The Shield Of Time, PART SIX, 1990 A.D.
A Danellian to Everard and Wanda:
"'In these times, as in many elsewhen, moral relativism is the sin that besets folk of goodwill.'" (p. 434)
S/he means "error," not "sin." I would have liked more on what is meant here by "moral relativism." I agree that we should not hold back from making value judgments about other people's value judgments - but nor should we simply condemn any values that differ from ours! When I studied Philosophy, Ethics was a big part of the course but, as an academic discipline, it was completely abstracted from any real moral issues. I was far more interested in the mind-body problem and in the question of materialism versus idealism and regarded Ethics as peripheral. Like the then Head of Philosophy at Lancaster University, who specialized in Aesthetics, I was "one of those people who cannot stand Ethics at any price."
The Danellian continues:
"'They should realize, taking an example familiar today, that the death, maiming, and destruction of the Second World War were evil; so were the new tyrannies it seeded; and yet the breaking of Hitler and his allies was necessary.'" (ibid.)
I agree with this use of the word, "evil," but terminology becomes a barrier to understanding. When I told another undergraduate that I was specializing in the Philosophy of Religion and writing a dissertation on the Problem of Evil, I meant by "evil" simply suffering and injustice but he clearly thought that I intended it in some supernatural sense: devils, possessions etc.
When another undergraduate asked me whether one of the major questions in Philosophy was, "Are people basically evil?," I felt the sort of embarrassment that comes from speaking at cross-purposes. I should have said something like, "Well, we don't put it that way but major questions in Ethics include: 'Are people basically self-interested?' and 'What is the basis of moral obligations?' etc." Instead, I fell back on "What do you mean by 'evil'?" and the conversation petered out.
9 comments:
I'm an ethical nihilist myself -- sort of "Nietzsche with the courage of his convictions".
That doesn't mean I don't have moral opinions; I just don't delude myself that they're anything -but- opinions.
And I'm perfectly and cheerfully willing to impose them on others; I just don't delude myself that this is anything but an exercise in power.
I think murder should be punished; others think that denial of the Real Presence in the Host should be punished.
Enough people agree with me that the first is a matter of public policy and the second isn't, but that's just a matter of who has the biggest fist. There's no objective difference.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: but if bad things often result from errors, I can see why that Danellian used the word "sin." For all we know the Danellians might be Christians themselves!
Mr. Stirling: And I do believe in the Real Presence, after the consecration by a validly ordained priest, in the Mass. And I have argued this can be amply demonstrated from Scripture, the Fathers, the constant teaching of the Church, etc. But I would not punish those who deny transubstantiation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I don't doubt your sincerity, but it's relatively easy to be tolerant of that which we cannot in any case control...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Of course! The real test would be how * I * behaved if I ever became Sole Autocrat and Emperor of the world! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Human beings tend to think that if only it was properly explained, others would agree with them about the things that they most care about.
They also have an inherent tendency to respond with rage and hate when this expectation is disappointed.
Human beings are self-interested but not in the sense that this is commonly used.
"Self-interest" in the common, demotic sense is centered around what we think of as the "self", the self-conscious mind, and its desires for pleasure and power and self-regard.
But the individual and the mind are, in evolutionary terms, a means to an end.
By pursuing their self-interest, the individual (in the setting in which we evolved) pursues the "self-interest" of the genes the individual bears and shares with their kin.
Hence 10% of Asia being descended from Genghis Khan, and innumerable other examples.
This matrix explains both "selfishness" as commonly understood, and also "selflessness" as commonly understood.
Selflessness and empathy, in our original setting, maximize the chances of our kin-group. In that setting -- the one in which we arose -- the kin-group and the social reference group are one and the same. The mechanisms we use to produce the solidarity of the social reference group functioned seamlessly to promote the survival and successful breeding of our kin.
They're both examples of how our evolutionary psychology functions. Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.
Of course, since evolution is a blind natural process that doesn't "plan", what you might call "unintended consequences" are common.
Hence our intense capacity for understanding intentionality and purpose and the reality of other minds makes us prone to, for example, religion. We see mind where it isn't. That's a mutation of the original capacity; but like any mutation, natural selection operates on that, too.
I have learned that "proper explanation" is insufficient to persuade others of my point of view!
Also, my point of view has changed a lot and is open to further change. Theory is gray. Life is green.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Your first comment after mine above: as a Catholic I've seen a LOT of anti Catholic hatred and malice both on and off line. Most intensely from hard line liberals and "evangelical" Protestants. I have personally experienced the phenomenon you described: no matter how patiently and carefully you explain (for example) why the Church rejects and condemns all direct abortion, all our arguments are rejected, ignored, misinterpreted, distorted, etc. And "evangelicals" have responded the same way. And both have often trotted out the most vicious, wearisome, shop worn anti Catholic slanders.
Can Catholics behave just as badly? Of course!
No objection, mostly, to what you said about how evolution helped to shape what human beings desire. And of how the human capability for "intentionality" also influences that.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment