A Refutation of Moral Relativism

[needimprovement]

Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm

 

1. Argument for Relativism: Psychological

2. Argument for Relativism: Cultural

3. Argument for Relativism: Social Conditioning

4. Argument for Relativism: Freedom

5. Argument for Relativism: Tolerance

6. Argument for Relativism: Situations

7. Argument for Absolutism: Consequences

8. Argument for Absolutism: Tradition

9. Argument for Absolutism: Moral Experience

10. Argument for Absolutism: Ad Hominem

11. Argument for Absolutism: Moral Language

 

Postscript: Cause and Cure

 

Any comment?

 

Excerpt:

 

"Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day defined a good society as one that makes it easy for you to be good. Correlatively, a free society is one that makes it easy to be free. To be free, and to live freely, is to live spiritually, because only spirit is free—matter is not. To live spiritually is to live morally. The two essential properties of spirit that distinguish it from matter are intellect and will—the capacity for knowledge and moral choice. The ideals of truth and goodness. The most radical threat to living morally today is the loss of moral principles."

[AzurePhoenix]

Addressing what you specifically excerpted;

 

"To be free, and to live freely, is to live spiritually, because only spirit is free—matter is not."

On what is this based? First, what is spirit? Second, what properties of spirit would render it freer than matter? And in what sense? Third, to be a "refutation" in any real sense, it has to be shown that spirit does in fact exist and is in fact "freer" than matter in the ways described.

 

To live spiritually is to live morally.

Why? Why should morals rooted in spirituality be any more real than those rooted in materialism? Where do they come from? If the assumption is that they are derived from some interpretation of the Abrahamic God, or something like it, then the Euthyphro Dilemma rears its ugly head, to politely point out that morals must then be absolutely arbitrary. Since materialism based morality is absolutely not arbitrary, than materialistic morality has more meaning than Divinely-mandated morality.

 

The two essential properties of spirit that distinguish it from matter are intellect and will—the capacity for knowledge and moral choice.

Based on what? Why would these things be based on spirit rather than material biology?

[Edtharan]

"Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day defined a good society as one that makes it easy for you to be good. Correlatively, a free society is one that makes it easy to be free. To be free, and to live freely, is to live spiritually, because only spirit is free—matter is not. To live spiritually is to live morally. The two essential properties of spirit that distinguish it from matter are intellect and will—the capacity for knowledge and moral choice. The ideals of truth and goodness. The most radical threat to living morally today is the loss of moral principles."

(Bolded by me for reference)

 

This is actually a false assumption. Just look at history. The Dark Ages was one of the most "spiritual" time in christianities history, and yet it was one of the most totalitarian and least free times of christian history. Today we are livign in one of the most secular times (probably the most of all history), and yet we enjoy more freedoms today than at pretty much any other point in history.

 

So this argument that you have presented is demonstrably false. As the entire argumen presented rests on this proposition being true and it is actually false, the entire argument you have presneted is therfore false.

[needimprovement]

(Bolded by me for reference)

 

This is actually a false assumption. Just look at history. The Dark Ages was one of the most "spiritual" time in christianities history, and yet it was one of the most totalitarian and least free times of christian history. Today we are livign in one of the most secular times (probably the most of all history), and yet we enjoy more freedoms today than at pretty much any other point in history.

 

So this argument that you have presented is demonstrably false. As the entire argumen presented rests on this proposition being true and it is actually false, the entire argument you have presneted is therfore false.

Really?! Are you sure you have more freedom today than before? Or are you just demonstrating a false perception?

[mississippichem]

Really?! Are you sure you have more freedom today than before? Or are you just demonstrating a false perception?

 

When is the last time someone was burned at the stake or beheaded in the western world for having the wrong beliefs? Freedom of consciousness was not high on the priority list of the Catholic Church or the monarchy during the middle ages. I would probably be beheaded for this post had they used the internet.

Why can't our concept of a moral absolute [large gray area, but I think most would agree on many, like the wrong of theft, murder] be of biological origin? Wouldn't that be a simpler explanation requiring less assumptions/speculation/complexity?

[pioneer]

If you look at morality, in practical terms, it defines a path that maximizes the group. Morality is not about maximizing the individual, although individuals often benefit if the group is maximized.

