Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Original sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by siam View Post
    In general what makes us err or make "bad" choices is an excess of "desire" such as greed. hate, envy, tribalism....etc. But desire can also help us make good choices...such as sharing, love, tolerance, wholistic/unity.....

    Our actions can take many forms....
    to intentionally harm
    to intentionally help but create accidental harm
    to act accidentally and create unintentional harm

    out of these...there are situations where human beings intentionally harm using "reason" as justification.....for example, the U.S. tortured people in order to "get information". Democracies that go to war (because democracies have a choice),
    to incarcerate people who have committed a crime in punitive justice systems....
    then there are other "reasons" such as....opium...a drug used for medicinal purposes gets abused and causes harm...today it is making news as the fentanayl/opioid epidemic...or the use of plastics that both helped and harmed.
    Then there are things that "make sense" but cause unintentional harm such as the design and use of propellers which end up harming marine life and birds....

    value definitions of moral/immoral, good/bad, rational/emotional are often situation-dependent. To look at human actions...or to interpret human intentions...as a binary is unrealistic and reductionist....?.....
    I agree with you that morality is largely context-dependent and it's not helpful to impose a reductionist, binary system upon it. That's why I tend to be a moral objectivist and not a moral absolutist. Generally, the intentions of the actor are much more important to evaluating the moral status of an action than the mere effects of the action which, as you point out, can be accidental. That being said, I do consider myself more of a deontologist than a consequentialist, fwiw....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      I agree with you that morality is largely context-dependent and it's not helpful to impose a reductionist, binary system upon it. That's why I tend to be a moral objectivist and not a moral absolutist. Generally, the intentions of the actor are much more important to evaluating the moral status of an action than the mere effects of the action which, as you point out, can be accidental. That being said, I do consider myself more of a deontologist than a consequentialist, fwiw....
      I am uncomfortable with ethico-moral discussions based on labels such as objectivist/absolutist, deontologist/consequentialist...etc because it seems that these definitions are too theoretical and do not capture our human reality. The complexity of the interactions between intent+action+consequence and circumstances, means that an "iac" cannot be neatly categorized/labeled. I agree that the intent of an actor should be a major consideration---however, intentions are mostly in the realm of the "unseen"---that is, these are in the mind/heart and unless articulated, cannot be known.
      Also...should moral consideration extend to post-"iac"...? as in, responsibility for the consequences regardless of intent?
      for example---
      The manager of a company gives a promotion to an employee because of his hardwork and performance---however, this employee had been under mental stress due to work pressure and work overload and dies soon after the promotion.
      (Karoshi---(Japanese)=occupational sudden death due to overwork.)

      The intent in the above scenario can be assumed as "good" since generally---to be promoted is considered a reward and rewards are good. Nevertheless, the consequence is that a life has been lost and the value of the loss far outweighs the good intentions of the action. Would morality dictate some form of redeeming action that can compensate for the disparity?.....if so,...by whom?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by siam View Post
        I am uncomfortable with ethico-moral discussions based on labels such as objectivist/absolutist, deontologist/consequentialist...etc because it seems that these definitions are too theoretical and do not capture our human reality. The complexity of the interactions between intent+action+consequence and circumstances, means that an "iac" cannot be neatly categorized/labeled. I agree that the intent of an actor should be a major consideration---however, intentions are mostly in the realm of the "unseen"---that is, these are in the mind/heart and unless articulated, cannot be known.
        Also...should moral consideration extend to post-"iac"...? as in, responsibility for the consequences regardless of intent?
        for example---
        The manager of a company gives a promotion to an employee because of his hardwork and performance---however, this employee had been under mental stress due to work pressure and work overload and dies soon after the promotion.
        (Karoshi---(Japanese)=occupational sudden death due to overwork.)

        The intent in the above scenario can be assumed as "good" since generally---to be promoted is considered a reward and rewards are good. Nevertheless, the consequence is that a life has been lost and the value of the loss far outweighs the good intentions of the action. Would morality dictate some form of redeeming action that can compensate for the disparity?.....if so,...by whom?
        Metaethics has nothing to do with limiting the complexity or nuance of 'our human reality' anymore than physics limits the complexity and nuance of the physical world. There are many metaethical positions: some are variations on consequentialism where it's all but indistinguishable from deontology. But unfortunately, in philosophy, sometimes actual decisions must be made (or deferred ) and positions taken. It's too easy just to say that every matter in question is beyond any possible "category" or "label," and that no decision need ever be made. It's comfortable to never take a stand, because one can thereby never be wrong.

