tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post9187534483009861821..comments2024-03-08T16:52:11.999-06:00Comments on APOLOGIA: The Dalai Lama, moral truth, and the need for careful thinkingHendrik van der Breggenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-28276334652390257652011-07-13T20:06:15.459-05:002011-07-13T20:06:15.459-05:00Hi Daryl,
Thanks for letting me know about your p...Hi Daryl,<br /><br />Thanks for letting me know about your plan to develop one of my thoughts, and thanks for the information on how to find the YouTube debate you mention – I'll have a look when time permits. <br /><br />You raise questions concerning the effect on ethics of underlying philosophical-theological positions. Here's my attempt at an answer.<br /><br />I think that an underlying philosophical-theological position can have the effect of undermining or supporting our moral perceptions. My perception that, say, rape really is morally wrong constitutes first-order (pre-theoretic) knowledge that rape really is wrong. As C. S. Lewis would say (as he says in <i>Miracles</i>), I "just see" it. That is, I have a moral-rational intuition: I see <i>that</i> rape is wrong. So far, so good. Now, enter philosophical-theological—second-order—explanation of the first-order, perceptual knowledge. Second-order explanation tells us <i>why</i> rape is wrong. We see <i>that</i> it's wrong; then we try to <i>account</i> for what we see. Significantly, second-order explanation can compete with the first-order perception and undermine it, or the second-order explanation can justify the first-order perception and support it. For example, I might initially see that rape is deeply and truly wrong, but after coming to believe that there is no God, that morals are merely agreements between the powerful, and that there actually isn't a real right or wrong, my initial moral intuition can be understood (by me) to be false and foisted onto me by society or by self-delusion (subjective preference). Or I might initially see that rape is deeply and truly wrong, and after coming to believe (via, say, a cumulative case argument) that God exists, that God created us, and that each human being is made in God's image and ought not to be abused, my initial perception can be understood (by me) to be an accurate perception of what is moral reality. So second-order philosophical-theological positions can either weaken (undermine) or strengthen (reinforce) first-order moral knowledge. Moreover, if a philosophical-theological position has trouble accounting for the truth of moral reality, then that counts against such a philosophical-theological position. But if a philosophical-theological position handles the truth of moral reality (i.e., such moral reality is expected on the position), that's a plank in favour of this position – but more would have to be argued to keep this philosophical-theological position from collapsing under philosophical-theological pressures to the contrary. Enter: The need for Christian apologetics.<br /><br />I hope that the above is helpful. For more on this topic, see my <a href="http://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2010/03/atheistic-darwinian-evolution-and.html" rel="nofollow">Apologia column "Atheistic Darwinian Evolution and Ethics" plus comments (March 12, 2010)</a>.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />HendrikHendrik van der Breggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-87491241074116996352011-07-08T11:51:30.225-05:002011-07-08T11:51:30.225-05:00I want to develop one of your thoughts in some of ...I want to develop one of your thoughts in some of my own teaching -- the effect on ethics of underlying philosophical positions. For example, I have been reading about the thological positions we call Calvinism and Wesleyan-Arminian. You can look for somethign called the great debate on youtube, adding "jerry walls" (who was a philosophy prof at Asbury at the time). My further question is "What difference does it make?" That is, what is the connection between such philosophical-theological positions and ethics? Thank you for stimulating my thinking.Climenheisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01989459133238230712noreply@blogger.com