Biblical Inequality
Of all the sexist biblical passages elevating men above women, one of the most absurd denigrates child birth as “impure” then adds insult to injury by proclaiming that giving birth to a female is twice as impure as giving birth to a male. The good book degrades women further with the mandate that the “unclean” mother can only be cleansed by bringing offerings (lunch) to the priest (male of course).
It boggles the mind that any self-respecting woman or half-enlightened man could claim such nonsense to be the wisdom of a perfect being rather than the misogynistic madness it is.
Lv 12:1-8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
I did not reject christianity because of its mysogeny. I actually read the bible more now than I ever did, and am constantly shocked by the blatant discrimination. Here's a link to a portion of the skeptic's annotated bible - there are 300 versees in Genesis alone that should horrify any self-respecting woman (or man for that matter). Ever wonder why the trinity couldn't have at least one woman in it? The trinity is three GUYS! Wouldn't it have made more sense to at least have heavenly father, heavenly mother, and heavenley son (or holy spirit or whatever)? The bible does not even attempt to mask its hatred for women. That is because that was acceptable in days of yore. And because the bible writers were men immersed in that culture, they had no clue that we would evolve as humans far from the violent and patriarchal thinking of the past. If the bible truly was written by holy hands, it would have known that partnership, equality, and love are the highest aspirations of humankind.
Sorry my bad. It's not just the book of genesis. It looks like it's the whole bible. (typical atheist, trying to take the bible out of contest again...)
Hmmmm,
Hello John & Janet; although I have several threads of thoughts about this post I have hesitated to respond from a theological standpoint since they do not seem to be cogent or robust enough for my personal satisfaction. Some of these threads of thought relate rather good responses from two bad theologies i.e. open & progressive. Another was in the form of a humorous jib, but since we don’t know each others sensibilities well enough I thought better of it. Needless to say as a conservative this leaves me somewhat, for the time being, mute (theologically speaking) on the subject.
Nevertheless, there is a more subtle problem underlying your comments, namely that of cultural hegemony. Underlying the comments are your western assumptions and as such you implicitly juxtapose your values over and against what for the major part of the world remains a normative mindset.
Should you ask many others that are as yet untouched by western let alone Christian values at first blush their responses would be that it is counterintuitive & indeed not “natural”?
Your normative values of sexual equality are not shared by all, particularly non westerners, not even by its women folk. As such your reflections are only your cultural view of that which is right. Each culture has both its unique and sometimes overlapping set of moral values but some are in direct contravention of our conventions and social mores.
My point is this, from an anthropological point of view, who are you to judge?
I find myself struggling with the issue of ethnocentrism. I am still on a "truth finding mission", but at this point I believe that there are some absolute morals than transcend culture and time. I doubt that humans have changed substantially over the past 5 or 6 thousand years. Nobody wants to be a slave; nobody wants to be murdered or tortured; nobody wants to be discriminated against. I believe the values of love, minimizing suffering, equality, open debate without fear of repercussions etc are moral absolutes from which we can judge ourselves and, to be brutally honest, judge others also. I do not subscribe to the view that we must respect other cultures at any cost. I read a story in the news several weeks ago about a Pakisanii woman who had been gang-raped, got pregnant, and sought an abortion. She was stoned for dishonouring her family. This may be a cultural norm; but it is unacceptable because it oppresses a segment of our society.
In the same way, I view the bible from the perspective of someone with these beliefs. Do you really believe that genocide, slavery, oppression and subjegation of women and children were ok because they happened long ago in a cultural where that was normal behaviour? I'm thinking that if a perfect god had written the bible, he may have pointed out thse issues to the people of the time rather than encouraging them, and even issuing commandments to solidify these cruel rules. Mysogeny is wrong; it limits the potential of half the population. It causes all sort of social and pschological ills. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can argue that we have no right to judge other cultures when they clearly violate human rights and take precious lives so casually.
I would like to add another thought. A huge part of my issue with world religions is that they do normalize oppression of women. Women have dreams, talents, ambitions; who can say that men have the right to reduce women to second class citizens? And the fact that some people may still believe that women are worth less than men does not make this an acceptable "norm". I believe that as enlightened people we need to ensure that we are always fighting for human rights around the globe. And I know you will take issue with the word "enlightened" - who am I to say that I am enlightened? We could go arouind in circles forever on that - but I see our culture evolving toward a more egalilitarian, cooperative model. The world works well when there is no hate; when people do not only look out for themselves but also for their "fellow man/woman". We can see the "fruit" of religious division and hate; is this the world we want to live it? Or do we want to live in a world where we strive to be brothers and sisters?
Hello Janet
What is your reason for holding these views? Are you saying that anthropology isn’t a science & shouldn’t be respected? As for absolute morals where on “earth” do they come from? As William Graham Sumner argues in his book Folkways “all morality can be explained in naturalistic, cultural terms, morality is not objective in any sense. Instead it finds its genesis in the subjective conventions of culture, known as folkways or mores… Immorality never means anything but contrary to the mores of time & place” So, there are only social conventions, there are no absolutes! Only cultural bias!
As for slavery, in the word of Bob Dylan "you’re gonna have to serve somebody” there are only different levels of comfort.
In respect of Gods ambitions for this code I, as yet, remain mute, but fascinated.
myrtle,
Thanks for your thoughts. In regards to my condemnation of inequality between men and women in the bible you ask, “...who are you to judge?”
Hmmmm, am I not allowed to judge? Would you explain this? Do you feel it appropriate that I may judge things that happened today but not yesterday? May I only judge things that happen in my culture but not other cultures?
Hello John,
Nice to hear from you. However I see you do not wish to address my questions.
myrtle,
Your question was what gives me the right to judge, correct?
We of course make countless judgments every day. That is how we are able to function. Making judgments is an inherent part of us, like laughter or fear. To not make judgments would be unnatural. So your question is nonsensical. It is like asking a dog what gives it the right to bark.
Sorry John, I can’t have explained myself well. Let me condense & rephrase; scientific secular humanism (anthropology) holds that cultural biases have so seriously blinded us that we can never know the truth of things. Are you saying you do know the truth?
myrtle, thanks for clarifying. So your question is not what gives me the right to judge but do I think I “know the truth?”
