Let me liberally paraphrase John Haldane:
As we enter the 21st Century:
1) the scope of philosophical problems and approaches has widened, mostly because
2) the scientific conception of knowledge has grown, causing
3) academic philosophy to have become increasingly inaccessible to nonprofessionals while
4) the number of issues on which nonphilosophers and nonacademics in general seek informed reflection and guidance has grown considerably.

And then literally quote him:
"This is particularly true of public policy questions. Indeed, the need of places where there can be discussion of issues of the first importance contributed to by philosophers, theologians, cultural historians, literary critics and others is greater than ever before."

This all being true, it is good to have a place like Shalomplace. And, who knows what our community will look like in 2010?

A pressing issue for our times is how to formulate and articulate morality in a more compelling manner? But, before I back up, let me get ahead of myself:

Can a moral philosophy be grounded in metaphysics in the form of a philosophy of nature?

Alternatively, can there be an account of the place of virtues in human society independent of a "metaphysical biology"?

Alasdair MacIntyre, who once argued against any idea of a "metaphysical biology", later claimed: "I now judge that I was in error in supposing an ethics independent of biology to be possible. . . . no account of the goods, rules and virtues that are definitive of our moral life can be adequate that does not explain--or at least point us towards an explanation--how that form of life is possible for beings who are biologically constituted as we are, by providing us with an account of our development towards and into that form of life."

Still, how do we get to an "ought" from an "is"? from the descriptive to the prescriptive? from a given to the normative?

Haldane writes: �Indeed, the idea that 'is' and 'ought' stand in no intelligible relation is arguably incoherent. If one insists upon it, however, and still wishes to pursue the idea of moral truth then it seems inevitable that one will be driven to a form of rationalism that will either fail to complete its derivations or arrive at formal tautologies, either outcome only serving to encourage moral skepticism. The answer is to reject the disassociation of 'is' and 'ought' and to recover the idea of the harmonization of fact and value.�

So, how do we resolve the cultural chasm that exists in modern society between those who hold the view that our prescriptive judgments about what ought or ought not to be done, about good and evil, right and wrong, are neither true nor false and those who hold the view that moral judgments are not just opinion and moral philosophy is indeed a genuine body of knowledge of absolute and universal standards?

Mortimer J. Adler, who was one of America's foremost philosophers, sets forth the philosophical mistakes made by those who generally hold the view that moral values and prescriptive judgments are subjective and relative while setting forth the insights, distinctions and arguments by which those who hold the opposing view can rationally defend it by reason and argument ( for the fact of the matter is, such a view is not often defended by rational arguments but by dogmatic assertions and appeals to articles of religious faith ). It is not that Adler does not disagree with Hume, that prescriptive conclusions can not be drawn from premises that are entirely descriptive. Adler does blame Hume, however, for not solving the problem of finding grounds for affirming the truth of prescriptive conclusions, saying Hume "is responsible for the skepticism about the objective truth of moral philosophy that is present in the twentieth century."

Are there grounds?

Adler says, "The answer is yes if we can find a way of combining a prescriptive with a descriptive premise as the basis of our reasoning to a conclusion." He points out that the prescriptive premise must be a self-evident truth, then lays the ground for the formulation of the one and only prescriptive judgment that meets this criterion by distinguishing between "needs" and "wants" (like our fathers did for us), a distinction between natural and acquired desires, between real and apparent goods: "We ought to desire whatever is really good for us and nothing else." He distinguishes between higher and lesser goods, the greater being unlimited and of which we could not have too much (knowledge), the lesser being limited and good only in moderation (chocolate).

Adler points out: "For the elaboration of a moral philosophy at the heart of which such reasoning lies [the reasoning which can be carried through for all our natural desires or needs to prescriptive judgments], it is, of course, necessary to produce evidence or reasons that support an enumeration of all human needs, and also to deal with the various complications that arise with a closer examination of needsd and wants."

And so, against Hume�s skepticism and Kant�s failed attempt to make the golden rule self-evidently true, Adler clearly concludes that �what one ought rightly wish to others and self� cannot be known a priori without reference to our desires and the facts of human nature. He overcomes the skepticism of noncognitive ethics, dismisses epicureanism and hedonism, and corrects the philosophical mistakes of moral relativism and subjectivism, all while restoring the relationship between nature and virtue such that prescriptions about human nature cannot be grounded without the facts about human nature.

Perhaps this suggests that natural law theorists must not sever the link between moral principle and nature and is consonant with Robert George�s point, that while facts about human nature do not of themselves entail moral prescriptions, the latter are grounded in facts of our nature?

Philippa Foot, according to Haldane, once troubled about how imperatives could be 'moral' if they were other than categorical, but later came to diagnose her worries as misconceived: What then is to be said about the relation between fact and value? My thesis . . . is that the grounding of a moral argument is ultimately facts about human life . . . . . . . In my view, therefore, a moral evaluation does not stand over against the statement of a matter of fact, but rather has to do with facts about a particular subject matter, as do evaluations of such things as sight and hearing in animals, and other aspects of their behaviour . . . Similarly, it is obvious that there are objective, factual evaluations of such things as human sight, hearing, memory, and concentration, based on the life form of our own species. [Likewise] the evaluation of the human will should be determined by facts about the nature of human beings and the life of our own species. . . . moral action is rational action, and . . . human beings are creatures with the reason to recognise reasons for action and to act on them.�

Haldane�s own position �is that the restoration of serious moral thinking in American public life and in the culture more widely might be advanced by a systematic effort with regard to two tasks. First, that of identifying and exposing invalid reasoning, inconsistency, confusion, misrepresentation, and false values; and second, that of presenting ethical claims in terms that show their ground in commonly known facts of human nature. Of course it is part of the cultural problem that those facts have themselves become somewhat obscured. I think the effort to bring them back into view and to render them vivid in phenomenological consciousness is best pursued by those possessed of literary and artistic imagination, rather than by academic philosophers.�

So, backing up now, all of this discussion, above, speaks directly to the unnuanced notions of those relativists who have given in to an unwarranted moral skepticism. At the same time, it should also speak directly to the uncritically held claims of those absolutists who fail to take into account the post-modern critique and the lessons we have learned from linguistics, historicism, anthropology, hermeneutics and other elements of the post-Enlightenment epistemological paradigm shift, described by Leonard Swidler as "deabsolutized, dynamic and dialogic- -in a word, it has become "relational."

