07.01.08
Moral Judgment is Gone Baby Gone (Part III).
Isn’t it interesting:
That man universally has the notion of “ought” such as “I know what ought to be the case?”
However, it is not politically correct to say that the “ought” must be anchored to something objective just because it is universally understood. For example, we may not all agree on the sentencing for all crimes, but we all seem to agree on which crimes are heinous and deserving of a sentence.
And we do not say that because something “is” therefore it “ought”–naturalistic fallacy. [For example, so and so always gets arrested for shooting so and so, therefore, he "ought" to get arrested for shooting.] What we say instead is that something “ought” to exist in a certain way. In an ordered world, for someone or something to behave differently than it “ought” it is wrong. It is saying that because someone has done what was against what they ought to, they are wrong. Or said differently, what is “good” or “right” has been other than what it was supposed to be (or “ought” to be) and was replaced with “not good” or wrong.
I find it interesting that there isn’t just something missing, but that we all sense that there is something missing where something is suppose to be–that where something that seems right is missing, it is filled with a less good alternative–that where good is suppose to exist, evil does. Said a little less offensively, that where charity ought to be, selfishness exists.
“Moral” Definition 1): of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
“Moral” Definition 2): founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
Judgment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judgment (accessed: July 01, 2008).
The real hero is the person who does what is right with right motive (regardless of whether society affirms him or not). He is not a hero for doing what he wants. Nor is he a hero for doing what others want of him.
It is difficult, thankless, and lonely to be right. This message is for all of you heroes–ordinary people who recognize that we are accountable to more than ourselves and each other.
paige said,
August 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I say Patrick was extremely selfish in his final decision in the movie.
I am not surprised that your less than rigorous meandering thoughts on this topic end up, apparently, supporting your belief in god (do they?)… but I have to say, if you conduct yourself as you think your version of god would, then you, would create a world exactly like ours, so I cannot recommend you as a person. You would be extremely egotistical, creating beings whose sole purpose is to worship you, and who come to you because of the tortuous situation you have created in your omniscient wisdom by creating evil itself. Perhaps you should find a better role model by which to live your life.
I know you find “reason” to be lesser than faith, so maybe you should remove your pretense to intellectualism? Why TRY to argue logically about morals when you do not believe they are based in logic.
breadandsham said,
August 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Hi Paige,
My, I sense a tad bit of angst. I really don’t see how Patrick’s decision was selfish. Please help me understand this.
Secondly, the question being asked is not whether or not God exists, it is whether or not morality or moral judgment can exists if we have tossed absolutes aside.
Thirdly, if I believe in God then you said that you couldn’t recommend me as a person. To who? For what? There is no authority other than other people in relativism.
Fourthly, whose doctrine indicates that God created evil?
Fifthly, please suggest a better role model than Jesus.
Sixthly, I am not hiding behind any “pretense to intellectualism.” To say so, you would have to know me and my critique of either reason or faith. I don’t see a contradiction in holding a reasonable view of both simultaneously.
Morality is contingent upon absolutes–it requires both reason and faith. If reason exists without faith, morality would be illogical. This is all that I intend to argue.
If you want to impress me, point out how morality can exist if God does not.
paige said,
August 6, 2008 at 11:33 am
I have no desire to impress you.
Patrick was selfish because his idea of what was right superseded everyone else’s ideas about what was good, and he ruined the lives of decent people, through his action, simply so he could live with his choice. It was all about him. And, if you recall, in the end he spends time with the child, almost as if he wanted her to himself. Consider the results of his actions.
You must know that the discussion of god and absolutes is intricately intertwined. This is why you are even pondering the topic.
You, due to the nature of your religion, have the desire to impress upon people that there is a god, probably why you are so concerned with the idea of “impressing.”
You want to impress me? Tell me how there can be morality if there is an omniscient creator. How can a god who is all good create evil, or the idea of evil, or agents that practice evil? Your religion and philosophy has a major flaw. I know, you will fall back on faith…. so why can’t relativists? Why can’t I have faith in the workings of the world without a conscious entity behind it? Faith is not constrained to religion.
You do believe god created everything? You do believe the satan was an angel, and god created him and knew what would happen? All part of his diabolical master plan to get people to “love” him. Ridiculous.