 

For example, go through the ten commandments, such as "thou shall not steal". This commandment does not maximize all individuals, since thieves would like to leave stealing left on the table. They can show studies that demonstrate that animals do this. They can prove their POV with animal data. However, if terms of the group, if nobody steals, everyone can feel safer and not have to waste time protecting things. You could leave you doors unlocked and your keys in the car. If we allow stealing, social cost is created in terms of time, energy, emotion, money, etc. This higher cost means the group is not maximized.

 

Ethics is where we add addenda to the code of morality, to include the legitimate needs of the individual. Stealing may be immoral, since it adversely impacts the group, but ethically, in times if dire need, it may be ethically OK to steal food to feed your family. This is still immoral, since it will still impact the group. But it is ethical under those circumstances. But since "stealing" is immoral, it means the group is not maximized even when we define this legitimate ethical addendum. Under the conditions of ethical stealing, there is still a social cost. If you lived in a place where many people are poor, people may think they need to lock their door, less they become poor also. Other people may begin to extrapolate this addendum with new loop-holes.This may then cause people to begin to get more untrusting. The group loses the original maximization. The ancients threw in "love your neighbor". This meant I should give to such person, so even ethical stealing is not needed. This circumvents further ethical loop-holes and extrapolation that could reduce maximization.

 

I modern culture morality is still a good bookend for the group. We also define ethics as the bookend of the individual. Between the two, we try to maximize the sum of group plus individual.

Edited October 16, 2010 by pioneer

[needimprovement]

When is the last time someone was burned at the stake or beheaded in the western world for having the wrong beliefs? Freedom of consciousness was not high on the priority list of the Catholic Church or the monarchy during the middle ages. I would probably be beheaded for this post had they used the internet.

Why can't our concept of a moral absolute [large gray area, but I think most would agree on many, like the wrong of theft, murder] be of biological origin? Wouldn't that be a simpler explanation requiring less assumptions/speculation/complexity?

False. I'll discuss the law of Chirst that gives us the freedom to love in the deepest way possible. For the sake of simplicity, I will devide freedom up into two main types; namely, inner freedom and external freedom. Inner freedom refers to the freedom to be all we can possibly be. And external freedom refers to freedom of action, the freedom to do all we can possibly do. I'll include the threats to freedom such as oppression, injustice, prejudice, ignorance, etc. But I'll discuss it later, after work.

[pioneer]

If you look at Stalin, he was an atheist. Based on a blend of atheism and his own ideas, he took atheism to very dark places that murdered millions. It is doubtful that the modern atheist would define themselves by his example. The same was also true of periods in the history of the church, where doctrines of evil men became intertwined with religion to get something perverted. This too is not something the modern Christian defines themselves by. Both atheists and Christians filter out these doctrines and actions of evil men, to get to the purer form of their beliefs.

 

These dark cases of atheism and christianity swung the pendulum away from morality all the way toward primal individuality. Stalin and the witch hunter, were not under the morality of thou shall not kill, which would have allowed all to live. They came up with philosophical ethics, that allowed them ethical loop-holes, which could justify by-passing basic morality for the sake of a temporary gain.

Edited October 17, 2010 by pioneer

[lemur]

On what is this based? First, what is spirit? Second, what properties of spirit would render it freer than matter?

 

Spirit refers to your inner experience. Another term for it is "subjectivity."

[needimprovement]

First, what is spirit? Second, what properties of spirit would render it freer than matter?

Spirit refers to your inner experience. Another term for it is "subjectivity."

Or spirit = freedom, and for her spirit to be expressed freely into the world, she has to go deep within herself and her inner source.

But to be "free" truly free, she must have complete control over herself and her desires, otherwise she is a slave to the world.

[lemur]

Or spirit = freedom, and for her spirit to be expressed freely into the world, she has to go deep within herself and her inner source.

But to be "free" truly free, she must have complete control over herself and her desires, otherwise she is a slave to the world.

 

Unfortunately, spirit is not coterminous with freedom because otherwise enslavement would not be possible. Yes, humans have free will but part of that free will is being able to submit to subjugation, which people do not infrequently. So, the second part of your post is right, that control over one's desires and actions frees one from reacting impulsively to worldly stimuli and conditions, but one's spirit CAN become convinced of its own subjugation and assent to it as a result. The belief that one is not free is the impetus to submitting to authority, resistance of which one is convinced is futile. Resistance is never futile.

Edited October 17, 2010 by lemur

[needimprovement]

Inner Freedom

 

Inner freedom, the freedom to be all we can possibly be, is a state of fulfilled being rather than a way of acting. Inner freedom means freedom from such things as isolation, suffering and death, in short, from all that prevents us from being fully alive. because all of us must die, none of us can attain total inner freedom while on earth. However, we can attain various degrees of inner freedom, and, by means of religion, the hope of perfect inner freedom after death.

