If I told you I was an ornithologist, you could conclude that, like John James Audubon, I study birds. If I say I’m an economist then you would presume that, like Alan Greenspan, I study markets. But if I claim to be a moralist you would not presume that I study morality, but think that, like Gladys Kravitz, I’m simply an intolerant, prudish, busybody.
Such is the degraded state of language (and morality) that “moralist” has become a synonym for judgementalism rather than being defined as a “teacher or student of morals and moral problems.” “Moralist” has joined terms like liberal, fundamentalist, and Puritan in the lepers’ colony of language. While some people choose to live with these labels, most others avoid them in order to prevent being infected by their malignant connotations.
Before we discard the term, though, we should question why we would abandon such a useful word when there are so few suitable alternatives. Admittedly, moral philosophers also study morals and moral problems. But unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a “philosopher” is considered pretentious. The same holds true for almost every other subject worthy of study. To say a person is a theologian, bioethicist, or economist implies they are “professionals” with the necessary degrees and vocational credentials. Unless we consider morality a subject unsuitable for “amateurs”, why would we want to toss aside “moralist?”
The obvious answer is that the term has become weighted down with too much baggage. Before we can reclaim the term it is necessary to cut loose some of the predominant misconceptions about the label:
Moralism is un-Christian – Recently, David Wayne wrote a thoughtful critique of moralism, specifically when it takes the form of “phariseeism.” For the most part, I agree with his post, but I take issue when he says, “Those of us who use the term ‘moralist’ pejoratively contrast the moralistic approach to life and ministry with a gospel centered approach.”
While pharisaism is indeed a form of moralism, not all moralism is pharisaical. After all, Jesus was as much of a moralist as his Pharisee critics. The difference is that he had a God-centered view of morality that was rooted in grace, while they had a man-centered view of moral behavior that was founded in legalism.
Moralism is the same as legalism -- Some people, however, might criticize the answer to the last objection because they assume that moralism is the same as legalism. There are a number of problems with this view. Utilitarians and virtue ethicists, for example, would disagree with the idea that all morals are always law-based (deontological). But even deontologists and divine-command theorists can agree that there is a difference between being good (adhering to a moral law) and merely acting good (which is all that is required by legalism).
Moralists aren’t perfect, so who are they to judge? -- Imagine that a mathematician makes a mistake while balancing her checkbook. Would we be justified in dismissing her claims about addition and subtraction because she sometimes makes mistakes in their application? Such an idea is naturally absurd, but it is just as peculiar to assume that only a morally perfect being (there is only One) can teach, study, or make claims about morals.
Moralism is ineffective -- If I praise a child’s generosity, are they more or less likely to share with others in the future? Generally speaking, I would say that reinforcing good behavior increases the likelihood that they will continue to be generous. Obviously, those who believe in the strawman version of moralism will not believe this is an adequate example. But does it not identify a moral position and advocate that a person engage in a specific behavior? It therefore fits the general pattern of moralism, which can be either effective or ineffective depending on the context and moral problem.
What then is the role of the moralist, specifically the Christian moralist?
For a Christian, to “love the sinner, but hate the sin” is akin to how a doctor can “love the patient, but hate the disease.” The role of the moralist is, I believe, similar to that of medical doctors: the elimination of sickness.
The late media critic and educator Neil Postman used this same medical analogy in describing the proper role of teachers. In his essay “The Educationist as Painkiller”, Postman proposes that educators don’t try to make students intelligent--because we don’t know how to do that--but instead try to cure stupidity in “some of the more obvious forms, such as either-or thinking; overgeneralization; inability to distinguish between facts and inferences; and reification, a disturbingly prevalent tendency to confuse words with things.”
The physician knows about sickness and can offer specific advice about how to avoid it. Don’t smoke, don’t consume too much salt or saturated fat, take two aspirin, take penicillin every four hours and so forth. I am proposing that the study of education and practice of education adopt this paradigm precisely. The educationist should become an expert in stupidity and be able to prescribe specific procedures for avoiding it.