Now, the truth be known, I wrote the above in defense of a nontheistic meta-ethics, and several of the philosophers quoted above are either agnostic or atheistic. Why do I bother?

Let me quote John Haldane, Stanton Lecturer in Divinity at the University of Cambridge (and not a nontheist): "At the point of the convention's bicentenary in 1987 there was still, I think, a sense in the higher reaches of American public culture that questions of policy could and should be resolved by reference to rational deliberation about substantive ends--not just the sought-for fair procedures or balanced compromises that characterize liberal contractualism, but objectively right outcomes, and right because oriented toward human goods. That may be too rosy a picture, but my sense was, and remains, that Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush would all have subscribed to the view that there are truly objective rights and wrongs, and that these requirements are linked to values that may be discovered by reflecting on human nature. In fact, and this was part of America's greatness, the presidents and the people would not have said that these truths might be discovered but rather that they were known and that they informed the thinking of even the most unreflective folk."

The reason I bother is because this seems to be increasingly not the case in the discovery of values. Haldane describes this degeneracy: "The civil-rights debate, Vietnam and Watergate, ill-fated and arguably unjust foreign adventures, and, certainly not least, the corrupting effects of superfluous affluence, all took their toll on the moral confidence and seriousness of the nation. Now we see a society whose degeneracy is marked not so much by the activities of the president, or of other public figures from the political and entertainment world(s), but by the fact that, for the most part, the generation now entering middle age apparently lacks the resources to fashion a convincing moral critique of the condition of American society. The state of the sex and hedonism, and abortion and euthanasia debates are but the most dramatic expressions of this decline."

Why bother? WE have to fashion a convincing moral critique. WE have to articulate moral truth in a more compelling manner.

Why approach this enterprise from a philosophy of nature and a natural law perspective? Are we hereby playing into the hands of the agnostics and atheists and those who would only subscribe to nonfoundational ethics and nonauthoritative deontologies?

Emphatically, no.

We hope, by opening this objectivist naturalist door to Aristotelean Ethics, that in will rush the preambula fidei of Aquinas, the supernatural existential of Rahner, the Thomistic ethics of Maritain, the epistemological model of critical realism, along with other anthropological-transcendental methods.

John P. O'Callaghan, in a review of "Characters in Search of Their Author, the 1999-2000 Gifford Lectures (Glasgow)" by Ralph McInerny, writes: "If we have no confidence in knowing the world around us, how could we possibly have any confidence in knowing God?" The enterprise we are about then is primarily a recovery of natural theology, first, because it is true, also because it holds the key to interreligious and interideological dialogue, a door which opens to the perennial philosophy in the vestibule of a global ethic. McInerny's arguments for a shared conception of and commitment to the truth by theists and atheists give optimism for such meta-ethical and moral enterprises.

O'Callaghan continues: "As McInerny argues, contemporary sacred theologians should take no comfort in the failures of modern philosophy, and the presumed impossibility of natural theology. The revelation upon which sacred theology is seemingly based takes place in the same world that the philosophers have lost. While McInerny is quite clear that sacred theology does not rest upon the foundations of natural theology, he argues very powerfully that it may well fall with it."

Twentieth century Protestant theologians have generally denied the possibility of a natural theology, although some have argued that John Wesley had a "soft" natural theology, believing that some truths about God could be known from reason but not a sufficient knowledge without Revelation. Carl F. H. Henry, a distinguished evangelical theologian, perhaps captues the prevailing Protestant view: "What moral power, then, can serve as a potent restorative and cohesive social force? Nothing other than respect for the commandment of God given at the creation of the human race. It is not by reading the entrails of evolutionary nature but by recognizing anew the Divine Valuator and a recovery of the imago dei that law will regain its power."

I believe there are profound implications for rejecting natural theology in the manner of Karl Barth, as articulated above by Henry. Such uncritical appeals to rationally unsupported dogmatic assertions and religious beliefs are not compelling, leave fides sans ratio, can not answer post-modern critiques, provide no common ground for interideological dialogue and are impoverished by an implicit and ungrounded epistemological hubris.

I opened with: A pressing issue for our times is how to formulate and articulate morality in a more compelling manner?

I suppose I have suggested that we get back to the Summa Theologica and Aquinas' reconciliation of Revelation and Aristotle's Philosophy. There is much a Thomist perspective can illuminate in our approach to almost everything, up to and including modern physics. Everything old is new again. I hope.

pax tibi,
jb

OK - I admit it: This post was pay-back for this:

(I enjoyed your example of your own 5-ish shadow, JB. Can you hear the forum sighing in relief as you come to grips with this. )



a pax come upon ya and remain,
jb

Well dang....and I was JUST fixing to comment too!

Can a moral philosophy be grounded in metaphysics in the form of a philosophy of nature?

Yes. Next question.

Good post, JB. Not going to be popular with the post-modernists, however.

I need to read it through again, but there's much about this topic which resonates with the writings of Jim Arraj. Jim is one of the neo-Thomists, along with Maritain and others, who are trying to integrate some of those traditional philosophical insights with modern science. I know you know that, but am just calling attention to it.

Pope John Paul II had the same thing in mind with Veritatis Splendor, but seemed to emphasize too strongly the Catholic magisterium as the arbiter of such matters, including what a "good conscience" is. Not likely to be popular with non-Catholics, if, indeed, with Catholics.