I would think we would want to agree on the definition of truth before going further. To me, we must first recognize that we can know nothing with absolute certainty which leaves us to manage with a scale of probability. I would say it seems quite probable that something we call “reality” exists. This exists independent of us. For me, “truth” is simply a human idea floating in our little fallible minds which supposedly corresponds to reality but never fully does due to the limited and subjective nature of our minds.
What is your definition of truth?
Sorry John, once again I have mislead you. I should have said, are you saying you know the truth & ergo sum have the right to judge?
One more clarification and I think we’re there...Do I know the truth about what specifically?
Just so that I understand; it seems to me that you are saying that you agree with the current anthropological view that our cultural bias has blinded us so that our ethnocentricity hinders us from correctly evaluating other cultures. Furthermore that as you say “we can know nothing with absolute certainty” and therefore there are no absolutes, nevertheless you still have truth enough to pass judgements on others that have a differing ethnocentricity?
myrtle,
You say, “nevertheless you still have truth enough to pass judgements...”
I am uncomfortable with your phrasing that I “have truth” because it makes it sound as if truth is something more than it is, something outside of us that we can get and hold. As I said, I consider truth to simply be an idea. So again, your question is doesn’t quite make sense to me.
Are you asking upon what basis do I form my opinions on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? And again I would ask you to be very specific about what we are talking about me judging. Is it the specific passage in the bible I referred to in the initial post, the Israelite culture of 2,000 years ago, the idea of divine revelation... what exactly?
So John, as you say truth isn’t “something outside of us that we can get and hold. As I said, I consider truth to simply be an idea.”
I assume then you think that truth is relative & there are no absolutes? If so is that not incongruent with the notion that though your secular humanism demands that all moral codes are equal with no absolutes you disagree with this and go on to insist that your particular brand of western morality is enlightened & you prescribe this morality despite the fact it that may offend other sensibilities.
myrtle,
I would say “absolutes” are beyond us. How can the all too human mind possibly comprehend “absolute”? It is an impossibility. So yes, I would say there are no absolutes, or if there are, we cannot know them.
You suggest that without absolutes I must believe “all moral codes are equal”. Do you really think that? That I must think the Nazi, Christian, Buddhist, American Indian, etc., moral codes are all equal? Surely you want to rephrase your question, yes?
John,
when you said "I would say there are no absolutes, or if there are, we cannot know them"
are you "absolutly sure" that there are none and we cannot know them?
Futhermore, when you say “You suggest that without absolutes I must believe “all moral codes are equal”. Do you really think that? That I must think the Nazi, Christian, Buddhist, American Indian, etc., moral codes are all equal?
Perhaps you should contend with the philosopher Louis Pojman when he affirms “there are no objective moral principals, but rather all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance.”
From the secular view point you have no choice.
John,
It seems to me that you have a trilemma
1. You can retreat into the “we don’t know camp”. Somehow I don’t think that’s you.
2. You can position yourself along normative ethical relativism which holds that the genesis & justification for morality is culture. However this is easily refuted since if there were no culture there would be no morality. Hence if two people lived on opposite sides of an island with no culture between them, one could kill the other on a whim without violating any ethical norm. Thus all the “genocide, slavery, oppression and subjugation” that Janet expressed earlier in our conversation, no matter how repugnant, would be morally benign. We never say about a lion killing a zebra that evil! There is no ethic that has been contravened & moreover since only culture decides there is no objective outside norms, values conventions or morals. I suspect that as an evangelist for secular humanism you need to know that your philosophy is bankrupt when you come to absolutes in morality; in the naturalistic view there are none. Therefore other moralities to yours are not inferior to yours & you cannot therefore continue express with conviction that other “primitive” cultures are as you said “absurd” or “nonsense”. What’s more not only that you cannot keep on rationalising you’re morality by using morally judgemental language.
3. The third option is where you do not want to go; of course it’s that there is an objective outside moral law giver.
John & Janet, I have to go out now but I will hopefully catch you again tomorrow.
myrtle,
As I said, we can know nothing with absolute or 100% certainty so even the statement “there is no absolute truth” must be understood as there is most “probably” none.
I am not familiar with Louis Pojman but there is a difference between acknowledging that different groups culturally justify their moral principals (which is clearly true) and saying that therefore a person cannot make judgments on those principals. (That is clearly false).
I would disagree with your point that if there was no culture there would be no morality. If there was only one person on the earth that person would still interact with the world and that interaction could still be considered moral or immoral.
I am confused by your statement here: “that other “primitive” cultures are as you said “absurd” or “nonsense”. ” You must have had a slip in comprehension for I never said such a thing.
You say “...you cannot keep on rationalising you’re morality by using morally judgemental language.”
I was not aware I was rationalizing my morality.
But for the sake of argument if I wanted to, how would you have me do that without using judgmental language? Shall I draw stick figures or blow bubbles?
As to your third point, could it be that you are being a bit presumptuous telling me where I want or do not want to go? I find it remarkable that I have enough trouble sorting things out in my mind and yet you know these things about me! Amazing.
I go where reason leads me. I have no precious preconceived idea of reality that I must protect at all costs. If evolution was proved erroneous tomorrow I would be ecstatic, or if reason led me to an “objective outside moral law giver” than no one would be happier than I. I don’t care “what” the truth of reality is, I am just interested in the truth itself.
Wonderful, stimulating discussion, both of you!
Janet
Thank you for the compliment, yes it is very stimulating, so much so that at my time of life I have to lie between responses to stop my heart bumping so loudly!
Hello John,
It seems that your response is a bit heavy on rhetoric and light on explanations. You say you disagree but then don’t explain why!
1) “As I said, we can know nothing with absolute or 100% certainty so even the statement “there is no absolute truth” must be understood as there is most “probably” none.”
So you aren’t sure if absolutes exist or not?
2) “I am not familiar with Louis Pojman but there is a difference between acknowledging that different groups culturally justify their moral principals (which is clearly true) and saying that therefore a person cannot make judgments on those principals. (That is clearly false).”
Since this statement flies in the face of scientific secular humanism (anthropology) as it holds that cultural biases have so seriously blinded us that we can never know the truth of things. You can still say that this doesn’t apply to you?
3) “I would disagree with your point that if there was no culture there would be no morality. If there was only one person on the earth that person would still interact with the world and that interaction could still be considered moral or immoral.”