        Of course intentions are not publicly observable, but so what? Neither are a lot of things. Just because we cannot publicly verify something doesn't mean it's not real. My headache isn't verifiable to you in the same way that today is Thursday is, but headaches are still real.

        If I'm the manager of the company, and I should have known about my employee's condition, then I'd be at least partly responsible for his death. It's generally assumed that there are criteria that can be reasonably applied to situations for the assignment of responsibility/culpability, although there are occasionally moral ambiguities.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Metaethics has nothing to do with limiting the complexity or nuance of 'our human reality' anymore than physics limits the complexity and nuance of the physical world. There are many metaethical positions: some are variations on consequentialism where it's all but indistinguishable from deontology. But unfortunately, in philosophy, sometimes actual decisions must be made (or deferred ) and positions taken. It's too easy just to say that every matter in question is beyond any possible "category" or "label," and that no decision need ever be made. It's comfortable to never take a stand, because one can thereby never be wrong.

          Of course intentions are not publicly observable, but so what? Neither are a lot of things. Just because we cannot publicly verify something doesn't mean it's not real. My headache isn't verifiable to you in the same way that today is Thursday is, but headaches are still real.

          If I'm the manager of the company, and I should have known about my employee's condition, then I'd be at least partly responsible for his death. It's generally assumed that there are criteria that can be reasonably applied to situations for the assignment of responsibility/culpability, although there are occasionally moral ambiguities.
          Metaethics derived from a world-view of original sin and its consequent position of human nature (as inherently evil) would not only be unrealistic...but also impractical. ---the history of the inquisitions shows it.
          According to the premise of original sin---all human beings---except baptized Christians---retain their evil nature.....Christian baptism washes it away. Therefore the non-Christian humanity cannot be presumed innocent until proven guilty...but must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.....right? Then...."sin" is not only inherited, but also transferable....this argument is used to explain how the crucifixion (sacrifice) washed away the sin of all humanity---that were "Christian"...(?)
          So...once an action has been taken that is judged unethical/immoral---one "sacrifices" (animal/man) and that takes care of that...!...

          Original sin is a nice little theory that fills in the holes of the Christian narrative but is completely useless in explaining or analyzing the reality of human nature, defining justice, or regulating ethics/morality.

          Metaethical categories---I am not against the analysis of human behavior and values....all I am saying is that it needs to be pragmatic rather than theoretical. Today in academia, classical economic theories are under attack because these economic models, presumptions and theories were based on idealized and unrealistic perspectives. They neither reflect reality nor promote solutions.....

          Company manager scenario----Since human beings cannot know intentions, the benefit of doubt is applied and persons are judged innocent until proven guilty---therefore, in this case it is assumed the promotion was a "reward". But it could have been otherwise---the manager may have been pressured to urgently fill in a recently vacated position and unthinkingly assigned the first person that came to mind, or the manager may have intended to force a potential rival into resigning from his position by assigning him into a position not right for his capabilities...
          ...fortunately (with perhaps the exception of overzealous Christians?) most people do not assume ill-intent as their starting premise...

          Then there is the ethics regarding the aftermath of the actions---regardless of intent (good/ill) a life was lost---In the Original Sin world-view, one would make a "sacrifice" ---probably kill a goat/sheep? and that would deal with the problem...right?

          Assignment of culpability/responsibility---Yes that is a good point. In some situations, culpability/responsibility is not simply individual but also collective to some degree....in other words, The corporate culture also needs a systemic change.

          With so many considerations in the mix---how are we to analyze metaethcis?---Perhaps one might consider Balance (instead of labels) as the underlying tool? The balance between rights and responsibilities for example, or the balancing of various "meta-values" such as liberty, life, property, knowledge....etc..?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by siam View Post
            Metaethics derived from a world-view of original sin and its consequent position of human nature (as inherently evil) would not only be unrealistic...but also impractical. ---the history of the inquisitions shows it.
            According to the premise of original sin---all human beings---except baptized Christians---retain their evil nature.....Christian baptism washes it away. Therefore the non-Christian humanity cannot be presumed innocent until proven guilty...but must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.....right? Then...."sin" is not only inherited, but also transferable....this argument is used to explain how the crucifixion (sacrifice) washed away the sin of all humanity---that were "Christian"...(?)
            So...once an action has been taken that is judged unethical/immoral---one "sacrifices" (animal/man) and that takes care of that...!...
            Perhaps if you had read my previous post, you might have noted that I also don't believe in "original sin"! I read the original sin story as an "originary myth" for free will and accountability. So all of you inveighing against the Christian doctrine of original sin is actually misdirected, and is also rather parochial: you're taking one particular type of Christian belief and assuming it is ALL of Chrisitian doctrine. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the richness and variety of the tradition before passing judgment.