We really do need to do some thinking about this. With all sorts of complicated end-of-life issues and cloning floating across the floors of legislatures, we need some way to provide moral critique without explicitly rooting our principles in religious traditions. Of course, doing so has never been easy, and even Thomas Aquinas, for all the brilliance of his writings on natural law, had his Catholic faith to provide form for some of these insights.

What I've found in my own life is that moral clarity is seldom attained through reflection on principles and their application, but just simply seems to suggest itself as "right action" in the context of maintaining serenity, integration, and sustaining the willingness to love. I won't deny the importance of a formation period in which I gave rigorous consideration to moral theology, only that's not how it happens for me now. Of course, that won't work in the political sphere unless we can get legislators to work in a manner similar to the old Friends meetings.

Phil

I opened with: A pressing issue for our times is how to formulate and articulate morality in a more compelling manner?
Yes, this is a good question...and a good post too, I might add. In today's world...morals, ethics, the general well being of society..appears, at least, to have moved into a realm where the "one" has taken priority over the "many" (yes I love Star Trek..lol). I do believe there is a "natural" theology of sorts...a basic indwelling knowledge of right and wrong. This even exists in the animal world. If you watch many nature shows, you will notice that for the most part, even in animal society, one who goes against the "rules" of the tribe, or herd, or whatever is ostracized because they have endangered the welfare of the others. Of course, there is also survival of the fittest which is indeed the natural way of controlling overpopulation, starvation, etc. Now some would argue that since we have a different set of thinking processes we are "above" the animal way..true....however, it does not negate the idea that in order for the species to survive, thought and attention must be given to interaction as well as consideration within the species. It seems to me that this is one basic that has been overlooked or discarded in our present society....on most all levels.

In being friends with witches, wiccans and even nordic pagans, I have, of course, discussed many times my faith and theirs. We all operate on a "golden rule" type system....IF we adhere to our beliefs. In those belief systems mentioned there, one of the first first topics of there crede is ....treat another as if they are yourself. Harm another..harm will come back to you. (in some instances three fold) Now, they do believe in self-defense as anyone else does. But the premise is the same. The old saying...what goes around comes around...is, in my opinion, a basic truth. Perhaps therein lies a basis for bringing morality back into the picture? It has an appeal for even the most "self" centered type of thinking...if I don't wanna get spit on..don't spit on someone else. It satisfies "self" while at the same time being a consideration of another even if for the most selfish reasons.

Another thing that always jumps out at me in watching youth oriented shows from MTV to Disney...is that the word "hope" has ceased to exist. If we have no hope...then how can we have morality? What WAS the hope of our forefathers? I know what my hope is because of my faith...but even apart from my faith, if I had no reason to hope for something "better" or more peaceful in my life, why would I care about anything..least of all the treatment of my "neighbor".

Though, I don't know anything about metaphysics, it seems logical that in order to promote moral values, we do indeed have to know the nature of the beast and how that nature affects their manner of life in all ways. Granted, I would be hard pressed to be objective in some things because of my faith. But I still think that there are absolutes of nature that must be incorporated into the solution...otherwise we are only talking about a solution for a certain group of people.

*if I completely misunderstood the topic, just don't mention it too loudly...LOL!*

The old saying...what goes around comes around...is, in my opinion, a basic truth. Perhaps therein lies a basis for bringing morality back into the picture? It has an appeal for even the most "self" centered type of thinking...if I don't wanna get spit on..don't spit on someone else. It satisfies "self" while at the same time being a consideration of another even if for the most selfish reasons.

+++
Yes. I agree that, whether the golden rule or the law of karma, there is an element of enlightened self interest. This not only meets Adler's criterion that the prescriptive premise must be a self-evident truth, but is indeed "the one and only prescriptive judgment that meets this criterion" as we all conclude, cross-culturally and cross-enneagramatically: "We ought to desire whatever is really good for us and nothing else."

re: If we have no hope...then how can we have morality?

Here, we move into the realm of meta-ethics, which doesn't deal with ethical formulations per se but in such things as how ethics are done, how values are discovered and, importantly, what motivates people.

I believe there is truly a crisis of meaning in our American society and what my essay was suggesting, at least implicitly, is that people are confused and unsure. Even when we fashion a consensus about morals, the two major opposing camps, lets say the liberal/relatavists and the conservative/absolutists, are coming from two fundamentally different moral philosophies, the practical consequence of which is that there is foundational diagreement on why each camp believes we should do this or that.

Neither camp can provide the other with convincing and compelling rationales.

The absolutists don't believe the relatavists because the relatavists are truly ungrounded and defeated by their own skepticism. And the relatavists don't believe the absolutists because all they do is fall back on dogmatic assertions and appeals to faith with no other rationale.

Then, there are the pragmatists who make appeals for this or that moral position based solely on the consequences, and they have a meta-ethical factory building but no real ethical machinery yielding fundamental ethical principles that can properly order the consequences to whom- me? you? society? the species? our posterity and offspring?

What often happens when you can't convince anyone else of your position, because you don't have the rationale (which may nonetheless be available), is that you can become unsure even of your own position. This is what is good about pluralistic exposure; it gives you other alternatives to consider, however painful the conversion process might be.

These are real overgeneralizations and this part of the discussion has a lot of hyperbole because, as you can see, things are going fairly well and every generation has laid claim to moral degeneracy when, in fact, we've come a long way baby! Still, the neuroses run wide and deep as per my favorite doctor of all times:

quote:

The existential vacuum is a widespread phenomenon of the twentieth century. This is due to a twofold loss that man has undergone since he became truly a human being. At the beginning of human history, man lost some basic animal instincts in which an animal's behavior is embedded and by which it is secured. Such security is closed for man as he has to make choices. Beyond this, man has suffered another loss in his more recent development: the traditions that had fortified his behavior are now rapidly diminishing. No instinct tells man what he has to do and no tradition tells him what he ought to do and often he does not even know what he basically wishes to do. Instead he wishes to do what other people do (conformism) or he does what other people wish him to do (totalitarianism) or he refuses to follow anyone directions or guidance (rebellionism).

