Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences?

   >>>The principle (and/or innate sense) is 'killing a member of the ingroup
   >>>needs justification.' Where to draw the line between ingroup and
   >>>outgroup is a matter of knowledge, education, etc.

  >>That is certainly not from God at least not the Christian God.

 >What isn't?

the outgroup thing. Everyone is in the ingroup. (Love your enemies)

 >Meat-eaters and military people say: "Well, the real Hebrew
 >commandment didn't say 'Thou shalt not kill' it just said 'Thou shalt
 >not murder'. There were two words, one for killing in general and one
 >for murder, and it is the word for murder that is used."

But this is OT, the NT is much more demanding. (Do not return evil for evil)

Natural Law is not God's law, so where does it come from? I would say from the
same place Baldur comes from, an imperfect vision of the Truth.


Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On 27 Jul 2003 23:58:11 GMT, darylgene.RemoveThis@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:

   >>>>The principle (and/or innate sense) is 'killing a member of the ingroup
   >>>>needs justification.' Where to draw the line between ingroup and
   >>>>outgroup is a matter of knowledge, education, etc.
 >
   >>>That is certainly not from God at least not the Christian God.
 >
  >>What isn't?
 >
 >the outgroup thing. Everyone is in the ingroup. (Love your enemies)

While pre-emptivelly bombing your possible future enemies? Sorry, but I
think you just made an argument for a pacificism I don't think you hold,
unless you've recently changed.


  >>Meat-eaters and military people say: "Well, the real Hebrew
  >>commandment didn't say 'Thou shalt not kill' it just said 'Thou shalt
  >>not murder'. There were two words, one for killing in general and one
  >>for murder, and it is the word for murder that is used."
 >
 >But this is OT, the NT is much more demanding. (Do not return evil for evil)

Do you oppose execution of criminals?

Lewis seemed to consider there to have been some advances around NT
time. ABOLITION p. 58. This might have included extending the ingroup to
Samaritans etc.

However there is still an out and ingroup, even if the line is between
humans and non-humans. It's just a question of what species to draw it
between, instead of what races. Which is still a question of knowledge,
facts.

Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

 > m RemoveThis @mooreeffoc.com writes:



  >>the outgroup thing. Everyone is in the ingroup. (Love your enemies)
 >
 >
 >While pre-emptivelly bombing your possible future enemies? Sorry, but I
 >think you just made an argument for a pacificism I don't think you hold,
 >unless you've recently changed.

I would there were peace in the world, perhaps I AM a strange sort of pacifist.
The bombing possible future ememies is an oversimplification of a complex
problem, I desire no one's death, I know that creature, it is ugly.

 >Do you oppose execution of criminals?

That is another hard question. There are a lot of good arguments on both sides.
I oppose taking any life guilty or innocent, but we need to protect the
innocent first. Does execution do that, I am just not sure, so I would, for the
time at least, oppose execution.

 >Lewis seemed to consider there to have been some advances around NT
 >time. ABOLITION p. 58. This might have included extending the ingroup to
 >Samaritans etc.

 >However there is still an out and ingroup, even if the line is between
 >humans and non-humans. It's just a question of what species to draw it
 >between, instead of what races. Which is still a question of knowledge,
 >facts.
 >
Indeed, but we are not commanded to love our cattle. Not that we should
mistreat them, but there is a difference.




Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:51:06 GMT, m.DeleteThis@mooreeffoc.com wrote:
 >However there is still an out and ingroup, even if the line is between
 >humans and non-humans.

In groups and out groups are irrelevant categories.

 > It's just a question of what species to draw it
 >between, instead of what races.

Ergo, wrong question.

 >Which is still a question of knowledge,
 >facts.


If morality was a question of knowledge and facts then morality tables
could be drawn up. Any grade schooler could memorize them along with
the multiplication tables. So simple. Oh so simple.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

 >Lewis has some very sceptical things to say about what people call
 >'conscience'. He talks about Inquisitors being worse than Robber Barons
 >because the Inquisitors are doing evil at the bidding of their
 >conscience, thus less likely to stop it. (MC?)

