Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 03-06-2002, 07:59 PM

Just curious as to what you would make of the first couple of chapters about the natural law?

Vorkosigan · 03-06-2002, 10:41 PM

Lewis is not known as a particularly deep thinker, although his fiction is outstanding.

If you want a serious discussion of morality and human nature, you have to read works by people who do serious thinking in these fields. I suggest reading The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. by Tooby and Cosimides.

For those of you who are interested in this book, it is online at:

<a href="http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm</a>

His discussion of objective morality in Chapter 2 is hilarious, and any of our regulars could sink him like a stone.

In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve,' there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

A whole chapter of non-arguments like this, in the form of "If-A then we couldn't say B, but we do say B, so A must true." Luvluv, that's what we call a "logical fallacy" in the world of philosophy.

Which aspects of Lewis would you like to discuss?

Michael

luvluv · 03-07-2002, 12:26 PM

Micheal, specifically discuss the passage you just quoted.

Can one nation be more correct in it's view of what is moral than another nation?

luvluv · 03-07-2002, 12:28 PM

And if you are a better thinker than C.S. Lewis, where may I purchase your books?

Vorkosigan · 03-07-2002, 01:54 PM

And if you are a better thinker than C.S. Lewis, where may I purchase your books?

Do you read Japanese and Chinese? That's what I've published in. Except for some poetry in English.

Can one nation be more correct in it's view of what is moral than another nation?

What does it mean to be "more correct?" That can only be true relative to some standard. Do two nations share common standards? If so, perhaps one can convince the other that it is more correct. Your question only makes sense with reference to some standard, so until you supply a standard shared by all, the question is merely an interesting hypothetical.

Michael

luvluv · 03-07-2002, 02:03 PM

Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society.

It would seem that Nazi Germany and America do not share a standard in this case, so then can it be said that both are equally moral in their view?

After all, it would not be fair of the United States to impose it's morality upon Nazi Germany.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Vorkosigan · 03-07-2002, 02:33 PM

Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society.

This is not the US point of view. Some Americans think this. Others, all religious, and almost all Christians, believe it is OK to kill for religious reasons. For example, the Army of God is killing abortion doctors, and to join the KKK and lynch blacks, you need to be a Christian. Also, you should probably consider our attitude toward Muslims.

It's evil to kill. Do you know of any way I could get the Nazis to accept that point of view?

And why wouldn't it be fair for us to tell the Nazis that what they were doing was wrong?

Michael

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 02:37 PM

luvluv,

Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society.

You've conflated two different questions here:

1) Is it ethical to kill individuals whose beliefs are a threat to society?

2) Did Judaism pose a realistic threat to German society?

The first is an ethical question, the second is a practical question. Even an individual who would answer the first question in the positive could be persuaded that Jews posed no real threat to Germany.

It would seem that Nazi Germany and America do not share a standard in this case, so then can it be said that both are equally moral in their view?

Presumably, they both share an interest in building stable, enduring, prosperous societies, though. A strong argument can be made that equal rights for all are an essential component of such societies.

After all, it would not be fair of the United States to impose it's morality upon Nazi Germany.

I agree.

luvluv · 03-07-2002, 02:49 PM

turtomn says:

"And why wouldn't it be fair for us to tell the Nazis that what they were doing was wrong?"

Because there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. You can't impose your morality on the Germans.

"It's evil to kill."

There you go again pushing your morality on everybody. Why can't you atheists live and let live? (Or live and let kill, as it were)

Pompous the Jews could well have presented a threat to the state that the Germans were trying to build, which is an Aryan pure race state. And who are we to say that a stable prosperous nation is more desirable than a racially pure one? Again, that is you imposing your morality on a free nation, and you have no right to do that. Nazis value racial purity over stability, and you have no right to tell them that it's wrong.

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 02:59 PM

luvluv,

You're falling into the same trap as many objective moralists who try to comprehend subjectivist ethics. You're equating my inability to call an act "objectively immoral" with my inabilty to disapprove of the act, even to the point of violence. I can disapprove of an act simply because it conflicts with my own values. If I disapprove of the actions of the Nazi regime, I have two options:

1) Try to persuade them that their actions are incompatible, in practice, with values that they do, in fact, hold. As I noted, I think that a strong case can be made that racist policies are incompatible with a number of commonly held values. If this fails to persuade them, then I can...

2) Initiate cooercive force to change their behavior. For those of us subjectivists who do not hold pacifism as our supreme value, this is a perfectly ethical response.