Tribute to Viktor Frankl

re: it seems logical that in order to promote moral values, we do indeed have to know the nature of the beast and how that nature affects their manner of life in all ways

This is the essence. One caveat, however, is that however much I am appreciative of my tradition's marriage of fides et ratio, its esteem of philosophy and its approach to the natural law and natural theology, in our moral theology we had a tendency to take such matters too far and have formulated some sexual morality, for instance, that is too biologistic and physicalist and deductive and minimalistic, paying too much attention to our animalism and not enough attention to our uniqueness among the species. Ah, the splendor of truth!

pax,
jb

Terri, I don't think you've misunderstood at all, and I think your posts are demonstrating how it's possible to come to some very basic moral convictions by observing nature and using basic common sense approaches like the golden rule.

And JB, I think your generalizations about relativists, dogmatists, and pragmatists identify some of the tensions we've always had in and out of the Church, but moreso today. In fact, it seems to me that these groups are splitting communities apart, with what should be a great deal of common ground that they share becoming more and more scarce.

I do believe there is a "way out" of this conumdrum, and that Frankl has said something valuable about this. We're not going to go back to the security of having instincts guide us, nor will the resurrecting of myths be the answer. We've evolved beyond both approaches (apologies to Joseph Campbell), and have come into the "world of reason," which, severed from myth and faith convictions, degenerates into the kind of pessimistic skepticism that seems so prevalent among liberals.

The "next step" is mysticism, which orders reason, emotion, and even the body according to truth which is perceived intuitively. We come to know this truth when we let go of our self-defining and self-aggrandizing attachments, and open ourselves to guidance by God, as we understand God. Religious traditions play a role in forming this mystical development, but there comes a time when the mystic "goes beyond" reliance upon their dogmatic, mythological, and liturgical structures (there, I've said it--very significant statement, there). It's not so much that these are unimportant or untrue, as they do continue to provide a kind of infrastructure upon which mystical consciousness is built. But it's quite possible that a lot of different kinds of infrastructures will get one to the same kind of consciousness, albeit with different flavors manifesting. And once one is mystically awake, morality is a different kind of experiences than consciously consulting principles and seeing how they can/ought to be applied. As an infrastructure of mystical consciousness, morality must be honored to maintain mystical consciousness; when one "cheats" in an area of morality, mystical consciousness is diminished or loss (there is a "fall" from grace), and this is so distasteful that one quickly moves to repent and restore the clarity that was lost.

I could go on, but I'll stop here to see how this is coming across. Also, as mentioned in a post above, I'm not denying the importance of doing ethical, philosophical reflection, especially to help inform political decisions.

Phil

Phil wrote: "The "next step" is mysticism, which orders reason, emotion, and even the body according to truth which is perceived intuitively. We come to know this truth when we let go of our self-defining and self-aggrandizing attachments, and open ourselves to guidance by God, as we understand God. Religious traditions play a role in forming this mystical development, but there comes a time when the mystic "goes beyond" reliance upon their dogmatic, mythological, and liturgical structures (there, I've said it--very significant statement, there). It's not so much that these are unimportant or untrue, as they do continue to provide a kind of infrastructure upon which mystical consciousness is built. But it's quite possible that a lot of different kinds of infrastructures will get one to the same kind of consciousness, albeit with different flavors manifesting. And once one is mystically awake, morality is a different kind of experiences than consciously consulting principles and seeing how they can/ought to be applied."

Phil - that is no casual or cursory response. I resonate in so many places that I must be careful to hold my exuberance in check (but it is a rational exuberance about these meta-rational and trans-rational ruminations/intuitions).

By way of affirmation, let me continue in this vein, which may be provocative to some but certainly evocative for most. I wrote, in another forum, Monday, the following:

quote:

Thinking of religion as "just a place to appease existential angst ... to satiate our anxieties about contingency and death" may be quite on the mark. It may speak more to where we are, culturally/collectively, on Kohlberg's level of moral development, on the Bernardian levels of compassion and love (Love of self for sake
of self. Love of God for sake of self. Love of God for sake of God. Love of self for sake of God.)

As far as civilization has come toward ego transcendence and enlightenment, we may be only at rudimentary stages of moral development and ego transcendence. We are stuck at love of God for sake of self (Bernardian schema) and fear of
punishment/promise of reward (Kohlberg schema). Therefore, we fall into the classical sin of presumption on the mercy of God (those who
believe) and the goodness of Providence, and then get on with eating, drinking, merriment and the capital sins getting on with "satiating our biological urges of sensuality, power, and possession."

Nonbelievers who pursue the moral life with no threat of punishment or promise of reward, then, appear to be at higher stages of moral development and closer to emulating unconditional love than those who cling to the comforts of religion using God, at best, as a backseat driver, or worse, as a spare tire in the trunk. [editorial note to Shalomplace - this requires some heavy nuancing about extrinsic/intrinsic rewards ... but I will mercifully spare you same]

Only a return to organized religion's mystical core can engender the depthful moral responses we witness in some of the anonymous mystics of our time, many of whom are thoroughgoing materialist, naturalist monists and agnostics/atheists?

and I would add, nontheists.

Are we on the same sheet of music? in the same key? with the same conductor? Even so, what instrument are you playing in the band? and which am I?

pax tibi,
jb

Religious traditions play a role in forming this mystical development, but there comes a time when the mystic "goes beyond" reliance upon their dogmatic, mythological, and liturgical structures (there, I've said it--very significant statement, there).

