Well, maybe like God you are supposed to have faith that it does.
Willing but unable. The source of my information is my experience as a Christian prone to deep discussions with other Christians.
Don’t do that. I am asking you what you mean by the phrase. You know this.
I have been involved in enough really interesting discussions on topics like this to know that often people do not mean what everyone thinks they mean when they use intellectually and/or morally laden phrases like “christian morality.” You’ve been involved in enough such discussions to know this as well…
BTW I thought the relevant question wasn’t so much the content of one’s morality as the justification for it. But maybe I misread the conversation.
Can the latter be answered without proper definition of the former?
Since the issue is one of trust, I think the question is “which group–theists or atheists–can give an account of the reasons why one should be moral which supports our trusting members of that group to actually act morally?” It doesn’t really matter too much what the detailed content of the two moralities is, so long as it is pretty similar in broad strokes. (And it is.)
I understnd now-thank you.
My understandingof Kohlbergian moral reasoning must be very different than yours. (Of course Kohlbergian moral reasoning is really just a codification of tradition going back thousands of years.) The very lowest stage of moral development is not the one that accepts authority, but the one that completely refuses to do so. It’s the “if it feels good do it” stage. The middle stages are the ones that see moral commands as coming solely from a societal or earthly authority. The highest levels are those which accept a definite moral law that is distinct from and above all human law. From the link above we get this:
Kohlberg’s conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.
Kohlberg himself may not have explicity mentioned God–he did not come from a cultural milieu where it was fashionable to do so–but Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. certainly tied their belief in an absolute moral law to the law of God. Read King’s letter from Birmingham Jail, for instance.
You suspect incorrectly. Good day.
The Moral Teachings of Jesus, by Mary Foskett, does exist.
Well, I certainly don’t get either of those things. In your first example, you ripped a quote out of context from a paragraph:
DO NOT open your heart to every man, but discuss your affairs with one who is wise and who fears God. Do not keep company with young people and strangers. Do not fawn upon the rich, and do not be fond of mingling with the great. Associate with the humble and the simple, with the devout and virtuous, and with them speak of edifying things.
Put in its proper context, we see that it means something very different from what you’re claimg it means. As for “do as you are told, even if you know better”, Kempis says mo such thing. If you’re claiming he says so in this paragraph:
Furthermore, who is so wise that he can have full knowledge of everything? Do not trust too much in your own opinions, but be willing to listen to those of others. If, though your own be good, you accept another’s opinion for love of God, you will gain much more merit; for I have often heard that it is safer to listen to advice and take it than to give it. It may happen, too, that while one’s own opinion may be good, refusal to agree with others when reason and occasion demand it, is a sign of pride and obstinacy.
It looks like another case where you’re misrepresenting. What’s wrong with a little bit of humility?
I don’t see where Kempis says this.
Or this. In fact I don’t see him mentioning my kids being butchered at all.
etc…
As far as I can tell, everything you say here is a misrepresentation of what Kempis wrote.
Have you actually read the books that I linked to, or is it your habit to judge books without reading them?
Exactly which portions of each of the books do you judge as “pretty horrible”, and on what grounds?
I’m guessing it’s exactly the portions he linked to, that presumably being the purpose of the links.
Which of those three links contains the best definition of “christian morality”. Which chapter? which page?
I judged the one I did read through (imitation of christ) and gave you my opinion. That it is badly written theological bilge. I stand by that, it is dreadful. Are the others any different?..better written at least one would hope.
The parts that I read of that book are either tediously obvious or “pretty horrible” in various ways. There really isn’t any point in any of us quoting individual passages is there though? Because we know exactly what linguistic ducking and diving will follow.
Just like I know you will use my unwillingness to indulge you as an opportunity to suggest I can’t find any “pretty horrible” passages. Hey ho, the links are there for everyone to follow so I’ll just let the book speak for itself.
And we know why you linked to numerous books don’t we? because it allows you any number of contextual “outs”. You can claim that a given phrase can mean anything.
If you think I’m missing something fundamental here then don’t be coy about saying so but simply diverting people to read up on various books is a fairly pitiful response. If you know what “Christian Morality” is then tell us in your words. Or point us to where we can find a clear and coherent definition that doesn’t require one to apply a contextual or personal moral/ethical filter.
All you have done is add weight to my initial claim that you can’t (or don’t want to) define “christian morality.” you seem to be suggesting that others have done this but you don’t have courage enough to stick your neck out and put in your own words.
