This morning, I followed up on some blog exchanges at the UD blog where I contribute.
One of the issues that came up is the justification of morality, with implications for the role of moral issues in democratic decision-making. Which echoes the themes, concerns and issues of Acts 27.
As this is an area under particular attack in our day at the hands of radical groups and the academics that back them up with arguments that can be impressive, I think a one slice of the cake has in it all the ingredients (HT: Billy Hall) example may be helpful here at KF.
KN, below, is a philosophy professor and is challenging the issue of the objective vs the subjective in morality, with obvious implications for democratic politics.
Let me therefore start a bit earlier with clips from a comment where I highlighted the issue of what is objective vs what is subjective, to which KN was responding, and from which I snipped what I went on to discuss earlier theis morning.
Notice, how I picked up the key Acts 27 case:
Definitions that may help:
Collins English Dict:
OBJECTIVE: objective [?b?d??kt?v] adj
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.
SUBJECTIVE: subjective [s?b?d??kt?v] adj
1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the
thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered
2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices, etc. subjective views
3. relating to the inherent nature of a person or thing; essential
4. (Philosophy) existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself
Notice, it is subjects who know, so the bridge between the mentality
of the subject and the objectivity of what is known is warrant. Warrant
that creates the status of beliefs that are credibly true and well
warranted.
It should be patent that the vote of 51% or more generally of three
wolves and two sheep on what is for lunch, is not sufficient to provide
warrant that would lead to the conclusion that the result of a vote is
warranted as true, rather than reflective of the agendas and desires of a
given cluster of subjects at a given time on a particular topic.
 |
| In a storm and heading to be aground at Malta . . . |
This in turn may well simply be the result of the sort of
manipulations and distortions that led to the famous incident of sailing
out from Fair Havens when that sweet south wind blew, in Acts 27. For
here we have a case where prudent counsels based on the warrant of wide
and painful experience (three shipwrecks to that date) were brushed
aside in light of the smooth words of an interested ship’s owner and
his kubernete, playing on the discomfort of the general lot of
passengers and suppressing the pivotal issue of the risks that were
being run.
Kindly, cf the study on this incident here. [Also cf. here.]
I fear, this is all too relevant to where our civilisation as a whole
now is, and so also to where all too many of its governments, dominant
media houses, opinion leaders, countries and communities are at this
time.
This was followed by a multi-sided exchange of comments, and I clipped and commented this morning, as follows:
KN, re:
604: I think that if we’re really going to draw the line
between the subjective and the objective in the right place, then
“social facts” (prices, laws, etc.) will have to come out as objective.
I’d like to place the onus on those who deny that social facts are
objective to explain why that is.
So just because something is objective, doesn’t really tell us where
in the ultimate ontology it will fall. The objectivity of social facts
is clearly quite different from the objectivity of logical principles or
physical laws, and the objectivity of morality is almost certainly
different from all of them.
606: it’s not really clear to me just why it is that objective
knowledge needs to be ‘grounded’ in a ‘world-view’. If we have really
good reasons to accept that morality is objective, why does it need to
be ‘grounded’ in anything else?
And as I’ve indicated many times before, I worry that ‘grounded’ in
an “accordion word”: the meaning of it stretches and collapses according
to context and use. I can think of at least three different senses of
‘grounding’: causal explanation, rational justification, and
phenomenological elucidation. And while we do need all of them, they are
not the same thing!
First, we live in a world where we face those who operate on the
nihilist premise and praxis that might and manipulation make ‘right,’
and who routinely employ selectively hyperskeptical objections.
So,
coherence in warrant leads to moving across a range of knowledge areas
and points. Next, warrant is inherently going to ask for underlying
support. That process of challenge is going to have to end up somewhere,
not least because we are finite, so we are forced to stop somewhere.
In
addition, we have things like the first principles of right reason that
are rooted in the necessities of the world, i.e. identity is a first
step, distinction is locked into it and confusion is locked out, or we
get nowhere. Similarly, once a thing exists, it is legitimate to ask,
why and to seek a good answer. That leads to issues of causation and
contingency and to the contrasted necessity.
All of these and more push us to think worldviewishly.
Certainly, as a community of thought and argument towards understanding and action.