 

An example of a kind of inner freedom is found in the experience of two people who fall deeply in love, and in their love are set free in an experinece of unlimited happiness.

 

The inner freedom of this love, for all its power and wonder, is obviously not total and final. A bribe, for example, cannot promise her spouse freedom from all suffering, much less can she promise him freedom from death. In short, her love does not have the power to make him all he can possibly be.

 

Nevertheless, the inner freedom found in human love is real. Furthermore, it brings out two important thruths about inner freedom. The first is that inner freedom is found in a love relationship. It is love that makes us all we can possibly be.

 

the second point is that the couple in love achieve inner freedom by means of external freedom. In other words, their daily actions toward each other are the means by which maintain inner freedom of love. if a husband, for example, "freely" chooses to be unfaithful to his wife, his freedom of action becomes the means of destroying his inner freedom to be he can possibly be in love. Ultimately, his action is a kind of antifreedom force. No matter how "freely" he chose to be unfaithful, he nevertheless freely chose not to be free. What is seen here is that in a love relationship one is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love.

 

Human love, as we know it on this earth, eventually ends in death, but God's love does not. The Church's celebration of Easter is a constant reminder that the focus of faith in Chirst is notgrounded in his high moral values or his great wisdom. Rather Jesus offers to us a participation in his own total victory over death. It is the Christian hope that in Christ we will become all we can possibly be. The alleluias sung on Easter morning are grounded in Jesus' promise that "whoever believes in me, though he should die, will come to life; and whoever is alive and belives in me will never die" (Jn 11:26), and in the realization that his promise will be fulfilled because he has given us the Spirit. It is St. aul who said, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will bring your moral bodies to life also through his Spirit dwelling in you" (Rm 8:11).

 

We will, of course, reach our goal of total inner freedom only in heaven. The point is, however, that we will achieve total inner freedom only by means of external freedom. It is at this juncture that we see the impostance of Christian morality. Our moral actions are the means to achieving the inner freedom of perfect fulfillment in God. An immoral act is an act freely performed against one's own ultimate freedom. As with all people in a love relationship, the Christian is free to do what he or she must do in order to be faithful to love. Freedom without this fidelity to love is not freedom but license.

 

The point is brought out in the story of adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In freely choosing to disobey God, they freely chose to undermine their own inner freedom. Just as a husband or wife is free to love his or her spouse, he or she is also bound by that love. We can see there the paradoxical truth that moral obligations are in the last analysis obligations to our own freedom.

 

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that, just as inner freedom is not found in the possession of any external object, so too the hindrances to inner freedom come ultimately from within ourselves, in our free choice not to be true to love. We become, in short, our own obstacle to our own freedom, prisoners locked within ourselves.

 

External Freedom

 

External freedom is not the freedom to be all we can possibly be, but rather the freedom to do all we can possibly do. This is what most people think of when they hear the word "freedom". External freedom, in a Christian context, is a means to an end. We attain to inner freedom by responding to God's love in our daily actions. Thus morality can be seen as a free response to God's call to perfect freedom. There is then a paradox in human freedom. The paradox is that the free choice not to respond to God;s call is a free choice not to be free, because it is a free choice not to fully be. We bear within us not only the seeds of our own fulfillment but also the seeds of our own destruction. This is the meaning of sin.

Edited October 17, 2010 by needimprovement

[needimprovement]

Threats to Freedom

 

Once we realize the importannce of freedom in our lives, it is easy to see why any threat to our freedom is an attack on humandignity. Just as with our discussion of freedom, I will divide the threats to freedom into inner and external types.

 

External threats to Freedom

 

external threats to freedom are forces in society which directly endanger our quest for inner freedom. This includes such things as oppression, injustice and prejudice.

 

Events such as the Revolution, people such as Jose Rizal and Martin Luther King, movemenst such as community development and women's liberation, are examples of the constant need to struggle against the forces of oppression in any form.

 

Certainly, Christians must be in the forfront with those workingfor a free society. The Fathers of the second Vatican Council state:

 

Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment...disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit....all these things and other of their like are infamies indeed....Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator(Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, No. 27).

