 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Maybe I'm wrong --- a challenge | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2011 12:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi guys,
I don’t see anything I really disagree with Jeff on, or Asher for that matter. I guess it’s a matter of emphasis and perspective. I do always have the Kingdom in mind precisely because for me there’s no teleology without it. The Kingdom is our telos. If we want to set aside religious talk to find common ground with atheists in doing the work of government, it’ll still have to be on grounds that concede (as Jeff says) the fundamental teleological nature of things. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.
Asher: What rights and duties does an individual have with regard to a)other individuals b) society c) government?
I agree with Jeff that rights and duties are the flip sides of a single relation. And I agree that “love thy neighbor” best describes our obligation to others. The entire law and all the prophets can be summed up in the command to love God above all and love others as ourselves.
Asher: I am wanting to laser beam focus in on rights and duties THAT CAN BE OBSERVED AND RECOGNIZED. For example, to give an answer of "To love one another." O.K. your not gonna find me disagreeing with your answer...except it misses the point of my question...while love can often, and probably most of the time can be OBSERVED AND RECOGNIZED...sometimes it can't. I can really be loving you and you not know it, or even think that I am doing it's opposite. I am looking for answers way more basic than that.
Tom: Do you want, then, to know what love “can be observed and recognized [as intending and doing]”?
Asher: For example, here is my answer to my own question: 1) Innocent (meaning that this person has not themselves transgressed some other individual's basic rights) innocent human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will kill them. A prohibition on murder.
Tom: True. We should wish no harm or evil upon another. That would cover murder and a host of others. That’s a reasonable rule upon which to build a civil society. If that’s all I could get I’d go with it. But I’d aim a bit higher: We should wish for our neighbor his highest good and do what is reasonable and within our power to promote and secure that good. That we don’t ‘expect’ this from others (but only expect that they not harm us) is perhaps indicative of our participation in systemic evil.
Asher: 2) Innocent individual human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will impair their liberty. A prohibition on confinement.
Tom: It’s certainly reasonable, yes.
Asher: 3) Innocent individual human beings should reasonably expect that no other individual will steal from them. A prohibition on theft. As you may recognize, these touch upon life, liberty, and property...and most every other offense is just gonna be some sub-category of one of these categories. And pretty much these rights/duties will (for me) translate straight over into human collectives...i.e. I think collectives rights and duties are just the rights and duties of individuals, because its individuals that make those collectives.
Tom: I’m with you, Asher. I don’t think perfected and glorified human beings will at all require such prohibitions. But until that time comes we can’t survive as a society without them.
Asher: BASIC QUESTION NUMBER TWO: What is the basis for your answer of question NUMBER ONE? IMPORTANT: whatever, your answer is...it can only have ever come into reality and functionality either by contract (via argumentation) or by force. As control of your own life, liberty and property is the only means by which a person can even engage in the argumentation of contract; to deny life, liberty, and property simply means that your answer is "force."
Tom: I suppose the basis of my answer to No. 1 is the self-evident benevolence inherent in the teleology of the cosmos, like Jeff has said. I don’t see that the options of “contract” and “force” even answer the question of what forms the basis of our answer to Q No. 1. Contract and force offer the MEANS of introducing and maintaining rights/duties within a civil society, but they don’t form the BASIS of believing that the right/duties you listed are in fact self-evident. Did I misunderstand your Q No. 2?
Asher: Some issues that may arise, or questions people will have that may or may not go spoken: 1) What about Jesus in all this? If we're all avowed Christians in this discussion does that not become a central defining issue?
Tom: Indeed it does.
Asher: Being devil's advocate...let's just assume that I am not a Christian. Jesus talk is meaningless to me. If you're answer can only be given to other Christians...my follow up question to you is...what does that mean for people who are not followers of Jesus? Are you, like so many other political groups, just gonna press your political muscle to force me to doing things the way you want me to do them?
Tom: There ought to be good reasons for believing that it is more blessed to give than to receive OTHER than that Jesus said it. Can we not demonstrate this blessedness in terms an unbeliever can perceive and appreciate? I think so. Can we demonstrate it to someone who denies the inherent teleology of the cosmos? I don’t think so.
Asher: 2) I already know that I have quite a different view of collectives than maybe anyone else here…
So, my question is...do you guys REALLY believe that a social collective like "society" has a phenomenologically distinct life different than the lives of individual human beings? Does "society" have consciousness? Does "society" have a will?
