´óÏó´«Ã½

Will, thanks - that is really interesting. Perhaps Brian would like to comment, but from the above it would appear that Rawls' views accord most closely with straightforward Humanism, no?

[Sorry I haven't been active here lately, folks - still training for my bike ride from Amman to Nazareth - Google "Answers in Genes Portmucked"; hopefully it'll click through soon enough. You'll get the idea :-)]

Utter confusion. Just like most believers who put their gray matter to any real use. Makes me consider that man created religion before he created god in his own image, god being merely the justification for the exercise of authority.

"Rawls invites us to conceive of justice as an agreement we make with others to live in accordance with moral principles that represent the best chance of securing fairness for everyone."

Actually, justice exists in civilized society as an alternative to the natural desire for revenge when we feel wronged. It takes the view of deciding whether or not a crime has been committed to an uninvolved impartial third party and imposes a suitable punishment for it if it has. It lets "the punishment fit the crime." This is the reason we don't feel the need to carry arms with us wherever we go and don't look at every passing stranger with fear and suspicion. We know that even if they wish us harm or ill, they are aware that they will likely face consequences if they act on their impulses. This is the pact of civilization Scotland broke when it released the mass murdering terrorist a couple of weeks ago. It's hard to know who some Americans feel most aggreived to seek revenge against, Libya or the UK.

So how does a just god sit by and let the holocaust just happen? Theologians in their cryptic way would tell you that god has given man "free will" and will not interfere until judgement day when sinners will pay for their crimes by going to hell. That is when justice will be meted out. Poor tortured souls like Rawls can't concede the possibility let alone accept the reality that there simply is no god, it was all just made up "stuff" and there won't be any judgement day for many criminals. I've never much believed in epiphanies anyway, on the road to Damascus or anywhere else. Once a believer, always a believer. This born again stuff happens too many times to the same people over and over again especially in the US where people shop for their religions often jettisoning one for another as frequently and easily as they buy a new pair of shoes.

But what do you do when you are told by your priests that whatever you are, you are a sinner and are going to hell unless you change your evil ways? Do you lie and pretend to be something you're not when you can't change your basic nature or do you find inner turmoil forever trying to reconcile what you are told to be with what you know you are? Rawls never really gave up his religion even if it betrayed him. Neither has Christopher Hitchens. All he did was find a way to make a lot of money pretending he did. Americans are suckers for repentent sinners especially if their mortal sin is being a left wing faux intellectual Brit.

"This is the reason we don't feel the need to carry arms with us wherever we go..."

Moved house, Marcus?

"But what do you do when you are told by your priests that whatever you are, you are a sinner and are going to hell unless you change your evil ways?"

Do nothing, Marcus. It means you get a good night's sleep not having to worry about it.

Gaspar de la nuit

I have never concerned myself for even one second of my life about going to heaven or hell. That's what I call "freedom from religion."

Marcus,

Good for you. Night Night.

"If I die before i wake
I hope my 'freedom from religion' wasn't fake."

;)

...or that I chose the *wrong* religion! How pants would that be?!? Mohammed was right all along. Tsk. Them's the breaks.

XL pants!

"Actually, justice exists in civilized society as an alternative to the natural desire for revenge when we feel wronged."
Is that everyone, Marcus? Or just you?
My OED defines justice as "the quality of being fair and reasonable."
Meaning that:
"Rawls invites us to conceive of justice as an agreement we make with others to live in accordance with moral principles that represent the best chance of securing fairness for everyone."
is not utter confusion. But I expect that definition clashes messily with your belief in me-first Objectivism.

That man is a moral being is clear to all thinking people. How there can be any ultimate right and wrong without an absolute moral standard is not so clear. To have a bottom line in morality requires acknowledgement of a Sovereign Creator.....GOD.

"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Romans 14v12)
One thing that separates man from the animal creation is that he is morally accountable.
Rejecting the concept of God does not postpone that ultimate appointment!

pastorphillip;

"That man is a moral being is clear to all thinking people."