            Metaethical categories---I am not against the analysis of human behavior and values....all I am saying is that it needs to be pragmatic rather than theoretical. Today in academia, classical economic theories are under attack because these economic models, presumptions and theories were based on idealized and unrealistic perspectives. They neither reflect reality nor promote solutions.....
            Please tell me how "pragmatic" and "theoretical" are necessarily mutually exclusive? Every practical application requires theoretical underpinning. Every kind of technology, for instance, requires theoretical scientific understanding coordinated with observation, experiment and application. So your divorcing the two activities from each other seems incoherent.

            Company manager scenario----Since human beings cannot know intentions, the benefit of doubt is applied and persons are judged innocent until proven guilty---therefore, in this case it is assumed the promotion was a "reward". But it could have been otherwise---the manager may have been pressured to urgently fill in a recently vacated position and unthinkingly assigned the first person that came to mind, or the manager may have intended to force a potential rival into resigning from his position by assigning him into a position not right for his capabilities...
            ...fortunately (with perhaps the exception of overzealous Christians?) most people do not assume ill-intent as their starting premise...
            I agree that people ought to be judged innocent until proved guilty. As far as assuming ill-intent, you're confusing several things: first, Christians who hold to a literalist notion of Original Sin would still not believe that blame is to be assigned to people in every individual case, but that the circumstances of each case would have to be weighed individually. Otherwise, Christians with such a belief could not serve on juries, for instance. Second, as I said above, not all Christians are literalists. It's a much richer, more sophisticated tradition than I think you're giving it credit for being.

            If we can never know intent, then we could never know any of the things you mention about the manager's state of mind. Of course we can know intent to the extent that we can know our own state of mind and can know others' states of mind. As far as others' mental states, our knowledge isn't perfect, but it's not like we have no knowledge at all. Legal theory has a concept of mens rea, which triers of fact can come to be reasonably confident about. Not perfect, but not groping in the dark either, like most human knowledge.

            Then there is the ethics regarding the aftermath of the actions---regardless of intent (good/ill) a life was lost---In the Original Sin world-view, one would make a "sacrifice" ---probably kill a goat/sheep? and that would deal with the problem...right?
            That's one interpretation of the Genesis story. There are others.

            Assignment of culpability/responsibility---Yes that is a good point. In some situations, culpability/responsibility is not simply individual but also collective to some degree....in other words, The corporate culture also needs a systemic change.

            With so many considerations in the mix---how are we to analyze metaethcis?---Perhaps one might consider Balance (instead of labels) as the underlying tool? The balance between rights and responsibilities for example, or the balancing of various "meta-values" such as liberty, life, property, knowledge....etc..?
            Corporate or collective responsibility is a good point but has no bearing on meta-ethics. Neither do any of your other points. I think you're letting yourself get confused by different kinds of things. There are many factors in the mix but complexity is not really the point meta-ethically. The complexity lies on a different logical level of description. What is the wrong or right-making feature of an action? Sometimes philosophy requires that a decision be made.
            Last edited by Jim B.; 11-24-2019, 03:33 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              1) Perhaps if you had read my previous post, you might have noted that I also don't believe in "original sin"! I read the original sin story as an "originary myth" for free will and accountability. So all of you inveighing against the Christian doctrine of original sin is actually misdirected, and is also rather parochial: you're taking one particular type of Christian belief and assuming it is ALL of Chrisitian doctrine. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the richness and variety of the tradition before passing judgment.

              2) Please tell me how "pragmatic" and "theoretical" are necessarily mutually exclusive? Every practical application requires theoretical underpinning. Every kind of technology, for instance, requires theoretical scientific understanding coordinated with observation, experiment and application. So your divorcing the two activities from each other seems incoherent.


              3)I agree that people ought to be judged innocent until proved guilty. As far as assuming ill-intent, you're confusing several things: first, Christians who hold to a literalist notion of Original Sin would still not believe that blame is to be assigned to people in every individual case, but that the circumstances of each case would have to be weighed individually. Otherwise, Christians with such a belief could not serve on juries, for instance. Second, as I said above, not all Christians are literalists. It's a much richer, more sophisticated tradition than I think you're giving it credit for being.