Tom: I posted Greg’s answer. But how I see the reality of phenomenological wholes is in terms of prevailing beliefs, values, expectation, fears, etc., a kind of social ‘identity’ built up by individuals over time but which over time also become the immediate context in which individuals then understand themselves and act out. Societies don’t become conscious in the sense individuals are conscious, no; nor a ‘will’. But there is tremendous influence that they exercise upon individuals. You might say a society is conscious and exercises its will vicariously in and through the consciousness of individuals who are disposed to identify themselves with it.
Asher: Another thought...I as an individual can be part of MANY social collectives. I can be part of American society and also be part of Albanian society, as I was when I lived there. I can be part of The Red Cross and part of a local chess club. I can be part of a local church and part of a local political group. I can be in many, many collectives all at the same time. I can even be in two different collectives that have opposing policies with regard to any given issue.
Tom: True. But you can step out of any of those identities or collectives. They’re fluid and limited in scope. But as a Christian believer you can never step out of your identity in Christ. It goes with you (and identifies you) into all others and qualifies all others in a way no other can possibly qualify it. And that is why and where the whole rub comes in ecclesiology and church/state relations, right?
-------------------------------------
Asher: I am a mature human being, I have taken a blow to the head and have been in a coma...I come out of the coma and I can't remember very much...I am cognitively functional...but I don't remember any personal higher order philosophical beliefs. I am bombarded by many different people each an evangelist for a set of higher order philosophical beliefs. The fact that they are each trying to persuade me tells me some basic philosophical presuppositions. I am alive. I am free to choose my own beliefs. Evidently, I am free to act on those beliefs once taken as my own. Part of what it means for me to be alive is that I have a body (physical matter assembled in a certain way) and that I must maintain that physical body by consuming other physical matter.
Tom: OK…
Asher: Are you saying, Tom, that I have no adequate basis from this state of affairs to think one way or another about whether I can reasonably expect the next person that walks into my hospital room to murder me or not?
Tom: Not at all. We’re created in God’s image and much is innate and self-evident. I don’t think the Ten Commandments introduce concepts nobody could possibly have dreamt of apart from God introducing them. Rather, I think God formalizes what IS present in us and what we already know. How else does Paul claim in Romans that when Gentiles do by nature what is in the law though they have not the law they show that “they are a law unto themselves” because they “show the work of the law written on their hearts,” their consciences also bearing witness?
Asher: And that is the state of your "Kingdom" perspective. No evil is possible. So when you ask "So we’re just talking about what forms of society/government/economics BEST approximate what we think those forms shall be when evil no longer qualifies ‘what’s possible’ for human beings?" … then you have totally missed the point of my questions.
Tom: I may be misunderstanding you. Not sure. It sounds like you’re asking whether, and if so how, we can deduce the rights and duties necessary to civil society from the dictates of conscience and reason apart from the claims of any revealed religion. Is that it?
I’m not at all averse to the project. I mean, human beings are irreducibly social creatures and have always sought grounds upon which to construct social relations (as you say, either by contract or by force). I don’t doubt that a purely atheistic society will manage to prop up its society by appealing purely to the dictates of conscious and reason. I would never condemn them for doing so. I rather encourage it. People must do the best they can with the resources they permit themselves.
Asher: When the point arrives in which neither I nor any other human being is metaphysically capable of doing evil...I literally will not be engaging in political speech of ANY kind.
Tom: God hasten the day!
Asher: Why would I? I’m just gonna live. I will not think about ANY issue in which evil is entangled...because there is no longer any evil.
Tom: Right.
Asher: So, again, I am not trying to attack the philosophical concept of "the Kingdom"...but it is too far down the philosophical stream for me to deal with here at the mountain source of the stream...it may be the MOST important concept...but how do I get to it from philosophical basics? If I can't reasonably expect that other people aren't gonna kill me, I'll never get to "the Kingdom".
Tom: I’m not suggesting that you can’t get to a reasonable outline of a minimum understanding of rights and duties apart from Christianity (or any so-called revealed religion). But I do agree with Jeff—apart from the assumption of some kind of benevolent teleology (however one wishes to ground it philosophically), I don’t see how it’s reasonable for you to expect that other people won’t kill you.
What I was interested in (the reason I brought up the ‘Kingdom’) is BECAUSE of teleology. The kingdom IS the embodiment of Christian teleology. Now, you can a good dose of it (as Paul says) from the dictates of conscience (presumably because we’re created in the image of God). But there’s nothing stopping a Christian who has a more succinct and helpful version of humanity’s ‘telos’ from offering it when and where she can. If an atheist says, “Hey, I’m not religious don’t try to sell me that,” then a Christian who wishes to speak on the issues on the atheist’s terms will have to do the best he can on terms they both agree on.