 

The bishops go on to point that Jesus does not simply call us to heaven as individuals, but he also calls us as a people to the kingdom of God. We are nound by the love of Christ to work toward the perfection of society in preperation for the kingdom. Put in other terms, a Christian never goes to heaven alone. Our call from God comes in through the society in which we live. We are committed to work toward the perfection of society so that all people may find the means to become all they can possibly be. This may often involve reaching out and helping those whose freedom is being abused.

 

Internal Threats to Freedom

 

Internal threats to freedom are, as the term implies, the threats to freedom which come from within ourselves. The internal threats to freedom which we will discuss are ignorance, passions and habit. Within each of these in an element for which we are not responsible because we do not have total control of all our thoughts, emotions and life experiences. At the same time there is an element for which we are responsible. it is, of course, the responsible aspects of these hindrances to freedom that are the concern of moral theology.

[pioneer]

The spirit, in the traditional sense, is not restricted to matter, body or physical reality. One aspect of humanity that satisfies all these criteria is the imagination. In the imagination, one is not under the constraints of external physical reality. I can fly to the moon flapping my arms. I can transcend the restrictions of space and time by imagining the formation of the earth billions of years ago or the death of the sun billions of years from now. I can imagine the earth overheating due to manmade global warming. The reality of the spirit occurs when what we imagine becomes as real as real itself. Then the spirit can take on a life of it own becoming sort of a subroutine that animates our reality.

 

In tradition, the soul animates the body. The soul is connected to brain firmware. The animal soul represents the firmware of instincts, which motivate the body to the needs of an animal. The human soul are the firmware that animates the body to the needs of being human.

 

In tradition, the spirit animates the soul, which then animates the body. Using the imagination and relative morality, we can use the spirit to induce the firmware of the soul to animate the body. We can blend animal with human firmware to create hybrid souls that are neither animal or human. Or we can use the spirit of the imagination to create hybrids that are more than just human, bordering on the divine. This will animate the firmware of the soul to create the eternal soul. Once it sticks as sub-routines it becomes as real as real since the soul animate the body and what we feel and perceive is the internal data the body generates.

 

The are good spirits and evil spirits. The imagination can use either orientation to animate the soul to animate the body. I can imagine that the stranger is my friend. This animates the soul with feelings that make my body feel connected to them. Or I can imagine that stranger is a threat. This animates the soul with feelings of danger and anger so the body reacts aggressively or defensively. If we do this all the time, it becomes a subroutine that triggers itself, with this spirit animating the soul which animates the body to create what is as real as real, since in the land of the spirit all appears relative, since it is not constrained to matter, body, physical reality or space-time.

[lemur]

We can blend animal with human firmware to create hybrid souls that are neither animal or human. Or we can use the spirit of the imagination to create hybrids that are more than just human, bordering on the divine. This will animate the firmware of the soul to create the eternal soul. Once it sticks as sub-routines it becomes as real as real since the soul animate the body and what we feel and perceive is the internal data the body generates.

When you use the phrase, "bordering on the divine," it sounds like a common assumption I hear people make that divinity is separate from humanity. My impression is that the creation story in the book of Genesis actually conceptualizes humanity as the replication of the divine (God creates humans in 'His' image). The relevance of this is that God also gives his replicants the ability/power and commandment to "go forth and multiply" all that is good. Interestingly, this is exactly what God did (I'm speaking according to the mythology, btw) so God's creation of humans sort of conflates with the passing of the torch of creation and multiplication, so to speak, on to humans and the rest of the creation.

 

The meaningfulness of this story lies in the relationship the writer (Moses?) sets up between freedom of action and the ability to discover morality and make moral choices. The humans are free in their ability to choose to take the forbidden fruit, yet when they do it they have to suffer the consequences that result. This logic puts humans in a difficult position. On the one hand they are free to do anything they want, but on the other hand they are never immune from the possibility of making mistakes and suffering the consequences.

 

Many people become so afraid of the possible consequences of free actions that they choose to engage in orthodoxy or institutional conformity. By following guidelines set by someone else, they don't have to take the risk of exercising freedom and suffering consequences. Still, one may wonder whether doing so is not a waste of the freedom to create one's own choices and actions and thereby experience one's life for oneself according to one's own sensibilities. For people who believe in God, I often wonder whether they think that God wanted humans to give up their freedom to live according to structures and traditions created by others.