“Stupidity is a form of behavior,” adds Postman, “It is not something we have; it is something we do.” The presence of stupidity can therefore be reduced by changing behavior. In a similar manner, I believe the student of moral problems can, like Postman’s paradigmatic teacher, play a role in curing moral sickness and decay by helping people to avoid moral stupidity.
Although I consider myself an avid student of moral problems, I am woefully inadequate as a teacher. Fortunately, my mentoring role as a moralist is greatly simplified by the reality of the natural law. Since the moral law is already “written on the heart”, all that is often needed is to remind people what their conscience already tells them. For as Samuel Johnson said, “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed."
1
Does the equation of immorality with a form of sickness in any way lessen our responsibility for it? It might. If we add to this equation a doctrine of original sin on which we all come into this world morally defective and thus bound to sin, the conclusion seems to follow that immorality should not be met with condemnation but rather with compassion and a will to help those afflicted with immorality become well.
I very much like this idea.
posted on 05.25.2006 8:44 AM2
Makes me think of the old question: If olive oil is made out of olives, and corn oil is made from corn, and peanut oil is made from peanuts, what is baby oil made from?
Unfortunately, common word structure or etymology often fails to help us understand a word.
posted on 05.25.2006 8:44 AM3
"Unless one has a PhD and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling oneself a 'philosopher' is considered pretentious."
Do you mean to suggest that if you *do* have a Ph.D. and an office in the Ivory Tower, calling yourself a philospher is *not* pretentious?
posted on 05.25.2006 9:06 AM4
Based on your first paragraph, I was a nihilist in college.
posted on 05.25.2006 9:49 AM5
Greg Forster:
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are professional philosphers who do have a Ph.D. and offices in academia. It's hardly pretentious - it's what they do for a living.
And then gain Ph.D.s in many other fields do indeed do philosphy in its widest sense: they have to have a philosphy, an over-arching approach to problems in fields as diverse as psychology, engineering, physics, linguistics, and so on, in order to do the research they do. Yes, they are doctors of philosophy. It's not pretentious, just a fact.
It also takes a lot of work to get there; I wouldn't begrudge most of them the title, especially since I am a member of that class.
posted on 05.25.2006 11:28 AM6
I do believe that I represent the yin to this sites yang.
Well good now I feel complete. And sort of circular.
posted on 05.25.2006 12:39 PM7
I recently did a 4-part series of blogposts called, "Situation Ethics is a Trap"
In the final post, I made the following observations which ties in with the discussion here:
"Let's face it. Much of secular society is in the grip of hedonistic philosophy.
Marcus Aurelius once said, "The mind is dyed the color of its habitual thoughts."
Where is your mind? Is it on self or God?
Why choose God over self? Because when a person counts only on themselves (carnality; self-centeredness) and do not have, nor rely on, the power of the Holy Spirit to bring them out of their immoral decision making on through to the other side, they are lost within self-centered oblivion. They are lost! Their souls are not right with God! Colossians 3 tells us not to live carnality, but to live for, in and through Christ!"
A moralist is most definitely a positive philosophical position to hold when he/she chooses God's morality as revealed in Scripture, rather than one's own moral relativistic attitudes which, no matter how a person tries to spin it, are often primarily focused on the self.
Paul talks about "mortifying the flesh" and "deadening evil desires lurking within." Barclay quotes C.F.D. Moule who says the Christian must kill self-centeredness.
The motive for killing self-centeredness is Jesus Christ. Verses like Galatians 5:16; 1 Peter 2:11; 4:2; James 4:1 make good sense when compared with Matthew 16:24; Romans 8:12-14; Galatians 5:24.
posted on 05.25.2006 2:11 PM8
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
posted on 05.25.2006 2:25 PM9
Wow - defending moralism! That's a pretty brave stand there, Joe. Courageous!
Now, if you'd tackled something a bit more challenging, say, "In Defense of Pornography," you'd have really gotten my attention.
But no, let's haul out the old "poor persecuted moralizers" bit. It's so laughable because you guys have the monopoly franchise here, you've got the biggest lobby in the world backing you up, and a copy of Gideon's bible in every hotel room on the planet to boot.
posted on 05.25.2006 2:54 PM10
The Raven: "and a copy of Gideon's bible in every hotel room on the planet to boot."