Was it conscience or something opposite?

A<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

m.TakeThisOut@mooreeffoc.com wrote in message news:<5c58731f2ce857ff334f27838619798a.TakeThisOut@free.teranews.com>...

 > Lewis has some very sceptical things to say about what people call
 > 'conscience'. He talks about Inquisitors being worse than Robber Barons
 > because the Inquisitors are doing evil at the bidding of their
 > conscience, thus less likely to stop it. (MC?)
 >
You are thinking of "A Reply to Professor Haldane". "The inquisitor [...]
will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of
his own conscience..." Perhaps one should say his *social conscience*,
since Lewis goes on to acknowledge that the inquisitor may have
"better impulses" which he conscientiously suppresses. I suppose these
impulses to be a matter of his private conscience.

I have explained in several previous messages why I don't find
Lewis' arguments in favor of Natural Law particularly convincing---
unpleasant though it is to find myself in the same boat with that Johnson
fellow. There is some evidence that true colorblindness in the moral
spectrum, as in the electromagnetic, may admit a purely
biological explanation. Oliver Sacks has some interesting things
to say on this subject. So the near-universality of conscience may
be nothing but evidence that most of us have more or less intact
minds. As to what our consciences tell us, however,
Pope's dictum on watches applies. Given that social morality also
differs in different times and different places, it is hard to know
where to look for evidence for a Platonic Ideal of conduct.

-Michael Larsen<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:10:32 -0400, AJA <ahnemann DeleteThis @microdsi.net> wrote:

  >>Lewis has some very sceptical things to say about what people call
  >>'conscience'. He talks about Inquisitors being worse than Robber Barons
  >>because the Inquisitors are doing evil at the bidding of their
  >>conscience, thus less likely to stop it. (MC?)
 >
 > Was it conscience or something opposite?


If we must have a tyrant a robber
baron is far better than an inquisitor. .... But
the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power
and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because
he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his
better impulses appear to him as temptations.
Of Other Worlds, p. 81.

Checked that one against the book. Dunno about the following:

Nothing gives one a more spuriously good conscience than keeping
rules, even if there has been a total absence of all real charity
and faith.
Unpublished letter (20 February 1955).

Haven't found the one about a conscience needing to be updated (as we'd
say) after war rationiong to no longer feel guilty about wasting paper.


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On 28 Jul 2003 13:00:22 -0700, larsen.RemoveThis@math.indiana.edu (Michael Larsen)
wrote:

 >m@mooreeffoc.com wrote in message news:<5c58731f2ce857ff334f27838619798a.RemoveThis@free.teranews.com>...
 >
  >> Lewis has some very sceptical things to say about what people call
  >> 'conscience'. He talks about Inquisitors being worse than Robber Barons
  >> because the Inquisitors are doing evil at the bidding of their
  >> conscience, thus less likely to stop it. (MC?)
  >>
 >You are thinking of "A Reply to Professor Haldane". "The inquisitor [...]
 >will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of
 >his own conscience..."

Yes, page 81 in OF OTHER WORLDS.

 > Perhaps one should say his *social conscience*,
 >since Lewis goes on to acknowledge that the inquisitor may have
 >"better impulses" which he conscientiously suppresses. I suppose these
 >impulses to be a matter of his private conscience.

Sounds to me like Lewis means what he says.

"But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and
fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely becuase he
torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better
impulses appear to him as temptations."


 >I have explained in several previous messages why I don't find
 >Lewis' arguments in favor of Natural Law particularly convincing---
 >unpleasant though it is to find myself in the same boat with that Johnson
 >fellow.

What about Daryl? He's no troll.


 >There is some evidence that true colorblindness in the moral
 >spectrum, as in the electromagnetic, may admit a purely
 >biological explanation.

