Of Zombies and Morality

[Gordian Knot]

but the world I live in is very, very cold.

Gee Tea, I hope you mean that literally because of where you live! The world is subjective, which can be a good thing. It allows each of us to decide how much cold or how hot we will allow into our lives. Sometimes I think you are too indeterminate for your own good!

 

[Tadashi]

That was a lot of text, I'll do the first part for today.

Yea, sorry, I have not yet mastered the art of brevity (or will I ever!?)

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page as to the definition of 'moral relativism'... I think I'll wait for your response to the latter part of my post, then I think I'll have a better idea of where you stand. But please take your time. I'm quite busy myself now and don't know if I can find time to write much... (If I didn't reply to you for a few days, please don't think I'm ignoring you or anything...)

But, just a few things that perhaps helps you to see my way of thinking...

Each person's 'subjective' opinion on 'what's right' may differ, and we argue all the time about it, but just because we can't agree on 'what's right', that doesn't mean there's nothing objectively right.

Have you had a chance to watch the youtube video I included? If so, I want to ask you a few questions using the examples that were introduced in the video...

Oh, and, can I ask you this question?
-- Is imposing one's subjective moral values onto others morally right or wrong for you?


Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Hi GK, are you a moral relativist too? If so, do you agree with ACOT's statement below?

"Since there are no objective morals in my universe the holocaust was neither objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong. It is simply morally wrong for me."

And the same question I asked to ACOT...
-- Is imposing one's subjective moral values onto others morally right or wrong for you?


Tad

 

[Gordian Knot]

Hi Tad. For the most part I do think morals are subjective. There are exceptions. Unlike Tea, I do not see the Holocaust as morally objective to me alone. It was immoral. Period.

The people doing it knew it was immoral (with the exception of the extremists who deluded themselves into believing it was moral. But they were the minority). The majority of the men who worked the camps knew it was wrong. That it was evil. They followed orders regardless because they didn't believe they had an option not to. Or didn't think it was their responsibility. Or because they were afraid, or any of the other hundreds of excuses men told themselves.

I'm not just picking on the Germans though. The Europeans who came to America started a genocide against the Native Americans that led to the extinction for all intents and purposes, of their way of life. That was immoral. Period.

Others might have different views on these examples, but no one could change my mind; I feel that strongly about it.

If I had the power, would I consider it morally right to impose my subjective values on others? That is a really good question! My knee jerk response was to say no I would not do that. On contemplation though if I am to be honest with myself I believe I would. If I had the power to do so.

Which puts me in a position. I believe morals are subjective and I believe my moral values are the correct ones, even though I freely admit they are subjective.

Yet again, having said all that, the reality is that in my day to day life I don't push my values on anyone. I keep my values to myself. I don't even offer advice to others unless they ask my opinion.

So I'm afraid I am a mess of contradictions. Hah!

 

[Thomas]

For the most part I do think morals are subjective.

I agree ... but nevertheless they are moral values that seem to be universal to the human experience, so much so that we might assume they are hard-wired and therefore abosolute in that sense.

I believe morals are subjective and I believe my moral values are the correct ones, even though I freely admit they are subjective.

Yet our moral values are all received – we don't invent them, or rather I am not aware of anyone being the author of a new and original moral value – so you believe your moral values to be correct in relation to the wider social sphere in which you live.

What is evident is that this moral sphere can be corrupted at the individual, collective and societal level, and part and parcel of this corruption is the process of self-justification, but that does not mean there are no moral absolutes.

So one has to try and step back (impossible really); but the only reference we have is history (we can only guess at the future) ...

The prevailing philosophy of the West has been defined as a 'moral relativism' in which personal narrative transcends objective reality ... so all truth and all values are fluid and negotiable, in fact they are commodified in our materialist consumer culture and can be traded.

So really it depends upon what kind of culture one wants to live in. I find contemporary culture largely morally vacuous. Look at the sexualisation of childhood, and the representation of the feminine in popular media.