 

 

[needimprovement]

The spirit, in the traditional sense, is not restricted to matter, body or physical reality. One aspect of humanity that satisfies all these criteria is the imagination. In the imagination, one is not under the constraints of external physical reality. I can fly to the moon flapping my arms. I can transcend the restrictions of space and time by imagining the formation of the earth billions of years ago or the death of the sun billions of years from now. I can imagine the earth overheating due to manmade global warming. The reality of the spirit occurs when what we imagine becomes as real as real itself. Then the spirit can take on a life of it own becoming sort of a subroutine that animates our reality.

 

In tradition, the soul animates the body. The soul is connected to brain firmware. The animal soul represents the firmware of instincts, which motivate the body to the needs of an animal. The human soul are the firmware that animates the body to the needs of being human.

 

In tradition, the spirit animates the soul, which then animates the body. Using the imagination and relative morality, we can use the spirit to induce the firmware of the soul to animate the body. We can blend animal with human firmware to create hybrid souls that are neither animal or human. Or we can use the spirit of the imagination to create hybrids that are more than just human, bordering on the divine. This will animate the firmware of the soul to create the eternal soul. Once it sticks as sub-routines it becomes as real as real since the soul animate the body and what we feel and perceive is the internal data the body generates.

 

The are good spirits and evil spirits. The imagination can use either orientation to animate the soul to animate the body. I can imagine that the stranger is my friend. This animates the soul with feelings that make my body feel connected to them. Or I can imagine that stranger is a threat. This animates the soul with feelings of danger and anger so the body reacts aggressively or defensively. If we do this all the time, it becomes a subroutine that triggers itself, with this spirit animating the soul which animates the body to create what is as real as real, since in the land of the spirit all appears relative, since it is not constrained to matter, body, physical reality or space-time.

As the soul is ineffable, it is not easily subject to a quick definition. However, I will distill some of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in defining the soul (paragraphs 326-368).

 

The soul is the "spark" of life, the spiritual principle of a living creature.

 

In humans, the soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom, and soul and body together form one unique human nature. The soul refers to the innermost aspect of a human, that which is of greatest value to the individual.

 

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body. In other words, it is because of soul's spiritual nature that the body (which is made of matter) becomes a living human body. Without the soul, the body is not animated. The soul is indivisible, it cannot be broken down; indeed, it cannot be measured. Human souls, at least, are immortal.

 

First, what is spirit? Second, what properties of spirit would render it freer than matter? And in what sense? Third, to be a "refutation" in any real sense, it has to be shown that spirit does in fact exist and is in fact "freer" than matter in the ways described.

I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of "soul." However, I have shown that it is quite reasonable and elegant, and that no other offered explanation is adequate. By Occom's Razor, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Therefore, the soul is the ineffable spark of life that animates living bodies.

 

The interesting question then becomes, where does the soul come from? Now we get to God.

 

I suggest you read this book: From Atheism to Catholicism, How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth. http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Catholicism-Scientists-Philosophers-Truth/dp/1592766382 It is written by a man with a PsyD, is a member of Mensa, and in fact has sat on Mensa's committee on intelligence (or whatever its official title is). He is, objectively speaking by modern measurement, and extremely bright man - and a former atheist - and yet he has come to recognize the Truth. You should see why this former atheist rejected atheism.

 

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you read this book, you'll be convinced. Be careful what you read, you might find out you're not correct!

Edited October 18, 2010 by needimprovement

[needimprovement]

Ignorance

 

Ignorance is a threat ti freedom becuase in ignorance we can hurt ourselves as well as others. Consider, for example, that you have a close friend who is very sensitives about a particular aspect of his or her personality. You, however, find this trait of your friend to be amusing and never miss an opportunity to mention it. Months later your friend tells you about his or her feelings on this matter. You then suddenly realize that in ignorance you have been hurting your relationship with your friend. The same holds true with your relationship with God. We must always make an honest effort to properly inform our conscience. It is morally wrong to deliberately remain in ignorance about what is morally wrong.

 

Another aspect of ignorance as a hindrance to freedom is seen in light of the mysterious nature of our own minds. So many of our deepest needs have their roots in the depths of the subconscious where we do not have access to them. This means that we may be doing a certain thing when we suddenly become aware that our deepest motives may be unworthy ones. Perhaps jealousy, revenge, or even hatred is motivating us to do what we are doing under the cover of friendship or perhaps our obligation to correct another. In conclusion, we are not responsible for that of which we are ignorant. But we are responsible not to remain ignorant to the extent we are able to do so. We must constantly work toward an ever greater understanding of ourselves and of our relationship to God.

