So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
Merry Chrismas.
About Dawkins: I wasn’t sure if he dislikes religion because he likes Darwin, or he likes Darwin because he dislikes religion, or both. In any case, I’ve read his book about 10 years ago, I don’t remember all the details. He seems to put much faith in the scientific method.
“Whether God exists or not isn’t determinative. A person’s belief in a Judeo-Christian God provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner, independent of the validity of that belief.”
A person’s belief in anything provides him with a reason to act in a certain manner. Examining the belief is part of examining the reasoning behind an action or an argument.
“I think there’s a fundamental distinction between “it comes from within myself because of a philosophy I’ve devised for myself” and “it comes from within myself because I hold certain assumptions about how the universe is constructed.””
If the assumptions of how the universe is constructed are part of a philosophy devised by someone for himself, then there is no difference. If the assumptions came from somebody else’s philosophy then there is a small difference. But: (a) by holding certain assumptions, even if they are not originally yours, you are presumably using your own mind to decide that these assumptions are worth holding; (b) the philosophy these assumptions are part of had to have began with one or more person who has devised them. Both religious traditions and other philosophies are often the result of the accumulation of assumptions devised by many people over time.
Some religions trace their basic assumptions to a revelation from god, although this is often followed by much interpretation by humans. But the question remains, how does one make the decision to accept the assumption offered to him by a god or by said god’s interpreters?
Some religions and philosophies, I think, claim that their basic assumptions were some how placed by god in the minds of humans. But there still has to be a process of recognition of this innate knowledge usually, since there is the possibility of mistaken assumptions.
Philosophies usually work by logically analysing assumptions in peoples’ minds.
Science analyses data acquired by our senses, and mathematical relationships perceived by the mind.
“Fear of what happens after death is an effective deterrent even if that fear will never, in fact, be realized.”
Fear is a form of belief or assumption.
I don’t think Sartre was a relativist. I hav somewhere a little book called “Existentialism is Humanism.” But I’m no expert on Sartre. The teacher in the class I took on Existentialism was not very good.
Mr Ries wrote: Did Den say that? I didn’t notice.
Actually Den quoted you without attribution (a formatting error; he had your prior statement in bold), so I thought it was his unsupported assertion. Thank you for explaining your point. I don’t necessarily agree with you, but now at least I know what we’re in disagreement about.
“I don’t think Sartre was a relativist. I hav somewhere a little book called “Existentialism is Humanism.”
Sartre was a relativist. He believed, as do most of us existentialists (and he is the only esitentialist philosopher who is actually an existentialist)that morality is rooted in our own inner-core-self-soul-thingy. However, as with most philosophers, he wasn’t perfect, as in “Between Existentialism and Marxism” he is quick to criticize the Vietnam war on moral grounds, without once admitting that it is possible that the leaders morality permitted it.
But generally, yes, he was a relativist. Check out this link for the lecture in which he defended it: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
and David, lay offa Sartre….what did he ever do to you, man? Besides, contrary to what I percive as your sweeping denouncement of moral Relativism, the plain and simple truth is that at some level, most morality, morals, and human ethics are largely subjective. Even such plain black and whites such as “thou shalt not kill” have many, many, MANY exceptions. And at leasy 1000 of them since the 1970’s have been state sponsored.
In essence, David, there is truth, but it is generally very relative and highly subjective. While it is true that there are some few absolute morals nad even fewer absolute truths they are just that: few and far between. However, here is ONE absolute truth: anyone who tries to claim that all, or even most, truths are objective and non-relative (as I believe you are) is acting quite foolishly.
James, I believe you are confusing the subjective aspect of existentialism with moral relativism. In the lecture Sartre addresses the claim that existentialism is moral relativism.
You may certainly find his answers unconvincing — they are problematic, as was his support of marxism, and his language is difficult — but it seems he did not think of himself as a moral relativist. However, I’m not an expert on existentialism. So, although I have some sympathy for it, I can’t call myself one.
In any case, here are some relevant quotes. Sartre also talks in the essay about the relationship of existentialism and religion and naturalism.
Micha
“people say to us, “You are unable to judge others.” This is true in one sense and false in another. It is true in this sense, that whenever a man chooses his purpose and his commitment in all clearness and in all sincerity, whatever that purpose may be, it is impossible for him to prefer another. … We can judge, nevertheless, for, as I have said, one chooses in view of others, and in view of others one chooses himself. One can judge, first – and perhaps this is not a judgment of value, but it is a logical judgment – that in certain cases choice is founded upon an error, and in others upon the truth. One can judge a man by saying that he deceives himself. Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver. … Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgment. For I declare that freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values. That does not mean that he wills it in the abstract: it simply means that the actions of men of good faith have, as their ultimate significance, the quest of freedom itself as such. … Obviously, freedom as the definition of a man does not depend upon others, but as soon as there is a commitment, I am obliged to will the liberty of others at the same time as my own. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. Consequently, when I recognise, as entirely authentic, that man is a being whose existence precedes his essence, and that he is a free being who cannot, in any circumstances, but will his freedom, at the same time I realize that I cannot not will the freedom of others. Thus, in the name of that will to freedom which is implied in freedom itself, I can form judgments upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom. … Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal.”
Micha,
Don’t worry about not understanding existentialism. I’ve spent several months studying the dámņ subject and about all I can tell you is I like it.
“as was his support of marxism”
If you have heard or thought of an explanation for that, then I would love to hear it. I cannot understand how someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche’s phrase) the “Will to Power”, can at the same time subscribe to another philosophy that is focused upon subjugating your will to the good of the state.
“Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal.”
This is…similar to what I was saying. However, the largest point at which JPS and I differ is that I was refering to TRUTH as well as mere morality.
However, fascinating as that is, it doesn’t answer the basic question, was Sartre a Moral Relativist? I don’t have instant access to most of his major works, so I will have to go largely on guesswork here, but I would say yes. He is not a PURE relativist, but then, who is? In essence, he believes that freedom comes from choice, and that our choices were highly individual, and that as long as our choices are informed, any choice is ok. However, he offers this with the quid pro quo that this choice cannot exploit others.
Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the opression of others. This is, I believe the “universal” part of morality that he mentioned at the end of the quote you had.
Is he then a moral relativist? Yes. He is (Drum roll please) a limited moral relativist. So, in other words, he is simply being realistic. it is impossible to be totally morally relativistic in any reasonable world-view.
Which would seem to be another point against his pure existentialism, but who’s counting?
incidentially, an excellent discussion of some of those points can be found at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Okay, now that Christmas is over, was anyone here prevented, in their own personal private life, from wishing a Merry Christmas to anyone they wanted? I mean, that was what we were all being threatened with by the War-On-Christmas crowd, wasn’t it – that even saying “Merry Christmas” would get you sued by those doggone liberal ACLU Satan-worshippers?
Funny, I was still hearing the phrase all over the place on Sunday…
I cannot understand how someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche’s phrase) the “Will to Power”, can at the same time subscribe to another philosophy that is focused upon subjugating your will to the good of the state.
