To William James one can add C.S. Lewis’ essay on “The Tao”. And yet, pace these philosophers, people have fought wars over how people should live, and still do. Christians worked that out of their system with the Thirty Years War, but the Shia/Sunni and Moslem/Hindu conflicts continue. And even in the rationalist bubble, someone is always popping up to say that there is no such thing as morality, while others compare factory farming to the Holocaust.
I observe, therefore, that in fact these things are not resolved. Who can resolve them?
[the last sentence of your post was unreadable due to blocks of text having been blacked out]
That was intentional. The blocks also do not correspond in length or number to the actual words I had in mind, just to make sure they are not discoverable.
Thanks for adding the James link. Lewis has long been a fav author. Abolition of Man(3rd sec.) left a lasting impression(scars?).
Re: “people have fought wars over how people should live, and still do. ”
I offer in response: “they have turned to God without turning from themselves; would be alive to God before they are dead to their own nature. Now religion in the hands of self, or corrupt nature, serves only to discover vices of a worse kind than in nature left to itself. Hence are all the disorderly passions of religious men, which burn in a worse flame than passions only employed about worldly matters; pride, self-exaltation, hatred and persecution, under a cloak of religious zeal, will sanctify actions which nature, left to itself, would be ashamed to own.”— William Law via A.Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 1945
Re:”even in the rationalist bubble, someone is always [saying] that there is no such thing as morality”
We all like to put what we read and observe in clear containers with familiar labels but IMO subjective human experience with all it’s ambiguities should be considered(1). Considering all human activity I find that when don’t get along we break things—even to the point of our our own determent. Cooperating provides better material results and greater, longer lasting satisfaction. Beyond the initial crisis or common interest cooperation requires ‘moral struggle’ which is summed up as the Golden Rule+(treat others like you want to be treated and try not to be a jerk about it)(I added the last part to remind myself : ) I’ll close with a quote from CSL’s 1952 pub: ”Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the “right” notes and the “wrong” ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. [my bold]The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.”
Thanks for the exchange, Richard. Please do reply if you have something to add!
During further research into topic of morality I discovered the following.
Per excerpt below which meshes with my current understanding, knowledge of “morality” is based on unchanging Natural Law(“Ground”) (essentially the Golden Rule) is restricted by who we are. Given that who we are fluctuates this adds even more variation into defining it. I’m not suggesting basic morality is relative to a person or culture but how we perceive it is. Applying basic morality to a current culture is another matter but first things first.
“In other words, the Ground can be denoted as being there, but not defined as having qualities. This means that discursive knowledge about the Ground is not merely, like all inferential knowledge, a thing at one remove, or even at several removes, from the reality of immediate acquaintance; it is and, because of the very nature of our language and our standard patterns of thought, it must be, paradoxical knowledge. Direct knowledge of the Ground cannot be had except by union, and union can be achieved only by the annihilation of the self-regarding ego, which is the barrier separating the “thou” from the “That.”” —Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 1945
[Start edit/add]
Here’s a perspective on current issues—social need driven answers to moral questions. Still, first things first I say.
“Moral questions may not have objective answers but they do have rational ones, answers rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need. To bring reason to bear upon social relations, to define a rational answer to a moral question, requires social engagement and collective action. It is the breakdown over the past century of such engagement and such action that has proved so devastating for moral thinking.” —Kenan Malik, The Quest for a Moral Compass, 2014
To William James one can add C.S. Lewis’ essay on “The Tao”. And yet, pace these philosophers, people have fought wars over how people should live, and still do. Christians worked that out of their system with the Thirty Years War, but the Shia/Sunni and Moslem/Hindu conflicts continue. And even in the rationalist bubble, someone is always popping up to say that there is no such thing as morality, while others compare factory farming to the Holocaust.
I observe, therefore, that in fact these things are not resolved. Who can resolve them?
That was intentional. The blocks also do not correspond in length or number to the actual words I had in mind, just to make sure they are not discoverable.
Thanks for adding the James link.
Lewis has long been a fav author. Abolition of Man(3rd sec.) left a lasting impression(scars?).
Re: “people have fought wars over how people should live, and still do. ”
I offer in response: “they have turned to God without turning from themselves; would be alive to God before they are dead to their own nature. Now religion in the hands of self, or corrupt nature, serves only to discover vices of a worse kind than in nature left to itself. Hence are all the disorderly passions of religious men, which burn in a worse flame than passions only employed about worldly matters; pride, self-exaltation, hatred and persecution, under a cloak of religious zeal, will sanctify actions which nature, left to itself, would be ashamed to own.”—
William Law via A.Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 1945
Re:”even in the rationalist bubble, someone is always [saying] that there is no such thing as morality”
We all like to put what we read and observe in clear containers with familiar labels but IMO subjective human experience with all it’s ambiguities should be considered(1). Considering all human activity I find that when don’t get along we break things—even to the point of our our own determent. Cooperating provides better material results and greater, longer lasting satisfaction. Beyond the initial crisis or common interest cooperation requires ‘moral struggle’ which is summed up as the Golden Rule+(treat others like you want to be treated and try not to be a jerk about it)(I added the last part to remind myself : )
I’ll close with a quote from CSL’s 1952 pub:
”Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the “right” notes and the “wrong” ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. [my bold] The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.”
Thanks for the exchange, Richard. Please do reply if you have something to add!
Mark
(1)Re-posted: Scott Alexander’s What is Mysticism? A working definition for skeptics
Also, Superb Owl’s Religion as an Ego-modulator, William James, Aldous Huxley, and the functions of religion. Lastly, I. McGilchrist 08, 22.
During further research into topic of morality I discovered the following.
Per excerpt below which meshes with my current understanding, knowledge of “morality” is based on unchanging Natural Law(“Ground”) (essentially the Golden Rule) is restricted by who we are. Given that who we are fluctuates this adds even more variation into defining it. I’m not suggesting basic morality is relative to a person or culture but how we perceive it is. Applying basic morality to a current culture is another matter but first things first.
“In other words, the Ground can be denoted as being there, but not defined as having qualities. This means that discursive knowledge about the Ground is not merely, like all inferential knowledge, a thing at one remove, or even at several removes, from the reality of immediate acquaintance; it is and, because of the very nature of our language and our standard patterns of thought, it must be, paradoxical knowledge. Direct knowledge of the Ground cannot be had except by union, and union can be achieved only by the annihilation of the self-regarding ego, which is the barrier separating the “thou” from the “That.””
—Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 1945
[Start edit/add]
Here’s a perspective on current issues—social need driven answers to moral questions. Still, first things first I say.
“Moral questions may not have objective answers but they do have rational ones, answers rooted in a rationality that emerges out of social need. To bring reason to bear upon social relations, to define a rational answer to a moral question, requires social engagement and collective action. It is the breakdown over the past century of such engagement and such action that has proved so devastating for moral thinking.”
—Kenan Malik, The Quest for a Moral Compass, 2014