Would that take us back to Slyfoot's quote from page 18 of MC,
"colour-blind or have no ear for a tune"?


 > Oliver Sacks has some interesting things
 >to say on this subject. So the near-universality of conscience may
 >be nothing but evidence that most of us have more or less intact
 >minds. As to what our consciences tell us, however,
 >Pope's dictum on watches applies. Given that social morality also
 >differs in different times and different places, it is hard to know
 >where to look for evidence for a Platonic Ideal of conduct.

Mm. What's a Platonic Ideal of a balanced meal, considering that
cuisines vary in different times and different places?


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

m.TakeThisOut@mooreeffoc.com wrote in message news:<0f8eb4ed89f0275ce98eaf61577c0900.TakeThisOut@free.teranews.com>...
 > On 28 Jul 2003 13:00:22 -0700, larsen.TakeThisOut@math.indiana.edu (Michael Larsen)
 > wrote:
 >
  > > Perhaps one should say his *social conscience*,
  > >since Lewis goes on to acknowledge that the inquisitor may have
  > >"better impulses" which he conscientiously suppresses. I suppose these
  > >impulses to be a matter of his private conscience.

 > Sounds to me like Lewis means what he says.
 >
Nor do I disagree with him. I just think we need a word for the faculty
which produces those "better impulses" (unless we believe they come from
outside the individual soul). The usual word, as far as I can see, is
"conscience". So to avoid confusion I stuck on adjectives. If you
prefer a different word, such as "empathy", I don't object.
 >
 > What about Daryl? He's no troll.
 >
I am in partial agreement with Daryl in this thread as in many others.
 >
  > >There is some evidence that true colorblindness in the moral
  > >spectrum, as in the electromagnetic, may admit a purely
  > >biological explanation.
 >
 > Would that take us back to Slyfoot's quote from page 18 of MC,
 > "colour-blind or have no ear for a tune"?
 >
This was exactly the distinction I was trying to make. Let's stipulate
that a conscience is part of the equipment of a healthy human being. Is
that evidence of a fixed moral law which our consciences (imperfectly
perhaps) mirror? Lewis, good Platonist that he is, believes so.
I don't feel the force of the argument, but perhaps somebody who does
could explain it.
 >
  > >Given that social morality also
  > >differs in different times and different places, it is hard to know
  > >where to look for evidence for a Platonic Ideal of conduct.
 >
 > Mm. What's a Platonic Ideal of a balanced meal, considering that
 > cuisines vary in different times and different places?

Good example! I don't find the Platonic Ideal of a meal to be a helpful
or necessary concept, and I could not take seriously a dietition who
taught that by taking vitamins, we acknowledge that our actual meals
are falling short of that Ideal. If Lewis were saying that it is better
to get our vitamins from food than from a bottle, that there may be
valuable nutruents in good food that we have not yet identified, that
our diet could surely be improved by a return to the habits of a more
primitive age---then I would give him a sympathetic hearing. But then he
wouldn't be Lewis, would he?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On 28 Jul 2003 13:00:22 -0700, larsen.TakeThisOut@math.indiana.edu (Michael
Larsen) wrote:

 >I have explained in several previous messages why I don't find
 >Lewis' arguments in favor of Natural Law particularly convincing---

On Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences. Psychologist Lawrence Kolhberg
is good with Justice Perspective. And Carol Gilligan is better with
Care Perspective. But Justice and Care concerns are present in every
'normal' person regardless of culture and age. Differing worldview's
explain that fact differently, of course.
More than exactly how we classify actions as good or bad, I'm
interested in the fact that we classify actions as good or bad at all.
On what basis do we do this? That's the question Lewis is speaking
to. For Lewis, the question of the Standard (Chapter One of MC) is the
same as whether or not God is and/or just _how_ God is- ex machina or
dwells among us.
 > Given that social morality also
 >differs in different times and different places, it is hard to know
 >where to look for evidence for a Platonic Ideal of conduct.
Lewis says we certainly can't find it in ourselves alone.