Well, you could do what good communist leaders have done for decades: preach a good talk about subjugating your will to the good of the state to the masses while reserving individual power for themselves.
Well, just a few personal experiences from the past month:
My wife and I actually had trouble finding religiously neutral holiday cards amongst the many “inspirational” cards, and only went into one store (Target) that actually had a marked section for Hannukkah cards.
A co-worker who volunteered ringing a bell for the SA said “Merry Christmas” to everyone she saw, and received NO complaints or so much as a dirty look. Another person she knows followed up with “and God bless you” to anyone who donated, and also received NO complaints.
My wife responds to every “Merry Christmas” she hears with a “Happy Holidays,” and nobody tried to burn her at the stake.
So, my conclusion mirrors PAD’s, that the whole “War on Christmas” has been fabricated by a very small, VERY loud and bigoted minority who like to pretend at being persecuted so they can make themselves feel better by comparing themselves to Christ.
-Rex Hondo-
Well, the problem with Communism, as with ANY political philosophy, is that human nature will always assert itself, and people who want personal power will always find a way to gain it.
-Rex Hondo-
James Carter wrote However, here is ONE absolute truth: anyone who tries to claim that all, or even most, truths are objective and non-relative (as I believe you are) is acting quite foolishly.
Putting words in other people’s mouths (including mine) is even more foolish, particularly when the other people are around to call you on it. I’ll point out precisely what truths I think are absolute, and you let me know if you think I’m wrong.
Don’t worry about not understanding existentialism. I’ve spent several months studying the dámņ subject and about all I can tell you is I like it.
Dude, if you think Sartre’s worldview is premised upon Nietzsche’s will to power, you really can’t tell us much about existentialism. While you’re studying, look up “value pluralism.” It’s like relativism for smart people.
And Sartre, by the way, was the guy who denounced the French press for denouncing the Munich Olympic attack. Sartre was a bad existentialist. You point out that, Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the opression of others. How is that latter concern relevant under his own theory? The best he can do is diagnose “nausea” without offering a palliative. The solution to the existential dilemma is not to assume that all positions are relatively equal, assuming the actors are true to themselves; you deal with the meaningless of life by imposing meaning. The struggle to bring order, goodness, morality to an uncaring universe is what makes life meaningful. (Harkening back to an earlier part of this thread) it’s no more achievable a goal than a world without terrorism, but we have to make the attempt if we’re to become anything more than oversized chimpanzees. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” A recognition of the absurd is a call to arms, not an end point.
Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) The solution is not Sartre, but Kant. If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise. It doesn’t hurt anything to call these corollaries absolute moral truths. All people deserve to be free to live their lives in any way that doesn’t impair other people’s freedoms. Acknowledging that, say, Tookie Williams and I would have different interpretations of that last clause (e.g. whether his freedom to be free trumps my freedom to be safe, talk amongst yourselves), I’d still say that’s a moral truth.
Moral relativism, taken to its extreme, does precisely what Robbnn accused it of doing: it makes it impossible to condemn Genghis Khan, who was after all being “authentic” within himself. I do recall that you were the one who asked why Genghis Khan was being ripped on in this thread; the simple fact is that Genghis’s authenticity had deleterious effects on the populations he conquered. Now if you want to make the claim that Genghis was slightly nicer than his grandson, whose forces made nice pyramids of the skulls of conquered Iraqis pour encourager les autres, then yes perhaps Genghis was only a second-rate butcher, but that’s about as meaningful as an argument about whether Hitler, Mao, or Stalin was the worst monster of the 20th Century.
I’m going out on a limb here: I roundly condemn slaughtering the educated people of a city and making a pyramid of their skulls. I’m going to say that’s absolutely Bad. As were the Holocaust, Stalinist purges, and nearly everything Mao did, and if you like then we can have an uncomfortable debate about whether what the Eight Air Force did to Dresden was justifiable in the context of a war to stop the Nazis. (Relativists should find it perfectly OK or absolutely horrible, depending upon one’s point of view. We foolish absolutists find it problematic. It’s that pluralism thing again.) You mentioned “exceptions” as though they undermined moral absolutes, as in “thou shalt not kill.” 1) Nuances don’t contradict core values, q.v. pluralism; and 2) the original commandment was “Thou shalt not commit murder” and mistranslations also do not contradict core values. A robust theory of justice or morality probably cannot be reduced to a pithy statement, but still should be able to identify core values that stand up irrespective of time or culture. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Slavery is wrong.
There’s a famous problem in moral philosophy: what do we do with collaborators under despotic regimes? People who ratted out their neighbors to the Nazis were in full compliance with both the laws and mores of the society in which they lived; can we now say that it was wrong to inform the SS that the guy in the apartment down the hall had a Jew hiding in the closet?
Hëll yes, we can.
Chattel slavery was once practiced in the state in which I live. People from that culture felt it was an acceptable form of social organization; they were wrong, not in the sense that from today’s perspective we would call it wrong, but in the sense that slavery was always appalling and they were wrong at the time to practice it. If Wilberforce could figure it out, then Calhoun should have as well. Jim Crow was as wrong in 1890 as it was in 1950.
Morality applies to individuals as well as societies; if anything, it’s easier to apply absolutes to individual acts. Earlier this month my office sent someone to prison for holding a samurai sword to his wife’s throat and threatening to kill her. Polemicist that I am, I assert that was absolutely wrong. One guy in Asheville kidnapped, raped, and murdered three people. Perhaps he was being true to his nature as a serial killer, but if so his nature was absolutely immoral. In February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes (gotta love that “habitual felon” law), and he earned it for a 15 year pattern of absolute disregard for other people. When I don’t have felony duty, I prosecute hundreds of misdemeanor cases a week, and even most of those crimes are illegal because they’re wrong on some fundamental level. Larceny and assaults are wrong, because they abuse other people, and it’s rare that “self defense” or “choice of evils” can be argued with a straight face. People do genuinely bad things all the time, and claiming they’re only “relatively” or “contingently bad” demeans both the victims and philosophy itself.
And oh yeah, Merseault killed an Arab for no reason, and that’s why he was executed in The Stranger. Merseault seriously impaired the Arab’s ability to lead an authentic life by ending it. I suspect Camus rolls in his grave every time some college student rails about how unfair it is that he was sentenced to death because he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral. Narrator’s view != author’s view, people.
Perhaps not all truths, or even most truths, are absolute truths, but there are a hëll of a lot of absolute truths. You can claim, if you want, that it’s foolish to say so, but somehow I feel less foolish than the fool who claims otherwise. From time to time we may misidentify moral truths, but that does not mean they don’t exist.
Hey David, I’m not deep enough to meaningfully participate in the Sartre debates (I once found an entire notebook from 1983 filled with philosophy notes which, though written in my handwriting, I could swear I’d nver seen before.) but just wanted to say thanks for the work you do.
The number of criminals is small but the eggect they have on our lives is not so we should all have gratitude toward the police and prosecuters who remove them from the picture.