Phil, this is indeed a very significant statement here. The only point I would like to make is that it is perhaps not so much a going beyond but an expanding. Dogma, myths and liturgy define to one degree or another but there seems to be a point when mystics go beneath these; maybe see that to which they point but which they can never be.

As for finding morality in nature, I really don't understand why that is such a problem. Nature being a part of creation would certainly reflect a part of the divine... a glimpse into the kingdom if you will and as such would also necessarily hold a part of truth.

I do think a big part of our moral crisis today is that it comes from a materialistic "I"culture. The bottom line in most things seems to be what is best for me.... what do I want/ think/feel. We have lost the concept of the greater good... what is best for the community - perhaps not realizing that what is best for the community is best for the individuals within that community in the long run.
In other words.. is it better for the community... would the community derive more benefit from feeding a person or providing that person with the means to feed himself? Feeding is easier and on one level more rewarding for the individual than the alternative.

On the topic of religion and morality.... David Demson, speaking at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, on Barth's descriptions of the Bible said, "There is morality within the Bible. But almost at once we see that most of the Bible is useless for, say, teaching morality in schools. Indeed, often the Bible seems indifferent to morality. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son; Jacob wins the birthright by deception; Elijah slays 450 priests of Baal; constantly war is waged. Time and again the Bible is found to contain no counsel for individuals or nations or governments."
"Why is this the case? Because the Bible is chiefly concerned not with the doings of human beings - but with the doings of God."

Thoughts - comments?
Wanda

Religious traditions play a role in forming this mystical development, but there comes a time when the mystic "goes beyond" reliance upon their dogmatic, mythological, and liturgical structures (there, I've said it--very significant statement, there).
Well I started a response to this and lost it..lol...so I'll go for it again

Yes that is a significant statement and one I agree with, but possibly coming from a different angle. I was raised Baptist and now attend Methodist and nowhere in my teachings was I exposed to the "mystical" side of my faith. Whether this is denominational or just a local thing, I don't know (I confess that denominational doctrine isn't something I dig deeply into). Therefore, when I had a dynamic experience through the Holy Spirit a few years ago, I became extremely frustrated due to lack of instruction in this area. Imagine, if you will, the moment in time that Cinderella is changed from house servant to "princess" for a night...except there is no Fairy Godmother, no carriage, no horses, no prince. She simply is there running from room to room in her house (teachings) looking for some place to go now that she's all ready. I had no liturgical nor dogmatic base-line to draw from for this. Even as a child, I had "sensed" a deeper place that was waiting for me explore when the proper guide was found. Through God's intervention I was led to writings by mystics of old and to writings of centered prayer and contemplation. In these I have found at least one source for guidance. So, for me, reliance upon traditional, dogmatic, or liturgical structure wasn't even a part of the equation. This makes me think that perhaps moving beyond those things is not only something to be anticipated, but something to be expected. As wonderful as our teachings and traditions are...they still lack a tremendous amount when compared to God's person and His realm. However, let me stress, this is not to say that it's advisable to simply leave tradition or teaching behind...absolutely not...that's very dangerous. But rather to understand that teaching and tradition perhaps prepares us FOR the beyond experience.

As an infrastructure of mystical consciousness, morality must be honored to maintain mystical consciousness; when one "cheats" in an area of morality, mystical consciousness is diminished or loss (there is a "fall" from grace), and this is so distasteful that one quickly moves to repent and restore the clarity that was lost.
Absolutely! I find more and more that if I do "cheat", the rush to repentance and restoration is close to being heightened to a panic level. In thinking on this, I can remember my mother just being dumbfounded when exposed to someone who didn't much care who they hurt, or whether they were moral or not. She was born in 1915 during a time when high moral standard was still considered the norm....whether from believers or non-believers...one just didn't DO some things. Not only was it unthinkable because of the damage it would do to yourself, but the shame it would bring on your family and the poor example it was for the young ones coming on. In many ways, my mother had a mystical inner self without even realizing that she did...it was just who she was in her relationship with God.

So how do we move into this realm with society as a whole? How do we move from temporal, superficial to eternal, mystical? How do we motivate even the desire for such?

Dogma, myths and liturgy define to one degree or another but there seems to be a point when mystics go beneath these; maybe see that to which they point but which they can never be.

Thanks, Wanda. That is rich in implicit ontological nuance, about being and Being and being-in-relationship. To some extent, moving toward the mystical has to do with recovering that which is relational, and, to me, this is the sum and substance of moral enterprises, preserving and restoring relationship. Thus, the greatest ontological recovery story ever told is ...

So how do we move into this realm with society as a whole? How do we move from temporal, superficial to eternal, mystical? How do we motivate even the desire for such?

Ahem, Terri. All of my posts were a gigantic set-up, whereby, after everyone chimed in and contributed regarding theory, I was going to insert the questions about praxis --- you know, the SAME ones you just posted!

Great discussion. I'm in another discussion just like this in a forum called Biology__Religion__Culture and we are discussing cultural motivations and modes of cultural change. I'll pass along any gems I mine there.

Divine Providence has artfully and craftily and uncannily arranged Creation as a Cosmic Bootcamp in which we are all learning how to love [metaphor from Scott Peck]. Somehow, as individuals and as a People, it seems to me that we are getting drug toward a most efficacious transformation, this despite our best efforts to avoid it and our best intentions, which would, sometimes and often, otherwise get in the way.

Truly, though, what are the concrete ways we can cooperate with Providence and Grace? How should we catechize and evangelize others in our co-creative roles as priests, prophets and kings and invite them, more fully, into their own unique positions in the Kingdom?

pax,
jb

Ahem, Terri. All of my posts were a gigantic set-up, whereby, after everyone chimed in and contributed regarding theory, I was going to insert the questions about praxis --- you know, the SAME ones you just posted!

Oh well hey....lemme just do this then, too.

