is dr. laura a good jew?

Great Debates
101

Chaim (may I call you Chaim?):

OK, I will agree that you need a starting point. If I understand you correctly, you’re stating that you must have an absolute starting point (=absolute standard for morality) in order to make a meaningful comparison. (If I’ve got that wrong, please ignore this post. :p)

BUT, I can also start at 2 and state that 4 is twice as far from 2 as 3 is, state that 6 is twice as far from 2 as 4 is, and so on. You can select any starting point you wish and make valid arguments.

So, you still have the problem of selecting your starting point. If all starting points are valid, how do you select the ‘absolute’ starting point? If all standards are valid (not to say equal in merit, but valid in the eyes of their followers), then how do you select the ‘absolute’ standard?

In general, people use their own standard as the measuring stick. I don’t have a problem with this, until they start claiming that their standard is the ‘absolute standard’ and all other moral standards are inferior to theirs.

In other words, who gets to say whose moral standard is ‘superior’? I can guarantee that I’ll never agree that DrL’s morals are superior to mine. And I’d be willing to bet most anything you’d care to name that she’ll never agree to the reverse.

So then what?

DrL has made other statements about gays, besides the ‘deviant behavior’ thing. IMO, she is promoting bigotry and hatred. I’m not sure where you are, but where I am, there’s more than enough of that already. You probably don’t hear about the (literal) gay-bashing that happens here in Bumfsk, MiddleAmerica; that doesn’t mean it ain’t happening.

I have no idea whether DrL is or isn’t a good Jew, because I haven’t enough information about Judaism to know. I’m more than willing to let stand your statements that only G-d can make that judgement. Although I’m greatly enjoying the details of that discussion (are you still researching MetallicAsh’s idea?).

But I object strenuously to her claim that her moral standards are better than mine, by mere virtue of the fact that she likes hers better and bases hers on Judaic law. By my standards, she is not a moral person.

Not to mention the fact that she wants to censor people’s speech if she disagrees with their opinion. Her statement (in defense of her comments about the girl’s essay and in regards to Internet censorship) was “The First Amendment is not the Eleventh Commandment. Its protection does not extend to ALL speech.” I’ll just bet that she believes the 1stA extends to ALL of her speech, no matter how offensive others may find it. I’d call that hypocrisy, at the very least. (Any commandments against hypocrisy in the Torah? :wink: )
I do question her use of ‘Dr’. Yes, I know she has a PhD. But I think she is using the term deceitfully and I think her deception is quite intentional.
I listened to her show for a while. At first I found it amusing. I rather agreed with some of her ‘suggestions’ (although rarely or never with her reasoning behind the judgements) and obnoxious as I can be, I thought her diatribes against the poor callers were funny. And I was always amazed that these fools would actually call and ask her opinion; that alone IMO is enough to show that they need serious help.

I quit listening because she got boring: new show, same garbage. That was before she got quite so vituperative. I’ve heard some of her shows since then and read some of her columns and statements, and I generally find her superior attitude and remarks quite offensive. She may be a good Jew, but she’s a poor excuse for a human being in my book.

102

kimstu:

Thanks for the correction.

redtail23:

By all means. Just don’t call me late for dinner…:slight_smile:

Thank you. Now, I will agree with you that there are legitimate differences of opinion on exactly where that starting point should be and exactly how it should be achieved. However, the general area in which modern society believes that starting point to be is pretty clear. The mere fact that you won’t find, on this extremely diverse and open-to-debate message board, a single person who will claim that the Nazi system of morality is equal to or better than the American/Western European one proves it, in my opinion.

I declined to respond to his post, since I already addressed earlier the point, which he missed (but which I see I must repeat, since I obviously wasn’t clear): it was clearly a bit of hyperbole spoken in outrage rather than a genuine intend to threaten.

If you’ll re-read the article, you’ll see that she said she didn’t necessarily disagree with the essay-writer’s conclusion, but with her reasoning (on the moral relativism issue).

