Mere Christianity

[rusmeister]

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.

In both posts I was saying the same thing, which I am still saying. MOST people really DO sense a moral compass - it is possible that only an intellectual elite doesn't. People can get so intellectual that all they look at is their eyes and they stop using their eyes to SEE things. The seeing is called "common sense"

Now most people really do acknowledge the standard, you keep insisting that there is a minority that doesn't and I agree - when you insist that it is not a minority, then I strongly disagree - that is fallacy.

What I have said is that, even though this minority (in sane civil societies it is truly a tiny minority; in our time the blindness is expanding but it is hardly a majority) may not be able to sense what is appealed to, having lost the ability to constant abuse of the sense - just as a person can dull and ruin their physical senses - MOST people actually do, and THIS is what people appeal to. Phrases like "Have you no sense of decency? (or whatever)" are otherwise sheer nonsense. That the morally blind person cannot perceive the call of his own conscience any longer does not disprove the moral law.

That babies can only sense it in relation to their own ego is no proof that it is not there, either. Compassion, as well as egotism, also springs untaught, and a human raised in a jungle among wolves (or in other relative isolation) would feel it where the wolves would not.

Anyway, enough is enough, Fist. I am consistent, and not shifting anything, and unless you bring a new argument, I am going to stop here.

[Fist and Faith]

I never said it's not a minority that does not feel your moral compass. 49% of the population could not feel it, and that would be a minority. But I'd be surprised if it was anything near 49%. I'm only saying it's not such a small percentage that it could be considered exceptional. A very large number can still be a minority.

You, otoh, simply ignore the fact that large numbers of people do consistently demonstrate that they do not feel your moral compass. The problem is that John Smith does agree with you on murder. But he doesn't on stealing. And Jane Doe does agree with you on stealing, but not on adultery. You see agreement in one aspect, and claim that they feel your moral compass. They don't. It's just that John doesn't murder, and Jane doesn't steal.

HOWEVER!! The big news is that only intellectuals don't share your morality??? Only intellectuals lack common sense, and it's because they're intellectuals?? Holy cow! What extraordinary statements!

So how's it work? The more intellectual a person is, the further s/he could be from your moral compass? I agree with you on many major moral issues, so I must not be intellectual enough. Most members of the Bloods and Crips are, obviously, more intellectual than I am, as they disagree on quite a few major issues than I do. And I didn't realize guys like Jim Jones target intellectuals, and talk them into abandoning common sense and morality.

[aliantha]

Compassion, as well as egotism, also springs untaught, and a human raised in a jungle among wolves (or in other relative isolation) would feel it where the wolves would not.

Anyway, enough is enough, Fist. I am consistent, and not shifting anything, and unless you bring a new argument, I am going to stop here.

I'll agree that you're consistent, anyhow.

There's no innate moral compass. Early man had none. He was all about survival. Doing everything possible to survive is pretty much selfish by definition. Your "moral compass" didn't begin to be developed until people banded into tribes and created society. It's in society that stuff like "treat your neighbor the way you'd like to be treated" becomes important to survival -- you want your neighbor to like you so that he will have your back when the saber-toothed tigers attack.

But it was your analogy of the babe raised by wolves that really caught my eye. I know it's another of those Christian foundation beliefs that people are higher than animals. But really, when a wolf finds a defenseless baby in the woods and, instead of eating it, takes it in and nurtures it -- isn't that compassion? And doesn't the baby learn something of the social order by interacting with its new littermates and by observing pack behavior?

[Fist and Faith]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about the baby with wolves idea. It's absolute speculation. Find me a some who were raised by wolves from infancy, and we'll talk. Declaring what such a person would feel, as though it's a fact that can back up your theory, is a terrible tactic. And make sure they weren't raised by humans before being lost in the wilderness at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... Make sure what you know about them was documented immediately upon their discovery, rather than a year after being cared for my humans.

[Vraith]

There's no innate moral compass. Early man had none. He was all about survival. Doing everything possible to survive is pretty much selfish by definition. Your "moral compass" didn't begin to be developed until people banded into tribes and created society. It's in society that stuff like "treat your neighbor the way you'd like to be treated" becomes important to survival -- you want your neighbor to like you so that he will have your back when the saber-toothed tigers attack.

In general, I agree...except you have to go way back to ancestors not remotely human to find a stage when we weren't social/tribal...

Really, I think the ability to think morally is much like the ability to think mathematically, or mechanically: our brains simply reached a level/complexity where it was capable of more than was strictly necessary for mere survival. It's been at least 50,000 years since anything was truly dangerous to humans except other humans [as an entirety] And some people have more of it, and some people have less of it, and with that extra capacity one can do "good" things, or "bad" things...you can build a school, or you can build a dungeon, make fireworks or a bomb, dance or kick 'em in the head.

