tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post1515017854441449478..comments2024-03-28T00:17:55.823+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Is this world a moral gymnasium? Bernard Shaw, William Arkle and Colin WilsonBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-86703379022341465042022-04-08T14:39:38.720+01:002022-04-08T14:39:38.720+01:00@T - You are right - there is no reason to be a ma...@T - You are right - there is no reason to be a materialist utilitarian. And - in practice - extremely few people with power actually do make any significant personal sacrifices to benefit 'general utility'. <br /><br />All I can say is that it is a kind of con-trick, a sleight of concepts, that has been sufficient to fool many of the intellectuals and masses, and enlist them against Christianity and for leftism. <br /><br />I suppose we cannot live without morality - and even the most evil people will justify their actions. Over time, it's just a question of being For God's morality - or Against it. <br /><br />What we have Now is a morality of opposition to the divine, rooted in supposed 'feelings'(everything being done to 'improve' the inferred-feelings of some person or group who - we are told - are worthy of concern) - and the process therefore controlled by those with greatest mass control over feelings - i.e. the media. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-57369859531182362202022-04-08T14:22:31.902+01:002022-04-08T14:22:31.902+01:00Dr. Charlton,
"and therefore "other peop...Dr. Charlton,<br />"and therefore "other people's necessities" (implicitly their material necessities - shelter, food, decent standard of living) in this mortal life, ought always to be regarded as more important than the self-satisfactions of individual moral improvement." <br /><br />It's funny, because there is an unstated and unproven assumption in this sort of materialist, utilitarian principle. Even if there were no God or after-death life, it's still not self-evidence that we "ought" to care more about other people's material needs more than our own material needs, or our own psychological needs, spiritual needs, etc. What provided this ough to Shaw, Bentham, Marx etc.? Or did they just hide their missing ought in lots of words and tomes and language?<br /><br />Regardless, the loss of meaning and grounded "oughts" certainly proceeds apace, as we can see from the madness around us. Toddnoreply@blogger.com