may be defined from time to time). I think it's self-evident
that laws will change as society's morals change. If someone
thinks not, I'll be happy to enter into that discussion. I think
it's a reasonable assumption that the Framers built in the flexibility
into the U.S. system because they had the foresight to see that
they couldn't see the future. I think they anticipated that morals
and values in the society could vary over time. Certainly they
*have* changed in over 200 years! I have no juicy quotes from
the late 1700's which explicitly express the intention for laws
to change with the changing morals and values of society. Any
lurkers out there with a greater facility for U.S. history?
[Sarah]
Even if the external, objective authority
is, say, the Constitution of the United States, it *still* would
not make sense to have "morality by consensus."
[Bob Tolz]
That's a complicated issues. Certainly, we
wouldn't want that consensus to simply represent the lowest common
denominator, would we? Yet neither would it be acceptable (at
least not to me, as I've outlined in other posts) for my government
to tell me what to think and feel.
I think that as a practical matter, at least
in the U.S., we do have morality by consensus. Thankfully it
has worked well enough that on the whole it is not a morality
of the lowest common denominator.
[Sarah]
If the majority of Americans cheat on their
spouses, should we then decide (by a vote? or by default?) that
it's moral to commit adultery?
[Bob Tolz]
Well, I can describe how I think the system
would work in such an event. The laws are certainly likely to
change. Clearly, even if in many if not most states adultery
remains in the penal code, I wonder when was the last time anyone
was criminally prosecuted for that infraction.
And as laws change (or fall fallow) to accomodate
the changing mores of society, those laws in and of themselves
reflect back to and communicate to the society what is permissible
and what is not, at least from the point of view of the law,
if not from the point of view of some objective and absolute
morality.
So laws are affected by, and in turn have
an effect on, morality.
[Sarah]
Or should we say instead that people have
wandered away from their moral grounding on that one? If an "interest
group" such as the KKK "comes to power" (think
David Duke -- he's back), and grows in influence, so that, over
time, the consensus of the American people "evolves"
into a white-supremacist morality -- is that just another example
of how things happen in a "democratic and pluralistic society
such as the United States"?
[Bob Tolz]
Yes, it would be, but I have confidence that
the prevailing notions in this country would not push us in that
kind of direction. If they do, I may become a world nomad. I'm
not pulling up stakes just yet, because your "what if"
scenario doesn't cause me much anxiety.
[Sarah]
That foundation needn't be philosophical
or theological. The foundation can be found in the group of values
and ethics which society has presently attained, and we go forward
from that as society evolves and as each individual grapples
with the advancement and understanding of those values and ethics.
Your words sound good, but in practice
the ideal falls apart.
[Bob Tolz]
How does it fall apart in practice? You've
made a statement without backing it up.
[Sarah]
I don't see American morality, as a whole,
"evolving" by consensus into a more moral and just
morality.
[Bob Tolz]
Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. I'm not clairvoyant.
Besides, who defines what is more moral and just?
[Sarah]
Why should being in a position of political power give one
the right to decide what is moral?
[Bob Tolz]
The government doesn't decide what's moral,
at least not in the U.S.
[Sarah]
If the government is corrupt, and the common
folks are moral, then corruption wins? What if a government wants
to impose, let's say, a "charity tax," in which the
government gets fifty percent of all charitable donations made
by its citizens, with the tax revenue earmarked for the development
of biological weaponry (if that's the correct term)?
[Bob Tolz]
Then lobby, petition, picket, demonstrate
and vote the SOB's out of office. SOB's have been chased out
of office before, and (given that they crop up like weeds) it'll
happen again. An alternative: run for office yourself.
[Sarah
People have the personal responsibility
to act morally.
[Bob Tolz]
I agree absolutely.
[Sarah]
But if the basis for morality is also personal,
then there is no morality.
[Bob Tolz]
I disagree.
[Sarah]
My point is that it's in the finer points
of morality that a person really has to exercise his responsibility
and his free will to choose to be good.
[Bob Tolz]
I agree absolutely.
