Allow me to hijack a thought from another thread to explore it more deeply in another context. It is regarding what Rita said about "fundamentalism" (and I hope I don't hereby wrench it from its context and swell it to madness). She wrote:

quote:

Perhaps the value is the need for a steadfast faith that seems to be so threatened by today's "anything goes".

My purpose is to ask where this approach to anything goes in life originates.

My suggestion is that Mortimer J. Adler in his book Ten Philosophical Mistakes (1985 Touchstone/Simon & Schuster) can shed some light on this question. I will address that which pertains to morals where "anything goes" although Adler certainly sheds light on epistemological, aesthetical and doctrinal issues also.

We have all heard the caveat about proceeding from a given to the normative . Whether we call it going from an is to an ought, from the descriptive to the prescriptive , or from the given to the normative, few would argue with Hume. (And Kant didn't do a very good job of it when he did, according to Adler, even if his works were brilliant in so many ways.)

However, M.J.Adler's position is that we can find grounds for affirming the truth of prescriptive conclusions if we can find a way of combining a prescriptive with a descriptive premise as the basis of our reasoning to a conclusion. So much then for anything goes!

In making his argument, Adler makes a compelling distinction between natural and acquired desires, the same distinction made by your parents and mine: needs versus wants (real versus apparent goods). This would seem to give the metanarratives of our great traditions a large opening for the elaboration of moral philosophies founded on such prescriptive truths, self-evident truths based on the criterion that what they prescribe conforms to right desire (sounds Buddhist even), desire for something that we by nature truly *need*.

It is wrong-headed philosophy that is so disastrous in its consequences and that leads modern people astray. Where does Adler find the corrections to such wrong-headedness?

He writes:

quote:

The essential insights and the indispensable distinctions needed to correct the philosophical mistakes made in modern times are to be found in their thought.

Whose thought?

Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas

Time magazine calls him America's foremost philosopher and Justice Harry Blackmun, U.S. Supreme Court, calls him a most distinguished philosopher.

Adler is the Chairman of the Board of Editors for the Encyclopedia Britannica and Director for the Institute for Philosophical Research.

He deserves a good listening. He makes a compelling case for the fact that anything does not go!

Spread the Word!

What do YOU think?

peace,
QuiQui

Footnote: I would be remiss, in mentioning Adler, not to memorialize his passing on June 28th. I couldn't do it better than Charles Van Doren who shared these remembrances at a memorial service for Mortimer J. Adler last month (July of 2001).

a brief excerpt:

Many times he told me, as I imagine he told you, that he hoped to meet Aristotle in the afterlife, so he correct his errors -- and also have the opportunity to talk about all the most important things with a man who knew, as Mortimer did, what they were and why they were important.

Mortimer and I agreed, when St. Christopher was struck from the list of proper saints, that the action, although probably correct, was a pity. I myself have stubbornly persisted in addressing the benevolent giant every day of my life. You know the gentle, little prayer:
St. Christopher be my guide,
In my most need,
Go by my side.

I have modified it in various ways over the years, and I offer you another modification now:

St. Christopher, be Mortimer's guide,
and Aristotle's too,
In their most need.
If they are wandering in some
dark, cold, and lonely place
and cannot find one another,
Bring them together,
Join their hands,
Shed warmth and light upon them.
Go by their side
And from time to time,
Let Thomas Aquinas come for lunch.

Mortimer, we miss you, and we need your help. We all pursue happiness, but we do not know what it is or how to find it. We need you to remind us that happiness is not a moment of ecstasy or a feeling of contentment that can come and go. Instead, happiness is the product of a whole life -- a life lived in accordance with the two kinds of virtue: intellectual and moral. We have to use our minds and not waste them. And we have to acquire the habit of desiring the right things, the things we really need and are good for us, not the wrong things, which are bad for us and for everybody else. In addition to all that, we need to be lucky -- in our country, in our friends, and in our loves. You were lucky in all these, dear friend, and therefore we can conclude that yours was a happy life. It is our great loss, not yours, that it had to end.

more remembrances from Mortimer's memorial service

God Bless,
KiKi

Hi KiKi,

Thanks for starting us off on this discussion, which I hope will go somewhere. M. Adler's book sits on my frequent reference shelf along with works by Wil and Ariel Durant, who also have sound philosophical instincts.

For those who've had difficulty following what this is about, it's about the loss of a sense of an objective basis for truth and ethics. By "objective" I mean something that transcends my personal, subjective ideas of what's true or good; something to which my ideas must give an accounting. This sense of an objective nature to Reality has been lost, leaving in its wake a kind of ethical relativism/pluralism that has contributed to the deterioration of civility in society.

The reader may be thinking, "that's why we need more religion, isn't it?" Well, yes-- only Adler, Aristotle and others grounded their ethics in philosophy, not religion, which makes it possible to inform the ethical thinking of legislators without falling into argumentation over whose religion is right.

So why has this recognition of an objective nature of truth and ethics lost so much ground? Anyone?