              4) If we can never know intent, then we could never know any of the things you mention about the manager's state of mind. Of course we can know intent to the extent that we can know our own state of mind and can know others' states of mind. As far as others' mental states, our knowledge isn't perfect, but it's not like we have no knowledge at all. Legal theory has a concept of mens rea, which triers of fact can come to be reasonably confident about. Not perfect, but not groping in the dark either, like most human knowledge.

              That's one interpretation of the Genesis story. There are others.

              5)Corporate or collective responsibility is a good point but has no bearing on meta-ethics. Neither do any of your other points. I think you're letting yourself get confused by different kinds of things. There are many factors in the mix but complexity is not really the point meta-ethically. The complexity lies on a different logical level of description. What is the wrong or right-making feature of an action? Sometimes philosophy requires that a decision be made.
              1) As a Muslim, Thomas Aquinas is interesting ---particularly as he has borrowed some ideas from Muslim philosophers---what is your opinion on his thoughts on ethics?

              2) Theories have to work (provide solutions) in the real world for them to be useful. The pragmatic aspect and theoretical aspect have to be complementary. But we have to concede that without assumptions of a world-view/metaphysics there is no firm framework for metaethics. Metaethics have to flow into and impact normative ethics....Ideally, these 3 aspects should complement to create a whole.

              3)innocent until proven guilty---If we add God to the mix in our discussion...then intent---unless articulated in some way, is known 100% only by God. While human beings are completely and solely responsible for their actions...(unless they are a minor, mentally incapable, or under duress) the consequences of that action can be partially random---dependent on luck/fate/karma/God"s will....Therefore, when considering intent+action+consequences, The heaviest consideration would be on intent, then action, then consequence....but intent is not fully known except by God---which leaves human beings with mostly action to consider. That is why the benefit of the doubt must be given and a person is assumed innocent....because human justice is limited.

              4) Mens rea---Our Justice systems have some good tools they can use....but law today, is somewhat divorced from ethics/metaphysics. What if it were not?---what sort of ethico-moral system could we envision if metaphysics, metaethics, and normative ethics were part of the social and legal philosophy and practice?.

              5) I am using the term Metaethics somewhat loosely....Suppose we agree that human beings have a right to wealth/property, therefore a corporate policy of maximizing wealth is not wrong. If we assign more weight to the values of rights to liberty and life than to wealth/property...then we can conclude that a corporate structure that emphasizes the right to wealth/property at the expense of liberty and/or life becomes more wrong than right. Capitalism is an economic system based on the right to wealth/property and this has led to exploitation of both resources and humans. Should we not create ethico-moral systems that facilitate (and reward) ethcio-moral behaviors so that it becomes easier for individuals to make right ethico-moral choices?

              What is our opinion of Rawls theory of Justice? (veil of ignorance...etc)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice

              Comment


              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                1) As a Muslim, Thomas Aquinas is interesting ---particularly as he has borrowed some ideas from Muslim philosophers---what is your opinion on his thoughts on ethics?
                I don't know enough about it to comment. I know he was heavily influenced by Aristotle and his Nichomachean Ethics. Glancing at the SEP page, it seems that it has a number of problems.
                https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a...ral-political/

                2) Theories have to work (provide solutions) in the real world for them to be useful. The pragmatic aspect and theoretical aspect have to be complementary. But we have to concede that without assumptions of a world-view/metaphysics there is no firm framework for metaethics. Metaethics have to flow into and impact normative ethics....Ideally, these 3 aspects should complement to create a whole.
                Of course. All of that is a given.

                3)innocent until proven guilty---If we add God to the mix in our discussion...then intent---unless articulated in some way, is known 100% only by God. While human beings are completely and solely responsible for their actions...(unless they are a minor, mentally incapable, or under duress) the consequences of that action can be partially random---dependent on luck/fate/karma/God"s will....Therefore, when considering intent+action+consequences, The heaviest consideration would be on intent, then action, then consequence....but intent is not fully known except by God---which leaves human beings with mostly action to consider. That is why the benefit of the doubt must be given and a person is assumed innocent....because human justice is limited.
                To extend your theological observation, nothing is fully known except by God, so that point isn't terribly illuminating. We can bracket that point. Think of the well-known problem in defining the term "human action"! And think also of the impossibility of ever fully knowing the ramifications of any action in terms of its consequences. So none of the three terms you list can ever be fully known. We are finite beings with finite epistemic capacities who can only work with what we have short of divine revelation. This applies to every field of human endeavor, so we can set this point aside, right?