Not in all Marriott hotels anymore. They took the Bible out and only have the book of mormon in the hotel rooms over on the island of Kauai. Not sure why...
11
Not in all Marriott hotels anymore. They took the Bible out and only have the book of mormon in the hotel rooms over on the island of Kauai. Not sure why...
Um, because the Marriot chain is owned by the Mormons, maybe? Heh. Or maybe the Gideons are slacking in Hawaii.
12
We have been going there every other year for vacation over the past 10 years. This past summer (2005) was the first year that a Bible was not sitting in the drawer with the book of Mormon (and Marriott's autobiography). We stayed in a condo the first week and then a hotel room for 4 more days. The Bible(s) that had always been in every room we stayed in over those past years were now gone. I found it strange and disturbing...but most of all, a very sad change in policy. I wrote a note to the management about my disappointment with this change in policy, but never heard back from them.
posted on 05.25.2006 9:52 PM13
I have a friend connected with the Gideons on the island of Kauai. All this doesn't suprise me. Mormonism is huge here. They have totally integrated their strange theology with Hawaiinan history, including the death of Captain Cook.
Maybe a letter to the Garden Island Newspaper is in store.
14
Joe, while I agree that the stereotypical assessments of the terms "moralist" or "moralism" are faulty, I think that the "ism" part is still worth hedging over. To make or call something an "-ism" gives it its own identity. To identify Christian morality as an -ism shifts the focus away from the root of all good morality -- a saving relationship with God -- and onto the morality itself.
If you praise a child's generosity out of a spirit of performance-based approval, the child may not learn to be a truly moral person. It's the true loving of the child, which may include "positive reinforcement," that will be the true positive reinforcement.
True love that mimics the Father's love of us is the medicine that can cure the sickness in others, not moralism. Such love may include instruction and correction, but not necessarily as viewed in moralistic terms.
posted on 05.25.2006 10:18 PM15
Reference to Gideon's Bible made me think of how the story of Gideon in the book of Judges is one of my favorite Bible stories ever since childhood. First of all, ever notice how things keep being lit on fire? That's cool enough. Then Gideon basically tests God to see if he's for real multiple times. That's a good idea since there tends to be a lot of God-impersonators out there. You get a glimpse of his dad smarting off to the enemy guys and you get a good clue where the man got his cheek. Then he takes a crack force of 300 men in and wins the battle with crude effects and sheer nerve.
Well, I don't know what that has to do with anything here, but I named my 3rd kid Gideon Michael because those guys were both about fighting for what's right and taking no prisoners, etc. Plus it was my great-great-granddad's name. All right, I'm done.
posted on 05.25.2006 10:44 PM16
Joe,
A lot of the problem comes from the tendency of socially conservative people to not concede the fact that not all moral issues can be resolved by the state. I'm the son of an abusive alcoholic. I've had to suffer social conservatives who had great families righteously denounce me for saying that the War on Drugs can't even touch the core problem which is the person's missing inner morality, self-respect and love of others that drives them to abuse substances. Most "moralists" are simpletons. Their solutions are the epitome of not nuanced.
I would say that the toughest thing for moralists to recognize is that many immoral things do hurt others, but there is nothing you can do about them. That, and the fact that most analogies are too poor to confer a genuine understanding. Simple people tend to say that since two things are immoral, that they should both be heavily controlled or outlawed, but life isn't that simple. It's very rare that two things, for example murder and drug use (both immoral) are even remotely close enough that they can be examined in the same general context. Yet... most moralists I've known do precisely that.
posted on 05.26.2006 1:33 AM17
Drug use is immoral?
What about eating food ... with chemicals in it ... like cholesterol ... and other steroids ... etc.?
I would hate to knowingly be doing something immoral.
Will some wise person here please educate me, for the love of Jesus Christ?
posted on 05.26.2006 2:57 AM18
Christinewjc:
In case you (or anyone else) didn't know, as far as the Gideons are concerned, you're free to actually take the bible put there by the Gideons.