Phil

Oh, that question is ripe for picking.

First off, to be able to participate in "anything goes" you need a lack of peer pressure and stigma associated with anti-social acts. Anything can "go" only if restraints are removed. Today restraint itself is often considered repressive (as many on the left believe) and is being replaced by the notion of personal ethics. That is, one defines for oneself what is right and what is wrong. And at face value this makes some sense. "Who is someone else, whose morality might be in question, to say what is right and wrong for me? My opinion is as good as another's." And this would be just find if we all lived singly, one person to an island. But we live in groups and some consensus must be made on what is right and what is wrong. Our blurring of this idea - this necessity - is the root of the trouble.

The, not neutrality but open hostility, toward religion in education and the media lays the groundwork for associating moral values with "just another religious doctrine." We're officially taught to be tolerant to all races, ideas, religions (supposedly, but it helps if it's not Christian) but in the zeal to be so accepting the powers that be have forgotten that the world is full of ideas and things that should NOT be accepted. When one becomes so enamored with seeing through the lens of supposed acceptance one has a hard time turning the eyepiece around and doing some serious judging. Oh, and by the way, judging itself is considered intolerant.

Now one might say "But, Brad, gays and African Americans and women and so many others have been repressed because of the majority's ideas of what were right and wrong. We must widen our ideas of what is acceptable so no one is made a victim of intolerance." Fine. Let's change our definition of what is right and wrong, but let's not throw out the idea of right and wrong. The idea that we've erred in the past and so must never "label" things right or wrong again is disasterous. Just consider the raising of children: even imperfect rules, consistently enforced, are better than no rules at all. We ALL need boundaries.

And lets bring back ideas of honor, decency, and integrity and let's condemn appropriately those who break this social bond and not simply label them "victims." Let's draw a line in the sand again. How we draw this line again, this "objective truth," is by the common consent of the people who live in this republic. But that line will be blurry if people don't share common values of decency and integrity. I'd say religion can and should play an important role in developing our moral values. It may not be the only way but it should be recognized as an important one an not excluded in our supposedly "inclusive" society.


(I mistakenly hit Edit for your post instead of reply. Sorry. I've put it all back as you had written it.)

Very good post, Brad! And I certainly totally agree that religion has a role to play in helping form the values of a culture.

Some sociologists (e.g., Michael Novak) have maintained that there are three interactive parts to a society: political, economic, and moral/cultural. This idea that we shouldn't legislate morality or values that comes up fails to acknowledge the fact that our political and economic systems are formed by the moral/cultural part of society. In some cases, to NOT take a moral stand in the political sphere is to take one--e.g., not allowing quiet prayer times in school.

The predominat, near-absolute value for Americans seems to be freedom--not just as defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the freedom to be able to do and say what one wants without reproach. There are limits to freedom, of course--your freedom ends where mine begins--and so values MUST figure into the discussion to help negotiate boundaries concerning freedom and the common good.

In the "olden days," what made for a sense of "objective truth" in the U.S. was not only a widespread belief in Biblical truth, but an appreciation for "natural law." As Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas have fallen into disfavor during the past 50 years (for not very good reasons, I might add), and since America has become more culturally diverse, Biblical truth and natural law no longer seem to have the acceptance they once did. Which leaves us as a culture kind of floundering as we grope to discern what's right and wrong in some very complex ethical situations now, and makes it even more difficult to speak to the political arena with any kind of authority.

Phil

Please bear with me as I try and sort this thought out. God gave to Moses a set of laws, a government for what else is a government but an agreement to live together in a certain way under a specific set of rules, for a specific group of people. These laws pertained to these people and their interactions with each other but not always to their interactions with others. For example, "Thou shalt not kill", did not pertain to those occupying the territory promised to the people of Israel. There was a lot of slaughter that went on during their occupation of the promised land. Being a tribal society united by common faith, these laws were enough to give stability to their society - their world. As their society became more central - more organized laws were added, first judges and then kings were incorporated into their structure of governance. Over and above all of this was God. These were a people of God and all others were excluded or marginalized. Then Christ came along and upset the applecart so to speak. He gave them/us a new law -a new commandment to love not only God but our neighbor as well. The laws of government are fine and necessary for governance but over and above these is this supreme law - this better way of interacting with others - all others. He addressed all three areas of society - political, economic and moral - laws- rules are necessary but they are not supreme - give to others what they need to survive in as far as you are able - and treat others as you would be treated or allow others the same rights and freedoms you expect for yourself. As you said Phil my freedom does end where your begins and vice versa. I have the right to my beliefs and to govern my life accordingly as long as I do not infringe upon your rights/needs but I do not have the right to force my beliefs upon you. I can express my beliefs in the hope that you too will come to believe as I do but I also must give you the same right of expression. As God gives each of us the freedom of choice, so must we accord each other the same freedom. This is where the problem of legislating morality comes in today. For instance, I am personally anti-abortion and yet I am pro-choice. I would talk myself blue in the face to try and convince someone not to go that route but in the end, I could not make that decision for them or reject them if they chose to terminate. We all, on some level, feel that everyone else should believe as we do and have banded together in "tribes" or political action groups or, parties, or even denominations to see that this happens. We seem to be a society that is voicing freedom, but living control. "You have the freedom to believe as you like, as long as you believe the same as I."
Today we do need the wisdom of Solomon as we deal with issues like genetic engineering and cloning on a societal level and coming to a common consensus will be incredibly difficult because many of the issues we are dealing with are imperfectly understood by most people. Perhaps, the reason we flounder is that we, both as a country and as individuals, do not feel we understand the issues we are confronting but more critical is perhaps that we have lost trust in those whose guidance we depended upon in the past. We do not trust our government, we do not trust our "teachers" the media, and in many instances we no longer trust our religious leaders or churches. We have too many voices of certainty speaking conflicting "truths". Perhaps the biggest thing may we have lost is trust in ourselves as a nation... as a united people. We no longer trust the gods of our creation because we have been brought face to face with each of their limitations. We are a people that needs God - He who transcends all of our divisions, He who is Truth, He who is Love, He who is Mystery and God can/will not be legislated.
Ok... now you all can poke holes in this... I love these discussions... I have learned so much.
Wanda