This is a generalization. There is no absolute standard of morality. What is moral in some societies, cultures, religon, is immoral in others. In Sudan, a woman wearing a pair of pants is immoral.

"How there can be any ultimate right and wrong without an absolute moral standard is not so clear. To have a bottom line in morality requires acknowledgement of a Sovereign Creator.....GOD."

Not at all. Morality may have a biological basis, possibly in part genetic. Some individuals who are judged criminal do not have the capacity to tell right from wrong, feel no compassion or empathy towards other people, and become sociopaths. These are the exceptions but it is not a matter of conscious will or free moral choice. Whether through genetic defect or brain injury, they are judged criminally insane and are kept guarded in mental hospitals to protect themselves and others rather than in prisons in civilized societies.

The morality we in western society have adopted and continue to follow may have a basis in pre-history when the human species was in jeopardy of extinction through lack of numbers. Disease, war, famine, could have brought an end to the human race. Morality based on that reality was meant to keep the greatest number of people alive for the longest time. Today the human race faces extinction through exactly the opposite problem, too many people. The morality which sustained human existance now jeopardizes it. Global warming is ultimately a consequence of having too many people alive for the planet to sustain in a stable environment at the current level of technology and the demand by all of them even in the poorest least developed societies to share the same level of comfort and freedom that those in the richest most developed nations enjoy.

"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Romans 14v12)
One thing that separates man from the animal creation is that he is morally accountable."

A human assumption and invention. There is no basis in fact for this statement, it is strictly a matter of emotion. The need to invent god for a variety of reasons in no way alters the fact that until proven otherwise, god has no more substance to it than any other invented fairy tale.

"Rejecting the concept of God does not postpone that ultimate appointment!"

Your commands and those of your counterparts to obey your directives or face eternity in hell often fall on deaf ears but when they don't, they invariably sooner or later result in crusades, jihads, wars by condemning the outcasts, the other, the heretics who do not listen or obey and must be killed. That is where your morality has inevitably led throughout history. It has caused more death and misery to more people than any other single source, maybe more than all others combined.

Hoy! You left out virtue ethics! (:

Okay, to defend Pastor Philip a little... (not that he was under attack. I'm getting my retaliation in early.)

His question seemed to be can we have an objective morality without an Ultimate source of value?

Some options for grounding morality. 1) Existential Choice. 2) What an ideally rational agent would choose to do. 3) Whatever promotes human "flourishing" or "well-being". 4) The values of our particular community. 5) A Social Contract (mythical or actual).


On (5) - I don't know Rawls work very well, but I thought he was more interested in finding a set of rules that a liberal society can agree on than justifying morality as such. A think a nihilist and a Christian could both be Rawlsian.

GV

Will, thanks for that contrib; as an Atheistic Christian [riding a bike from Muslim Jordan to Jewish Israel in aid of a Christian hospital in Nazareth, hint hint, folks! Check out "AnswersInGenes" - still got some money to raise], I would see Rawls's deontological view as the more sensible.

Face it, we lack the brain power to calculate long term effects from our actions, if we apply a strict utilitarianism - we're into chaos theory territory, baby. But we *can* support specific principles which in general we can agree are worthy, and mould our behaviour/attitudes around them. Essentially, these are heuristics that our behaviour can coalesce around; our brain has evolved to detect such heuristics (arguably). But a real actual existent god is not a necessary component of this. The "moral argument for god" is just mince.

-H

Helio - all the best with your bike run - but consider this for a moment (and it loathes me to go down this line)

Despite the laudable effort it is, tugging as it does on the heart: "an Atheistic Christian [riding a bike from Muslim Jordan to Jewish Israel in aid of a Christian hospital in Nazareth, hint hint, folks!" - my, you've every base covered there...

...despite this, why should this effort be deemed more worthy than the Holocaust science which was intended to be of value to the Aryan race in Germany?

