LIFE RELIGION FAMILY

a place to come and discuss in peace, things of religion, life, and families

SOCRATES, PLATO, ARISTOTLE, ROUSEAU AND…. MORALTITY

Posted by tawodi on March 25, 2012


For years I, and others, have argued that morality and more importantly, Conscience, are inextricably interlinked. In these arguments we are told that secular humanism can supply the same morals that religion does….which I and others agree with….to a degree.

In really delving into the ramifications of all these arguments though, I have always felt the pieces missing to the debate and have been unable to quantify just why.

A few months ago I stumbled on something and it is this.

Why not, as is so often done, turn their arguments back upon those who do the same to us….with such telling results, in some circumstances.

I continued to consider this and came to the conclusion that I just wanted T i t for tat, and that is no argument what-so-ever. It is specious sophistry at the very best.

Sophistry…. !!WHAM!!…. Holy Hannah!! that’s IT!

Sophistry comes from the NAME, Sophocles, another great Philosopher, do the research and then refute it using their own presentations.

How to do that honestly….honesty being of paramount importance in any debate, or argument, as the logical fallacies that are perhaps introduced by yourself, will utterly defeat your own presentation.

So first, let us begin with,

SOCRATES; He posited that the knowledge of right and wrong, is what makes us accountable for our actions. conversely, he posits that moral faults are the consequence of ignorance of the “Good”.

PLATO; Also subscribed to this as well, in as much as he surmised that whoever knows the “good”…. will do it!

This is, pointedly, the projection of their own goodness onto humanity in general, and palpably, factually and provably, FALSE.

ARISTOTLE; He posited that morality could not stem from this and pointed to another analysis in his refutation their premise and and gave his own presentation of this logical fallacy.

Aristotelian Philosophy being some what more logical in presentation, and fact, does come closer to the mark, in that he posited that this was, by simple observation, wrong As those so instructed still chose to do wrong!

He surmised that there were four basic divisions of morality and they were constructed as follows. Virtuous, restrained….unrestrained and vicious….in descending order.

VIRTUOUS; Those who do good spontaneously and happily.

RESTRAINED; Those who do good, but only after much huffing and puffing, strutting and posing. In short, internal argument with their conscience.

UNRESTRAINED; These are the ones who know what they should do but give in to their passions and weakness and do wrong, with very little conscious conflict.

VICIOUS; Those who, when confronted with a choice, will do evil with absolutely no internal conflict with conscience, felt or even experienced!

His presentation of these four “groups,” broken down as it is, and then condensed to two categories, lays itself open to defeat seriatum, because any argument from the general to the specific, fails because there are ALWAYS exceptions to the general presentation. which leads to defeat seriatum…(in detail)

Now let us examine this further.

In his presentation we can see the progression of the classes with this simple example.

Your mother calls down to you and asks you to bring her, her purse. It is to be found on the kitchen counter and her wallet is beside it. You put the wallet in it and bring it to her.
VIRTUOUS; He will go and bring her the purse with no second thoughts.

RESTRAINED; He will see the wallet and know it has money in it looks inside and, the conflict begins! How much can he get away with? Any? Some? ALL!? And around, and around, he goes until finally…. he puts the money back, puts the wallet in the purse and brings it to her.

UNRESTRAINED; the same argument ocures as above BUT! He decides to take a dollar as he surmises she will never miss just a buck for Pete’s sake! obviously consumed by his weakness and passions for personal gain at whomever’s expense.

VICIOUS; Goes gets the purse,sees the wallet, empties it throws the wallet in the garbage grinder waits a moment and brings her the purse…. wallet? WHAT wallet mom? No internal conflict here! Nope, nu uh, none!

AND NOW TA DA!!; We have good old…..

ROUSEAU; He’s the one who came up with the good old “Bon Suavage”. In this treatise he posits that it is only by association in, and with, society in general we lose our sense of “goodness”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is self contradictory, as it belies the FACT that it is that same society that GIVES us religion and morality concepts of the day, and time, and culture we live in!! Talk about a logical fallacy!!