The laws of government are fine and necessary for governance but over and above these is this supreme law - this better way of interacting with others - all others. He addressed all three areas of society - political, economic and moral - laws- rules are necessary but they are not supreme

The interesting thing that liberals have done in their zeal to "separate church from state" far beyond what is literally written and what is meant by the founding fathers, is that they have added the notion that moral beliefs derived from religion are somehow tainted. Therefore religion has been cut out of the loop somewhat as a necessary influence on law.

I believe that the hierarchy should be this: religion influences people, people make laws. I understand the concerns that having religion in the equation might seem to mean a direct hierarchy of "religion becomes law" and thus cutting out the middleman, so to speak. But I see religion as a necessary means (and not the only one for sure) for developing morality in people, and from there hopefully moral people will help make wise laws - but not "religious" laws, unless you want to live in a non-secular country. I don't.

Like George Will (and the founding fathers) I believe that we are assured of our freedoms BECAUSE of the interplay of different factions and ideas and the (hopefully) inability for any one faction to become dictatorial. There is even room for secular humanism, but they need to recognize that in the long history of mankind that this recent discovery is yet another "religion" and thus should not be thought to be a neutral idea.

Great post, Wanda. I'm not quite sure if I added to what you were saying or scampered off on a tangent.

I agree Brad, and I especially like your hierarchy... I am not sure if I completely agree with your assessment of the liberal thought though. Some liberals probably do feel religion is tainted, but I think perhaps the liberal position is more of a backlash against the fundamentalist movement of many conservatives who seem to come from the position that only their religion is untainted and their apparent bid for control of government. I seem to see three basic positions in this country - Love God and do as I say; love God and do what you want; and simply do what you want. Each comes from a different perception of God. We seem to have forgotten who he is.

And I think I may be the one going on a tangent here....
Wanda

Wanda, I think there are all kinds of liberals and all kinds of conservatives. It seems just as valid to say that conservatives (certainly fundamentalists) are reacting to liberals as much as vice versa. It also seems to me that liberals have designs on controlling government and have been building a large base of support in people who depend on government services--services which liberals say "cold-hearted" conservatives want to take away while "compassionate" liberals in their nice, secure bureaucratic positions will deliver. A cynical view, I know, but one that I find hard to shake.

Unfortunately, some--too much, I'm afraid--of this liberal vs. conservative struggle has come into Christianity as well, with both sides characterizing the other in very unfriendly terms. Christianity should provide some kind of common ground for Christian liberals and conservatives to stand on, but there are times when it seems that even this is hard to find.

All signs of the times, I believe.

Phil

Phil, I agree with you wholeheartedly and sympathize with what Wanda is saying. Compassion in people is a wonderful thing. That said, when the natural compassion of people is expressed through government that is where we run into problems. Government should provide the framework for people to be free, to work, to raise families, to pursue happiness, to as peacefully coexist with each other as possible. The idea that forcibly taking money from one neighbor to give to another is not particularly compassionate. And I would posit that it is uncompassionate, and in many cases even harmful. A dollar given to the Red Cross, a Christian organization, the Lions Club or whatever is about 3 times more useful (in terms of how much actually goes to tangible charitable endeavors) than giving it to the government. And if one thinks that reducing government handouts would create hardship one should remember that when taxes are cut chartible contributions go up. And in the long run the more we suckle at the teat of government the more we lose our humanity and our ability to sympathize and really help our neighbor.

And Phil it is not cynical to describe the motives of politicians (particularly Democrats) to create a dependent class of voters. That is the reality. When more people become aware of this, when more people live first-hand in a community (rather than assuming government can be their proxy to compassion) then we can effect much more and better change.