Look at music videos, for example. Look at HipHop.

A high-founded movement (a response to street violence in New York) picked up by the music industry and now sunk so low that the gender aspirational exemplar is the pimp and the prostitute — and the poor black shmucks who buy into this travesty think they're ultimately cool, and fail to see they are nothing more than the fulfillment of a white male racist fantasy stereotype ... puppets dancing on a string ...

I see a paucity of conscious moral decision-making, but zombies, they're everywhere.

The Last Poets said it, over 50 years ago, and the situation is far worse now than they probably imagined.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas: The prevailing philosophy of the West has been defined as a 'moral relativism' in which personal narrative transcends objective reality ... so all truth and all values are fluid and negotiable, in fact they are commodified in our materialist consumer culture and can be traded.

This right here. Just this. Made worse because it doesn't include merely morals, but every aspect of a person's perceived reality. In America today a person's 'right' to believe what they desire trumps any facts to the contrary.

Want to believe the earth is six thousand years old? That is your 'right'. Any facts to the contrary are simply not relevant.

Want to believe dinosaurs lived side by side with men? The fact that the two are separated by 65 million years of evolution - a fact - is of no consequence.

Want to believe that President Obama is a Socialist, Fascist, self proclaimed dictator? No facts to the contrary will make any difference.

Hence my favorite all time statement of wisdom:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Thomas again: I agree ... but nevertheless they are moral values that seem to be universal to the human experience, so much so that we might assume they are hard-wired and therefore abosolute in that sense.

I would be interested which moral values you would considered absolute. I would be especially be interested in those moral values you believe are hard wired into us.

 

[Tadashi]

Hi Tad. For the most part I do think morals are subjective. There are exceptions. Unlike Tea, I do not see the Holocaust as morally objective to me alone. It was immoral. Period.

Others might have different views on these examples, but no one could change my mind; I feel that strongly about it.

OK, then I don't think you are a moral relativist. If you think there are exceptions, there's even just one thing that's objectively wrong regardless what the circumstances are or what the rest of the world says, then you're recognizing objective morality exists.

If I had the power, would I consider it morally right to impose my subjective values on others? That is a really good question! My knee jerk response was to say no I would not do that. On contemplation though if I am to be honest with myself I believe I would. If I had the power to do so.

So I'm afraid I am a mess of contradictions. Hah!

This is where most moral relativists (or those who think they are) stop and think "well..."(and usually a long pause) since many of them think they're relativists largely because they believe that we have to be tolerant of others' different views and opinions.

But, once we use a phrase like, "we have to" or "we should", we're making a moral judgement and imposing it on others as if this moral claim is the correct one that should apply to everyone, which is the definition of objective morality, by the way.

So, "we have to be tolerant of others' different views and opinions"(which I do agree) is a claim of objective morality, and not what moral relativism is about.

So, once a moral claim is established as objective, then it is morally right to impose it (or 'enforce' may be a better word) onto others. So, your contradiction is solved. Well, it was not so much a contradiction, but I think it was more a confusion of what the definition of moral relativism is.

So, yes, we can impose/enforce objective morality and judge the Nazis (or any other transgressors of humanity) and intervene in order to stop their aggressions, and that is the morally right thing to do.

Which puts me in a position. I believe morals are subjective and I believe my moral values are the correct ones, even though I freely admit they are subjective.
Yet again, having said all that, the reality is that in my day to day life I don't push my values on anyone. I keep my values to myself. I don't even offer advice to others unless they ask my opinion.

I think you mean that you don't push your values on anyone that you don't consider as objective morality. For example, in my case, I'm not sure if promiscuity is objectively wrong, so I don't go around telling people "Don't read Playboy magazines!" and snatch it out of a person's hand who's about to buy it, though I won't ever buy it myself because it's immoral for me. But if someone was abusing a child (or anyone for that matter), I consider that objectively wrong and yes, I push that onto others, and stop the person even with the use of force if necessary.