Yes, JB, Wanda, and Terri (where's Brad?), we're all on the same page with regard to the step of "going beyond" dogmas, or expanding, as Wanda put it, which is what I meant when I referred to these functioning as an infrastructure.

This is all very basic in a transpersonalist, hierarchical view of the universe, where lower levels of being support higher and are transparent to them. In no way am I implying that one's religious convictions make no difference or that one religion is as good as another. Just as there are all sorts of pathways from mythico-emotional consciousness to rational-egoic consciousness, so too from there to mystical consciousness. Hence, my comment about the many "flavors." But there is a lawfulness at work here in that you really must maintain certain basic moral values to live in mystical consciousness, which is why all religions support basically the same moral values. There's no confusion among them about that. You can't be a lying, adulterer and living in mystical consciousness, for this creates too much disturbance in the infrastructure and thus violates the clarity of mystical consciousness.

We're all on the same page, I think. Do you all still agree? And feel free to nuance.

Phil

We're all on the same page, I think. Do you all still agree? And feel free to nuance.
Yep...I think we are too. This is a topic that is most interesting to me as I'm just recently (in the past few years), beginning to be able to put definitions or words to the actual experiences. The terminology is greek to me...but I'm learning..lol.

In today's world...morals, ethics, the general well being of society..appears, at least, to have moved into a realm where the "one" has taken priority over the "many" (yes I love Star Trek..lol).

Thanks for that opening, Terri. If there�s a problem that can�t be explained by Star Trek then it�s not a real problem.

I understand that general assumption here (I think) that people have become so self-absorbed and that we associate our lives with no higher purpose. It�s all �me, me, me.� The place for this philosophy belongs in our person lives though, not our public policies. Governments are most dangerous when they wave the flag of �greatest good.� America is such a great protector of peoples� rights because the emphasis is on the individual. As soon as we start bartering with people�s lives for the �greater good� we will soon come to despotism and the committing of atrocities. Emphasis must be on the importance of the individual life � as far as government is concerned.

If you watch many nature shows, you will notice that for the most part, even in animal society, one who goes against the "rules" of the tribe, or herd, or whatever is ostracized because they have endangered the welfare of the others.

This is where I come in and say that stigma can be a good thing. There should be stigma attached to people who have kids out of wedlock, who have pre-marital sex, receive food stamps, are unemployed or who break the law. The reason for this is that we don�t want to promote this kind of behavior. It�s generally just not good for the people involved. Facilitating this �bad� behavior, as liberals do, by decrying the supposed harm we do to people�s self esteem by way of stigma is just compassion without wisdom which can do more harm than good. Tough love requires compassion AND wisdom and is vastly underappreciated in today�s culture.

Phil said: we need some way to provide moral critique without explicitly rooting our principles in religious traditions

Okay, perhaps I�m taking this out of context or it�s just spurring a thought. But I see NO WAY to have absolute moral truths without some sort of appeal to HIGHER TRUTHS. Religion is one form of higher truth and perhaps the most common one today. Having a �higher truth� simply means putting our lives and existence in a larger context. I just don�t see how anyone can really disagree with this. One of the easiest moral truths to deal with is murder. I think most people would agree that it is wrong and should be punished (although we might disagree on what constitutes murder). But why do we think this? Well, when it comes down to it it is because we all feel we have a right to exist and that no one else has a right to take this from us. But �existence� itself is a higher concept. I certainly wouldn�t trust whatever laws Joe Blow or Jane Doe made up if it was based on nothing more than their personal preferences.

Emphasis must be on the importance of the individual life � as far as government is concerned.
This is one reason I'm grateful to live in a country founded on democracy. The good for our individual lives incorporated into the good for society as a whole is a most daunting task, which is why, I believe, we sometimes see the pendulum swing to extremes either to the individual side or the societal side. The first example that comes to mind is the whole thing we got into on another thread about political correctness...while the opposing side of the pendulum would be "the superior race" theory.

There should be stigma attached to people who have kids out of wedlock, who have pre-marital sex, receive food stamps, are unemployed or who break the law.
We must be careful though on this. In days of old, a child conceived out of wedlock, right along with their mother and their mother's family were the victims of intense shunning which had horrible results. In having such a "rich" country, we tend to overlook those who are striving yet fall short of the mark to adequately provide for their families. While I agree that we shouldn't promote these lifestyles because, as you said, they aren't good for the individual either, we do have to be careful that we don't condemn the individuals as each circumstance holds reasons we often aren't privy to. This is one area where our government system needs some revamping. In dealing with the various agencies in my own life, there are many facets of it that defy understanding.

Perhaps we've somehow let the value of wisdom and experience become less than what it should be. Or perhaps we don't pass on our own wisdom or relate to others the result of our experiences. Or perhaps we've even become so complacent about whom we set in places to make governmental decisions that we've diluted the concept of the importance of those individuals. Perhaps we've even contributed to the lack of respect for those offices and individuals by not educating each generation as to just how important our democratic way of life and those in charge of it, are as well as our own responsibility to vote with informed care.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Judge Robert Bork back-cover testimonial, by Robert P. George, Department of Politics, Princeton University:

quote:

The ideological triumph of liberalism among American elites--far from bring the individual and social enlightenment it promised---has produced unprecedented moral decay....The principal victims of this decay are the poorest and most vulnerable among us--those most in need of the support of a healthy culture. Bork courageously and boldly states these truths. A Judge as wise as ?Solomon has become a prophet as powerful as Isaiah."

Senator Chuck Grassley:

quote:

A must-read for anyone who cares about the future of American society. Presents a provocative, critical, and convincing picture of a culture careening out of control, a culture that must change its ways or face destruction.

Just thought this fit, Terri and Brad.

pax,
jb

Oh hey, JB, indeed it does...hmmm I may have to read this book! Thanks.

We must be careful though on this. In days of old, a child conceived out of wedlock, right along with their mother and their mother's family were the victims of intense shunning which had horrible results.