I like Christians. They are nice and usually want to be good people. Fortunately for me and others that is possible to do without a divine figure lurking and judging in the background. It is too bad that so many people who are oriented towards goodness are so darn superstitious and irrational, and have a tendency to shape their ideas on limited grounds.
It must be a comfort to you to not have to actually think since you have your ultimate guidelines all laid out. You already know your conclusions before you reach them, because they MUST agree with the Word. I understand that you are scared of a world without big daddy love, and you live with your delusions as a way of coping, but there is life and goodness outside of the rigid beliefs of Christianity, or other religions. We don’t have to fool ourselves to live correctly.
By the way, you are conflating god and jesus… but of course. But, if we are consistent then jesus has all the traits of god, therefore he is a jerk. but this is another discussion.
The point is, is it possible for you to have thoughts/conclusions that contradict the bible, or do you always fall in line?
Do you want people to be good and decent to each other? Does that matter to you at all? Or are you only interested in the Christian agenda at all costs…. absolutely?
breadandsham said,
August 6, 2008 at 6:20 pm
This is a fascinating discussion. Thanks for being willing to “chat.” Obviously, words won’t sway you or I, but kindness and civility are what we share in common. That being said, this conversation is just as much for my information, than it would be for me to convey any information to someone else . . . I guess that’s a big part of why I blog at all.
You make several interesting comments. I’ll respond to the ones that imply that you understand something of Christian faith or me, that I disagree with. This will help us know one another’s faiths without presupposing anything.
Firstly, not only do I agree that the notion of absolutes imply the existence of a God, but I believe that all knowledge is contingent upon a knowledge of God–morality included, not morality exclusively.
2) I don’t have to impress people with the belief in God. I don’t find it necessary, effective, or even possible. The Scripture teaches that God is capable of impressing people of Himself by Himself. For example, God has revealed His nature (although invisible) by what He has made (things which are visible). That a God exists is a reality that I both embrace and submit to. If not, then it is a reality that I am afraid to embrace for fear that I would be accountable to submit to someone or thing greater than myself. Explain to me how my faith in a Savior is more self-centered or egotistic than one’s faith in oneself.
Wait a moment . . . you don’t understand what I mean, nor does the question seem like one you can respond to. I met a guy once who felt similar toward Jesus or God as you do. He said, “What kind of a God sends people to hell? You’d have to do something pretty f***ed up to get sent to hell.” His dilemma was not a belief in God’s goodness, or the goodness of Christ, it was before all of that. His issue was that he didn’t think he was bad–or bad enough compared to evil people, such that, he didn’t think he needed a Savior. To him or you, I would say that we have to recognize the dilemma that we are in if we are to ever see a need for rescue.
How can God be omniscient, omnipotent, and good in the presence of pain and suffering? This is not your primary question, but only a secondary one. One that follows admission of guilt for the suffering. But for what it’s worth, it’s consistent with Dawkins and Harris. “I’m not lost!” For my viewpoint on the issue, read this or
this.
Elena Maria said,
October 1, 2008 at 11:51 am
I have just recently watched this movie and have been searching the web for intelligent discussion over moral dilemma. I found your blog interesting. My take on the moral dilemma is usually not a popular one either. This question can be raised with regards to practicing medicine as well. When a child is born with defects that would, without the interference of man, likely die as they are not meant to survive, what IS the right or moral thing to do. If the child is not treated, so as to adhere to God’s plan or Darwinism (both would seem uncharacteristically agreed to this point), are the parents “letting” their child die and, as such, indirectly murdering their child? What would God want? Would he want this child to be saved by artificial man-produce or conceived means? Or would he want his superior beings, which he gifted with the intelligence to develop such means, to save the child?
The Bible has many such dilemmas. Teaching in the old testament, Abraham and his son, we should obey God’s word blindly and without question. Yet, God’s word later says “thou shall not kill”. Another example and most prudent.. the entire old testament glorifies war in the name of God. The killing of those who oppose God’s word and people. This same God that demands war and death turns around to say thou shall not kill. Seems, just as in today’s time, amendments needed to be made in order to shift from war to peace. The new testament is a bill of rights of sorts. And Jesus, the “new face” of what was once a sadistic and contradictory religion. To this “new” face, we see COMPASSION being the strong hold of Christianity; WWJD being the mantra. Well, the answer is, we have no idea what Jesus would do.
