In my last post on the "Church Justifies the Moral Ought", I made a statement that got me thinking along the lines of atheistice morality. The statement was, " Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life."
Moral choice is the ulitmate value for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist would agree that the child needs superintending influences in his/her life. And the child comes to an age of accountability when he/she has develope the ability to make responsible choices. Responsible choices define "moral virtue".
I would ask, then, what are we responsible for? Are we are responsible for others? Or are we responsible for ourselves? This is where political views about the place of government, law, and society become debates about what "should" define a particular society! This is the level of policy debate. And it is the place of interest for those that want to be good citizens!
The Atheist allows for liberty of conscience regarding diversity of values, if they are consistent with thier value of "moral choice", as being of ultimate value to/for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all citizens!
Showing posts with label moral choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moral choice. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Betwixst and Between
My husband and I just got back from a Science/Religion conference this evening. It was geared toward "religious responses" to Darwinian evolution. I found several things interesting, but one especially so, the "is" and the "ought".
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Moral Choice, Moral Responsibility, and the "Greater Good"
I was cleaning out my purse and I came across a synopsis of a lecture I attended Fall '07 about Free Will. I decided to blog about it, since it really "fell in line" with my previous recent posts.
C.A.Campbell in "Has the Self Free Will" (On Selfhood and Godhood, 1957), says that relevant acts for moral responsibility are "free acts of choice" rather than outer acts. These are acts that the moral agent is the sole author and are not "necessary acts of character". He argues that acts are choices of the "self" and are "creative acts". He is libertarian, as he believes that the nature of the "self" is not reducible to the "character" of the self. And I think with the little that the synopsis had about him, he may be thinking along similar lines that I am presently.
Religion presupposes what we "should be", as if what we are fall short of some "standard". What standard? a moral model? which one? a moral text? which one? Character is an absolute? Then, what is being gauged? Was Luther's questioning of the 'moral authorities of his day something that was deemed "bad" character? At the time, it was.
I think this is the primary point of our free government, "we are all created equal, with certain inalienable rights". The "greater good" argument is determined by someone outside of another's "self". This is why limited government is the ideal.
Perhaps, because we have become disconnected personally in our social interactions and in our business transactions, we have become less and less "identified" with the "other", as the "other has no "face". It is easier to dismiss and disengage our "self" from the other when that happens. Then, "self" is "free" to "do what it wants/wills". This is the loss of moral responsibility due to social/psychological disengagement. Leaders are especially prone to do this, as their position most times distances them from the "common man". It is imperative that leaders "give room" to those "under them" to have "free choice".
What is the solution? Perhaps, just as I saw in the Newsmuesuem, the media should be about the business of keeping the "other's" real face before our eyes. And we, all, personally, should hold each other accountable in our relationships.
C.A.Campbell in "Has the Self Free Will" (On Selfhood and Godhood, 1957), says that relevant acts for moral responsibility are "free acts of choice" rather than outer acts. These are acts that the moral agent is the sole author and are not "necessary acts of character". He argues that acts are choices of the "self" and are "creative acts". He is libertarian, as he believes that the nature of the "self" is not reducible to the "character" of the self. And I think with the little that the synopsis had about him, he may be thinking along similar lines that I am presently.
Religion presupposes what we "should be", as if what we are fall short of some "standard". What standard? a moral model? which one? a moral text? which one? Character is an absolute? Then, what is being gauged? Was Luther's questioning of the 'moral authorities of his day something that was deemed "bad" character? At the time, it was.
I think this is the primary point of our free government, "we are all created equal, with certain inalienable rights". The "greater good" argument is determined by someone outside of another's "self". This is why limited government is the ideal.
Perhaps, because we have become disconnected personally in our social interactions and in our business transactions, we have become less and less "identified" with the "other", as the "other has no "face". It is easier to dismiss and disengage our "self" from the other when that happens. Then, "self" is "free" to "do what it wants/wills". This is the loss of moral responsibility due to social/psychological disengagement. Leaders are especially prone to do this, as their position most times distances them from the "common man". It is imperative that leaders "give room" to those "under them" to have "free choice".
What is the solution? Perhaps, just as I saw in the Newsmuesuem, the media should be about the business of keeping the "other's" real face before our eyes. And we, all, personally, should hold each other accountable in our relationships.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Stem Cell Research continued
This morning's paper had an editorial about stem cell research that got my mind back onto that challenge before us.
The writer was not religious, but was concerned over our President's lack of boundary in regards to stem cell research. The President was going to base his policy on "facts of science". Science cannot be an ultimate guide for life in this world, otherwise, we have dissolved life of value or meaning. This writer had been on a Bio-ethics committee under the Bush adminstration, so he was not speaking off the top of his head.
He was concerned that no boundary or definition about 'life" was a disregard of human life. Was any life "made" either thourgh in vitro fertilization or cloning of the same moral fabric? He was making a moral distinction of valuing human life, as to our responsibility for human life. This is where the discussion should be. And it should be a discussion that is free from dogma and ideology, but not free from reasoned boundary concerning human life, if we continue to believe that human life has any value apart from the 'greater good" argument. The author speicifically stated that human life was never to be used as a means, but always an end. That is good moral philosophy. I think most rational people could agree with that.
The writer was not religious, but was concerned over our President's lack of boundary in regards to stem cell research. The President was going to base his policy on "facts of science". Science cannot be an ultimate guide for life in this world, otherwise, we have dissolved life of value or meaning. This writer had been on a Bio-ethics committee under the Bush adminstration, so he was not speaking off the top of his head.
