Mere Christianity

[Fist and Faith]

Say the same thing you've been saying to Av, who doesn't know abortion is wrong for lack of punishment.

Uh...even if they punished it, I'd still say it wasn't wrong. (Not that I think it's necessarily right either, I'd rather that it never happened. But everybody should be able to choose for themselves. Just like pretty much everything else.

Exactly my point. Even with punishment, you don't know right from wrong!

Oooooooooooor... Maybe everybody doesn't have the same moral compass, and people choose to ignore it sometimes.

[Fist and Faith]

Whether they are the one who breaks the commonly accepted standard or the victim of someone else breaking it, if it benefits them, they will appeal to it. If it does not benefit them, they will attempt to avoid it, or use any loophole they can find. It has nothing to do with feeling that the standard is right, or just. It only has to do with them getting what they want, by any means. "I have the right to what is mine" is not followed by "And everybody else has the right to what is theirs" for these people.

That is what we see, in all societies, every day. And not in numbers that could be called exceptions or abberations. It's in such numbers that the huge expense of trying to prevent shoplifting is less than the loss from shoplifting. Add the number of police and elected officials that are stealing from the communities they work for. And the cashiers in Wal-Mart and the accountants for local businesses who steal tens of thousands of dollars over many years before getting caught. It's not nearly as infrequent as you think it is. It's common.

I'm not at all sure what you think I think is infrequent. I have said that sin is universal. It's not only common, it's you and me and everyone else here. I suspect you are arguing against something that I am not arguing for.

Yes, you are arguing that those who truly do not feel this moral compass are in such small numbers that they are the exception. As you did here:

There is nothing to suggest that, generally speaking, the violator knows that it is wrong. That's the conclusion that you and Lewis begin with. Many people do share many aspects of morality. There aren't terribly many different stances on any given moral issue, after all, so it's not even possible for every human to have a different stance on, say, killing. Some think all killing is wrong, regardless of circumstances (abortion; war; self defense; etc). Some think abortion, and/or war, and/or self defense are acceptable circumstances under which to kill (and, of course, some don't think abortion is killing). Some think it's ok to kill pretty much any time.

The reason people try to run and hide when they do certain things is because they don't want to go to jail. The reason some try to justify what they did is because they don't want everyone to mistrust them in the future. But, by repeating the behavior, he does demonstrate that he thinks those things are his own alternate version of good. Actually, an alternate version of good that he shares with many others.

We all start as small children who are selfish and couldn't care less about anyone else. Left on our own, a much larger percentage of us would remain that way when we grow up. But those raising us do not want us to have extreme difficulties relating to others, and getting into legal trouble, so they teach us to be nice. Some of us would have come to be nice anyway. Some of us become nice only because we know we have to follow the rules or get in trouble. And some of us do not become nice. They keep the morality they started with. They know how society demands they act, but they refuse. And they run, hide, and justify in order to remain free.

It IS true that people can cease to perceive this moral compass. But it is specifically a ceasing to perceive - they do not so begin. The people who do this are overwhelmingly the exception, not the rule, and social morality is generally not based on such people and their views, unless it is a society in final stages of decadence. But it does not take earthly punishment to tell us that something is wrong to do. Indeed, you imply that the absence of punishment means that a thing is not wrong, or at least, not perceived to be wrong.

There is a reason why the two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor - for the alternative IS to love only oneself, and to see the service of self as the only good.

We ALL justify our acts, even those of us who do not run and hide. As I said, when I cut off someone else in traffic, I 'have a good reason'.

I dunno, this is all so obvious, so ABC to me that if you don't see it, if you really believe that only fear of punishment tells us that something is wrong - that we cannot perceive wrong in its absence, then I don't know what to say to you.

I admit that the perception can be dulled and even killed, but the behavior of most people affirms that this doesn't happen to an egregious extent with most people. The fear of punishment? But whence the punishment? Why do people feel that certain acts ought to be punished in the first place, unless it is that the acts really do merit punishment, whether the perpetrator perceives it or not? Obviously, any one individual could be morally blind; could really get things wrong, but when we look at most people in most places in times, we find, as Lewis asserted, an enormous commonality and agreement, for example, that the people who really do think it's OK to kill any time must be restrained because they are wrong, blind and harmful. We certainly don't acknowledge them to have an equally valid viewpoint. We really do think them to be actually wrong, as Lewis referred to our ability to judge the Nazis. They really are an exception to an overwhelming rule, which is why the world united to defeat those two nations that really wanted to impose the monstrous views of the tiny minority ruling them, and even the Italians recanted.

