God and Morality

[Rivers]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

This is part of the reason why I don't engage in mormonism beyond this site and others. The leaders claim something absolute when it is merely fallible subjective perceptions and their fallible subjective perceptions are no better than anyone else's.

This is why I like Patrick Mason's idea of putting a capital "w" on the word "way" in the primary song "Follow the Prophet." Thus making the lyrics "He knows the Way," as in "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  

So yes, our prophets have fallible subjective perceptions so the best that they can do is testify of Christ point us towards Him.

[Honorentheos]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't get that message from the Brethren or from Scripture.  It isn't so much that many people are naive and confused, nor that Ayn Rand hasn't the foggiest notion of what objective reality might be, but that nearly everybody (including most Mormons) is unschooled in the basics of simple logic.  Thus, you miss the point entirely -- which is that the normal social construction of reality leads people to entertain simultaneously contrary opinions within the same mind, even though those opinions are enabled by very practical interim considerations, and even though most people seem to get by despite their lack of awareness of those incommensurable views.

You have a choice, Pete.  You can continue to wallow in the mire of confusion, or you can rise above it to deal with brass tacks.  I find the latter far more interesting and worthwhile.

 

This begs the question be asked if you believe there are such things as moral truths? Is the statement, "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" a moral fact that exists outside of the minds of those people who may believe this to be so? Or is it entirely mind-dependent? Is it ok to believe that sex with someone other than their legal spouse is ok if, for example, they sincerely believe that as long as their spouse knows and approves? Or if a person doesn't believe that acting on their innate homosexual nature is wrong?

Do you really believe that Mormonism does not demand a form of moral realism?

Edited July 19, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Rivers]

I would say that the church does demand moral realism.  I hear church leaders denounce moral relativity often.

[Honorentheos]

13 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I would say that the church does demand moral realism.  I hear church leaders denounce moral relativity often.

I would agree. I'm curious where Robert's criticism of Pete is coming from when it seems to be at a meta-ethical level about morality being subjective rather than objective. I highly doubt any member of the Q12 does not believes that there are such things as moral facts. And to believe there are moral facts is to believe morality is at least in some way objective.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This begs the question be asked if you believe there are such things as moral truths? Is the statement, "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" a moral fact that exists outside of the minds of those people who may believe this to be so? Or is it entirely mind-dependent? Is it ok to believe that sex with someone other than their legal spouse is ok if, for example, they sincerely believe that as long as their spouse knows and approves? Or if a person doesn't believe that acting on their innate homosexual nature is wrong?

Do you really believe that Mormonism does not demand a form of moral realism?

All cultures and forms of belief (including Mormonism) have normative value judgments, and those judgments are largely traditional and subjective.  I think it nonsense to use such terms as moral realism and moral facts in that context.  Ethical and moral beliefs and traditions are subjective, i.,e., there is no logical or objective basis for such value judgments.  Instead they are based on whatever social construction of reality is prevalent.  In modern America that includes a high value on Constitutionalism and upon tolerance for pluralism -- which entails being non-judgmental toward those who may not live according to someone else's ethical and moral values.

One set of ardent believers should not demand that everyone else live according to their particular ethical and moral norms, even if they do preach the superior value of them.  Instead, one set of believers should respect the right of another set or sets to follow their own beliefs:  LDS Article of Faith 11, " We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The only solid basis for the Mormon set of ethical & moral  norms is gained by the Holy Spirit -- a subjective source in that it is subjectively perceived by the individual and is non-transferrable.

[Storm Rider]

On 7/16/2017 at 11:15 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think belief in god is necessary for societies to avoid human sacrifice or is it possible for secular societies to avoid such nonsense without god?

Pete, can you point out which ancient atheist society did not go around killing people for whatever reason they could develop to achieve their own objectives?  You see, all atheist, or primarily atheist cultures, today are the by-product of moral concepts derived from religion.  

[Rivers]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One set of ardent believers should not demand that everyone else live according to their particular ethical and moral norms, even if they do preach the superior value of them.

This especially goes for Latter-day Saints since we believe we are a covenant people.  We believe we have a unique relationship with God.  We live a certain way because we made special promises do so.  We shouldn't consider somebody a bad person for not living laws such as the the W.O.W or the Law of Chastity as we practice them.

 

[Storm Rider]

On 7/16/2017 at 6:16 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and those social norms may entail nearly anything;  For example, we honor ancient Athens as the fount of democracy, a place where great thinkers like Socrates had a powerful influence.  Yet half the population of Athens was slave, and all young men were introduced by adult male mentors to homosexual sex -- practiced by them for the remainder of their lives.  In ancient Mesoamerica, human sacrifice was a normal everyday need.  These were accepted social norms.  No one questioned them.  Who is to say what is moral and immoral?

There is a high degree of debate on how prevalent those relationships were in ancient Greece and within which segments of society was it practiced. Further, the stigma of the passive partner was always present within the society depending upon the age of those involved. 

But back to the topic, are there any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in God having/producing a moral society as theistic societies would see as moral?  I don't remember studying such an example. 

[Rivers]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

There is a high degree of debate on how prevalent those relationships were in ancient Greece and within which segments of society was it practiced. Further, the stigma of the passive partner was always present within the society depending upon the age of those involved. 

But back to the topic, are there any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in God having/producing a moral society as theistic societies would see as moral?  I don't remember studying such an example. 

 Godless societies are a relatively new thing in the history of the world.  When God and religion are taken out of societies, a void is left that must be filled. And I don't like some of the things with which the void is being filled.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

There is a high degree of debate on how prevalent those relationships were in ancient Greece and within which segments of society was it practiced. Further, the stigma of the passive partner was always present within the society depending upon the age of those involved. 

But back to the topic, are there any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in God having/producing a moral society as theistic societies would see as moral?  I don't remember studying such an example. 

You have already introduced an impossibly regressive element into your question about atheism: "a moral society as theistic societies would see as moral."  Since all ethical & moral systems are subjective and relative, how could you judge one superior to the other?  Can we prove that the gods of the Communist Millennium or of the Nazi Thousand Year Reich any less religious or authentic than those associated with other gods?  Just how religious were the ancient Spartans, who regularly exposed weak babies to die?

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, Rivers said:

This especially goes for Latter-day Saints since we believe we are a covenant people.  We believe we have a unique relationship with God.  We live a certain way because we made special promises do so.  We shouldn't consider somebody a bad person for not living laws such as the the W.O.W or the Law of Chastity as we practice them.

Yes, and the Jews declare that the Gentiles are not obligated to keep the 613 Jewish commandments or mitzvas.  In fact they tell anyone wanting to convert to Judaism that "it isn't easy to be a Jew."  Being a member of the chosen people is a burden.

[Honorentheos]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All cultures and forms of belief (including Mormonism) have normative value judgments, and those judgments are largely traditional and subjective.  I think it nonsense to use such terms as moral realism and moral facts in that context.  Ethical and moral beliefs and traditions are subjective, i.,e., there is no logical or objective basis for such value judgments.  Instead they are based on whatever social construction of reality is prevalent.  In modern America that includes a high value on Constitutionalism and upon tolerance for pluralism -- which entails being non-judgmental toward those who may not live according to someone else's ethical and moral values.

One set of ardent believers should not demand that everyone else live according to their particular ethical and moral norms, even if they do preach the superior value of them.  Instead, one set of believers should respect the right of another set or sets to follow their own beliefs:  LDS Article of Faith 11, " We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The only solid basis for the Mormon set of ethical & moral  norms is gained by the Holy Spirit -- a subjective source in that it is subjectively perceived by the individual and is non-transferrable.

While these make great "ought" statements, clearly the LDS faith and the institution in SLC believe in moral facts. If it's nonsense, then you may be in the wrong place.

For example -

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

Some years ago my father, an attorney, was trying a lawsuit. For his authority, he cited only one case—a California Supreme Court case issued many years before. His opponent cited a number of lower-court decisions of more recent vintage.

The judge said to my father, “Mr. Callister, don’t you have a more recent case than this?”

My father looked at the judge and replied, “Your Honor, may I remind you that when the supreme court speaks on a matter, it only needs to speak once.” The judge nodded with approval. He was reminded that the supreme court trumps all lower-court decisions, however numerous or recent they may be.

So it is with God our Father—He needs to speak only once on the issue of morality, and that one declaration trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psychologists, counselors, politicians, friends, parents, or would-be moralists of the day.

[Honorentheos]

It also appears you're avoiding the question regarding the existence of Moral Facts by trying to say the acknowledgement or understanding of what one ought to do is always relative. But do you believe there are moral facts or don't you?

Edited July 19, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

34 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 Godless societies are a relatively new thing in the history of the world.  When God and religion are taken out of societies, a void is left that must be filled. And I don't like some of the things with which the void is being filled.

We share something in that I don't like some of the ethical claims that are imposed as being inarguably moral fact by those with a belief in a hidden God.

ETA: I know there will be a chorus of claims that one's personal experience shows THEIR god isn't hidden. We'll just have to agree to disagree that one has experiential evidence of God sufficient to claim one also has access to moral truth through said god.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

While these make great "ought" statements, clearly the LDS faith and the institution in SLC believe in moral facts. If it's nonsense, then you may be in the wrong place.

For example -

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

Some years ago my father, an attorney, was trying a lawsuit. For his authority, he cited only one case—a California Supreme Court case issued many years before. His opponent cited a number of lower-court decisions of more recent vintage.

The judge said to my father, “Mr. Callister, don’t you have a more recent case than this?”

My father looked at the judge and replied, “Your Honor, may I remind you that when the supreme court speaks on a matter, it only needs to speak once.” The judge nodded with approval. He was reminded that the supreme court trumps all lower-court decisions, however numerous or recent they may be.

So it is with God our Father—He needs to speak only once on the issue of morality, and that one declaration trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psychologists, counselors, politicians, friends, parents, or would-be moralists of the day.

C'mon, man.  Aside from the fact that the Callister story overlooks the impact of bad Supreme Court judgments, such as Dred Scott or Reynolds (especially for a Mormon!!), your loose talk of "moral facts" only refers to one's personal beliefs, not to the untoward suggestion that such a belief ought to be foisted upon all other peoples.  That is a violation of normative Mormon theology, and also a violation of the U.S. Constitution -- which Mormons assert is a document inspired by God.  How is it that you don't get it?  Or are you only speaking from a position of attack for the sake of attack?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

We share something in that I don't like some of the ethical claims that are imposed as being inarguably moral fact by those with a belief in a hidden God.

ETA: I know there will be a chorus of claims that one's personal experience shows THEIR god isn't hidden. We'll just have to agree to disagree that one has experiential evidence of God sufficient to claim one also has access to moral truth through said god.

Why do you insist on creating and then knocking down straw men?  Shouldn't you deal with actual Mormonism, instead of inventing fraudulent versions of it?

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

C'mon, man.  Aside from the fact that the Callister story overlooks the impact of bad Supreme Court judgments, such as Dred Scott or Reynolds (especially for a Mormon!!), your loose talk of "moral facts" only refers to one's personal beliefs, not to the untoward suggestion that such a belief ought to be foisted upon all other peoples.  That is a violation of normative Mormon theology, and also a violation of the U.S. Constitution -- which Mormons assert is a document inspired by God.  How is it that you don't get it?  Or are you only speaking from a position of attack for the sake of attack?

I'm asking a clear question. Do you believe that there are moral facts that exist that are not mind-dependent? It's a baseline point of discussion in ethics. You can answer yes or no.

[Honorentheos]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why do you insist on creating and then knocking down straw men?  Shouldn't you deal with actual Mormonism, instead of inventing fraudulent versions of it?

Asking if you believe in moral facts, even if you believe they are inaccessible, is not a strawman. It's a foundational question when it comes to discussing ethics. You ought to be able to answer it with a simple yes or no.

[Honorentheos]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

... overlooks the impact of bad Supreme Court judgments, such as ...Reynolds (especially for a Mormon!!),

Reynolds is a necessary decision for a pluralistic union to exist. One can not claim to be above the law simply due to religious belief. Now, you may be right to say the underlying law regarding bigamy was a bad law, but SCOTUS was spot on in not making a religious exclusion for being law-abiding.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/17/2017 at 9:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't get that message from the Brethren or from Scripture.  It isn't so much that many people are naive and confused, nor that Ayn Rand hasn't the foggiest notion of what objective reality might be, but that nearly everybody (including most Mormons) is unschooled in the basics of simple logic.  Thus, you miss the point entirely -- which is that the normal social construction of reality leads people to entertain simultaneously contrary opinions within the same mind, even though those opinions are enabled by very practical interim considerations, and even though most people seem to get by despite their lack of awareness of those incommensurable views.

You have a choice, Pete.  You can continue to wallow in the mire of confusion, or you can rise above it to deal with brass tacks.  I find the latter far more interesting and worthwhile.

 

In fact these conflicts within social construction actually preserve the self and the ego, and overturn the idea that if the self is socially constructed it somehow becomes incapable of agency or morally inert.   Indeed this is precisely why the view that somehow postmodernism destroys the idea of the individual is off base.

In other words, the dialectic exists in society itself and therefore is incorporated into the individual who must often even decide who's value system is better, Mom's or Dad's.

Children raised in a bilingual house for example inherit to different worlds from their earliest infancy and must blend their realities themselves.

This dispels much of the issue of the contingency of the self based on the contingency of language that Rorty, for example puts forth.   He concludes the self is contingent because language is contingent, yet harbors the idea that an Ironist is one who understands the irony of her own contingency and yet rises above it as a kind of Ubermensch to construct her own vocabulary

But this view does not account for the point you make above that the reality is that we inherit different ways of seeing the world even from our parents, but certainly within the community in which we live.   So being totally social animals by no means ensures that we are all conditioned identically by our societies.

The self therefore is preserved as well as agency even in a postmodern context where Cartesianism is abandoned.

But few understand these issues here as you do.

So political critics on the right who are now saying that this whole mess in the US today was created by postmodernism are wrong.

Simultaneously those on the left who think that all we have to do to change individuals is to change society are also wrong.

In the very dialectic between these opposing forces lies the salvation of agency and the individual as godlings to create their own worlds from matter unorganized.

Religion needs secularism and secularism needs religion to survive - opposition in all things.  But secularism is largely a political way of understanding separation of church and state.  If you haven't checked this book out, I would recommend it:   https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006R8PH1G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I think he is off on a few points but it is a great read and pretty stimulating 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why do you insist on creating and then knocking down straw men?  Shouldn't you deal with actual Mormonism, instead of inventing fraudulent versions of it?

This is his MO plus his false dichotomies.  He produces endless smoke and mirrors and when you finally show him wrong, he disappears for a while then pops back doing the same again and again.  It is a waste of time imo.  He lacks the education in philosophy and when you try to educate him he argues you are avoiding the question by quoting other people.

How do you deal with someone like that?  It is always one or the other when the reality is infinitely nuanced.   He does not understand compatibilism or any nuanced position.  Black or white only.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I'm asking a clear question. Do you believe that there are moral facts that exist that are not mind-dependent? It's a baseline point of discussion in ethics. You can answer yes or no.

I note that you do not deign to answer my questions.  For you there is no dialogue.  Only attack for attack's sake.  Only sophistry.

[Honorentheos]

How funny. Bring up a foundational stance required in discussing ethics and all the card soldiers get blown about.

Answering if one believes in moral facts is a yes-no proposition and basic to discussions on ethics and morality. It's not complicated unless one is trying for be deceitful.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

....................................................

Religion needs secularism and secularism needs religion to survive - opposition in all things.  But secularism is largely a political way of understanding separation of church and state.  If you haven't checked this book out, I would recommend it:   https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006R8PH1G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I think he is off on a few points but it is a great read and pretty stimulating 

Wow, he makes the case that one can be secular and religious simultaneously!!  And indeed sees the roots of secularism in Christianity, and as a good thing, and also differentiates it from atheism.  Found a lecture by him at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyet9tmbKfA .  Fascinating.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All cultures and forms of belief (including Mormonism) have normative value judgments, and those judgments are largely traditional and subjective.  I think it nonsense to use such terms as moral realism and moral facts in that context.  Ethical and moral beliefs and traditions are subjective, i.,e., there is no logical or objective basis for such value judgments.  Instead they are based on whatever social construction of reality is prevalent.  In modern America that includes a high value on Constitutionalism and upon tolerance for pluralism -- which entails being non-judgmental toward those who may not live according to someone else's ethical and moral values.

One set of ardent believers should not demand that everyone else live according to their particular ethical and moral norms, even if they do preach the superior value of them.  Instead, one set of believers should respect the right of another set or sets to follow their own beliefs:  LDS Article of Faith 11, " We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The only solid basis for the Mormon set of ethical & moral  norms is gained by the Holy Spirit -- a subjective source in that it is subjectively perceived by the individual and is non-transferrable.

I heartily recommend Chantal Bax on Wittgenstein who has a new take on subjectivity- this book is a major contribution to philosophy in this area and sets the new standard for defining the problem

The book is very technical though and not for the average reader.  On the other hand- if you can handle it go directly to chapter 6 and avoid all the arguments with which you may already be familiar.   I think that even in the first couple of paragraphs she gives away the core conclusion if you project out the logic required by her statements.

https://www.amazon.com/Subjectivity-After-Wittgenstein-Post-Cartesian-Philosophy/dp/1441127321

https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-06.text.pdf

In short it shows I think conclusively that postmodern ethics can easily accommodate agency and choice of social mores without some kind of metaphysical reliance on realism.

In other words, those who assert a dichotomy between moral realism and moral anti realism based on social forces will have to refute Bax

Not gonna happen by folks on this board 

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by mfbukowski