So, we kind of instinctively separate objective moral values from subjective ones, like Thomas said, they are hard-wired...


Tad

 

[Tadashi]

I would be interested which moral values you would considered absolute. I would be especially be interested in those moral values you believe are hard wired into us.

Yes, me too! It'd be great, Thomas, if you could give us some examples of what you consider objective moral values, and what you consider subjective moral values are.

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Lot's of ranting here from G and Thomas, you guys!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

So I'm saying, yes, I can go around telling people off...but I don't...

I think you will as I would.

An example. Your next door neighbor is physically abusive to his wife, and you sometimes hear her scream and see her with bruises...

So, when you see her alone after her husband had gone to work, you ask her, "Does your husband hit you? You have a black eye..." And she answers, "It was me that caused him to get angry. I didn't do things the way he told me. It was my fault... " You see her totally being conditioned in thinking she's at fault and her husband is right for what he did to her.

I'd say, both of the couple's moral standards are messed up, but I can only say that because I believe there's objective morality that applies to everyone, no matter what their subjective opinions are.

Otherwise, what they believe (a wife must do exactly how her husband instructs and he can beat her if she fails) are their 'subjective' moral values that they share. So I shouldn't go around telling them off? Should I not go to her husband and tell him "what you're doing to your wife is wrong!"...?? You'd go tell him that, wouldn't you?

You'd go tell him that, wouldn't you?

First, I believe I would act, but no, I wouldn't go to him.

So I shouldn't go around telling them off?

I don't believe telling people of will change anything (it might stress the man in your example some more and he will take it out on his wife), there are other ways to change things for the better.

I'd say, both of the couple's moral standards are messed up, but I can only say that because I believe there's objective morality that applies to everyone, no matter what their subjective opinions are.

No, you cannot ONLY say that because you believe in objective morality. There are probably a lot of things you can compare a subjective morality against.

Like the culture you live in, if not the laws. I think you will have a hard time to find an example that so morally wrong that you and I would act and it not being illegal. So if nothing else "What you're doing is wrong...according to the law of this country!". But I know that isn't what we're talking about.

And simply sitting down and listening to abusive and self destructive peoples reasoning and excuses makes it clear that their molarity is just an empty shell for their destructive habits.

If some things are intrinsically right (ex. love your family and friends, help the needy and the weak) and some things are intrinsically wrong (ex. inflicting pain on anyone just for the fun of it), no matter what the circumstances or no matter what the majority says, then objective morality exists.

Well define 'intrinsically', I like how Thomas put it "but nevertheless they are moral values that seem to be universal to the human experience, so much so that we might assume they are hard-wired and therefore abosolute in that sense." With emphasis on 'might assume'. People have a tendency to believe some things are right or wrong, but how or why they do that I make no comment on.

I tried my best in explaining my views, but I'm saddled with a language handicap, so perhaps you may want to hear a seasoned apologist explaining it?

Greg Koukl - Moral Relativism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsGNsxcms-c&list=PL0F074B09D330C32B

I think I've grokked you position now. We'll see if I watch the clip for the kick of it.

Gee Tea, I hope you mean that literally because of where you live! The world is subjective, which can be a good thing. It allows each of us to decide how much cold or how hot we will allow into our lives. Sometimes I think you are too indeterminate for your own good!

Yeah, I've been feeling a little blue lately, and we were using the Holocaust as an example. The world felt a little colder then usual.
And yes! the ability is there, but not always the will.

Each person's 'subjective' opinion on 'what's right' may differ, and we argue all the time about it, but just because we can't agree on 'what's right', that doesn't mean there's nothing objectively right.

And just because a lot of people think a like doesn't mean that there is something objectively right. You know my position of the ten thousand things of the world, I take no positions for or against. I'm only giving you the counter arguments.

Oh, and, can I ask you this question?
-- Is imposing one's subjective moral values onto others morally right or wrong for you?