In that context what you call social facts are objective though often
conventional. As the posted definition above highlights, they are of
course understood and known by subjects but they are not simply in the
minds of subjects. The definition of the unit of temperature, or length,
or speed etc are objective but are conventional.
That does not at all mean that all facts are conventional, nor that
the use of language or symbols renders such facts to be mere
conventions. The truth in 3 + 2 = 5 is necessary, and will hold in any
possible world. And I use possible world talk to underscore the radical
contingency in our course of events, the sheer, it could have
significantly been otherwise-ness of it. That is as legitimate an entry
point to discuss contingency/necessity and cause etc as any other
alternative. And because it is empirical, it is far more appealing to
our common sense ability to reason. A world in which instead of typing
just now I had decided to go get a fruit snack, is obviously a logically
and physically possible state of affairs that just happens not to have
been realised because I made a choice to type rather than to eat.
(Onlookers, believe it or not, this is a debated point in the rarified
heights of philosophy.)
Yes, the way in which something is objective varies on a case by case
basis. No one pretended otherwise. But the basic point remains, such
things are not figments of our fevered imaginations, and hold regardless
of our opinions, power games and manipulation games. We defy them to
our peril.
As the people of the Orient used to say, it is futile to try to order
water to flow uphill. It would be even worse to try to build a social
world on the assumption that water flowing downhill is a matter of
convention and we can redefine reality to suit ourselves by making an
agreement.
Or, in Abraham Lincoln’s deceptively simple example, he once asked
one of his advisors what would happen if we defined that a sheep’s tail
were a leg. How many legs would a sheep then have. Five. Nope, simply
saying that a tail is a leg does not make it into a leg, e.g. it simply
cannot do what legs do.
(For just one current instance on the significance of this sort of
word magic confusion, those who are tossing around clever slogans on
“marriage equality” and the like just now should do some serious
rethinking about why marriage has universally been understood to be a
way to stabilise and recognise the bond between man and woman in the
context of raising up the next generation. And, we should ask ourselves
some pretty hard questions about who would benefit from radical
destabilisation of society through further undermining of marriage
and/or who seeks to gain something enough for themselves that they are
willing to run the social risks involved in manipulating society like
this. [Onlookers, cf here and here
on the Acts 27 challenge to democratic and managerial decision-making,
in light of a highly relevant and instructive historical case. One I
have used to teach the pitfalls in collective and managerial decision
making.])
Just so, in the moral sphere, if lying were universalised, society
would break down.
That is one way of reasoning about the destructive
nature of evils, and it helps people see the importance of keeping to
moral principles and cultivating the character that habitually lives by
the right and the truth. But an analytical concept such as the Categorical Imperative [KN had earlier referred to this concept promoted by Kant], as
just used, does not substitute for character cultivation or sound
instruction in principles and examples, or the influence of positive
models of the principles.
So, we see the very process of showing things objective puts them in a
worldviews context, and points onward to the need for general grounding
of a worldview. Absent that, we find the sort of all too malleable
ignorance, lack of capability to think for oneself and resulting
vulnerable instability that too many radicals are only too happy to
find.
Wolves love nice, peaceable, gullible sheep, for lunch.
As in: easy meat.
And yes, there may be sufficient grounding in a narrow sense in
showing a narrow warrant for a given case, but that normally happens in
cases where there is a general agreement on underlying principles,
premises and contexts of wisdom. We no longer have that state, we live
in a world where radical, ruthless, polarising pressure groups are
perfectly willing to try to overthrow any and everything, in the
interests of pushing their agendas.
So, we need to address grounding issues in the full orbed worldviews sense.
Which as a philosopher, you should be well aware of. Perhaps, you are trying to play at Socrates to pull out.
Never mind, by the time of Aristotle, we see full didactic exposition
as a standard approach and even in Plato’s Socrates, we often enough
see Socrates or some other stand-in going into full lecture or
presentation mode.
There is a place for back-forth conversation, thee is a place for
formal debates and panels, and there is a place for exposition and
articulation of views or cases. Then, one may carry out a critical
review or even a discussion.
Indeed that is exactly what the UD blog often provides.