[Fist and Faith]

Jaghut aside, pretty much all living things are social/tribal, neh? Bacteria, jellyfish, whatever. Gotta work that way, or have a very unusual way or reproducing. Even trees, if only because they can't get away from each other. (Hmm, I hope they don't all hate each other, but can't do much about it...)

[Vraith]

Jaghut aside, pretty much all living things are social/tribal, neh? Bacteria, jellyfish, whatever. Gotta work that way, or have a very unusual way or reproducing. Even trees, if only because they can't get away from each other. (Hmm, I hope they don't all hate each other, but can't do much about it...)

Why am I suddenly picturing my pine tree....ever so slowly...fleeing in terror from my tulip tree? And no wonder there are always gaps in my hedges...

Reduced to the absurd, you're right in a way. In reality, it would be a continuum, interrupted with disconnects/gaps, where differences of degree became differences in kind. Heh...I'd kinda like to see a graphic representation of separation/clumping across life-forms...especially super-imposed on an intelligence scale.

[rusmeister]

I never said it's not a minority that does not feel your moral compass. 49% of the population could not feel it, and that would be a minority. But I'd be surprised if it was anything near 49%. I'm only saying it's not such a small percentage that it could be considered exceptional. A very large number can still be a minority.

You, otoh, simply ignore the fact that large numbers of people do consistently demonstrate that they do not feel your moral compass. The problem is that John Smith does agree with you on murder. But he doesn't on stealing. And Jane Doe does agree with you on stealing, but not on adultery. You see agreement in one aspect, and claim that they feel your moral compass. They don't. It's just that John doesn't murder, and Jane doesn't steal.

HOWEVER!! The big news is that only intellectuals don't share your morality??? Only intellectuals lack common sense, and it's because they're intellectuals?? Holy cow! What extraordinary statements!

So how's it work? The more intellectual a person is, the further s/he could be from your moral compass? I agree with you on many major moral issues, so I must not be intellectual enough. Most members of the Bloods and Crips are, obviously, more intellectual than I am, as they disagree on quite a few major issues than I do. And I didn't realize guys like Jim Jones target intellectuals, and talk them into abandoning common sense and morality.

Your definition of "exceptional" must be exceptional, then. If we have a hundred people, and three of them are different, then the number is not totally insignificant, but we have a definite rule, and a definite exception. The same holds true for 10%. Or even 20, really. If you have a 20% minority population, and an 80% majority, then 4 out of 5 people will be x. That is the rule, and the one out of five is the exception. Only I don't think the number of people who really don't sense the moral compass comes anywhere near that, even in our time. I'd say, stretching the point as far as I think it will go, that it doesn't exceed 5%. The number of people may well be large. Out of a population of 300 million, 5% works out to be 15 million. Quite a large number. (I think the number much less than that - probably less than one million), but for the sake of argument...) But they're still the exception.

So I am right in saying that the people that don't ARE the exception to the rule. They ARE exceptional.

John Smith and Jane Doe DO largely agree with me on both murder and stealing. There is likely some variance on when they think it justifiable - but we all know that murder and stealing, in general, are wrong, and that justification is a serious matter - the rule is certainly that they are wrong.

My comments on intellectuals are Chestertonian, but if you won't read him...

Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.

If you don't understand that, you need more context.
This might help a little:

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: "Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?" The better stuff a creature is made of-the cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best-or worst-of all.

Thus a man of high intellect is capable of going very wrong, more wrong than and in worse ways than a stupid and ignorant one. With great power comes great responsibility. And so on.

[rusmeister]

Compassion, as well as egotism, also springs untaught, and a human raised in a jungle among wolves (or in other relative isolation) would feel it where the wolves would not.

Anyway, enough is enough, Fist. I am consistent, and not shifting anything, and unless you bring a new argument, I am going to stop here.

I'll agree that you're consistent, anyhow.

There's no innate moral compass. Early man had none. He was all about survival. Doing everything possible to survive is pretty much selfish by definition. Your "moral compass" didn't begin to be developed until people banded into tribes and created society. It's in society that stuff like "treat your neighbor the way you'd like to be treated" becomes important to survival -- you want your neighbor to like you so that he will have your back when the saber-toothed tigers attack.

But it was your analogy of the babe raised by wolves that really caught my eye. I know it's another of those Christian foundation beliefs that people are higher than animals. But really, when a wolf finds a defenseless baby in the woods and, instead of eating it, takes it in and nurtures it -- isn't that compassion? And doesn't the baby learn something of the social order by interacting with its new littermates and by observing pack behavior?

There IS an innate moral compass, although there is a stronger desire to ignore the compass. So there! You made an assertion, so did I.

The Kiplingite reference was meant only to point out what would likely be the case if a person was raised in some degree of isolation from normal social contact, and not more than that.

[Fist and Faith]

And yet, you said it's possible that only an intellectual elite does not feel the moral compass. That should sound crazy even for someone who does think the moral compass exists. No non-intellectuals who don't feel it out there? No non-intellectual murderers, rapists, and thieves? All the Vikings were great thinkers? And the gangs killing each other 15 miles from me?