Of course, given that it's really, really stealing to swipe the towels, I wonder how many people feel good about lifting the Gideon bible. There's a similar organization in Japan, Hawaii and some parts of CA that leaves Buddhist texts in hotel rooms, but since I've never seen a clear statement from them I never borrowed that book, which can be gotten from Buddhist temples/churches in Hawaii for free anyway.
The Marriotts are Mormons, by the way, and it is their hotel...if anybody holds stock in Mariott hotels, maybe they could complain at a stockholders' meeting.
Frankly, the book of Mormon is just as strange to me as the Koran...
posted on 05.26.2006 7:34 AM19
Mumon amuses me. Greg Forster is, I believe, precisely one such card-carrying Ivory Tower philosopher.
I disagree, Joe. You are bypassing the *stronger* sense of "-ist" in normal usage, especially where value-laden terms are concerned.
A "fideist" is not a person who studies faith, nor is a "legalist" a person who studies law. A "Baptist" is not a person who studies baps, nor one who studies baptism. A "Calvinist" is not a person who studies Calvin. Nor is a "Leftist" a person who studies the sinistral elements of culture.
The use of "-ist" in the sense of "to study" is a weakening of the language; it is a descent from the idea of "one who follows or practices or entrusts oneself to an idea" to the metaphorical sense in which someone who studies something for a long time is kinda like someone who belongs to the relevant "-ism."
So I will continue to use "moralist" to someone who has an overweening faith in morality as such, as opposed to someone who (like Christ) teaches faith in God and obedience to His Son as the foundation of a Life in which moral purpose, meaning, and clarity can actually be found.
Someone who merely studies morality is, I believe, properly called a philosopher--or perhaps a sociologist, or a psychologist--or maybe one of the weaker species of theologian?
Cheers,
PGE
20
Mumon,
Thanks for sharing that info about the Gideons. I didn't know that. I just assumed that the Bibles were placed there for use while in the hotel rooms.
I have known for quite some time that the Marriotts are Mormon. However, I just found it strange that they now have decided to eliminate the Bibles from their hotel rooms. Was it done out of "political correctness"? Was it done to elevate the Book of Mormon above the Bible? Was it done because people complained that they were "offended" by the Bible being placed in the rooms?
I noticed the same thing at the Courtyard Marriott in Sonoma and the Marriott resort hotel in Palm Springs. It appears to me that it was a conscious decision (not "lifting") that has led to the elimination of the Bibles from the rooms. I am really curious about this. I would like to know the real reason why, after so many years of allowing the Gideons to place the Bibles there, they have recently decided to eliminate them.
Terence,
Thanks for your suggestion to write to the local newspaper in Kauai. Maybe I should do that. Not sure it would help though. I was disappointed and actually quite surprised that I never got a response from the management regarding my complaint.
posted on 05.26.2006 11:08 AM21
Chad,
I think that prescription drug use can be beneficial, however the abuse of any drug (even prescriptions) could potentially harm the body, mind and soul. Of course food is needed to survive, but the abuse of food intake (e.g. gluttony) could also harm the body.
The abuse of sex (and what God originally created it for) is another example of sin and immorality. The Bible tells us that as Christians, our "bodies are now temples of the Holy Spirit."
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? (NKJV)
The verse just before (6:18) tells us to flee fornication. But any abuse of our bodies, including illicit drugs and gluttony is not what God would want for His people.
22
So I will continue to use "moralist" to someone who has an overweening faith in morality as such
To refer to someone as a "moralist," outside of some odd academic context, is roughly equivalent to "moralizer," i.e., an unwanted, irritating busybody who delights in finger-wagging lectures and is possessed of all the bonhommie of a Victorian-era bluestocking.
A person who studies morals could be either a theologian or an ethicist, depending on the meaning.
posted on 05.26.2006 2:33 PM23
Frankly, the moral breakdown in this country and others makes me wish very much for a society which has people in it observing the letter of the law even if they don't all observe the spirit of it.
posted on 05.26.2006 5:31 PM24
Joe:
A thought-provoking post, worthy of a serious discussion.