Is this the answer? - "But we *can* support specific principles which in general we can agree are worthy, and mould our behaviour/attitudes around them."

Yes, I can hear Himmler say that too.

Why should anyone give to your charity, or any other good cause for that matter? It cuts across the grain of humanity's history (including religious history as has already been pointed out) that to do any good has to be squeezed out of us, (hint, hint, folks!)

To find hope for the world in any evolution of the brain is flat-earth stuff - which is probably a kinder sentiment than saying it's mince.

Goodness, where did that kindness come from? Oh yes, everybody agrees it's worthy.

Marcus,
there ya go again. Really quite convincing when it comes to discrediting the religious clap trap. Well done.

Now just apply the same logic and critical awareness to almost every other subject you opine on, and you're there!!

Hi guys! Hope you all had a good summer.

To ease myself back into the blog, I might as well add to this old-ground debate. We've all been here before, but...

Helio, you seem to think that your view of morality simply need no more explaining. We attach labels to actions...and that is all. Sometimes when pushed, you admit that we use certain criteria to attach these labels, but this is always where you become slightly hazy.

Why are there principles "which in general we can agree are worthy"? On what grounds do we agree to this? What is your answer to those who don't agree?

Apologies again for dredging up old dead-end arguments, but like I say, I'm trying to ease myself back into thinking mode after an enjoyable summer. :)

This pre-modding is irritating even from the first post. Isn't there a danger that we'll all be arguing with each other in different time frames?

And incidentally, Helio, I don't hold to any argument deriving the existence of God from the existence of morality. I don't think it follows that, because there are morals, there must be a God.

However, I do think that morals are ultimately groundless, entirely non-binding, and ultimately meaningless without a transcendent calibration. Does this mean that there is a God? No, it could equally mean that morals in general are just nonsense on stilts. but it makes you think.

Caspar, yes indeed you should be reluctant to go down that trail, because it leads nowhere, as scholars of Godwin's Law will tell you. You'll fall off your bike that way. It doesn't matter whether you can hear Himmler saying something or Jesus the Nazarene saying something - the question resolves to whether a particular moral approach to the world accords with certain principles or not.

We are all members of society, so to live together, we probably need to accept certain principles on the assumption that they are widely shared. The "golden rule" is one such humanistic principle, and once you accept that, a huge amount of practical "morality" flows from it.

The problem is that in arguing against an atheistic morality, you are in fact arguing that such humanistic principles are an inadequate basis for both moral behaviour and moral theory. That would be somewhat astonishing.

Now I've to guess what is being said in 20 & 21.

Good to read ya again Bernard. I thought you'd maybe taken up a lecturing position in Mayo

GV

pastorphilip raises another senseless point regarding an imaginary judgement day with his non existant christian god.

An atheist meets god


"Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." George Carlin


BTW good luck with the bike ride helio.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No, what i do find astonishing is that someone believes that such humanistic principles are an adequate basis for both moral behaviour and moral theory.

But I commend your faith in humanity's inherent goodness.

By the way, which "golden rule"? The Jesus one, or others that do the rounds?

And, Helio, I seriously do wish you the best on the bike.

"The problem is that in arguing against an atheistic morality, you are in fact arguing that such humanistic principles are an inadequate basis for both moral behaviour and moral theory"

Yup.

The reason they're inadequate is that, given that we're ALL human, absolutely anything we can and do decide to do can be equally posited as the hinge of morality.

It's all very well you saying that "we accept certain principles on the assumption that they are widely shared", but it's equally valid for asome human to quite simply say "I don't accept them, shared or not". why should we?

Old ground again folks, sorry. no doubt you think you've answered this point numerous times, Helio. I just haven't quite grasped your answer.

Good to see you too, Graham. No lecturing in Mayo, fortunately, but some nice european holidays! :)

In #24 I accidently clicked the post comment box without posting a comment! I want to now see how pre-moderation works with it.

It is all a bit slow.

Princess

I think the invisible man is working in pre-moderation.