He was concerned that no boundary or definition about 'life" was a disregard of human life. Was any life "made" either thourgh in vitro fertilization or cloning of the same moral fabric? He was making a moral distinction of valuing human life, as to our responsibility for human life. This is where the discussion should be. And it should be a discussion that is free from dogma and ideology, but not free from reasoned boundary concerning human life, if we continue to believe that human life has any value apart from the 'greater good" argument. The author speicifically stated that human life was never to be used as a means, but always an end. That is good moral philosophy. I think most rational people could agree with that.
Determined by Evolution, God, or Choice?
Rational people take responsibility for their lives, but reason is not the domain of determinism, by God or by evolution.
Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.
Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.
The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.
Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.
America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.
I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.
Evolution maintains that man is a product of chance, while Divine predestination determines by Sovereign Will. Blind Chance or Sovereign Will do not lead to responsible behavior. Chance leads one to disregard human life as nothing other than part and parcel of the natural order, while Divine Will disregards man as morally responsible or accountable for life in this world. Both undermine personal value and choice based on rationale.
Theistic evolutionists hold to "God" ordering the world through evolutionary means. But, at what point does man become responsible for the "chance" or "chaos" that occurs within reality? Some have argued at the "age of accountability", when the child reaches puberty. The Jewish religion and many others have a 'rite of passage" where the young person becomes an adult. Adults are called to self-determination or self-governance. But, not only is man responsible for himself, but man is to order the universe. Man determines, not nature or "god". But, if man determines, what is he to determine? Since man is a responsible being, then man should not determine another, but allow freedom of choice in responsible behavior.
The West understands social/political reality as one of contract or treaty. We negotiate and strategize with the other party, but we do not plan deterministically. Historically, this was not the case, as slaves were given, or exchanged in trade agreements, disregarding the slave's life and personal boundary. Kings had the pre-reogative to determine other's lives, but democracy values all life equally.
Evolutionists to be consistant would disregard any boundary of another as we are not separate entities but a "World Soul" or less. Divine Providence is no less culpable in disregarding the individual's life, if that is the pre-determined state of " God's will". There is no room in this view for personal boundary, as "God" is seen to be the Ultimate. Our wills should be nothing less than "His", which dissolves the distinction between God and man. Man is to become "One" with God. Personal, social and political distinction dissolve or really have no value or meaning when one views life in these ways.
America's values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness affirm the value of the individual in personal boundaries and moral choice. Moral value hinges on moral choice, otherwise, life is no more than an evolutionary "play" or God's "novel", where He is the Only character that really exists or matters.
I would much rather believe in freedom to be, to do, and determine my own destiny, without interference. Those who would like to help me find the way are welcome to do so, but only if they respect my choice and value my independence.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thoughtless Actions Pave the Road to Hell
Yesterday, another blog site had quoted Chesterton. I picked up on "hell is paved with good intentions" and proceeded to ask the question about what makes for "heaven". Was it action? Another comment was made that Dante had understood the division of heaven and hell was action versus merit and grace. Purgatory was paved with intention.
As Dante was Roman Catholic, one can understand his thoughts and how he divided his understanding of moral action. But, is this true? How one answer that question, depends on how one understands their values, priorities and commitments.
The first question that stands out in my mind is, how does one determine what is an action that paves hell versus one that paves heaven in merit? Our country defines right action by our laws and does not define or determine "merit", as this term is useful in religious communities. Grace and merit is not based on obligation, but choice. Grace gives, without return, whereas, moral obligation is "duty-bound".
Religious communities determine "what is best" according to their source of authority, goals and purposes. One must determine for themselves what and where their understanding of "right" is. Everyone must determine whether they can support the goals, purposes and vision of certain organizations before their commitment. Thoughtless action leads to nothing other than mindlessness. And thoughtless mindlessness is what I would call "hell". Humans are not to be "machines" that turn out a product for those who impose thier vision upon another. Humans are to be motivated by inner desire, passion, and vision that motvates. This is the grace and merit of giving back the gifts of life.
Unfortunately, the political realm does not allow in some areas of the world the freedom to pursue one's own interests. These lives are lived under oppressive rule that prohibit and limit human choice. The ability to choose one's way of life is one of the primary rights that should underwrite human rights. This is a non-negotiable.
While our free society allows choice, for the most part, we must not neglect thinking through our choice of action, otherwise, we may be making foolish choices and foolish choices pave the road to hell.
As Dante was Roman Catholic, one can understand his thoughts and how he divided his understanding of moral action. But, is this true? How one answer that question, depends on how one understands their values, priorities and commitments.
The first question that stands out in my mind is, how does one determine what is an action that paves hell versus one that paves heaven in merit? Our country defines right action by our laws and does not define or determine "merit", as this term is useful in religious communities. Grace and merit is not based on obligation, but choice. Grace gives, without return, whereas, moral obligation is "duty-bound".
Religious communities determine "what is best" according to their source of authority, goals and purposes. One must determine for themselves what and where their understanding of "right" is. Everyone must determine whether they can support the goals, purposes and vision of certain organizations before their commitment. Thoughtless action leads to nothing other than mindlessness. And thoughtless mindlessness is what I would call "hell". Humans are not to be "machines" that turn out a product for those who impose thier vision upon another. Humans are to be motivated by inner desire, passion, and vision that motvates. This is the grace and merit of giving back the gifts of life.
Unfortunately, the political realm does not allow in some areas of the world the freedom to pursue one's own interests. These lives are lived under oppressive rule that prohibit and limit human choice. The ability to choose one's way of life is one of the primary rights that should underwrite human rights. This is a non-negotiable.
While our free society allows choice, for the most part, we must not neglect thinking through our choice of action, otherwise, we may be making foolish choices and foolish choices pave the road to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