And that is a VERY big questing, it's hardly a yes or no question for me. I think I'll avoid it for now, you might get an answer with time.

 

[Thomas]

I would be interested which moral values you would considered absolute. I would be especially be interested in those moral values you believe are hard wired into us.

I think that man is a social animal is the source of his universal moral norms.

The Absolute moral value is Love. Everything flows from that, it's the one thing that binds us all together, across place, across time.

Man fell when he chose 'I' over 'Thou', all sin flows from that, and all our moral dilemmas can be resolved, in an instant of clarity that we might call 'enlightenment', when we refer to that first axiom.

The Zombie is a frightening and somewhat unforgiving image (in that it can't be cured) of man given over to his carnal appetites. No love, no life, no mind, no soul ... just a hunger that is all-consuming and can never be satisfied. Being, reduced to its absolute minimum: feeding, and contributing nothing.

Tad —
You have argued with me often that God does not turn anyone away, and I agree, He does not, but I argue further, that we can turn away from Him.

When we give in to base nature there is nothing left that God might take unto Himself that we might recognise as 'I', any more than a zombie is conscious of the whole person it used to be.

There is a saying: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' — it's true. The first sin, and all sin subsequently, is the pursuit of personal power. And sin corrupts absolutely because it corrupts the very soul, the very essence of our humanity. Sin corrupts all that is True, all that is Good, all that is Beautiful in us. Sin is an addiction that can never be satiated, because its goal is a mirage. Sin is a chimera, and it eventually destroys its host.

If there is no person left — the body we see is just a corporeal entity possessed by and moved only by its hungers — then what is there for God to save?

The True, The Real, the Good, the Beautiful — these are moral absolutes.

Western culture relativises these absolutes, because it makes the self their axis. Everything becomes conditional and indeterminate. The egoic 'me' occludes the absolute 'The'.

 

[Tadashi]

Thomas, I loved your post. I wholeheartedly agree with almost everything you said in there, and you said it so beautifully.

But I'm still hesitant of giving up the idea of universal reconciliation. I totally understand your argument, that once a man succumbs to become a zombie, there's no soul in there for God to save... a very good point, poignant, actually. I have to ponder that, it really hurts though.

But I still want to believe that God can revive even a zombie and restore his soul somehow... I'll start a new thread about this when I read Robin Parry (pen-name Gregory MacDonald), Thomas Talbott and Rob Bell... (probably the people who espouse the brand of Christianity you disapprove of?)

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Okay, to avoid another long post (also I don't have much time), I'll respond to the first half of your reply and go from there...

First, I believe I would act, but no, I wouldn't go to him.

(emphasis mine)
This is the whole point, that you would act. How you'd go about it is not relevant.

Why would you act at all if you think that's their(both the husband and wife) moral values, why do you think of intervening? They are allowed to have their own sets of moral values and live accordingly, no? Why is it your place to do something about it?

What I just said would be the argument I'd expect from a true moral relativist (which I've encountered hardly any). So, to me, you're not a moral relativist.

I don't believe telling people of will change anything (it might stress the man in your example some more and he will take it out on his wife), there are other ways to change things for the better.

Again, the same thing. You're saying here you wouldn't go tell him off, because that may not be the best strategy to 'remedy the situation', are you not?

"there are other ways to change things for the better"
... better for whom?? The couple is just fine living with their subjective moral values which permit a husband to beat his wife, why do you feel you have to 'change' it, and why do you think it's 'better' if he didn't hit her? That's merely your subjective moral values, why do you feel they should change theirs to match yours?

No, you cannot ONLY say that because you believe in objective morality. There are probably a lot of things you can compare a subjective morality against.

Like the culture you live in, if not the laws. I think you will have a hard time to find an example that so morally wrong that you and I would act and it not being illegal. So if nothing else "What you're doing is wrong...according to the law of this country!". But I know that isn't what we're talking about.