Fair enough, but one must also keep in mind the horrors produced by the effects of having no restraints and an �anything goes� type of attitude. I�m all for treating people (particularly the kids who have no say in it) with total compassion and respect while still setting clear social standards if only expressed through social behavior and not law. But when laws stop being �blind� to such situations and actually ENABLE bad behavior then that is inappropriate and harmful, as inappropriate and harmful as any laws that would discriminate against unwed mothers and the children born out of wedlock.

The problem is that there are those who place the value of self esteem higher than the value of moral behavior. It�s those million little things we do which are guided and molded by the �stigma� of other people that has the greatest effect on us becoming well-adjusted, compassionate and moral people. And I don�t think most of these �million little things� can be codified into law, nor should they be. But when certain types of stigma are removed (under the guise of discrimination or of some idea of �greater good�) we then run into the absurdities that we find ourselves dealing with today; for example, handing out condoms in high school. This act, under the guise of �protecting kids�, not only removes the proper stigma attached to kids having sex but actually PROMOTES the idea.

Before I log off for the week-end (State softball tournament ), I wanted to comment on something I saw on the History channel last night and how it's timeliness, in light of this thread, struck me. It was a documentary on the Freemasons, their history, their downfall, and their rebuilding.

According to this documentary, the Freemasons were first founded as a "highly moral and ethical" society of builders. They operated on the premise that in building good sound structures, they could pass along (by example) the need to do things in an ethical way as well as a constructive way. They were extremely charitable as well, giving lots of money to organizations that helped the needy. Being extremely revered, they became a most powerful organization. However, as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the height of their popularity and power, they began to see themselves as not only an example to be followed, but judge of those who did not see things exactly their way. That line of thinking led to violence and suspicions of outright murder. This came about as the society became ever more secretive of their rituals and beliefs. The influence of biblical standards was subtley revised to "taking good men and making them better" by the societie's own standards. After the downfall, the society was re-organized in a more open light and the original structure of it brought back to practice. Though their power never returned to the height it once was, they are still in operation, as I'm sure we all know. They still make HUGE charitable contributions. However, their popularity and example has never recuperated.

To me, this was a pretty straight forward example of how, as Brad pointed out, the "greater good" can be taken to an extreme. It can easily become judge, jury, and executioner of those who stray from the prescribed course. Though the best intentions were implemented in the beginning...those intentions took on an elitist air resulting in, in some cases, tragedy.

Yes...we must be cautious.

Brad,
I was going to cut and italicize but I realized I'd have to do the whole post..lol

I agree with you and the examples you give there do indeed show us how the affects of unrestrained lack of correction and teaching lead to disasters! This is one of those things that has a fine line drawn through it.

In Christianity, we are constantly confronted with loving people but not condoning their actions. If we aren't careful it comes across as judgmentalism, which none of us have the right to. If we aren't careful enough, it comes across as permissiveness and the idea that "anything goes". It can be quite difficult to know exactly how to handle situations and that applies to government policies as well, I know.

So...that leads us back to the questions...how do we change all this? How do we bring about that inner condition that inspires people to "do the right thing"?

Okay...NOW, I'm off for the week-end...or well until tomorrow sometime

Excellent thread and posts!!

Okay, perhaps I�m taking this out of context or it�s just spurring a thought. But I see NO WAY to have absolute moral truths without some sort of appeal to HIGHER TRUTHS. Religion is one form of higher truth and perhaps the most common one today.

Yes, that's true, I'm afraid, and it's what we're actually lamenting: the loss of a non-religious source of moral philosophy which articulates higher principles to inform moral reasoning. This was what "Natural Law" was, and when the Founding Fathers say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." and when they refer to deity, they're largely invoking this understanding of Natural Law that they shared. It's been blasted with post-modern critiques, but I'm not convinced that it's been found totally discredited. In the absence of this kind of unifying common ground resource, the struggles in society seem to bring about greater and greater polarizations.

I share these thoughts with permission from their author and know you will be edified by them. pax, tibi, jb

From: "Steve Petermann" <stevegp@h...>
Date: Fri Jun 28, 2002 8:49 am
Subject: Compelling Morality

A moral framework must at least describe a sense of self and the dynamics of
the relationship of the self with other selves and the environment. It
would be hard to find any form of stimulus in a culture that does not have
some moral framework implied. While religion may try to stake claim to a
leadership role in offering and promoting a moral framework, it is only one
player among many competing for the moral vote of confidence of the masses.

Why do people choose one moral framework over another? Or perhaps more
accurately why do people pick and choose the moral components they do? As
johnboy has convincingly put in other posts, a morality must be compelling.

Current neuroscience has shown that humans as biological organisms respond
to outside stimulus based on the perceived "good"/"bad" status of the
stimulus(or situation) towards the organism. Based on that status the
organism is "compelled" by its inner structure to act in a certain way. I
realize this may sound reductive in explanation, but I think we must a least
understand the biology of morality before we can understand and embrace the
higher level gestalts in play.

So, from a biological standpoint a moral framework that is compelling would
at least address the core biological motivations of the organism, in this
case things like survival, well-being, propagation, health/death concerns,
etc. However, humans are not just instinctive animals driven by the
hardcoded motivations of food, sex, and advantage. Humans are also emotive
and cognitive creatures who can decide against base motivations in favor of
long term goals and possibly even for "mystical" or core ontological
reasons.

From an evolutionary standpoint morality is the framework that preserves and
promotes the species. From a secular standpoint(not embracing ultimate
concerns) morality not only promotes the species but may serve some other
ultimately arbitrary but decided upon goals(like greatest good, for the
greatest number). From a religious perspective humans are part of a grand
teleology that includes the biological but also transcends it.

