C.S. Lewis was a prolific Christian author of the last century. In his book Mere Christianity he wrote the following:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Thoughts? Comments? Discussions?

(PS: Sorry Raist and hyper ballad for not responding in the last topic about the existence of God. I'll try to get around to it as soon as I feel sufficiently unintimidated by the level of response I have to produce for the two of you >.<)

But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

As you know Seeker I've read Mere Christianity. It really is an excellent read and C.S Lewis is incredibly convincing. But the question above can be answered differently to how he just answered it, or atleast I believe so.

Is it possible that some of our feelings of justive have come from almost hedonistic qualities? Pain for example necessitates many of our actions, whether it be physical or emotional pain. We may not wish to commit adultery or some other such 'unjust' action because we know of the pain it will cause. That would be reality affecting us, not necassarily the distinction between an overall moral law as Lewis describes there.

I suppose the real question is; is the nature of pain as a tool that affects our values something that necessitates the existence of a god?

Why do we feel pain at these things and not others? Why do some cultures feel pain for some actions and not others? That's a more difficult question to answer.

The difference lies between pain and pleasure as Lewis is describing. The next question that has to be answered is whether one can live an entirely sinful life and still be happy, content, with pleasure and without pain.

(and when I mention pleasure I do not strictly speak of desires such as food or lust but general satisfaction)

And take your time Seeker, I'd rather get an in-depth response from you than something not worth of your caliber :)

Well, that's probably an explanation for some people, although I doubt it'll be for all. But I don't think that's what Lewis is getting at.

As he said, "Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own." That argument about hedonistic-centred 'justice' would be "a private idea of [his] own", in which case, if he wanted to keep that as what he thinks justice is, then his argument that God and the universe are unjust implodes, because, as he said "the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies."

This question is probably only necessarily related to morality if you take on a hedonistic view of the nature of morality. I mean, from the Christian view, I would say that some pain is an inevitable consequence of immorality; but in this life it is not a necessary one for all immoral acts.

I'd say no, but that probably deserves an entire discussion of it's own... :P

Seeker

As he said, "Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own." That argument about hedonistic-centred 'justice' would be "a private idea of [his] own", in which case, if he wanted to keep that as what he thinks justice is, then his argument that God and the universe are unjust implodes, because, as he said "the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies."

I see your point, and it is certainly true for some elements of social morality and our actions, but I don't believe it is so for all. If it is seen as perfectly just and corrent in some societies to conduct cannibalism then I immediately assume that it has never caused specific harm to its people. By this I say that I presume they only eat the bodies of those already dead. Otherwise the deaths of loved ones and family members would undoubtedly and eventually cause the pain necessary to change this. But if they feel absolutely no pain by their actions and see no unjust cause arising from it, how can we tell them that their actions are incorrect? If they have never been groomed into that perception of morality, then I'm not so sure they can attain it. This is what I'm speaking off. Not just some of our hedonistic pleasures (though some will be included) but rather some societal values that seem to have been born amongst values from other societies that completely oppose it.

This question is probably only necessarily related to morality if you take on a hedonistic view of the nature of morality. I mean, from the Christian view, I would say that some pain is an inevitable consequence of immorality; but in this life it is not a necessary one for all immoral acts.



I don't doubt that there are many actions that may feel good but will bring about pain. But that seems to be more of an issue of short term pleasure, long term pain, and not so much of a problem in action or thoughts that ultimately never harm the person in any way, shape or form. If a christian were to be promiscuous for example, I would expect them to feel some sort of inner pain from their actions, regardless of how much they actually may enjoy the act. However not only human actions and thoughts are like this. Isn't that going to classify one's morals, how they see right and wrong?

I'd say no, but that probably deserves an entire discussion of it's own...

Lol It certainly does, Seeker, it certainly does. We'll have to open a new topic when we both have more time.

How not? Why not?

Firstly, you say into that "perception of morality." Do you mean here that the two moralities are merely differing perceptions of a common, objective one? (I doubt it, but just clarifying.)

Secondly, why not?

Probably.

I mean, some people walk on soring gravel or hot coals so often that they stop feeling what they do to their feet....

Seeker

How not? Why not?

