To any of the new guys that may have accepted the invitation to join this blog - it was created for several of us to keep up on reading philosophy books that we had set out to finish. However, beyond that, we hope for it to be a resource for all of us to keep in touch, discuss any topics of interest, seek out resources and answers to questions, and continue to explore questions of faith.
Hope everybody is doing well and enjoying summer. Look forward to the conversation, and let me know if you have questions about anything.
-Mike
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Re: Responsibility
Sorry for the slow response. I'm in the midst of 5 weeks of living out of a suitcase and I won't have extremely regular access to the internet for a few more weeks.
I would agree that in some cases feelings of responsibility could be explained by wanting to maintain the status quo. I am more interested though in our judgment of another person's responsibility (rather than that persons feelings of responsibility), for instance when somebody punches us in the face unprovoked. Can we judge them as having done something wrong? I would say yes, and I would probably restore justice with a (much harder) punch back. But if the other guy is simply responding to biological impulses (and thus has no free will) I have no right to be mad at his blatant disregard for my superior strength and prowess, and cannot claim that he did anything wrong. This seems to be too much at-odds with my experience as a human.
The other events that can't be explained by the idea of the 'status quo responsibility' are the situations that we can look back on and proclaim to be wrong, for instance the case of a junior high kid in a group that bullies smaller kids. In this case can we assign any responsibility to the kid who, in an effort to maintain the status quo (and his popularity) goes along with the bullying? It seems clear to me that the better path would be for that kid to stand up to the bullies rather than following the status quo, but again we can't make that claim if he is just following biological/social influences.
I agree though that the amount of responsibility could be altered by some of the outside influences, but we can't make any judgments of people's behaviors if they don't have free will, and if we believe that there is no such thing, then we would be unfair to judge anyone's actions or punish criminals.
You're right that writing this stuff is much harder, not just b/c it's slower but b/c our errors are displayed for all to see. It's good for us though I'm sure.
Also, as we begin Introduction to Philosophy, here is a link for some background info about the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Maritain
And I'd like to propose a schedule for reading that will be pretty modest b/c I know everyone's busy, especially Mike. Let me know if you think I should change this at all. And Fraser, did you want me to mail the book to you?
Intro to Philosophy Reading schedule:
June 23: Through page 20
June 30: p. 40
July 7: 60
July 14: 80
July 21: 100
July 28: 120
Aug. 4: 140
Aug. 11: 160
Aug. 18: 180
Aug. 25: Review important parts, start next book, etc.
I would agree that in some cases feelings of responsibility could be explained by wanting to maintain the status quo. I am more interested though in our judgment of another person's responsibility (rather than that persons feelings of responsibility), for instance when somebody punches us in the face unprovoked. Can we judge them as having done something wrong? I would say yes, and I would probably restore justice with a (much harder) punch back. But if the other guy is simply responding to biological impulses (and thus has no free will) I have no right to be mad at his blatant disregard for my superior strength and prowess, and cannot claim that he did anything wrong. This seems to be too much at-odds with my experience as a human.
The other events that can't be explained by the idea of the 'status quo responsibility' are the situations that we can look back on and proclaim to be wrong, for instance the case of a junior high kid in a group that bullies smaller kids. In this case can we assign any responsibility to the kid who, in an effort to maintain the status quo (and his popularity) goes along with the bullying? It seems clear to me that the better path would be for that kid to stand up to the bullies rather than following the status quo, but again we can't make that claim if he is just following biological/social influences.
I agree though that the amount of responsibility could be altered by some of the outside influences, but we can't make any judgments of people's behaviors if they don't have free will, and if we believe that there is no such thing, then we would be unfair to judge anyone's actions or punish criminals.
You're right that writing this stuff is much harder, not just b/c it's slower but b/c our errors are displayed for all to see. It's good for us though I'm sure.
Also, as we begin Introduction to Philosophy, here is a link for some background info about the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Maritain
And I'd like to propose a schedule for reading that will be pretty modest b/c I know everyone's busy, especially Mike. Let me know if you think I should change this at all. And Fraser, did you want me to mail the book to you?
Intro to Philosophy Reading schedule:
June 23: Through page 20
June 30: p. 40
July 7: 60
July 14: 80
July 21: 100
July 28: 120
Aug. 4: 140
Aug. 11: 160
Aug. 18: 180
Aug. 25: Review important parts, start next book, etc.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Responsibility
Mitch,
I remember first long conversation about my beliefs of moral relativism, and you asked me what responsibility was. I did not have an answer. After discussing in detail why I have personally come to the conclusion that there is no universal moral truth, or rightness, you plainly asked me why people feel responsible, and I had no idea.
I was thinking about it today, and in a flash of insight, I came to the realization that perhaps feelings of responsibility are an inertia for wanting to maintain the status-quo. When one feels responsible for an event or person, they do so because they understand that their actions can affect that entity, oftentimes in a negative way. Because they may personally not want it to change, they in turn feel that they must calculate their actions to prevent "harm." Therefore, feelings of responsibility are simply an artifact of a culture's moral inventions, which has great control over individuals' decisions, as well has how they view themselves.
This, like the rest of my understanding of morality replaces the influence of some pre-ordained, universal, "God-given" truth, with the individual, who is essentially creating it on their own. Or, more appropriately, a society of people creates and controls this morality, while individuals who are a product of that society are enslaved by it (incidentally, perhaps to the same degree that they might be enslaved by a God who decreed responsibility and morality, because in both cases such standards are outside the control of the individual).
What do you think?
I think I should probably write up my original opinions on what morality is, for context, but I'm too afraid to, as I don't think I'm up to the task - speaking about something in a conversation is much more free-wheeling than trying to intelligently put it into words, for the scrutiny of others.
I remember first long conversation about my beliefs of moral relativism, and you asked me what responsibility was. I did not have an answer. After discussing in detail why I have personally come to the conclusion that there is no universal moral truth, or rightness, you plainly asked me why people feel responsible, and I had no idea.
I was thinking about it today, and in a flash of insight, I came to the realization that perhaps feelings of responsibility are an inertia for wanting to maintain the status-quo. When one feels responsible for an event or person, they do so because they understand that their actions can affect that entity, oftentimes in a negative way. Because they may personally not want it to change, they in turn feel that they must calculate their actions to prevent "harm." Therefore, feelings of responsibility are simply an artifact of a culture's moral inventions, which has great control over individuals' decisions, as well has how they view themselves.
This, like the rest of my understanding of morality replaces the influence of some pre-ordained, universal, "God-given" truth, with the individual, who is essentially creating it on their own. Or, more appropriately, a society of people creates and controls this morality, while individuals who are a product of that society are enslaved by it (incidentally, perhaps to the same degree that they might be enslaved by a God who decreed responsibility and morality, because in both cases such standards are outside the control of the individual).
What do you think?
I think I should probably write up my original opinions on what morality is, for context, but I'm too afraid to, as I don't think I'm up to the task - speaking about something in a conversation is much more free-wheeling than trying to intelligently put it into words, for the scrutiny of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)