Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Revisiting Moral Subjectivity and Absolutism

Arguments pertaining to moral subjectivism or absolutism are difficult to navigate.  Both positions have elements of truth weaved throughout to such a degree that is difficult for some to pick one.  Others hold fast to one ideal or the other without ever conceding any validity to the other position. 

Any conceived idea always has an element of truth. Some are closer to what is real than others, but each have a truth mixed into the concept.  Approaching the topic with this in mind one can navigate the waters of moral philosophy with greater ability to perceive a more accurate perspective on the matter. 

The extremes always lend themselves to showing their flaws.  On one extreme is the moral subjectivist who maintains with absolute certainty that morality is one hundred percent subjective. This position is usually maintained by those who believe it is impossible to know anything for certain from any external compass and therefore it is imperative to be certain that we cannot know anything for certain.  The philosophical trappings are apparent. 

Notwithstanding, the tendency to discount the entire proposed philosophy due to this error of extremes does an injustice to the topic.  Many throw out the baby with the bath water and refuse to allow any acceptance of subjective morality. 

16 comments:

CyberKitten said...

What you seem to be saying is that, although there are no absolute rules, there is an absolute ruler... that although there are no absolute laws there is an absolute law giver....

If that wasn't confusing enough you appear to be saying that our morality is based on a subjective relationship with an absolute being.... So how is any of this different from what we have now? We have different people from different religious traditions interpreting their beliefs in different ways and attempting to live by those beliefs - hence the variation in moral codes from pace to place and over historical time.... or in fact subjective morality based on individual cultural heritage.......

Karla said...

Cyber “What you seem to be saying is that, although there are no absolute rules, there is an absolute ruler... that although there are no absolute laws there is an absolute law giver....”

Sort of. Not a law giver, per se, but a standard bearer would be more accurate. Being the perfect standard, rather than creating it.


Cyber “If that wasn't confusing enough you appear to be saying that our morality is based on a subjective relationship with an absolute being.... “

In a way. It’s like our contact with Him cleans us up inside and we then live like we are clean. Rather than trying to figure out from Him is this “good or bad”, we are adjusted on the inside in a way that we have a new ability to start living from a new standard naturally. The tricky thing is that even amongst Christians we usually live based on “trying” to figure out what the good or bad thing is and sometimes we live without caring and just do as we would do if we hadn’t had an internal change.


Cyber “So how is any of this different from what we have now? We have different people from different religious traditions interpreting their beliefs in different ways and attempting to live by those beliefs - hence the variation in moral codes from pace to place and over historical time.... or in fact subjective morality based on individual cultural heritage.....”

I think all those moral codes (including Christian ones) are an imperfect picture of what is possible. They all have some truth and none of them can be fully discounted, but God has something better and something outside of the system so to speak. Instead of finding the “right moral system” He brings us out of the system and creates a scenario that can have goodness apart from laws/rules.

I hope that communicated better. I welcome your questions, this is something I am trying to grasp more fully myself and express more accurately.

CyberKitten said...

It sounds very much to me that you talking about Platonic Forms.

Karla said...

From what I know about that, I would say it is similar, but takes it further than he did. What I am talking about has a foundational support that Plato's forms lacked.

CyberKitten said...

If memory serves Plato had an idea of a Form that early Christians used as an idea of God. You should read him. He's very good, although his idea of The Forms is one of his weakest I thought. I like his politics better - thought Aristotle is still my favourite Greek philosophy.

I'm planning on reading more of both of them next year.

Karla said...

In which book would I find the topic of Forms by Plato?

Early Christians often utilized pre-Christian philosophies or myths to use as an analogy for the message they were conveying. Christians do it today too by using pop cultural things like movies as a analogy to express an idea.

CyberKitten said...

Plato apparently mentions the Forms a few times. Try 'Republic', it's bound to be in there.

The early Christians didn't shy away from borrowing the myths of others and bolting them onto their own. I guess that's one reason for their almost universal appeal.

Karla said...

I've been studying mythology a little lately -- currently reading a book on parallel myths. It is amazing the same message being told in a variety of forms. To me that seems more like a foreshadowing (to borrow a literary concept) of the culmination of the real event. Because of this there was ample reason to borrow these stories in the retelling of what we see as The Story. However, at the same time, I do not deny that some ancient myths or even present ones have crept into doctrines and religious rituals found in Christianity.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: To me that seems more like a foreshadowing (to borrow a literary concept) of the culmination of the real event.

Do you have any idea just how arrogant that sounds? The idea that all other myths are mere foreshadows of *your* myth?

The reason many myths have similar components is that they are stories told *by* people *to* people. Humanity has many things in common so it should come as no surprise that we hany many story elements in common too!