Asher: You want to answer EVERY question from your Kingdom perspective...because it is that central and important to your life...I get it...but even HAVING a Kingdom perspective came about in YOUR life because you engaged in argumentation about it (you talked to people, you read books, you thought about it) you did not come out of the womb having the Kingdom perspective you now have, you arrived at it via argumentation. What makes argumentation possible? What conditions the ability to argue? Is there nothing that can be said here?
Tom: What makes argumentation possible? Well, reason, teleology, conscience, among other things. We are self-evidently rational creatures who deliberate teleologically. That’s not even a religious claim. If teleological deliberation and rationality are not givens, then there are no answers to your questions. It’s possible to just function in those givens without questioning them, and do what rational people with a conscience do—make reasonably just laws, deter evil, promote general welfare, etc. But for those who want to peel back all the layers and find out what the last layer is that makes us function rationally and morally (teleologically), I’m not sure what the last layer is. I’m gonna say the assumption of teleology is the self-evident last layer.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/25/2011 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, if I don't address everything you said Tom, but I want to focus in on this:
Tom: What makes argumentation possible? Well, reason, teleology, conscience, among other things. We are self-evidently rational creatures who deliberate teleologically. That’s not even a religious claim. If teleological deliberation and rationality are not givens, then there are no answers to your questions.
We have strayed somewhere in our conversation if you and Jeff think I am denying any of the things you say above. I am not denying them, I don't even doubt them, in fact I am a STRONG proponent of exactly those things.
Now notice about the specific examples you gave...reason, teleology, conscience...those are all internal, mental things...I totally agree with you that they are pre-conditions of argumentation...without them there is no argumentation. I am also strongly pointing out that we are not disembodied or unembodied entities. There are physical correlates to your mental examples...your body and it's parts, for example...no brain, no argumentation... Also, as argumentation is embedded in time, time becomes a factor, both in our mental aspect of argumentation and in our physical...a human body must ingest food and liquid to keep functioning. Being so conditioned, a pre-condition of argumentation is that you have control of your own body and of the other physical requirements of your body (like food and liquid) over time...also known as having property. Doesn't matter to me whether we call that control over property ownership or stewardship, that's just semantics to me, I don't care if you want to call that stewardship. The essential ingredient is that human beings must have property (in themselves, as they are at least partly physical...and in other physical materials) to live and keep living. Once we have acknowledged property as a pre-condition to argumentation...the question then becomes...are there any logical limitations to amounts of property? And the reason that that is even a question is because there are indeed people who want to limit the amounts of property that other people (and presumably themselves) have control over. And if there are any logical limitations to that amount, I am all ears (as their putting forth of logical limitations to amounts of property is an example of argumentation). But, to their dismay, they can't find any LOGICAL limitations to property, once they have let property in the door at all (and it's in the door, or else there is no argumentation, because property is a pre-condition of argumentation) and so, they stop engaging in argumentation to get what they want (a limit to property) and they start saying how immoral it is to have so much property. And that's an easy "argument" for them to "win"...because all it takes is envy to be existent in the hearts of a majority of people (and it is)...and for there to be a gap between the amount of wealth of most people and of the rich (and there is)... And if at this point anyone takes me as being a defender of "the rich" you are missing the point...I am a defender of the unjustly accused, rich or poor.
Now, back to argumentation proper...you Tom have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at via argumentation over the course of a number of years (you have engaged people in conversation, you have read books, you have thought about things to yourself) Your most cherished beliefs...for example, your Kingdom focus...where ALL arrived at via argumentation, including it's pre-conditions, like property. You have a strong believe in the Kingdom because you have had control and use of property over the course of that time in which you were forming your beliefs in the Kingdom. There is a REAL sense in which property brought you to the Kingdom. Oh, it goes without saying...reason, teleological deliberation...all that...were pre-conditions as well. Those aren't the focus, because that is not the focus of what is trying to be stolen from you. Your property is what is being aimed at. And based on your Kingdom perspective, property is of little import to you, so you do not protest as strongly as i am urging that you protest about the theft of your property.
So, to come another way...property as a pre-condition...along with other pre-conditions...via argumentation...brought you to the Kingdom. I know you aren't gonna like that formulation, but how can it be denied? And that was what I was getting at in one of my previous posts.
