tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4053001419094571884..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: More Orthodox Christians Who "Get It"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72811012702256922342008-10-03T11:22:00.000-06:002008-10-03T11:22:00.000-06:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SingerCharles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17578420766326605882008-10-03T10:48:00.000-06:002008-10-03T10:48:00.000-06:00Where does one find an accurate synopsis on this P...Where does one find an accurate synopsis on this Pete Singer fellow?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57108107537492012242008-10-03T10:03:00.000-06:002008-10-03T10:03:00.000-06:00"it's silly to expect me to spell out every (nonre..."it's silly to expect me to spell out every (nonreligious) objection to every view endorsed by Peter Singer"<BR/><BR/>That is precisely the problem I was trying to avoid by addressing Tom's question at a meta-level, since IMO the question is ill-formed. To summarize my previous comment, the question assumes that:<BR/><BR/>- in the absence of something beyond "mere reason" (a "something" undefined by Tom, but I assume having to do with religious tradition - otherwise, why the reference to "the religious community"), a PSF (which I infer from the reference to Singer's essay is essentially a future in which human life has been dramatically devalued) is inevitable<BR/><BR/>- a PSF will be disastrous<BR/><BR/>- if we retain or (readopt) that "something", a PSF will be avoided, which will result in a future better than a PSF<BR/><BR/>I then disputed each of these assumptions.<BR/><BR/>Not the answer Tom wants, but an answer one could address as opposed to complaining about the absence of any answers - an inevitability if the question is ill-formed, as I (and, I infer, Dave) consider it to be.<BR/><BR/>- Charles.Charles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21835613106698725312008-10-03T07:35:00.000-06:002008-10-03T07:35:00.000-06:00.Above, Tom makes the comment, "The concept of nat....<BR/>Above, Tom makes the comment, "<I>The concept of natural law is at odds with multiculturalism, which is relativism. America certainly was founded on a specific set of values, not the bland mediocrity of all values being interchangeable.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>While Tom makes the claim of "a specific set of values" upon which America "certainly was founded", he has been unwilling--or is it unable--to enumerate those "values". <BR/>.<BR/>Wassup, Tom?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53363679787843542402008-10-02T22:33:00.000-06:002008-10-02T22:33:00.000-06:00Tom, it's silly to expect me to spell out every (n...Tom, it's silly to expect me to spell out every (nonreligious) objection to every view endorsed by Peter Singer. Especially given that Peter Singer has endorsed views that you and I would both agree with. There are countless books and articles written from a secular perspective on the issues discussed by Singer (i.e., nearly everything written in the field of medical ethics), and even taxonomizing it all is a huge chore. So I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51860705263230440142008-10-01T18:41:00.000-06:002008-10-01T18:41:00.000-06:00Ad hom? Moi?Since you seem to repeat the same the...Ad hom? Moi?<BR/><BR/>Since you seem to repeat the same theme often enough, Phil [and that's not to say I don't repeat mine---not an ad hom here], I suppose we'll get to the nub of it in time. I admit I'm skipping over a number of letters in the syllogism that leads from A>Z, as comments sections require this kind of shorthand.<BR/><BR/>We'll fill in the missing letters, I'm sure. Perhaps occasionally, we'll even treat ourselves and buy a vowel.<BR/><BR/>;-[D>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3740176642773818692008-10-01T14:09:00.000-06:002008-10-01T14:09:00.000-06:00Tom writes, "The concept of natural law is at odds...Tom writes, "<I>The concept of natural law is at odds with multiculturalism, which is relativism.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>It is difficult to understand your leap from <I>Natural Law</I> to <I>multiculturalism</I> and your further claim that it is <I>relativism</I>.<BR/>.<BR/>What is it you mean to say is <I>relativism</I>? <BR/>.<BR/>Then you write, "<I>America certainly was founded on a specific set of values, not the bland mediocrity of all values being interchangeable.</I> <BR/>.