You can disagree but you need to explain a little further and give an example
4) “I am confused by your statement here: “that other “primitive” cultures are as you said “absurd” or “nonsense”. You must have had a slip in comprehension for I never said such a thing.”
Ok, in your original post you used the terms absurd & nonsense it was I that used the term “primitive” since it appeared to me that this was implied. (I could be wrong here, my spouse often tells me I am!) Are you saying that the quote you were assessing in not from a primitive society?
5) “You say “...you cannot keep on rationalising you’re morality by using morally judgemental language.” I was not aware I was rationalizing my morality. But for the sake of argument if I wanted to, how would you have me do that without using judgmental language? Shall I draw stick figures or blow bubbles?”
Firstly, you make the point regarding the blindness of cultural bias by your statement “I was not aware I was rationalizing my morality” Secondly, “how would you have me do that without using judgmental language?” It’s your blog so that’s not my task to tell you how to do it. My only task it to challenge you to defend your underlying philosophical position and point out that it is self refuting; which I think I have succeeded in doing.
6) “As to your third point, could it be that you are being a bit presumptuous telling me where I want or do not want to go? I find it remarkable that I have enough trouble sorting things out in my mind and yet you know these things about me!”
Sorry for being presumptuous and I apologies if I am confusing you. It’s just the force of the logic that carried me away.
7) I go where reason leads me. I have no precious preconceived idea of reality that I must protect at all costs. If evolution was proved erroneous tomorrow I would be ecstatic, or if reason led me to an “objective outside moral law giver” than no one would be happier than I. I don’t care “what” the truth of reality is; I am just interested in the truth itself.
Well said!
But let me summarise and correct me if I am wrong:
• You are not sure if there are absolutes or not, at least there probably aren’t.
• You disagree with current anthropological thought and despite you do not know if there are any absolutes you still say you can see clearly enough to say other cultures are morally deplete in comparison to your western worldview.
• It seams that you think that a lone individual can have a cultural relationship with trees & grass etc… but you don’t explain how.
• Your unawareness of your ethnocentricity just dawning on you and you somehow think that drawing sticks and blowing bubbles is a suitable alternative.
• I am presumptions & you are confused
• You go where reason leads you but the force my arguments & the fact that you cannot rebut them doesn’t persuade you.
Now from your comments I cannot decide clearly which option from 1 or 2 you are running with, I Still think I detected you don’t care for the 3rd
myrtle,
First of all I would like to thank you for the conversation. I am enjoying it very much. To your points:
1. Nope.
2. I stand by my answers. Surely you agree with my first point and the second point seems just as self evident. I am guessing you have a problem with a person “justifying” their judgement but that is a different matter than simply judging.
3. Imagine everyone is whisked to heaven this afternoon but. If I sit around pulling the legs of spiders one by one or inflict needless suffering on other creatures in some way I would say that is immoral. If I use my time more productively, perhaps reading and studying ways to clean up the toxic dump we have made of the earth to help prevent suffering in my fellow creatures than that would be moral.
4. My beef is not at all with primitive societies. It is with the bible and not the bible as understood as being the word of ancient humans but specifically understood as the Word of God. What is absurd is the idea that the profound and natural act of childbirth is considered impure and that giving birth to a female child makes the act twice as impure as a male. Now it obviously was not absurd to the people who wrote this but to claim a perfect God thought such things seems if not absurd certainly unjust and unworthy of praise. Do you not agree?
5. Well maybe I am just dumb but you have certainly not proven anything to me at all about any of my arguments being “self-refuting”. But I certainly encourage you to keep trying! I would sincerely love for you to show me the errors in my thinking.
6. Apology accepted.
7. a. correct
b. ?
c. correct and have addressed that above
d. no, I asked for you to tell me how I should communicate these thoughts without using judgmental language and you have not answered that
e. Maybe I am blind and if you keep trying I will see the light but so far I don’t see your arguments as very compelling.
But you do make me think and for that I am grateful!
John, I am hurt & filled with self disappointment, deprecation & disapprobation. This is not your fault since I have clearly failed to drive home the logic. I ran through it again and again and find the logic flawless and cogent, yet I haven't communicated this to you; I am so sorry!
However, I note that you did not respond to my last remark
"Now from your comments I cannot decide clearly which option from 1 or 2 you are running with, I Still think I detected you don’t care for the 3rd"
myrtle,
I feel no need to respond to “remarks”. Your remark struck me as you simply talking to yourself. If you would like to pose a question I would be happy to answer it.
Also, I think it would help the conversation if you provided your definition of
1. truth
2. absolute truth
and provided an example of each
thanks
It's ok, I had a little weep & I feel much better now thank you.
Ok, my question is this; how do you come to the conclusion that since you acknowledge your ethnocentric blindness, your position appears to be that of a normative ethical relativist therefore you have no absolutes, yet you say there is such a thing a moral law? this is an oxymoron.
And still I note that you did not respond to my last question
"Now from your comments I cannot decide clearly which option from 1 or 2 you are running with, I Still think I detected you don’t care for the 3rd"
Myrtle, could you rephrase your question about ethnocentric blindness in simpler terms? You are dealing with a bit of a dolt here.
And you said,
“And still I note that you did not respond to my last question
"Now from your comments I cannot decide clearly which option from 1 or 2 you are running with, I Still think I detected you don’t care for the 3rd"
Questions end with question marks. How is this a question? This is a statement that you seem to be making to your self. If you would restate it as a question reminding me what the three options are I will be happy to answer it.
And please respond to my request (repeated here):
Also, I think it would help the conversation if you provided your definition of
1. truth
2. absolute truth
and provided an example of each
hello John, thank you for your comments I will respond but it will be long & so may take a little time.
Hello John (& I hope Janet)
Ok John lets for a moment relax;
Firstly you are not a “dolt” I can tell by your use of language and rapid responses that you quick minded and educated the kind of young person I rather envy. Now as for myself in the only IQ test I ever undertook, well before you were born, I scored less than average. I am slow of mind & always think of things to say after the event. Nevertheless I am dogged and over many years have compensated for my lack of mental agility with hard hard study. I envy those who can pick up a book and digest it in an evening where I would take 3 – 4 days. So in essence I am not intelligent like you, but I am well educated.