1) Can a person deny the metaphysical and logical pre-conditions of the very argumentation that brought them to their current belief in the Kingdom or whatever other higher principle a person might evoke that causes them to want to deny property? I'm not saying "Can a person make the verbalization 'I deny property'"...I'm saying "Can any person via logic and argumentation deny a pre-condition of argumentation?" And the answer is, No they cannot. But they do make the aforementioned verbalization "I deny property" and other people that should know better take their verbalization as if it was an argument against property.
2) Can a person affirm the metaphysical and logical pre-conditions of the very argumentation that brought them to their current belief in the Kingdom or whatever other higher principle a person might evoke that causes them to want to deny property...but say, "For me, these higher order things are the primaries and property is secondary...so I'm not gonna get all up in the air to defend property." Well, it makes logical sense...and I certainly see what they are getting at...so let's put a pin in this question and come back to it.
3) Can a person affirm the metaphysical and logical pre-conditions of the very argumentation that brought them to their current belief in the Kingdom or whatever other higher principle a person might evoke that causes them to want to deny property...but say, "For me, these higher order things are the primaries and property is secondary...so I'm not gonna get all up in the air to defend property." and "I expect exactly that response from other people as well...even if they don't hold my views about the Kingdom, or whatever." This I have a problem with, and this is pretty much what Marxist Christians do when they aren't doing option one of denying the metaphysical and logical grounds of the argumentation that brought them to their belief in Marxism.
Does this explain anything at all to you Tom?
I have to go to bed now, I'm just gonna start rambling if I go on much more. Let's just leave the pin in option 2 and I'll talk about that later. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2011 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I see no difference in principle in life and property. It is appropriate under CERTAIN conditions to deprive people of life, liberty and property. There is no purely deductive system that can tell us what to do in every situation. We have to bear the infirmities of the weak, etc. These duties require present knowledge of present human weaknesses, etc. It's that inability to prove all duties deductively from first principles that causes us to have different perspectives.
The inductive criteria of parsimony/breadth of explanation will always be applied differently by different people because of differences in knowledge, for just one. Unethical people won't even try to be intellectually honest. IOW, similar first principles won't ensure a similarity of inductive/analogical inferences by diverse human beings--even ethical ones. That's why authority is necessary for humans. Children aren't as wise, inductively, as adults, e.g. And so on...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2011 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher: There are physical correlates to your mental examples...your body and it's parts, for example...no brain, no argumentation...Being so conditioned, a pre-condition of argumentation is that you have control of your own body and of the other physical requirements of your body (like food and liquid) over time...also known as having property…
Tom: I follow ya.
Asher: Once we have acknowledged property as a pre-condition to argumentation...the question then becomes...are there any logical limitations to amounts of property?
Tom: Yes, there would have to be limitations to the amount of property that one could amass given your reasoning thus far. For example, if the mind engaging in argumentation requires embodied space to function rationally, to ‘be’ the mind that it is, and if there is a multiplicity of minds (and there is), then there is a multiplicity of bodies (embodied spaces) which are the domain by/through which minds function and engage in argumentation. So, given the argument that argumentation entails embodied minds that are properly free over the space their mind requires, and given the multiplicity of minds, it follows that there are limits to how much space/property one mind could properly be said to require in order to engage in argumentation.
In other words, to the extent that one concedes the existence of other minds AND a minimal physicality or space as being the proper means by which minds dispose, relate to, and engage others minds (and their spaces), one has to concede the propriety of the diverse ownership of property that diverse minds require. The propriety of recognizing the embodied space in which other minds dwell (or ‘as which’ other minds exist, if you’re not a dualist, that’s fine) is entailed in conceding the existence of other minds.
How MUCH property is needed? Not much that I can tell. One has to have a brain that works. That’s about it. If one is to survive (and ‘survival’ is a different question, properly speaking, than is mere ‘function’, and the question of ‘flourishing’ is another different question), one needs food, yeah.
I’m thinking of Victor Frankl, an Austrian Jew who was imprisoned by the Nazis and tortured. He discovered that though he could be deprived of every outward freedom and enjoyment of property, his captors could not decide how HE would respond to them. They could not MAKE him hate them. In his own mind and will, he remained free. We don’t require a LOT of property do be properly (no pun intended!) grounded selves, certainly we don’t REQUIRE the buying power that capitalism offers in order to be human selves. That doesn’t make capitalism wrong or sinful. True human ‘flourishing’ does, I believe, intrinsically promote a kind of ‘extravagance’ where human being thrives and enjoys MORE than is MERELY required for its survival. We are meant to THRIVE. But that means love, and that means that the extravagance that is true human ‘community’ is interdependent and mutually affirming. If you can find a way to work benevolence into your pre-conditions of argumentation, you may have a way to combine the best of socialism and capitalism, i.e., a way to define the limitations (not elimination) of property.
