Maybe on the second go-round. Revisions are ongoing as we speak … when I’m not “speaking” here and elsewhere, that is.
2 Likes
That is intriguing. I’d like to see how you develop that. It sounds good.
1 Like
I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. I only said this because I think life and moral situations are so often too complex to resolve through the application of any system of rules. Very often we must make moral decisions by choosing between the lesser of two regrettable choices or else to do one good at the cost of foregoing another. No decision tree will substitute for having clarified one’s values and preferences in myriad circumstances.
I think I hold two unpopular positions in regards to morality. First I think the only time it is productive to dwell on moral systems is for the sake of child development, extending as far undergraduate courses in college. Rules and hierarchies make good sense for teaching young people though, no way around that. But as kids transition to adulthood they’ll need to do way more than follow rules.
My other unpopular view is especially unpopular in Christian circles. It involves moral exceptionalism. I find it unseemly past a certain age to dwell on doing the right thing. At some point that should be taken for granted so that a person can focus on their life’s work, passion, family and friends. Of course one’s passion can revolve around nurturing, helping and caring, but it need not. But then, not being a Christian, I don’t think God is obsessed with any moral accounting, nor any reward or punishment beyond the grave for that matter.
As you know, Randy, the only God I can conceive of is an entirely natural one that arises with us as a co-product of consciousness. I think moral concern in our species probably predates our modern conscious minds. That is why our conscience can seem almost independent when we make a choice that doesn’t go down well.
I have to stop here as I’m wanted for dinner, but if you have any reaction I could pick it up there when I can.
1 Like
Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Maybe we can have a thread on moral definition and basis sometime. It’s intriguing because I really never had much study in that.
Lamoureux posts a paper above on evolutionary psychology, which I have been looking forward to reading (I have some time off today so may do that). I think that speaks a lot to this question. Sometimes Christians do make an icon out of absolute truth, not realizing exactly what they are defining. James K A Smith is a philosopher in Calvin College who wrote a text called “Who’s Afraid of Relativism?” which is another of my “want to reads.”
I think maybe @jasonbourne4 would be a better moderator for that sort of discussion, as I’ve had no real formal studying in that area. Randal Rauser also has several blog posts on this.
I find it interesting to read books from World War I which remind me of how strongly people react to their environment in deciding what is “evil” and “good.” L M Montgomery, in her books on Anne from Canada, wrote strongly of good triumphing over evil, and of visions of bloody soldiers holding back the darkness.Sometimes I think that JRR Tolkien absorbed that with his very strong images of “all good” and “all bad” creatures, (eg Elves and Orcs; Sauron and the Darkness coming over Middle Earth). Americans even lynched a German immigrant or two in fear of sympathies with the opposing side; and in "Surprised by Joy,"C S Lewis mentioned that the fervor for war that swept Britain at the onset of the war seemed insanely driven to fight. In contrast to the above, my family, which was 1/8 German, has a story that at the end of World War I, my great-great grandmother in Wisconsin wept for relief at the end of the War because of the family they still had in Germany.
Randal Rauser notes about ethics in stress vs ordinary situations:
"At this point, we move from metaethical questions (e.g. the truth-conditions of moral statements) and into normative ethical questions. Much ethical debate in the last two hundred years has been based on act-based moral theories, primarily deontology and utilitarianism. On these theories, ethics largely focuses on identifying particular rules or ends that will guide our action in liminal cases like the Ebola crisis.
“But in the last 30-40 years there is a growing recognition that these act-based theories are critically limited. Instead, many ethicists are proposing a return to a virtue-based approach to ethics in which we focus not on liminal cases of moral crisis but rather focus on inculcating particular virtues such as courage, selflessness, and compassion. As we inculcate these virtues, we become people of virtue and we naturally develop the wisdom to know how to act in liminal cases.”
Does that relate? Thanks.
1 Like
Randy you’ve inspired me to find that article whose link you provided above. So far, this bit early on seems promising.
“In other words, this Darwinian insight assists Christian theists to understand that the Lord creates life through natural processes, and that there is no need to posit a tinkering and micro- managing god-of-the-gaps.”
As for your modesty regarding morality, I’m not buying it. I think morality is like language in that one can be an expert user with or without formal training. You are at least that.
I look forward to returning to the article soon. Just to be clear I refer to the one titled Darwinian Theological Insights: Toward an Intellectually Fulfilled Christian Theim - Part II.
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/p_darwin_2.pdf
1 Like
Yes, it’s a good article.I have to read it all yet, too, but I really learned a lot from his online course (free at Coursera) in evolution last year. I’m hoping he will do a question and answer sometime soon, either on this discourse or through Biologos. He has a PhD in evolutionary biology, theology, and a doctorate in dentistry (so he can strap you down and indoctrinate you while you can’t talk in the dentist’s chair!). Actually, he’s incredibly smart. If you can keep a list of questions for him, I think he will interact. @DOL
“To be sure, human evolution is the “highest & most
interesting problem” not only for the scientist, but also
for the theologian. The implications of evolutionary
psychology for Christian theology are substantial”
These questions are addressed by a number of scholars in a recent collection of essays entitled “Finding Ourselves after Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil.” I have a superficial review of it on Amazon: Amazon.com
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.