Now to your points:
1. Ethnocentric blindness (quotes from our previous conversation as examples)
a. 1)”Janet Thank you for the compliment, yes it is very stimulating, so much so that at my time of life I have to lie between responses to stop my heart bumping so loudly!” ‘2) “John, I am hurt & filled with self disappointment, deprecation & disapprobation. This is not your fault since I have clearly failed to drive home the logic. I ran through it again and again and find the logic flawless and cogent, yet I haven't communicated this to you; I am so sorry!” 3) “Its ok, I had a little weep & I feel much better now thank you.”
b. Here we have three comments they can be “seen” (a reference to blindness) as one of the following:
i. These are genuine descriptions of my physical and mental condition
ii. They’re in context, for those, like me, who live out on the margins and still drag our knuckles on the ground, the height of humour
iii. They are a literary device using irony to drive home a point.
iv. They are any or all three of the above
Now because you are unsure of whom I am where I come from you respond with dismissive remark.
If case i) were true you should have enquired after my health since at my time of life I could be physically frail and emotionally labile.
If case ii) was the correct understanding you didn’t get the humour because it’s out of your ethnic norm.
If its case iii) then I guess you missed or avoided the points being made.
I leave you to decide which or add to the list. The point is this; it’s not easy to decide without contextualising the comments, you where, if not blind, certainly needing glasses to grasp my worldview.
Now culture, that is language, food, dress, art, paralanguage, social conduct & view of time itself (we tend to view time as linear, some view it as circular & others see time as standing still & we pass through not it passing us) are all various across the world. Culture is also a posteriori that is we have come to an understanding or way of being about things through drawing conclusions and developing over time.
However my contention is this; whist certain facets of all cultures are different & all valuable when it comes to morality there are distinctions. At least some of morality is a priori & not a posteriori. This is to say that certain behaviours are intuitively and universally wrong not merely a cultural facet. There is an ontological difference in their very nature some things are culturally allowable whilst other are universally rejected.
Suppose that today you get three phone calls from foreigners. They are all arriving in your town on consecutive days. On the first day you spend a pleasant time with a Russian and drink vodka, the next an Englishman arrives and you politely drink tea & on to the third day someone from a remote part of Africa arrives and you share a glass of muddy water. So far so good, but something happens on leaving your home each of them picks up something of value puts into their pocket and leaves. What is your response, wow that a cultural faux pas! or do you intuitively know they have just knowingly stolen something?
One action was a cultural experience the other cuts across cultural boundaries and is universally wrong.
Early last year I watched a fledgling on my garden, a cat appeared & pounced on the little thing. The cat did not kill its prey but played with it. I went out in a rescue bid but it made of with it in its mouth. (The bird in the cats mouth not vice versa). Did the cat break any moral code? No, because cats don’t have moral codes they have instinctual behaviours. On the other hand if I came across a child in a park ruffed him/her up for fun and grabbed the child and ran would I have been immoral here or anywhere else on earth? Yes! So, some behaviour transcends cultural boundaries.
So let me recap, my contention is that some behaviours are culture dependant and these differences and sometimes our ethnocentric blindness because of our bias may make us ask a big why? there are of no moral consequences to the actions. Whereas, running contrary to this, other actions have objective & absolute moral consequences.
Now I guess you will have watched Star Trek with (deep voice required here) “the prime directive” of observing but not intervening. This is the anthological view. You may also be familiar with the Nuremburg Trials; the major defence presented was the conventionalist or normative ethical relativism, we only did what was conventionally accepted in our society, murdering Jews homosexuals, gypsies & those with learning difficulties was conventionally ok for them & so they followed orders.
Here is what Robert H Jackson chief counsel for U.S said “the issue was not one of power - the victor judging the vanquished - but one of higher moral law. The tribunal rises above the provincial & transient.” Where did this “higher moral law” come from?
Nevertheless much of western culture is known as “post modern” i.e. normative ethical relativism & even individual ethical relativism. That is to say that we generally want to “live and let live” “your truth isn’t my truth” etc… it’s a relative subjectivism with no absolute objective moral code.
If there are no objective absolute moral standards and under the relativistic anthropological view points there cannot be by reason that culture itself rises spontaneously from human social interaction with no outside objective status. The result can only be subjective “Who says I am wrong” “that just your idea of how we should live” attitude.
Now, because from our deliberations, although you resist being pinned down, you appear to be in either the individual or normative ethical relativist camp. Hence there are NO objective & absolute moral standards only subjective relativistic social phenomena. Yet like many they want an eclectic view, it’s subjective if it’s something I want to do and its objective when I don’t like what you want to do.
As Hamlet would say “ay, there's the rub” you can’t have both ways if you identify yourself as a relativist you cannot have any overarching moral codes and to claim so creates a world view that can only be described as an oxymoron & hence if you criticise another worldview it becomes cultural hegemony.
2. You are correct in that the statement does not read like a question, this is my error I realised this when I re read it after posting. Sorry for the confusion. The options are:
a. You can retreat into the “we don’t know camp”.
b. You can position yourself along normative ethical relativism which holds that the genesis & justification for morality is culture.
c. There is an objective outside moral law giver.
3. Request for definitions
a. Your request is somewhat counterintuitive. Since as Aristotle says “if nothing is self evident, then nothing can be proved”
b. Somewhat premature since as a relativist your “truth isn’t my truth” this would be like nailing jelly to the wall.
So again my question to you is how do you come to the conclusion that since you acknowledge your ethnocentric blindness, your position appears to be that of a normative ethical relativist therefore you have no absolutes, yet you say there is such a thing an absolute moral law? This is an oxymoron.
Now perhaps you can respond to my previous question
"Now from your comments I cannot decide clearly which option (above) from a, b or c you are running with?
I Still think I detected you don’t care for the 3rd"
Hope this helps
Sorry about the occasional wrong wording - where / were & there / their typos
I have also noted another technical omission but let’s see if you comment
All the best
myrtle,
Thank you for taking so much time and giving so much thought to your response. Much to digest!
I am disappointed that you have yet to provide your definition of truth and absolute truth and examples. I think that would truly help me answer your questions more cogently. Would you please do that before I respond further? Thanks-
My positions on your questions are implicit in my dialogue, also I think we need to ascertain your position on cultural relativism before we press on.