[Sarah]
Even the most religious person has his
own personal sense of morality and responsibility tested many
times every day; the advantage is only that he has objective
criteria to use as a guide, a moral compass.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm not sure of your use of the word "only"
here. Are you saying the religious person's "only advantage"
is the objective criteria, or that "only the religious person"
has an objective criteria? I would suspect that many non-religious
people would quarrel over the latter.
[Sarah]
An external source of morality has nothing
to do with coercion; individuals, in order to be moral, must
*choose* to do what is right.
[Bob Tolz]
Agreed that individuals must choose to do
what is right. An external source of morality may be useful,
but is not necessary. As you said before, "even *without*
religion, the majority of people do fine in terms of their basic
morality."
"There is a right and a wrong in the
Universe and that distinction is not difficult to make."
- Superman (quoted via Steve Premo)
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 14:20:04 +0100
On 7 May 99, at 10:23, Dan Dugan wrote:
A romantic view of childhood like this
leads teachers in some Waldorf schools to neglect monitoring
playgrounds in the belief that it's best to let the children's
"natural" impulses "work things out."
Thanks, Dan, for bringing the thread back
to Waldorf. I'm enjoying it a great deal, and I'd hate to give
it up because it's off-topic!
Whether it's true or not is another matter.
Robert Flannery
New York
It was true at my son's Waldorf school - especially
in Kindergarten. While teachers may have been present, kindergarten
children were allowed to play with ropes and climb _very_ tall
trees at will. I watched a group of second graders tie up their
teacher with the ropes. He truely was bound up with them.
-Deby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 19:06:25 +0200
Is humanity evolving higher morals, or is
it worsening? Steve and Bob are the optimists, but Sarah seems
to be more skeptical - perhaps pessimistic. But she's right too,
I think. There is an ascending and a descending curve. And just
like the future will bring unprecedented nobility, love, and
morality, there will also be possibility for a tremendous increase
and intensification of evil. Rudolf Steiner mentioned that especially
evil connected with the forces of reproduction would increase
in the near future. If he is right, incest and pedophelia is
not just coming out of the closet because it's always been there
to the same extent. We are experiencing almost a global epidemic
in very bad sex crimes.
As man is being liberated from authority -
a process that cannot be reversed - we will see more and more
abuse of freedom and of knowledge. But it is perfectly possible
to be an optimist and look at the progress, the bright side,
the improvements, the increased responsibility for the ecology
and an awakening to a global social conscience and so on. Steiner
also predicted that in there will come a time when people won't
find it possible to enjoy themselves and be happy when they know
that other people are suffering.
There are a lot of very good things happening
in America in the social sphere with people helping people on
a voluntary basis - perhaps more than in any other country. But
America also has the worst kind of crimes. Still, the death penalty
should be banned, the CIA should be abolished, the Pentagon should
be dismantled and its employees sent into therapy with Dr. Fine.
(It's a very destructive cult with evil aliens, UFOs, and occult
X-files that go bump in the night.) Texas should declare its
independence from the union, and the other states should follow.
Decentralize. And send all the kids to Waldorf schools; that
way they won't have any problem adjusting. Who wants to live
in an empire anyway? Julius Caesar's ghost is haunting you, just
like it's haunting the poor Russians parading around with Stalin's
portrait. The cult of Julius Caesar.
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Duane Koons"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:10:09 -0500
I am new to this list so I'm still trying
to understand the nature of this discourse. The philosophical
wrestling matches seem to have little to do with taking a critical
look at Waldorf education. Some of the conversation may reference
some of the esoteric aspects of anthroposophy but it seems far
removed what my child experiences in the classroom. Since I don't
consider Steiner a deity (or antichrist for that matter) I can't
understand this idea that everyone associated with waldorf schools
is accountable for every aspect of his writings and philosophies.
I certainly don't believe critiques of public schooling should
rest primarilly on the vast body of writings of anyone who has
called themselves a secular humanist.
It is also irritating to see anecdotal allegations
like the playground hanging episode be given any credence. Is
this how you manage to stay on topic? If the "critics"
on this lists want to impress people like myself, they need to
work harder to demonstrate true critical thinking. If a rationalist
scientifically based world view is what you claim to endorse,
please set a better example.