Best,
Ann<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

On 29 Jul 2003 04:31:06 -0700, larsen RemoveThis @math.indiana.edu (Michael
Larsen) wrote to Mary:

  >> Would that take us back to Slyfoot's quote from page 18 of MC,
  >> "colour-blind or have no ear for a tune"?
  >>
 >This was exactly the distinction I was trying to make. Let's stipulate
 >that a conscience is part of the equipment of a healthy human being. Is
 >that evidence of a fixed moral law which our consciences (imperfectly
 >perhaps) mirror? Lewis, good Platonist that he is, believes so.
 >I don't feel the force of the argument, but perhaps somebody who does
 >could explain it.

It's not that he's merely a good Platonist- he's a good Christian.
The eidos of Form may be Greek, and various forms of good pointed to
in AoM, but there came an idea in the deserts of the middle east an
idea that Good was a person and the Logos is the bridge. In MC Lewis
doesn't get to that until Book IV, Beyond Personality Or First Steps
in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Which is just as well, perhaps. Lots a radio listeners probably never
got beyond their own personality.

 >Good example! I don't find the Platonic Ideal of a meal to be a helpful
 >or necessary concept,

Depends on what kind of meal, no? Bread and wine, living water that
one drinks and thirsts not? Even the Greeks suspected that hemlock
wasn't the end game. Human kind apparently has always felt they had a
special role in life, and that there was something beyond themselves
and that something was worth dying for. Evidence of amulets, Clovis
points, garlands and trinkets in prehistoric graves in the Bordeaux
region of France. Cave paintings in Lascaux and Spain. If not firing
of human cerebral cortexes in worship of other.
What is the point of MC? Not the odd person who is colorblind or tone
deaf, but the basic and fundamental decency of people. Take the
argument that there is no standard of good to the end. If not that,
what would remain? What is we all began behaving in all ages and all
cultures as though there was no standard beyond the individual
personality for good. Oryx and Crake.

Best,
Ann<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

In haste...


On 29 Jul 2003 04:31:06 -0700, larsen.RemoveThis@math.indiana.edu (Michael Larsen)
wrote:

 >m@mooreeffoc.com wrote in message news:<0f8eb4ed89f0275ce98eaf61577c0900.RemoveThis@free.teranews.com>...
  >> On 28 Jul 2003 13:00:22 -0700, larsen.RemoveThis@math.indiana.edu (Michael Larsen)
  >> wrote:
  >>
   >> > Perhaps one should say his *social conscience*,
   >> >since Lewis goes on to acknowledge that the inquisitor may have
   >> >"better impulses" which he conscientiously suppresses. I suppose these
   >> >impulses to be a matter of his private conscience.
 >
  >> Sounds to me like Lewis means what he says.
  >>
 >Nor do I disagree with him. I just think we need a word for the faculty
 >which produces those "better impulses" (unless we believe they come from
 >outside the individual soul). The usual word, as far as I can see, is
 >"conscience". So to avoid confusion I stuck on adjectives. If you
 >prefer a different word, such as "empathy", I don't object.

I'd have probably agreed if you'd said "orthodox indoctriination" vs
"empathy/common sense" or something like that.

The term 'social conscience' in Lewis's day I think had something to do
with favoring Socialism. Now it seems to refer to empathy, caring
for the sick, etc.

/snip/

   >> >There is some evidence that true colorblindness in the moral
   >> >spectrum, as in the electromagnetic, may admit a purely
   >> >biological explanation.
  >>
  >> Would that take us back to Slyfoot's quote from page 18 of MC,
  >> "colour-blind or have no ear for a tune"?
  >>
 >This was exactly the distinction I was trying to make. Let's stipulate
 >that a conscience is part of the equipment of a healthy human being. Is
 >that evidence of a fixed moral law which our consciences (imperfectly
 >perhaps) mirror?