Beyond that, maybe we could go back and forth, but I don't want to. I think my case overwhelmingly solid, and the objections too easy to rebut, and I don't think debating with you will be of any particular use. (I still think that simple inquiry is not useless.)

And as you do again at the end of your current post.

The very fact that people refer to the standard, and expect other people to commonly recognize it, is proof that it exists, that it IS something objective and not subjective - or there would be no point in appealing to it to others.

They appeal to the standard that society has imposed on all, which is (supposedly and hopefully) for the good of society. Many people don't give a damn about any aspect of that standard in any moral sense. They want nothing but what they see to be to their benefit. They steal, clearly breaking society's standard, when they think it is to their benefit. They yell for society's standard when they think it is to their benefit. They want it both, and many other, ways - always depending on what suits them.

Now I agree completely that for some people the second inference you mention does not follow. (So you need not push the point - it is granted.) Some people are color blind, some have no ear for music - but that does not disprove the music or the color - and indeed, the people can still hear SOMETHING and see something. But the critical point is that we ALL have enough sensibility to recognize the standard, at least when it benefits us. And most people really do recognize it even when it benefits someone else. So the exceptions you refer to prove the rule, rather than disprove it.

We all have enough sense to push for the standard if it suits us at the moment, regardless of whether or not we actually agree with it. Many, many people feel this way about stealing and killing; it's not such small numbers that they are exception.

[rusmeister]

I'll respond at some point soon for the sake of the audience. I'm just really tired of the "unstoppable force meets immovable object" kind of debating. If you really want to know how I can believe 'x' in the face of 'y', then I can do that.

For example, I believe that huge numbers of people can cease to perceive the moral compass, so that the people who do become a minority at that point in time and space, as is happening in our time, especially in regard to sexual morality.

In the meantime, what should be of immense interest to all who want to consider BOTH sides of the question of the source of morality, here is a recent debate held at the U of Maryland:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_2HI-5opck&feature=related
Both sides presented fairly in fair debate. You can't ask for more than that... (I got this tip from Ancient Faith Radio; Frederica (Mathewes-Green - ex-feminist-cum-priest's wife) interviewed Fr Hans Jacobse afterwards on her podcast there. ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/interview_with_fr._hans_jacobse )

[Fist and Faith]

For example, I believe that huge numbers of people can cease to perceive the moral compass, so that the people who do become a minority at that point in time and space, as is happening in our time, especially in regard to sexual morality.

Yes, again, starting from the conclusion. You should be trying to establish that, as a rule, people perceive the moral compass in the first place.

In the meantime, what should be of immense interest to all who want to consider BOTH sides of the question of the source of morality, here is a recent debate held at the U of Maryland:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_2HI-5opck&feature=related
Both sides presented fairly in fair debate. You can't ask for more than that... (I got this tip from Ancient Faith Radio; Frederica (Mathewes-Green - ex-feminist-cum-priest's wife) interviewed Fr Hans Jacobse afterwards on her podcast there. ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/interview_with_fr._hans_jacobse )

Sounds excellent! I hope to check it out this weekend.

[rusmeister]

For example, I believe that huge numbers of people can cease to perceive the moral compass, so that the people who do become a minority at that point in time and space, as is happening in our time, especially in regard to sexual morality.

Yes, again, starting from the conclusion. You should be trying to establish that, as a rule, people perceive the moral compass in the first place.

In the meantime, what should be of immense interest to all who want to consider BOTH sides of the question of the source of morality, here is a recent debate held at the U of Maryland:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_2HI-5opck&feature=related
Both sides presented fairly in fair debate. You can't ask for more than that... (I got this tip from Ancient Faith Radio; Frederica (Mathewes-Green - ex-feminist-cum-priest's wife) interviewed Fr Hans Jacobse afterwards on her podcast there. ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/interview_with_fr._hans_jacobse )

Sounds excellent! I hope to check it out this weekend.

Thanks, Fist,
As to the first, I'm aware of that here - I was just refuting the other idea, that you think I think only a few people can't perceive the compass.

AS to the other - enjoy! I'm only half-way through myself,. The atheist IS very personable, and I would cheerfully have a beer with him myself.

[Fist and Faith]

I was just refuting the other idea, that you think I think only a few people can't perceive the compass.

You do think only a few people can't perceive the compass. You've said it several times. You say they are the exception. You say everyone else, the majority of all people, perceive the compass; sometimes act against it; and make up excuses for why, all the while knowing they did something wrong.

That is what is unsupported. We see many, many, many people consistently acting against what you think is right and wrong. The fact that they explain why they should be allowed to get away with breaking what you consider right and wrong is not evidence that they feel it. The fact that they yell that others who harm them by breaking what you consider right and wrong should not get away with it is not evidence that they feel it.