                4) Mens rea---Our Justice systems have some good tools they can use....but law today, is somewhat divorced from ethics/metaphysics. What if it were not?---what sort of ethico-moral system could we envision if metaphysics, metaethics, and normative ethics were part of the social and legal philosophy and practice?.
                Justice and legal theory is built to some extent on a foundation or background of moral and ethical tradition. It's not systematic but more in line with social and cultural norms.

                5) I am using the term Metaethics somewhat loosely....Suppose we agree that human beings have a right to wealth/property, therefore a corporate policy of maximizing wealth is not wrong. If we assign more weight to the values of rights to liberty and life than to wealth/property...then we can conclude that a corporate structure that emphasizes the right to wealth/property at the expense of liberty and/or life becomes more wrong than right. Capitalism is an economic system based on the right to wealth/property and this has led to exploitation of both resources and humans. Should we not create ethico-moral systems that facilitate (and reward) ethcio-moral behaviors so that it becomes easier for individuals to make right ethico-moral choices?
                I would hesitate to accept wealth/property acquisition as a basic moral right. For one thing, not all societies even have such a concept as personal property. For another, it seems to make more sense as a derivative of a more basic right of justice and personal liberty. I have the rights to the fruits of my own labor and to those fruits that have been duly bequeathed to me by others and the liberty to discharge them as I see fit as long as that discharge does not interfere with others' rights to do the same, and so forth. If we see property and ownership as derivative of justice and liberty, then it's no longer an unfettered, social Darwinian end-in-itself as "market fundamentalists" would want to see it but existing in tension with the needs and rights of others.

                What is our opinion of Rawls theory of Justice? (veil of ignorance...etc)
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
                I think it's a good starting point as a corrective against utilitarianism, but it has its problems. What result you get from behind the veil can depend on what values you have going in.
                Last edited by Jim B.; 11-29-2019, 02:21 PM.

                Comment


                • Greek ethical philosophy---Islamic philosophy has been influenced by Greek thought. For example the concept of "natural law/natural rights". Nature is considered as a revelation by God....(as is the Quran.)
                  But...Nature and its ecosystems "flourish" in diversity rather than homogeneity---for example, the more genetic diversity, the more the species will have a chance to flourish, and less genetic diversity can push it towards extinction.....likewise, I am beginning to wonder if more human diversity (pluralism) of ethico-moral philosophy is perhaps more beneficial---and if so what underlying structure it should be based on to make sense......

                  Generally ethics has been designed around questions of right/wrong, what is good/bad and concepts around human flourishing and common good. Underlying all this is an assumption of the universality of some core "values". Can ethics be designed and conceptualized differently?

                  Metaphysics---Our understanding of creation, human nature, and human purpose can color/bias our formulations of metaethics---a diversity in metaphysics thus creates diversity of metaethics which then bleeds into normative ethics.
                  The Quran has 2 interesting insights on ethics---as individual human and as collective human group
                  2:148 To each is a goal to which God turns him; then strive together as in a competition towards all that is good....
                  5: 48 ...To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, he would have made you a single people, but his plan is to test you in what he has given you so strive as in a competition in all virtues.
                  Thus, perhaps a diversity of ethical systems competing against each other may be a good way towards finding those systems that work best for humanity as a whole as well as the human individual....?.....as in an experiment?...

                  iac---If we take the manager scenario---the only 2 observable things is action (the promotion) and the consequence (death). Since we cannot know intent unless confessed or some evidence points to ill-intent, one must assume the manager innocent of ill-intent.
                  However, regardless of good-intent, because the consequence is heavy (life) some balance seems to be required---a measure of remorse and rectification. As humans we are both individual and social---therefore ethics needs to be about both the individual human character as well as the system/environment the human occupies. Systems need to facilitate human ethical development and human ethical development in turn facilitate better systemic ethical development.....Our political, social, economic systems all need to be built on a unifying metaphysical foundation so that the different systems don't clash but work together as a whole....

