What is good? What does “ought” mean?
Philosopher Thaddeus Kozinski takes up these questions in his very interesting article in today’s Public Discourse. His bottom line: “am I saying that only an ethics rooted in the divinely revealed truth of creation-as-gift and creator-as-love can coherently and adequately make sense of the universal experience of ought? Indeed I am, though I think that purely philosophical explanations are similarly indispensable.”
I’m just lifting elements of his argument. You should really read the whole thing.
We all have had the experience of ought, of something that, at least in a subjective sense, renders our imminent action morally relevant, so that what we are about to do or not do is more than a mere question of what will be pleasing to us, socially beneficial, psychologically comfortable, or useful for some plan of action. … What seems right also seems good, and if it did not, it would not seem right; indeed, it could not be right at all. Thus, the good and the right seem correlative and inseparable in experience, though we can parse them out upon reflection. So, how to understand the twofold character of our moral experience: What’s good? Wherefore ought?…
there are two fundamental features of the experience that must be affirmed and explained. On the one hand, there is the sense of duty to the other, of the right—that something or someone outside or above me requires me to act in a certain way, regardless of my individual likes or dislikes, notwithstanding my understanding of how or whether the imminent act will contribute to my personal well-being, satisfaction of desire, or happiness. On the other hand, there is the sense of desire for self, of the good—the attraction, regardless of any sense of duty I might also have, to things in the world that I experience as desirable simply for me, as somehow related to my own happiness, which I pursue for their own sake….
The phenomenological dialectic of right and good could be resolved if we could understand what is at the heart of human moral experience; but to understand this heart, we require more than what, unaided, human moral experience and purely philosophical speculation on this experience can provide. My argument for this conclusion is thus: What the duty aspect of moral experience suggests is the reality of justice, which is inherently relational and thus irreducible to any interpretation of morality as mere personal fulfillment. What the happiness aspect of moral experience suggests is the reality of desire-for-the-good, which is inherently personal and thus irreducible to an interpretation of morality as mere social or divine obligation….
If God created us and the world for a purpose, then we are obliged, by definition and through our very nature, to act according to this purpose. Even if we have been given free will to decide whether or not to correspond with our natural telos, we are not really capable of re-creating or re-designing ourselves; that is, we are inextricably purpose-fulfilling creatures, in the very fabric of our existence. And if God created the world as a gift, in imitation of His own gift-giving and -receiving essence, then our main purpose as the only creatures that can receive a gift qua gift—and not solely as something desirable—is simply to receive this gift as any gift is meant to be received, in love and gratitude for both the gift and the giver. In short, we are obliged to be happy, because we have a duty to love the gift of a divinely bestowed, happy-making existence, and we are encouraged to desire happiness for its own sake, because that is precisely the way we justly show our gratitude for the good gift we have been given….
I am open to any account, whether philosophical or theological, that can do justice to our experience, but I have not come across any yet that both attract and oblige my soul the way the Augustinian-Thomistic theological account does.Plato and Aristotle’s thought, if it could ever be adequately synthesized, is the most attractive and obligatory pre-Christian, purely philosophical account of ethical experience, combining both a divine-order sense of obligation (Plato’s Good) and a happiness-first-and-last sensibility (Aristotle’s phronemon). The synthesis of this account with Christian revelation is to be found in Augustine’s Platonic-Christian and St. Thomas’s Augustinian-Aristotelian ethics. But we need, most of all, an account for today, which means a synthesis of all these pagan and Christian intellectual treasures with the legitimate speculative and practical advances of secular modernity—such as the dignity of the human person, the extraordinariness of ordinary human life, the integrity and relative autonomy of the temporal social and political order, and institutions such as representative government, human rights tribunals, and freedom of religion—rightly understood. And we must add to this the insights of postmodernism, such as the tradition-and-history-constituted character of ethical enquiry, the bankruptcy of the Enlightenment “view-from-nowhere,” and the myth of the secular.
Loading ...
So often, when you ask non-theists for an account of morality, they respond with a description of behaviors that can be observed in groups, that emerge as a result of the need to cooperate, etc. Evolved conventions. But that definition of morality leaves morality in the realm of fashion, and fashions vary by time and place – none can really be said to be objective. They are ARBITRARY. These descriptions of observed behaviors pose no moral obligation for us because they are arbitrary. The only way to get a robust, objective notion of PRESCRIPTIVE morality is by appealing to a designer of human beings, who gets to say how we ought to be quite apart from evolved customs. I am talking here about the ONTOLOGY of moral standards, moral value, and moral duties (how they exist). Not the EPISTEMOLOGY (how we know what’s right).