[rusmeister]

I was just refuting the other idea, that you think I think only a few people can't perceive the compass.

You do think only a few people can't perceive the compass. You've said it several times. You say they are the exception. You say everyone else, the majority of all people, perceive the compass; sometimes act against it; and make up excuses for why, all the while knowing they did something wrong.

That is what is unsupported. We see many, many, many people consistently acting against what you think is right and wrong. The fact that they explain why they should be allowed to get away with breaking what you consider right and wrong is not evidence that they feel it. The fact that they yell that others who harm them by breaking what you consider right and wrong should not get away with it is not evidence that they feel it.

I think a central misunderstanding (referring to your earlier post as well) is that when I say "most", I am taking a historical view. So while at any one given point a large number of people, perhaps even a majority indeed have lost the ability - note I say specifically "lost" - to detect the compass, over time and space they cease to be a majority, or even a truly significant portion. So I would say, based on my acceptance of the general concepts from Scripture (though not always literal in the fundamentalist sense) that the time before the Great Flood was such a time, locally in Sodom and Gomorrah, ditto, locally in fascist Germany, Stalinist Russia, and sexual morality in the West (including, of course, the US) today as well, where great numbers of people cease to see the general orientation of the compass, , have it educated out of them by both schooling and the media at a fairly early age. The latter cases are clearly caused by the malaise of large modern societies, where a small number of people really can use those institutions to propagate their particular blindness on everyone.

As for the rest, that we see people acting in a certain way in no way proves that they have no awareness that it is wrong; I would say that most of them do really behave as if they know it is wrong. That you think differently, and make what to me are strange assertions that they do think the behavior appropriate regardless of whether the actions are done to them or not cannot be responded to. Again, the sky is not green, and I can't argue with someone who thinks it is. Our opposing views are NOT equally valid here. Someone is wrong, and I'll leave everyone to figure out for themselves which of us it is.

Since people DO object when selfish behaviors are enacted on them, that IS evidence (even though you do not accept it) and I do offer it as such (to others, if you deny it) that they DO know that the behavior is objectively wrong, for they have become the object of the wrong.

Once it is established that Lewis is right on the first point, one can proceed to the next.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do
not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and
the universe we live in.

[Fist and Faith]

The morality of a large percentage of people is to take what they want, using whatever means they think they can get away with. Society, of course, cannot survive with that being the rule, so it makes laws. What we work for is ours. We are not allowed to take what is someone else's, and we are punished when we do.

Still, huge numbers of people want what they want. Selfishness is EVERYWHERE. And, every day, we catch them taking what is not theirs. This - acting against your moral compass - is not evidence that they feel your moral compass.

But they do know society's rules, and they will take advantage of those rules whenever it benefits them. Hence, whenever they are wronged, they scream for the law to be enforced. This - wanting to keep what is theirs when, just yesterday, they took what was someone else's - is not evidence that they feel your moral compass.

There is no need to "prove" that they have no awareness that what they do is, according to your moral compass, wrong. Their behavior is wrong. THAT is the starting point. It's up to you to supply evidence that their awareness is in conflict with their behavior. "I would say" is not evidence. It's... nothing. You are saying that behavior does not come from morality. You are saying that people act opposed to what they feel. I'll grant you that most people do at times. But there's no reason to think that the morality of those who act against what you think is a universal moral compass consistently, as a means of making a living, is not reflected in their day-to-day behavior. You are not in their minds, hearing any conflicting internal conversations. You have no basis for saying what you say. You should establish that it is so, but you do not. You will not even try. You just keep repeating that a person's life-long visible behavior does not reflect their morality.

This kind of thinking on your part is why your faith is not reasonable. In order to keep it, you are required to ignore what happens all around you. This reminds me of this, from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

"Well, it's quite a bootstrap operation. It's analogous to the kind of hang-up Sir Isaac Newton had when he wanted to solve the problems of instantaneous rates of change. It was unreasonable in his time to think of anything changing within a zero amount of time. Yet it's almost necessary mathematically to work with other zero quantities, such as points in space and time that no one thought were unreasonable at all, although there was no real difference. So what Newton did was say, in effect, 'We're going to presume there's such a thing as instantaneous change, and see if we can find ways of determining what it is in various applications.' The result of this presumption is the branch of mathematics known as the calculus, which every engineer uses today. Newton invented a new form of reason..."

Newton suspected something that was not reasonable actually was the case. You suspect something that is not reflected in human behavior is the case. Newton tested his idea, and showed that it is, indeed, the case.

