The Second Question of Ethics

[RCSaunders]

How you got to that conclusion seems like Pilgrim's Progress, (have you been reading Bunyan?), as though life was a chore or something to be endured to the end.

Well, that's not a "chore," but a "pilgrimage". A "pilgrimage" has a very desirable destination, and a "chore" is merely a nuisance.

If you remember, Pilgrim's destination is the Celestial City. And stopping short of it put one in some place like Vanity Fair, where things seemed to be more fun and not nearly so much work; but by abandoning the pilgrimage, one ended up in a cage.

Just sayin'.

You regard life as a, "pilgrimage," a journey with the destination the whole objective, no matter what the cost or suffering the journey entails. I regard that as an obligation one must endure, a chore one must fulfill, whatever name you give it.

I regard life as an adventure of achievement and discovery with that achievement and discovery as the whole objective, not to be endured, but to be thoroughly enjoyed.

Just a very different point of view and sense of life.

[Immanuel Can]

How you got to that conclusion seems like Pilgrim's Progress, (have you been reading Bunyan?), as though life was a chore or something to be endured to the end.

Well, that's not a "chore," but a "pilgrimage". A "pilgrimage" has a very desirable destination, and a "chore" is merely a nuisance.

If you remember, Pilgrim's destination is the Celestial City. And stopping short of it put one in some place like Vanity Fair, where things seemed to be more fun and not nearly so much work; but by abandoning the pilgrimage, one ended up in a cage.

Just sayin'.

You regard life as a, "pilgrimage," a journey with the destination the whole objective, no matter what the cost or suffering the journey entails.

Well, I was actually speaking of Bunyan's view. But as a matter of fact, something like it is true of mine as well.

I regard that as an obligation one must endure, a chore one must fulfill, whatever name you give it.

"Chore"? Hmmm. I guess if we were very loose with language, we could call an athlete's training a "chore," or a mother's labour pains a "chore," or a mountain climber's ascent a "chore," or an artist's labours with marble and chisel a "chore"...and nobody could say there wasn't SOME truth in what we were saying.

At the same time, we couldn't blame anyone else for seeing that as a myopic and reductive way of looking at the situations in question, could we? There is certainly more to all those situations than the mere inconvenience and have-to-do-it-ness of things. And to emphasize only the difficulties inherent in the achievements is hardly an appropriate way to describe the truth of the matter.

But there is something else I have alluded to before. And that is this: that nothing that comes too easily is much valued, or shapes much in the way of our characters. We seem to learn much more from striving and overcoming than we ever do from leisure and freebies. For one thing, it makes the achievement our own. But for another, there's something very improving to the character in having been tested, tried and having overcome. I have not met very many great people who lived easy lives...

Check that...I can't think of any.

[RCSaunders]

"Chore"? Hmmm. I guess if we were very loose with language, we could call an athlete's training a "chore," or a mother's labour pains a "chore," or a mountain climber's ascent a "chore," or an artist's labours with marble and chisel a "chore"...and nobody could say there wasn't SOME truth in what we were saying.

You know that is not what I said at all. You're the one that thinks life is only a proximate end, that it has no meaning at all and nothing that happens in it matters unless you end up in the celestial city.

At the same time, we couldn't blame anyone else for seeing that as a myopic and reductive way of looking at the situations in question, could we? There is certainly more to all those situations than the mere inconvenience and have-to-do-it-ness of things. And to emphasize only the difficulties inherent in the achievements is hardly an appropriate way to describe the truth of the matter.

That's exactly the way I think about your view. Since when did you begin to think anything that happened in the physical temporal world actually mattered, so long as God's will is fulfilled.

But there is something else I have alluded to before. And that is this: that nothing that comes too easily is much valued, or shapes much in the way of our characters. We seem to learn much more from striving and overcoming than we ever do from leisure and freebies. For one thing, it makes the achievement our own. But for another, there's something very improving to the character in having been tested, tried and having overcome. I have not met very many great people who lived easy lives...

Check that...I can't think of any.

You're kidding. You think the most the most important thing in the universe is free, and that you cannot work for or earn it. It's one of the fundamental faults of Christianity and flies in the face of everything you argued in your last paragraph.

Check your premises.