Please don’t make me sort through your thoughtful but lengthy response to try to decipher what your definitions are. I could quite easily misinterpret them and think it of great import that I don’t. Again, please provide your definition of:
a. truth
b. absolute truth
and give an example of each.
thanks very much!
myrtle,
I sense a great reluctance to offer the definitions I requested so rather than let the conversation die I will press on with my response to your post.
You say, “...certain behaviours are intuitively and universally wrong not merely a cultural facet.”
Americans may think it wrong to bury their children alive but there are groups of people today who do so to honor their god. So how does this fact jive with your claim that doing such a thing is “universally wrong”? (I condemn the act on the grounds that causing needless suffering and death is wrong, but clearly these people have a higher priority, namely pleasing their deity and feel they are acting in a godly way just as the men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers did)
You say “On the other hand if I came across a child in a park ruffed him/her up for fun and grabbed the child and ran would I have been immoral here or anywhere else on earth? Yes! So, some behaviour transcends cultural boundaries.”
I would agree. This points to our evolution as social creatures who have learned to live together in order to survive without great speed, warm fur, and sharp claws and teeth.
You say, “other actions have objective & absolute moral consequences.”
All actions have consequences. Call them moral consequences if you like but I think that just confuses the communication. And adding the word absolute confuses communication even further.
You say, “Here is what Robert H Jackson chief counsel for U.S said “the issue was not one of power - the victor judging the vanquished - but one of higher moral law. The tribunal rises above the provincial & transient.” Where did this “higher moral law” come from?”
People can say whatever flowery thing they choose to. “Higher moral law” is just an idea and is the very idea often used to justify (as seen throughout the bible and history) atrocities.
You say, “Hence there are NO objective & absolute moral standards only subjective relativistic social phenomena.”
I agree.
And you go on to say, “As Hamlet would say “ay, there's the rub” you can’t have both ways if you identify yourself as a relativist you cannot have any overarching moral codes and to claim so creates a world view that can only be described as an oxymoron & hence if you criticise another worldview it becomes cultural hegemony.”
You may call my reverence for life and criticism of other worldviews that I see as causing suffering “cultural hegemony” or whatever you want. I don’t pretend to be a final authority or to have “God” on my side. I simply know, for me personally, that causing suffering is wrong. I can justify that on the grounds of my experience with other beings that like me, prefer well-being over suffering.
You suggest that I believe, “there is such a thing an absolute moral law”. But I don’t. How could I when I have made a case for the absurdity of even comprehending something “absolute”? Simply because i exercise my right to find fault with other’s behavior in no way means I must therefore think there is an “absolute moral law”. It is simply my opinion that I express.
To your questions--finally!
a. You can retreat into the “we don’t know camp”.
I know from my experience that causing suffering makes me unhappy and makes the one I am causing to suffer unhappy. I want to be happy. I know I become more happy when I make others happy and I suffer when I make others suffer. So I would reject option a.
b. You can position yourself along normative ethical relativism which holds that the genesis & justification for morality is culture.
Well, morality differs greatly within a single culture. For instance, in America today, there are those who are pro-life and pro-choice and everything in between, war-mongers and pacifists and everything in between, those who think capital punishment is just and those who think it is vengeance and murder by another name and everything in between, those who are vegans and believe eating animals or even using them for milk and fur is akin to slavery and murder and there are happy go lucky hunters who kill for sport and order extra meat on their pizzas and everything in between . Obviously culture gives rise to, shapes, and offers justifications for morality and the more diverse a culture the more diverse opinions are on what is or is not “moral”. So my response to option b is: I agree.
c. There is an objective outside moral law giver.
I see absolutely no evidence for “an objective outside moral law giver” and so I must put the possibility that such a thing exists very low on my probability scale (right next to Santa Claus). So my response to option c is: it is possible but unlikely.
As a side note I would say “moral law giver” is an oxymoron. Morality has nothing to do with being obedient to a law. Morality is a personal decision not mere obedience to an external authority.
Thanks John,
Now we have a more accurate view of your philosophical code of ethics, the following quotes from your comments actually narrow down to not simply the anthropological view or even to normative ethical relativism but rather an individual ethical relativism.
“Morality is a personal decision not mere obedience to an external authority”
“I simply know, for me personally, that causing suffering is wrong. I can justify that on the grounds of my experience with other beings that like me, prefer well-being over suffering.”
Now that the first step is over with do wish to continue to deconstruct this ideology? You can get out of the cross examination any time you like, just dont reply.
All the best Myrtle
By the way John your photo looks just like Austin Dacey.
Did you see the Craig v Dacey “Does God exist” debate? Terrific stuff if you haven’t really closely run.
You can listen here or download on YouTube. I love that sort of stuff.
All the best
Myrtle
Oooops forgot to post the link
http://www.veritas.org/media
/talks/147
myrtle,
“Deconstruct” away! The only thing I enjoy more than
being undressed by a women is being deconstructed by one. I imagine you will likely do both.
Thanks John,
I am having a hot flush!!!
Did you look into the Austen Dacey thing I mentioned? It really is good stuff.
I am listening to the debate now. I about screamed when Craig suggested Dacey was being presumptuous. With that suggestion Craig showed he was either blissfully ignorant of his own presumptuousness or a hypocrite. Though I am learning some things from both of them I am starting to lose patience with such debates as I have listened to many and they are typically the same debate with different voices. The whole thing is as nonsensical and ultimately as fruitless as debating the existence of my pet invisible pink unicorn who insists he made the universe.
I hope you managed to listen through because I felt that Dacey puts the best case for Atheism I have heard.
For me it didn't tip the scales but on balance I thought his arguements persuasive.
I did finish listening and agree that Dacey made excellent arguments and liked his manner of delivery.
Hello John,
Hope you are having a good weekend.
Let me just recap. My accusation against you is that your original comments in this post display cultural hegemony a sort of moral imperialism.
I have further try to define your moral ethos and I think we agree by and large you fit into the category of individual ethical relativism. The prime decisive factors of which are that the only arbiter of morality is the individual, and that therefore there are NO absolutes only personal opinions.
Now I know you want to discuss “absolutes” & “truth” so but I am going to assume you have the same view about “truth” as you do about morality. This being the case we can now probably draw the conclusion that your full blown philosophical position is “post modernism”. We can now begin to look a little more closely at “truth” and “absolutes” as you requested.
