Wow it's been awhile since I last wrote.... Quite a bit has flown by in the past three months, an Israel trip, moving across the country to start school at an incredible university, and all that ties into that. But alas, this blog is a forum to discuss ideas not my autobiography.
So at Brandeis, I'm taking a course called Idea of G-d. It's a philosophy course taken with Palle Yourgrau, who is a brilliant mathematician and philosopher (funny how the two go together). Anyways, we were discussing on Monday the presence of G-d through the Torah and he brings up an age old question: what does G-d mean when he tells Moses "I am who I am"?
Although we are a class of between 35 and 40 on any given day, this class is completely discussion based and the ideas people were coming up with were quite intriguing.
One person said on a literal level that G-d was just introducing Himself considering we don't necessarily know how to say yud kay vav kay. This idea was quickly shot down by Yourgrau. "Uh, that means we have His name. Next thought." Dissed and dismissed. Then one guy and I started formulating an idea between the two of us. And of course I used linguistic terms from Miss Shaw, "Well using the terms signifier and signified, the signifier being the name of that which is being signified, I think G-d is showing he is beyond any sort of representation. What if He is just stating that He is more than anything else? That defining Him puts limits on Him?" Sarhan then expanded on this idea, "Ya, that G-d is just explaining that He is being and nothing else. That by putting a name on an object differentiates it from all other equal objects, but since He IS G-d, there is nothing equal to Him and therefore G-d just explains that He is Being." Yourgrau liked this idea, " Being with a capital B. I like that."
I am leaning toward this concept, but what else is there? I mean, the Talmud goes back and forth on all sorts of ideas, and there are all sorts of rabbinical commentary on all sorts of questions in Judaism, but what does G-d mean by telling Moses "I am who I am"?
Showing posts with label G-d. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G-d. Show all posts
17.3.10
15.12.09
Ethics: A Start
So I suppose my desire to create this post has a lot to do with the nervousness I'm harboring for my philosophy exam tomorrow, which marks the end of both my first semester of college as well as my educational career at Arizona State University.
I have been studying pretty much non-stop, making sure that I understand the arguments and can recreate them in essay format. However, I am using this post to recreate the arguments to act as a security blanket as well as systematically process the ideas. Also, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the arguments presented, which can lead to some discomfort about what feels like holes within the argument regardless of how sound it may come across.
So I really don't have much of an issue with the debunking of cultural relativism, and in fact agree with it. Although, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. To start, I'll outline the idea of cultural relativism:
The idea of cultural relativism appears to be the conclusion of the premise ethnocentrism: the universal tendency for every human group to believe that its own ways, customs, beliefs, etc., are the right ways or best ways and that everyone else's ways are distinctly inferior. There are two slightly, yet significantly differing definitions: 1)each culture needs to be understood relative to its own unique background and circumstances within its own context and standards; and 2)evaluations are relative to the cultured background in which they arise, so no absolute standards by which other cultures can be judged, and in particular, we can't use our standards or we'd be committing the sin of ethnocentrism, i.e. if two communities, cultures, or what not disagree on the standards of belief or ethics, it makes no sense to even ask which is right. This presents two different concepts So in summation, no culture can be judged because they can only be compared within its own context and there is no sort of objective standards to press on all cultures.
But as my professor then says, "A conclusion follows from a premise IF AND ONLY IF affirming the premises yet denying the conclusion is a contradiction."
From here, the Principle of Toleration comes about as being the value to uphold in order to continue cultural relativism. It states that we should tolerate and respect values set up by every society even if they conflict with our own. Sounds like a decent deal right? I mean I believe one thing, you believe another, we agree to disagree? What seems so wrong with that?
That may be all well and good, the lack of judging what is good and what is bad that is, but what about effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness? Well, that would work. That's just logic, you can prove that, i.e. the use of birth control is more effective to not conceive a child rather than a woman staying away from water (Baggish, Confessions of a Former Relativist). Effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness is different from right vs. wrong. Asking a question on morality cannot be asked because there is no objective standard to compare it to. It would be like asking if a chair is manic or depressed. Wait... what? Exactly.