But you simply keep insisting that your idea is the case. If things are not as they appear, or what is assumed, show us how they are not. If would seem you want to convince people of this. But you can't by simply repeating that it is the case.

[rusmeister]

The morality of a large percentage of people is to take what they want, using whatever means they think they can get away with. Society, of course, cannot survive with that being the rule, so it makes laws. What we work for is ours. We are not allowed to take what is someone else's, and we are punished when we do.

Still, huge numbers of people want what they want. Selfishness is EVERYWHERE. And, every day, we catch them taking what is not theirs. This - acting against your moral compass - is not evidence that they feel your moral compass.

But they do know society's rules, and they will take advantage of those rules whenever it benefits them. Hence, whenever they are wronged, they scream for the law to be enforced. This - wanting to keep what is theirs when, just yesterday, they took what was someone else's - is not evidence that they feel your moral compass.

There is no need to "prove" that they have no awareness that what they do is, according to your moral compass, wrong. Their behavior is wrong. THAT is the starting point. It's up to you to supply evidence that their awareness is in conflict with their behavior. "I would say" is not evidence. It's... nothing. You are saying that behavior does not come from morality. You are saying that people act opposed to what they feel. I'll grant you that most people do at times. But there's no reason to think that the morality of those who act against what you think is a universal moral compass consistently, as a means of making a living, is not reflected in their day-to-day behavior. You are not in their minds, hearing any conflicting internal conversations. You have no basis for saying what you say. You should establish that it is so, but you do not. You will not even try. You just keep repeating that a person's life-long visible behavior does not reflect their morality.

This kind of thinking on your part is why your faith is not reasonable. In order to keep it, you are required to ignore what happens all around you.

You say that people know things are wrong because society makes rules. I would argue that people knew things were wrong long before a society told them so. What you don't explain is where society gets these ideas from. It's clear you think it purely pragmatic. But pragma comes from theory. It doesn't "just happen".

You just keep repeating that a person's life-long visible behavior does not reflect their morality.

I do not repeat (or say) this at all. I don't even hold it to be "their" morality" The nearest I come to that is saying that our behavior does not coincide with what we think morally right.

It's up to you to supply evidence that their awareness is in conflict with their behavior.

I make no claim to be in others' minds. I do claim to hear what they say, and to draw inferences from it. What I hear all the time are the kinds of justifications for evil and moral violation as described by Lewis.

"I'm in a terrible place," he added. "This is the school that I go to. This is my genocide school, where I'm going to be homeless because of this school. I haven't forgot the teacher that gave me the B for freedom of speech."

In a word, "I have good reasons for doing what I do."

How many justifications do I have to pull down, copy and paste from people who do wrong to show that they do show a consistent need to justify what they do, and that only the pathologically insane do not? Justify means "make right", to align what they do with that moral code. It is solid evidence that they feel something, whether they philosophize about that feeling or not (usually not) that motivates them to the justification. There are a million examples, too many to pull down. You could pick at them like a Philadelphia lawyer, but that would be mere sophistry - not worthy of a true thinker, who would see that there are in fact an uncountable number of examples, and recognizes the central thread running through all of them. It is true that some people do not express, either in word or deed, attempt at justification. But there are such human monsters like the fictional Joker, who have truly lost their humanity. Finding blind men who cannot perceive light does not disprove the existence of light. The fact that most of DO perceive light is enough to convince even a blind man that light exists.

So your last paragraph is the complete reverse of what I see to be the truth. It is precisely what I see around me and that I do NOT ignore it that convinces me, via reason, that there IS moral law.

[Fist and Faith]

You're still refusing to address my point. I don't care how many examples you can find of people who agree with you. Yes, many people agree with you about stealing. Yes, many of those people steal at some point. Yes, many of them come up with an excuse that they hope convinces everyone that they should be allowed to get away with it. Same goes for killing. And adultry. And anything else you call "sin." That there are many people who agree with you (and me) is not in debate.

I'm talking about the people who don't. It is not a small number that can be passed off as exceptional, and ignored. But that's what you're doing. You're pretending there are not large numbers of people consistently, for years and decades, acting against your moral code.

Worse, I'd bet money that you're looking at a single aspect of morality that a given person demonstrates they share with you, and, with nothing to back you up, claiming that they share all aspects of morality with you. Does someone who murdered once, under very unusual circumstances, whether he admits that he did something wrong or tries to make excuses, steal every day? Does the man who would never kill or steal for any reason cheat on his wife twice every week? Does Av agree with you about stealing and adultery, despite not agreeing with you about abortion? Do I agree with you about many things, despite not agreeing on homosexuality?