GV

21 minutes later...

Pre-moderation sucks.

Which is a bit like 28 days later, but without the quick witted zombies...

Has anyone seen that movie?

Why are people making sooo many zombie movies?

I'm writing random comments again to make the pre-moderator earn his wage...

Look, if this pre-moderation nonsense has something to do with the WW threads, can't we just dump the threads? Can't somebody show them how to open a page on BeBo or something?

And why is it still calling me a new member? I've been here over a year! Do I need to get a tatoo or learn a funny handshake or something?

GV

30 minutes later! Hurrah!

Bernie

Look at the bright side. We can argue with ourselves in different time frames.

GV

As addictive as this is, I'm going home.

gveale the invisible man in pre moderation is taking on the thought control role based on the invisible god role model.

Next is banning people into outer darkness for thinking and expressing their opinions. Thou shalt not break the holy house rules. :)

Is it tea-time?

The bike ride from Amman to Nazareth will be quicker than this moderation business.

Are they looking sponsorship?

Thou shalt not make any mistakes when thou post, or say anything that is not bbc pc or the wrath of the mob(d) will be unleashed upon you.

Good discussion going on here.

Now, decisions, decisions. To get involved or not? What to do? Well, I'm tempted, but Graham and Bernard and Pastor Philip (hi Bernard, pity you missed the wee spat we had on here, we Protestants were protestanting again!) have the bases covered, so I think I'll spectate for a while, although I reserve the right to shout some abuse from the crowd (or should that be congregation?).

However it may interest some to know that I'm being influenced, and I've gone and bought one of these:



Now, does anyone know how to use it?

Plan B, get a life, folks?

even better, go and sponsor me and comment on my no-pre-mod blog ;-)

-H

I knew I'd left something out of my list - I don't believe in morality either.

When I look rationally at the world and consider the origins of life it appears clear that self-interest is only logical criterion for human decision-making. A minimally sophisticated version of self-interest distinguishes between immediate and longer term benefit: it recognises that one may make concessions to the convenient myth of society in order to secure a safer environment for oneself.

Theorising morality (whether secular or religious) strengthens the hold of social bonds and facilitates the codification of desirable regulation. Morality keeps the herd in line but anyone with reasonable intelligence and an unfettered mind perceives the sham and understands its nature.

I think I can do anything I like so long as it is either certain never to be discovered or attracts an only an acceptable penalty on discovery. There are no boundaries beyond these and no other principles whatever.

Fortunately reason is only a part of human cognition - we now understand that our intelligence encompasses more than the processes of mere ratiocination.

If we are honest it is only our feelings and our ability to empathise with the feelings of others which provide any sort of basis for genuine altruism and morality.

Has anyone figured out why the blog was moved to pre-moderation yet? Was it because... we, did something wrong? Said the wrong things? Offended the ´óÏó´«Ã½ deities? Not sure.

Parrhasios

Ah yes, the list!

Now this does interest me, primarily because it seems that you are the only one consistent enough to say that in abandoning any notion of an absolute we can only do what we feel to be moral (I can't even say right). Now that is not to say that doing something moral based on feelings is necessarily wrong, but do you agree that what I feel and what you feel to be moral may be two different things, and do you see any dilemma here?

There are any number of things which could be said, but, apart from me not seeing any need to reject how our feelings can inform us and tending to a view which considers reason and feeling to be complementary, does basing morality or altruism on feelings (however valid this may be) in any way free us from the need to define these actions? I mean what is genuine altruism. Can altruism be inauthentic? And how might we know this?

Surely this recognition of human feeling and empathy is another way of speaking of the 'voice' I referred to in post 16 on the 'we don't need religion' thread. From whence the voice? What does is speak of? Who speaks?

And sorry, I'm going to ask another question on the 'believing' thing, but I'll add it to the other thread, the "we don't need religion" one.

I have figured it out postmoderation is the way forward.


Since we are on the topic of justice


Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.




Article 1.

* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.



Article 3.

* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


Article 4.

* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


Article 6.

* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.


Article 7.

* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.


Article 8.

* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.


Article 9.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


Article 10.

* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.


Article 11.

* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


Article 13.

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.


Article 14.

* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Article 15.

* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.


Article 16.

* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Article 17.

* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


Article 18.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


Article 19.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Article 20.

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.


Article 21.

* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


Article 22.

* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.


Article 23.

* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.


Article 24.

* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


Article 26.

* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


Article 27.

* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.


Article 28.

* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Article 30.

* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights made it through pre-moderation!

Hooray!

What a pointless post.

Admirable sentiments, obviously, but surely just a practical declaration of numerous recognised goods, and not a theoretical explanation of their goodness, or of morality, justice, or ethics in any sense.

And fair play to Parrhasios for taking his thought to the logical conclusion. At last we have a Nietszche on the blog!

Bloody moderation. Post 50 refers to post 48, not to post 49!
:)

20 minutes later...


Shall we play guess what Bernie wrote?

GV

I AM NOT A NEW MEMBER!!!!

33 minutes later

John asked a good question.

Why the sudden pre-moderation?

Is it related to the WW threads?

I'm afraid what I wrote wasn't worth waiting on.

And neither is this.

:)

Comment forums can't work like this!

"Admirable sentiments, obviously, but surely just a practical declaration of numerous recognised goods, and not a theoretical explanation of their goodness, or of morality, justice, or ethics in any sense."


Oh I don't know Bernie...there' nothing I like better than to imagine no possessions, no need for greed or hunger, and a brotherhood of man. You know, all the people sharing all the world, no hell below them. Above them only Sky TV satellites.


GV

Yep, this is tosh. The moderator is speeding up a bit, and it's not [((his v her) v (his & her)) v neither (his v her))] fault.

I think that covers all the politically correct options.

Anyway, heaven knows how many other blogs he/she etc. has to watch. So no offence, whoever you are. [Is "whoever" species-ist?]

For a comment forum, this isn't working. Maybe we should just post some good jokes, or something.

GV

Bernards_Insight- Unfortunately I do have the time to enter into a discussion, however I will just say this, funny how nobody seems to be much concerned about the details of David Cameron’s bill of rights considering he could be the next PM and this is a thread on justice.

Hopefully you will soon pop into thinking mode :)

Thanks Princess.

Conversely though, I thought the thread was about the theoretical foundatiomns of justice and ethics, not about some particular practical proposal by some particular politician. Funny how those with no notion of how to "justify justice" in a wider theoretical sense would much rather bore us with party political particulars.

Perhaps you may also get into thinking mode and take those particular issues to Nick Robinson's politics forum, where I reckon they'd be better placed.
:)

Princess

On that note, we could discuss the difference between public and private morality - or whether such a disticntion is helpful or necessary.
Rawls wanted a system of Justice we could all agree on. McIntyre said this is impossible. So can Catholics, Muslims and Secular Humanists hold to different conceptions of Justice and peacefully co-exist? Or are liberal societies doomed to failure - as the Wests opponents claim?

You should see this post in half an hour, probably two unrelated posts will appear in between, and I'll maybe see a reply an hour later.

GV

There are no such things as rights, only temporary privileges which governments take away at the very moments we need them the most. Rights which can be taken away, arent rights.

What about "entitlements" then.

Entitlements are still entitlements, even if they're not given.

Sorry, are we discussing something in particular here? It's hard to know.

:)

Opps I meant to say I did not have the time. I will continue to read the comments though.

I will just have to interrupt when I get more free time.

Yep, that conversation just flowed beautifully.

On the up side though, that took less then 13 minutes to be moderated. They must like you.

13 minutes ...

that gave them two minutes per word and an extra minute to consider the comma.

You know the way William suggested that while we're waiting for our comments to pass moderation that we go read another thread and comment on that one too, well, I think I'm going to give it a try. He said something about the possibility of this solving our moderation problems, so, let's see...