1) It seems to me, from what is written in “existentialism is humanism,” that Sartre did not think of himself as a moral relativist. However, since the text is available and short, anyone can read and make his own decision.
2) The reason Sartre was communist is that he,like many peop;e who did not live in communist countries, was more familiar with the ideals of communism than its actualisation. At the time communism seemed to him to represent freedom because it supposedly stood against the oppresive aspects of capitalism as well as against colonialism, racism and fascism. He was unaware or ignored the oppresive aspects of communism. He was guilty, in his own terms, of bad faith.
3) The difference between Sartre and Kant is that Kant tried to develop objective logically true moral principles that were independant of actual events, whereas Sartre thought that moral judgement can and should be appllied by subjective people to actual events (for example the French Resistence good, the Iraqi insurgency bad).
4) “The solution is not Sartre, but Kant. If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise.” If the act of acceptance of Kant’s moral principle is done by a subjective person than this is not Kant but existentialism. Kant believed that his principle is a objective, a-priori, necessarily logical truth in and of itself.
5) I am yet to see any moral or philosophical system that works all the time.
6) “The solution to the existential dilemma is not to assume that all positions are relatively equal, assuming the actors are true to themselves; you deal with the meaningless of life by imposing meaning. The struggle to bring order, goodness, morality to an uncaring universe is what makes life meaningful. (Harkening back to an earlier part of this thread) it’s no more achievable a goal than a world without terrorism, but we have to make the attempt if we’re to become anything more than oversized chimpanzees. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” A recognition of the absurd is a call to arms, not an end point.”
I’m not sure if this is said in support or in opposition to existentialism.
7) “there are a hëll of a lot of absolute truths” is a statement that needs to be proved. In the past this statement would have been justified based on the belief in God. Kant tried to base it on formal logic. Others tried to bse it on empiric sensations. The significance of existentialists is that they tried to create not relativistic moral systems that are not dependant on that assumption.
8) I don’t think anybody on this thread actually supported moral relativism.
9) What is difficult for us is that people that we admire, like Jeffreson for example, lived in a society that today we would consider immoral. Was Jefferson a bad logician, a bad Christian or a guilty of existentialist bad faith?
10) “February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes.” Have you considered chopping his hand or at least flogging?
I second Bill, David. What you do is very important, and I thank you for doing it.
As far as the debate goes, however, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree (as did Sartre) that there are moral absolutes. More correctly, there is ONE moral absolute: Do no Harm. In all the cases you mentioned, the person involved was harming, or threatening harm to another person. You can make decisions even “bad” decisions, for yourself, but not for others. Suicide isn’t wrong, murder is.
However, as I stated, there are exceptions. For instance, sending a mass murderer to the chair. Are we harming him? Yes. Is it moral? This gets right down into the debate about capital punishment, so let’s change the punishment. Life imprisonment. Of course it is moral! Actually, now that I think about it more, in a way, it is extremely moral as you are PREVENTING him from being immoral and harming others. But besides that little point, imprisoning a mass murder is perfectly ok. I said as much, and Sartre said as much. I think you may have missed mine and Micha’s last posts, because that is exactly what was said.
Sartre: “Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal.”
Me:”Thus, the choice to join the KKK would be invalid, morally, as it is based upon the oppression of others. This is, I believe the “universal” part of morality that he mentioned at the end of the quote you had.”
As far as I can tell then, you, JPS, and I are all in agreement on that point.
Now, for the point you made about Kant, and the point you made about Meursault.
First, I agree with you that Meursault was the bad guy. Actually, that was Camus’ SOP. For instance, in “The Fall” the most despicable character is the Narrator. In the case of Camus, the Narrator is not always the way the author feels.
However, Meursault. was NOT a critique of Existentialist thought (as you seemed to insinuate) rather he seemed much more of a critique of Rationalism. Meursault’s lack of feeling and largely analytical view on life would make him more of a critique of rationalism, possibly even Kantian Rationalism.
However, the other point that Camus was making is that the trial focused NOT on the killing, but why he didn’t cry at his mothers funeral. And the fact is, is that he might not have been given the death penalty if it wasn’t for that.
You said:
“If you accept people as ends in and of themselves (or steal a line from the Declaration of Independence, and proclaim all men to be created equal), then certain logical corollaries follow from that premise. It doesn’t hurt anything to call these corollaries absolute moral truths.”
This is true, however we already discussed that there are some moral absolutes.
However, Kant strikes me (and I may be wrong here, and I would appreciate your correction if I am) as believing that ALL morality originates outside the mind, and the mind is largely a Tabula Rasa, with no inherent ability to formulate morality outside the semi-platonic moral absolutes that already exist. As we have already discussed that there are some moral absolutes I won’t try to prove him wrong on that count, but ALL morals are NOT absolute, and to say so is very dangerous.
Kant never really explained how exactly we discover these moral absolutes, so we don’t really know what to look for. How do we know which is correct: Pat Robertson’s belief that all homosexuals are evil, or my belief that homosexuality is perfectly fine? With no way to prove or disprove the existence or validity of moral absolutes one leaves open ones philosophy to severe abuse.
Rather, we must concede, as did Sartre, that there is only one real moral absolute: Do no harm. And I would add to this the corollary that when faced with two choices that involve harm (say, assassinating Hitler, or letting millions of people die) it is your duty to do that which causes the least harm: killing Hitler. (And for the sake of argument, let us ignore the historical arguments.)
Further, Moral Absolutism can be bad. If my morals state that sodomy is wrong, can I make a law against it? From a moral absolutist position, yes I can. That is actually the most moral thing I can do, because it will prevent other people from acting immorally. So if you accept moral absolutism, then you have to accept such things as perfectly moral. That is why moral absolutism, in its strictest (Kantian) sense is wrong, and why Sartre (Limited Moral Absolutism)is right. Quite frankly, Kant can make you believe that your position is moral because you “know” it is.
As a matter of fact (outside the one exception I mentioned) you would be perfectly valid in believing this, precisely because morality is relative. If you “know” that sodomy is immoral, you are right. For you. However, if you “know” that sodomy is ok, then you are also right. For you. Kant would claim that one of you HAD to be wrong, when simple observation tells us that that is incorrect.
One last thing: you question my understanding of Existentialism, by saying that Sartre wouldn’t have have accepted Nietzsche’s “will to power.” First, I never said specifically that Sartre was a big fan of it, but his professed philosophy is STRONGLY rooted in it. Not to mention the fact that “will to power” simply means wishing to do the best for oneself However, that is beside the point.
You question my understanding of Existentialism, I question your understanding not only of Sartre, but of philosophy. You said:“Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) “
First, if you think that Sartre avoided the “Big Questions” the check out a slim little volume humbly entitled “Being and Nothingness.” I don’t know about you, but Being strikes me as one of the big questions.
