Must moral law be divinely inspired?

[nothumb]

I think your reply glosses over some of the difficulties of this issue. Even if one accepts the Christian god as the source of natural law, there exist significant differences within Christianity itself over how this law is manifested and what the consequences are of misapplication, misunderstanding or disobedience. In fact, I think one could interpret your post (and not to say you intended it this way) as allowing man to renounce the duty to seek out or understand natural law simply by submitting to the Christian god. Again, not to say you believe this, but I think there is a problem within some Christian sects of absolving oneself from responsibility for some earthly actions via the supposed relationship with God.

We have indeed, as the OP said, seen the destructive and confusing moral void left by postmodern thought and deconstruction. However, elements of this philosophical tradition have been present within other philosophical movements and individual writers for centuries - what the deconstructionists have done is make an entire discipline out of the acknowledgements over the years that philosophy is an imperfect art, and that it is most certainly not a science. The choice to leap, headfirst, into the gaping maw of human error was, in hindsight, somewhat rash and destructive, but almost unavoidable given the course of history at that time and the apparent meaninglessness of post-industrial life in some places. In other words, it's easy to see the ill of it, but hard to imagine any other tradition growing out of a post-world-war West. So, I kind of have a spilled milk attitude about postmodernism, and there are certain logical/linguistic/philosophical tools it has provided that I find very useful.

Anyway, I think it's important to note that accepting a Christian god does not eliminate the lack of clarity in moral law - biblical literalism, pentecostalism, and most other methods of interpreting the law have made grievous errors at one point or another. So the factor of human error - and the necessity of human autonomy, introspection and responsibility - is still very much a concern.

I basically am a philosophical descendant of Kant via the excellent anarchist writer Robert Paul Wolff, if you're wondering where I'm coming from on this one.

NT

[pc in NM]

The philosophical sources you cite are significant, but also, IMHO, out-of-date. The theory of logical types posits that there is a logical difference between statements of fact ("what is") and statements of value ("what ought to be") - and that it is threfroe impossible to reason logically from one to the other. I think that all ethics and moral disputation must take this concept into account....

All humans have values, and make clear judgements in particualr situations in everyday life. Philosophically, as we attempt to reason about values, we are limited to reasoning from these firmly held values (within the logical type of values statements) to other consistent or inconsistent values.

Why does one need a moral "law" in the first place? It's a metaphor, at best. I think that attempts to define a "moral law" are searches for "certainty" in the realm of values, and that goal in unattainable. If certainty were an achievable goal, don't you think we would have attained it during thousands of years of human history? We live in a world of moral ambiguity and must learn to deal with that fundamental fact.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Many Enlightenment thinkers believed in Deism, where a transcendental presence created the universe but does not have any influence on material events thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]
This belief is, in many ways, a strong affirmation of the existence of a set of natural physical laws, which govern the events in the world in a way which does not require divine intervention. In the same way, this belief is entirely consistent with the existence of a set of natural moral laws. This belief does not preclude the possibility that something akin to "karma" is at work in the world and operates according to certain immutable "laws".

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a transcendental set of truths, there must be a divine presence responsible for these truths.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Natural moral law" and the "laws of physics" are both transcendental sets of truths. Should one necessitate a divine presence while the other does not?

[JPolin]

[ QUOTE ]
You confuse the recognition of moral relativism with false morality. And then you conclude that the failure of moral relativism to lead to desirable results therefore "necessitates" the existence of an objective morality. I think your logic is seriously flawed.

I do believe in objective morality, but I don't see why that necessitates a belief in a divine presence. Would this divine presence be subject to morality? If so, why? Did the divine presence create morality? If so, could he/she/it uncreate it? Would it still be objective morality? Was that divine presence's creation of morality an amoral act? And if the divine presence is *not* subject to morality, then why are we?

Just because our human brains are flawed doesn't mean pure reason is any less of an authority as a source of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was saying was that moral relativism does not accept the concepts of objective right or wrong. In light of universally-held values however (such as the condemnation of killing), moral relativism not only does not reflect the reality of human existence but also does not provide any authority to justify behaving in a manner that human tradition would charatcterize as "good."

One must remember that "reason" is a product of the human mind. So when one elevates reason to a position of moral authority, humanity is the de facto authority in matters of morality.

The reason I say that objective morality demands a divine presense is because there is no satisfactory answer to the question of who in particular determines moral authority when it is the hands of reason (humanity).