So how does “Do not keep company with young people and strangers” differ from “Do not socialise with young people?”
“Accepting solace from another is wrong.” Well the first link was to a page titled True comfort is to be sought in God alone. Which flat out states.“Vain and brief is human consolation.” And in God’s Gracie Is Not Given To The Earthly Minded Explixitly tells you to “remove yourself from aquaintances and dear friends.”
From How We Must Call Upon and Bless the Lord When Trouble Presses, we start off with the following quote “BLESSED be Your name forever, O Lord, Who have willed that this temptation and trouble come upon me.” I don’t have kids, but if I did I would call seeing their deaths as at least slightly troubling.
Would you like me to explain my interpretation of the rest of the links I posted?
I would love to hear the explanation for This bad parody of a Monty Python sketch.
I see several problems with this:
Where do these laws come from if not ancient peoples who may have a flawed understanding of the world around them?
How do you account for the sharp differences among various religions?
What is the mechanism for weeding out obvious falsehoods or injustices?
At what point does reason come into play?
I suspect that most atheists agree that there could be such a thing as absolute moral law, but that it’s a work in progress given how badly flawed faith-based moral reasoning is.
In other words, not from a god. “Morality” supposedly from a god is in reality either a collection of dogma written by lunatics, con men and primitives; or something some believer made up to suit their prejudices & desires then labeled “God’s will”. Basing your “morality” on “God” is either the amoral & mindless obedience of rules set down by ignorant, irrational and usually primitive people; or it is amoral self indulgence given the gloss of divine right. Religious morality is pretty much an oxymoron.
Unless of course you can actually demonstrate that your supposedly God-derived morality really comes from a god and not your own imagination or that of some several-millennia-dead lunatic. And you can demonstrate that the god in question is moral.
Of course it is. I’ve actually studied and used it.
Really? How so? Most regard it as a development from Piagetian stages of cognitive development.
Is this your model of moral development? Because it isn’t Kohlbergian, or consistent with any of the other models I’m familiar with. It sounds like sheer nonsense.
In fact, here’s a quote from your own link, regarding Piaget:
Here’s Kohlberg’s lowest level of moral reasoning:
What the hell are you talking about? He was a Jew who was very involved in Israeli causes.
So? They didn’t develop models of moral reasoning, which is what we’re talking about. You’ve claimed to have done some kind of analysis of Christian versus atheist systems of morality, but you cannot provide any sort of discussion of it here.
Everything you’ve written reads as if you just went to some website just now and largely read the information there exclusively with the aim of supporting your position.
I’m sorry, I find this a little ambiguous. I can’t tell whether you’re saying that you truly think atheists don’t believe in Good and Evil or you think that the poll respondents believe that atheists don’t believe in Good and Evil. At any rate, I do think a successful propaganda campaign conflated Communism and atheism along with plenty of other nasty second order signifiers like “Social Darwinist”, “eugenicist”, “nihilist” or “post-modernist”. Even “relativism” is seen as being more dangerous than “absolutism”, since “cultural relatvism” can be used to justify the genocide of Kurds (nevermind that cultural absolutism can justify jihads or crusades).
At any rate, positing God doesn’t actually resolve the issue of absolute good, as Plato demonstrated with the “Euthyphro dilemma”. If good is independent of social usefulness, then God could posit that genocide and rape and theft were good principles, despite the fact that society would be ruined. The theist naturally (doho) recoils against this conception, claiming that God wouldn’t do that because it goes against their nature, meaning that there is some objective standard of good independent of God’s fiat. I think John Stuart Mill ultimately alighted upon what that good was: the most pleasure possible and least pain for as many as possible.
Gosh, you sure do have a razor wit, don’t you?
Recall, here’s what you said: “In any structured evaluation of morality, justifications based on directives from authorities are indicative of low, early stages of development.” You then used this to imply that Christian morality was indicative of such a low stage, because it involves justifications from the authority of God. Now here’s a quote from Gandhi:
“I do feel that there is orderliness in the universe, that there is unalterable law governing everything and every being that lives and moves. It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern living things. The law and the lawgiver are one. I may not deny the law or the lawgiver. … Even as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail nothing, so will not my denial of God and his law liberate me from its operation; whereas, humble and mute acceptance of divine authority make life’s journey easier.”