There are many moral issues. People fall into some point along a broad spectrum on each issue. And people do not necessarily match up on where they fall; they do not agree on all issues, even if they do on one or more. But you will only look at those who agree with you on a particular issue, and claim that all people agree on all issues, even though we are all weak at times, and don't live up to what we believe.

[rusmeister]

You're still refusing to address my point. I don't care how many examples you can find of people who agree with you. Yes, many people agree with you about stealing. Yes, many of those people steal at some point. Yes, many of them come up with an excuse that they hope convinces everyone that they should be allowed to get away with it. Same goes for killing. And adultry. And anything else you call "sin." That there are many people who agree with you (and me) is not in debate.

I'm talking about the people who don't. It is not a small number that can be passed off as exceptional, and ignored. But that's what you're doing. You're pretending there are not large numbers of people consistently, for years and decades, acting against your moral code.

Worse, I'd bet money that you're looking at a single aspect of morality that a given person demonstrates they share with you, and, with nothing to back you up, claiming that they share all aspects of morality with you. Does someone who murdered once, under very unusual circumstances, whether he admits that he did something wrong or tries to make excuses, steal every day? Does the man who would never kill or steal for any reason cheat on his wife twice every week? Does Av agree with you about stealing and adultery, despite not agreeing with you about abortion? Do I agree with you about many things, despite not agreeing on homosexuality?

There are many moral issues. People fall into some point along a broad spectrum on each issue. And people do not necessarily match up on where they fall; they do not agree on all issues, even if they do on one or more. But you will only look at those who agree with you on a particular issue, and claim that all people agree on all issues, even though we are all weak at times, and don't live up to what we believe.

I'm refusing to address your point...???

Well, let that pass. I'm not interested in who intellectually agrees with me; I'm interested in what I observe. And what I observe is justification - an appeal to the standard, extremely often when it is violated against others and always when it is violated against the self. Ergo, the standard exists.

The variations we observe (and which I agree with you do exist) really do not exceed what I describe as a variance of 90 degrees (total). People may have all kinds of intellectual opinions - but those opinions are not what they appeal to when they are wronged, or even when they justify.

I do say the numbers of people who truly do not appeal to this moral code when it benefits them, if nothing else - who do not perceive it at all, IS incredibly small. That they violate it is of no import, for that is already a given. They DO act against the moral code. And I'm not pretending otherwise. There are blind people, people missing limbs, etc - but they are the exception. We stare at them because they are exceptions. So, all people act at some point or another, against this moral law. All appeal to it when it benefits them. Those who do not are few and far between, and they are the monsters among us. And again, I'm not talking about intellectual agreement on polygamy or abortion. I'm talking about when someone proposes aborting or euthanizing us against our will - if we can, if we are not Terry Schiavo, we will appeal to the standard, no matter what intellectual ideas we hold.

The fact that the standard exists, and that people on the whole acknowledge it, but do not keep it - even though they hypocritically attempt to take advantage of it, is the foundation of all clear thinking on the subject.

[Fist and Faith]

It's not a question of who appeals to the standard. Everybody appeals to it when it will benefit them. It's a question of who feels it. The behavior of many is an indication of nothing other than that they do not feel it. And I'm talking about many. Would you agree that not all people who commit any particular crime get caught? Every shoplifter is not caught; many get away with it. Every murderer is not caught; many get away with it. Every embezzler is not caught; many get away with it. We catch MANY people after they have consistently, for years and decades, broken pretty serious laws. Serial killers; perpetrators of fraud; embezzlers. It's in the news all the time. I claim that many don't get caught. So the number is even higher than we know.

When it suits them, these people will appeal to the standard. To the laws of the land, which say nobody can steal from you. Despite the behavior they have consistently practiced, they will say, "That's mine! He stole it! I demand restitution!" The fact that they say these things does not mean they feel the standard. They know the law. Better than you and I do, in fact, because they're always trying to get around it. Of course they appeal to it when doing so will benefit them. Is there any reason we shouldn't expect them to?? They want everything so badly that they'll risk going to jail for taking what is not theirs. Why wouldn't they want their own stuff so badly that they'll yell when someone takes it??

The fact that they try to justify their behavior - that they try to weasel out of punishment - when they are caught breaking the law does not indicate that they feel the standard.