So next step: objections to cultural relativism. First, the Argument From Hard Cases: if cultural relativism is the basis upon which we think we should be tolerant, we’d have to equally tolerant of every cultural practice, conventions, etc., even cutting off fingers of little girls within the Dani tribe and Hitler's reign in germany. These things seem a bit harder to swallow as "okay" or tolerable. Uh, yes, I'll tolerate the suffering of the innocent in order to fulfill one's desire to fulfill what they believe to be "right." That's pretty much the response, bite the bullet, grin and bear it, just deal. Second, cultural relativism following from ethnocentrism is supposed to convince everyone they should be tolerant of everyone else's customs, values, etc. Well, the whole point of cultural relativism is to show that toleration is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, *ahem* the definition previously states that cultural relativism claims there are no objective values. Can you say contradiction? Third, cultural relativism commits the fallacy of trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." For example, it hurts little girls when you cut off their fingers, ergo you ought not to mutilate the hands of innocent little girls. That doesn't mean that one will do that, in fact, the Dani don't.
So whose to say?
In order to understand cultural relativism, we say that morality comes from G-d. Yay! Next theory: Divine Command Theory. The theory that really has my mind turning gears with the most difference in sentiment, but let's outline it anyway. Why do we define morality the way we do? Because G-d says so. We ought to do something if and only if G-d commands us to do it. Similar to how the United States Supreme Court is the supreme legal authority which sits in judgement upon us, G-d is the supreme moral authority who sits in judgement upon us. We listen to authority.
So let's compare legal and moral: one has a legal obligation to do as the supreme court rules if and only if the supreme court says you do because the law is what we say it is and one has the moral obligation to do something if and only if G-d says you do because... why? The second claim is ambiguous. Why do we follow such command? Does it mean: a) we have a moral obligation to do something because G-d tells us to OR b) G-d tells us to do things because they're what one has a moral obligation to do? YES THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS, just give me a minute to explain.
A) is an explanation supporting that G-d created what we call "morality," but does not bind G-d to such rules, therefore making G-d an immoral being (if G-d is an immoral being, why praise G-d?), i.e. an explanation why one should tell the truth rather than lie. B) is an explanation for morality being created outside of G-d thereby defying G-d's omnipotence (if G-d didn't create morality, what is binding us to a G-d with limitations?), i.e. an explanation for why G-d is commanding us to tell the truth rather than lie.
To dive even deeper into the deep blue, there are three types of authority: final, infallible, and scorer's discretion. Final authority is the authority whose decision one must live with regardless of if you believe they are right or wrong, i.e. NFL referees' calls from the video replay booth. Infallible authority is the authority whose decisions are always correct (yes, mankind is fallible, but it is conceivable than mankind is right at all times, I mean, at least they think so...), i.e. NFL referees on the field could always be a right call, but their decisions aren't necessarily final. Scorer's Discretion is the authority whose decisions are literally made up as one goes along according to one's whims and fancies of the moment, i.e. completely throw out the rule book of football and let's just go with whatever the referee "feels like" saying is the call.
In regards to A) and B), A) would be a sort of scorer's discretion where G-d makes up what is or isn't moral without anything governing the reason other than G-d's desire to make it so. On the other hand, B) is a combination of final and infallible authorities because G-d is then enforcing a set of rules--morals--in order to continue life. However, for G-d to enforce these rules, similar to the final or infallible referees, G-d is using something outside of himself in order to continue forward with life, thereby defying G-d's omnipotence.
So... that's Divine Command Theory, and well, I simply am left with discomfort about the subject and would love to hear what others have to say about it. I have a very strong belief in G-d and believe that from G-d comes all creation and nothing could exist without G-dliness because everything comes from G-dliness. Everything includes morality. So how does this fit into the grand scheme of things.
Thoughts?
I have been studying pretty much non-stop, making sure that I understand the arguments and can recreate them in essay format. However, I am using this post to recreate the arguments to act as a security blanket as well as systematically process the ideas. Also, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the arguments presented, which can lead to some discomfort about what feels like holes within the argument regardless of how sound it may come across.
So I really don't have much of an issue with the debunking of cultural relativism, and in fact agree with it. Although, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. To start, I'll outline the idea of cultural relativism:
The idea of cultural relativism appears to be the conclusion of the premise ethnocentrism: the universal tendency for every human group to believe that its own ways, customs, beliefs, etc., are the right ways or best ways and that everyone else's ways are distinctly inferior. There are two slightly, yet significantly differing definitions: 1)each culture needs to be understood relative to its own unique background and circumstances within its own context and standards; and 2)evaluations are relative to the cultured background in which they arise, so no absolute standards by which other cultures can be judged, and in particular, we can't use our standards or we'd be committing the sin of ethnocentrism, i.e. if two communities, cultures, or what not disagree on the standards of belief or ethics, it makes no sense to even ask which is right. This presents two different concepts So in summation, no culture can be judged because they can only be compared within its own context and there is no sort of objective standards to press on all cultures.
But as my professor then says, "A conclusion follows from a premise IF AND ONLY IF affirming the premises yet denying the conclusion is a contradiction."