Admittedly it is very difficult to bring this
world view to the topic of education. Schools are social institutions
that primarilly transmit a cultures traditions in a way that
hopefully prepares children to meet the challenges of the future.
A scientifically sound understanding of our world primarrily
involves the physical sciences and more recently biological sciences.
Our understanding of human behavior, child development , education
, culture etc currently is very primitive and can hardly be called
scientifically based. But we do need to work to understand these
when rational analytic tools allow. E.O. Wilson's book Consilience
states the challenge well. He is probably the centuries greatest
biologist who some of you may remember from college as the founder
of sociobiology. I highly recommend reading the book if you are
interested in attempting to understand human behavior , the history
of scientific thought and social phenomena such as schools (be
they waldorf or otherwise) as part of our quest for knowledge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 15:49:41 -0700
On 7 May 99, at 17:10, Duane Koons wrote:
I am new to this list so I'm still trying
to understand the nature of this discourse. The philosophical
wrestling matches seem to have little to do with taking a critical
look at Waldorf education. Some of the conversation may reference
some of the esoteric aspects of anthroposophy but it seems far
removed what my child experiences in the classroom.
I don't know if you've been involved in email
lists before, but basically, they work like this. Somebody has
a thought that they think others might find interesting, so they
write something about it. Somebody else comments on it, and a
thread is born.
It's like a conversation. If you are talking
with someone with whom you share an interest in astronomy, you
might talk about astronomy a lot, and about Copernicus and Galileo
and Tycho Brahe, and about the parties Tycho used to throw and
how much he used to drink, and about the types of alcoholic beverages
that might have been prevalent in his day, and about whether
you would like those drinks, and about what you *do* like to
drink, and about that party where . . . you get the picture.
If you don't find it interesting, post something
that is interesting to you, and see if you can get a discussion
going about it.
It is also irritating to see anecdotal
allegations like the playground hanging episode be given any
credence. Is this how you manage to stay on topic? If the "critics"
on this lists want to impress people like myself, they need to
work harder to demonstrate true critical thinking. If a rationalist
scientifically based world view is what you claim to endorse,
please set a better example.
I'll say what I please, thank you, and I could
care less whether you're impressed or not.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on you.
I just tend to get peeved when someone steps into a discussion
to criticize the conversation itself, rather than to contribute
something to the topic at hand, or introduce a new topic.
Schools are social institutions that primarilly
transmit a cultures traditions in a way that hopefully prepares
children to meet the challenges of the future. A scientifically
sound understanding of our world primarrily involves the physical
sciences and more recently biological sciences. Our understanding
of human behavior, child development , education , culture etc
currently is very primitive and can hardly be called scientifically
based. But we do need to work to understand these when rational
analytic tools allow. E.O. Wilson's book Consilience states the
challenge well. He is probably the centuries greatest biologist
who some of you may remember from college as the founder of sociobiology.
I highly recommend reading the book if you are interested in
attempting to understand human behavior , the history of scientific
thought and social phenomena such as schools (be they waldorf
or otherwise) as part of our quest for knowledge.
Now you're getting somewhere. But instead
of telling us to read a book, why don't you tell us some of the
ideas in the book, as they relate to Waldorf education or Anthroposophy,
so that we can discuss them?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 08:17:01 EDT
Dan wrote:
A romantic view of childhood like this
leads teachers in some Waldorf schools to neglect monitoring
playgrounds in the belief that it's best to let the children's
"natural" impulses "work things out."
I only wanted to point out that I detect a
mellowing of the Dan we have seen until now... he uses the magic
word "some" to qualify waldorf schools which he doesnt
get on with!
Here in Rendsburg it is taken very seriously
- a large teacher ensures that all 6 people are in position every
break-duty!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah
Stein
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 01:07:35 -0500
Bob Tolz posted several comments in response
to mine about moral values, but I don't have the energy to respond
to all of them (although they are deserving of a response). My
carpal tunnel is acting up!