Further, you say: “a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself” as if it was a bad thing. There is nothing more common in philosophy then using precise, clear cut examples (large and small) to discuss a larger thought. For instance at a Philosophy club meeting, we once had a large discussion of whether Red was really Red. Now, that may seem silly, unless you realize that we were discussing the question of perception, and by reducing it to something so simple we made it easier to see what exactly was going on. That is the same reason Socrates invented a city in the Republic, or Nietzsche invented Zarathustra, or for that matter, why Hitler always comes up in discussions of right and wrong. With clear cut, simple examples, it is a lot easier to see what is going on. Now, I don’t know the exact discussion you are referring to, but I will bet you a copy of PAD’s latest book that that is EXACTLY what Sartre was doing.
“10) “February I sent someone off for 14 years for stealing beer and cigarettes.” Have you considered chopping his hand or at least flogging?”
I must clarify that I do not wish to condemn your actions, nor am I a moral relativist.
I am intersted in questioning our assumptions about morality. I find a little humility when it comes to morality appropriate. And I also believe that by reexamining our morality we can strengthen it.
Micha, the thing about the guy going to jail for stealing the beer and cigs–it isn’t the actual crime that causes his sentance but rather the fact that (I don’t think I’m crawling out on a thin limb here) this guy commits crimes all the time. Mostly small ones but it’s just a nonstop thing. And these are the idiots who really diminish our quality of life, the ones who steal our lawnmowers, force us to lock our doors, make us fearful of noises in the night, etc etc. I’ve had a close encounter with one of these losers, the spouse of a co-worker. He’s never physically harmed anyone that I know of but the number of lives he’s made worse must be into the scores by now. Taking him off the street has made our town a better place and allowed his family to move on.
And consider the mindset of a habitual criminal who knows that if he is caught agin he will do hard time but does it anyway–and not for a loaf of bread to feed his hungry belly. For beer and cigarettes. No Broadway musicals for this guy.
In some ways you could make an argument that it improves society by a far greater extent when you put away a robber, rapist or child molester than if you do a murderer, especially if the murder was something going on between the killer and victim. Obviuosly, a wman who murders her husband over an affair is unable to do it again, but a molester often has hundreds of victims. Putting a habitual thief in prison will prevent potentially hundreds or thousands of future crimes.
(Note-I’m not saying let murderers off free. It’s just that I occasionally see news stories with the baffling observation that “WHile crimes has gone down, the number of those imprisoned in jails has gone up.” like there is some puzzling contradiction there…)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 23, 2005 01:01 PM
(SNIPPED) “My big problem with reincarnationis that people who follow it always manage to trace their lineage back to Charlamane or Joan of Arc or some of the other major figures of history. Since the vast vast vast majority of people are not the major figures of history, that seems pretty unlikely.”
Just curious, are you saying that people who have traced their lineage back to Charlemagne believe in reincarnation; or just that those people you’ve met who _do_ believe in reincarnation _also_ claimed to have a familial connection with him? Or, are claiming to _have been_ Charlemagne?
In point of fact, there could very well be thousands of people who can trace their ancestry to Charlemagne. That fact, in and of itself, has no bearing on the subject of reincarnation. A former girlfriend with an interest in genealogy is among those who has traced her ancestry to Charlemagne; and she didn’t believe in reincarnation. At least so far as I knew.
On the other hand, unless Joan of Arc had a child no one knows about (she was supposed to have been a virgin, after all), no one could trace their ancestry to _her_. They might possibly be able to trace it to a sibling, cousin, aunt or uncle- if she had any- but that’s as close as they could get.
Likewise, Abraham Lincoln has no living descendants. The last one died off sometime in the mid 20th century.
People who believe they _are_ the reincarnation of Charlemagne, or Joan of Arc, or Lincoln, or anyone else wouldn’t necessarily believe they’re also a direct descendant of said individual in their present-day persona. I’m sure that some people _do_ believe that, but nothing I’ve ever read about reincarnation suggests that adherents believe people are reborn within their specific bloodlines.
But it would be kind of interesting if it were the case. I wonder if there’s a story in that? Hmmmmmnn.
On a related note, my cousin Kelley, the eldest of what I call the “Fourth generation”, was born on the 11th anniversary of my paternal grandmother’s death. Reincarnation? Not likely, but I sometimes refer to her as such among family.
Curiously, Kelley’s mother (also my cousin) was born on my grandparents’ wedding anniversary. No reincarnation there, since Grandma (and Grandpa) was still alive at the time; but it is another interesting coincidence involving Grandma.
Personally, if reincarnation does exist (and it seems just as likely or unlikely as an after-life beyond this Earthly plane), I don’t think we’re automatically reborn along our own bloodline. I think it’d either be random, or if the universe has any sense of cosmic justice, it’d be ironically appropriate. For example, Hitler being reincarnated as a member of an oppressed minority group.
On a final note, Bladestar brought up the philosophical question about whether there’s a finite number of souls. There was actually a short story that addressed that issue, though I don’t remember who wrote it, or how long ago. As I recall, the story concerned immortality. Humans became immortal, and after a time, no Humans were being born (or those who were lacked something compared to previous generations; like I said I’m vague on the specifics). At any rate, someone soon figured out that there are only a finite number of souls to go around, but with a lot of people not dying, their souls remained unavailable as future generations were born (if they were being born).
Or maybe it wasn’t immortality. It may have been that there are only X number of souls, and once the population grew too large, and we had Y number of people, there weren’t enough souls to go around. As a result, the balance were being born without souls. I _really_ wish I could remember the particulars of the story; but either way, the gist of it was that due to either extended lifespans or increased population growth, there weren’t enough souls to go around. End result: the Human race was diminished because of it.
Rick
I was thinking of the people who believed that they WERE Charlemagne. It seems as though there are more reincarnations of Napoleon than there were Napoleons. But maybe that’s how it works.
I do think that sometimes people, when they do their geneology, start making big assumptions at some point. My ex-wife has a good number of Mormons in her family and they traced the family all the way back to Adam. You can sort of see where the true lineage may or may not end; at some point the name changes and it was noted that family tradition maintained that so and so was the illegitamate sone of the Earl of Whatever. At that point it was just another English History Lesson of Kings and Dukes.
It could be all true. I suspect though that when people trace their history back to Charlemagne’s time they usually end up discovering that they are related to him for no better reason than he being the only guy anyone wrote about. Nobody wrote about the guy who picked potatos in Charlemagne’s potato farm but I’ll bet he left a lot more decendants. I’ll also bet his name was Mulligan.
Bill, both your claims are valid. It seems to me that all of our system of law, law enforcement and especially punishment should be reexamined, taking into consideration its different aspects (deterance, prevention, prisoner rights, victim rights, rehabilitation, public safety, economy etc.). I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems to me that the current system is not working very well. It also seems as if the whole system is based on what we inheritent from previous generations + patches. I’d like to see an approach that doesn’t take things for granted, is not politically polarized, and is creative.
My specific reference to flogging was not an attack on David. In Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers he has a part were he says that flogging is a better punishment than prison. Heinlein is very preachy and a little crazy, but he is thought provoking. Is prison really better than flogging? When is prison appropriate and not? Does prison rehabilitate or actually a nursery for criminals? What is the role of vengence in punishment? etc.