Karla said...

Cyber "Do you have any idea just how arrogant that sounds? The idea that all other myths are mere foreshadows of *your* myth?"


Actually I think the view I espoused validates the stories of all cultures. It says that they all have meaning and truth in them. They each have a valuable part to play in the big picture. It values the stories of all of history rather by showing how they culminate in the Grand Story. I find them all fascinating.

Cyber "The reason many myths have similar components is that they are stories told *by* people *to* people. Humanity has many things in common so it should come as no surprise that we hany many story elements in common too!"

It seems odd to me that so many separate cultures would be telling the same stories unless there were truth behind them.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: It values the stories of all of history rather by showing how they culminate in the Grand Story.

The 'Grand Story' being Christianity presumably - hence we're back to *your* myth again..... Maybe Christianity is merely an echo of the Aztec story?

karla said: It seems odd to me that so many separate cultures would be telling the same stories unless there were truth behind them.

Except that they are not "the same story". They are similar stories with common themes - some of which may be able to be shoe-horned into your version of the common myth. Looked at from another perspective you could say that they are derivations of Egyptian or Mayan myths.... Maybe the *core* myth is Chinese?

The reason that you see the Christian story to be at the heart of things is because that is your belief. If you held a different belief you'd see *that* at the heart of things don't you think?

Karla said...

Cyber “The 'Grand Story' being Christianity presumably - hence we're back to *your* myth again..... Maybe Christianity is merely an echo of the Aztec story?”

I say “Grand” as the over arching story. The story that gives meaning to the rest, the big picture. Yes, I believe that story is the story of Christ. Have you studied mythology? From the little I have studied I have not found another story that is so detailed and evidenced and possible as the Judeo-Christian story. The ancient myths were not so comprehensive. The Babylonian Gilgamesh is fairly comprehensive, but does not read like a historical account with details of places, people, and events being clearly articulated.


Cyber “Except that they are not "the same story". They are similar stories with common themes - some of which may be able to be shoe-horned into your version of the common myth.”

They are not the same, but they are very close in theme sometimes strikingly so. I’ve been reading account after account of creation, of the fall of man, of the flood, etc. Very similar.


Cyber “Looked at from another perspective you could say that they are derivations of Egyptian or Mayan myths.... Maybe the *core* myth is Chinese? “

That would be interesting to research to see if any of those cultures make that claim. I think each culture is trying to represent something that speaks of truth in their own cultural way. They use stories and pictures to represent it to the best of their knowledge of what they can currently see. I find each story valuable and interesting.

Cyber “The reason that you see the Christian story to be at the heart of things is because that is your belief. If you held a different belief you'd see *that* at the heart of things don't you think? “

Then how to you explain those who are of other cultural stories who come to realize that the story of Christ brought the missing element of what they loved about their own story? Even C.S. Lewis, an atheists, saw through his study of mythology something great that seemed like it must have some kind of truth behind it and then he found in the Christ story the truth that all these other stories were like hands on a compass pointing towards something greater.

I can say that is even true of the Biblical narrative. That it wasn’t desired to point to its own story, but the one who birthed the story. That the Story is greater than the written account of it.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: I say “Grand” as the over arching story. The story that gives meaning to the rest, the big picture. Yes, I believe that story is the story of Christ.

But *of course* you do - you're a Christian..... What you seem to have trouble with is that *other* belief systems also have stories that *they* believe are the real stories - the important ones. You believe they are mistaken. I'm sure that they believe you are mistaken. I believe that you are *all* mistaken.

karla said: The ancient myths were not so comprehensive.

What do you mean by 'comprehensive'....?

karla said: I find each story valuable and interesting.

Though you find that *your* story is more valuable and more interesting because it's *your* story. If you were a Hindu or a Muslim you would find that more interesting and valuable.

karla said: Then how to you explain those who are of other cultural stories who come to realize that the story of Christ brought the missing element of what they loved about their own story?

How do you explain when Christians become Hindu's or Muslims or Bhuddists or Atheists? People change their religions. Religions grow, mutate, fade and die. Beliefs change over time, both at the individual level and at the cultural level. Just because some people of other faiths become Christians doesn't automatically mean that Christianity is the correct religion. Even if the traffic was only one way - which it isn't.

Karla said...

Cyber “But *of course* you do - you're a Christian..... What you seem to have trouble with is that *other* belief systems also have stories that *they* believe are the real stories - the important ones. You believe they are mistaken. I'm sure that they believe you are mistaken. I believe that you are *all* mistaken.”