So you have this God that glorifies murder and taking of slaves in his name… then you have Jesus who teaches Love GOD and Love your fellow human.. which in my humble opinion is a direct contradiction and in light of such, it is no wonder we struggle with moral dilemma, the Bible does as well.
Our LAWS say the mother should have her child back.. our COMPASSION says otherwise… Old testament vs New Testament.
Thank you for reading my comment. Very compelling blog.
Elena Maria said,
October 1, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’d like to add one more comment: I liken the child molester scene to David and Goliath:
Killing the evil intruder of christian values.. yet, in doing so, breaking the sacred commandment of “thou shall not kill”.
Goliath = child molester
David = Patrick
I have been pondering this for the whole day and hope it sparks some thought for you as well.
breadandsham said,
October 3, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Elena Maria.
Even most believers within a Judeo-Christian heritage have similar concerns. Few inquire, and even fewer take a stab at an answer. I recognize that any comment that I make here will sound just as foreign to a modernists, as does the Old Testament and its casting of the Supreme God (Yahweh). What do I mean by modernists? It’s today’s popular mood. I’m afraid that humanism attempts to merely draw out of individuals a sense of autonomy from God, as if we are no longer in need of Him for day to day living, ethics, or even the afterlife.
Without a need for God, modernists add one additional (and tragic) mistake. They place mankind in the center. A humanist who is also a modernist has a worldview that raises man up to a place of sovereignty. It is heard this way: “You are sovereign over your own body, your marriage, your money, your choices, etc.”
A Christian is quite out of step with popular mood. A Christian recognizes that God is sovereign and that our body is not our own. Our spouse is not our own. Ultimately our lives are not in the center. Within our Christ-centered life, our own life is dead. If we have not died to the flesh, we are not truly living. Such as “He who does not have the Son (Jesus) does not have life” (I John 5:12). Such as, “lest a seed fall to the ground and die, it cannot bear fruit” (John 12:24). We are “hidden” in Christ. Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ that lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).
I’m not trying to be cryptic, so let me just shock you and be done with it. The OT and NT God is one and the same. He is the center and He
gives life and takes it away. He does what gives glory to Himself, not man. Men and women who embrace this reality are invited to be His Bride. God loves His church. He defends and protects and keeps her pure. To do this, people die. It is both physical and spiritual death.
It is of no concern who kills the body, but what truly matters is whether or not I know the God who can kill the body and send the soul to hell. Meanwhile, evil people are doing evil. They are designed to give God glory. Instead, they have exchanged evil for a lie, and while that may be so, God lays Himself down and allows himself to be murdered by them for you. My concern is not the deadly poison of humanity in anyone else but myself. I am the one who crucified Jesus. Now, I crucify myself to serve Him.
With regard to the David and Goliath bit, there is little correlation. David was an instrument that God (Yahweh) used to protect the purity of His church. He loves His church. I don’t want to be autonomous from God. Why would I want to be a Philistine and rise up to mock and challenge Israel when I could be Israel? The small guy takes the big guy’s sword and severs Goliath’s head with it.
Warning . . . reading the Bible changes lives. You may never be your own boss anymore.
Maria said,
December 27, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I just watched the movie and came across your webpage. My husband and I have engaged in great discussion as what Patrick should have done. I believe the truth needed to be known – kidknapping can not be permitted because I believe the child would be better off with so and so – but how can everyone allow the child to go back to that horrible mother? Oh this movie ends so open ended, I hate it.
Reading this blog has lead me to another issue that so many have justified this year: pro-life. So many were able to vote for someone who stood up against life and back him up saying, well, at least the children were not born into misery? Wow…. and so even though I hate this movie… I tend to like it at the same time. Who are we to decide who lives and where they live and die?
I so much enjoyed reading this blog. Author of the blog, you inspire me. Thank you for staying so firm to your beliefs. So few do and so couragously.
Thank you for the creative discussion.
breadandsham said,
December 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I can’t believe that you even read three posts about the same film! Much less, commented. Thanks for reading, I’m elated. I just watched “Seven Pounds” with Will Smith last night and it seems that we were just handed another masterful moral dilemma.
There were so many tears shed over the actions and decisions made at the end of the film. I’m not impressed with the moral of the story in the least bit, but to be fair, it was a terrific piece of writing and cinema none-the-less. I’m most likely going to compose a review of that suicide soon.