[AzurePhoenix]

I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of "soul." However, I have shown that it is quite reasonable and elegant, and that no other offered explanation is adequate. By Occom's Razor, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Therefore, the soul is the ineffable spark of life that animates living bodies.

Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony (parsimony of assumptions, to be specific), not simplicity. A common error.

 

Without exploring the details of the nature of this "ineffable spark" or its mechanisms and origin, then yes, it would certainly appear very simple at first glace. However, evolution can be similarly simplified to an equally meaningless not-quite-explanation. However, simplicity isn't the point. While evolution in its effectual, thoroughly-explained glory is a very complex system, it and how it can shape life from microbes to complex multicellular eukaryotes is well understood. Your spirituality hypothesis requires an enormous number of baseless, unverified assumptions. Agnostics would claim unverifiable (but that's an unverified assumption itself.) Evolution requires few unsupported assumptions. While the origin of life itself, abiogenesis, is more mysterious and requires more assumptions than the evolution of existing life, abiogenesis hypothesis still tend to make far fewer assumptions than supernatural/theistic/spiritual hypothesis do. Ergo, materialistic explanations are more elegant by Occam's measure.

 

The interesting question then becomes, where does the soul come from? Now we get to God.

Speculatively, if we ever did come across evidence that spirit (which currently remains a nonsense word for the barest idea of an unformed concept) does in some form exist, it by no means necessitates the existence of a god, whether abrahamic or deistic or otherwise. The implications of the existence of spirit would depend entirely on the specific nature or properties or what have you of spirit.

 

I suggest you read this book: From Atheism to Catholicism, How Scientists and Philosophers Led Me to the Truth. http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/1592766382

Thank you, I'm always on the lookout for an infuriating but hilarious mashup of fallacies and pitiable self-delusion. Seriously. I'm sort've a masochist that way... I have half a shelf devoted to theism, apologetics and crackpottery. If you haven't, you should read There is a God by Anthony Flew, it's a delightfully agonizing read.

 

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you read this book, you'll be convinced. Be careful what you read, you might find out you're not correct!

I don't particularly care about whether or not I'm correct. What I care about is what the evidence suggests, even if the truth turns out to be something I don't like (as is all too often the case.) Edited October 18, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[needimprovement]

Passions

 

The passions or the emotions or the emotions are those iner forces that affect us both spiritually and physically in moving us to act in certain way. These passions, such as joy, love, fear and sorrow, are in themselves good, and they learn from an important dimension in our lives. But it id important to see that while under their influence we are restricted in out freedom. This restricting power on our freedomiis where the passions are potential sources of immorality.

 

Some actions have no morl significance and so giving way to our emotions in such circumstances is also without moral significance. For example, the wild enthusiam at a basketball game is neither moral nor immoral in itself.

 

Some actions are directly immoral and so the giving way to the emotions that move us to do such things increases our involvement in the action. What is more, the emotions such as fear, hate sorrow, can do more than move us to intensify our involvement in destructive acts to ourselves and others. The emotions can become overpowering and, under their influence, we temporarily lose our use of free will and so become dehumanized.

 

While under the full impact of these emotions we are not responsible for our actions to the extent they have taken over. We are responsible, however, not to let ourselves become so dominated by these emotions. For example, one who has a violent temper is not fully responsible for his actions while he or she is acting in a rage. This person is, however, to see it that he or she checks these emotions before they get our of hand. We can see here how the threats to freedom can act upon one another in terms of moral responsibility. For example, a person who continually loses his temper has an obligation to do his best not to become dominated by his distractive feelings. He must also try to overcome his ignorance concerning why he is so prone to behave the way that he does.

 

Once again, it should be made clear that the passions are themselves good. They become evil only when directed toward an evil action that dehumanizes us. The passions involved in sexual love in marriage, for example, are directed toward a good end; namely, the deepening of love and the procreation of children. The same thing can be said about the strong emotions of joy that are often experienced at celebrations or at the meeting of close friends who have been separated for a long period of time. A stoic rejection of the passions is not the goal of Christian morality.

[needimprovement]

Habits

 

If you have ever watched a baby trying to learn how to use a spoon for the first time, you were probably struck by the humorous sight of someone trying to find his or her own mouth! If you try to think of how it is you are able to find yours, you come to some understanding of the importance of habits. Habits are a form of second nature to us. Habits are things we do spontaneously, effortlessly, without thinking. It is easy to see why habits are invaluable in our lives. Imagine how it would be if every time you sat down to eat you had to begin all over again to learn how to find your own mouth in order to feed yourself!