If I tell you that I absolutely love reading, that nothing makes me happier and that I feel effectively no down side to it then anything you say will have no effect on me. Provided I don't entertain this joy completely and at the overall expense of other needs then anything you say to criticise this joy or tarnish it morally will not work. This example is similar to other factors, if they see nothing wrong with it, little we can say will change their minds.

Firstly, you say into that "perception of morality." Do you mean here that the two moralities are merely differing perceptions of a common, objective one? (I doubt it, but just clarifying.)

Secondly, why not?

On the first question, no. I need to clarify. Not perception of morals but of right and wrong.

Secondly. A psychopath simply cannot feel empathy or many emotions. How can they possibly alter their already defined morals and motives on the basis of pain and feelings of others?

Probably.

I mean, some people walk on soring gravel or hot coals so often that they stop feeling what they do to their feet....

That's only true in part. Those actions strengthen their feet beyond measure. But don't take that statement any further than it is. It is a literal comment and nothing more.

Oh. I thought you meant that we'd have no right to tell them that what they're doing is wrong, not that we have no way of letting them see it.

Well, for one, we could probably teach them to.

But I wouldn't bank my money on that. Morals are not defined based solely or even primarily on the basis of whether we can feel the pain or feelings of others. Granted, some sort of emotional connection to the moral or immoral act can make us more passionate about it, but we don't need the emotional connection to be passionate about it. It's the difference between hearing that a woman on the other side of the world whom you've never even heard of was raped and knowing that the rapist was wrong to rape her, and one of your close friends or relatives being raped and knowing - feeling - that the rapist was wrong.

Psychopaths, I propose, can learn (and probably already know) when an action, thought, attitude or whatever is wrong, without the slightest emotional involvement.

Seeker

Oh. I thought you meant that we'd have no right to tell them that what they're doing is wrong, not that we have no way of letting them see it.

Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Well, for one, we could probably teach them to.

Oh, I don't doubt we could, to many. But many of our beliefs and systems of behaviour are bred at very young ages. So it seems that the influence of the parent (rather obviously) is a major factor in their morals and consequently the reason why so many "immoral" people seem to come from the poorer, more disabled backgrounds. This doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to bring them in line with a set of beliefs that is best for our society, and most likely them, but that it may be fraught with failure.

But I wouldn't bank my money on that. Morals are not defined based solely or even primarily on the basis of whether we can feel the pain or feelings of others.

Possibly. But I would argue that that constitutes a large portion of the development of their morals.


Granted, some sort of emotional connection to the moral or immoral act can make us more passionate about it, but we don't need the emotional connection to be passionate about it. It's the difference between hearing that a woman on the other side of the world whom you've never even heard of was raped and knowing that the rapist was wrong to rape her, and one of your close friends or relatives being raped and knowing - feeling - that the rapist was wrong.

That is true and it is where parental and societal influence and genetic influence play a role. I don't mean that genetics can define how we view rape but it certainly can define our docility or tendency to violence. A more violent person who has not received the emotional conditioning of their parents, I would argue, is more likely to commit rape than another and thus more likely not to see rape as necessarily immoral. This means they are less likely to even see the rape occuring across the world as terrible. They may however still view the rape of a close one as terrible. Only in that it harmed someone important to them. If they are somewhat empathetic then this may serve to change their ways, but without it I find that difficult to believe. Empathy, it seems, is an important factor of the acceptance and reliability or morality. Particularly in terms of violent actions and measures.

Psychopaths, I propose, can learn (and probably already know) when an action, thought, attitude or whatever is wrong, without the slightest emotional involvement.

They can certainly be told that something is wrong and learn to behave within those teachings (I am presuming rather heavily here), but that assumes that they have learnt a lesson whereas I would argue that without the necessary factor of empathy to inhibit certain actions by way of feelings of pain and torment (mental, emotional and physical), then one cannot believe and trust in their convictions of right and wrong. If I don't believe in my morals I will only follow them by sever mental conditioning and possibly the motive of fear.

Human behaviour is just so damn confusing perc...

Bumping this for a bit so I won't forget to respond.... >_<

Rebumping it for Seeker so he won't forget to respond...

lol :lmao:

Hmm. Maybe poorer people just have a different type of immorality than the rich? I mean, more than enough rich people are corrupt, murder (remotely), mock the justice system and all of that.

And yeah, it might be fraught with failure, I agree.

