The brothers karamazov and absolute freedom

[motherengine]

WITHOUT GOD ALL THINGS ARE PERMISSIBLE: whether dostoevsky wrote the line or not i do not care, i am going to propose that the statement is factual and ask for a valid argument that challenges it.

[Buffy]

Lets start by assuming the converse: "With God many things are not permitted." Murder for example is "not permitted" Many religions do not have a hell, so there is not punishment in the afterlife for those religions. Some religions believe that some retribution--Karma for example--punishes you in this life. In some religions, there is no free will. In any case, murder, like other "impermissible" acts, happens anyway, and therefore is actually permitted, although it may have consequences, but it also may not. What about Billy Budd? He led a completely virtuous life, and committed murder (we'd call it manslaughter these days, but it would still be punished). He is punished by man, which is tantamount to being punished by God, although some religions consider being put to death to be good, but even then, did he go to hell? Or did St. Peter or whoever decide that "on the balance, he's a good guy so he gets to go to heaven" a great example of "situational ethics" that many conservative religious leaders rail against). Moreover, much punishment seems to be meted by man. If God is the one doing the punishing for impermissible acts, what right have we to get in the way? Shouldn't we let God take care of it? Or are there some people who are actually given the right by God to carry out punishments? How would we really ever know whether these people (Osama's a good example), who are exceedingly pious should not be interpreted as an appointed Hand of God, but as Satan? Wouldn't we be better off if we agreed that God would take care of everything in the end and we should just let all murderers go? Isn't that true faith?

 

I actually argue that man (and other animals by the way), must have a role in punishing impermissible acts, or society breaks down completely and it is every being for himself. This brings me to my main thesis that impermissible acts must be defined and agreed to by society. What happened in human history is that the original source of social organization, hierarchy and control was religion. The religious entities in early human society wielded the most power because of their primary role in being the primary source of tribal memory, experience, wisdom and most importantly, rules of order. Its easy to see this in the hold over of food restrictions in many religions, which kept tribes from being wiped out by disease. As a result, "laws" like "thou shalt not kill" may be found first in religious tracts (in fact, however, Hammurabi's code--non-religious--predates most of the texts of modern religions, although it was obviously based on earlier "religious" teachings), they are clearly useful in maintaining order in society, and its not in the least bit hard to see why any complex social structure *must* evolve these same laws. There's ample evidence that human societies that did not have strong laws against murder--the Aztecs, the Anisazi, the Romans--have not survived societal evolution. These laws don't have to be handed down by some "greater power" and who's to decide if any particular person who claims to be the representative of God really is? If we want to survive as a society, we all have to agree on what is permissible and what is not, no matter what our individual religious beliefs are.

 

"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.... you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you... If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

Buffy

[TINNY]

I actually argue that man (and other animals by the way), must have a role in punishing impermissible acts, or society breaks down completely and it is every being for himself.

Where is the scientific justification that we have to punish ourselves? And what is deemed right and worng? Why would you have to protect society?

This brings me to my main thesis that impermissible acts must be defined and agreed to by society.

As long as it is not mere mentalist ideas...

These laws don't have to be handed down by some "greater power" and who's to decide if any particular person who claims to be the representative of God really is? If we want to survive as a society, we all have to agree on what is permissible and what is not, no matter what our individual religious beliefs are.

That's a bit tough to implement.

[Buffy]

Hi Tinny! Welcome back, we've missed your posts!

Where is the scientific justification that we have to punish ourselves?

Actually in the spirit of mother's question, I was avoiding any direct appeal to science in answering this question, because I don't think science has anything to do with it directly! My argument is that unless societies create laws, the lawless take over and the society breaks down or even disappears. Examples I cited above are tied to either a progression toward bifurcated enforcement of the laws (Rome's tendency in later years to have one set of laws for the rich and another for the "little people") or promotion of questionable practices that lead to the spread of anti-social behavior (the American civilization's tendency to incorporate ritual murder in their religio-political practices). History has shown consistently that the cohesion of society backed by common and self enforced laws is directly correlated with its strength and survivability. The justification for punishment/enforcement is simply survival: unless people agree to laws and live by them, the society is ultimately going to die off.

And what is deemed right and worng?

That has to be done by the society as a whole. That was actually the purpose of my only part joking quote from Monty Python: You *cannot* depend on religion to provide all guidance. Polygamy is a perfect example: its supported by some Christian and Islamic sects and not others. Who's to decide which one is correct? In the US, the Mormon church was basically forced to repudiate polygamy because most in the US found it immoral. Many Mormon's claim this is apostate because Joseph Smith, the Mormon's messenger of God's word said otherwise. How do we deal with such conflicts beyond either by coming to agreement about what our societal group is going to do, or simply killing off all unbelievers?

Why would you have to protect society? As long as it is not mere mentalist ideas...