[rusmeister]

It's not a question of who appeals to the standard. Everybody appeals to it when it will benefit them. It's a question of who feels it. The behavior of many is an indication of nothing other than that they do not feel it. And I'm talking about many. Would you agree that not all people who commit any particular crime get caught? Every shoplifter is not caught; many get away with it. Every murderer is not caught; many get away with it. Every embezzler is not caught; many get away with it. We catch MANY people after they have consistently, for years and decades, broken pretty serious laws. Serial killers; perpetrators of fraud; embezzlers. It's in the news all the time. I claim that many don't get caught. So the number is even higher than we know.

When it suits them, these people will appeal to the standard. To the laws of the land, which say nobody can steal from you. Despite the behavior they have consistently practiced, they will say, "That's mine! He stole it! I demand restitution!" The fact that they say these things does not mean they feel the standard. They know the law. Better than you and I do, in fact, because they're always trying to get around it. Of course they appeal to it when doing so will benefit them. Is there any reason we shouldn't expect them to?? They want everything so badly that they'll risk going to jail for taking what is not theirs. Why wouldn't they want their own stuff so badly that they'll yell when someone takes it??

The fact that they try to justify their behavior - that they try to weasel out of punishment - when they are caught breaking the law does not indicate that they feel the standard.

Fist, it's like light. The existence of light cannot be disproved because some people do not feel it. The fact that everybody appeals to it, whether there is a law of the land or not, is enough to show its existence. The problem of not feeling it - I'd say in most cases of LOSING that ability - is another one. But the existence of the moral law has been established, whether people sense it or not. The argument of the thief complaining when he is stolen from is evidence FOR the moral law, not against it.

What you fail to explain is what exactly people are appealing to, particularly in the absence of formal law, when they themselves are violated. If there is no law, do they beg an approaching murderer for their lives? On what basis do they ask him to have mercy? What is it that they are appealing to in the murderer? Why bother with appealing if there is nothing to appeal to? Sure, they may beg on their own behalf, but the "I have 4 children" line makes no sense if there is nothing to appeal to. Why should the murderer in the lawless land have mercy? Why would anybody think he should? We don't say "Don't kill me because law #77234 of the criminal code of the state of NY says not to or you'll be punished!"

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, it's like light. The existence of light cannot be disproved because some people do not feel it.

No, it's not like light. Light is something outside of ourselves that we perceive. We can test it; manipulate it; study it; create it;... The fact that some do not have the necessary body parts to perceive it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Your moral compass, otoh, is something you feel within yourself. And, because you do, and because, if what you feel is what you think it is it will help prove God's existence, you want to assume everyone else feels it within themselves.

The fact that everybody appeals to it, whether there is a law of the land or not, is enough to show its existence.

What land says it's not illegal to simply take what someone else worked for? There's no such land. Under certain circumstances, the ruling body might have the right, but it's certainly not a free-for-all in any country. Why? Because no society can exist that way. This is different from the homosexuality debate, where the society YOU want can't exist among accepted homosexuality. NO society can exist if everybody can take anything anybody else worked for.

The problem of not feeling it - I'd say in most cases of LOSING that ability - is another one. But the existence of the moral law has been established, whether people sense it or not.

No, it hasn't been established. No more than the existence of the God you believe in has been.

The argument of the thief complaining when he is stolen from is evidence FOR the moral law, not against it.

No, it's not evidence for or against the moral law. It's just evidence that the thief doesn't want his stuff stolen any more than the rest of us do. Everybody wants to keep the stuff they worked for. (Amusingly, the thief wants to keep the stuff he stole.) But wanting to keep what I worked for does not automatically lead to "And everybody else should get to keep what they worked for." Yes, it often does lead to that in people. And it's reinforced, and even developed, in people by the voice of society, which, because it's the only way society can exist, says that's the way things should be.

But it's not always like that. There's a huge number of people who consistently act otherwise throughout their lives. Not an exceptionally small number.

What you fail to explain is what exactly people are appealing to, particularly in the absence of formal law, when they themselves are violated. If there is no law, do they beg an approaching murderer for their lives? On what basis do they ask him to have mercy? What is it that they are appealing to in the murderer? Why bother with appealing if there is nothing to appeal to? Sure, they may beg on their own behalf, but the "I have 4 children" line makes no sense if there is nothing to appeal to. Why should the murderer in the lawless land have mercy? Why would anybody think he should? We don't say "Don't kill me because law #77234 of the criminal code of the state of NY says not to or you'll be punished!"

"I have 4 children" doesn't always work, though, does it. Nor "I'm only a 15 year old girl! I want to fall in love! I want to have children!" The person is still murdered often enough. There's no evidence that the murderer felt and lost your moral compass. There's only evidence that he acted against what you (and, in this case, I) feel.