                  Basic human rights---The different worldviews/metaphysics can generate different combination of values. And property/wealth may, or may not be a basic right. In Islam it is a basic right--because with rights come responsibility/obligation and tools for the distribution of wealth fall under the responsibility/obligation of this right. Therefore, one has the right to acquire profit but with it comes the obligation to charity. Thus, a corporation that acquires a profit has the obligation to the wholistic welfare of its employees---a non-zero sum (win-win) cycle. The physical, mental and financial prosperity of the employees results in prosperity for the corporation.--If the politico-economic system is also ethically aligned to a whole. On the other hand---if an economic system is not aligned to a wholistic ethical worldview...then it will come into conflict with ethical solutions that turn into temporary band-aids plugging in an unbalanced system.

                  Rawls brings in ideas that can perhaps help re-visualizing ethics from a different perspective than the traditional Greek based ideas?
                  another idea is a values based (Maslow hierarchies) understanding of human actions...
                  http://www.cultdyn.co.uk/ART067736u/..._change_1.html
                  What is interesting in this concept is to chart various values in order to come up with a visual that explains human/community aspirations.

                  As you mentioned---the reality is that rights and obligations or needs are often in tension with one another---which is not a bad thing, as this tension can be a good tool to create balance. When a group of core values that are in tension, are used as tools to create balance...perhaps we can have a diversity of ethical systems that are nonetheless grounded in clear, transparent group of values.....

                  Comment


                  • What I understand Rawls to be saying is that here is a proposal of how to get around clashing metaphysical doctrines, or as he calls them "comprehensive doctrines." Here is a proposed way of creating a public space in which competition is held in abeyance, where people can check their metaphysical doctrines at the door, so to speak, in order to enter a civic space where they can enter into civic and civil dialogue with each other and create constructive solutions to problems they all face. So if I understand what you're saying from the Quran, it's not that idea but its opposite. Rawls is saying "Here's a way around sectarianism and tribalism, a way to procedurally transcend our traditional commitments in favor of a broader ecumenical engagement."

                    I wasn't aware that the Greeks addressed the question of natural rights, or were you referring to Islamic thought? Ethics has addressed questions of right/wrong and good/bad, but the Ancients also emphasized how to live, and what kind of person one should strive to be. (Organizing society starts to get into political theory.) Virtue ethics was a bigger deal to them than to us, overall.

                    There have been many competing ethical and metaethical theories, which is a good thing, just as there have been many competing theories in economics, physics, etc. But that alone doesn't mean there isn't a fact of the matter, and that one of the theories may be right or may be more adequate to the truth than all the others! Diversity alone tells us nothing about such matters.

                    A problem we might be encountering is that you are a Muslim and from what I understand, the Quran purports to be the direct word of God and also purports to cover ALL aspects of life, so whereas I would be dealing with metaethics you might be dealing more with theological interpretation, although I may be wrong.

                    If there are certain truths that are not open for negotiation and not open for 'balance,' ie that a human life has intrinsic value, that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically good and excruciating pain and misery and the torturing of infants intrinsically bad, then we don't have to agree to a comprehensive metaphysical framework that is the same for all of us or even coherent in order to have a rational metaethical foundation to build on.
                    Last edited by Jim B.; 12-02-2019, 08:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by siam View Post
                      1) As a Muslim, Thomas Aquinas is interesting ---particularly as he has borrowed some ideas from Muslim philosophers---what is your opinion on his thoughts on ethics?
                      I believe both Christian and Islamic philosophers learned from Aristotle.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        What I understand Rawls to be saying is that here is a proposal of how to get around clashing metaphysical doctrines, or as he calls them "comprehensive doctrines." Here is a proposed way of creating a public space in which competition is held in abeyance, where people can check their metaphysical doctrines at the door, so to speak, in order to enter a civic space where they can enter into civic and civil dialogue with each other and create constructive solutions to problems they all face. So if I understand what you're saying from the Quran, it's not that idea but its opposite. Rawls is saying "Here's a way around sectarianism and tribalism, a way to procedurally transcend our traditional commitments in favor of a broader ecumenical engagement."

                        I wasn't aware that the Greeks addressed the question of natural rights, or were you referring to Islamic thought? Ethics has addressed questions of right/wrong and good/bad, but the Ancients also emphasized how to live, and what kind of person one should strive to be. (Organizing society starts to get into political theory.) Virtue ethics was a bigger deal to them than to us, overall.

                        There have been many competing ethical and metaethical theories, which is a good thing, just as there have been many competing theories in economics, physics, etc. But that alone doesn't mean there isn't a fact of the matter, and that one of the theories may be right or may be more adequate to the truth than all the others! Diversity alone tells us nothing about such matters.