Letting all murderers go free destroys societies really quickly. Even in completely lawless environments like the California Gold Rush, groups of miners got together to lynch people for murder or claim jumping. It doesn't take much to realize that not protecting society and just relying on a higher power to make things right in the end is a non-starter. I don't think this is s a "mere mentalist idea." Those who want to experience this first hand should take a quick visit to Baghdad or South Central Los Angeles....

That's a bit tough to implement.

I didn't say it was easy! Lots of failures in the past prove that. I only argue that its necessary for survival, so we'd better try!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[motherengine]

buffy thanks, your replys are quite well thought out. intellectually i see myself as an anarchist in the sense that i do not believe that absolute 'right' or 'wrong' can exist without a god figure and i see no evidence that sways me to believe that any type of god exists. if i were to kill someone 'just for the hell of it' the only factual thing anyone could say is that i killed someone and that the action was sociopathic, disruptive and unpleasant, but not that it was 'wrong'. the logic is this: two minds sit at a table, one says muder is wrong the other says it is not wrong. if one mind destroys the other than the action becomes wrong or not wrong depending on who is left. but both minds have the capacity to imagine the world beyond themselves and in this world there is no apparent 'rights' or 'wrongs' so in an absolute sense all things are permissible outside of human thought and there is no evidence that human thought represents anything beyond itself. this is the philosophical slant i believe hamlet is referring to when he says, 'there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so'. this being said i am very happy that, however flawed it is, there is a system of human justice that keeps anarchistic actions at bay (to a certain extent anyhow) but i view any righteousness in human justice as an intellectual absurdity.

[motherengine]

ps: i think the aztecs technically died out as a culture because they were conquered not because of moral issues.

[lindagarrette]

Polygamy is a perfect example: its supported by some Christian and Islamic sects and not others. Who's to decide which one is correct? In the US, the Mormon church was basically forced to repudiate polygamy because most in the US found it immoral. Many Mormon's claim this is apostate because Joseph Smith, the Mormon's messenger of God's word said otherwise. How do we deal with such conflicts beyond either by coming to agreement about what our societal group is going to do, or simply killing off all unbelievers?

Cheers,

Buffy

Your example is good for a repressive society but doesn't take into consideration that ideally, all cultural notions should be tolerated as long as they don't interfere with others' rights. Nietzsche described the moral issue as the nature of tribal existance. We belong to a group that has agreed on the basic rules of survival and whoever violates the rules is expelled. The smaller the group, the more stringent the rules. The larger the group, the more flexibility needed to accommodate subgroups. When the larger group becomes so powerful that the sub groups feel put upon, then they rebel and the rules lose their meaning. War and peace. Linda

[Buffy]

Your example is good for a repressive society but doesn't take into consideration that ideally, all cultural notions should be tolerated as long as they don't interfere with others' rights.

Yep. I used it mainly to point out that the disagreement can flow from religion versus religion as opposed to the usual argument which tries to imply that the conflict is between religion as the source of moral distinction versus "humanists" who have no right to be able to define "right" and "wrong". I've always like describing the goal of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights as doing exactly what you described: you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't negatively affect someone else. The communitarians are against this these days of course.

 

That which is not prohibited is required,

Buffy

[Buffy]

i think the aztecs technically died out as a culture because they were conquered not because of moral issues.

Some argue that the cognative dissonance created by their morally indefensible position toward human sacrifice caused many in the Aztec proletariat (and really their conquered foes who were the subject of the sacrifice), meant that they rolled over and played dead instead of defending themselves... It is hard to find conclusive causality here of course, but its easily arguable that it should have turned out differently....

 

Moctezuma's Revenge,

Buffy

[Meathim]

WITHOUT GOD ALL THINGS ARE PERMISSIBLE: whether dostoevsky wrote the line or not i do not care, i am going to propose that the statement is factual and ask for a valid argument that challenges it.

 

That is probably correct, if you believe in God, and disregard the social parts buffy wrote about. But as I believe in God, I think that the laws human's obviously need to survive (anti-murder, anti-theft and so forth) is leftovers, strange offsprings, from rules God once gave humanity (basicly the words God gave to Moses and later Jesus' livings and doings). The rules are almost the same, but nowadays people often disregard that fact and say that they are simply needed for human survival, and that there is no God at all. But as some of the most basic laws are still the same, I believe that we need God's laws. Obviously, some of the laws where of great use... Why not accept all of those laws? Some of the laws are needed you say, why not all of them? The most basic of the laws are needed for pure survival, but nothing greater than that, but what if we accept all of those laws?

any righteousness in human justice as an intellectual absurdity.

 

True true. That's why I figured that God is true. Humans have the capability of making great things, but we don't do them. We do bad things instead. I found that very strange, read some books and then I believed.

 

Anyway, the things posted first in this thread is true.

 

Moral issues: What about Rome? Didn't they fall because moral issues (among other things)?

