Good Philosophy Site for Sikhs

Originally Posted by aad0002

Vaheguruseekr ji

How can moral knowledge disappear? What is it flying on? No pun intended. A good question.

Antonia ji,

Guru Fateh.

Good point. However that is not the point Dr. Willard is trying to make it seems. He sees the world through only one single parochial lens of Christianity. Although I have not read his book,hence judges or condemns the world based on that rather looking within. At least that what the title of his book suggests.

Nor have I read the book. My hunch is that Dr. Willard's thesis has something to do with arguments a against "moral relativism." Or, against the idea that acts are good or evil depending on culture, context or situation. If that is where he is headed, then I may find that on that point I may agree. That would not however mean that I subscribe to an Abrahamic view of morality -- which I do not -- or the idea the moral principles were revealed to Moses and graven in stone. I don't agree with either claim.

Dr. Willard, indeed, may not be making the same point I am making. I don't know. My own statements were based solely on the idea that "principles" rather than contexts or culturally determined rules should guide discussions regarding what is good, what is evil, what is virtue, what is vice. In order to have a discussion everyone in the discussion would need to agree with a principle, even if they disagreed on whether a particular act was good, bad, virtuous or wicked. If two groups agree on the principles that equality of men and women is a good thing, then they should be able to discuss differences in how that equality is practiced, demonstrated, protected, without coming to blows or trying to impose their practices on others.

I hope I am wrong. Well to the second part of your question which is also a valid one but the question arises how would we define the "world-wide civilizations"? Basically they can be only divided into 2. Christianity and Islam. Although the basic ingredients of the 3 Semitic religions are the same, their subjective truths contradict with each other is some respects. The result is in lack of consensus in the Middle East peace.

Maybe "world-wide" was sloppy wording on my part. I was including any societies where discussions of good and evil take place. And a society could include adherents to more than one faith or belief system, atheists, etc.

Well said. the reason behind that the way I see it because these groups build their dogmatic walls taller than the others' to protect their subjective values from outside influence. One example can be the Mormon church and its off shoot FLDS. All Mormons were FLDS before but in order to get the statehood in Utah, Joseph Smith was forced to negotiate with " God" to get rid of polygamy where in fact that was the corner stone of the Church when it started. With Polygamy, incest and pedophilia crept in which became part of the religious practice too.

Groups build dogmatic walls because members of groups give themselves a license to believe and expect others to believe that they have a lock on definitions of good, evil, virtue and vice. When they do that they are opting out of the kind of dialog based on principles. Instead they are taking cover in moral concepts that are defined subjectively within their own culture or belief system. What takes hold is not moral reasoning but dogmatism (exactly as you say) -- perhaps the consequence of being unwilling or unable to participate in a dialog or reflect on the challenges that a public discourse would required.

Now one wonders if Dr. Willard mentioned this important Christian happening in his book.

Antonia,

Can you please elaborate what you mean by ''reverence of life"? Does that involve woman's right to choose?

I left that open-ended on purpose. And a woman' right to choose is a perfect example of how societies who claim reverence for life might act in ways that show a lack of reverence for life, and vice versa. Other examples would be the stoning of women, or capital punishment. Rather than state my opinion on any of these things, let me just stick with my thoughts here. Whenever people entertain a belief in "reverence for life" or any other "principle," but are unwilling or unable to test their actions (abortion, capital punishment) in light of that principle, the result is dogmatism. Dogmatism never equals morality. A good example is your own example of Joseph Smith having to negotiate with God -- in order to get permission to change the dogma, instead of rethinking a practice using moral principles to guide the outcome.


I agree with you partially, especially for the isolated tribes all around the world who live away from this ' broader civilsation' of ours. They do have their moral codes. Some of them walk naked, believing in evil spirits, cannibalism etc etc. That may be moral ignorance seen through our lenses but a norm for them.

I agree. And we may be called upon to comprehend why a culture may practice cannibalism or believe in evil spirits and try not to judge because they are different. However, there is no requirement that we approve or condone. The problem that remains is that some cultures are beyond our ability to contact them through dialog -- the assumptions are so different. So we cannot have a discussion about morality with them. We can only talk with them about patterns and practices, similarities and differences.

There is an interesting program on Travel Channel where 2 white guys, Mark and Olly go and live with different tribes for months all around the world and try to adapt to their customs. In one program they were offered the nieces of the Chiefs because the Chiefs were afraid they may take their wives. In another one they were blatantly called gays. It is a very interesting program for what we are discussing above as moral values and a must watch for all.

What did they do? Anthropologists discuss the problem of "going native." Once one does that one loses one's legitimacy as a researcher who has to observe and document, describe and explain, and refrain from merging with the research problem. At that point all objectivity is lost, along with balance and reflection.

I again agree with you in your analysis above but this can only happen and bring positive results in a collective manner provided we see the world through the lenses of pragmatism rather than through the dogmatic ones.

I am not sure what you mean by pragmatism?
Love & regards

Tejwant Singh

Originally Posted by shearwater

I voted for John McCain reluctantly simply because he supports a capitalist pro-growth economy as well as conservative fiscal policies of eliminating earmarks from bills that go through congress. I like the idea of a black president but am afraid from what I listen to that Obama is a "hollow man." He talks with a lot of bravado but is leading this country toward high government regulation and socialism. I don' believe he understands economics 101.