So, we live in a time where there are so many intersecting,
interacting crises and issues and contentions that we routinely need to
address worldviews level issues. Indeed, given what we have seen ever so
often at UD, we too often have to start as far back as the credibility
of first principles of right reason. (Onlookers, cf here on to see what that looks like at 101 level, in a Judaeo-Christian worldview context.)
That is how bad things are with our mortally wounded civilisation.
My only real hope for us, is that I do believe in miracles.
And, on morality, we need to start from key moral facts or points of
consensus, and draw out the deeper implications and contexts that make
sense of that, leading onward to the worldview context.
So, we start with a point that no-one will dare deny (but many will
try to brush aside or ignore), e.g. that it is objectively ,
horrifically wrong to kidnap, rape, torture and murder a young child, to
make a snuff video for sick fun and blood money profit.
This brings to bear many of the issues, current (sadly, snuff videos
are credibly real through thankfully rare) and recently historical (e.g.
what was happening in the Nazi death camps or the various Gulags was
close enough to give pause), as well as from the deeper past (I could
give you some horror stories on slavery . . . let’s just say that the
second motto of the antislavery movement, based on Philemon vv 1 – 3 and
15 – 17, was “Am I not a Woman and a Sister?” The horrors that patently
lie behind that, we need not elaborate. Just say, I am descended from
slaves liberated in material part through the work of that society and
its leaders. We must never ever ever forget.)
This brings us to the issue of rights, a universally recognised
principle: fairness and fundamental moral worth behind it, raising
issues of equality and duties of care to respect the other. Even, if
marginalised, oppressed and voiceless.
That such basic rights are objective is seen from the patent
absurdities and hopeless morass of contradictions and hypocrisies that
result from ignoring or manipulating them.
That is, I argue here in a
nutshell that once we listen to and cultivate the voice of conscience as
the candle within and do not snuff it out, we will see that certain
moral principles are fundamental and are self-evident, such that to
abandon them comes at a price of absurdity, hypocrisy and destructive
evil. And, onward, of crushing conscience and descending into a morass
of darkness and evil as does not bear raising from the depths of our
worst nightmares.
But we have had several examples in living memory.
Why
is it that we are so often so insistent on forgetting or dismissing
them?
Will we not even learn from history, if from nothing else?
Indeed, sadly, in the current pushes by radical agendas of various
stripes but a common ruthless nihilism, we see that freedom of
conscience, worship, opinion, speech, association and expression are —
yet again! — under threat, with government backing in too many cases,
all in the false name of liberation and agendas being pushed by radicals
of several stripes.
When for instance we see so-called new atheists
standing up in public or in print and declaring that raising a child in a
Christian tradition is child abuse, given the laws and bureaucracies on
such abuse that is a shocking declaration not only of contempt and
willfully arrogant ignorance, but it is a threat, one that is already
being acted on in subtle ways.
And, we do not hear a call to stop, rein in and apologise for such foolish, polarising and wicked rhetoric.
Instead, such men are feted and celebrated.
That speaks volumes, telling, shameful and horrific volumes.
But now, let us look at a pair of key historical state papers on the
subject of rights and how pivotal such are , and their worldview
connexions. Notice, also the clear historical links on the flow and
further articulation of key ideas:
Dutch DOI, 1581: . . . a prince is constituted by
God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence
as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people
slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong,
but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he
could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and
support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even
at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not
behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities
to infringe their ancient customs and privileges . . . then he is no
longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in
no other view . . . This is the only method left for subjects whose
humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or
dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law
of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to
transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. . . . . So,
having no hope of reconciliation, and finding no other remedy, we have,
agreeable to the law of nature in our own defense, and for maintaining
the rights, privileges, and liberties of our countrymen, wives, and
children, and latest posterity from being enslaved by the Spaniards,
been constrained to renounce allegiance to the King of Spain, and pursue
such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient
liberties and privileges.
US DOI, 1776: When . . . it becomes necessary for one
people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 -
15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future security . . . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of
America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge
of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and
discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good
People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,
and that all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of
this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and
our sacred Honor.
Do you notice how both these papers pivot on issues of rights, linked
duties of office and general care, and the underlying premise that our
nature is rooted in the law of our nature under our Creator, the good
God who has given us a fundamental moral worth?