Her credentials are laid out on her web site. Unless you can find me any proof that she is lying about them, she has every right to use the title. She has stated many times on her program that she is not a psychiatrist. She is a licensed family counselor (again, unless you have some proof that she’s lying?).

Yeah…people seldom seem to come up with interesting problems. After a while, only the names change. The monologues are usually new material, though.

Chaim Mattis Keller

103

quote:

The mere fact that you won’t find, on this extremely diverse and open-to-debate message board, a single person who will claim that the Nazi system of morality is equal to or better than the American/Western European one proves it, in my opinion.

Because you can’t justify the Nazi system of morality doesn’t prove your argument. You could undoubtedly find a moral system with similar abuses. The Puritans and witch burning come to mind, as do the crusades. The argument wasn’t whether morals were equal but whether they were relative. So much like your number system, the morality of societies has improved over time as more and more of the world starts to move to towards you hypothetical moral system you provided earlier.

104

stuffinb:

As I recall, the argument wasn’t whether or not they are relative at all, but whether or not that relativity is based on an independent standard or based merely on comparison to one another, with no independent standard. And I think that the last sentence in the quote above that you have just stated that you agree with me: there is an absolute standard of morality in relation to which moral systems are judged.

Chaim Mattis Keller

105

That’s astounding! You use the IDEA of something that DOESNT EXIST to prove an absolute. Please, explain the logic in that.

106

stuffinb:

The logic in that is that even if the ideal might not exist as an actuality, it is still clearly the standard against which success or failure is compared.

The best example I can think of (and boy, do I wish I had thought of this earlier, because it seems to me like a very apt analogy) is scientists’ attempts to create a superconductor. They know what they want: a substance that will convey energy with none of it wasted or lost in transit (physics folks are welcome to correct me on the particulars). Such a substance, due to certain realities of physics, might not exist in actuality, but the idea of such an ideal superconductor is the standard against which attempts at creating superconductors are measured.

By the same token, people are not yet certain exactly what the ideal moral system would look like, or if one even could, given certain facts about human nature. However, that absolute, against which such systems that do exist are rated, does exist as an idea.

Chaim Mattis Keller

107

Dagnabit, Chaim, I just read your last post & had to toss out an entire rebuttal I’d worked up. It ain’t fair, man! :slight_smile:

OK, based on your last post, I may have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted some of your previous posts.

This is a summary of your current position. I think. Let me know, OK?

  1. You are NOT maintaining that there is some concrete ‘absolute standard’ that we should be using to measure morality.
  2. You ARE maintaining that there is an idealized concept of an ‘absolute standard’ that we tend to use as a measuring stick against which we judge other moral standards.

Am I right so far?

Chaim said (in response to my repeated request for reply to MetallicAsh’s question):

Ah, my apologies. I didn’t connect your previous answer (to a slightly different question) with MA’s question. Thanks for the clarification.

108

redtail23:

Yup.

Chaim Mattis Keller

109

All Righty Then!

Now we’re getting somewhere. Or at least I understand what we’re talking about. :slight_smile:

(I’ll get back to the OP soon, really. I mean it. Really.)
Chaim:

Will you agree that the measuring-stick standard (= idealized absolute) changes over time? For instance, slaughtering non-Christians was at one time considered to be not just moral, but sometimes ideal behavior (for Euro-Christians, anyway ;)). This is no longer the case.

Will you agree that the measuring-stick standard (= idealized absolute) changes between cultures? For instance, capital punishment is considered immoral, inhumane and barbaric throughout most of Europe, while it is considered moral, just and fair throughout most of the Middle East.
In reference to your last two responses to stuffinb, are you trying to say that we (worldwide societies/cultures) are converging towards a (more) unified ideal concept of an absolute standard for morality?

110

redtail23:

Chaim:

I wouldn’t quite say it’s changed over time, so much as clarified over time. I think that the goal has always remained the same. However, different societies have and had wildly different ideas on how that goal is to be achieved, on what compromises with the reality of human nature are necessary to approach the goal. However, in retrospect (which the point below addresses), it usually (if not always) seems obvious which systems were better and which were worse. Not because the goal has changed, but because while in the middle of it, one has a less clear perspective from which to notice.