Let me bring back here the statement you made in your earlier post.

"I'm saying that my subjective moral can be in line with the subjective moral of my culture and I can thus "that's wrong!" to someone (of that culture) who violates those subjective morals."

Let's suppose you are a German during Hitler's regime. You find out a German next door is hiding a Jew in his basement and that is against the German law of the time. Your neighbor is someone who violates the culture's subjective morals. So, you're supposed to think "What my neighbor is doing is wrong according to the law of this country!" and the morally right thing for you to do is to tell the Gestapo?

And simply sitting down and listening to abusive and self destructive peoples reasoning and excuses makes it clear that their molarity is just an empty shell for their destructive habits.

See, here, you are rending a moral judgement on the couple. Who gets to decide that their morality is an empty shell? It's not your morality, it's theirs, if they don't see their habits are destructive, so be it, no?

What I'm trying to tell you is that in the world of 'moral relativism', there shouldn't be any moral judgement against others. Because everyone gets to live with their subjective moral values, because no one is absolutely right or wrong, right? So why are you judging them?

Well define 'intrinsically', I like how Thomas put it "but nevertheless they are moral values that seem to be universal to the human experience, so much so that we might assume they are hard-wired and therefore abosolute in that sense." With emphasis on 'might assume'. People have a tendency to believe some things are right or wrong, but how or why they do that I make no comment on.

I used 'intrinsically' here in the same sense as 'essentially', 'naturally', 'inherently'...

Yes, you're right. People have a tendency to believe some things are right or wrong... the question is, where does the tendency come from? "How or why they do" is the key to this discussion. So, I hope you reconsider your "no comment" stance...


Tad

 

[Thomas]

But I'm still hesitant of giving up the idea of universal reconciliation. I totally understand your argument, that once a man succumbs to become a zombie, there's no soul in there for God to save... a very good point, poignant, actually. I have to ponder that, it really hurts though.

It certainly does. But then, there are moments in Scripture when Our Lord 'tells it how it is'. Take the interview with the 'rich young man' (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25) which ends with the words "For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

I think Our Lord was upset. He'd spoken to the man, who had sought Him out to ask His advice, but when faced with the truth, he preferred the way of the world and went away.

I don't take the meaning at face value, because if Our Lord was talking about money or material possession, then that would have had little impact on his followers, who could hardly be called 'rich' (although I'm pretty sure Peter and John at least came from comfortable backgrounds), but His words shocked the disciples. I think by 'rich' He means someone who relies on his or her own resources. Our Lord is quite uncompromising on that point: "with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

But I still want to believe that God can revive even a zombie and restore his soul somehow ...

If there's nothing there, there's nothing to revive and restore. However ... there is nothing to say that God 'rescues' the soul as it teeters on the edge of extinction

'll start a new thread about this when I read Robin Parry (pen-name Gregory MacDonald), Thomas Talbott and Rob Bell... (probably the people who espouse the brand of Christianity you disapprove of?)

Well, only — at first glance — because their argument seems to be founded on the 'God-as-micromanager' image, sentimentalism and shallow theological insight.

Talbott's comment:

Talbott also ventured into more controversial territory, suggesting ways in which even the tragic suffering of innocent children might contribute, in the end, to the future blessedness of all people (including the children who suffer). In accordance with his affirmation of universal reconciliation, he thus expressed the hopeful belief that "every innocent child who suffers will one day look upon that suffering as a privilege because of the joy it has made possible: the joy of knowing that one has been used by God in the redemption of others, the joy of that final union or reunion in which love's triumph is complete and all separation from others is finally overcome. I would ask but two things of those who [might understandably] reject such a view: first, that they resist the temptation to moralize, and second, that they consider the alternatives carefully." Talbott, "C.S. Lewis and the Problem of Evil". Christian Scholar's Review September 18987

In response, I would ask two things: The first is that Talbott desists from sentimentalising, and second, that he considers the alternative that God might have a finer mind than he, and that the innocent are not required to suffer in the furtherance of the Divine Plan — that's philosophically irrational, let alone theologically.