Kind of losing me here.

 > Lewis, good Platonist that he is, believes so.
 >I don't feel the force of the argument, but perhaps somebody who does
 >could explain it.
  >>
   >> >Given that social morality also
   >> >differs in different times and different places, it is hard to know
   >> >where to look for evidence for a Platonic Ideal of conduct.
  >>
  >> Mm. What's a Platonic Ideal of a balanced meal, considering that
  >> cuisines vary in different times and different places?
 >
 >Good example! I don't find the Platonic Ideal of a meal to be a helpful
 >or necessary concept, and I could not take seriously a dietition who
 >taught that by taking vitamins, we acknowledge that our actual meals
 >are falling short of that Ideal.

What do we acknowledge by taking a multiple vitamin every day, then?


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences? 

m RemoveThis @mooreeffoc.com wrote in message news:<5669758e4806d727c623ed0f36685b69 RemoveThis @free.teranews.com>...
 > In haste...
 >
 >
 > On 29 Jul 2003 04:31:06 -0700, larsen RemoveThis @math.indiana.edu (Michael Larsen)
 > wrote:

  > >Nor do I disagree with him. I just think we need a word for the faculty
  > >which produces those "better impulses" (unless we believe they come from
  > >outside the individual soul). The usual word, as far as I can see, is
  > >"conscience". So to avoid confusion I stuck on adjectives. If you
  > >prefer a different word, such as "empathy", I don't object.
 >
 > I'd have probably agreed if you'd said "orthodox indoctriination" vs
 > "empathy/common sense" or something like that.
 >
Actually, I'd put common sense on the other side of the divide I was
proposing (or to be honest, borrowing, specifically from Ursula Le Guin).
The "common" part of sense reminds us that it is shared with the
society. In a society of heretic-burners, common sense will not tug at
the sleeve of an inquisitor. Empathy (or even mere squeamishness,
a quality which Lewis appreciated) just may.

  > >This was exactly the distinction I was trying to make. Let's stipulate
  > >that a conscience is part of the equipment of a healthy human being. Is
  > >that evidence of a fixed moral law which our consciences (imperfectly
  > >perhaps) mirror?
 >
 > Kind of losing me here.
 >
I'll try one more time. Let's use your example of food. We'll do this
as a dialogue. I will be the Idealist (Lewis, if you will) and S will be
the skeptic.

I: You agree that your diet is in some respects lacking?
S: Yes. That's why I take vitamins.
I: So you admit that your diet could be improved.
S: Yes. I need some nutrients which I'm not getting in my food.
I: And other people who may eat different foods than you also
need the same vitamins. Their diets are also imperfect, and
you and they are aiming toward a common goal.
S: Yes, none of us has a perfect diet.
I: AH! Then you do see what I'm talking about---that perfect
diet you just mentioned.
S: No, that was just a trick of language. What I meant was that
my diet could be improved and the same is probably true for
others, not that there exists a perfect diet and we are failing
to follow it.
I: But what is the goal toward which you are striving when you try
to improve your eating habits?
S: Better health. Not a particular Ultimate diet.
I: Yet you admit that people from other countries and people
from other times all have the same basic dietary needs.
And isn't that just what you would expect if there were
an ideal diet?
S: Yes, but it's also what I would expect just from the fact that we
are members of the same species. Of course we all need protein,
and we all need B vitamins.
I: Exactly, we all need the same things. An ideal diet is the one that
provides those things.
S: We have certain basic needs in common. But I have individual
needs, because I am neither hypertensive nor diabetic, because
I am unfortunately not an athlete, because I live in a temperate
climate, because I have a low body mass index, and so on. Also,
because I am an American, I don't want to eat wichety grubs,
even if they are perfectly good for me.
I: Well obviously wichety grubs wouldn't be part of the ideal diet.
S: Nothing about the ideal diet is obvious to me.

-Michael Larsen<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Colorblind or Tonedeaf Consciences?