I think that that discussion could start with a key observation or two of the greatest moralist of all time [who, BTW is well worthy of the title Philosopher -- strictly, lover of wisdom -- even though he never graces the halls of the academy; BTW, neither did Socrates or Plato -- the latter was the informal pupil of the former, and FOUNDED the Academy, proper. Philosophy -- including ethics -- is far too important to be left to the academic philosphers]:
MT 6:22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! . . . .MT 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
MT 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
MT 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. . . . .
MT 7:9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
MT 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Sobering words . . .
++++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
25
pgepps, Aren't you getting too cute and ahistorical about '-ist' language?
"A "Calvinist" is not a person who studies Calvin" ?
Really? He can't be much of one then. Nor a Marxist.
A moralist simply studies the moral.
There is a very long history of moralists, from the ancient world onwards. [Please note, Joe.]
They are often not professionals or philosophers as such, but earn their reputation by their common wisdom, by how much they educate others and are worth quoting..
Jonathan Swift was a moralist, so were Charles Dickens, Trollope and many writers of class.
G.K.Chesterton was a Christian journalistic one, representing a great tribe of these.
Many an old grandmother sitting by the fire was one, as they trotted out truisms for their off-spring to learn to live by [and they did].
Ah, those were the days, when you could become wiser by *not* getting an education than you can now by having one.
Moralists are simply wise people who can communicate, but immoralists and amoralists are not wise - as defined by Christian God-given reality, and by nothing else..
The sad thing is that the post-Christian West has forgotten what a real moralist is, in its Gadarene rush to hell..
26
Barrie:
An excellent point.
I have but one caveat: some have said the pigs at Gadara chose death over continued demonisation. One has gone so far as to say this is a tribute tot he wisdom of the pigs!
Grace
Gordon
posted on 05.30.2006 5:00 AM27
I've heard that witty comment too, Gordon.
I don't know the eternal destiny of pigs, but I do know what the Bible says of demons and humans.
I think the text implies that the pigs lost their 'pigsense' and were driven to destruction against their better wills.
The analogy doesn't fully hold for the post-Christians who, like all people, are responsible to God for all choices, and can collectively get a seared, non-functioning conscience and will.. [I Tim 4:1,2]
Thus do civilisations fall in a heap.
28
Barrie:
I think you have a serious point. Looks to me right now that Western Civilisation, having forgotten God, is rushing straight towards the brink. Just as Paul warned in Rom 1 - 3.
Grace, open our eyes and soften our hearts
That we may repent and be reformed.
Again, Grace to all
Gordon
posted on 06.01.2006 2:59 AM29
Barrie,
I'm just doing an amateur (having insufficient research tools at hand to be professional) philology of the word. Since I was describing the history of the word, I think you're being rather more cute than clever to slip in "ahistorical."
My point is that "-ist" typically describes something much more than a "student of" as Joe says. You reinforce that by adding the notion of eloquent (even if naively eloquent) teaching or exaltation of morality, or reproof of immorality. I think you're still hitting at secondary meanings, but I find your history of the word's use compatible with mine.
You and Joe and others seem to have a funny fixation on anything that has "moral" in it. I have to say, I'm offended by the implicit suggestion that I join the culture in immorality, just because I refuse to be reduced to mere moralism.
Now, if you want to suggest that within my view is some element of moralism, but that I reject the mereness of moralism, and if we can agree on that, well and good. I'd buy that.
I think I have a whole lot more than mere human moral sentiment to get me through the day, and I fully intend to take--and to share--the advantage of Christ's work on my behalf, and His Spirit's leading, and the discipline of His church, rather than any code of rules, traditions of men, or old wive's tales.
Be well,
PGE
30
Here's a thought:
Plastic morality is the public persona of the real estate agent or the chamber of commerce droid or the PTA chapter president. Coiffed, pressed, and poised. Every opinion perfect right on down the line. Goes to church every Wednesday and Sunday too.
Then your daughter gets pregnant as a result of a prom night indiscretion. OK. Even though you hold up a placard reading, "Abortion kills babies" at your local protest, it's different in your child's case and you don't want her life ruined so she gets an abortion but nobody is going to know or talk about it so it's OK.