                        A problem we might be encountering is that you are a Muslim and from what I understand, the Quran purports to be the direct word of God and also purports to cover ALL aspects of life, so whereas I would be dealing with metaethics you might be dealing more with theological interpretation, although I may be wrong.

                        If there are certain truths that are not open for negotiation and not open for 'balance,' ie that a human life has intrinsic value, that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically good and excruciating pain and misery and the torturing of infants intrinsically bad, then we don't have to agree to a comprehensive metaphysical framework that is the same for all of us or even coherent in order to have a rational metaethical foundation to build on.
                        broader ecumenical engagement.---There may be a conceptual flaw---possibly arising from Greek philosophy itself---that there is such a thing as a Neutral (civic) space/Neutral ground arising from the universality of our "nature"/human nature....While I do favor the concept of a universalizing human nature to a degree...I don't think it is wise to form whole/universalizing ethico-moral-legal philosophies on. Certainly "nature"(natural law-physikon dikaion) is universal---as Aristotle explained---a fire burning in Persia is the same as a fire burning here....Yet, the idea of a "Neutral ground" simply substitutes one metaethics for another---from "God" to "Nature". By imposing a single metaethical philosophy in an attempt to "universalize" ethico-moral-legal philosophy---we end up either oppressing others or with results based on the least common denominator---such as the pursuit of profit in the example I gave before...

                        (Quranic)Pluralism vs democratic secularism---IMO, there is a basic difference in the understanding of "Equality". If all humanity is of equivalent value---then ALL metaphysic assumptions that lead to metaethical foundations that become voluntarily accepted within large social groups should be honored. However, democratic secularism means that a society is built on the metaphyisic assumptions leading to metaethical foundations of the majority social group.
                        Such as Christian majority countries, Muslim majority countries, Buddhist majority countries...etc... Thus concepts of happiness, common good, even definitions of human/human nature get linked to the majority social group which has the loudest voice. As a Muslim this is a problem because Justice and Law are such an important Quranic theme. There is no way to divorce this from Islam particularly in Muslim-majority countries. To "neutralize" these concepts by using clever language such as "Nature"/natural law/secular space...etc might be deceptive to Muslims and perhaps disrespectful to non-Muslims? On the other hand to abandon such important ethico-moral concerns that are supposed to be a "way of life" for the sake of some illusionary "neutral" civic space would be disrespectful to Muslim beliefs...?....

                        In the pursuit of a universal and neutral ethico-moral ground, we might even be doing a disservice to humanity. If we only conceptualize the common good in terms of the lowest common denominator---such as wealth, power, survival of the self...etc then humanity has no altruistic ideal to reach for. On the other hand, if we use language to disguise the common good into some illusory "neutral space" in order to universalize---then we have sacrificed diversity and opened the doors to potential oppression...?....

                        One theory is more right/adequate than the other---A Theory is just words strung together to make some idea/concept coherent. Which one is more right/adequate can only be understood by actions---when actions produce better results for humanity---we can see tangible results. Thus, in the example of the business in which the actions of a manager resulted in the death of an employee----Such a "system" should obviously not be the best---rather one that fully supports the development of a contented and happy human being leading to a contented and happy society should be the best. Yet, our ethical system today condones the pursuit of wealth/profit at the expense of all else as the "right" choice for successful business. Under a "universalizing" system---how can a diversity of actions be tried/experimented?....

                        universal truths---One might say that there are aspects of human nature that are universal because we are human. But humanity uses language to articulate "truths" and words can have meanings and connotations that flavor them with differences---so for example---the concept of "One God" may seem simple---but Judaism, Christianity, Islam...and other religio-philosophies all express the concept differently. The truth may be one---but its interpretation and understanding are diverse. likewise what it means to be human, the purpose of humanity, the common good...etc can be diverse/plural. If we were to give up the pursuit of a single universal and instead found a way to embrace pluralism/diversity could we find a more richer and deeper human experience?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I believe both Christian and Islamic philosophers learned from Aristotle.
                          agree

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I believe both Christian and Islamic philosophers learned from Aristotle.
                            Is that what they mean by divine revelation?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Is that what they mean by divine revelation?
                              Aristotle....

                              I can't comment for Christianity, but in the case of Islam, it could mean so...because nature is considered divine revelation as is the the Quran and the natural living and non-living organisms/matter are considered "muslim" as in ---they follow God's laws (natural law/physics)
                              Which is why Aristotle (and Plato) was/were popular in Islamic philosophy....Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd wrote and commented on Aristotle.