There ya go. Just had a wee tour of William's blog, dropped a few pointless comments here and there, hope no one minds.

:-)

Peter post # 47.

Have you managed to post the threatened question on the "We don't need Religion" thread or has it been moderated?

Would prefer to read it before replying to post 47.

Parrhasios

Sorry, not yet. Two reasons, one because I've had a bit extra admin to do and two because I keep reworking the question!

However, here's one version (posted here to save you flicking back and forth).

It relates to belief, or as Helio would say *belief*!

What H seems to mean, is that 'belief' is a non rational leap into a world (possibly a mystical world) of hope, or story, or constructed meaning which is entirely unrelated to 'god', because there isn't a 'god', and he seems to go on to say that it (belief) is unnecessary anyway because the stories we construct work and can be explained in some way or another scientifically.

You seem to be saying something similar, yet different, and what I'm trying to do is understand the similarities and differences. You say you do not *believe* in God, but you do, in some way, acknowledge one, and I suspect that you might say you know God but that this knowing is not on the basis of rationality, rather it is on the basis of another part of human cognition, namely our feelings.

Sorry that was wordy, but I'm struggling!

You went on to say that, "belief and disbelief are words we use when we attempt to speak of apprehensions from one area of brain activity in terms appropriate to another." and this seems to be similar to Helio's 'construct' view of morality/ethics/meaning.

So, how close am I, and what difference, if any, is there between Helio's view that 'knowledge' of 'God' is a non rational leap which he calls *belief* and your non rational knowledge of God which is not *belief*?

And H, if I'm wrong, butt in, won't you; I'm sure you will! :-)

Peter

Interesting questions - I will attempt a response tonight.

In the meantime just a little pointer: Helio was (and patently still is) evangelical; that is a term I don't think even my worst enemies would ever consider applying to me.

Peter - # 47

First I would say we do not "feel something to be moral": feeling is not a substitute for thought. Our feelings do not lead us to categorise our actions. We may act altruistically, not because we feel it is moral to do so, but because empathetically we share the situation of another and their problem is as our problem. Definition is superfluous: there is no morality only practicality.

Genuine altruism arises from sympathetic transposition. Altruism is inauthentic if has been prompted by any logical process; it is inauthentic because it is not possible to arrive at altruism by means of reason without self-deception.

I would say that the voice of which you speak is the voice of Christ - it speaks of love and it is truth.

Thus we come nicely to post # 71.

For the rationalist truth is a concept, perhaps no more than a measurement of accuracy in description; for me truth is a person - Jesus Christ.

I suspect Helio's position and mine are actually poles apart (and I imagine he would think the same - if for different reasons). Helio appears to me to have substituted Science for God as possessor of the power of explication of Life, the Universe and Everything (that it is a method rather than a person is only a detail).

For me God has never had any explanatory function: I did not have to reject Him in order to accept scientific method just as I do not have to believe that Science potentially holds all the answers to everything in order to fill some void in my consciousness.

Science is served by reason alone: observation, analysis, deduction, logic. Science serves mankind as a tool. Science, however, as a world-view is seriously flawed: it is partial, it is inadequate, and it is deceptive.

I suspect, rationally speaking, neither Helio nor I see any remotely convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of God indeed there are some quite strong counter-indicators. Helio, refusing to venture beyond reason, concludes that there is a high degree of probability god does not exist. I, thinking there are tasks for which reason is as useless as a microscope is for studying the stars, open the whole of my consciousness to feeling and experience and there encounter God in love.

For Helio the leap is unwarranted, for me it is essential.

This, essentially, is where I'm at - Whittier in "Immortal love" put it much better than I ever could:

The letter fails, the systems fall,
And every symbol wanes;
The Spirit over-brooding all,
Eternal Love remains

Peter, there is one other small difference between Helio and me. Being an Anglican my prayers are much shorter than his. I'm tempted to say miles shorter...