I had asked, by way of illustrating why I
feel morality by consensus is problematic:
If the majority of Americans cheat on their
spouses, should we then decide (by a vote? or by default?) that
it's moral to commit adultery?
Bob Tolz responded:
Well, I can describe how I think the system
would work in such an event. The laws are certainly likely to
change. Clearly, even if in many if not most states adultery
remains in the penal code, I wonder when was the last time anyone
was criminally prosecuted for that infraction.
I'm talking about what is moral, *not* what
is legal. You are actually making my point: governments don't
necessarily legislate *moral* behavior.
It's *legal* to refuse to give some spare
change to a beggar who comes to your door -- but it's not moral.
And as laws change (or fall fallow) to
accomodate the changing mores of society, those laws in and of
themselves reflect back to and communicate to the society what
is permissible and what is not, at least from the point of view
of the law, if not from the point of view of some objective and
absolute morality.
Yes, that's what I mean. The laws are not
(necessarily) about morality. Based on this statement you made
later in your post...
The government doesn't decide what's moral,
at least not in the U.S.
...I think we are in agreement here.
I had also asked:
If an "interest group" such as
the KKK "comes to power" (think David Duke -- he's
back), and grows in influence, so that, over time, the consensus
of the American people "evolves" into a white-supremacist
morality -- is that just another example of how things happen
in a "democratic and pluralistic society such as the United
States"?
Bob Tolz responded:
Yes, it would be, but I have confidence
that the prevailing notions in this country would not push us
in that kind of direction.
Even if the consensus of the American people
does not evolve that way, a small group of people can still wield
a disproportionate amount of power.
I further asked:
If the government is corrupt, and the common
folks are moral, then corruption wins? What if a government wants
to impose, let's say, a "charity tax," in which the
government gets fifty percent of all charitable donations made
by its citizens, with the tax revenue earmarked for the development
of biological weaponry (if that's the correct term)?
Bob Tolz responded:
Then lobby, petition, picket, demonstrate
and vote the SOB's out of office. SOB's have been chased out
of office before, and (given that they crop up like weeds) it'll
happen again. An alternative: run for office yourself.
So whoever lobbies and pickets successfully
decides what is moral?
On another point, I stated:
Even the most religious person has his
own personal sense of morality and responsibility tested many
times every day; the advantage is only that he has objective
criteria to use as a guide, a moral compass.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm not sure of your use of the word "only"
here. Are you saying the religious person's "only advantage"
is the objective criteria, or that "only the religious person"
has an objective criteria? I would suspect that many non-religious
people would quarrel over the latter.
I am saying that a religious person's only
advantange over non-religious people in matters of morality is
that the religious person has an absolute moral compass. You
can't navigate a ship if the arrow doesn't *always* point north,
no matter which way the wind and the waves are blowing... (that's
why you navigate with a compass, and not a weathervane...)
Respectfully,
Sarah
*****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah
Stein
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 01:07:36 -0500
I posted:
I don't see American morality, as a whole,
"evolving" by consensus into a more moral and just
morality.
and Steve Premo responded:
Do you not? A few generations back, slavery
was considered to be an acceptable practice by most people; it
is now considered morally abhorrent. Discrimination on the basis
of race was considered acceptable in part of the country when
my parents were growing up; it is now considered unacceptable.
It has not disappeared, but the consensus is that it is wrong.
Even more recently, it was considered only proper to exclude
women from business and professional positions of responsibility.
That is now considered to be wrong.
So I think American morality has evolved. On the other hand,
as our society becomes more urbanized, the social pressures on
people to conform to a moral code have diminished, so perhaps
people aren't doing as well at following that morality.
Bob Tolz added:
Don't forget the evolving environmental
consciousness, which could be thought of as part of a moral/value
system.
Points well taken. And not only do I agree
that morality clearly has evolved as history has progressed,
but this is also part of my basic world view as a Jewish person
who sees all of history as leading up to the perfection of the
individual and of society.