[rusmeister]

The fact that everybody appeals to it, whether there is a law of the land or not, is enough to show its existence.

What land says it's not illegal to simply take what someone else worked for? There's no such land. Under certain circumstances, the ruling body might have the right, but it's certainly not a free-for-all in any country. Why? Because no society can exist that way. This is different from the homosexuality debate, where the society YOU want can't exist among accepted homosexuality. NO society can exist if everybody can take anything anybody else worked for.

Let us go to a place where there is or can be no appeal to law. (All I need to do is demonstrate that there IS such a thing; that the existence and enforcement of law is not the basis of morality.) It may be the Wild West, it may be darkest Africa, it may be in the sewers under NY City or in a city precinct with corrupt cops. Of course there are such places. Was there ever a time before large societies with developed law existed? Of course. So saying there's no such place is not true. Your argument seems to depend completely on the existence and possible application of law. Remove that prop, and you have no explanation for the appeal. I don't know why you don't see that. The appeals that Lewis offered as examples are not even ones that generally involve law.

The argument of the thief complaining when he is stolen from is evidence FOR the moral law, not against it.

No, it's not evidence for or against the moral law. It's just evidence that the thief doesn't want his stuff stolen any more than the rest of us do. Everybody wants to keep the stuff they worked for. (Amusingly, the thief wants to keep the stuff he stole.) But wanting to keep what I worked for does not automatically lead to "And everybody else should get to keep what they worked for." Yes, it often does lead to that in people. And it's reinforced, and even developed, in people by the voice of society, which, because it's the only way society can exist, says that's the way things should be.

But it's not always like that. There's a huge number of people who consistently act otherwise throughout their lives. Not an exceptionally small number.

Again, there can be any number of people who do not justify themselves before moral law. But you offer no reason for his own appeal for justice when he is wronged. Sure, he wants to keep his stuff (or whatever). But what, then, when the wrongdoer is wronged, does he appeal to? If he truly senses no justice, particularly in a place where law is established poorly or not at all, what on earth could it possibly be that leads him to believe that other people might consider fair play on his behalf? If he were truly insensitive to any moral sense, then it would be strange, illogical and insane to do so - yet it is quite natural for the wrongdoer to expect that others might really believe in justice.

What you fail to explain is what exactly people are appealing to, particularly in the absence of formal law, when they themselves are violated. If there is no law, do they beg an approaching murderer for their lives? On what basis do they ask him to have mercy? What is it that they are appealing to in the murderer? Why bother with appealing if there is nothing to appeal to? Sure, they may beg on their own behalf, but the "I have 4 children" line makes no sense if there is nothing to appeal to. Why should the murderer in the lawless land have mercy? Why would anybody think he should? We don't say "Don't kill me because law #77234 of the criminal code of the state of NY says not to or you'll be punished!"

"I have 4 children" doesn't always work, though, does it. Nor "I'm only a 15 year old girl! I want to fall in love! I want to have children!" The person is still murdered often enough. There's no evidence that the murderer felt and lost your moral compass. There's only evidence that he acted against what you (and, in this case, I) feel.

Again, it doesn't matter what the murderer actually feels. It matters that the victim is appealing to something. WHAT are they appealing to in such a case?

Isn't my point getting across? If not, then conversation over. I've tried explaining this six ways from Sunday. If you don't see that the victim, at least appeals to something, there is nothing at all to say. It's like trying to speak a foreign language that you don't know, and I don't care for that sort of exercise.

[Fist and Faith]

Of course the victim appeals to something. They appeal to what they want, and what they feel. The person about to be murdered hopes that the would-be murderer will be swayed by what s/he, the victim, feels. If the victim doesn't have a huge amount of money to offer in exchange for his/her life, they have to go for emotional appeals. And who wouldn't be swayed by such an appeal?? Well, as it turns out, lots of people.

And the victim of theft, even if the victim is a habitual thief himself, appeals to the law, because the law says he should get to keep his stuff. Nobody is allowed to take it, and he's gonna make sure everybody knows that, because he wants his stuff back.

And of course it does matter what the murderer actually feels. That's the point I've been trying to make for days now. But you're ignoring it. It makes no sense within your belief system, so it must be ignored. How can you say everybody feels this moral compass if the only evidence in these many cases indicates that they do not feel it? You can't. So you ignore those people. It doesn't matter what they feel??? Your whole theory is that everybody, but for an exceptionally small number, feels the same thing. But a number that is not exceptionally small does not.