So to be compelling a moral framework would at least need to recognize and
speak to biological needs. If it tries to deny certain biological
motivations( e.g. sex, self preservation, self interest ) it must do so
based on a higher authority than biology. This is where the rub comes in
between a strictly moral philosophy or pragmatism and religion.

Relativistic moral systems have a problem with being arbitrary. For, I
think, strong biological reasons, humans loathe a relativism. Humans want
to believe in "true" foundations. Ungrounded moral systems based solely on
biology or philosophy do not provide a non-relativistic foundation. As such
they cannot appeal to a higher authority when faced with competition from
some other moral framework. Moral frameworks like these may decide for
democracy overagainst fascism or totalitarianism but that decision is
ultimately arbitrary based on consensus or power.

Religious systems on the other hand are not inherently relativistic. They
claim to be based on ultimate reality which ends the entailment process.
God, Tao, Brahman by their nature of being ultimate provide a
non-relativistic foundation for morality. From that standpoint they are
compelling. They have an authority that transcends biology, instinct,
emotion and reason.

The problem for religious or telic based morality is that although they may
claim to be compelling because of ultimate authority, their claim itself may
not be compelling. All religious frameworks claim some special access to
ultimate reality. That special access is the source of authority. Terms
like "revelation", "insight", "enlightenment", etc all point to a special
access to this ultimate moral authority. Then based on the content of that
access, metaphysical systems are created with moral frameworks ensuing. But
these claims themselves to special access or "telic knowledge" have no
rational means of validation. They cannot find an archimedes point that is
beyond contest. Inevitable all these claims to authority become circular
and uncompelling.

Both secular and religious arenas have a problem with being compelling.
Neither has a convincing argument that they have a clear cut winner.

However, there is a possible resolution to this problem at least for
religion: ontology. If this reality *is* grounded in an ultimate reality
then the "being" or ontology of this reality is part of that ultimate
reality and would presumably reflect it(natural theology). If this is so
then the argument would be that the telos of creation or process of life is
also in the process of becoming consonant with that ultimate reality. That
telic process is also "recognizing" to some degree a moral consonance with
ultimate reality. That would mean that whatever *is* consonant with
ultimate reality would be compelling. Presumably humans, participating in
telic reality, would be compelled to it and be in the process of recognizing
its moral character. Although this does not provide a clear cut
methodology for choosing a moral framework, it means that the "messy" and
continuous process of discovering consonance is still working towards telos.
It can give us hope that in the midst of the seeming insurmountable struggle
for a global ethic(and possibly a global metaphysics), we are in the process
of doing that, within the boundaries that telos provides.

I guess what I am suggesting is that whatever one makes of claims of
revelation, the only truly effective process for creating a morally
compelling framework is a natural theology that arises out of ontology, our
experience of telos in life, our inferences about that experience, and our
struggles to concretize it as best we can in a moral stance. It may be a
"messy" business but maybe there is progress.

Best Regards,
Steve Petermann

Johnboy back: Folks, was that GREAT or what? I don't know if this link will work or not since the forums archives aren't public: Biology, Religion & Culture

I share the following in this same vein:

Subject: our moral ascent- let's further the momentum

Len, you sent me the following in the wake of Weakland's "retirement" and I'll address it here in another context. You wrote:
"Think of the hobbling of women's feet in the Confucian tradition, "honor killing" in much of Islam, the burning of widows on the funeral pyre of the dead husband (suttee) in Hinduism,
the "impossibility" of attaining Nirvana by women in Theravada Buddhism, clitorectomy in many African cultures, the custom of
sending women first in line (to draw enemy attack) on the part of many Amerindian tribes of the past..... Those who descry the moral
decline of the present age or of current Western civilization, simply have their heads in historical and cultural sand. The situation is precisely the opposite. Our current outrage at the above and other abuses is a sign of slow maturation by humankind. All these things have been going on for millennia--and worse--and only now are we humans in any numbers becoming aware of them and are outraged by them. So, all of this upheaval should not discourage us, but on the contray, should encourage us to seize the
opportunity to further the momentum in positive, corrective ways."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear G-Ethic:

As we encounter the complexity of everything having to do with a global ethic, including the cultural motivations and modes of change, and as we inventory what is broken, the task of
significant societal transformation seems daunting and the forces that seem to be at work, sometimes, strike me as being almost beyond
our control, as having many elements of happenstance, such that even our best intentions and efforts all play into the fickle hands of
the whimsical law of unintended consequences.

Still, despite all of the extreme pessimism regarding moral degeneracy and all of the intimidating problematics of moral regeneracy, sometimes my intuitions suggest to me that humankind is subject to some inexorable force which is dragging us along toward a most efficacious transformation, this despite our best efforts to avoid it and our best intentions, which would, sometimes and maybe
often, otherwise get in the way. There seems to be a 2 + 2 = 5 dynamism at work, maybe ecbatic, perhaps an anthropic emergence dynamic which inevitably swallows up our maladaptive chaos and
inexorably spits out adaptive complexity. This would not be incongruent with putative telic dynamisms which see the cosmos as artfully and craftily arranged and, therefore, uncannily Grace-filled.

Whatever one's ontological or metaphysical hermeneutic about this inexorable force and its underlying dynamism, it seems we have an
opportunity, as individuals and cultures, to cooperate with it.

How do we cooperate with it?

I think that one of the more pressing questions for our times is:
How can we formulate and articulate morality in a more compelling manner? And I agree with those who hold that a moral philosophy canbe grounded in metaphysics in the form of a philosophy of nature. We must turn to those who know nature and its dynamisms, from the quantum physicists and neuroscientists to the sociobiologists and
cultural anthropologists. I truly don't feel that there can be an authentic and compelling account of the place of virtues in human society independent of a natural moral philosophy. The ongoing reformulation of same is a task that I would place on the agendas of both Religious Naturalists and Natural Theologians.

May the force be with us.

pax tibi,
jb