As for your questions, I have no idea how to answer them. My reading and study has only gotten me to the point where I can ask the questions that I've posed, not answer more difficult ones like yours. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JPolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me say how much I appreciate your thoughfulness on this critical issue for there is much more than just the subject of morality at stake. If there is, in fact, a divine presence from which morality comes into being, then all mankind needs to understand this presence, what is demanded from it, and the cost of rebellion against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, and I feel very strongly the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, I believe that God has solved that problem for us. More than 600 years prior to the event, the prophet Isaiah foretold of the coming of Immanuel which means "God with Us". Specific aspects of the life of Immanuel were also predicted in great detail by Isaiah. Many other prophecies foretold the same but I point to Isaiah because the copies of this writing found in the Dead Sea Scrolls preceded Christ's birth by several hundred years, i.e. they weren't made up after the fact. Jesus Christ is, in fact, God in human flesh who came so that we could see and know who God was and what He was like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where I have a problem. I can't understand how one reconcile prophecy with reason, and as such I am quite skeptical of claims of prophecy.

[JPolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does one need a moral "law" in the first place? It's a metaphor, at best. I think that attempts to define a "moral law" are searches for "certainty" in the realm of values, and that goal in unattainable. If certainty were an achievable goal, don't you think we would have attained it during thousands of years of human history? We live in a world of moral ambiguity and must learn to deal with that fundamental fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is no objective moral law, what compulsion is there for people to behave in a way conducive to a good society? On what basis can murder, theft, and various other crims be classified as wrong? If one places these matters in human hands, how does one prevent law from degenerating into a justification of, "because I said so?"

I think these questions suggest the necessity of a transcendental basis for moral law.

[rgreenm90]

Better leave this one to the Wachowski brothers.

[JPolin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your reply glosses over some of the difficulties of this issue. Even if one accepts the Christian god as the source of natural law, there exist significant differences within Christianity itself over how this law is manifested and what the consequences are of misapplication, misunderstanding or disobedience. In fact, I think one could interpret your post (and not to say you intended it this way) as allowing man to renounce the duty to seek out or understand natural law simply by submitting to the Christian god.

[/ QUOTE ]

While MBTIGuy focuses on Christianity, the set of behaviors (such as killing) that are considered objectively wrong crosses the borders of relgion and is common to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism et al. The fact that there is a set of truths like this seems like evidence of some sort of transcendental presence that does supercede relgious division.

The political and developmental implications of this statement are enormous, but perhaps that is not a discussion to have at the present time. This discussion is vast and difficult enough on its own merits.

[ QUOTE ]
We have indeed, as the OP said, seen the destructive and confusing moral void left by postmodern thought and deconstruction. However, elements of this philosophical tradition have been present within other philosophical movements and individual writers for centuries - what the deconstructionists have done is make an entire discipline out of the acknowledgements over the years that philosophy is an imperfect art, and that it is most certainly not a science. The choice to leap, headfirst, into the gaping maw of human error was, in hindsight, somewhat rash and destructive, but almost unavoidable given the course of history at that time and the apparent meaninglessness of post-industrial life in some places. In other words, it's easy to see the ill of it, but hard to imagine any other tradition growing out of a post-world-war West. So, I kind of have a spilled milk attitude about postmodernism, and there are certain logical/linguistic/philosophical tools it has provided that I find very useful.

Anyway, I think it's important to note that accepting a Christian god does not eliminate the lack of clarity in moral law - biblical literalism, pentecostalism, and most other methods of interpreting the law have made grievous errors at one point or another. So the factor of human error - and the necessity of human autonomy, introspection and responsibility - is still very much a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one believes in the malaise and decadence of Western civilization (as my professor does), then moral relativists and deconstructionists are some of the prime villains. By disintegrating and delegitimizing traditional rubrics of moral authority, they have caused people to lose a sense of objective right and wrong and thus to live in a hedonistic and irresponsible way that will lead to the decay of Western civilization.

While I personally am not so alarmist, I find this argument intriguing.

[JPolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi JPolin,

I would suggest that you read the essays of Thomas Aquinas (on natural law), as well as the Hart-Fuller Debates (on the legal justification for the Nuremburg trials), and the works of John Rawls (on the philosophical basis of law). You are walking a very well-worn path, and there are lots of resources out there for a serious inquiry. Why reinvent the wheel?

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read Aquinas and Rawls, but not the Hart-Fuller debates. I'll have to check that out.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Here lies a significant problem, though. If the moral basis for law is to be determined by men, which men shall determine it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so if a religious text is, instead, to determine "objective morality", then who decides which religious text is to be followed?

Same problem.

All these "objective morality" claims reduce, in the end, to human judgments about which "objective morality" is the "real and true" moral code. Thus, ALL such "objective" moral codes are every bit as "subjective" as any others, because they rest on human decisions about which "objective" code is to be subjectively believed, and which is to be subjectively disbelieved.

Basically, whether we like it or not, the responsibility for our actions ultimately rests with each of us.


q/q