Time pressed: here's a kitchen sink post, workin' backwards, respondin' to stuff directly addressed to me.
-----
iam asked (rhetorically)...
"Note to henry quirk: Have you seen the videos?"
No.
"Has IC linked them to you?"
No.
"After all, you two are best buds here."
Yes.
"His first priority must be to save your soul. Right?"
Hell if I know: ask him.
-----
Harry wrote...
"Sure, some humans might be demoniacal too - the sort of humans to whom we refer as "psychopathic"."
The psycho-/socio-path I see as a damaged creature, his conscience, his moral compass, crippled or absent. He may be a true nihilist (a rabid dog), a horrorshow, a monster, but that sets him outside of what I consider evil.
Evil -- true, real, evil -- is a choice. And choice, in the moral sense, is sumthin' the psycho-/socio-path appears to be incapable of. He's a pitiable thing (best considered when he's buried six feet down), but not evil.
-----
atto cried...
"I loved that gold star."
Too bad, cheater.
"to put it another way, allowing us free will meant kunts would end up existing."
Yeah, it may be as simple as that.
-----
AJ pontificated...
"I guess you could explain it like that, too. Not something exterior but something discovered interiorly. But I would still place emphasis on a distinction between *the way things are in Nature* and the impositions that man makes when he conceives of something arriving from *up there* and coming down. As far as I am aware no other animal but man has "a metaphysical dream of the world"."
Only man seems to be ensouled. His metaphysical dream (awareness), his moral compass/conscience, is part & parcel of this. He perceives himself as apart and above becuz he is. He seeks an external source for this apartness and aboveness becuz it doesn't seem such things can be wholly 'of the world'. And he's right: he's 'in' the world but not wholly 'of' the world.
"OK, but the point I focus on has to do with *systems of authority* and the way they go about asserting themselves. On one hand, I might be convinced to assent to obeying the law because I agree fundamentally with the reasons for the law. But what about those who are *unruly* and rebel? Authority comes to bear on them. I have mentioned Ortega y Gasset and his notion of the Mass Man entering into important decision-making. I agree with O&G that some, perhaps many, men are not qualified. And when they force their way in that they must be resisted. I mention this to illustrate a problem: we educate children in accord with value-systems and mora systems. And what do we do with children who do not or will not obey (give their assent)?"
And, again, 'that depends on the law. Man's law, as it aligns with natural rights, is mere codification and application. Such an alignment is only an imposition on the one who -- while recognizin' his own inviolate claim to his life, liberty, and property -- refuses to respect the natural rights of his neighbor.'
The child who does not obey perhaps is justified in rebelling (what is it, what 'law' is it, he refuses to submit to?).
The 'law' you assent to: is it worth aligning with? There are folks who'll see everyone disarmed, by way of 'law', becuz of the bad acts of a few. Like you, they'll obey 'law' becuz they agree with it. Even if that 'law' authorizes theft.
""Natural rights" seem to me a metaphysical idea, in essence. One must assent to it."
Natural rights are metaphysical and very real. Where assent comes in is in the choice to recognize and respect those of the other guy. As I say, no one truly denies his own moral claim to his own life, liberty, and property. No one purposefully lives as commodity or property or meat. Even those poor deluded sob's who devote so much of themselves to denying free will and moral reality live as free wills and moral realists. Even, as I say, the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, women, and children, takes a dim view of he himself ever bein' on the auction block.
"With this I disagree. If one agrees to the wisdom of a law, a rule or a principle, to accede to it is not submission, it is intelligent engagement and as I say 'agreement'. But I guess in a technical sense the word submission could a similar thing. Except not as it is used popularly."
Point taken. I amend myself: We can, as you say, 'accede and assent' but, when compliance is to that which obviously violates the life, liberty,or property of another, we do so as an act of submission or opportunism.
"It is when it is made a tool of men who seek power that it will amplify bad tendencies."
As with most things: sociopaths and evil men get away with what good men allow. You're familiar with the scorpion and the toad?
"And my view is that, however it came about, we are inclined to corruption."
We are corruptible, yes, but not predisposed to being corrupted, no. One always chooses his road.
"Are we talking about the same thing? We are in fragile bodies that are prone to catastrophe. A simple accident can be 'life changing'. I am speaking about demonstrable reality. I am not sure what you are trying to say."
Yes, we are flesh and blood, but not only. The vast hoodwink that asserts all of us are just delicate mortal flesh & blood, prone to disaster demoralizes and de-moralizes. It destroys hope and dignity. It castrates (self) efficacy. So, the fundamental problem is not the demonstrable reality of human fragility but the acceptance that this fragility is all there is. It's despair. It's degradation. It's the doorway to atrocity. As I say, if you can convince a man to deny himself, to accept himself as meat only, you can convince him to do just about anything to his fellows and to himself.
"We live in systems where those traits are part-and-parcel of the System, to one degree or another."
Yes, we do. We're responsible. 'As with most things: sociopaths and evil men get away with what good men allow.'
-----
Harry, in his most excellent essay, wrote...
"their meaning is sufficiently clear regardless of the existence or non-existence of (the Christian) God."