(from this book)
Hence Gandhi did himself submit to the authority of God, and in the same book there are plentiful examples of him offering that authority as a justification. If we were to take your statement literally, then, we’d have to rank Gandhi as at a “low, early stage of development.” Most people would not rank him so; Kohlberg certainly did not.
Your analysis of Kohlberg’s moral system seems to miss the critical difference between the lowest and highest stage. An individual at the lowest stage recognizes no authoritative moral principle; he may recognize an authority if that authority can reward and punish him. An individual at the highest stage cares nothing about whether someone else can reward or punish him, but instead makes all decisions based on the complete authority of absolute moral principle, which at least in the view of Gandhi and MLK and many other individuals widely viewed as exemplary is identical to the law of God.
The first, if you look at it is context, is advising the reader not to hang out with the rich and powerful, but rather with the poor and humble. The single statement that you’ve clipped out of context twice is, when read within the entire chapter, part of that advice, to not hang out with crowds of young, hip people just because they appear cool: good advice 2,000 years ago or 500 years ago or today. The second flatly doesn’t say what you claim it says. It does not say “accepting solace from another is wrong”; that chapter does not declare anything to be wrong, but advices on which attempts at consolation are likely to be successful. And so forth. All your statements about what Kempis wrote are different from what he actually wrote.
If, when presented with a text, you won’t deal with what the author actually said but instead just try to take a few sentences and spin them in the most negative possible way, you may have a promising career ahead on cable news. But I don’t see why I should be concerned about that type of response in this thread.
Human consolation is vain. (From the text.)
Everything vain is wrong. (By definition.)
Therefore, human consolation is wrong.
To accept human solace is to take part in the practice of human consolation. (obvious truth)
Therefore, accepting human solace is wrong.
This is valid reasoning. It’s not “in the text,” it’s merely clearly implied by the text, whether the author or readers of the text want to take these implications seriously or not.
Your misunderstanding of Kohlberg’s (or apparently any) system of moral reasoning is woeful. One does not categorize a person as being at or of a particular stage. One evaluates the reasoning or justification for a particular act, behavior or resolution to a dilemma as being indicative of a particular stage of reasoning. Individuals are typically “layer-cakes” of reasoning.
Your effort to obfuscate the issue by pulling a quote from Gandhi about submitting to God’s authority, while pointing to the use of Gandhi’s thinking as indicative of higher stage reasoning, is unacceptable. In fact, by suggesting that higher level reasoning is what Gandhi says it is, you seem to be suggesting an appeal to Gandhi as an authority. This itself is indicative of lower level reasoning.
Again, I will use your own cite to help to clarify things for you. Regarding Gandhi et al,. for instance:
Thus, justifications based on universal principles are simply that – principles about what is right or wrong that are to apply to everyone.
Again, as your own cite says, justifying one’s actions because God said to do so is reflective of a low level of reasoning.
To further help to clarify, consider the tried and true old dilemma of Heinz and the drug, in which a woman, Heinz’s wife, is dying, but would be cured by a drug. A druggist in town has the drug that would cure her. However, her husband cannot afford to pay for it, so he decides to steal it.
The evaluation of moral reasoning here isn’t based on what was done, but why. Someone responding that it is wrong for Heinz to steal the drug because “God said ‘Thou shalt not steal’” is showing Level 1 moral reasoning, just as if they had said that Gandhi said they should not steal, or the local policeman said that they should not steal.
In order to evaluate a Christian-based moral system as indicative of Level 3 moral reasoning, you would have to essentially show that decisions made within it were made independently of the authority of God. If you want to argue universal principles, that’s all well and good, but you’ll have to show me how decisions made by an atheist justified by guidance from universal principles differ from decisions made by a Christian justified by guidance from universal principles.
And it won’t do to suggest that the atheist has been compelled by god to believe in universal principles without knowing it; the rationale understood and expressed by the individual as to what is right or wrong is the key to assessing moral reasoning. You’d also then have to explain why god imbues some with high level moral reasoning and not others.
Ooh, isn’t that clever.
But I imagine that if you spend a few minutes thinking about it, you’ll see the flaw in your argument. By your logic, anyone who appeals to any authority is demonstrating “lower level reasoning”. Anyone who cites a paper or a book is demonstrating “lower level reasoning”. Your treatment of Kohlberg as a trustworthy sense demonstrates “lower level reasoning”.
If you want to keep tying yourself in knots like that, go right ahead. As for me, since the original poster has left and the thread has wandered from its original topic, I believe I’ll depart. Good day.