I do not doubt that God comforts the suffering, but that He allows it, or wills it, in furtherance of His plan is a very short-sighted opinion, to my mind.

Nor, by the way, was I impressed by Robin Parry's thoughts on the imagery of light and darkness in the Johannine literature... seems he's never read anything about the use of image and metaphor in the Johannine literature, and indeed the metaphor of light and darkness in the wider spiritual speculations of the time (as in the Essenes) ... but then he does admit his ignorance on the matter, so I should allow for that.

Universalism is nothing new. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor discussed the doctrine centuries ago, with far more philosophical rigour and theological insight than I've seen evidenced so far ...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I feel we're going in circles, so I'll start fresh.

What I'm trying to tell you is that in the world of 'moral relativism', there shouldn't be any moral judgement against others. Because everyone gets to live with their subjective moral values, because no one is absolutely right or wrong, right? So why are you judging

But I've never said I'm a moral relativist? I'm not arguing their position if that's what you think. All I'm saying is that I don't believe in an objective morality. You then ask me where I get my objective right to intervene in anything: I don't. I act because of the moral compass that has been created though life experience. I don't have a right to intervene, because there is no right. I have the opinion that I should.

 

[Tadashi]

But I've never said I'm a moral relativist? I'm not arguing their position if that's what you think. All I'm saying is that I don't believe in an objective morality.

Sorry... I'm a bit confused...

I thought I explained my understanding of what 'moral relativism' is in my earlier post in this thread (P2 #19), which was:

"Moral relativism takes the position that objective morality does not exist."

So, according to this, anyone who doesn't believe in objective morality is a moral relativist by definition. So, if you say "I don't believe in objective morality but I'm not a moral relativist", that's an oxymoronic comment to me. I still don't think we're on the same page about the definition. I wish you'd give the youtube video a try... Perhaps we can talk more after that...?

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Haha, you can call me whatever you want! It's just a label you can use if you find it helps you put me in a neat little category. I simply say that there isn't necessarily an objective morality.

 

[Tadashi]

You then ask me where I get my objective right to intervene in anything: I don't. I act because of the moral compass that has been created though life experience.

Yes, but your moral compass operates on your 'subjective' moral values (that have been created through your life experience), right?

If so, your 'subjective' moral values (which is merely your 'preference' of 'what's right') should only apply to you, because others have their own 'preference' of 'what's right'...

So, my question is... where do you get the justification of imposing your 'subjective' moral values onto others, superseding the 'subjective' moral values others are entitled to have for themselves...??

I don't have a right to intervene, because there is no right. I have the opinion that I should.

I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence... How can you have an option to do something, when you don't have a right to do that thing to begin with...??


Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Haha, you can call me whatever you want! It's just a label you can use if you find it helps you put me in a neat little category. I simply say that there isn't necessarily an objective morality.

No, that's not at all what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to get us on the same page about what a 'moral relativist' is.

So, what is your understanding of a moral relativist then?

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

So, my question is... where do you get the justification of imposing your 'subjective' moral values onto others, superseding the 'subjective' moral values others are entitled to have for themselves...??

I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence... How can you have an option to do something, when you don't have a right to do that thing to begin with...??

I think we're starting to narrow it down now, here's to that! Unfortunately I don't really know how to move the discussion forward. You have the notion that I need a right to interfere (for lack of better words), and I don't. Hmm, this is a hard one. Right now I kind of wish I wasn't the only one here thinking like this, usually other people can jump in and fill in the gaps. But I'll just have to think on this one for now.

On 'moral relativist'. Right now I would like to wrap my head around other stuff, 'moral relativist' will have to wait.

(you don't seem as busy as you insist! are you getting addicted to interfaith? then you're one of us now, and we'll never let you go!)