[Immanuel Can]

You're the one that thinks life is only a proximate end, that it has no meaning at all and nothing that happens in it matters unless you end up in the celestial city.

Heh. That's not what I think.

But this I do think: that the struggles of the present have a value and significance that goes far beyond the merely present. And that is quite the opposite thing: because instead of rendering them trivial "chores," it makes them into essential contributors to the most valuable and enduring sort of outcome.

So the idea that "nothing that happens matters" is reserved for Materialists, Atheists, and other kinds of latent Nihilists, if they are convinced enough of their own ontology to take it to its logical conclusion on that...it's certainly not for me.

That's exactly the way I think about your view. Since when did you begin to think anything that happened in the physical temporal world actually mattered, so long as God's will is fulfilled.

I have no idea how you got that idea. I can take no ownership for that reading.

But there is something else I have alluded to before. And that is this: that nothing that comes too easily is much valued, or shapes much in the way of our characters. We seem to learn much more from striving and overcoming than we ever do from leisure and freebies. For one thing, it makes the achievement our own. But for another, there's something very improving to the character in having been tested, tried and having overcome. I have not met very many great people who lived easy lives...

Check that...I can't think of any.

You're kidding. You think the most the most important thing in the universe is free, and that you cannot work for or earn it. It's one of the fundamental faults of Christianity and flies in the face of everything you argued in your last paragraph.

Well, we Christians have a saying: it goes, "Salvation is free, but being saved costs everything." That paradox nicely captures the truth in a sentence.

You are right to say that one "cannot work for or earn salvation." But it is not true to say that salvation is to be had on a whim, and with no commitment or sacrifice. One doesn't buy one's salvation by means of giving anything up; but it means changing one's whole perspective and manner of life so profoundly that nothing is the same. What one is committing to, when one asks for salvation, is the privilege of giving up everything about oneself and one's prospects in order to take hold of new values and new prospects. So everything has to be altered to orient to the new goal. In that sense, being saved costs everything.

It's like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." (Matt. 13:44)

That's the "pilgrimage" motif, rightly conceived. It's not world-renouncing so much as it is world-realigning or world-reorienting. Everything might seem the same, but nothing really is the same anymore. The project of living is reconciled as a pilgrimage, not as a self-gratifying dwelling in Vanity Fair.

[RCSaunders]

Well, we Christians have a saying: it goes, "Salvation is free, but being saved costs everything." That paradox nicely captures the truth in a sentence.

I hope you mean irony. If it were a paradox it would not be true.

You are right to say that one "cannot work for or earn salvation."

I don't say it. It's what you say. I'm just pointing out the contradiction.

But it is not true to say that salvation is to be had on a whim, and with no commitment or sacrifice. One doesn't buy one's salvation by means of giving anything up; but it means changing one's whole perspective and manner of life so profoundly that nothing is the same. What one is committing to, when one asks for salvation, is the privilege of giving up everything about oneself and one's prospects in order to take hold of new values and new prospects. So everything has to be altered to orient to the new goal. In that sense, being saved costs everything.

Sounds like works to me, but it's your belief, not mine. If you can believe that something is free and cannot be earred, on the one hand, and that one must also do something (change one's whole perspective and manner of life) to have it is not a contradiction, well, then you do. It's a contradiction to me, but as I said, it's your faith, not mine.

[Immanuel Can]

Sounds like works to me, but it's your belief, not mine. If you can believe that something is free and cannot be earred, on the one hand, and that one must also do something (change one's whole perspective and manner of life) to have it is not a contradiction, well, then you do. It's a contradiction to me, but as I said, it's your faith, not mine.

par·a·dox
/ˈperəˌdäks/
noun
noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

One does not "do something" TO be saved, but WHEN one is saved, one does do something. This is the relation between faith and works in the Christian life: faith saves, works result. That's actually pretty simple, and not actually contradictory at all. In fact, it would be quite contradictory if it were otherwise.

As you say, you may not wish to expend the effort to understand it, but when one does, one finds out that it's actually true. Quite a paradox, really.

[RCSaunders]

Quite a paradox, really.

Yes, quite, if it were true.

[Peter Holmes]

Since there has been no disagreement that the first question of ethics is: "Do individuals consciously choose their behavior?," and apparently no disagreement that they do, the second question can be addressed:

What is the objective of ethical principles?