Bill: Micha, the thing about the guy going to jail for stealing the beer and cigs–it isn’t the actual crime that causes his sentance but rather the fact that (I don’t think I’m crawling out on a thin limb here) this guy commits crimes all the time. Mostly small ones but it’s just a nonstop thing
Actually, in this particular instance, it’s not even true that most of his crimes are small ones. One of the guy’s three prior “strikes” that qualified him as an habitual felon was Assault With the Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury,” which is a modern codified variant on the common-law offense of attempted murder. I think he was about 18 when he committed that one, and when we sent him off he was just shy of his 32nd birthday. (I remember this because he is only four months older than me.) During that interval, the only substantial periods of time that he did not pick up new charges were periods he was incarcerated.
(Longwinded dissertation that may be skipped by those who are uninterested in legal minutia:) The central feature of North Carolina’s felony sentencing scheme is that it’s a two dimensional grid, with the Y axis being the level of the offense and the X axis being the defendant’s record level (a weighted sum, with each conviction date counting as from 1 to 12 points, depending on the most serious offense that the defendant was convicted of on any given occasion). The offenses that are used as prior “strikes” cannot be used to calculate the record level in felony sentencing for an habitual felon, and the habitual felon status itself merely serves to move the offense level up the Y axis, so that any felony is sentenced from the same row as serious crimes such as second degree rape, first degree kidnapping, and the felony assault that this guy committed back during the first Bush administration. (This is different from, say, California, where an habitual offender status can lead to life imprisonment.) Bringing the breaking and entering/larceny charge up to habitual felon raises it five rows, from an H to a C. (Read along here: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_15A/GS_15A-1340.17.html) Even deleting the three strikes used to make him habitual, the guy STILL maxed out the chart by virtue of his prior record level (Column VI). (NB: Under a recent Supreme Court opinion, the “aggravated” ranges listed weren’t available at the time.) After the jury came back with the habitual finding, the judge read the list of the guy’s prior offenses aloud. It took a few minutes.
Think about this: I am the most junior prosecutor in our office. This guy is four months, two weeks older than me, and he’s maxed out the state’s prior record grid. An habitual felon sentence isn’t necessarily about deterrance or punishment. It’s more a statement by the judicial system to the effect that: “We give up on you, and we’re going to put you the only place we can be sure you’ll stay out of trouble for the next few years.”
Micha: My specific reference to flogging was not an attack on David. In Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers he has a part were he says that flogging is a better punishment than prison. Heinlein is very preachy and a little crazy, but he is thought provoking.
I recently read an American’s account of living in Saudi Arabia for a time. One of the things that struck the writer was how safe the place was; if you leave your wallet in a restaurant and come back to look for it the next day, it will almost certainly be there. This safety is secured by a draconian system of justice such as you describe. I’m simply not willing to live in the society necessary to secure that.
Nitpicky typo: his prior felony was Assault with a Deadly Weapon with the Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury. This is only important because I’m campaigning to make the acronym ADWIKISI into a word. (Prounounced ad-WIK-si.)
It may have been that there are only X number of souls, and once the population grew too large, and we had Y number of people, there weren’t enough souls to go around.
This entire subthread reminds me of nothing so much as the Demi Moore movie
The Seventh Sign.
Somehow the title was lost in transmission. Odd.
First off, in response to all the postings on reincarnation–Okay, first, Bladestar–what in my experience gets passed on is memories only, for example in my last life I was a piano player in San Francisco (which I’ve remembered from the time I was at least two and a half) who had arthritis and I couldn’t play anymore. Right now, put me in front of a piano, and I’ll feel like I SHOULD know how to play, it just gets lost from my head to my fingers. Second-to Bill–most of the ACTUAL reincarnates that I’ve met don’t claim to be anyone that historically relevant. The closest I come to being anyone historically relevant is first time around, I was the son of a minor either Irish or Welsh landowner. I had a black horse and a nasty temper. Now for the part that’s gonna have some people thinking I’m off my nut. I have these memories, and would be willing to think it was just my imagination if it wasn’t for the confirmations that I’ve had. Like meeting the woman who was my wife in San Fran who at the time was going out with my best friend. Other things like that happen all the time amongst my little crew. And no, not all souls come back. (The joke in our house is that my four year old is probably older than me.)
And Bill, as far as the whole prison/punishment question the problem I’ve always had is you put the bad guys in prison, fine. So, they don’t have to worry about room and board, clothing, food…and we who are free DO.
“The Seventh Sign.
Somehow the title was lost in transmission. Odd.”
Whew. ‘Cause, just for a second there, I was thinking “how’s a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?”
I was thinking “how’s a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?”
See, I just thought he was talking about her acting rather then her movies.
And Bill, as far as the whole prison/punishment question the problem I’ve always had is you put the bad guys in prison, fine. So, they don’t have to worry about room and board, clothing, food…and we who are free DO.
Yeah but we also aren’t forced into non-consensual sex acts with Big Vito and One-Eyed Tyrone, followed by being forced to drink caustic drain cleaner until our esophagus comes sluicing out in a bloody froth. So it all evens out.
Well, One Eyes’ need love too, after all. If yer gonna look at it THAT way…
Just a sort of Random FYI
This is now (to the best of my knowledge) the second longest thread on here, surpassed only (again, as far as I know) by a June thread:
“My two and only two responses to the new village idiot”
That was at 435…this one stands, as of this post, at 429.
Why am I saying this? I thought you might like to know.
I know we can break the record….quick, someone compare a politician to Hitler. And it can’t be Mussolini.
If the image of prison rapes is as common as TV suggests, and it is a foreseeable consequence of going to prison, then sending someone to prison could be considered a cruel and unusual punishment much more draconian than flogging or even cutting one’s hand.
In general it seems to me that the way we deal with crime-punishment at the moment is not working very well, not from a liberal or a conservative point of view, and it should be reexamined.
I was thinking “how’s a shortage of souls tie in with Striptease?”
Geez, you have to ASK?
(And personally, if we’re discussing Demi Moore soul-killing vehicles, I think I’d have to go with “The Scarlet Letter” on general principles…)
TWL
Tim, what are you talking about? Her version was the only one that got the Indian attack sequence just as Hawthorne described it.
I’ll confess that it was an offhand remark — I’ve not actually seen the film. The concept of Moore as Hester Prynne seems nearly as bizarre to me as would a new version of Hamlet starring Adam Sandler (with special guest star Carrot Top as Horatio), so I kinda generalized on that basis.
Based on the presentation of the film and the reviews I remember, though, I don’t think the Indian attack sequence was the main focal element…
TWL
2) The reason Sartre was communist is that he,like many peop;e who did not live in communist countries, was more familiar with the ideals of communism than its actualisation. At the time communism seemed to him to represent freedom because it supposedly stood against the oppresive aspects of capitalism as well as against colonialism, racism and fascism. He was unaware or ignored the oppresive aspects of communism. He was guilty, in his own terms, of bad faith.