[Fist and Faith]

There IS an innate moral compass, although there is a stronger desire to ignore the compass.

That's interesting. Why is the desire to ignore it stronger? I would assume that, without a moral compass, free will would give us a 50-50 shot at choosing things as God wants us to; and that, with the moral compass, we'd do better than 50-50. But our desire to oppose the compass is greater than the pull of the compass, so we're worse than 50-50? Or is that not right?

[Avatar]

Why should there be an innate moral compass? There's an inculcated one, but nothing to suggest it's in-born.

--A

[rusmeister]

And yet, you said it's possible that only an intellectual elite does not feel the moral compass. That should sound crazy even for someone who does think the moral compass exists. No non-intellectuals who don't feel it out there? No non-intellectual murderers, rapists, and thieves? All the Vikings were great thinkers? And the gangs killing each other 15 miles from me?

Don't want me making generalizations, eh? Or even a little hyperbole in delivering a point?

I know about exceptions to rules. What I was speaking to there was a particular tendency of intellectuals to go wrong - the temptation to discard common sense and try to proceed on reason alone, even to the point of forgetting that people are not beings of pure reason.

That's interesting. Why is the desire to ignore it stronger? I would assume that, without a moral compass, free will would give us a 50-50 shot at choosing things as God wants us to; and that, with the moral compass, we'd do better than 50-50. But our desire to oppose the compass is greater than the pull of the compass, so we're worse than 50-50? Or is that not right?

The answer to that is fully explained by the doctrine of the Fall. We want to make ourselves gods, and be answerable to no one. Above all, accepting/submission to authority is the great 'heresy' of our time according to modern thought - and the resistance to such submission is supportive evidence towards that claim. Not absolute empirical proof, of course, but it certainly supports the view.

16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;
21. for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;
23. and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,
25. because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Epistle to the Romans, ch 1

We want to make the creature into the Creator - to treat him (that is us) as something he is (we are) not.
In trying to be the 'master of our fate and captain of our souls', we destroy ourselves, above all our souls, and so become captain and master of nothing at all.

Anyway, you asked. Some things cannot be answered outside of the worldview. They are not starting points of debate - you can't get past the first one and do not see that we really do have this thing in us, that nearly all of us sense to one degree or another, what has traditionally been called "conscience", that responds to something objective and external to us; that will continue to touch people long after we are dead and rotting and our bodies capable of perceiving nothing.

Given the choice - and it appears that I am - I favor the huge mass of people throughout history who have always acknowledged the conscience, and that it does not have a 360 degree variation, over (some members of) an intellectual elite that imagine that it does and make any argument to deny this otherwise inexplicable yet obvious thing that does lead down the general path Lewis laid out - from an objective Law to an objective Lawgiver.

[Fist and Faith]

I know about exceptions to rules. What I was speaking to there was a particular tendency of intellectuals to go wrong - the temptation to discard common sense and try to proceed on reason alone, even to the point of forgetting that people are not beings of pure reason.

Good thing you and Chesterton are among the smart intellectuals, eh? But such a risky thing! "Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously." The primary path to going wrong is education, yet it's recommended by you two? I'd think it's better to remain as ignorant as possible, retain your ability to feel the moral compass, and live as God wants. What's to stop an education from taking someone the wrong way?

Even Lao Tzu agrees, btw:

The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts, and stuffing bellies.
By weakening ambitions, and strengthening bones.
If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere.
If nothing is done, then all will be well.

The answer to that is fully explained by the doctrine of the Fall. We want to make ourselves gods, and be answerable to no one. Above all, accepting/submission to authority is the great 'heresy' of our time according to modern thought - and the resistance to such submission is supportive evidence towards that claim. Not absolute empirical proof, of course, but it certainly supports the view.

But I'm not answering to anyone when I choose to work for a living instead of steal. I just think it's wrong. And the person who decides to steal for a living isn't doing so to revolt against God, or the society's laws, or anything. He's just deciding to make a living by stealing from others instead of working.

Anyway, you asked. Some things cannot be answered outside of the worldview.

Yeah, that's cool. I wanted to know what the answer was in your worldview.

Given the choice - and it appears that I am - I favor the huge mass of people throughout history who have always acknowledged the conscience, and that it does not have a 360 degree variation, over (some members of) an intellectual elite that imagine that it does and make any argument to deny this otherwise inexplicable yet obvious thing that does lead down the general path Lewis laid out - from an objective Law to an objective Lawgiver.

it's not nearly only an intellectual elite that chooses to make a living at the expense of others; kills for pleasure; or causes whatever kind of harm to others consistently throughout their lives. People from every society, economic class, race, age group, etc, do it. I can't imagine why you think it's acceptable to make a generalization like that. It's not even close to an accurate reflection of humanity to say that intellectuals are even a majority of those who do not follow your moral compass.