From here, the Principle of Toleration comes about as being the value to uphold in order to continue cultural relativism. It states that we should tolerate and respect values set up by every society even if they conflict with our own. Sounds like a decent deal right? I mean I believe one thing, you believe another, we agree to disagree? What seems so wrong with that?
That may be all well and good, the lack of judging what is good and what is bad that is, but what about effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness? Well, that would work. That's just logic, you can prove that, i.e. the use of birth control is more effective to not conceive a child rather than a woman staying away from water (Baggish, Confessions of a Former Relativist). Effectiveness vs. ineffectiveness is different from right vs. wrong. Asking a question on morality cannot be asked because there is no objective standard to compare it to. It would be like asking if a chair is manic or depressed. Wait... what? Exactly.
So next step: objections to cultural relativism. First, the Argument From Hard Cases: if cultural relativism is the basis upon which we think we should be tolerant, we’d have to equally tolerant of every cultural practice, conventions, etc., even cutting off fingers of little girls within the Dani tribe and Hitler's reign in germany. These things seem a bit harder to swallow as "okay" or tolerable. Uh, yes, I'll tolerate the suffering of the innocent in order to fulfill one's desire to fulfill what they believe to be "right." That's pretty much the response, bite the bullet, grin and bear it, just deal. Second, cultural relativism following from ethnocentrism is supposed to convince everyone they should be tolerant of everyone else's customs, values, etc. Well, the whole point of cultural relativism is to show that toleration is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, *ahem* the definition previously states that cultural relativism claims there are no objective values. Can you say contradiction? Third, cultural relativism commits the fallacy of trying to derive an "ought" from an "is." For example, it hurts little girls when you cut off their fingers, ergo you ought not to mutilate the hands of innocent little girls. That doesn't mean that one will do that, in fact, the Dani don't.
So whose to say?
In order to understand cultural relativism, we say that morality comes from G-d. Yay! Next theory: Divine Command Theory. The theory that really has my mind turning gears with the most difference in sentiment, but let's outline it anyway. Why do we define morality the way we do? Because G-d says so. We ought to do something if and only if G-d commands us to do it. Similar to how the United States Supreme Court is the supreme legal authority which sits in judgement upon us, G-d is the supreme moral authority who sits in judgement upon us. We listen to authority.
So let's compare legal and moral: one has a legal obligation to do as the supreme court rules if and only if the supreme court says you do because the law is what we say it is and one has the moral obligation to do something if and only if G-d says you do because... why? The second claim is ambiguous. Why do we follow such command? Does it mean: a) we have a moral obligation to do something because G-d tells us to OR b) G-d tells us to do things because they're what one has a moral obligation to do? YES THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS, just give me a minute to explain.
A) is an explanation supporting that G-d created what we call "morality," but does not bind G-d to such rules, therefore making G-d an immoral being (if G-d is an immoral being, why praise G-d?), i.e. an explanation why one should tell the truth rather than lie. B) is an explanation for morality being created outside of G-d thereby defying G-d's omnipotence (if G-d didn't create morality, what is binding us to a G-d with limitations?), i.e. an explanation for why G-d is commanding us to tell the truth rather than lie.
To dive even deeper into the deep blue, there are three types of authority: final, infallible, and scorer's discretion. Final authority is the authority whose decision one must live with regardless of if you believe they are right or wrong, i.e. NFL referees' calls from the video replay booth. Infallible authority is the authority whose decisions are always correct (yes, mankind is fallible, but it is conceivable than mankind is right at all times, I mean, at least they think so...), i.e. NFL referees on the field could always be a right call, but their decisions aren't necessarily final. Scorer's Discretion is the authority whose decisions are literally made up as one goes along according to one's whims and fancies of the moment, i.e. completely throw out the rule book of football and let's just go with whatever the referee "feels like" saying is the call.
In regards to A) and B), A) would be a sort of scorer's discretion where G-d makes up what is or isn't moral without anything governing the reason other than G-d's desire to make it so. On the other hand, B) is a combination of final and infallible authorities because G-d is then enforcing a set of rules--morals--in order to continue life. However, for G-d to enforce these rules, similar to the final or infallible referees, G-d is using something outside of himself in order to continue forward with life, thereby defying G-d's omnipotence.
So... that's Divine Command Theory, and well, I simply am left with discomfort about the subject and would love to hear what others have to say about it. I have a very strong belief in G-d and believe that from G-d comes all creation and nothing could exist without G-dliness because everything comes from G-dliness. Everything includes morality. So how does this fit into the grand scheme of things.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
