C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

Cypress said:
Right, I offered the views of C.S. Lewis and Nietzsche as just a springboard to a conversation about ethics and moral consciousness to anyone interested in the topic, so thanks for chiming in.

Things like theft and murder are criminal acts, and sanctions against them barely raise the moral bar above the floor.

The more complex ethical topics of justice, mercy, equality, charity, etc are a little harder to explain by way of a criminal code or evolutionary mechanism
Click to expand...

Well I had tried to intentionally separate the morals from the sanctions. God tells us these things are wrong and He will hold us to task for failings on Judgement day. He is not interested in what society does.

So about these other things (justice, mercy, equality, charity) yes I suppose they have a kind of moral basis. Justice: well honesty would certainly seem to hold sway here and sorting out truth vs lies is the very nature of it. But here we do have the break between the source of the morals and what society opts to do about it. Mercy: I suppose you could make the case that loving one's neighbor comes into play here but then again we are talking about societal standards at least where criminality comes into the picture. Equality: pretty much the same as mercy. God loves us all and we should do no less. Charity: again love is the basis.

I realize many would like to see these other actions in a moral light but they are more social than moral.

God does a pretty good job of pointing out right and wrong. People so love to put their own slant on it and that the division on the universal and the temporary. IMHO.

I forget which guy had a problem with "the Church" and BOY was that right. Again, some PEOPLE love to put their own slant on things. Naughty naughty on them and I suspect they will have a rather troubling conversation on theior judgement day.

If you have a choice between considering what God has to say and what a guy has to say about it....
Vaya con Dios (go with God). Never forget, nobody knows scripture better than the Devil and that serves him well.
 
Celticguy said:
Well I had tried to intentionally separate the morals from the sanctions. God tells us these things are wrong and He will hold us to task for failings on Judgement day. He is not interested in what society does.

So about these other things (justice, mercy, equality, charity) yes I suppose they have a kind of moral basis. Justice: well honesty would certainly seem to hold sway here and sorting out truth vs lies is the very nature of it. But here we do have the break between the source of the morals and what society opts to do about it. Mercy: I suppose you could make the case that loving one's neighbor comes into play here but then again we are talking about societal standards at least where criminality comes into the picture. Equality: pretty much the same as mercy. God loves us all and we should do no less. Charity: again love is the basis.

I realize many would like to see these other actions in a moral light but they are more social than moral.

God does a pretty good job of pointing out right and wrong. People so love to put their own slant on it and that the division on the universal and the temporary. IMHO.

I forget which guy had a problem with "the Church" and BOY was that right. Again, some PEOPLE love to put their own slant on things. Naughty naughty on them and I suspect they will have a rather troubling conversation on theior judgement day.

If you have a choice between considering what God has to say and what a guy has to say about it....
Vaya con Dios (go with God). Never forget, nobody knows scripture better than the Devil and that serves him well.
Click to expand...

God talks to you? In what manner. I mean, as a person?
 
Cypress said:
I do not necessarily think moral consciousness is supernatural.

I also don't see any demonstrated evolutionary mechanism or genetic benefit to the kind of ethics illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan.

I think it is either a gap in our scientific knowledge, or it is something innate in the human condition which is beyond the reach of our scientific experiments and cognition.
Click to expand...

Anything beyond nature is, by definition, supernatural.

Therefore it's measurable or it's supernatural. While I fully believe that there is more to existence than what we sense daily, I'm less sure if we'll ever be able to detect it.

You listed a scientific reason behind Altruism in animals earlier and I posted a link affirming it in terms of Game Theory; in short, gaming out possible outcomes for species survival. Altruism is there because the rewards exceed the risks.

Anytime a positive outcome, meaning survival of one's genetic code, has a clear edge over a negative one, such as a suicide gene, the positive one will succeed in the long run if played out long enough.
 
Celticguy said:
it varies but it starts with me asking for clarity and its the job of the Holy Spirit to impart God's word to me in the perfect way for me to understand it.
Click to expand...

While I believe the Truth is out there, it seems presumptuous to demand a deity to do a job for you.

What happened to free agency? Personal accountability? The self-respect that goes with it?
 
Jack said:
Each Individual has the opportunity to view Reality as they see it. The Humans on Earth have been warring with each other since before recorded history. The only 'natural law', is 'law' that we can all agree upon through mutual benefit. There is nothing 'special' about coming to a common consensus.
The War in Ukraine is a good example. Another Tribal Alpha Dog attempting to expand it's Territory. The only 'natural law' here is the Strong dominating the Weak. The 'Common Consensus' was that each 'Tribe' stay within the Borders agreed to after WW2.
I see 'Man' as just another Life Form.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Smart dominating the Stupid and the Sane dominating the Insane. :thup:
 
