[lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:39:06 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 8/1/2005 10:13:35 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
>
> Andy Amago is confused about a number of things. First, a 'self-evident
> truth' is, literally, what is true by its own evidence. It is not true
> because of experience though experience is usually necessary to perceive
> what is self-evident. I would think it a common-sense reading of the
> DOI that the truths given therein are not taken to be pragmatic, that
> is, what works, but timeless and enduring.
A.A. I think reaching back to Moses for an example is pretty timeless and
enduring.
Andy would have it both ways
> though. Andy would have 'what works' be a self-evident truth.
A.A. What works for millennia. The thing that works is the truth. How
that thing works is the morality. Sorting out sexual rights is a
self-evident truth practiced by all civilizations. Whether it takes the
form of monogamy, wife swapping or whatever is the debatable, which is to
say, moral, part.
This is
> nonsense because 'what works' is never the same thing all the time.
A.A. The DOI only lists a handful of things that work because they are the
skeleton, the foundation of this structure. Over the centuries we've come
along and decorated this structure as we see fit, but the structure has not
changed. The structure is the self-evident truth; the decor is the ever
changing morality.
So,
> Andy must either give up the idea of a self-evident truth or he must
> account for such truth in terms other than 'what works'. Since Andy
> doesn't allow for an 'inner' moral law, he must give up the idea of a
> self-evident truth, which puts him in conflict with both the framers of
> the DOI and the DOI itself.
A.A. Absolutely not. The DOI doesn't get involved with right and wrong.
Only with Rights, such as those to happiness. How those Rights look over
the centuries is micromanaged by the centuries.
>
> Andy is also confused about what constitutes moral activity. What else
> is 'all men created equal' except a moral assertion regarding how all
> men are to be treated?
A.A. Then why all the consistent vile treatment of humans throughout
history? Heinous behavior has been the norm, not the exception.
Now, one could argue that there is no such thing
> as morality but Andy has already allowed for a moral law,
A.A. Certainly there's morality. Unfortunately, it's useless against
bloodlust and evil.
just not an
> 'inner' moral law. So, Andy recognizes moral activity but apparently
> such activity has nothing to do with how people are to be treated nor
> how we are to go about living our lives.
A.A. Historically human behavior has been consistently shockingly immoral
and amoral. Would you agree with that? If you do, why has it been that
way if we all have this inborn moral sense?
This is nonsense because
> morality is about how we treat each other and how we go about living our
> lives.
A.A. Exactly. And how we treat each other depends on our historical place.
The particular example Andy referred to was that of the pursuit
> of happiness. According to Andy, happiness is just a goal, not
> necessarily a moral goal. I suppose according to some contorted
> definition this might be true, but if happiness is a kind of harmonious
> living with oneself, one's fellow human beings and the world, and
> morality is about one's having right relations, then happiness is a
> moral goal. It is nonsense to claim that happiness is not a moral goal.
>
A.A. I see your point, and you're applying your own highly developed moral
standards to the pursuit of happiness. You think happiness is the pursuit
of quiet enjoyment of life. Historically, however, happiness could well
entail someone's fist sitting on the tip of your nose, and it was their
moral right, sometimes their moral imperative and obligation, to put their
fist on the tip of your nose. That's where the law comes in, to give you
the right to quietly pursue happiness.
> A third confusion found in Andy's comments is that since standards of
> morality change over time, morality itself is relative. This, too, is
> nonsense. People can share the moral conviction that doing harm to
> another is wrong while disagreeing on the finer details of how this
> conviction might be applied in daily life.
A.A. These finer details have been pretty gross. Ethnic cleansing, etc.
This disagreement does not
> mean that they don't share the same conviction. Rather, in the vast
> majority of cases, people agree on what is right and what is wrong.
A.A. They agree until they get an itch that needs scratching. Then right
and wrong goes out the window.
One
> way of accounting for this agreement is the presence of an 'inner' moral
> law. Practices may differ, and people may not live up to their
> convictions, but this does not negate the fact that there is agreement
> to such an extent that we can be offended by the actions of people who
> are separated from us both by culture and by time.
A.A. Except that these very people by whom we are today offended were
behaving according to the moral precepts of their time and place. They
were no better nor worse than we are. They simply had different values and
different laws. Morality is much more often a catalyst for violence than
it ever is a deterrent to it.
Here we see the
> nonsense of Andy's position: if morality is as relative as Andy would
> have it be, then who is he to be offended by the actions of others?
A.A. Most likely those with the perspective of history. And not even all
of those, since neo-Nazis and other supremacist groups are perennial.
How
> can the executives of pharma be judged according to Andy's standards
> except that they be standards for all?
A.A. Pharma writes their own laws (literally). Their standards are handed
down to the masses through clever advertising and PR and the distribution
process for their wares. Pharma follows its own inner moral law that
prompts it to write laws allowing price gouging and so on. It is a prime
example of inner moral law without external restraint.
Who is Andy to make judgments
> about the beliefs of religious folks except that he shares in a common
> understanding? How could such judgments be meaningful, much less
> justified, except according to a standard common to all those Andy is
> critical of? And what is this common standard except an 'inner' moral
> law?
A.A. This inner moral law is unique to each individual according to time,
place and temperament. Judgments may or may not be meaningful. That's why
they are not written into the DOI as moral prescriptions.
In other words, Andy, in all his handwaving regarding the human
> species, affirms the 'inner' moral law while claiming that such a thing
> can only be 'alleged'.
>
A.A. Nothing of the sort. Something that is as fluid as morality by
definition cannot be a law.
Andy Amago
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Enns
> Toronto, ON
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