If there are actions which are identified as ethically "wrong," or, "bad," what difference does it make if anyone does them? If there are actions which are identified as ethically, "right," or, "good," what difference does it make if those acts are neglected. If there is no identifiable objective or purpose to conforming or not conforming to ethical principles, what is their point?

[Before answering this question, consider any possible answer, and follow it with, "so what?" "So what if the human race becomes extinct, "so what," if some God does not like it, "so what," if some people suffer, "so what," if you don't like it? If these questions sound nihilistic, they are, which is why they so desparately need to be answered.]

This also bugs me.

The supposed 'so what?' defeater for a rational explanation for moral rules - which explanation can be entirely selfish and subjective - seems to assume there must be a factual foundation for morality that happens to be absent. But explanations come to an end, and this one does with a judgement. Tough.

[RCSaunders]

This also bugs me.

Good! Not that it bugs you, but that it provoked you. It isn't meant to annoy, but to raise a serious question.

The supposed 'so what?' defeater for a rational explanation for moral rules - which explanation can be entirely selfish and subjective - seems to assume there must be a factual foundation for morality that happens to be absent. But explanations come to an end, and this one does with a judgement. Tough.

The question is not an argument. My point is that if values have no identifiable objective, if nothing is at stake whether such principles are observed or not, what is their point? I was pointing out some of the more commonly assumed reasons for so-called moral principles, like "mankind," or, "the future of humanity," or, "society," or, "to relieve suffering," or, "God," because none of them matter in themselves if they don't matter to somebody. If, for example, none of those things happens to matter to you, how do they matter at all, or, if they only matter to you in the negative (if promoting any of those things ends up harming or killing you) how can they possibly be good to you?

[Peter Holmes]

This also bugs me.

Good! Not that it bugs you, but that it provoked you. It isn't meant to annoy, but to raise a serious question.

The supposed 'so what?' defeater for a rational explanation for moral rules - which explanation can be entirely selfish and subjective - seems to assume there must be a factual foundation for morality that happens to be absent. But explanations come to an end, and this one does with a judgement. Tough.

The question is not an argument. My point is that if values have no identifiable objective, if nothing is at stake whether such principles are observed or not, what is their point? I was pointing out some of the more commonly assumed reasons for so-called moral principles, like "mankind," or, "the future of humanity," or, "society," or, "to relieve suffering," or, "God," because none of them matter in themselves if they don't matter to somebody. If, for example, none of those things happens to matter to you, how do they matter at all, or, if they only matter to you in the negative (if promoting any of those things ends up harming or killing you) how can they possibly be good to you?

Okay, thanks again. I suppose what's puzzling me is the point of your questions. Yes - if values (specifically moral values) don't matter to anyone, they have no point. But then, if what is an unvalued value? Your question seems to rest on a tautology of some kind: a value is something that is valued.

And yes, moral values do matter to many or most of us, and they do have identifiable objectives. But that we should have those objectives is a matter of collective and developing judgement - collective subjectivity, as it were.

[RCSaunders]

Okay, thanks again. I suppose what's puzzling me is the point of your questions. Yes - if values (specifically moral values) don't matter to anyone, they have no point. But then, if what is an unvalued value? Your question seems to rest on a tautology of some kind: a value is something that is valued.

That's right. It's what is wrong with view of intrinsic values. "A thing has a value because it is a valued thing." That's the view held by most Theists, for example.

And yes, moral values do matter to many or most of us, and they do have identifiable objectives. But that we should have those objectives is a matter of collective and developing judgement - collective subjectivity, as it were.

I have no idea what, "collective judgement," could possibly be, or, "collective subjectivity," so I cannot comment on any view based on them. While I hesitate to use the word, "moral," I do believe principles are needed for making right choices in life to live successfully as a human being, but those principles only pertain to individuals, because minds are distributed one to an individual and every individual must use their own mind to choose how they will behave. Again, that's my view, just so you'll understand what I'm saying, not so you'll agree with it.

I'm going to suggest a different way of asking my question. If there are ethical principles, I assume their observation leads to someone's benefit and that defying them leads to someone's loss or suffering. If there is no consequence resulting from whether or not ethical principles are observed, they would be irrelevant. Who is the beneficiary of observing ethical principles?