Asher: And the reason that that is even a question is because there are indeed people who want to limit the amounts of property that other people (and presumably themselves) have control over. And if there are any logical limitations to that amount, I am all ears (as their putting forth of logical limitations to amounts of property is an example of argumentation).
Tom: No one human mind can claim all the space there is as its proper/necessary domain (required for its own existence, identity, and ability to engage in argumentation) and also concede the existence of other minds, for these other minds are by definition (of the assumptions inherent in argumentation) the stewards of the embodied spaces over which they exercise proper domain, i.e., over the bodies they command. There can be no ‘argument’ that one rational being is justified in appropriating all space/property as the space whereby it determines itself. Anthropological determinism fails for the same reasons that theological determinism fails. It reduces the number of minds/selves/persons to one.
So yes, there are limits to how much property a single embodied mind can own if that mind admits the existence of other embodied minds.
Asher: But, to their dismay, they can't find any LOGICAL limitations to property, once they have let property in the door at all (and it's in the door, or else there is no argumentation, because property is a pre-condition of argumentation)…
Tom: But the existence of other minds engaging in argumentation is ALSO a pre-condition of argumentation, and the existence of other minds by definition places limitations on property IF each mind/individual requires its own minimal amount of space/property to be what it is and engage in argumentation. So no one mind can appropriate all property as its proper living quarters and also admit the existence of other minds not even by peaceful contractual agreements.
Asher: Now, back to argumentation proper...you Tom have a set of beliefs that you have arrived at via argumentation over the course of a number of years (you have engaged people in conversation, you have read books, you have thought about things to yourself) Your most cherished beliefs...for example, your Kingdom focus...where ALL arrived at via argumentation, including it's pre-conditions, like property. You have a strong believe in the Kingdom because you have had control and use of property over the course of that time in which you were forming your beliefs in the Kingdom. There is a REAL sense in which property brought you to the Kingdom. Oh, it goes without saying...reason, teleological deliberation...all that...were pre-conditions as well. Those aren't the focus, because that is not the focus of what is trying to be stolen from you. Your property is what is being aimed at. And based on your Kingdom perspective, property is of little import to you, so you do not protest as strongly as i am urging that you protest about the theft of your property.
Tom: I don’t see that the property requirements for responsible individual existence, even happy existence, require anything more than a sound mind/brain. And nobody can steel THAT from you. They can kill you or drug you by force, sure. But then responsible behavior ceases for the victim. We’re talking about what’s required for responsible and reasonably happy existence, right? I don’t see that that REQUIRES the possession of anything that can be stolen from you (cars, boats, homes, lands, stocks, etc.) while leaving your ability to think and choose to determine your own responses in tact. If the government takes all these (cars, home, furniture, etc.) from me against my will, Asher, are you telling me I can’t still think/choose freely on a level fundamentally sufficient to be reasonably happy?
So…
I can’t deny the metaphysical and logical pre-conditions of argumentation per se, especially of those that make it even possible for people to responsibly respond to the Kingdom. But the ‘property rights’ this requires me to campaign for are pretty minimal. Nothing the requires capitalism. But neither does it require communism. It requires neither and it may obtain in either. Neither capitalism nor socialism AS SYSTEMS can deprive persons of the property they require to be free selves.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 4/25/2011 3:18:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2011 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm just thinking out loud here, Asher...
1) How much does your concept of 'property' really follow from what we know to be the essential/non-negotiable physical requirements of argumentation? I'm having difficulty seeing the physical requirements for argumentation to be anything beyond a healthy brain. Well...to the extent that argumentation is more than mere self-reflection and self-determination (of attitude, response, etc.) and is to engage other minds, then we have to have the physical means of communicating with others in addition to a healthy mind. But I don't see that these physical requirements require that we own property other than our own bodies, or if properties other than our own bodies are taken from us, that we have or are less than the logic of 'argumentation' requires. Nor do I see that they require any particular social structure (anarchist or capitalist or socialist or communist).