I think so. I think that the more information we have on failed systems of the past, the clearer it becomes which approaches to achieving the goal were correct and which were not. And the better a handle we have on that, the closer we are to that absolute morality standard.

Chaim Mattis Keller

111

I can accept your last couple of post as an answer though I think that Ive been saying somewhat the same but from a different starting point. I do think morality and the society are moving towards an absolute standard. Im just in disagreement on how you arrived at your conclussion.

But what the heck, thats enough for me, shake?

112

Prov. 11;12 “he that is void of wisdom, despiseth his neighbor: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace”

Prov.11:27 “he that diligently seeketh good, procureth favor; but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come to him”
(I think operating a radio talk show that asks folks to call in with their problems is 'seeking mischief")

P12:20 “Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil; but to the couselors of peace there is joy”

P13:3 “he that keepeth his mouth keepeth life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction”

P14:6 “A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not…”

P14:21 “He that despiseth his neighbor sinneth…”

and finally (for now); P 14:23 “In all labor there is profit; but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury”

113

stuffinb:

As always…and ditto to whomever else feels like it. :slight_smile:

Danielinthewolvesden:

I’ll get around to looking up the Proverbs verses you’ve quoted.

Chaim Mattis Keller

114

CMK:

I just decided to look into this thread today for the first time, because I already have formed my opinion of Dr. L. But seeing that the thread had lasted into its third page made me curious, and the discussion of moral relativism is interesting, particularly so when CMK brought up the analogy of superconductivity. For me, although it is an immediately attractive analogy on the surface, it ultimately fails for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, with superconductivity there is a set, definable goal that whose meaning is clearly understood by all attempting to reach that goal. There is a definite way of measuring progress toward such a goal. When talking of an absolute moral standard, how can we be said to be progressing toward one when we cannot even define what it is we are progressing toward, nor measure any such progress in any meaningful way?

I think when things like, “We are approaching a standard,” are said we are simply putting our “cultural glasses” back on. Most members of society are inculcated from birth with our cultural prejudices, and it’s hard to see beyond them. Of course we prefer, generally, our current system of morals (though many wax nostalgically for the imaginary better days of the previous generation) over the systems that were replaced. It’s easy to look back and see things in the past that we have done away with and call that progress, and it is progress, but only as defined by the values we hold today. A few centuries from now, people will certainly look at our current foibles and note how well they have “progressed” from their backwards forebears. What changes they will have made are impossible to know, but certainly they will have different ideas about many things, and consider at least some of the things we commonly do today to be immoral, judged by their standards of their day, just as we do the actions of our ancestors. And it is highly likely that at least some and probably most of those changes would be seen as anything but progress by those of us alive now.

There are many things that we take for granted that may be very different in years to come. Today, homosexuality is gaining increased societal acceptance. Many people have believed for a very long time (and still do) that heterosexuality is the only moral course of events. Likewise, today we recognize women’s right to vote and have equal status under the law, at least here. Divorce is no longer considered immoral by mainstream society, nor is giving birth out of wedlock, nor interracial marriages, nor premarital sex. These prohibitions have been removed. On the other hand, we no longer enjoy the moral high ground if we beat women and children, arrange marriages without our children’s consent, own a slave or two, or marry a pubescent girl. Prohibitions against these things have been instated. What things whose moral status we take completely for granted today will change in the future? Polygamy? Adultery? Eating meat? Owning pets? Pedophilia? Monogamy? Marriage itself? Pornography? Cannibalism? Freedom of religion? Euthanasia? The list is probably endless.

Lastly, I have to point out that saying that we are moving toward a standard of morality ignores the real fact that there are many moral systems out there that diverge widely from the ones most prevalent within our culture, some of them diverging on very core issues. They quite naturally feel that they are the morally justified party, and it is we who have an immoral and alien way of life. Even within a culture there can be widely variant beliefs as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. Without such differences, there would be no need to decide if Dr. Laura is a “good Jew.” (Obligatory nod to the OP.)