However, because of the need to understand the epistemological context and the effects on the social construction of reality it would be good to first of all put in a little ground work that will help clarify some thing and enable an analyse of this.
We will need to look at Subjectivity – Objectivity & Deductive - Inductive methodology. Are you up for it?
Now let’s look back and examine one of your comments.
“Well, morality differs greatly within a single culture. For instance, in America today, there are those who are pro-life and pro-choice and everything in between, war-mongers and pacifists and everything in between, those who think capital punishment is just and those who think it is vengeance and murder by another name and everything in between, those who are vegans and believe eating animals or even using them for milk and fur is akin to slavery and murder and there are happy go lucky hunters who kill for sport and order extra meat on their pizzas and everything in between . Obviously culture gives rise to, shapes, and offers justifications for morality and the more diverse a culture the more diverse opinions are on what is or is not “moral”. So my response to option b is: I agree.”
February 26, 2009 1:06 PM
This type comment is called phenomenological language that is to say it is narrative or descriptive. It is useful but limited because what it lacks is analysis & explanatory scope.
“I didn’t sleep well last nigh but I was compensated by this morning by the delightful rising of the sun.”
This is phenomenological language it narrates an event and describes something about my experience. In itself it is “true” it’s about my experience but it is also subjective truth it is not objectively true.
Now you know as well as I do that the sun doesn’t actually rise; it only has the phenomenological appearance of rising.
An accurate objective rendering would be like this;
I didn’t sleep well last nigh but because of the earths orbit around the sun and rotation of the earth on its axis I was compensated by this morning by the apparent delightful rising of the sun.”
Anyway I have written enough for now if you desire to continue that fine if not its ok also
In the meantime all this doesn’t come free! If you are not already persuaded that much of your postings are cultural hegemony then what I propose is the following.
If after the conclusion of our discussions you can see that though within you personal moral code you may have the right to have your opinion according to your own moral code you don’t have the right criticize other moral codes because it contravenes your own moral code. (Thus being hypocritical) As a result you must go to your garden take a pebble about 1cm and place it in you sock and wear it for 24 hours even in your shoes & in bed.
Myrtle
Good morning, myrtle. I’m having a fantastic weekend. Had an incredibly interesting full day yesterday and came home late to find your comments which were a perfect cap to the day. Hope you having a wonderful weekend too, and of course, I am very interested in continuing the conversation!
Some comments on your post:
You recap by saying,“My accusation against you is that your original comments in this post display cultural hegemony a sort of moral imperialism.”
Not that it matters all that much for the sake of this conversation but to clarify, my original comments were not concerned with any “culture” but with the “God” of the bible. As I tried to make clear before, I don’t have and interest in the culture of ancient Israel, my concern is with the “bible” and the fact it is understood by so many as the supposed Word of a Perfect, Unchanging, Culturally Transcendent Being. So from that standpoint your “accusation” against me seems inappropriate, no?
But nevertheless, my “moral ethos” is the focus of the conversation now and I am very happy to dissect that.
You say, “I have further try to define your moral ethos and I think we agree by and large you fit into the category of individual ethical relativism. The prime decisive factors of which are that the only arbiter of morality is the individual, and that therefore there are NO absolutes only personal opinions. ”
I think that is an excellent summation.
You say, “Now I know you want to discuss “absolutes” & “truth” so but I am going to assume you have the same view about “truth” as you do about morality. This being the case we can now probably draw the conclusion that your full blown philosophical position is “post modernism”. We can now begin to look a little more closely at “truth” and “absolutes” as you requested. ”
I vehemently disagree here. I would say this about truth and morality:
Morality isn’t morality unless it emanates from within and thus must be a personal response to a particular situation drawing upon one’s own wisdom, sense of compassion and courage to go against the grain of culture if need be. Truth is the human, and therefore hopelessly incomplete and tainted approximation of reality. “Reality” is the shining goddess we long for, “truth” the decidedly less attractive stepsister.
Adding the word “absolute” does nothing but confuse. What, pray tell, is the difference between “truth” and “absolute truth”? Is truth less than absolute truth and absolute truth more? Where might I see absolute truth and how do I know it is “absolute” truth and not merely “truth” as it would seem to me inherently impossible for humans to grasp the “absolute”?
You suggest most of my postings are “cultural hegemony” but is that accurate if my focus is not culture but “God”?
You nicely summarized your argument here: “you may have the right to have your opinion according to your own moral code you don’t have the right [to] criticize other moral codes because it contravenes your own moral code.”
Could you clarify the difference between my “right to opinion” and my “right to criticize”? I see no difference.
I like your pebble idea and agree to the challenge. I wonder if you’ll be willing to do the same if you fail to persuade me?
hello again John (and I hope Janet) I hope you are recovered from your weekends enjoyments.
regarding your last post where you say:
"my original comments were not concerned with any “culture” but with the “God” of the bible. As I tried to make clear before"
Thank you John for this comment, but it had not escaped my attention what your real protestation was about. I think we can look at this soon but I have steered clear of that side of things purposefully & this is so good let’s for the time being enjoy the philosophy.
“Morality isn’t morality unless it emanates from within and thus must be a personal response to a particular situation drawing upon one’s own wisdom, sense of compassion and courage to go against the grain of culture if need be”
If I ever write a book or give a talk about this subject can I use your comment as a perfect example of the post modern thinker?
“Truth is the human, and therefore hopelessly incomplete and tainted approximation of reality. “Reality” is the shining goddess we long for, “truth” the decidedly less attractive stepsister.”
I do declare that I detect the post modern mind again! We cannot know truth so therefore “your truth isn’t my truth” etc etc…
Anyway, let explore this a little further & ask you if you like ice cream & if so what is your favorite? Secondly are there such things as numbers, that is, do things like 1 2 & 3 exist?
"I like your pebble idea and agree to the challenge. I wonder if you’ll be willing to do the same if you fail to persuade me?"
Unfortunately, a couple of years ago whilst in the wilderness I donned some camouflaged clothes and I haven’t been able to find my legs since! Besides which I have no illusions about this exercise (that’s the wrong word because it’s more than that) my only aim is to raise your awareness or as anthropologists say “consciousisation”. The other thing is you have the unfair advantage of simply saying "NO" I am not persuaded even if its untrue.
myrtle,
I am very much enjoying the “philosophy” sans the “God” topic. I love this type of conversation and am very grateful for your time and insights.