Morality is always case by case. There are no absolutes. The alleviation of human suffering is the only imperative we have. Sure, it'd be nice to have a rulebook but in the game of life there isn't any such thing. Unless, of course, you're a plastic morality person. But that's unthinkable.
posted on 06.01.2006 10:59 PM31
Hi Raven:
I cannot but observe your:
Morality is always case by case. There are no absolutes. The alleviation of human suffering is the only imperative we have. Sure, it'd be nice to have a rulebook but in the game of life there isn't any such thing.
--> My favourite phil prof used to say, more or less, that one should always be careful of going that last fatal "whoops" step into absolutely denying the possibility of absolutes . . .
--> in short, radical relativism is self-referentially inconsistent and absurd.
--> Similarly, alleviation of human suffereing misses the mark as a global imperative: oftentimes, pain and suffering are for our own good, e.g. the disciplines of personal growth -- no pain, no gain. Similarly, as Proverbs long ago noted: the kisses of an enemy may be profuse, but faithful are the wounds of a friend.
--> Oftentimes, too, the alternatives are when and how much suffering there will be not whether there will be suffering: e.g. vaccination programes both save lives and cost lives, so there is a calculus of pain and benefits that balances in many cases in favour of vaccinations. That is, the proposed principle fails the test of applicability to even fairly common cases.
--> Methinks it is wiser to observe that there are pretty broadly agreed, factually adequate, coherent and simple but not simplistic moral principles -- e.g. fairness and benevolence aka Golden Rule AKA Categorical Imperative: do as you would be done by -- but on specific rules for specific situations, there may be disagreements on the best or at leat, the least worse course of action. [Sometimes, we are confined to lesser of evils, and maturity is to accept and live by that. For instance, it has been well said that except Jesus Christ were on the ballot, the choice is between lesser and greater evils. in such a situation, the least of evils is a relative good. Too often, though, that is in turn the result of having made wrong choices earlier on . . .]
--> I think also that Josh McDowell has done us all an excellent service by publishing the book/course Right from Wrong.
--> In that, at a simple level, he distinguishes three tiers in moral thinking and praxis: precept, principle, person. Precepts or rules are more specific and therefore less flexible. Principles are the underlying context of flexible moral ideas and ideals that rationalise and warrant rules. Persons are the objects of moral conduct, i.e. the underlying issue is to love God and one's fellow man.
--> Or, as a far more August Figure put it, when he was challenged on the subject:
MT 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
--> So, a mere rule book is never enough, apart from underlying principles and hte value we put on persons, starting with our Creator and then our fellow human beings made in His image. [And, BTW, the Bible is specifically NOT merely a rule book, i.e. it engages the moral life at each of the three levels. It also uses stories and history to show us wisdom in ways that fire our imagination and satisfy our craving for the empirical as warrant, if only we do not fall into selective hyperskepticism.]
+++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
posted on 06.02.2006 5:41 AM32
So, a mere rule book is never enough, apart from underlying principles and hte value we put on persons, starting with our Creator and then our fellow human beings made in His image. [And, BTW, the Bible is specifically NOT merely a rule book, i.e. it engages the moral life at each of the three levels. It also uses stories and history to show us wisdom in ways that fire our imagination and satisfy our craving for the empirical as warrant, if only we do not fall into selective hyperskepticism.]
Thanks, Gordon. That is precisely my point, and is why I wish to be a Christian whose thinking is morally sound--that is, conformed to Christ--but precisely not a moralist, that is, someone whose focus or central concern is morality per se.
Christ was accused of being immoral because He taught salvation and transformation and submission to the Lord of the Kingdom, but refused to be a moralist. I fail to see how we could do otherwise.
Raven's comment, OTOH, was obvious blather, and undeserving of your more-than-adequate reply.
Cheers,
PGE
33
Raven wrote: "Morality is always case by case. There are no absolutes. The alleviation of human suffering is the only imperative we have."
Is this suggesting that there are absolutley no absolutes or relatively no absolutes?
Does a moral imperative such as the "alleviation of human suffering" qualify as an absolute, or should it be considered on a case by case basis with the rest of the moral issues of the day?
If it is the former, then you are contadicting yourself in proclaiming that there are no absolutes. If indeed "morality is ALWAYS case by case" then the alleviation of human suffering is no more a moral imperative than the alleviation of animal suffering and so on.
I think that the problem is rooted in semantics. Because of its theological implications, the relativist can not bring himself to utter the word "absolute" in relation to morality, so they choose synonyms such as "always" and "only" and "are no" to express their unconditional opposition to the concept. Replace the expressions used with "absolutely" and this inconsistancy becomes more apparent.
Morality is (absolutely) "always" case by case. There (absolutely) "are no" absolutes. The alleviation of human suffering is (absolutley) "the only" imperative we have.
Raven, is it absolutely morally wrong to torture babies? A yes or no answer will suffice.
On a side issue I will leave you with something that I read last night from T.S. Eliot in 1939:
"As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality. The term 'democracy,' as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike -- it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin."
Aloha
posted on 06.02.2006 3:56 PM34
PGE and Terry:
Thanks for your thoughts.
I do think that Jesus, among other things was a moralist, though not in the sense of one whose pre-occupation was with morality.
I also think that there is a massive wave of relativist deception out there in the civilisation: "there are no absolutre truths" and "that's YOUR truth, not mine" and the like come to mind. We should expose its rotten, self-undermined foundation as soon as it rears its head.
For, except we face the truth and repent, there is no hope for us. I call attention to Rom 2:
RO 2:1 You . . . have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?RO 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism.
Grace, open our eyes and soften our he=arte to repent and persist in the struggle to live by the right.
Grace, open our eyes
Again: Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
posted on 06.03.2006 4:55 AM35
Hi, guys. Very nice site! I saw some interesting pages:
[url=http://oncasinogame.com/free-online-casino-slot.html]red rock station casino jobs[/url] [url=http://oncasinogame.com/casino-casino-gambling-game-money-online-play-real.html]no deposit casino free download[/url] [url=http://oncasinogame.com/cas/2561.html]http://oncasinogame.com/cas/2561.html[/url [url=http://oncasinogame.com/cas/info.html]http://oncasinogame.com/cas/info.html[/url [url=http://oncasinogame.com/cas/index1.html]http://oncasinogame.com/cas/index1.html[/url [url=http://oncasinogame.com/cas/2561.html]http://oncasinogame.com/cas/2561.html[/url
red rock station casino jobs no deposit casino free download http://oncasinogame.com/cas/2561.html http://oncasinogame.com/cas/info.html http://oncasinogame.com/cas/index1.html buy xanax
http://oncasinogame.com/cas/index.php?n=5&id=2047 http://oncasinogame.com/cas/index.php?n=5&id=812 http://buy-xanax.cubacigar.org
Please look it! Thank.
36
#29, #32. I think we use different dictionaries rather than different Bibles, PG.
My Longmans [non-American] includes possible neutral and derogatory uses of 'moralist'. It includes sanctimoniousnness ['mere moralizing']only for 'moralizer', which is my *preferred* term for that as a non-American.
Why not have two distinctive uses for two different but similar words here?
I prefer to use moralist/ism in its literary or philosophical and *historical* usage: "The author of Proverbs was a moralist not just a moralizer"
My American Heritage Dict., on the other hand, while listing the neutral 'teacher of' also links 'moralist' and 'moralism' with 'undue concern with morals', but curiously [to me] it does NOT have any negative use for 'moralize', saying it means only 'to think about or try to improve moral judgments'.
So can't you say negatively in the USA 'Please stop moralizing?' [Looks like my AHD is at fault.]
It may be different usages on each side of the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Oscar Wilde, I think, said that 'the US and Great Britain are two great countries divided by the same language'.
37
Barrie
My new oxford Dictionary of English -- this is the CD ROM version, and I think it is a biggie, has an interesting definition or two:
moralist noun a person who teaches or promotes morality. a person given to moralizing. a person who behaves in a morally commendable way. -DERIVATIVES moralistic adjective moralistically adverb.moralize (also -ise) verb [no obj.] [often as noun] (moralizing) indulge in comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority: the self-righteous moralizing of his aunt was ringing in his ears.