When Capt. Cook was EATEN in Hawaii was that the example of Le Bon Suavage?

When James Town was wiped out, OR The people on Roanoke disappeared, another example of Le Bon Suavage? Dearborn in Illinois, Another?

Well THIS could be given as the evolutionary bon sauvage but certainly NOT the religious example of conscience.

Now let us move into the area of Religious morals and secular, humanistic moral relativism.

In religious morals, some things are always good and some things are always wrong. It is in life that the application becomes difficult, as then we have to deal with realities and the consequence to others feelings, actions, reception of our choices, and the consequences to them if what we, or they, did was illegal and now they, or us, may have to face punishment.

It is important to note here, that so far, I have not used the word “sin” or “sinful”. In my mind they are, rightfully, able to be juxtaposed, one with another at any time. I don’t like to use the word “sin” as it is a “trigger word” to many and especially Atheists…or Humanists and they stop listening, or thinking, when they hear them. For which, really, they can’t be blamed. The same way the religious react when we are called, superstitious congenital idiots!

Kinda self defeating, trying to communicate with people that way… ain’t it!?

LAW…Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism ;

Secular Humanism assumes that human beings can, with no guidance from any supreme being, create laws that will guide us the same way.

They also assume that these self same “laws” will form the “New Human Conscience” for the future. They then tell us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THEY WILL BROOK NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS…. “TRUTH”……You can not legislate morals!!!

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY!?!

BZZZZ…BZZZZ…..BZZZZTTT LOGICAL FALLACY… LOGICAL FALLACY…. LOGICAL FALLACY!!

If morals can not be legislated, then just what the hell are you doing????

Can you legislate a conscience? Can you legislate right and wrong feelings? Can you legislate things that are free of black and white and apply this morality where none ever have attempted to be so arrogant?? Or… been successful at before in all of human history?

In your world of “moral relativism” we know damned well what the results are! We see them every flipping day! Children murdered by their parents and others and given a pass, sometimes set free, Why? Because they, (the murderers) were found not responsible. People being murdered in our streets and those responsible are made victims, because their mom’s took away their tinker toys when they were twelve, or some other such… CRAP!

Or the ones who chop up their families with an axe and they have the excuse that they were abused! THIS is what moral relativism brings us, all this and more.

Because people are no longer struggling with their conscience…. THEY DON’T HAVE ONE!! It has been nearly legislated away….Why?…. Well ya see… it’s like this, cultural relativism teaches us that in our culture others may find our beliefs wrong…and that is so…but then we are to take into account those people in our laws and then try and craft a society from the result? GOOD LUCK! HOW’S THAT WORKIN’ FOR YA SO FAR?

O.K.  Since we have been the single most successful nation to ever grace the earth and are the ones that are always counted on to bring succor to the suffering, freedom to the oppressed, and all those other things that have been  demanded of us by the Europeans, and others, when, and where, did we become so frigging EVIL!!

I would suggest to you it began in the early sixties when the intelligentsia finally gave custody of the asylums, schools and other institutions, over to the insane…or at least the young, with skulls full of mush, who didn’t KNOW didlly squat and because they hit people in their liberal guilt, they were successful in doing so!

So inform us please, Oh Great Ones, just WHAT are we to replace a well formed fully functioning and well integrated conscience…. WITH!

Because here’s the rub…where does conscience come from? Are you going to tell me it just evolved? Well then where did it devolve.. to… in just the last thirty five years!? I mean come ON…if it evolved, then we took millions of years to do so…right? Or as we see now, some in their desparation to remove belief in some supreme being are running shows AD NAUSEUM ALL OVER TELEVISION THAT [I]ALIENS Are responsible for all our gains as human beings and our “legends of Gods”.

I see this as being more desperate than a horni sailor after closing time in a bar! You expect to bring this as your argument now!?! O.K. give it a shot….you will probably be just as successful as you have been trying to eradicate religion in the past.

Your offerings and arguments have fallen far short of the mark….just sayin’

Be well friends…..Rev. Bruce…………………………..Tawodi

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: