Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
A favorite Grevism
a witticism heard in 1980, by Edina West sociology teacher and student council advisor Julian Grev, peace be upon him.
Post Debate Comment
P1) If some sort of natural law exists, humans will converge on a
universal morality
P2) Humans have converged on some basic universal morality
C) Therefore, some sort of natural law exists
That's my patched together estimate of what I think was going on.
Perhaps a recurring sideshow was:
P1) If no natural law exists, than what we call "morality" is merely
preferential
P2) Preferences are not binding upon anyone
C) If no natural law exists, then morality is not binding on anyone
In attending the debate, I actually had no idea what to expect. I was
surprised that a Catholic would take issue with evolution or the
coexistence of natural selection and morality; Catholics can accept
evolution wholesale as far as I knew. Ratzinger gives us this gem [1]:
-----
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are
genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms
have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many
studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting
support for some theory of evolution to account for the development
and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over
the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
-----
And the Catechism states:[2]
-----
"... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is
carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral
laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the
world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
-----
So, I suppose one could debate what Ratzinger means by "controversy
continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution" as well as the
Catechisms, "...does not override moral laws," but there seems to be
good support that Catholics can believe anything that good science
says is the case with the world.
My question, which didn't get asked, is how objective and relative
morality differ *in practice.* Putting it a different way, there
either are or aren't objective moral laws written into the universe
(similar to mathematical laws). Hippler thinks there are. But *in
practice*, what is different between these two worlds? In both,
morality is developed by societal dialog, agreement on the rules that
should be enforced by some protective institution vs. simply tabooed
socially (consider murder vs. adultery), and so on.
While Hippler believes that there are objective morals... *in
practice* this will reduce to him proceeding in the same manner as
you: trying to convince others that it is more
civil/admirable/good/beneficial/etc. to do X vs. the current Y in
operation.
Whether this occurs relativistically (you making a recommendation
based on data and reasons) or "objectively" (Dr. Hippler citing
natural law, the Bible, and god's plan for mankind), the observed
method of creating moral improvement is the same.
Thus, the debate was a bit frustrating. Hippler was a moving target,
just as, say, apologetics regarding answers to prayer. With prayer,
the answers god gives are "Yes," "No," and "Just wait longer." With
Hippler's proposed natural law, the responses:
-- It exists; there are baseline morals that humans converge upon
-- Wherever it does not *appear* to exist, just wait longer; those
humans just aren't as morally up to speed as the rest of us
There's nothing that can come up in the debate that doesn't fall into
those two buckets.
A friend of mine at the debate asked a question (which also didn't get
asked) about how Dr. Hippler would respond to instances of genocide
and rape in the Bible. While humans apparently need to discover this
natural law written into the universe, surely god, the author of it,
does not. Thus, what reasons would Dr. Hippler have provided for a
god-inspired text to contain instances that clearly violate the
natural law he thinks is self-evident?
-- Mass genocide of others for land, justified by different religious
beliefs or heritage
-- Things like the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11)
-- Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom, offering up his virgin
daughters for "fun times" (Genesis 19)
Obviously there are many more. I think this would have been an
interesting question to hear asked.
To close, it was unclear to me whether you would support the idea of
"moral improvement." In a discussion after the debate, I was pondering
situations like the Rwandan genocide between the Hutu and Tutsi
tribes. I absolutely get your point that we need to be hesitant about
imperialism and enforcing our own views of morality on others. I
definitely find it hard to think about this situation and *not* admit
some force to the idea that we have come to know that there is no
fundamental difference between the races with respect to giving one
extermination rights over another. What would you be your view on a
situation like this one? There's some temptation to believe that if we
could convince them of this rationally, they would be self-directed to
alter their practices. In the midst of killing hundreds of thousands,
it might be difficult to have such a discussion, however. Do we act to
prevent what we (and many other more educated/developed societies)
consider an injustice? Or do we allow it to continue since their
morality is not our morality? Or wait until the dust settles and
*then* try to have the discussion?
Thanks for putting the debate together. I deconverted from Catholicism
about two years ago and morality has been an interesting one to
consider. My deconversion was quite liberating in a sense; I got to
ask "Why exactly *is* X right or wrong?" vs. using the pseudo-logic,
"Catholicism says X is right; I'm Catholic; therefore, *I* think X is
right." Nevertheless, morality is insanely muddy, just like
apologetics. I've read a bit about various secular objective moral
systems (such as universal utilitarianism and desire utilitarianism
[3], [4]), why determinism undermines morality, why it does't, whether
objective morality can exist without god, and so on. I kind of gave up
trying to figure it out after a while. If morality is simply the word
we use for "that which our societal grouping/subset agrees upon," I'm
not going to be horrified.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution
[3] http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html#part4:uu
[4] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
universal morality
P2) Humans have converged on some basic universal morality
C) Therefore, some sort of natural law exists
That's my patched together estimate of what I think was going on.
Perhaps a recurring sideshow was:
P1) If no natural law exists, than what we call "morality" is merely
preferential
P2) Preferences are not binding upon anyone
C) If no natural law exists, then morality is not binding on anyone
In attending the debate, I actually had no idea what to expect. I was
surprised that a Catholic would take issue with evolution or the
coexistence of natural selection and morality; Catholics can accept
evolution wholesale as far as I knew. Ratzinger gives us this gem [1]:
-----
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are
genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms
have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many
studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting
support for some theory of evolution to account for the development
and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over
the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
-----
And the Catechism states:[2]
-----
"... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is
carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral
laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the
world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
-----
So, I suppose one could debate what Ratzinger means by "controversy
continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution" as well as the
Catechisms, "...does not override moral laws," but there seems to be
good support that Catholics can believe anything that good science
says is the case with the world.
My question, which didn't get asked, is how objective and relative
morality differ *in practice.* Putting it a different way, there
either are or aren't objective moral laws written into the universe
(similar to mathematical laws). Hippler thinks there are. But *in
practice*, what is different between these two worlds? In both,
morality is developed by societal dialog, agreement on the rules that
should be enforced by some protective institution vs. simply tabooed
socially (consider murder vs. adultery), and so on.
While Hippler believes that there are objective morals... *in
practice* this will reduce to him proceeding in the same manner as
you: trying to convince others that it is more
civil/admirable/good/beneficial/etc. to do X vs. the current Y in
operation.
Whether this occurs relativistically (you making a recommendation
based on data and reasons) or "objectively" (Dr. Hippler citing
natural law, the Bible, and god's plan for mankind), the observed
method of creating moral improvement is the same.
Thus, the debate was a bit frustrating. Hippler was a moving target,
just as, say, apologetics regarding answers to prayer. With prayer,
the answers god gives are "Yes," "No," and "Just wait longer." With
Hippler's proposed natural law, the responses:
-- It exists; there are baseline morals that humans converge upon
-- Wherever it does not *appear* to exist, just wait longer; those
humans just aren't as morally up to speed as the rest of us
There's nothing that can come up in the debate that doesn't fall into
those two buckets.
A friend of mine at the debate asked a question (which also didn't get
asked) about how Dr. Hippler would respond to instances of genocide
and rape in the Bible. While humans apparently need to discover this
natural law written into the universe, surely god, the author of it,
does not. Thus, what reasons would Dr. Hippler have provided for a
god-inspired text to contain instances that clearly violate the
natural law he thinks is self-evident?
-- Mass genocide of others for land, justified by different religious
beliefs or heritage
-- Things like the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11)
-- Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom, offering up his virgin
daughters for "fun times" (Genesis 19)
Obviously there are many more. I think this would have been an
interesting question to hear asked.
To close, it was unclear to me whether you would support the idea of
"moral improvement." In a discussion after the debate, I was pondering
situations like the Rwandan genocide between the Hutu and Tutsi
tribes. I absolutely get your point that we need to be hesitant about
imperialism and enforcing our own views of morality on others. I
definitely find it hard to think about this situation and *not* admit
some force to the idea that we have come to know that there is no
fundamental difference between the races with respect to giving one
extermination rights over another. What would you be your view on a
situation like this one? There's some temptation to believe that if we
could convince them of this rationally, they would be self-directed to
alter their practices. In the midst of killing hundreds of thousands,
it might be difficult to have such a discussion, however. Do we act to
prevent what we (and many other more educated/developed societies)
consider an injustice? Or do we allow it to continue since their
morality is not our morality? Or wait until the dust settles and
*then* try to have the discussion?
Thanks for putting the debate together. I deconverted from Catholicism
about two years ago and morality has been an interesting one to
consider. My deconversion was quite liberating in a sense; I got to
ask "Why exactly *is* X right or wrong?" vs. using the pseudo-logic,
"Catholicism says X is right; I'm Catholic; therefore, *I* think X is
right." Nevertheless, morality is insanely muddy, just like
apologetics. I've read a bit about various secular objective moral
systems (such as universal utilitarianism and desire utilitarianism
[3], [4]), why determinism undermines morality, why it does't, whether
objective morality can exist without god, and so on. I kind of gave up
trying to figure it out after a while. If morality is simply the word
we use for "that which our societal grouping/subset agrees upon," I'm
not going to be horrified.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Catholic_teaching_and_evolution
[3] http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html#part4:uu
[4] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2982
Thursday, February 9, 2012
It is my view that no persuasive case has yet been presented showing congressional district conventions choose candidates better than do the party rank-and-file--nor has any similar morality-based case been presented. You often hear the wooden partisan fanatics bumbling about--chattering as if such arguments existed. They're full of it.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Candidates
Besides your humble servant, two fancy-dress, hyper-conventional candidates currently vie for the backing of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, to run for the US House for the Third Congressional District:
Brian Barnes
Sharon Sund
The seat is currently held by Republican Erik Paulsen.
Brian Barnes
Sharon Sund
The seat is currently held by Republican Erik Paulsen.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Debate Invitation
Does Darwinian evolution undermine moral claims of conscience?
RHR Meeting Room
Ridgedale Library
Minnetonka, Minnesota
February 25, 2012
2:00 to 3:30 pm
Free and Open to the Public
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)