When I said that I don't see American morality
evolving by consensus, etc... I was overgeneralizing. I should
have said that in some ways, I think American morality has taken
a few steps backward in recent decades. (Witness, for example,
violence in the schools, families splitting up, the popularity
of abortion, etc.) Somehow, along with what appears to be an
overall increase in social consciousness, there has also been
a trend toward deconstructing society's norms and expectations
in self-serving, rather than society-serving, ways. (A person
can be a devout recycler and organic-food-eater, and still leave
his wife and three kids because there's this other woman who's
really into composting...)
Respectfully,
Sarah
*****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: moral values
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:15:30 -0400
[Sarah]
I had also asked:
If an "interest group" such as
the KKK "comes to power" (think David Duke -- he's
back), and grows in influence, so that, over time, the consensus
of the American people "evolves" into a white-supremacist
morality -- is that just another example of how things happen
in a "democratic and pluralistic society such as the United
States"?
Bob Tolz responded:
Yes, it would be, but I have confidence
that the prevailing notions in this country would not push us
in that kind of direction.
[Sarah]
Even if the consensus of the American people
does not evolve that way, a small group of people can still wield
a disproportionate amount of power.
[Bob Tolz]
And, so far, our society and form of government
has been resilient enough to counteract that.
[Sarah]
So whoever lobbies and pickets successfully decides what is
moral?
[Bob Tolz]
Nope. I think we're probably in agreement
that there is a kind of feedback mechanism between laws and morality.
Some portion of the consensual morality is reflected in the laws,
and the laws communicate back to those who otherwise wouldn't
have a clue what that portion of the consensual morality is.
[Sarah]
On another point, I stated:
Even the most religious person has his
own personal sense of morality and responsibility tested many
times every day; the advantage is only that he has objective
criteria to use as a guide, a moral compass.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm not sure of your use of the word "only"
here. Are you saying the religious person's "only advantage"
is the objective criteria, or that "only the religious person"
has an objective criteria? I would suspect that many non-religious
people would quarrel over the latter.
[Sarah]
I am saying that a religious person's only
advantange over non-religious people in matters of morality is
that the religious person has an absolute moral compass. You
can't navigate a ship if the arrow doesn't *always* point north,
no matter which way the wind and the waves are blowing... (that's
why you navigate with a compass, and not a weathervane...)
[Bob Tolz]
I disagree with you in a number of respects.
First, the fallibility problem. How do you
know your compass is correctly calibrated to north? Or is it
calibrated to someone else's *idea* of north? Is it *magnetic*
north or *true* north? If it's magnetic north, you're going to
be in significant trouble at some locations of the globe unless
you know how to make the appropriate adjustment.
I'm reminded that someone once told me that
ancient mariners and early explorers refused to embark on a voyage
with a single navigation device. What if that device was wrong?
You'd never get back. So what did they do? They took at least
three such devices. Two wouldn't be enough, because which one
would you believe if the two disagreed? Would you flip a coin?
We come back to the problem that I have with
a single external moral authority and the abdication of one's
responsibility to question and test that single external moral
authority: the possibility of the fallibility of that external
moral authority. Nothing that either you or John has said has
dissuaded me from my concerns in that regard.
Second, the rigidity problem. To me, all of
life is a "becoming." In a prior post, I described
that the founding fathers had the foresight to permit the Constitution
to be amended and to evolve to suit whatever they did not have
the foresight to anticipate. Does your external absolute moral
authority have the same flexibility? Or are you going to be compelled
to wear an old suit of clothes without modification, no matter
how your body changes as you age?
With both the fallibility and rigidity problems,
having an absolute, external moral authority is, to me, more
a liability to finding the highest morality than an advantage.
Third, the arrogance problem. Although you
and John are some of the least arrogant sounding people on this
list, it is indeed arrogant for either of you to suggest that
your absolute external moral authority is better than what an
individual might piece together through diligent contemplation,
thought and practice. How could any single person or religion
have possession of the truth or the "one way," when
there are so many who claim ownership?
I don't believe that truth is something which
is possessed by anybody, and I walk rapidly away from someone
who suggests that they have the answer for everything.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Duane Koons"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:11:27 -0500
To Steve Premo a belated thank you on list
etiquette. I am in fact new to e-mail discourse and list talk.