Yes. As I've said across multiple threads (including this one, as I recall), man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property. The consistency of this intuitive understanding, even as attempts are made to squelch it, to mebbe breed it out of mankind, has a lot to do with my being a deist.
I didn't, as one dumb sob, asserts over and over, 'take a leap of faith'. I deduced from available fact.
But, as I've told the dumb sob over and over, I might be wrong. This sense of self-possession, this ownness, this intuitive understanding a man has that his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's may be 'brute fact'. There may be nuthin' (or no one) behind it. If so, if natural rights is simply a kind of deep-seated survival trait, does this negate the universal repugnance we have for murder, rape, slavery, and theft? No, it doesn't. Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals, and sez God is a fairy tale, will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.
"a Story does not determine moral truth"
It can, however, convey it. And it must be conveyed. The intuitive understanding a man has of his natural, inalienable right to his life, liberty, and property, it doesn't intuitively extend to his fellows. He must be taught his fellows each have the same claim to themselves as he has to himself. Unfortunately, far too often, those trusted to transmit this are mercenary types who distort the teaching.
"moral nihilism is false"
As I say: it's the doorway to atrocity.
"Although there are a variety of ways of phrasing, framing, and justifying morality, they all get at and amount to essentially the same thing."
Yes, exactly. There's piece in the new issue of PN that addresses this. Later I'll cut & paste it here, in this thread (and at least one other).
"various prescriptions and proscriptions follow that are objectively...true regardless of whether or not any mind is currently apprehending them, and regardless of whether or not any mind knows or even denies that they are true."
Yes, exactly.
"But that's so vague, and you (Harry), hq, JC, utilitarians, virtue ethicists, and others are bound to disagree on many specific moral truths, so, no genuinely objective moral truth exists beyond your abstraction."
No, we would not. Our disagreements would lie in application only, not on the principles. An example: we all agree murder (unjustly killing) is wrong. Not a one of us will argue murder is permissible. We might, however, disagree on what constitutes a just or justified killing and therefore what comprises an unjust killing. Some might believe killing in self-defense is only permissible if you've retreated as far as you can and are left with no other choice. Others, like me, believe we have no moral obligation to retreat from a bonafide threat and that killing in self-defense is permissible from the start.
As you say (with slight editing on my part) "it is reasonable to expect some uncertainty and ambiguity, in which genuine disagreements can occur. That doesn't refute the objective existence of moral reality any more than the fact that the blurriness of the boundary between a human being and the world beyond that human being refutes the objective existence of human beings".
Another example of disagreement over application and agreement on principle is "whether or not abortion is immoral depends in part on the empirical truth of exactly when a foetus becomes conscious or when its soul enters its body - a truth that is currently unknown or at least plausibly disputed". I've said the same elsewhere: the conflict is not over the permissibility of killing kids, but instead on the point during pregnancy a human meat lump segues into a baby (a person).
"But different societies, cultures, religions, and other groups have some quite different moral beliefs - some of which are so radically different at the same time as being so fundamental that they definitely aren't in the border regions that you mention - and so, morality is subjective, not objective."
No. As I say: man, any man, every man, any where or when, has an intuitive understanding that his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. In a world overflowing with differing cultures and conflicts, differing environments and adaptive tricks for surviving them, this simple intuitive understanding stands coherently when all mores and laws rise and fall away. If this intuitive understanding were simply a kind of survival trait then one would expect, over the long haul, it would have been bred out of at least some populations. It never has been. Even in societies founded on deference to authority, men still take offense at being used as property.
As I say: Even an evil man, one who murders, rapes, slaves, or steals will not consent to being murdered, raped, slaved, or robbed.
There can be, are, disagreements on application of principle, but not on the principle itself.
Can't get any more 'fundamental' than that.
Anyway, I've riffed offa your essay enough, Harry.
-----
Mannie wrote...
"the problem becomes speaking coherently of some things as "good" and others as "evil." And clearly, we have to do so in a non-relativized, non-merely-subjective, non-arbitrary way, if we are going to say that "evil" is an actual, objective, not-merely-perspectival problem or property, rather than, say, a delusion the human race totally unjustifiably places on some events and not on others."
Evil is one free will preying on another. There's no justification for it. It's always wrong.
-----
Here's the PN piece I mentioned earlier...
https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/Ri ... _and_Wrong
Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.
“Whatever we may say about the merits of torturing children for pleasure, and no doubt there is much to be said on both sides, I am sure we all agree it should be done with sterilized instruments.”
– G.K. Chesterton
“Man is the measure of all things.”
– Protagoras
One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different times and cultures have radically different moral standards. ...
{Redacted vby iMod — the copying and pasting into forum posts of complete articles from the magazine is discouraged]
... It is difficult to be highly moral in any time, because in all times people are tempted to demonize others and cause unnecessary suffering when it is in their self-interest. This is why the moral heroes of different times have more in common with each other than they do with the majority in their own time. When someone understands these points, they are less likely to dismiss morality itself as a product of their time or culture.
© Paul Stearns 2023
Paul Stearns is Philosophy Professor at Blinn College, Texas.
-----
Tomorrow: dasein and other manure.