[rusmeister]

Of course the victim appeals to something. They appeal to what they want, and what they feel. The person about to be murdered hopes that the would-be murderer will be swayed by what s/he, the victim, feels. If the victim doesn't have a huge amount of money to offer in exchange for his/her life, they have to go for emotional appeals. And who wouldn't be swayed by such an appeal?? Well, as it turns out, lots of people.

And the victim of theft, even if the victim is a habitual thief himself, appeals to the law, because the law says he should get to keep his stuff. Nobody is allowed to take it, and he's gonna make sure everybody knows that, because he wants his stuff back.

And of course it does matter what the murderer actually feels. That's the point I've been trying to make for days now. But you're ignoring it. It makes no sense within your belief system, so it must be ignored. How can you say everybody feels this moral compass if the only evidence in these many cases indicates that they do not feel it? You can't. So you ignore those people. It doesn't matter what they feel??? Your whole theory is that everybody, but for an exceptionally small number, feels the same thing. But a number that is not exceptionally small does not.

And isn't it amazing that they all want exactly the same thing? Something you seem to take for granted, and by your own theory there ought to be a great deal of variation on.

I'm not ignoring your points. I'm saying they are wrong. Rather a difference.

I have said that some people lose the ability to feel this compass. I have said that they are a minority and this is right. Were it not, I could not walk ten feet outside of my own door safely, law or no law. The fact that societies are built - on common moral assumptions - is solid evidence that the norm is to feel this compass. If moral assumptions were random, as you suppose, societies would be impossible; only anarchy.

Ahhh, what's the use...?

[Fist and Faith]

You're saying that everybody who wants to keep what they worked for does so because of a moral compass. That's just naive. Naive for the sake of being able to ignore the situation. It doesn't take any moral compass to tell me that I want to keep what I made or bought. What else? I don't want to be stabbed because of the moral compass? I don't want to catch pneumonia because of the moral compass?

Morality comes in when you decide how to treat others. The moral issue isn't whether or not I want to be hurt; it's whether or not I consider it right or wrong to hurt others. We do not begin life with a moral compass that tells us it is wrong to hurt or steal from others. Children do it all the time, and are taught not to. Some don't take to that lesson very well, and will not abide by it without punishment. Some never embrace the idea, and only abide by it because they don't want the punishment. Some don't even care about the punishment, and ignore the idea.

[rusmeister]

You're saying that everybody who wants to keep what they worked for does so because of a moral compass. That's just naive. Naive for the sake of being able to ignore the situation. It doesn't take any moral compass to tell me that I want to keep what I made or bought. What else? I don't want to be stabbed because of the moral compass? I don't want to catch pneumonia because of the moral compass?

Morality comes in when you decide how to treat others. The moral issue isn't whether or not I want to be hurt; it's whether or not I consider it right or wrong to hurt others. We do not begin life with a moral compass that tells us it is wrong to hurt or steal from others. Children do it all the time, and are taught not to. Some don't take to that lesson very well, and will not abide by it without punishment. Some never embrace the idea, and only abide by it because they don't want the punishment. Some don't even care about the punishment, and ignore the idea.

Only I'm talking about the appeal to others, not merely the desire for one's self. What the heck are they appealing to? What is this idea that anyone could possibly and ought to feel on some level a respect for our own interests, especially if they have or are about to violate those interests, esp. deliberately?

[Fist and Faith]

Whatever it is, many of those being appealed to don't feel it. And there's no reason to believe they ever did, then forgot it, or unlearned it, or chose to ignore it. That's the conclusion that Lewis and you are starting from. You believe it because your worldview depends on it. But that doesn't make it so. You need to establish its accuracy. Which can't be easy, since the evidence doesn't suggest it.

So far, you're just shifting the argument around, trying to keep things so off balance that I lose track of the point. This post, you said:

Only I'm talking about the appeal to others, not merely the desire for one's self.

So it's important that the murderer feel the moral compass, so it can be appealed to. But last post it was:

Again, it doesn't matter what the murderer actually feels. It matters that the victim is appealing to something.

Doesn't matter what the murderer feels.

The fact is, all must feel the same thing. Otherwise, it's not universal. No, not every single person. There surely are exceptions to most rules, and probably ALL rules when it comes to humans. But a huge majority better feel it if it is to be considered a valid theory. Problem is, a huge majority does not feel it. At least there is no reason to believe so, considering the very large number of people who regularly, consistently break any aspect of your moral compass on a long-term basis. You want to claim that they no longer feel it. But you first have to establish that they ever did. You have not. We don't have it when we start out life. Many don't behave as though they don't have it at any point in life, despite the attempts of parents and society to instill it in them. And, surely, those who are raised by those without it wouldn't be expected to pick it up. There doesn't seem to be anything built into us.