 

Habits are very significant in our moral life as well. As with the passions, when involving actions such as driving a car, that is, actions which are neither moral nor immoral, we can say that habits themselves are neither moral nor immoral. When the habit is a good habit we say that it is a virtue. This means that we can develop the virtue of going out of our way to help others, for example. A virtuous person is one who spontaneously does what is good because he or she has developed good habits. Here good living example becomes a way of life.

 

Habits that are directed toward immoral actions are called vices. Bad habits form us to do spontaneously that which in the beginning called for a deliberate act of the will. For example, the first time a person steals something, he or she may feel a great degree of guilt in the awareness they have done something wrong. But after repeatedly stealing, the act becomes effortless. In stealing long enough the person takes on the identity of a liar.

 

To determine the degree of responsibility in actions involving habits, we can use the same principle we applied to the passions. In other words, to the extent a person has been taken over by a particular habit, that person has a decreased amount of responsibility for what he or she is doing. By the same token, the individual is bound to avoid becoming entrenched in bad habits, and is obligated to try to replace them with good habits.

[mississippichem]

I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of "soul."...

 

Then doesn't that make eveything you are saying subjective and completley transcendental? If you can't quantify it, you have no way of presenting an even slightly compelling case. concepts and experiments that are not quantified cannot be reproduced in a consistent or reliable way. How much does a soul weigh? How much volume does it occupy? What is the density of a soul? If you can't answer these questions or any realated questions; do you really have a case for the existence of souls?

[needimprovement]

I cannot use physical measurement to prove my definition of "soul."

Then doesn't that make eveything you are saying subjective and completley transcendental? If you can't quantify it, you have no way of presenting an even slightly compelling case. concepts and experiments that are not quantified cannot be reproduced in a consistent or reliable way. How much does a soul weigh? How much volume does it occupy? What is the density of a soul? If you can't answer these questions or any realated questions; do you really have a case for the existence of souls?

Here's a pretty simple solution that should tell us all everything we need to know about the existence of the soul, and that's our own consciousness.

 

Now, before anyone jumps the gun, I'm not talking about consciousness in general, or what causes it (because I know there are medical explanations for consciousness), but more referring to the unique consciousness, or the "window" into the world that each and every one of us has that is completely different and separate from everyone elses...our individuality, if you will.

 

If you consider your own consciousness, and why "you" are "you" in the first place...it all becomes clear that for each individual to actually have a unique perspective of their own, it has to come from something that supercedes the natural world. Just a thought anyway.

[lemur]

Then doesn't that make eveything you are saying subjective and completley transcendental? If you can't quantify it, you have no way of presenting an even slightly compelling case. concepts and experiments that are not quantified cannot be reproduced in a consistent or reliable way. How much does a soul weigh? How much volume does it occupy? What is the density of a soul? If you can't answer these questions or any realated questions; do you really have a case for the existence of souls?

By framing the existence of a soul in objective terms like weight, volume, and density, you are challenging the subjective to fulfill objective standards which doesn't work since objectivity and subjectivity are oppositional frameworks by definition. If you choose to restrict your awareness to objective, material aspects of reality, your consciousness will lurk in the position of pure observer, which may be what you are trying to achieve. In order to observe consciousness as a thing that is separate and distinct from the object world it observes, you have to be able to observe it as a non-material thing. Soul, spirit, consciousness, subjectivity, etc. are all terms that attempt to regard the inner-experience of being alive without resorting to explaining it in terms of the physiological hardware.

 

Nevertheless, I have noticed a pattern with staunch materialists that they will tend to take any discussion of subjectivity and subject it to material accountability. There is something about materialist consciousness that makes it very difficult to switch to other modes of consciousness. I assume this has to do with the relative solidity of physical materialities that render most other perceptions fantastic or at least ephemeral in contrast. Interestingly, social realists do succeed in attaining physical-objective status for institutional constructs that rivals that of actual physical objects. Language, social categories, and other social constructions are regarded as real on the basis of their transcendence of individuals and the very real consequences of human actions in response to them. Nationalism doesn't have weight, volume, or density but the fact that people are willing to go to war over national territory is significant enough to cause many, even objective scientists, to regard nations as objective entities. Of course they are no more objective than a soul is, but somehow materialists can be convinced of the existence of nations while still doubting the existence of a soul. Why is that?

 

 

[Edtharan]

Really?! Are you sure you have more freedom today than before? Or are you just demonstrating a false perception?