I see what you are saying and I am not saying that my belief about this is in any way proof about any of it. At the same time the ancient myths I’m referring to are almost all from cultures that no longer exist or cultures that no longer put any validity in them. They are not ideas competing for any prominence in the marketplace of ideas.


Cyber “What do you mean by 'comprehensive'....?”

They were not very detailed or thorough.


Cyber “Though you find that *your* story is more valuable and more interesting because it's *your* story. If you were a Hindu or a Muslim you would find that more interesting and valuable. “

That’s true. But there are stories that do not give validity to others and that do say the others have no value. Actually many Christians think that way about other beliefs. I don’t. I see it somewhat differently, and I’m not alone in that.


Cyber “How do you explain when Christians become Hindu's or Muslims or Bhuddists or Atheists? People change their religions. Religions grow, mutate, fade and die. Beliefs change over time, both at the individual level and at the cultural level. Just because some people of other faiths become Christians doesn't automatically mean that Christianity is the correct religion. Even if the traffic was only one way - which it isn't. “


That’s a good counter point. I agree that it doesn’t mean Christianity is true just because people convert from other religions.

I think the point I am advocating is that there are people who are of other beliefs that do feel that Christ provides something they are missing. This isn’t proof, this isn’t to say the reverse doesn’t happen. But it was to say that it isn’t just those from my own way of thinking that think this. Others from other cultures have thought this too even though their cultural story was different. Again, not proof, just observation.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: At the same time the ancient myths I’m referring to are almost all from cultures that no longer exist or cultures that no longer put any validity in them. They are not ideas competing for any prominence in the marketplace of ideas.

So.. as your myth is one of those left standing it has more validity than those who have faded in time? If Christianity had emerged 10 thousand years ago instead of 2 thousand, and had never made it into the age of print, its entirely possible that in this time we'd only have scant knowledge of that belief structure. Of course in 10 thousand years time we might be in that position anyway.....

karla said: They were not very detailed or thorough.

Quite possibly because they have left little impression on the historical record - pre literature - or that we simply don't know much about them. Maybe its a case that in some instances the research into them hasn't been done. Also Christiany has been around continously for a very long time and dominated most of the West for a thousand years. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have detailed myths. If any other religion had lasted that long and been in that position it would have produced very detailed mythic structure too.

karla said: That’s a good counter point. I agree that it doesn’t mean Christianity is true just because people convert from other religions.

You certainly *implied* that when you said:

"Even C.S. Lewis, an atheists, saw through his study of mythology something great that seemed like it must have some kind of truth behind it and then he found in the Christ story the truth that all these other stories were like hands on a compass pointing towards something greater".

karla said: Others from other cultures have thought this too even though their cultural story was different. Again, not proof, just observation.

One which doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.....

Karla said...

karla said: At the same time the ancient myths I’m referring to are almost all from cultures that no longer exist or cultures that no longer put any validity in them. They are not ideas competing for any prominence in the marketplace of ideas.

Cyber “So.. as your myth is one of those left standing it has more validity than those who have faded in time? If Christianity had emerged 10 thousand years ago instead of 2 thousand, and had never made it into the age of print, its entirely possible that in this time we'd only have scant knowledge of that belief structure. Of course in 10 thousand years time we might be in that position anyway.....”

You had said, “that *other* belief systems also have stories that *they* believe are the real stories - the important ones.” I was saying that the belief systems I was distinctly referring to, the ancient “myths” are extinct systems of belief. Thus, I am not stepping on anyone’s toes to say that Christianity gives new life and meaning to all the ancient stories (this is of course assuming Christianity to be true). Nothing I said was a defense of Christianity, but an observation that presuming it’s truth the rest of the stories of old are also resurrected in a way.

karla said: They were not very detailed or thorough.

Cyber “Quite possibly because they have left little impression on the historical record - pre literature - or that we simply don't know much about them. Maybe its a case that in some instances the research into them hasn't been done.”

That’s possible. But the literary element often shows a very different style than one used when speaking historically, Gilgamesh, reads very differently than the ancient scripts of the Torah now also known as the Old Testament. The former tells a story, but the latter tells a story in a very specific context with known names, places, events, lands. etc. Both have a message and both point to some supernatural events, but they express it very differently.

Cyber “Also Christiany has been around continously for a very long time and dominated most of the West for a thousand years. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have detailed myths. If any other religion had lasted that long and been in that position it would have produced very detailed mythic structure too.”

They are as they were thousands of years ago. They didn’t develop beyond the time they were written.


karla said: That’s a good counter point. I agree that it doesn’t mean Christianity is true just because people convert from other religions.

Cyber “You certainly *implied* that when you said:”

I didn’t mean to.