2) Though I agree that much which is good and favorable for civil society can be rightly concluded through the dictates of reason alone (i.e., precluding the input of religious claims), I don't feel any special obligation to the non-religious to go out of my way to make sense of the world for them apart from my faith commitments. In other words, if society sucks without God I'm not going out of my way to allieviate that or to tell people there's hope and a bright future for the world apart from God, since I don't think there is any such hope. I think we have enough natural, God-given tools to know there is such a being as God and to responsibly base our societies upon the assumption of his existence and benevolence (as Paul describes in Acts 17.6-27). I think this is Jeff's point. But I wouldn't know how to help ardent atheists build a brighter future on terms the atheist alone would dictate. See what I mean?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 4/25/2011 3:22:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/25/2011 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Really quick.
1) What rights and duties does an individual have with regard to a)other individuals b) society c) government?
We have the "right" and "duty" to wholeheartedly love God and submit to His Will, in the power of His Spirit. Christianly speaking, this is the best thing we can do for anyone or any system we find ourselves in. I'm not saying that in some religious sense. Seriously, I seriously believe that wholehearted devotion of oneself to God and His Will is the most helpful thing any human being can do for their environment and others in that environment.
Perhaps Frankl's "last of the human freedoms" is indicative of God's image in humanity...and it's specifically this freedom that's to be "rendered unto God", as we are in God's image. If that hasn't happened, then then we WILL misinterpret and misallocate any "rights" or "duties" that we DO believe we have to some degree. To the degree we don't honor the Person in whose image we are in, to that degree, we will not honor other "image-bearers" in our exercise of human freedom. This "rendering unto God" is nothing more or less than the 1st Great Commandment: Love God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength.
After that...the rights and duties an individual has to others, society and government is simple: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." But that's basically just the 2nd great commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself.
2) "Rights" and "duties" only have meaning with the presupposition of innate DIGNITY. Dignity of humanity is the only reason why rights to others are to be granted and respected...and why duties exist to articulate and serve the dignity that grounds the rights. I don't see how this innate dignity in humanity can be found (and applied) accept by the image of God concept. If atheism is true, then no innate dignity of any living things is possible, thus no morally binding reasons to respects other's "rights" or take up one's own "duties." But that's just it. If the ground of our innate dignity is ALSO the seal of God's ownership of us, the "gift" of our dignity (irrevocably given by God) is also the ground for the "task" of administrating our rights and duties accordingly.
The Individual
FIFTH:
The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.
What I find so crazy about this statement is simply this: if atheistic naturalism is true, there's absolutely no rationally acceptable GROUNDS for this "preciousness and dignity"! None whatsoever. Hmmmm...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 4/25/2011 6:11:32 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2011 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher, can you lay out for us the preconditions of argument and explain how they imply or indicate which force is legitimate? I'm saying the criteria is nothing more or less than loving my neighbor as myself--and that is only KNOWABLY possible if there is a benevolent designer of us. I would go further. I would say if there are no post-mortem consequences of some volitional actions, there is no rational moral order at all. None of this requires the bible to be true.
What are you saying?
I think we all agree that under normal circumstances justice is pretty straight-forward. But circumstances can be far from normal. That's when the golden rule can imply very unusual actions. But that's because there are post-mortem experiences that have to be reckoned in the evaluation of one's HIGHEST/GREATEST good. God would only command Israelites to kill infants if it was ultimately better for those infants or at least no worse for them. Thus, it couldn't possibly be wrong for the Israelites to obey God if He in fact commanded thus.
IOW, we can't know anything if we aren't designed BY a competent, benevolent designer. And such a designer can never steer us wrong, by definition--no matter what He commands. And He can't contradict Himself. That's not possible by my view. Thus, it can be true that God would never sanction my killing you (because you're my brother in Christ) though He very well could sanction other killing--like capital punishment and fatal self-defense. There's no contradiction.
Don't get caught up in the historicity of the OT. Look at how my argument is actually showing that, given my premises, there is no difference, in principle, between God having a utilitarian (utilitarian in the sense that no one is worse off and some or all are better off) purpose for killing certain infants and God allowing fatal self-defense and capital punishment for utilitarian purposes.