The fact that we can discuss this is one piece of evidence that we are more free, even when including your definitions of internal freedom.

 

As an example, if we were haivng this discussion around the year 1230, we would be in real danger of being arrested, tortured and even killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition) just for questioning church docterine (which as you have demonstrated beliefs that were not in line with the christian church circa 1200, you too would be labled as a heritic and subject to the inquisition).

 

So we obviously have more "spiritual" freedoms than the christian church allowed at a time when it was the most powerful church in europe (and you are trying to argue that christianity allows more spiritual freedoms).

 

Through out history, religions have activly suppressed any actions, beliefs and thoughts that don't fit with the curent orthidoxy. It is only because of the rise of secularism and the divisions between church and state and the secular laws that prevent a state from forcing a particular religious view onto someone that we have the right to follow any religion we choose and to have any thought we want without fear of punishment.

 

You are free to explore your beliefs and what God means to you because we have laws that prevent chruches from tourtuering you to determine if you hold beliefs that they don't want you to have and to force you to only believe in the way they want you to. You are spiritually free, not because of religion, but because of the lack of it.

[lemur]

The fact that we can discuss this is one piece of evidence that we are more free, even when including your definitions of internal freedom.

 

As an example, if we were haivng this discussion around the year 1230, we would be in real danger of being arrested, tortured and even killed (http://en.wikipedia....val_Inquisition) just for questioning church docterine (which as you have demonstrated beliefs that were not in line with the christian church circa 1200, you too would be labled as a heritic and subject to the inquisition).

 

So we obviously have more "spiritual" freedoms than the christian church allowed at a time when it was the most powerful church in europe (and you are trying to argue that christianity allows more spiritual freedoms).

 

Through out history, religions have activly suppressed any actions, beliefs and thoughts that don't fit with the curent orthidoxy. It is only because of the rise of secularism and the divisions between church and state and the secular laws that prevent a state from forcing a particular religious view onto someone that we have the right to follow any religion we choose and to have any thought we want without fear of punishment.

 

You are free to explore your beliefs and what God means to you because we have laws that prevent chruches from tourtuering you to determine if you hold beliefs that they don't want you to have and to force you to only believe in the way they want you to. You are spiritually free, not because of religion, but because of the lack of it.

What makes you think that the repressive religious authorities that claimed Christian doctrine as their basis and validation were not, in fact, perverting the very Christian doctrine they claimed to represent? Please note that the reason why Jesus Christ himself was persecuted by both secular and religious authorities was that he preached faith in the holy spirit as the basis for interpreting scripture. In other words, Christ himself was anti-orthodox except perhaps to the extent he recognized truth in the essential logics of the commandments, scriptures, etc. Nevertheless he advocated active interpretation of divine revelation over subjugation to religious hierarchy. If he hadn't, he would have fallen in line with the pharises and been heralded as a devout protege'.

 

The thing I think devout secularists fail to consider whenever they judge religion is that churches are not perfect hierarchies of orthodox authority. Churches are worldly attempts to institutionalize divine revelation in ways that everyday people can practice and enhance their spiritual awareness and moral responsibility. Among the people who interpret scripture and receive divine revelation, there are bound to be disagreements and rifts just because humans are imperfect, no matter how much divine insight they are privy to. What's more, power corrupts so it is often divine revelation itself that tempts people to the point of abusing religious authority. In other words, the reason why so much corruption has occurred due to religion is because there is so much power in divinity and the culture that worships it.

 

Do you really think that religion is any more corruptible than any other human institution? Critics of religion seem to hold so much faith in more secular institutions but how is any human institution any less susceptible to abuse than religion? Freedom is the product of understanding the relationship between individual human will and institutionalized authority. People who view human will as subject to authoritarian conditions give up their freedom in a way that those who view authoritarian conditions and institutions as themselves human constructions do not. I don't like to preach scripture because it makes me come across as a zealot, but there's a quote of Jesus that sums it up quite nicely: "before Abraham was, I am." In the quote, Abraham represents orthodoxy and institutionalized authority in the form of an inherited lineage. The quote was considered blasphemous, imo, because it claimed direct revelation as having primacy over received institutional authority. Even today, institutionalists reject individuals who assert personal authority over institutional orthodoxy.

 

This is how human freedom is negotiated, whether in a religious or other secular context; not by accepting or rejecting religion or secularism as a whole.

Edited October 18, 2010 by lemur