Let me further underscore, from the extended citation by Locke in the
passage in his second treatise on civil gov’t, Ch 2 sect 5, in which he
referred to “the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker,” to ground
such pivotal concepts:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much
at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I
look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be
careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . .
. my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as
possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward
fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between
ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons
natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . .
[[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk
8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do
none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we
must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all
violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ]
[[Eccl. Polity, preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
We had better wake up and think through what is going on, before it is too late for even a miracle to save us.
In short some very serious issues are at stake behind the smooth curtains and group-s of talking heads spouting well crafted, focus group tested media spin-based talking points that so often pass for both news and views or even political deliberation on matters of importance today.
My fear is that we are about to end up -- if we are lucky -- caught in a storm and then hitting on the rocks like Paul's ship in Acts 27. If we are not lucky, our fate may be far more bloodily costly than merely losing ship, cargo and possessions in a shipwreck.
So, that is why I am calling for a very, very serious and sober reconsideration of what is going on as we so glibly talk and echo the talking points about rights, freedoms, equality, prosperity, peace, sustainability etc etc and democratic decision-making in our region and wider civilisation today.
I fear, our civilisation is at Fair havens, and the money interests, technical experts who know who pays for their bread and butter, academics and so forth are busily spinning away, and in many cases will not hesitate a moment if they think they can get away with a big lie tactic, as Hitler so often resorted to.
Let me quote him (via the excellent site, Jewish Virtual Library) on a subject where he is a genuine expert, as the ghosts of sixty million victims of his demonic madness -- and, though it is extremely politically incorrect to day such, I mean that quite literally (too many could not discern such an evil spirit until it was too late!!!!) -- can testify:
. . . in the big lie there is always a certain force
of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small
lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but
would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never
come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would
not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth
so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be
brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after
it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. [Mein Kampf, p. 134]
Of course, he compounded the effect of this declaration by twisting it about and casting it in the face of his intended targets, the Jews, as a turnabout false accusation tied to polarising stereotyping, namecalling and scapegoating:
From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others
how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence
founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community,
where as in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest
thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time
with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. Schopenhauer
called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do not
realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will
never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.
Sadly, the warning on turnabout, polarising false accusations, scapegoating and so on are again all to relevant, and the pattern of hostility to Jews is again on the table.
That, however, is not our main point.
What we must soberly consider, is where we are and what we face now as a civilisation.
Frankly, in some regards, maybe Fair havens is not the right point to pick up the story of Acts 27. In too many cases we have already set sail, beguiled by those who tickled our itching ears with what we want to hear, and we are sailing along in the smug, euphoric confidence of that sweet south wind that seems to be oh so favourable.
Whatever could go wrong? It's smooth sailing, never mind those fuddy duddies and nay sayers.
Just wait till we round the cape.
Then, we will be learning what he following warning from the prince of prophets means:
Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood,
who draw sin as with cart ropes,
19 who say: “Let him be quick,
let him speed his work
that we may see it;
let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near,
and let it come, that we may know it!”
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!
24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble,
and as dry grass sinks down in the flame,
so their root will be as rottenness,
and their blossom go up like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. [ESV]
We are playing with fire, and frankly, too often the pulpits of our churches and the voices on our Christian radio and magazine shows are utterly irrelevant, bereft of sound intellectual and prophetic cultural leadership.
Do we not understand that if we allow people to be so deceived that they cannot or will not hear the voice of the Living God, that is to their peril?
Do we not understand that we need to provide a reasonable alternative, in intelligible terms, in sufficient good time that when we have to stand up as good men and women in the storms to come, we will be heard?
Is that not exactly what Paul laid out before us as an example in Acts 27?
And, is that not the exact contrast he lays out in Eph 4:
Eph 4:9 (In saying, “He ascended”, what does it mean but that he [Jesus] had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.
18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practise every kind of impurity.
20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. [ESV]
If this is anything, it is a call to prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership that under Christ, opens the door to reformation and to transformation of life and community through repentance and trust in Christ.
How can we do any less in a day like ours?
So, yet again: why not now? Why not here? why not us? END