Utilitarianism is irrational when it involves the violation of RIGHTS to accomodate MERE self-interest. By definition, GOD can't violate rights. "For who has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto Him?" God owes humans NOTHING. Therefore God can kill whoever He wants. And as a benevolent designer, He can't even decrease their ultimate good by doing so. Consequently, delegating the role of killing to humans has no different implications, morally speaking. God can delegate if He wants to. He is essentially benevolent, not contingently so--or we can't know anything.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/25/2011 8:40:19 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/25/2011 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
But how I see the reality of phenomenological wholes is in terms of prevailing beliefs, values, expectation, fears, etc., a kind of social ‘identity’ built up by individuals over time but which over time also become the immediate context in which individuals then understand themselves and act out. Societies don’t become conscious in the sense individuals are conscious, no; nor a ‘will’. But there is tremendous influence that they exercise upon individuals. You might say a society is conscious and exercises its will vicariously in and through the consciousness of individuals who are disposed to identify themselves with it.
I believe the "fallenness of Adam/domain of darkness" can be seen as a phenomeonological whole within humanity...as is the "Kingdom of God in Christ." At the end of all things, all humanity will be within the "Kingdom of God" and the fallen world will be no more.
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 4/25/2011 7:26:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/25/2011 8:57 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/27/2011 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | As I see it, one of the pre-conditions of argument is a duty TO argue for certain beliefs. If that were not true, why should anyone argue for other than self-interest? And why would anyone be taken seriously if they forthrightly admit they're only arguing, in any existing disagreement, for their own MERE self-interest? But duty implies teleology.
Moreover, I don't see how it takes the bible to see that:
1) Vengeance is God's, and
2) Once you start using collectively-implemented force beyond that which is an immediate, minimally-sufficient act of self-defense, you are getting into modes of force that are inherently (when applied by fallible humans, at least) utilitarian in nature--utilitarian, i.e., in the sense that bona-fide rights are jeopardized.
I don't see how any deterring criminal justice system with any degree of complexity for any significantly-sized group of people can be anything but utilitarian in the undesirable sense of that term to at least some extent. God's utilitarian action is never, IMO, like that. IMO, His always renders all people at least no worse off with some or all actually better off. Human utilitarianism isn't that effective, and almost always results in the violation of what we would normally think of as rights, intentional or not.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/29/2011 6:52:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/30/2011 3:28 PM (GMT -6) | | I would like to clarify what I said here:
2) Once you start using collectively-implemented force beyond that which is an immediate, minimally-sufficient act of self-defense, you are getting into modes of force that are inherently (when applied by fallible humans, at least) utilitarian in nature--utilitarian, i.e., in the sense that bona-fide rights are jeopardized.
To be coherent here, I have to admit that when the state does due diligence in it's God-given duties, it is within its rights even WHEN it incidentally harms the legally-innocent.
E.g., if, by applying due process with due diligence, the State still fails to protect the innocent from State force (and it matters not whether that deterring force is market-driven), no ultimate right can be violated. Because rights and duties are correlative. So long as the State (collective human action) is acting aright according to it's divine mandate, it does no wrong in failing to be omniscient and therefore applying what seem to it to be the "best," albeit fallible practices.
That doesn't necessarily imply that a law-abiding victim of fallible due process is obligated to submit to punishment rather than trying to escape incarceration. But the law-abiding victim would still have the duty of trying to act consistently with the golden rule in any attempted escape from incarceration.
All this gets down to theology. If, as the bible suggests,
1) God has limits to His forbearance such that His wrath or sorrow can reach degrees that compel Him to do such things as Flood the earth, intervene with divine judgment in the earth, etc, and
2) Humanly-implemented deterring force has been authorized by God to postpone the occurrences of 1),
then some kind of utilitarianism just IS legitimate. But whether the biblical perspective on this is wrong is irrelevant. It's not PROVABLY false. More to the point, natural evil has similar implications for this-worldly, divine utilitarianism anyway. That's why theodicy is impossible without positing post-mortem states to get around the seemingly non-benevolent implications of our undeniable state of affairs.
So if the only way that otherwise imperfect, this-worldly, divine utilitarianism is made perfect by resulting in a state of affairs where all divine action and delegation results in:
1) No one being worse off, and
2) possibly some or all being better off,
is by God acting upon humans post-mortem (as virtually all religions posit), then we just need to be consistent with the bare minimum implications of that. I see that as indicating, inductively, UR. Regardless, the point is, there are no a priori or intuitive truths that can prove to us the bible is true or that it is not true.
The evidence for the bible being true, historically, is INDUCTIVE. You either believe the gospels and the other NT "historical-seeming" comments are historical, based on historical arguments, or you don't. If you do, then the next question is, do the authors of the NT and Jesus seem to view the OT as historical or not? That's all you have RATIONALLY.