In light of what I said above, I can only conclude that the idea of progress towards some hypothetical absolute is an illusion. Yes, we do generally like today’s standards better than yesterday’s, and we may even like the direction we think that things are heading in. But such reactions are generally only a reflection of the values we were raised with. There is a progression from there to here, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is some standard of perfection we are approaching. This journey has no foreseeable end.

115

While the analogy may be flawed, I must point out that most of the ‘morals’ you mentioned, things that make society run well come from Judaism. The reason that we are disgusted with human sacrifice for instance is that Judaism forbids it.

116

While I am not sure what reasons are given for Judaism forbidding human sacrifice, I would think there are SOME morals that can be held by the majority of people. Human sacrifice ends a human life. Most people value human life and agree that purposely depriving someone of life is a bad thing.

Although, I guess it is true that this is from the Cultural Glasses of Modern Western Civilization, I hold that a moral base from which to start is not to harm other people. I suppose that could start a debate as to what constitutes harm. Moral relativism scares me, and I think the arguements made from that point of view could be used to justify such things as were mentioned in Ptahlis’s post, such as pedophilia, pornography, cannibalism (I am picking some of the things that from my relative point of view seem to be very bad).

I notice that many of the acts or philosophies which I consider to be morally wrong contain one or more tenets that I consider abuse of power. Way back when I was in high school (suffice it to say in the '70s), the local newspaper printed a letter from a man who was a pedophiliac who was DEFENDING pedophilia. I did not save the letter, but the gist of it was, the child enjoyed it and it caused no physcical harm to the child. What it did not say was that some day that child would grow up, realize that not everyone had sex while still a child, and wonder why that adult did not value her/him enough to refrain from having sex with him/her.

This post is getting really long, but I guess morality, even relative morality, can be developed within each civilization or era, by not harming other people (using harm as how the particular civilization or era define(s)(d) it).

So is Dr. Laura harming people within the confines of Judaism? Maybe not, I’m not Jewish so I don’t know. But belittling people publicly, even though they ask for it, seems to me to be an abuse of power, and I for one, won’t contribute to that abuse by listening to her show.

117

Well, to start with, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT advocating any of the things in that list personally (Not that I think you said so, but just in case I give anybody that impression mistakenly.) I think what you said about valuing human life holds true for all cultures, but where the moral conflicts arise is just how much the life is valued, and who merits the definition of “human.” (As an aside, even the abortion debate here in the US sometimes centers around whether an embryo is human or not.)

Moral relativism should scare people to some degree, because it basically states that there can be no absolute right or wrong within reach of humanity. Even most theists would admit that immorality is not precluded by their texts and/or beliefs because of the way the interpretations of them tend to change over the years, and because of the way they need to be applied to new situations never imagined during the days of the ancients. Moral relativism could be used to justify nearly anything on the list I gave and beyond, but thankfully societies moral character moves rather slowly at most times. It is unlikely, I think, that many of us will ever live to see a society that is radically different in moral precepts than the one we are raised in, but it could happen.

118

Libertarian:

I’ve looked at the Jewish commentaries on the subject of hatred. While none of them specifically address the verses you mentioned, they do mention other verses condemning hatred. And they bring the following verses as examples of when it’s advisable and praiseworthy to hate:

Proverbs 8:13 - To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

Psalms 119:113 - I hate double-minded men, but I love your law.

The Scriptures clearly consider hating evil people (or, in the words of the book I’m referencing, “unrepentant sinners”) to be an integral part of loving and revering G-d and obeying his law. Any other statements regarding hatred are subject to the scope of statements such as these; they are necessarily referring to non-sinners, or to those who would at least be likely to repent.

By the same token, your quote about “In all work there is labor, but in talking of the lips, penury” clearly is not referring to all speech. If it were, how would the commandment of “You shall speak of them (i.e., G-d’s words)” (Deuteronomy 6:7) be fulfilled? Since Dr. Laura’s radio program is intended as a forum for moral instruction and guidance for those who seek it (and not mischief, answering another of your quotes), I’d think it’s safe to say that her radio program is not at odds (at least according to Jewish law) with verses such as the ones you quoted.