I would be quite pleased if you use my quote and even more pleased if you directed people to my blog!
Let me be clear here. You suggest that my position is “We cannot know truth so therefore “your truth isn’t my truth”
This is true as far is it goes but does not go far enough. I recognize “Reality” is what it is regardless of what you and I think it is. My much smarter spouse and I had a rare discussion this morning about this topic. As I tried to explain my concept of truth and it’s flawed relation to reality she made the very sensible suggestion to use the word “perception” in place of truth. I think this demystifies the word “truth” and makes communication much more clear.
So I would say this:
1. It is self evident that due to our limited nature, humans cannot fully comprehend Reality (what some would call Truth or Absolute Truth).
2. We can agree that due to our subjective natures, everyone’s perception (what some would call their truth) is inherently different from another’s.
3. Therefore, not only is it fundamentally impossible to fully comprehend Reality but we can’t even fully share a common (if admittedly flawed) perspective of it.
Love ice cream! My favorite changes all the time—how post-modern of me, eh?! But let’s say it is Jomocha Chocolate Chunk.
As to your question about numbers...I can’t say with any confidence whether or not numbers exist independently of human thought.
John,
Your spouse’s comment “use the word “perception” in place of truth”
This borders on the solipsist viewpoint.
Wikipedia has this nice summary of the position; “solipsism is the philosophical idea that “My mind is the only thing that I know exists.”
"Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.”
So the individual asks how can I know anything is real or exists outside my perception? The whole universe might only be a powerful figment of my imagination.
It is also part of the eastern mystical view of reality. Philosophers also ask these kinds of questions about reality such as “If a tree falls in the wood, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” & “If a woman yells at a man and no one hears, is he still wrong”?
Anyway back my point, I like vanilla ice cream, do they have the vanilla ice cream that has the black bits in from the pod where you are? Well, it is true to say for me vanilla ice cream not only good or even better but the(superlative)best,but it is subjective best in the sense that you like Jomocha Chocolate Chunk that’s the subjective truth for you. However this is a different question to objective truth “does ice cream exist”?
Now, I ask you does ice cream exist?
In relation to numbers how many answers to 2+2 = ( ) are you aware of?
By the way a friend of mine who takes the solipsist viewpoint ask me why there weren’t more solicits around?
Think about it! It’s a philosopher’s idea of a joke
myrtle.
I think you are making a large and unwarranted leap from calling “one’s truth, perception” to suggesting that that then means thinking “My mind is the only thing that I know exists.”
Let’s take a moment to examine this. What is one’s idea of truth if not one’s perception? Now I am not arguing for the validity or accuracy of one’s idea of truth but surely you must recognize that it is our “perceptions” of reality that determines what we consider “truth.” So why not just jettison the word “truth” that has so much confusing baggage attached and use the word “perception”?
Again, could you clarify the difference between my “right to opinion” and my “right to criticize”? I see no difference.
To your question about ice cream existing. I would place the idea that ice cream exists on the far end of the probability scale (away from Santa and God) and say though I cannot say with 100% certainty I am exceedingly confident that it does indeed exist.
To the answer to your math question: though I am miserable at even a 5th grade level math I would say 1.
Hello again John,
Perception / Truth / Reality
One problem with post modern thinking is that it tends to changed or at least blur definitions. The 1950s saw the rise of post modernism as a reaction to modernism with the emphasis on rational thought. Hence, your paradigm of post modernism doesn’t allow you to even wholly accept there is an objective / out there reality. If we were at this point discussing metaphysics I would be more sympathetic since the methodology is solely deductive not inductive yet here we are only on physics itself, the hard material of the universe and you are hesitant.
However, by using the ice cream & 2+2 = 4 illustrations I think so far I have rationally, robustly & reasonably established that there are indeed two types of truth namely subjective and objective.
In addition the notion of reality being merely a perception is a non sequitur since it contravenes the law of non contradiction. Either reality does exist or it doesn’t.
Furthermore, “perception” is a process that occurs on route to truth to quote Blake “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is”
In response to “and unwarranted leap” I guess I would say it was a mere hop, skip & a jump. But we can look into the connection with post modernism and the writings of Tenzin Gyatso the Dalai Lama and his non theistic pantheism at another time.
“Again, could you clarify the difference between my “right to opinion” and my “right to criticize”? I see no difference.”
Let’s not get segued into this arena yet, other than to say, I “perceive” difference!
If I may give a brief synopsis; I think you agree that you accept the post modern position of individual moral ethical relativism you are more than uncomfortable with objective truth & reality may not be what it appears to be but best you have is your experience and opinion on it.
What are your reflections on the above?
If you are happy we can begin to look a little more in-depth at the problems intrinsic to post modernism.
myrtle,
You say “Hence, your paradigm of post modernism doesn’t allow you to even wholly accept there is an objective / out there reality. ”
Not sure how you arrived at that from our conversation. I place the likelihood that reality exists next to ice cream on my probability scale right (at the opposite end of Santa and God). I definitely do not think reality is merely a perception, there is reality and there is our flawed perception of reality.
You ask for my thoughts on your summary “If I may give a brief synopsis; I think you agree that you accept the post modern position of individual moral ethical relativism you are more than uncomfortable with objective truth & reality may not be what it appears to be but best you have is your experience and opinion on it.”
I would not say I am “uncomfortable” with the idea of “objective truth” so much as I have never once been shown it. Seems people love to talk about it existing but can’t provide an example to save their life. Show me and I will gladly accept it. As I have said before, I have no investment in a certain view of reality, have no cherished belief I must protect at all costs. I will drop an idea like a hot potato if I am shown a way to consider reality that makes more sense.
As to the second half of your summary—“reality may not be what it appears to be but best you have is your experience and opinion on it.” Yes, I agree.
ooops,
my apologies. I was reading “objective truth” as “absolute truth”. I am just fine with the term “objective truth” but not “absolute truth”.
ooops again! Sorry I must have had to much to drink at lunch. In regard to this: “reality may not be what it appears to be but best you have is your experience and opinion on it.” Actually the best understanding of reality is not derived from “my personal” experience but careful observation, study and testing (science).