[with obj.] interpret or explain as giving lessons on good and bad character and conduct: mythographers normally moralize Narcissus as the man who wastes himself in pursuing worldly goods. [with obj.] reform the character and conduct of: he endeavoured to moralize an immoral society.
-DERIVATIVES moralization noun moralizer noun moralizingly adverb.
-ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense "explain the moral meaning of"): from French moraliser or medieval Latin moralizare, from late Latin moralis (see moral).moral adjective concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character: the moral dimensions of medical intervention | a moral judgement.
concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society: an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code. [attrib.] examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct: moral philosophers. noun 1 a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience: the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has. [No 1 of 11 definitions and related terms . . .]
So, there are some pitfalls in the dictionaries.
All the best
Gordon
38
All:
As a dyed-in-the-wool contrarian, I think I should give a little current context [based on this morning's quick scan of news and views sites] for the issues over "moraliser" and "moralising": the strategy for the marketing of evil:
[KUPELIAN:] Specifically, there are three main techniques that are being used to [market evil]. . . desensitization, jamming and conversion.Desensitization means you burn out the outrage circuits in people -- you flood them with images and information about your topic in the most appealing manner possible, and eventually people just aren't outraged over it anymore . . . .
Jamming basically means that once you've desensitized people, if somebody doesn't "get" your message -- or they don't want to go along with your program -- and they want to give a contrary view, then you deal with them by intimidating them, you threaten them, you harm them in any way you can to get them to shut up . . . . That's jamming. Instead of saying, "We disagree with you, let's have a debate," they call you names and try to destroy you -- they brand you as a "bigot" or a "sexual harasser."
[No explicit definition of conversion was supplied, but it more or less means acceptance and support of what was formerly abhorred. In this case the classic studies on brainwashing are very relevant. People are converted through a process of unfreezing in a context where the old way seems to now fail to work, and one is isolated physically, socially and/or emotionally from former social support networks, then, through identification with role models or through "discovering" a new view and way through messages in the new environment, one changes. Adter reinforcement the new ideas and attitudes and behaviours are consolidated: refreezing: unfreezing, changing, refreezing. THIS IS COMMON TO ALL CONVERSIONS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPENTANCE/REFORMATION AND BRAINWASHING BEING THE DEGREE OF INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS, I.E ESPECIALLY WHETHER ISSUES, STRUGGLES AND DOUBTS ARE HONESTLY AND FAIRLY GRAPPLED WITH. (The first link is to a case I have had to grapple with for something like 20 years. The second, to a discussion of spin tactics. This, to the underlying challenge of comparative difficulties analysis.) ]
I therefore think that the MATERIAL issue at stake is not hypocrisy of priggish moralisers roted in traditional morality [cf below], but rather the manipulation of a culture to reject God and to reject objectively well-warranted standards of behaviour, through a game of glamourising evil behaviour and ideas, whilst demonising those who dare to object. In that context, we are looking at brainwashing games, not honest change/reformation of thinking and behaviour towards the right.
Oddly, we are looking at a turnabout stratagem, on the part of prigs who wish to market what cannot stand up to honest objective dialogue on morality in light of serious comparatrive difficulties. THAT is what both desensitisation and jamming are about. So we are looking at a classic turnabout propaganda tactic: accusing the victim of the crime.
Therefore, let us heed Paul's words tot he Ephesian Christians:
EPH 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.EPH 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
and soften our hearts
Gordon
PS: BTW there IS a perfectly good word for hypocritical moralisers with an air of unmerited superiority, in a world were we are all struggling sinners who need to face some not so pleasant facts about ourselves, personally and collectively. [That is why the gospel is both good news and "bad news." The bad news part should not be news but too many of us today want to think more highly of ourselves morally than we objectively ought to.] Okay, here ias a word I first met in C S lewis' writings:
[OED] prig noun a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others. -DERIVATIVES priggery noun priggish adjective priggishly adverb priggishness noun. -ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: of unknown origin. The earliest sense was "tinker" or "petty thief", whence "disliked person", especially "someone who is affectedly and self-consciously precise" (late 17th cent.).posted on 06.05.2006 3:53 AM