<BR/>I think you might be able to explain yourself; so, you have the benefit of the doubt as long as you will do two things: (a) list the "specific set of values" you claim America was founded on and (b) explain what it is to which you are applying this phraseology, "the bland mediocrity of all values being interchangeable". How does that cliche' get brought in to this conversation? I don't get it.<BR/>.<BR/>Maybe I'm stupid; but, in going back over your post, it looks like you're using a special definition of multiculturalism. It's more than an ad hominem, you must know that.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24888634091605918962008-10-01T13:41:00.000-06:002008-10-01T13:41:00.000-06:00That's multiculturalism in a nutshell. It is nons...That's multiculturalism in a nutshell. It is nonsense.<BR/><BR/>As far as "the imposition of a single authority on all humanity," that corresponds to the concept of "natural law," specifically the "law of nature and of Nature's God," which all the Founders regardless of orthodoxy they each subscribed to.<BR/><BR/>The concept of natural law is at odds with multiculturalism, which is relativism. America certainly was founded on a specific set of values, not the bland mediocrity of all values being interchangable.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36680737551324976442008-10-01T08:08:00.000-06:002008-10-01T08:08:00.000-06:00ERATA.This sentence in my prior post, "And, it poi...<B>ERATA</B><BR/>.<BR/>This sentence in my prior post, "And, it points to the higher good of our and belies the particularity of any specific cultural value over all other cultures.", should have read, "And, it points to the higher good of our <B>American system</B> and it belies the particularity of any specific cultural value over all other cultures.<BR/>.<BR/><BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74009739431118149882008-10-01T08:04:00.000-06:002008-10-01T08:04:00.000-06:00Brian writes, "I would like to offer the Apostle P...Brian writes, "<I>I would like to offer the Apostle Paul's answer to this question found in Romans 1-2. Accordng to Paul, God has written the law 'in our hearts.'</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>And, that is the central thesis that motivates the argument we're having.<BR/>.<BR/>America's Founding was based on the idea "<I>... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>In order to bolster that idea, our Constitution with its Bill of Rights was ratified. And, primary among the Rights as they were enumerated were the first four every one of which inures to the equality highlighted in the Declaration of Independence. <BR/>.<BR/>THIS IS the liberating idea of America's pluralism--that we are free to pursue what makes us develop our happiness without the imposition of some universal good. It is the basis of our so-called multi-culturalism. And, it points to the higher good of our and belies the particularity of any specific cultural value over all other cultures.<BR/>.<BR/>I don't think the argument is going to go away any time soon. It is at the root of what the Neo-Conservatives are all about--the imposition of a single authority on all humanity.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69880703466861697582008-10-01T02:11:00.000-06:002008-10-01T02:11:00.000-06:00Hey, if y'all don't have any replies, that's cool....Hey, if y'all don't have any replies, that's cool. I didn't expect any. But this is unhelpful. In case you haven't noticed, we, the people of the United States, are already doing medical ethics.<BR/><BR/>And Charles, if you had a point in there, it was lost once you wrote "The hugely religious US is directly or indirectly responsible for various atrocities." Even if so, it's completely irrelevant. I merely brought up the religious community as the only thing standing in the way of Peter Singer's vision, and you have written nothing to persuade me otherwise.<BR/><BR/>But thanks for trying. But I do not believe "reason" will be sufficient to stop Peter Singer's dystopia. In fact, I think it'll help it along if by nothing by its own impotence, which is quite on display here. You fellows have voiced no objections at all. You are the future, The Abolition of Man.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69027978677094929242008-10-01T00:38:00.000-06:002008-10-01T00:38:00.000-06:00Tom,Well, I don't do medical ethics, but a couple ...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Well, I don't do medical ethics, but a couple of seconds on Google Scholar gave me a critique of Singer by Suzanne Uniacke and H. J. McCloskey called "Peter Singer and Non-Voluntary 'Euthanasia': tripping down the slippery slope". My suggestion is to contact a philosophy professor who does medical ethics.