But Wintery, the decision to believe in a particular version of God/Creator/etc. is still a personal decision and therefore still subjective. The fact that you have chosen to accept the morality of the God you have chosen to believe in, does not make your morality objective. It’s subjective either way.
I think you are mistaken about that. For example, consider the crucifixion of Jesus. That fact is not denied by a single Ph.D-credentialed historian, because the historical reports are multiply-attested, and go back to within 3 years of the event. Even atheist scholars like James Crossley date the accounts of the crucifixion to 30-33 AD (in 1 Cor 15:3-8) and in the gospel of Mark, which Crossley dates to the mid-40s.
The problem is that Surah 4:157 denies the crucifixion. So right there you have history deciding between religions, based on undisputed facts.
Moreover, you can do the same thing with the Big Bang. Judaism and Christianity accept the idea of the universe coming in to being, and a beginning of time. But other religions are committed to an eternal universe. The scientific evidence from the star formation lifecycle, general relativity, cosmic microwave background radiation, radioactive element abundances, and light element (H/He) abundances shows that the universe had a beginning, not to mention things like the second law of thermodynamics, which also requires a beginning. So there is a case where science disproves all religions that have an eternal universe. Other religions that have a cyclical cosmology can be similarly disproved by science.
Oops, and in any case, all that is required for an objective standard of morality ONTOLOGICALLY (what is the means of existence of the moral law) speaking is a Creator. I purposely bracketed the question of EPISTEMOLOGY (how we know the morality) for later. So any religion that has a universe being created will have access to the possibility of an objective standard of morality, objective moral values, and objective moral duties.
@Rob Tisinai Negative. We have an objective moral standard given by God. You have no objective standard at all; you have nothing but opinions and majority rule, and these standards change virtually daily at the whim of whoever is in charge!
Wintery, religious notions of morality are the least credible, because they are simply instructions from someone you don’t even know exists. Your version of morality is: “the bible says so”. Have you verified the credibility of the bible? What if it’s wrong? Why is it so often used as a justification to harm people?
Wintery, first, even if science disproves some religions, the fact remains that chosing to accept the morality of the God you have chosen to believe in, does not make your morality objective unless you can prove your conception of God is correct.
Further, if we look at it ontologically, if you view God as omnipotent, creator of all things, and not constrained by limits outside Himself, then “good” is whatever God proclaims it to be. There are no rules or logic or other constraints to determine His decision. It is utterly arbitrary.
Sean, I’m just curious. If you don’t believe in God, how to explain scientifically documented miracles?
Glenn, you have decided to believe in the morality of the God you have chosen to believe in. That’s a subjective decision. There is nothing objective about it.
Relativism, for you, then, Rob? Is there no objective moral truth, in your belief system? Have you read Konzinski’s article and have you found anything in it you’d agree with?
@Sean Biblical (not “religious”) “notions of morality” are indeed the MOST credible. We do know God exists and can prove as much beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, we have verified the credibility of the Bible. The fact that it is abused to cause harm is not the fault of the Bible. People use guns to cause harm and it is not the fault of the guns.
I have offered to you before that you should read the book, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, but you are apparently not really interested in learning the answers to the questions you just asked.
@Rob Tisinai It is very objective, because the God I believe in is the Creator of the Universe and is the Moral Law Giver. Whether you choose to believe He exists is irrelevant to the truth that He does. You can choose to believe man did not land on the moon, but the truth is that they did.
@Chairm: I do believe in objective truth. I’m just aware that I can’t be 100% sure what it is. That’s called humility.
@Glenn: “It is very objective, because the God I believe in is the Creator of the Universe and is the Moral Law Giver. ”
That’s your subjective, unproven belief.
There is proof for some of the things in the Bible: the Flood and the crossing of the Red Sea, for instance. Those could only have been made possible by the existence of God.
There is evidence of a great flood, but there have been many of those in history; there is evidence of variation in the levels of the Red Sea, but that can happen naturally. Neither of those prove the Bible’s accounts are literally accurate.