I’m not sure that acting from ignorance is really covered by Sartre’s idea of good or bad faith. Good and bad faith refer to the individual’s ultimate responsibility for his own actions: he has to choose, and he can either choose to act in conformity with his own mind (good faith) or in conformity with some other influence at the expense of one’s own nature (bad faith). Naivete and stupidity aren’t really implicated by the doctrine of authenticity.
7) “there are a hëll of a lot of absolute truths” is a statement that needs to be proved. In the past this statement would have been justified based on the belief in God. Kant tried to base it on formal logic. Others tried to bse it on empiric sensations. The significance of existentialists is that they tried to create not relativistic moral systems that are not dependant on that assumption.
I’m basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral “facts.” As proposed moral facts, I submit that the following things, inter alia, are always wrong:
* Forcible rape
* Slavery
* Murder of an innocent (leave off discussions of time travel and whacking a three-year-old Temujin, please)
* Arson
* Statutory rape, taking into account that somewhere in the late teens arguments will erupt about what is an appropriate age of consent; as I mentioned before, boundary questions don’t necessarily impact the core claims, which is why I also don’t wish to debate whether the Jefferson-Hemings relationship (see below) constituted rape.
8) I don’t think anybody on this thread actually supported moral relativism.
As a definitional matter, if one is opposed to absolutism, one is necessarily some form of relativist.
9) What is difficult for us is that people that we admire, like Jeffreson for example, lived in a society that today we would consider immoral. Was Jefferson a bad logician, a bad Christian or a guilty of existentialist bad faith?
I don’t mean to go off on a rant here, but I probably will. Jefferson was guilty of non-existentialist bad faith: he was a hypocrite. He wrote the Declaration of Independence but also wrote Notes on the State of Virginia, which included comments about blacks and women that would make Orval Faubus blush. Holding those opinions, he then proceeded to conduct a long-term relationship with Sally Hemings. He did many great things for this country, but many of them were at least arguably inconsistent with his stated political principles (for example, how the foremost strict constructionist of the Constitution could endorse the Louisiana Purchase has never been satisfactorily explained). Jefferson stands for the proposition that a great man need not be a good man. (Abraham Lincoln and John Paul II stand for the proposition that it is possible to be both.)
The larger point that you’re after (now that I’ve finished ranting) is that good people have lived in bad times, and done things that we’d rather they hadn’t because either they didn’t know better or because they couldn’t leap out of their frames of reference. Jefferson’s other foibles notwithstanding, American slavery is an obvious example. George Washington claimed to have loathed slavery, although he had slaves at Mount Vernon. Alexander Hamilton did as well (but somewhat atoned for that by advocating abolition at the Constitutional Convention and founding an early abolitionist society with John Jay and Gouvernor Morris). A belief in absolutes doesn’t necessitate unrealistic judgments; we can acknowledge that good people participated in an evil institution, and acknowledge that it takes an heroic effort of will sometimes to escape the frame of reference one is born to. Just remember that we are in fact forgiving them for something that was wrong.
With regard to the lengths of threads: That was at 435…this one stands, as of this post, at 429.
I blame myself. It took me two posts to get a random reference to a Demi Moore movie onto the internet.
Hmm… Perhaps the Scared Straight program should include a video about big, sweaty man-rape.
-Rex Hondo-
And Rex breaks the record! Say something to the folks at home, Rex!
I’d like to thank everybody who made this possible, with nods to Bill, Jim, Den, Jame, Micha and many others. I’d also like to give special thanks to Peter David, without whom, we would not all be here.
I could go on, but in light of this evening’s acheivement, there’s only one thing that truly needs to be said:
BUSH SUCKS!
-Rex Hondo-
I thank everyone for the kind words about my profession, and I’ll try to suppress my first reaction, which is to ask each of you how fast you were going and when’s your court date?
In other news, a recent poll found that 64% of Americans, including 81% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats, approve of the NSA surveillance program. Tim and I are officially now members of the same minority. It’s a strange, strange world.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of philosophy.
As a matter of fact (outside the one exception I mentioned) you would be perfectly valid in believing this, precisely because morality is relative. If you “know” that sodomy is immoral, you are right. For you. However, if you “know” that sodomy is ok, then you are also right. For you. Kant would claim that one of you HAD to be wrong, when simple observation tells us that that is incorrect.
Does it really? It seems that way because social mores with regard to sodomy have shifted considerably in our lifetimes. Let’s rephrase the question: Suppose I “know” that pedophilia is wrong, and someone else “knows” that pedophilia is right. Are we both right? Is neither of us right? Kant would say that only one of us is right, and it’s me. Does simple observation settle that issue as well?
Sodomy is an interesting example to toss out, considering what happens to your reasoning when you really follow through with your “Do no harm” absolute. If you’re right, then I’m right, because that leads us to a host of moral absolutes, and the most that can be claimed about traditional morality is that it has often misidentified absolutes. My worldview is completely compatible with the notion that we should reexamine our assumptions periodically to make sure we haven’t been sloppy. In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, surely no relativist, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” I have claimed that there are absolutes; I never claimed to have perfect knowledge or understanding of them. Maybe sodomy was misidentified as a moral issue, and certainly slavery was misidentified as not being a moral issue. That doesn’t actually challenge my premise.
One last thing: you question my understanding of Existentialism, by saying that Sartre wouldn’t have have accepted Nietzsche’s “will to power.” First, I never said specifically that Sartre was a big fan of it, but his professed philosophy is STRONGLY rooted in it. Not to mention the fact that “will to power” simply means wishing to do the best for oneself However, that is beside the point.
Actually what you said was that Sartre was ‘someone who subscribes to a philosophy that is focused largely (in Nietzsche’s phrase) the “Will to Power”‘. I merely submit that there is a significant difference between saying that Sartre’s philosophy was “focused largely” on a Nietzschean concept and saying that it is “rooted in” it. The former suggests endorsement of the idea, whereas the latter is consistent with a reaction against the idea or a development from it. Your second statement is correct.
You question my understanding of Existentialism, I question your understanding not only of Sartre, but of philosophy. You said:“Sartre lived during World War II and even joined the Resistance, but his moral philosophy eschewed Big Questions for a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself. (Answer: no.) “
First, if you think that Sartre avoided the “Big Questions” the check out a slim little volume humbly entitled “Being and Nothingness.” I don’t know about you, but Being strikes me as one of the big questions. Further, you say: “a discussion of whether an obsequious waiter was being true to himself” as if it was a bad thing. There is nothing more common in philosophy then using precise, clear cut examples (large and small) to discuss a larger thought. For instance at a Philosophy club meeting, we once had a large discussion of whether Red was really Red. Now, that may seem silly, unless you realize that we were discussing the question of perception, and by reducing it to something so simple we made it easier to see what exactly was going on.
Well, I’m glad you had a club meeting, but you should have known perfectly well that I wasn’t insulting the field of epistemology. Questioning How We Know What We Know is a reputable tradition going back to Plato, who as usual áršëd it up. However, it’s perfectly clear that I was speaking, as the entire discussion up to that point had, of moral philosophy, which in Sarte’s writing is the ghost of a chimera.