<BR/><BR/>Or if you want nonreligious criticisms of utilitarianism (the ethical theory on which a good deal of Singer's argumentation rests), frankly, you'd die before you were finished reading all that's been written on the topic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82186821850296569762008-09-30T17:01:00.000-06:002008-09-30T17:01:00.000-06:00"I've been searching high and low outside the reli..."I've been searching high and low outside the religious community for someone to tell me what stands in its way" ["it" presumably being a future generally in accord with PS's essay, hereinafter called a PSF]<BR/><BR/>But Tom, implicit in this are several assumptions:<BR/><BR/>- the religious community is uniform in its vision of what the future <B>should</B> (or perhaps more relevantly, <B>shouldn't</B>) look like<BR/><BR/>- that vision is better than others, especially a PSF<BR/><BR/>- in the absence of inhibitors based in religion, a PSF is inevitable<BR/><BR/>- if religion-based inhibitors aren't abandoned, a PSF will be avoided<BR/><BR/>The first seems unlikely to be correct in the US given the diversity of religions.<BR/><BR/>The second may or may not be true depending on how far down the specifics of a PSF society. I infer that you assume movement toward a PSF is a slippery slope inevitably ending in total disregard for human life.<BR/><BR/>I don't, since I doubt that the third assumption is correct. Even we heathens think society should be careful about who gets killed and why. We just don't think taking absolute positions that ignore all relevant consequences but one makes any sense.<BR/><BR/>The fourth seems challenged not only by history but by current events. The hugely religious US is directly or indirectly responsible for various atrocities, including some recent and continuing. The latter are uncommented on in arguably our most important policy setting event, a presidential election cycle. Why aren't those religion-based inhibitors working when the suffering and dying happen to be primarily non-Americans? (On the other hand, the current outcry when the suffering is in their pocketbooks is near historic - and hysteric.)<BR/><BR/>- CharlesCharles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10039247001438316172008-09-30T14:35:00.000-06:002008-09-30T14:35:00.000-06:00Dave, I look at Peter Singer's perfectly logical a...Dave, I look at Peter Singer's perfectly logical arguments, and I see the future. I've been searching high and low outside the religious community for someone to tell me what stands in its way.<BR/><BR/>When Mr. Johnson writes that technology and "understanding" will cause us to "adjust" our values, I fear he's quite correct.<BR/><BR/>[I also wanted to slip in that despite the oft-used and mindless cliche, we certainly do legislate morality.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28756955877387529522008-09-30T14:26:00.000-06:002008-09-30T14:26:00.000-06:00Tom,Yes, I intended to assert an objective moral f...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I <I>intended</I> to assert an objective moral fact. I'm no relativist.<BR/><BR/>And neither is Peter Singer, so I'm not sure what the link was about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59130349501966793982008-09-29T20:34:00.000-06:002008-09-29T20:34:00.000-06:00dave -I should have made it clear that I was neith...dave -<BR/><BR/>I should have made it clear that I was neither responding to nor challenging your comment <I>per se</I> but merely using selections from it as vehicles for a broadcast comment. Eg, I deleted the phrase about "objective facts" that was appended to the other quotes from your comment (and acknowledged doing so) because although IMO the remaining quotes standing alone are good examples of "bad definitions of relativism", I thought the overall passage - with that key phrase appended - was fine.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the confusion caused by my poor judgment in structuring it that way.<BR/><BR/>It's always a little hard to tell with a topic this fuzzy, but my impression is that you and I aren't very far apart, if at all.<BR/><BR/>- CharlesCharles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11613551743500527832008-09-29T17:05:00.000-06:002008-09-29T17:05:00.000-06:00You seem to be asserting an objective moral fact h...You seem to be asserting an objective moral fact here, Dave.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm" REL="nofollow">Your call.</A>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64292201547194056582008-09-29T16:57:00.000-06:002008-09-29T16:57:00.000-06:00Tom,I'm not sure what exactly you're playing at, b...