And even if the Bible is literally accurate on those events, that doesn’t prove the Bible is the inerrant word of God (any more than a history textbook’s accuracy about one or two events would demonstrate that the entire history book is the inerrant word of God)
Proof, Betsy? That there is an account in a book whose veracity is very much in doubt is not proof. I, too, can write a story about seas parting, or a god drowning millions of innocent people. That does not make those stories true.
That’s not what I said. Scientific proof. Ancient boats and fish fossils excavated near the tops of mountains. Ancient stone pillars unearthed on either side of the Red Sea commemorating the entrance and exit of Moses and his people. Also, an underwater walkway showing the path where God saved the good guys, and destroyed the bad guys intent on killing them (aka not “innocent” people.) And “millions”? Oh, Sean. I feel sorry for you. Why are you so intent on denying the existence of God? I mean, really? What would be so horrible about there being a God?
Sean’s response: (I’ll save you the trouble.) Because Christians, oops, I mean “religionists” are such awful, hate-filled bigoted homophobes intent on destroying families, denying equal rights, making life difficult for children while still allowing divorce (why don’t we outlaw that?), pre-marital sex, adultery (neither of which gay couples would ever do) and killing “womb babies” (which gay couples can’t do). Is that about it? Newsflash: No human is perfect, and a lot of good Christian people are doing a lot of good things. I’m sorry you don’t know any. Or perhaps you just deny their existence.
This convinces me that those who are intent on denying the existence of God for whatever reason (fear? pride? anger?) will never be convinced of His existence until the day they die. And miracles? Just random coincidences? There is always some way to chalk it up to science or the weather, or space aliens, I suppose.
Rob, what is your evidence for the existence of objective moral truth?
Perhaps you are not 100% on its existence. Afterall you also believe you can’t know such certain truth. And with that you would feel entitled in asserting your pose that it is also unknowable to anyone else. Which would just be your way of looping back to relativism despite your claimed humility.
Betsy, this conversation is pretty fruitless, don’t you think? You seem me as someone so determined not to believe that he’ll find any excuse not to accept evidence. I see you as someone so eager to believe that she won’t apply the same critical reasoning to her “evidence” that she would apply to the claims of a car commercial.
Where do we go from there?
I really and truly have no idea what you just said. But if this answers you: yes, I’m done with this conversation.
@Betsy
“…and destroyed the bad guys intent on killing them (aka not “innocent” people.) And “millions”?…
I think Sean’s comment about God “drowning millions of innocent people” referred to the Flood (not the Red Sea). But in that case as well, they weren’t “innocent”. According to Genesis:
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time…Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence….for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways….the earth is filled with violence because of them.
Betsy, I can sympathize. I feel the same way about Chairm’s statements that you feel about mine.
“Oh, Sean. I feel sorry for you. Why are you so intent on denying the existence of God?”
Who says I deny the existence of god? I strongly doubt her existence, for sure. But it’s the various religions available to date, such as christianity, that I reject. I’m waiting for something newer, and more modern.
Did you realize that the single biggest determinant of what religion you practice is geography? If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you’d likely be a Muslim. If you were born in India, you’d likely be a Hindu. Born in Africa? You’re probably worshiping animals.
Does it seem realistic that the truth about god and the hereafter depends on where you were born and raised?
Faith in God seems to depend upon information that has enough “credibility” that we ought to believe it, but its not so absolute that its “necessary” to believe it.
In logic, there are two kinds of arguments, deductive arguments and inductive arguments.
The deductive argument is one that is absoutely true and requires no faith to accept.
An inductive argument, however, depends on things like credibility and probability. Its the kind of argument that requires faith or trust on the part of the hearer in order to accept.
Those looking for “deductive” proof of God will probably never find it. They must decide, instead, based upon inductive proofs which have a high degree of “credibility” and “probability” of being true but which are not “necessarily” true.
The predictions about Jesus written before he was born is an example of credible information we “ought” to believe.
What we today call, “The Old Testament,” contains writings used for worship in Israel hundreds of years before the time Jesus.
Yet, Jesus often told his hearers they should believe in him because their own writings spoke about him!
Jesus said, for example,
If you have a copy of the Old Testament you can see an example of this in Isaiah chapter 53, where the life of Jeus was told in advance.
It was writen over 700 years before Jesus was born and yet describes his mission and key events of his time.