Perhaps.

Agreed on all counts, methinks. I'd add spiritual or Godly influence to that short list in the first sentence, though.

Agreed throughout again. ^_^

And ditto to that confusing bit.

Now, after all that agreement it makes me wonder what I was trying to get at.... >_<

*skims*

Ah, yes, we were talking about Lewis' question <I>"But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?</i>". So if you think morality is determined by the individual or society, does that mean you accept Lewis' criticism that the question of why there is 'evil' in the world can not be used to demonstrate the non-existence of a benevolent God?

Seeker

Sorry for the late reply. Things have been rather tangled lately, but this place has served as something of a comfort in the past so perhaps it can again. Here we go!

Hmm. Maybe poorer people just have a different type of immorality than the rich? I mean, more than enough rich people are corrupt, murder (remotely), mock the justice system and all of that.

And yeah, it might be fraught with failure, I agree.

You're right. The more I think about this it is certainly true. As large a percentage of the rich seem to conduct immoral acts as the poor they simply seem to do so on a more secretive basis and with lesser chance of punishment or capture. The poor man robs a bank the rich man embezzles. So then I suppose we need to consider what draws these men away from acts that do not, at the very least, seem fair. Why do we commit immoral acts? Out of desperation or do such people honestly not believe them immoral? I can't so much as take a 20c packet of sauce from a hot dog vendor without feeling pangs of guilt. Why then are some able to murder, rape, fraud and steal millions?



I'd add spiritual or Godly influence to that short list in the first sentence, though.

Let's leave that in the oven for a little while. I'd like to come back to it if you don't mind.



So if you think morality is determined by the individual or society, does that mean you accept Lewis' criticism that the question of why there is 'evil' in the world can not be used to demonstrate the non-existence of a benevolent God?

Yes I do. I've never considered the fact that people die or feel pain an at all reasonable explanation for the non-existance of God. It seems to be wishful thinking more than any reasonable deduction. Firstly we are allegedly given free will and any pain that is caused can then not be solely attributed to the workings of God and thus can't be used as some kind of evidence against this existence. But as I said above, I've never understood this arguemtn at all well - it just doesn't seem to make sense. However that pain and torment of which you speak may be some kind of evidence for a God being imperfect. I had another thought on this today but I've forgotten it. I'll try to remember for you Seeker.

Late responses are no problem at all. Heh, even if they were, I couldn't say anything cuz I do the same thing >_<.

I think the primary reason may be that we want to, either as an ends unto itself or a means to a different end. Some people may get a thrill out of stealing or raping, or they may steal because they think it's necessary to survive. The idea of forbidden pleasures particularly of the sexual kind appeal to many, many people, and so they may do them just to fulfill those urges...or, maybe, as a means to get a job promotion or something else.

I think that in most cases -- if not all of them -- people know that they are wrong. However, it's evident that the mere knowledge is often not enough to deter people from immoral acts. I know that it is (regrettably) like that for me.

Okay, thanks. :)

Seeker

I think that in most cases -- if not all of them -- people know that they are wrong. However, it's evident that the mere knowledge is often not enough to deter people from immoral acts. I know that it is (regrettably) like that for me.

Ok. This will turn into an argument of opinion if we continue along this line. Arguing only on whether we believe people know their actions are wrong or not. So I'll slim my argument to one point. Above you have said that you think in most cases people know these actions are wrong. I'll say I agree. However what do you have to say about those remaining cases? If these special few people do not realise or believe their actions are wrong, can they really be blamed?

Oh there was something I meant to ask you in regards to Calvinism too. It was after reading something of Deepdive's. (before I begin I hope I'm correct in assuming Calvinism relates to determinism and in particular of God) If the God that exists has already set every plan and step in place, and our destinies have already been fulfilled then besides from the obvious lack of free will this gives us wouldn't it also entail that God created Satan knowing that he would fall, create sin and pain and torment etc? And thus doesn't determinism automatically make God imperfect? Which, ironically enough, also lays claim as evidence for determinism being incorrect? (in the sense that an imperfect God is less likely to have the all knowing power and ability to have already set every event into place)

Just a thought.

And once again I'm finally back from a week long absense everyone. I'm finding the transition between High School and University, boring, frustrating and somewhat nihilistic. Oh well.