                              https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                broader ecumenical engagement.---There may be a conceptual flaw---possibly arising from Greek philosophy itself---that there is such a thing as a Neutral (civic) space/Neutral ground arising from the universality of our "nature"/human nature....While I do favor the concept of a universalizing human nature to a degree...I don't think it is wise to form whole/universalizing ethico-moral-legal philosophies on. Certainly "nature"(natural law-physikon dikaion) is universal---as Aristotle explained---a fire burning in Persia is the same as a fire burning here....Yet, the idea of a "Neutral ground" simply substitutes one metaethics for another---from "God" to "Nature". By imposing a single metaethical philosophy in an attempt to "universalize" ethico-moral-legal philosophy---we end up either oppressing others or with results based on the least common denominator---such as the pursuit of profit in the example I gave before...

                                (Quranic)Pluralism vs democratic secularism---IMO, there is a basic difference in the understanding of "Equality". If all humanity is of equivalent value---then ALL metaphysic assumptions that lead to metaethical foundations that become voluntarily accepted within large social groups should be honored. However, democratic secularism means that a society is built on the metaphyisic assumptions leading to metaethical foundations of the majority social group.
                                Such as Christian majority countries, Muslim majority countries, Buddhist majority countries...etc... Thus concepts of happiness, common good, even definitions of human/human nature get linked to the majority social group which has the loudest voice. As a Muslim this is a problem because Justice and Law are such an important Quranic theme. There is no way to divorce this from Islam particularly in Muslim-majority countries. To "neutralize" these concepts by using clever language such as "Nature"/natural law/secular space...etc might be deceptive to Muslims and perhaps disrespectful to non-Muslims? On the other hand to abandon such important ethico-moral concerns that are supposed to be a "way of life" for the sake of some illusionary "neutral" civic space would be disrespectful to Muslim beliefs...?....

                                In the pursuit of a universal and neutral ethico-moral ground, we might even be doing a disservice to humanity. If we only conceptualize the common good in terms of the lowest common denominator---such as wealth, power, survival of the self...etc then humanity has no altruistic ideal to reach for. On the other hand, if we use language to disguise the common good into some illusory "neutral space" in order to universalize---then we have sacrificed diversity and opened the doors to potential oppression...?....

                                One theory is more right/adequate than the other---A Theory is just words strung together to make some idea/concept coherent. Which one is more right/adequate can only be understood by actions---when actions produce better results for humanity---we can see tangible results. Thus, in the example of the business in which the actions of a manager resulted in the death of an employee----Such a "system" should obviously not be the best---rather one that fully supports the development of a contented and happy human being leading to a contented and happy society should be the best. Yet, our ethical system today condones the pursuit of wealth/profit at the expense of all else as the "right" choice for successful business. Under a "universalizing" system---how can a diversity of actions be tried/experimented?....

                                universal truths---One might say that there are aspects of human nature that are universal because we are human. But humanity uses language to articulate "truths" and words can have meanings and connotations that flavor them with differences---so for example---the concept of "One God" may seem simple---but Judaism, Christianity, Islam...and other religio-philosophies all express the concept differently. The truth may be one---but its interpretation and understanding are diverse. likewise what it means to be human, the purpose of humanity, the common good...etc can be diverse/plural. If we were to give up the pursuit of a single universal and instead found a way to embrace pluralism/diversity could we find a more richer and deeper human experience?
                                I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I don't think Rawls is suggesting that people will or should abandon their comprehensive doctrines in favor of an actual ecumenical doctrine. I believe that what Rawls is arguing for is for a procedural, not a substantive, ecumenical space. Let's say that you have a diverse society like India or the U.K. or the U.S. with many different ethnic and religious groups that must live closely together. How can such a society best function? Rawls's idea was the veil of ignorance, which is not my idea and not an idea that I am advocating, although I find it intriguing, but i don't claim to know enough about it to say whether it is the best solution to such problems. With the Veil, then diverse places can have a chance of fostering a civic sphere of public tolerance while at the same time allowing and even encouraging various ethnic and religious groups to pursue their individual cultural practices. There is nothing about homogenization in Rawls that I am aware of; the only trait that Rawls might say unequivocally should not be tolerated is the intolerant aspects of individual cultural practices that would prevent practitioners of other belief systems from being able to exist and thrive! But we can all agree, can't we, that intolerance of intolerance is the admission for entrance into modern heterogeneous societies?
                                Last edited by Jim B.; 12-19-2019, 04:14 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X