It says, for example,
Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by being crucified between two thieves [the wicked] and being buried in the tomb of Joseph of Artimethea [a rich man].
But read all of chapter 53 and not just that one verse so you can see that it also fits into a larger picture of Jesus.
There are many other places in the Old testament that predicted the life of Jesus. I listed Isaiah 53 because I find it to be one of the strongest examples.
Bottom line is doubters will always have enough evidence to believe which they also should believe. Yet, the same evidence leaves room to reject the truth as well.
It comes down to a moral decision on the part of the hearer whether to accept or not.
What I have consistently found is that those who deny God invariably don’t want to acknowledge his existence because being accountable to Him would require them to reign in their sexual behavior.
There are those who, while opposing the truth of Scripture, actually fulfill it.
“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…”
“It comes down to a moral decision on the part of the hearer whether to accept or not.”
More often, though, it comes down to: were you indoctrinated as a child, and therefore internalize religion before you have the faculties to think for yourself; do you accept uncritically the belief that ancient religious texts are factual; and were you born in a certain geographical area and you can observe what religion others are practicing, and joining them in that practice provides a sense of belonging.
When invited to provide reasoning, Rob, you’d insult instead. You feigned belief in objective moral truth.
But surely, Ruth, you’re not applying any of those insults to people posting here. That would clearly violate the “Fun to be around” rule.
bman, I can certainly see why chose Isaiah 53:9 instead of Isaiah 53:10, with the line, “he will see his offspring and prolong his days.”
Clearly that does NOT apply to the childless Jesus who chose crucifixion despite the devil’s temptation.
Its self evident that some subjective decisions lead to better objective outcomes than others.
For example, a society that promotes self control as a morality will be objectively better off than one that promotes indulgence of carnal appetites.
The mere fact two opposing moralites are subjective does not make them “equal,” therefore.
Nor can we afford to wait for a harmful result that is “objective” before we decide which morality is good for the society and which is not.
Instead, we should identify, choose ,and promote the good morality now, before harm to society from a bad morality becomes an objective reality.
Your response essentially poses two questions.
How could Jesus see his “offspring” when he never had children by a woman, and how can it be said his life was “prolonged” since he was crucified early in life.
1. Offspring
Lets look at the “offspring” question first.
The sequence of events in 53:10 is significant here.
The servant offers his soul for sin (meaning he dies) and then sees his offspring.
…when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed….”
This, however, parallels Jesus claim about himself in John 12:23,24:
When corn dies its offspring is more corn. When Jesus died his offspring was to be a people born to him from his death.
Since the offspring in Isaiah 53:10 are “seen” after making his soul an offering for sin, it strongly suggests offspring derived by offering his soul for their sin.
I also think the very next verse, 53:11, points to that as the meaning of his offspring/seed.
It says,
What “he shall see” here is the fruit of his sacrifice, namely “many” people justified by his travail. They appear to be the “offspring” he “sees” in verse 10 by suffering for sin. They are just described differently.
The idea, then, is that his seed are those born to him by his death on the cross.
2. Prolonged Days
Moving to the question about his life being “prolonged” – the sequence in 53:10 is again key.
First, there is offering himself for sin (meaning he dies) and then his days are “prolonged.”
“….when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”
The “prolonged” days and the “prospering” would both refer to events after the death of Jesus.
Both hint of his resurrection from the dead and future reign over the earth when he returns and every thing prospers under his hand.
Compare Isaiah 9:7:
This is still a future event which has not been fulfilled yet.
The part in Isaiah 53:10 about “prospering”would be about that future event.
It will occur as certainly as the offering of Jesus for sin occurred, however.
@Rob Tisinai
“insults”?
@Sean A large number of Christians accept the faith as adults. Yes, if you grow up in a family of any religious philosophy you will be taught that religion. However, as you grow up you have the ability to examine the religion for yourself to decide whether or not it is true. Christianity is not an irrational faith.
bman, yes, I understand your point: Take the Bible literally when it suits you; take it metaphorically when it doesn’t.
@ Ruth: Don’t be coy: “brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited” etc.
@Rob Tisinai
The shoe fits, or it doesn’t.
@Rob Tisinai The Bible is meant to be taken as written – literally when the genre is literal, figurative when the genre is figurative, and also as context dictates. If the scriptural passage defines your attitude, that is not an insult.