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what exactly you're playing at, but for the record, it's wrong to torture your pets. Even if we say that pets are your <I>property</I>, and thus that there's no <I>injustice</I> or <I>rights-violation</I> in torturing them, it's still terribly <I>wrong</I> (since there's more to morality than justice and rights).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1702640431537155462008-09-29T16:52:00.000-06:002008-09-29T16:52:00.000-06:00Charles,I recognize that the textbook definition o...Charles,<BR/><BR/>I recognize that the textbook definition of relativism leaves a lot open. But I think the stuff left open can be safely set aside for the purposes of most discussions.<BR/><BR/>If I'm not mistaken, the stuff you're interested in is this: does relativism take moral claims at face value, accepting them as full-blooded 'ought' claims, and merely seeking to provide a relativist/anthropological supervenience base for the moral status of things? or does relativism say that moral claims border on nonsensical unless we understand them as merely high-flown versions of flat-footed anthropological claims about the standards subscribed to by different cultures? (I take it that's why you objected to the statements of mine you quoted, because they seem to lean too much in the former direction)<BR/><BR/>I think this can be set aside, because both varieties agree that there aren't any objective moral facts holding independently of cultural/individual standards. And I think that's the question most people are interested in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54062590879949066482008-09-29T13:00:00.000-06:002008-09-29T13:00:00.000-06:00Ah, Brian..You show us the other side of the dicho...Ah, Brian.<BR/>.<BR/>You show us the other side of the dichotomy.<BR/>.<BR/>And, it is what we struggle with as America evolves to be what it is coming to be.<BR/>.<BR/>The secular and the sectarian.<BR/>.<BR/>And, the sparks fly.<BR/>.<BR/>heh heh hehPhil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53186164379761114112008-09-29T12:45:00.000-06:002008-09-29T12:45:00.000-06:00Phil asks where our values come from. I would like...Phil asks where our values come from. I would like to offer the Apostle Paul's answer to this question found in Romans 1-2. Accoridng to Paul, God has written the law "in our hearts." And yet, we have a sin nature. So, we are born with a divine imprint of moral law, but also with the corruption of a sin nature. From there, we are of course shaped by our culture, parents, peers, etc.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32002741659232644112008-09-29T12:29:00.000-06:002008-09-29T12:29:00.000-06:00If you want to learn the morality of our culture a...If you want to learn the morality of our culture and fast?<BR/>.<BR/>Take an animal you own to a public place and start torturing it so others can see what you're doing.<BR/>..<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42552289071369133752008-09-29T12:03:00.000-06:002008-09-29T12:03:00.000-06:00"if everyone thinks it's okay to torture animals, ..."if everyone thinks it's okay to torture animals, then it <I>is</I> okay to torture animals."<BR/><BR/>It's <I>not</I> OK to torture animals? Why not, if the animal is my property?<BR/><BR/>Aren't you interfering with my rights? <I>Legislating morality</I>?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71035925641414087072008-09-29T11:46:00.000-06:002008-09-29T11:46:00.000-06:00"I ... 'value' the thought of avoiding a divisive ..."I ... 'value' the thought of avoiding a divisive debate"<BR/><BR/>Interesting. I would have suspected that independent of subtle philosophical differences, most readers of this blog would answer much the same:<BR/><BR/>directly: family, friends, teachers, authors, artists, etc, filtered through one's "reason" (God-given or not), plus some still mostly hypothetical (unless I'm behind the times) evolutionary influences<BR/><BR/>directly for "believers", indirectly otherwise: (presumably for most, mainly) western cultural tradition, including religious <BR/><BR/>Am I missing some subtleties or trivializing the question? <BR/><BR/>- CharlesCharles T. Wolvertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12309746685166449683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21603484848201179902008-09-29T10:28:00.000-06:002008-09-29T10:28:00.000-06:00Then, let me put it to you another way, Ben..What ...Then, let me put it to you another way, Ben.<BR/>.<BR/>What is it that can possibly be the source of your values?<BR/>.<BR/>The answer should be easy.<BR/>.<BR/>But, maybe the answer is the dichotomy Dave2 was asking about?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com