But we can't prove it IS false, so it's a theological contender, regardless. Because it is an instance of theological views grounded in the intuition of benevolent design. What seems undeniable to me is that:
1) duties and rights are correlative
2) duties, if they exist at all, imply a competent, benevolent designer
3) given the natural evils, etc of this world, the designer is only benevolent if there are post-mortem states for humans such that there is an intelligible moral order at all,
4) given 3), utilitarianly-applied deterring force can be warranted on the grounds of post-mortem states and ONLY on those grounds.
5) all but the most trivial humanly-applied deterring force IS utilitarian in nature in the less-than-perfect sense of that word.
All duty is ultimately rational only if this intuition is true: All obligatory human action is consistent with and/or conducive to the highest natural good of all members of the moral community. If that intution is not true, there is no such thing as obligatory action that is knowable by any HUMAN epistemological mode of inference.
Probably what we need, to avoid confusion from the term utilitarianism, is to use 2 different terms for the 2 different senses in which it can be used. One sense allows for some to be made worse off so that some can be made better off. The other sense requires that NO one can be made worse off, while some or all will be better off. Open theism alone can't get you past the first sense.
And that's why open theism is just ONE aspect of a complete theodicy. Moreover, UR alone can't get you a complete theodicy unless the problem of natural evil can be accounted for in terms of it. Greg and I agree (or used to agree, at least) that natural evil is too extreme to be plausibly accounted for in terms of mere soul-making theodicy since the degree and distribution of natural evil is too inexplicably variable to be plausibly explained in terms of anything we can know about soul-making. To me, natural evil is best explained, in part, in terms of an "enemy hath done this" type explanation, both biblically and rationally.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I missing something?
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/30/2011 3:58:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/30/2011 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: If it's a reasonable expectation that everyone is gonna use force to retool reality more to their liking...there aren't gonna be any hospitals. There is not gonna be any high level of civilization AT ALL.
Jeff: I think this is where you are making an implausible, non-intuitive assumption. You're assuming that there is a sufficient number of people that would act with civility without some kind of collective institution exercising deterring force in their behalf. This assumption is tested every time there is a major loss of normal modes of travel, access to energy, etc. Total civility is almost always diminished when this happens precisely because the normal systems of deterrence are weakened in their effectiveness.
Look at what happened in New Orleans a few years ago, etc. Your assumption doesn't seem to fit the evidence. Granted, the State made that situation worse than it could have been, but had they done nothing, the over-all level of civility would have still been diminished because of the removal of the normal modes of deterrence.
Indeed, had the State done nothing, there would have been other forms of collectivized force applied by all sides of every conflict in that situation. Otherwise, the thugs would have prevailed. Collective use of force by lots of people who would have INTERVENED (not acting in self-defense) to affect the outcome of the situation would have been the norm. If you think we would have hospitals without an institutional/collective use of deterring force, that is where you and I disagree. So I would need to know your evidence for believing otherwise.
What type of anarchist are you? Do you ONLY believe in self-defense? Do you also believe in collectivized deterrence as long as it's market-based? There's too many different classes of anarchists for me to know your precise position from the mere term "anarchist." Some self-professed anarchists believe in the collectivized use of deterring force so long as its market-based. For example, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchist, Rothbard believed in:
"a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.[4] The belief, among free-market anarchists, is that this competition thus will tend to produce cheaper and higher-quality legal and police services including "a high-quality good of impartial, efficient umpiring of conflicting rights claims".[5]"
But in that sense, Rothbard is not disagreeing with my position. He's just arguing for what he thinks is the best way to implement what I believe to be a divinely-authorized right of humans to collectively defend, by deterring force, what they perceive to be their God-given rights. The abstract right/duty to act towards an end is one thing; the preferred mode of that action is another.
I believe that the collective use of force should be as fair as is collectively possible. Regardless, I'm constrained by the collective nature of that action. And I see no right, deducible from first principles or scripture, to personally act in other than self-defense. Apart from that personal action, I'm constrained by the collective nature of the determination as to what mode of deterring force will be used by the society I find myself born into, regardless of Rothbard's and my preferences. I can argue, as Rothbard did, for different modes of that action, but I think Rothbard's view is only possible with a society which is much more civil than the ones that actually exist on the face of the earth.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 4/30/2011 7:24:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/1/2011 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, Asher, I didn't see your comment about being in the hospital until last night when I was going back in the thread. I pray all is well with you and yours, bro.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/1/2011 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
|  Posted 5/1/2011 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | No, I'm alright.
I was in the hospital in the thought experiment from an earlier post, sorry for any confusion.
Thanks for the concern though guys  | | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|