 

PS. If there are things you don't understand due to a bizare use of the language, it's because I'm from Sweden. I'm not very good in english. :hyper:

 

/Rock on

[Buffy]

Obviously, some of the laws where of great use... Why not accept all of those laws?

We can't accept all of them because my religion has laws that conflict with yours. Or at least in interpretation. I have a friend who is born-again Christian, but as she likes to say "*My* God doesn't hate gay people." If you've got groups in conflict as both Linda and I point out, *someone* has to back down, and go back on one of their "sacred" beliefs. Reasonable people have to make compromises using social interactions that really go *against* religious doctrine, so the source of the solution is non-religious.

Moral issues: What about Rome? Didn't they fall because moral issues (among other things)?

Right, but what you'll notice in this thread is that "moral" is a term that in this context is being defined as "is accepted by society as permissible behavior" not "God told me its okay." The Bible and other religious tracts has lots of conflicting commands from God too...

...it's because I'm from Sweden.

Been there! I like Sweden! I *do* think its great!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[motherengine]

Right, but what you'll notice in this thread is that "moral" is a term that in this context is being defined as "is accepted by society as permissible behavior" not "God told me its okay."

 

who defined morality this way? i can think of many acts that would be socially shunned that are morally based, murder not the least of them. the point is that however disturbing it may be, any mind can decide what is moral for it and no other mind or collection of minds can change that concept simply because they do not share its philosophy. this is the problem i have with modern existentialism and the idea that responsibility can exist in an indifferent universe where self-analyzed life is an absurdity. someone can feel responsible but without design they simply are not. this is not an appeal to choose christ, but rather one to cut through the sugar coating godless belief so often seems to require.

[bumab]

....that responsibility can exist in an indifferent universe where self-analyzed life is an absurdity. someone can feel responsible but without design they simply are not. this is not an appeal to choose christ, but rather one to cut through the sugar coating godless belief so often seems to require.

 

My difficulty with a non-theistic universe (i.e. one where a god (or higher whatever) does NOT exist) is it preculdes any possibility of free will, and thus any discussions are meaningless. we talked about it in another thread, but a causual universe without god means free will is meaningless, because it breaks causality. does that make morality a moot discussion?

 

back to B.K., I would agree in spirit- without God, everything is permitted. Buit based on the logic above (point out what you disagree with :hyper: ), I would rephrase it: without God, everything is pointless.

[Buffy]

My difficulty with a non-theistic universe (i.e. one where a god (or higher whatever) does NOT exist) is it preculdes any possibility of free will...does that make morality a moot discussion?

Oh I missed that thread, but I think that view is so Newtonian. In a Universe where Quantum Mechanics reigns (and I think ours does) there is NOTHING but free will! There is no way to predict anything given the current state of the system, so free will reigns supreme.

I would agree in spirit- without God, everything is permitted... I would rephrase it: without God, everything is pointless.

I know in some religions it is considered blasphemous to create any element of reality yourself: it must come from God or prohibitions against graven images, false idols, etc. kick in. I think if anything, if you claim that the only truth and beauty comes from God, you're really missing out on some of the incredible things that we and the rest of nature can do. Moreover, I believe you can have faith in a higher power *and* still believe in the beauty and creativeness we create ourselves: this makes the religious hierarchies *very* nervous, so they work very hard to convince the flock that this view is wrong, and they should look for truth and beauty ONLY from them because they're the only ones in direct communication with God...hmm. sounds fishy to me....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

My difficulty with a non-theistic universe (i.e. one where a god (or higher whatever) does NOT exist) is it preculdes any possibility of free will, and thus any discussions are meaningless. we talked about it in another thread, but a causual universe without god means free will is meaningless, because it breaks causality. does that make morality a moot discussion?

 

Are you trying to say there can be no morality without a diety such as God? I try my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated but not because I believe in any God. Are you trying to say this is not natural?

[Meathim]

I think bumabs idea is this (at least in my own little world): Without God (or someting else that is "divine") there's nothing to compare with. Or nothing to refer to. Then no one would try to figure out what free will is, because no one ever told humanity that they didn't had free will. Or did I misunderstood you horribly?

 

Free will: Quantum Mechanics.. Strange stuff. It does indeed make one belive in absolute free will. But then, what is that? Is it the freedom to do ANYTHING anyone want to do, even if it's "wrong"? Or is it freedom to do everything that's "good"? But that rises another question that is kinda difficult to answer without taking God into the forumula: What is Good and/or Bad?

Read the earlier posts in the thread. There you'll find lot's about it. It's good reading! :cup:

 

buffy: You like Sweden? :hyper: Wow. :cup:

[motherengine]

Oh I missed that thread, but I think that view is so Newtonian. In a Universe where Quantum Mechanics reigns (and I think ours does) there is NOTHING but free will! There is no way to predict anything given the current state of the system, so free will reigns supreme.

 

does this mean you are saying an ape in a cage who cannot measure its bars is a 'free' agent? i don't freewill exists simply because we are incapable of predicting actions.