From: utzoo!watmath!djhawley
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Re: Morality simplified
Article-I.D.: watmath.4840
Posted: Tue Apr  5 12:40:57 1983
Received: Tue Apr  5 23:41:53 1983


Hurray for Tim for pointing out that morality is a complex issue.

Hurray for anyone who tries to tackle the meta-issues, explaining and
comparing their own ( metaphysical ) landscape; something that,
although it occurs, is too infrequent in my OPINION. 

I would like to answer Tim's questions; but first I would like to reply
to his meta-statement, which I think is the crucial one.


      If you are going to examine morality, start honestly. The ultimate
      goal is a procedure for determining in advance what actions you should
      or should not perform. Don't start with abstract nonsense like `good'
      and `evil'. Start with people and yourself, and your interactions
      with them, and theirs with you, and the most desirable environment
      for those interactions.

This is the conclusion Tim reaches. If I follow him, he finds the terms
'good' and 'evil' useless because they cloud the issue of how to live better,
due to their ill-definition; further Tim implies they are UNDEFINABLE.

I disagree.

  I must assume that the lack of satisfactory answers to the questions
contained in the earlier part of his article is the reason for his
conclusion. However I think there are satisfactory answers to his
questions, and as you guessed they involve religion. 
  As a note, I agree with what Tim implies :
'good' and 'evil' are terms intimately related to religious morality,
and, in my opinion for good reason.
Ultimate terms like good and evil require ultimate grounds. Good and
evil require the transcendent( the proof for this is truly wonderful
but won't fit into the margins. I somewhat expect a challenge on this ).
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
      What are `good' and `evil', that is, not what acts are `good' and
      `evil', but what are they themselves? Are they physical phenomena,
      or at least physically detectable? Are they psychological? Why is
      their perception not as uniform as the perception of other phenomena;

>From Tim's previous articles, I don't believe he thinks that the only
real things are physical, or detectable by scientific methods. I agree.
People don't perceive these categories uniformly because their 'moral sense'
is more-or-less dysfunctional. I can't really see anyone disagreeing with
that! As well, people have vested interests in not 'seeing' what is good
when it is against their perceived immediate wants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                           Do `good' and
      `evil' somehow transcend the physical and the psychological? If so,
      what is their source? If a single being created both, then how can
      this same being be said to have a vested interest in one and an
      adversary relationship in the other, given that the creation of both
      was deliberate and done with foreknowledge of the results?

  As I noted above, I think that 'good' and 'evil' are in fact transcendent
phenomena, and in fact must be to be of any practical use ( not that that
proves anything of course ).

  St. Augustine has an interesting answer to the question of God creating
evil. He believes evil is an absence of good, a falling short of your
destiny, your created possibilities. Evil came into the world through
Man's free will, when he decided to reject good. Although God could
be faulted for creating a being who could ( and God knew he would )
decide to choose not to be good, we have to compare whether it is
a bigger 'good' not to create free beings who can also freely do good.
This is of course the classical "problem of moral evil".
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------     
      Aren't `good' and `evil' nothing but a flimsily-veiled carrot-and-stick
      psychological device used be rulers of men to control their behavior?
      If not, then why do they seem so much like one?
 
Undoubtedly morality has been used in such a way. Again, it doesn't prove
that morality is only a device created by rulers for that purpose.


I think Tim is suffering from 'a failure of nerve' regarding morality.
Good and evil are in fact knowable ( in part, but still true knowledge )
based on universal principles grounded on the character of God.

( that was not meant to be especially persuasive, but to raise the issue. )

I hope that this has been helpful, if not original ( direct helpful criticism
to me by mail ).


    Yours again for a more courageous morality,

        David Hawley