First, Being is a big question, but it’s one that was resolved by Dr Johnson who, in refernce to George Berkeley’s claim that nothing actually exists except as ideas, said “I refute him thus” and kicked a rock. We exist, and Sartre and I agree on that ontological point; its the deontological ramifications of existence that I take issue with Sartre.
Second, the use of simplifications as heuristic models is a splendid idea if they are extrapolated back out. Plato, for all his many faults, had the right idea on this: he had Socrates work inductively, taking limited examples like you mentioned, of, say, what goodness consists of, and trying to construct from them a general Theory of the Good. (Admittedly he went haywire and also tried to construct a general Theory of the Triangle, Theory of the Chair, and other Platonic form nonsense, but hopefully that doesn’t invalidate the whole approach.) Sartre left the definition of the good up to each person, which (I contend) ignores certain issues that are universally good, moral, or whatever adjective you wish to insert. Questioning perceptions is a good idea. Take the next step. Sartre never did.
I didn’t mention the Resistance by accident. Sartre lived through some of the worst atrocities of his or any age– hëll, he moved to Berlin in 1933– and on occasion he actively fought against them. As France’s preeminent intellectual he had an enormous audience with whom he could have started a dialogue. He could have discussed the nature of evil, why men do what they do, how the calamities of his century came about. He. Said. Nothing. Hannah Arendt couldn’t explain the banality of evil, but at least she was able to name it. Sartre wasn’t even that helpful. He did talk about lesser calamities; he said, in reference to the 1972 Olympic attack, that “The only guilty party was the Munich police.” http://www.is.wayne.edu/raronson/Articles/Terror%20Symposium.pdf I’m going to assume that the authors of that symposium know a little more about Sartre than I do, so I’ll accept their somewhat contradictory summaries of Sartre’s endorsement of political violence. I might agree with you that “Do no harm” is a reasonably plausible moral absolute; unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have been Sartre’s view at all. Sartre, in fact, would have “set the murderous Machiavel to school.” (3 Henry VI , III, ii) That is another problem with relativism: with no countervailing principles (q.v. value pluralism) the ends really do justify the means, because the ends are the only justification for anything. That is how Sartre was able to endorse Stalinism. (Earlier when I said his Communism was naive or stupid I was probably being too forgiving.)
And no, writing The Condemned of Altona does not atone for the damage Sartre has caused philosophy in his other writings. He also wrote Dirty Hands, whose hero, unlike Merseault, probably does reflect the author’s own opinions.
Wow. I take a few days off to go to NYC and this becomes the existentialist discussion group. I can’t say that I’m familiar with Kant or Sartre, but I can sum up my own peronsal view of morality fairly succinctly: If it involves one or more consenting adult humans and has not effects beyond what the consenting adult humans know and understand at the time they engage in their own behavior, then the MYOB rule applies. Anything that causes harm to another nonconsenting human is immoral.
Oh, and Demi Moore’s verion of The Scarlet Letter is blasphemy. There’s no other word to describe it.
“* Forcible rape
* Slavery
* Murder of an innocent (leave off discussions of time travel and whacking a three-year-old Temujin, please)
* Arson
* Statutory rape”
If I read you right David, you are saying that these are wrong, have been wrong, and will always be wrong.
Well, First, let me say that, once again, Sartre, You, and I, all agree on this. These all fall under the heading of, “Do no harm to others” which is the ONLY absolute truth. The only two that are really debatable are the Statutory rape (ancient Greece?) and the slavery (Bible has rules for becoming a slave) However, I would argue that, in Ancient Greece, there really were no statues, and the entire society was structured that way, and it wasn’t really rape.
As for the Bible, what it describes is a whole lot closer to Indentured Servitude then slavery. Not that Indentured Servitude is a good idea, but it isn’t so morally repugnant.
“It seems that way because social mores with regard to sodomy have shifted considerably in our lifetimes.”
Social mores only reflect what the majority believe. Certainly in Victorian London, there were plenty who were okay with sodomy. It simply isn’t what the majority believed.
“Suppose I “know” that pedophila is wrong, and someone else “knows” that pedophilia is right.”
Wrong here David (you don’t mind if I call you David do you? I mean, now that my TRUE identity as a college student who by night fights crime in Gotham city has been revealed, I feel like I should be calling all you people sir.)
anyway, the point here is that pedophila causes extreme damage to the child, thus falling under the “Do no harm” clause. Sodomy, being between two consenting adults, is fine. Pedophila, between an adult, and a usually non-consenting minor, is bad. Now, in Ancient Greece, the Quid Pro Quo is that, since it was so common and consensual, that no harm was really done to the child, and the relationship was ok. but only in such a society where it could be assured that the child experienced no long term damage.
“Well, I’m glad you had a club meeting”
Ehhh..I really shouldn’t call it a club, its more like a buncha guys who, when they happen to see each other, by arguing about reality.
“First, Being is a big question, but it’s one that was resolved by Dr. Johnson who, in reference to George Berkeley’s claim that nothing actually exists except as ideas, said “I refute him thus” and kicked a rock.”
Which is clever and all, but not really ontologically sound. It’s still a great story, but even if we do really exist (which I will concede) then that leaves tons of other questions…foremost among which is “Why?” and “Whodunnit?”
So Sartre’s discussion of what being is all about is not really invalidated by Doc Johnson.
“Sartre left the definition of the good up to each person, which (I contend) ignores certain issues that are universally good, moral, or whatever adjective you wish to insert. Questioning perceptions is a good idea. Take the next step. Sartre never did.”
Again, Sartre himself placed that all important Quid Pro Quo on right, which automatically invalidates a lot of things that we know to be immoral (and yes, I use know in the Kantian sense, he never took the next step either.)
“He. Said. Nothing.”
First, what could be said? And second, there is some question as to how aware people really were about the Holocaust. Remember, in WWI, a lot of horrible stories had been released about (non-existent) German Atrocities, so most people didn’t believe the stories about the Holocaust. Certainly a member of the Resitance hiding in Paris would have had a lot of trouble getting information from Poland. Even many of the Jews didn’t believe the stories (Eli Wiesal’s “Night” discusses this.) Thus, his not speaking out could simply be because he didn’t know, or didn’t believe.
“That is how Sartre was able to endorse Stalinism. (Earlier when I said his Communism was naive or stupid I was probably being too forgiving.)”
Did he actually endorse Stalinism? or merely communism? and did he endorse Big-C communism (IE the USSR, China etc.) Or Little-c communism (the idea.) Further,, as with Hitler, the atrocities under Stalin weren’t reveled until much later.
I am forced to agree with you, however. Sartre wasn’t the best of men. However, that in no way invalidates his ideas. I mean, just cause Jimi Hendrix was a serious stoner doesn’t mean his music is bad. Same thing with Sartre. It doesn’t matter so much if HE practiced what he preached, as long as his followers do.
“Hmm… Perhaps the Scared Straight program should include a video about big, sweaty man-rape.”
and thus are records broken. With Man-Rape jokes.
“Oh, and Demi Moore’s verion of The Scarlet Letter is blasphemy. There’s no other word to describe it.”