I've spent the past weeks watching the conversation to learn
the ropes. I will attempt to express myself more clearly and
less angrilly.
It is interesting to me how politicizing conversations
are when the topic is education. This intersection of waldorf
critics and supporters represents one of many cultural divides
that exist in our society. It does worry me that it is so difficult
for people who feel strongly about the importance of education
to find common ground.
It seems to me that the science of educating
our children is in its infancy. Our knowledge relating to child
development is very limited. For example we've just recently
determined that the language centers of the brain are responsible
for the largest portion of the brains metabolism until about
9 or 10 when energy consumption shifts forward towards the cortex.
This correlates with observations that children can readily learn
multiple languages automatically until this age. Children who
are multilingual prior to this transition retain more capacity
to learn new languages than those who are unilingual. Similar
observations have been made regarding music and mathmatical capabilities.
Currently most schools do not have curriculums
that are based on proven theories of cognitive development .
Very few have meaningful effective foreign language exposure
unless they have a large portion of spanish speaking students.
Even then multilingual curriculums become flash points for controversy
rather than true opportunities for learning. Instead most schools
are structured based on historical models that are responding
to social norms reflecting in part the needs of the existing
economic system. That is not bad and infact is inescapable. The
speed at which society is changing brings many different challenges
to our educational institutions. It seems clear to me that there
needs to be an era of experimentation in which we test multiple
educational models and evaluate their effectiveness on many dimensions
including intellectual social and character development. This
will inevitably feel messy because it involves interactions of
many different subcultures and their respective world views in
our still diverse society.
It is possible that methods used in waldorf
education are effective for some children and not others. It
is possible that the theoretical basis of waldorf education is
totally off base wacko anthroposophy while the methods if properly
applied actually work. ( Obviously the fundamentalists in waldorf
education who oppose standardized testing aren't any help although
many of their concerns are echoed by mainstream educators when
discussing national and state wide standards.)
Sometimes we are wrong for the right reasons
and right for the wrong reasons. If we want to become more rational
and scientific about how we educate our children we need to learn
how to sort out these right and wrongs.
So a question for the critics and supportors.
What would need to occur for waldorf education to be acceptable
to both camps?.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 02:22:23 +0200
Duane Koons wrote:
So a question for the critics and supportors.
What would need to occur for waldorf education to be acceptable
to both camps?.
It can never be acceptable to both camps.
The clairvoyance and initiation of Rudolf Steiner makes it unacceptable
to atheists and other persuasions that are in strong opposition
to New Age. When the science behind it is considered bunk, trickery,
and quackery, Waldorf education can never please such critics,
and no endeavor to do so should be made.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 08:23:16 -0700
On 14 May 99, at 2:22, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Duane Koons wrote:
So a question for the critics and supportors.
What would need to occur for waldorf education to be acceptable
to both camps?.
It can never be acceptable to both camps.
The clairvoyance and initiation of Rudolf Steiner makes it unacceptable
to atheists and other persuasions that are in strong opposition
to New Age.
I suspect you're right. A program which incorporates
Waldorf techniques, and which is run by folks who are interested
only in the effectiveness of the techniques for teaching, and
are not interested in Steiner's theories on the progressive incarnation
of the soul into the body and so on, might be acceptable to the
critics.
The teachers at such a school would use Waldorf
techniques for their utilitarian value, would not hesitate to
change things that aren't working, and would not be concerned
about the spiritual reasons for doing things a certain way. They
would not believe in "spiritual science" as a path
to knowledge about child development, in Steiner's views on reincarnation,
or in other esoteric aspects of Anthroposophy.
But such a school would not, I fear, be acceptable
to most anthroposophists.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum
pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Duane Koons"
Subject: Re: moral values
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:29:04 -0500
I understand that waldorf supportors have
generally been against the use of standardized tests However
widespread use of standardized testing didn't occur until after
Steiner's death. Does anyone know the origin of this opposition
to testing? Did Steiner have anything specific to say about standardized
tests? Thanks Duane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"