03-06-2002, 07:59 PM	#1
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Has anyone read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? Just curious as to what you would make of the first couple of chapters about the natural law?

03-06-2002, 10:41 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Lewis is not known as a particularly deep thinker, although his fiction is outstanding. If you want a serious discussion of morality and human nature, you have to read works by people who do serious thinking in these fields. I suggest reading The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. by Tooby and Cosimides. For those of you who are interested in this book, it is online at: <a href="http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/cslewis/merechri/merech01.htm</a> His discussion of objective morality in Chapter 2 is hilarious, and any of our regulars could sink him like a stone. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve,' there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse. A whole chapter of non-arguments like this, in the form of "If-A then we couldn't say B, but we do say B, so A must true." Luvluv, that's what we call a "logical fallacy" in the world of philosophy. Which aspects of Lewis would you like to discuss? Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2002, 12:26 PM	#3
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Micheal, specifically discuss the passage you just quoted. Can one nation be more correct in it's view of what is moral than another nation?

03-07-2002, 12:28 PM	#4
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	And if you are a better thinker than C.S. Lewis, where may I purchase your books?

03-07-2002, 01:54 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	And if you are a better thinker than C.S. Lewis, where may I purchase your books? Do you read Japanese and Chinese? That's what I've published in. Except for some poetry in English. Can one nation be more correct in it's view of what is moral than another nation? What does it mean to be "more correct?" That can only be true relative to some standard. Do two nations share common standards? If so, perhaps one can convince the other that it is more correct. Your question only makes sense with reference to some standard, so until you supply a standard shared by all, the question is merely an interesting hypothetical. Michael

03-07-2002, 02:03 PM	#6
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society. It would seem that Nazi Germany and America do not share a standard in this case, so then can it be said that both are equally moral in their view? After all, it would not be fair of the United States to impose it's morality upon Nazi Germany. [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

03-07-2002, 02:33 PM	#7
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society. This is not the US point of view. Some Americans think this. Others, all religious, and almost all Christians, believe it is OK to kill for religious reasons. For example, the Army of God is killing abortion doctors, and to join the KKK and lynch blacks, you need to be a Christian. Also, you should probably consider our attitude toward Muslims. It's evil to kill. Do you know of any way I could get the Nazis to accept that point of view? And why wouldn't it be fair for us to tell the Nazis that what they were doing was wrong? Michael [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ] [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

03-07-2002, 02:37 PM	#8
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	luvluv, Specifically, could the US morality that states it is not okay to kill someone based on religion be morally superior to the Nazi's morality which states that Jews should be killed because are a danger to society. You've conflated two different questions here: 1) Is it ethical to kill individuals whose beliefs are a threat to society? 2) Did Judaism pose a realistic threat to German society? The first is an ethical question, the second is a practical question. Even an individual who would answer the first question in the positive could be persuaded that Jews posed no real threat to Germany. It would seem that Nazi Germany and America do not share a standard in this case, so then can it be said that both are equally moral in their view? Presumably, they both share an interest in building stable, enduring, prosperous societies, though. A strong argument can be made that equal rights for all are an essential component of such societies. After all, it would not be fair of the United States to impose it's morality upon Nazi Germany. I agree.

03-07-2002, 02:49 PM	#9
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	turtomn says: "And why wouldn't it be fair for us to tell the Nazis that what they were doing was wrong?" Because there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. You can't impose your morality on the Germans. "It's evil to kill." There you go again pushing your morality on everybody. Why can't you atheists live and let live? (Or live and let kill, as it were) Pompous the Jews could well have presented a threat to the state that the Germans were trying to build, which is an Aryan pure race state. And who are we to say that a stable prosperous nation is more desirable than a racially pure one? Again, that is you imposing your morality on a free nation, and you have no right to do that. Nazis value racial purity over stability, and you have no right to tell them that it's wrong.

03-07-2002, 02:59 PM	#10
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	luvluv, You're falling into the same trap as many objective moralists who try to comprehend subjectivist ethics. You're equating my inability to call an act "objectively immoral" with my inabilty to disapprove of the act, even to the point of violence. I can disapprove of an act simply because it conflicts with my own values. If I disapprove of the actions of the Nazi regime, I have two options: 1) Try to persuade them that their actions are incompatible, in practice, with values that they do, in fact, hold. As I noted, I think that a strong case can be made that racist policies are incompatible with a number of commonly held values. If this fails to persuade them, then I can... 2) Initiate cooercive force to change their behavior. For those of us subjectivists who do not hold pacifism as our supreme value, this is a perfectly ethical response.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.