You should not beautify Christianity or try to dress it up: it has waged a
war to the death against this higher type of person, it has banned all the
basic instincts of this type, it has distilled 'evil' and 'the Evil One' out of
these instincts - the strong human being as reprehensible, as 'depraved'.
Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, failed, it has made
an ideal out of whatever contradicts the preservation instincts of a strong
life; it has corrupted the reason of even the most spiritual natures by
teaching people to see the highest spiritual values as sinful, as deceptive,
as temptations. The most pitiful example - the corruption of Pascal, who
believed that his reason was corrupted by original sin when the only thing
corrupting it was Christianity itself! -

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/Lose...dols & Other Writings Friedrich Nietzsche.pdf
 
Jack said:
Each Individual has the opportunity to view Reality as they see it. The Humans on Earth have been warring with each other since before recorded history. The only 'natural law', is 'law' that we can all agree upon through mutual benefit. There is nothing 'special' about coming to a common consensus.
The War in Ukraine is a good example. Another Tribal Alpha Dog attempting to expand it's Territory. The only 'natural law' here is the Strong dominating the Weak. The 'Common Consensus' was that each 'Tribe' stay within the Borders agreed to after WW2.
I see 'Man' as just another Life Form.
Click to expand...

Humans have the free will to act on a moral conscience, or not. Putin chooses to not act on moral conscience because he is a criminal.

The moral conscience of the world is shocked by once vibrant Ukranian cities reduced to smouldering piles of ash.

Putin even hides this information from Russian citizens because even he knows it would shock their conscience.

I don't think we had to be socially trained to be shocked by smouldering, leveled cities.

That right there tells you there is a moral standard our conscience makes comparisons to. If there wasn't some kind of transcendent moral code, then we would agree that might makes right is a perfectly acceptable ethical activity. We would agree everything is relative and subjective.

 
"One more word against Kant as a moralist. A virtue needs to be our own
invention, our own most personal need and self-defence: in any other
sense, a virtue is just dangerous. Whatever is not a condition for life
harms it: a virtue that comes exclusively from a feeling of respect for the
concept of 'virtue', as Kant would have it, is harmful. 'Virtue', 'duty',
'goodness in itself', goodness that has been stamped with the character of the impersonal and universally valid - these are fantasies and manifestations of decline, of the final exhaustion of life. The most basic laws of preservation and growth require the
opposite: that everyone should invent his own virtues, his own categorical
imperatives. A people is destroyed when it confuses its own duty with
the concept of duty in general. Nothing ruins us more profoundly or
inwardly than 'impersonal' duty, or any sacrifice in front of the Moloch of
abstraction. - To think that people did not sense the mortal danger posed
by Kant's categorical imperative! ... The theologian instinct was the
only thing that came to its defence!

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/Lose...dols & Other Writings Friedrich Nietzsche.pdf
 
Cypress said:
Our minds start out as blank slates, so to the extent we are "thinking for ourselves" it is almost entirely based on what we learned, read, digested, or considered from the work and ideas of others.
Click to expand...

I disagree, all my past lives incidents are in there,not always easy to find them,but it's possible.
At 8 years old I did the math of time between wars,because I didn't want to go to war ,for the 4th time in a row.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
While I believe the Truth is out there, it seems presumptuous to demand a deity to do a job for you.

What happened to free agency? Personal accountability? The self-respect that goes with it?
Click to expand...

Demand ? No, simply taking him up on the offer.

Besides, who better to go to than the source for understanding ?

The "personal accountability" is wanting to get it right.
 
Cypress said:
Humans have the free will to act on a moral conscience, or not. Putin chooses to not act on moral conscience because he is a criminal.

The moral conscience of the world is shocked by once vibrant Ukranian cities reduced to smouldering piles of ash.

Putin even hides this information from Russian citizens because even he knows it would shock their conscience.

I don't think we had to be socially trained to be shocked by smouldering, leveled cities.

That right there tells you there is a moral standard our conscience makes comparisons to. If there wasn't some kind of transcendent moral code, then we would agree that might makes right is a perfectly acceptable ethical activity. We would agree everything is relative and subjective.

Click to expand...

'Moral Standard'. Yes.
"transcendent moral code". No.

That's where the 'We're here on the tiny Mudball flying through space and time all by ourselves' differs from the 'We're all God's Children' schism.
The first group believes it's ALL IN OUR HANDS.
The second group keeps looking around for the 'HIGHER INTELLIGENCE' to step in and sort things out.
It's like the second group (like you) looks around, sees Humans like themselves, and says: "Holy Shit! We're all gonna' fucking die!".
 
Jack said:
'Moral Standard'. Yes.
"transcendent moral code". No.

That's where the 'We're here on the tiny Mudball flying through space and time all by ourselves' differs from the 'We're all God's Children' schism.
The first group believes it's ALL IN OUR HANDS.
The second group keeps looking around for the 'HIGHER INTELLIGENCE' to step in and sort things out.
It's like the second group (like you) looks around, sees Humans like themselves, and says: "Holy Shit! We're all gonna' fucking die!".
Click to expand...

What is the point of being Christian if you cannot feel superior to others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top