John,
Lets look again at our examples:
2+2 = 4
If there are no other possible answers to this equation then it is absolute. Mathematicians have a way of expressing the equation precisely like this:
what is 2 base 10 + 2 base 10 equal to, expressed in a whole base integer (don’t ask I am like you with math)
It is a priori, that is to say it does not depend on our minds “perceiving” grasping or thinking about it. The result of the equation would exist in its form even if no one had ever considered it. Therefore it is objective.
In the same way
The absoluteness of ice cream rests in its chemical formulation. If you mix the exact same chemical in the exact same way it will result in the exact same (other than it has independent particles that are being used) ice cream every time. This will happen independently of our desires or otherwise since we cannot change the outcome. It is absolute in that it can be no other.
The ontology of ice cream also rests in its chemistry. The chemicals, those physical particles, have reality that exists independently of your consciousness.
Not only that they are they are universal they hold true where ever you might be so they transcend any space time envelope. 2 + 2 = 4 and ice cream would have been ice cream billions of years ago if it could have been formulated.
So, absoluteness, objectivity & universality can be shown to the rational mind to be coherent epistemologically, ontologically & metaphysically.
Hope this helps
I am still having a little trouble with the word “absolute” and not quite sure I completely follow the “universality” idea but the rest of what you said seems very reasonable. If ice cream can be considered absolute then any physical object can be and the word absolute seems to lose all usefulness other than perhaps in the context of a philosophical conversation such as this.
“Torturing children for fun is immoral”
This statement is either absolute or relative and universal or local.
Are there any other alternatives to this moral imperative (that which is ethically right or wrong) in any other culture, personal ethic or context that would truly reflect on this act as not being immoral. If not then it is absolute.
Is there any place or time when it was not immoral. If not then it is universal
John your comment
"absolute seems to lose all usefulness other than perhaps in the context of a philosophical conversation such as this"
takes on a different hue when its not ice cream but a child's High Scream.
Back tomorrow
All the best
Hi myrtle,
I personally consider torturing children to be immoral but it is obvious that is not a universally held notion as evidenced by millions of child abusers.
Also, torturing children cannot be considered universally immoral if one accepts the bible as the Word of a Moral God who is shown to torture children in every which way on earth then continues to torture beyond the grave forever and ever.
I would also note, torturing children could be considered if not moral, at least the right thing to do, depending on the situation. Imagine you are held captive by a someone demanding you torture a child or he will press a button to slowly roast a thousand children. It seems you would then be morally obligated to torture that child.
hello John, grand children keep you busy busy busy. I hope you get some.
your above comments:
point 1
The idea of universality is not that everyone agrees but that something’s are wrong even if everyone disagrees because they are transcendent of human culture or ideas.
point 2
I know where you want to go with this and as yet it behoves us to firstly bring this discussion to a conclusion before pursuing it. My only other comment is that it contains some assumptions.
point 3
This is interesting but again for later.
It would appear to me that you are ready to accept that there are universal absolutes & objective truths / realities in connection with the physical universe but reject these in regard to morality.
It would also appear to me that:
1. you prefer a “bottom up” approach rather than a “top down” approach,
2. key words would be tolerance, live let live, it's a private personal decision etc
3. apart from some social conventions like which side of the road to drive there are no absolute, objective & universal wrongs only personal preferences.
Is this so?
myrtle, glad you are enjoying your grandchildren! I look forward to that too--just not too soon, please! Was able to hold a brand new baby boy last night-my nephew. What a joy!
I like the idea that something could be identified as “universal” that is “ transcendent of human culture or ideas” I just have a heck of a hard time seeing how we can declare such a thing. For instance I would say eating chicken sandwiches when other food from non-sentient beings is available is immoral. To me, the needless killing of chickens is universally immoral, transcending human culture and ideas. But the vast majority of the world disagrees with me. What do you say to that?
You say, “It would appear to me that you are ready to accept that there are universal absolutes & objective truths / realities in connection with the physical universe but reject these in regard to morality.”
Bingo!
And yes to “bottom up” approach rather than a “top down” approach if you mean human rather than divine.
And a slightly less emphatic yes to tolerance, live let live, it's a private personal decision etc. In general tolerance and personal freedoms are grand things but I have no problem not tolerating certain things (torturing prisoners) or limiting the freedom to make personal decisions (dog fighting)
And an even less emphatic yes to the idea “there are no absolute, objective & universal wrongs only personal preferences.” Again, I like the idea of “absolute morality” but simply see no evidence for it.
The problem with your rather autocentric relativism is that it is subject to several flaws, some more applicable than others nevertheless here they are:
1. If there is no absolute morality only personal preference and conventions then relativist’s surrender the possibility to say to others you are wrong.
a. John say’s its wrong to eat meat
b. I say its not & your wrong to say its wrong
c. Each opinion is invalidated under relativism.
2. If there is no absolute morality then there is no such thing as evil. It is inconsistent to say an action is evil when there is no absolute objective morality there is only an individual opinion.
3. Relativists cannot apportion blame for evil or even give praise for good since it is all relative to differing moral codes
4. Whilst relativist can make changes those changes can only be just “change” since better or worse are relative. One persons concept of fairness or justice isn’t another’s
5. You cannot become a “better” person since better implies an objective standard.
6. Arguing for a moral stand point is meaningless because they are not empirically verifiable.
I do not surrender my “right” to comment on behavior, I simply have “no universally agreed upon basis” for my commentary. We all have nothing more than our opinions. What gives power to a particular opinion is supporting evidence.
Evil is a word that describes an action we consider especially abhorrent and this changes over time. It has nothing to do with “absolutes.”
You say “Relativists cannot apportion blame for evil or even give praise for good since it is all relative to differing moral codes”.
“Cannot” according to who? You? The believers in absolute morality or “God”? How nice for them! Seems like a great gig! So if I believe in Jesus will I be able to tell all the nonbelievers what is good and what is evil?
I certainly have no problem discerning that well-being is better than suffering.
No “objective” standard is needed to become a better person. A person can become better based on a “subjective” standard. For example, I (subjective) came to think that needlessly killing things is wrong and by no longer knowingly contributing to needless killing I have made myself “better” (at least in my own mind).
Just to confirm a point;
In response to all your responses, that’s just your opinion I am an “ethical relativist” you have no right to criticize me.
(This last response is in itself a criticism and I am therefore refuting myself.)
Post a Comment