tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post8882051005691126468..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: The hungry sheep look up for metaphysics... and are given moralsBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-62060705733468874942018-11-11T00:50:34.379+00:002018-11-11T00:50:34.379+00:00While there are many different schemes of morality...While there are many different schemes of morality that could be considered the results of infinite variation in possible metaphysics, nearly all of them are incoherent as a result of contradictions in the metaphysical assumptions on which they are based. There are only so many metaphysical outlooks that do not assert or give rise to contradiction once you start analyzing them logically.<br /><br />And these all share a fairly closely overlapping set of moral tenets, among them the rule that you should essay to treat others how you would like to be treated. Exactly why this is a rule would change with the metaphysics, but if the metaphysics are logically consistent it will end up as a rule of morality. But it will only be primary in a select few cases (it is <i>not</i> primary in Christianity).<br /><br />A firm grounding in morality is what is necessary to see (or <i>admit</i>, rather) that modern metaphysics (and their results) are <i>wrong</i>. To 'know' good morality only as "what <i>bad</i> people do" is precisely the opposite of knowing it. To see honesty particularly only as an intolerable offense against society/fairness/liberty/whatever is to lack any capacity for serious intellectual rigor.<br /><br />And metaphysics <i>cannot</i> be seriously studied nor applied without such rigor.<br /><br />The strength of modernity lies <i>mostly</i> in forbidding parents to teach their children morality before allowing them to engage in metaphysics. This ensures that those children cannot bring any serious intellectual rigor to criticism of modernist metaphysics, which are essentially a bag of cats tossed in an oven.<br /><br />Of course, that's the great weakness of modernity as well, it ensures that you end up with what C.S. Lewis called 'men without chests', a spiritually impotent and cowardly lot who don't have the strength or courage to preserve civilization. So modernity inevitably destroys itself, along with those who cling to it's delusions. We've seen that happen on the local scale many times, now we're seeing it occur on a global scale.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-60264825174930500952018-11-10T12:44:53.064+00:002018-11-10T12:44:53.064+00:00Isn't the point that, without a proper metaphy...Isn't the point that, without a proper metaphysics, morals are unstable and can change according to circumstances? I'm not sure how long even the Golden Rule could last without a religious underpinning or the memory of that. And if it did last in any significant way, it would only be because it would be a necessary glue that holds society together, thus a purely practical thing only which is hardly moral in any real sense.William Wildbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231219533755925897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-35691293296921029852018-11-10T12:20:10.461+00:002018-11-10T12:20:10.461+00:00@CCL - "Every significant moral philosopher a...@CCL - "Every significant moral philosopher agrees with Christ that you have to have a solid foundation of morality prior to engaging in serious metaphysics. " <br /><br />That was then, this is now. Now it is the metaphysics that undermines the morals. <br /><br />But of course, as I wrote on this blog a while back, the success of modernity is that - to escape - it needs at least two things to change 'simultaneously'; and this is very improbable. Hence the great resiliance of modernity. <br /><br />The reason metaphysics comes first is that everybody already knows true morality - at least they know it well-enough; since it is built into everyone (the Tao as CSL calls it in Abolition of Man) - and they also know it in a distorted and hostile form, as what traditionalist religionists/ 'fundmentalists' believe. <br /><br />Therefore, it is easier and more-likely to move swiftly/ instantly from metaphysical refrom to moral reform; than the other way about (when personal morality is seen as individual, ephemeral, utilitarian etc). Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7058182207916878722018-11-10T09:55:45.363+00:002018-11-10T09:55:45.363+00:00It's true that morals depend on metaphysics, b...It's true that morals depend on metaphysics, but once you nail down the metaphysics and impose a bit of internal consistency in applying them, you mostly end up with the same base set of morals. The difference is in which morals take precedence.<br /><br />This also applies to the precedence of teaching morals over metaphysics. Every significant moral philosopher agrees with Christ that you have to have a solid foundation of morality <i>prior</i> to engaging in serious metaphysics. The reason is simple. Metaphysics requires scrupulous intellectual honesty, conscientiously tracking which assumptions you've granted and which you have <i>not</i>. If you are disinclined to honesty, your metaphysics will fail. And honesty is trained by morality. Morality can be described simply as being honest about what you do and why. Or it can be described as how an honest person would act.<br /><br />Habits of morality are in any case inextricable from a habit of honesty, whether we consider honesty an attribute of morality or morality as an expression of honesty (or accept that both are true).<br /><br />You can of course introduce people to metaphysics before they have a firm moral basis. But it is mere dabbling, the moment they reach a conclusion that condemns a present immoral behavior, they will resort to sophistic evasion or obfuscation of the result, and they would be better off quitting their attempt at metaphysics right there.<br /><br />This is why we speak of shepherds and sheep.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.com