@Ruth: that’s good to know. Forgive me for thinking you were trying to describe me and others here who disagree with you. Calling people treacherous, brutal, and unloving when you don’t know them personally, simply because they disagree with you or are gay would be bigotry indeed.
@Rob Tisinai
Knowing someone personally is not always required in order to make a judgement about their behavior.
Objective moral truth. Rob, please illustrate your best example of objective moral truth,as you understand it, that is germaine to the topic of the original blogpost.
This may get me banned, but Ruth, if you believe you can brand someone as treacherous, brutal, and unloving SOLELY because they are gay or disagree with your religion, then this behavior does indeed make you a bigot.
“Objective moral truth. Rob, please illustrate your best example of objective moral truth,as you understand it, that is germaine to the topic of the original blogpost.”
Chairm, I’ve said that I believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, but I’m humble enough to admit I cannot be sure of what it is. You know this. So why are you asking me this question?
Moderator: Thanks for allowing the post that I was afraid would get me banned. A lot of accusations of bigotry fly back and forth, and it might be good for us to have a conversation about what constitutes “bigotry.” For my part, I hope that Ruth is offering these accusations based on what she has seen from individuals on these boards (even if I disagree with her) and is making those accusations only against those specific individuals (even if that includes me). It would gratify me greatly to know she does not feel this way about ALL gays.
@Rob Tisinai
I am not branding anyone anything, and it would not matter in the least if I did, since I am not God. It is His opinion of us that matters, and His alone.
In the above list, taken from II Timothy 3, I see a reflection of our present-day world, as well as some of the comments on this thread that denigrate worship of the one true God.
I also see myself, and repent.
Since you want to relate my comments to homosexual behavior, read Romans 1, and look carefully for the progression that leads to sexual deviance.
Rob I asked for an example from you to illustrate your (now restated) belief in objective moral truth because your comments seem to have invoked relativism instead. Also as I asked earlier what is your evidence that objective moral truth exists? See my comment of May 13 2011, 19:06.
No, that wasn’t my point.
Jesus literally and historically defined his seed as those re-born by his death on the cross.
I did not create a metaphor to suit me. Its a historical fact that Jesus did not define his offspring by “biology.” I referred to the literal historical record of Jesus’ words to explain your objection, therefore.
I also think you are straining at a speck. Momentarily set aside the verse you dispute and see how the preponderance of Isaiah 53 (starting at 52:13) speaks so strongly to the historical record of Jesus.
Who else in history, for example, can all these things apply to at the same time?
Indeed, your own disbelief seems to fulfill the words of 53:1, “Who has believed our message?”
Here is an interesting question for you.
Who else other than Jesus has a message like all the things I listed above that you do not believe?”
On Lawn, I would imagine that of the 10,000 saints recognized by the Catholic Church, quite a few could fit that qualification, along with many religious martyrs Christian and otherwise, especially given the enormous latitude you’re allowing yourself in the interpretation of these verses.
Rob,
Which comment of mine are you referring to?
My apologies, On Lawn. I meant to direct that to bman.
No problem, thanks!
Referring to an unknown “they” without specifying “who they are” is a common fallacy.
Also, the “latitude” I used was quite restrictive and said this, “Who else in history…can all these things apply to at the same time?
By contraast, you used enormous latitude in your response.
Not only did you refer to unknown persons (latitude) but what saint recognized by the Cathlic church would have a message that their death justified sinners before God?
For that matter, did anyone else in history other than Jesus claim his death was designed by God to justify sinners?
I noticed my last sentence above was a bit ambiguous.
I said, “…did anyone else in history other than Jesus claim his death was designed by God to justify sinners?”
That could have two possible senses:
a. Did any one else in history claim “the death of Jesus” was designed by God to justify sinners?
or it could mean
b. Did others in history claim “their” death was designed by God to justify sinners? [I don't know of any]
I intended option “b.”
My idea there was this: Why grant yourself latitude to think Isaiah 53 refers to persons who never claimed their death was God’s sacrifice for sinners? Certainly the Catholic saints never made such a claim.
However, option “a” strengthens my case as well.
In addition to Jesus himself having claimed his death would justify sinners, someone else also claimed that about him.
John the Baptist said this about Jesus, “Behold, the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.” (cf. John 1:29)
Now, who else in history other than Jesus had a messenger sent ahead of him to tell the world he was the sacrificial lamb of God to take away sins?