Phthalis:

While I’ll concede that the superconductor example is an oversimplification, it is still my contention that there is an absolute moral standard. Unlike superconductivity, progress toward it cannot be measured based on a single factor, complicating measurement of progress. However, let me place the “moral standard” thing in more concrete terms, while still, I’ll admit, I’m oversimplifying. This would be easier with images, but here goes:

Picture a simple X-Y graph, with 0 in the lower left corner and 10 at the uppermost and rightmost extremes. To keep it simple, let’s identify two factors in a moral system. Let’s label the x-axis “Respect for peoples’ lives” and the y-axis “Desire for people to be happy”.

Now, in theory, the ideal moral system (in this simplified model) would be at point 10, 10 on this graph. However, in some cases, some peoples’ happiness conflicts with respect for the lives of others. In some cases, people clearly make their own choices that lead to their unhappiness. Do we respect those choices, or do we intervene? In a choice between two peoples’ happiness, does one get precedence over the other, and if so, by what criterion do we make that determination? There must be compromises, which results in a measure of societal responsibility. This removes the best possible moral system away from that 10, 10 point. But where, exactly, does it place it? That is the question that centuries of human society have been debating, both in academics and in action. However, despite such disagreements, that 10, 10 point is an ideal that all moral systems strive for.

As I said, this is a simplified model; real-life moral systems have a large number of axes that must be balanced against one another. But the principle remains the same.

I agree, except that I would say the differences are not a change in the standard, but rather, the addition of information. Wait…a king is just flesh-and-blood too? Then we’d better adjust the system to equate the happiness of the king with the happiness of the common man. Wait…the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime? Then that compromise in respect for human life was never necessary, we must adjust the system to eliminate that. And so forth.

I do not ignore any such thing. The fact that differences of opinion still exist does not mean that they are not closer to consensus than ever before; it merely means they haven’t reached consensus yet.

Chaim Mattis Keller

119

Chaim, I do not mean to impugn something which I am quite confident you know far better than I. But I had learned that the antitheses common in Hebrew parallel constructions such as the proverbs you quote were not to be taken at their English face value but rather as weightings. For example, God did not mean by “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated” that he truly hated Esau, but that he favored Jacob (and the Israelites) over him (and the Edomites). Would you care to comment or correct that idea?

(And, yes, tracer, “Jacob and the Israelites” sounds like an early-Sixties group, probably four Jewish boys with guitars and yarmulkes. They didn’t do well, though, since they couldn’t do any Friday-night gigs! :))

120

**
(Emphasis mine)

I think that this single word is where my sticking point is with this idea Chaim. (May I call you Chaim by the way? It’s more friendly than CMK.) I understand the thrust of your argument, and your cartesian example. Heck, I even find such thinking very attractive if “absolute” were replaced by “beneficial” or some other descriptor. (It’s definitely more likable than the implications of moral relativism.) I realize that in coming from different sides of the theological table we may be unable to agree here. I presume that you believe that there is a “best choice” in every situation from God’s point of view, and that, as a consequence of this, there must be some moral guide that would allow us to arrive at this best choice if we could only discover what that code is. From a nontheistic viewpoint, I do not believe this is so. Obviously I may be completely wrong, but I still must point out that without further input from above it seems like we could never really know that perfect system. All we have as a guideline is the results of our actions, and competing definitions of “greater good.”

**

I may be a bit confused, but I am having trouble following this. When I used the word “standard” I was referring to the standard by which a culture judges something moral or immoral. More information can cause a change in these standards. But I don’t exactly understand whether or how this is aplicable in terms of absolutes. Are you saying that as we gain information we will naturally move toward an absolute morality? I can see the underpinnings to that argument, however, I still have some misgivings as to how we would evaluate any sort of progress other than in terms of what ideals the present culture values.

You are correct. I shouldn’t have said “ignores.” I should have just said that you hadn’t addressed it and asked for more input. I wasn’t trying to accuse you of dodging the question, but pointing out something that seemed unconsidered.