You want blasphemy? I just heard Pat Boone’s version of (I kid you not) Jimi Hendrix’s “and the wind cries Mary.”
excuse me, I have to go stop the blood shooting from my ears.
First off, James–hope yer ears have stopped bleeding. Don’t worry, eventually the nightmares leave.
And now just to add my two cents about society and mores. Soceities are, as a GENERAL rule, dynamic. Old members leave or die, new members come in. So ideas change. The ideas that are absolute now may no olnger be absolute next week. Not to be trite, but once upon a time there was an absolute about the world being flat.
And lastly, Demi Moore and The Scarlet Letter. REmember what I said about the nightmares fading?? Ain’t ALWAYS true…
Pat Boone was always the recording industry’s go-to guy to make what used to be called “black music” acceptable to inbred racists. His version of “Tutti Fruiti” is horrendous, too.
And let’s not even discuss what William Shatner did to “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.”
“And let’s not even discuss what William Shatner did to “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.””
Hey, now, don’t knock the Shat. Although, he “performed” at the George Lucas’ tribute a while back. I kept waiting for him to actually start singing…and then I remembered, for him, that WAS singing. (shudder)
“I’m basing it on the wager that I can enumerate certain statments that are true for all people in all times. If nobody can falsify some or any of these statements (and I notice nobody has chosen to refute any of them) then I feel confident that I have, indeed, identified moral “facts.”
You are begging the question. We need to take a step back. This whole discussion started with the question of what could be the basis of moral principles? And the argument was made that without god to validate moral principles — i.e. for anyone who has a naturalistic view of reality — nothing but complete moral relativism can exist.
The list of moral principles you give seems to be based on a scientific/observational basis. That is either history or anthroplology = all human societies have these principles, or a naturalistic basis = it is in human nature to have these principles, though you have not spoken of natural law in general.
I’m not clear if you dislike Sartre for his actions and opinions on political questions or the fact that according to his philosophy moral decision is made by individuals in given circumstances. If not, than who would make moral decisions? Should we leave it to qualified anthroplogists, historians, or biologists to do so?
Sartre based his morality on the philosophical observation that moral choice rests in individual humans, which he calls freedom. The result of that view seems to be not moral relativism but the moral principle of freedom. He would probably oppose slavery and rape too. Regretably, I know very little of Sartre.
As for his politics. I believe he wrote about/against antisemitism, and was also vocal about the War in Algeria. He could not have spoken about the Holocaust until after the war, since the Holocaust proper only started after France was conquered. About Communism: the two watershed events of communists in the West happened in the mid-50s: the revelation of Stalin’s crimes and the the subduing of an uprising in Hungary by tthe Soviets. I know this caused a break among communists, I do not know where Sartre stood. If Sartre supported freedom and continued to support a regime that was oppressive that would be bad faith. I will not hold against him his opinions about Munich. As an Israeli I am familiar with the state of mind. It requires three partially true assumptions:
a. That the Palestinians were fighting for their freedom.
b. That the use of violence is justified in the fight for freedom.
c. That the objective of the Palestinians in that event was not to kill innocents.
In a sense, Sartre seems to have repeated his mistake with communism in blindly supporting somebody just because they seemed to be waving the flag of freedom.
Sadly, I know even less about Isaiah Berlin, who coined the term value pluralism. However, according to Wikipedia, value pluralism seems to be something in middle between moral absolutism and moral relativism. The link to Isaiah Berlin also seems to suggest that he did not support the view that moral values have objective validity. But as I said, I know close to nothing of him.
About sodomy and pedophilia: today most people who hold to a morality based on harm view homosexuality as moral and pedophilia as immoral. In the past sodomy was considered by most immoral, while slavery was not. The assumption is that somehow since then human society (or some of its members) has learned something about morality that people in the past did not realize, and therefore they were wrong and we are right about both counts. In a sense I share this view. I think in a sense Sartre does too, which is not to say that we all have the same opinions. The philosophical problem of justifying this view is a little more difficult. I don’t think you have solved it.
Dr. Johnson’s response to Berkley is not good if you think that the philosophical discussion on ontology and epistemology was worthwhile. It is not an anser to it as much as a claim that the discussion itself is silly. I find the discussion interesting and important. there is a relation between this discussion and the moral philosophy called utiliterianism, from which the idea of harm as a moral principle is derived.
For Pat Boone to sing anything by Hendrix (and probably many others in the list of great rock musicians) is absolutly immoral.
I have a chilling fear that in the future Pat Boone will be considered One Of The Greats, who was unappreciated during his life but now revered as a musical giant.
All of which is one good argument against longevity.
BTW, here’s a suggestion; Everyone post at least once each week to this thread, which will keep it alive forever and ensure that no other thread gets as large just for the sake of getting large.
Also, in the future, some kid will be able to write his of her thesis on how the subject matter changed over the ensuing decades. They will probably be listening to Pat Boone as they write it.
Great merciful crap. My (really fairly lame) sweaty man-rape comment could some day be scrutinized as some sort of historical turning point?
The thought that there could be Pat Boone playing just makes it doubly disturbing…
-Rex Hondo-
“Great merciful crap. My (really fairly lame) sweaty man-rape comment could some day be scrutinized as some sort of historical turning point?”
Yes.
Which is why, when History is approaching, you choose your words carefully! What if Ceasar hadn’t thought of Veni, “Vidi, Vici?” Or Lincoln had forgotten about “A nation of the people, by the people and for the people??” What if THEY had made sweaty man-rape jokes at such a historic moment??? WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HISTORY???
Sonja: Judgment of any system, or a priori relationship or phenomenon exists in an irrational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.
Boris: Yes, I’ve said that many times.
Russian gentleman: So who is to say what is moral?
Sonja: Morality is subjective.
Russian gentleman: Subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Moral notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality.
Russian gentleman: Not as an essential extension of ontological existence.
Sonja: Can we not talk about sex so much?
Boris: What would Socrates say? All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer. A: Socrates is a man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. Means all men are homosexuals. Heh… I’m not a homosexual. Once, some cossacks whisled at me. I, I have the kind of body that excites both persuasions. You know, some men are heterosexual and some men are bisexual and some men don’t think about sex at all, you know… they become lawyers.
Boris: The question is have I learned anything about life. Only that human being are divided into mind and body. The mind embraces all the nobler aspirations, like poetry and philosophy, but the body has all the fun. The important thing, I think, is not to be bitter… if it turns about that there is a god, I don’t think that he is evil, I think that the worse thing you could say s that he is, basically, an under-achiever. After all, there are worse things in life than death. If you’ve ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know what I’m talking about. The key is, to not think of death as an end, but as more of a very effective way to cut down on your expenses. Regarding love, heh, what can you say? It’s not the quantity of your sexual relations that counts. It’s the quality. On the other hand if the quantity drops below once every eight months, I would definitely look into. Well, that’s about it for me folks. Goodbye
All quotes form Woody Allen’s great LOVE AND DEATH
450th POST!!!!!!!