Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:09:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
635 times
|
| |
|
|
In response to "Tom Stangl" <toms@netscape.com> in message
news:3A3E5530.B9A803BC@netscape.com...
Tom,
Recently you responded to something I wrote as follows:
> > The fact is that you've cited artificial changes -
> > changes requiring intervention - to human biology
> > to achieve the ends you've described. So if
> > homosexuals were genetically or otherwise altered
> > to reproduce among themselves, would homosexual
> > relations still be immoral? Yes, they would.
>
> This brings up a larger argument - are these changes
> "artificial"?
>
> I contend they are not. Evolution can come in many
> forms, and we are simply accelerating it with our own
> discoveries. If those changes are created by humans,
> contend they are not "artificial". "External influences
> to our evolution", maybe, but not artificial.
I agree completely with your assessment, Tom, in that it raises a "larger
question" as you put it. I had framed my comments to address just such a
concern, in the passage immediately below what you had responded to:
> > This is, inevitably, the *nature* question which you
> > raised earlier, but apparently overlooked in your
> > counterarguments. Note that Jesus cited the order of
> > creation (male, female, "one flesh") to make his argument
> > against divorce. There is an "ought to be"-ness or
> > teleology to human nature not subject to the whims of
> > technology.
And to this, you responded with:
> Why? Why should we limit ourselves so severely?
We don't "limit ourselves" severely at all if there is a teleology to human
nature - if we are to operate within certain design parameters; going beyond
those parameters would be limiting in that it would be inherently
destructive. Realizing the goods we are ordered to, on the other hand, is
what would be really fulfilling for us, rather than adopting whatever path
technology takes us down.
I'm wondering exactly what state in which you could find yourself, in which
you would not be severely limited in some sense. Rationality, for example,
limits one severely in its rejection of incoherent, unfounded beliefs. But
is this really a limitation? We understand intuitively that some
"limitations" are perfective rather than stifling, and I think a similar
understanding holds in relation to humanity; we reach a state of perfection
or completion in realizing the goods that are built in to our nature.
And here, I think, is another example of the teleology I've been describing.
I'll attempt to tie it into our culture: When U.S. Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott was asked whether or not homosexuality was a sin, Lott replied,
"Yeah, it is. You should still love that person. You should try not to
mistreat them as outcasts. You should show them a way to deal with that
problem, just like alcohol or sex. There are all kinds of problems,
addictions, difficulties, experiences of things that are wrong, but you
should try to work with that person to learn how to control that problem."
The response, in light of our discussion, was interesting to watch. The
White House called Lott "backward in his thinking" and various other
commentators implied that Lott and others who believe that homosexuality is
immoral were ignorant (of the facts, and more generally), and so on and so
forth.
But if there is no Nature to human nature, then there is no objective
purpose to our faculties, either. With this in mind, Lott could have
responded to the moral indignation expressed by saying something like, "I'm
ignorant, but that's the alternative lifestyle I've chosen," or, "I was born
with ignorance in my genes, so don't criticize me for it." Why can't he
justify his remarks by appealing to his heredity? And why see a need for
such justification-whose standard is he being held up to, anyway? Can't he
define what "the good" is for his mental (and moral) life?
If not, then we have an objective standard apparently built-in to human
nature for our mental lives - something we should strive for in our
thinking. It seems special pleading to me to suggest that this is the only
thing for which such a standard exists.
Finally, technology can't redefine all aspects of the person; in other
words, there are immaterial (nonphysical) features to human beings that are
not subject to our intervention, as our bodies are. In my view, the soul
informs the physical development of human beings (and other living
creatures) such that manipulation of the physical through technology could
result in an incompatibility in that dualism (immaterial soul, physical
body) that would be very destructive to the subject.
I went on to suggest another example of our recognition of teleology:
> > Here's the other side of the coin: It's also possible
> > with technology to breed paralytics, those blind/deaf/dumb,
> > or people missing their limbs or other bodily systems.
> > Is an individual who has been genetically altered to
> > be blind entitled to their sight in some way? Are they
> > genuinely missing something?
You responded with, "If they request it, yes...If they believe they are,
yes. If they believe they are not, then no. It's not up to anyone but THEM
to decide."
Applying this to Lott's case, I think we arrive at the conclusions I
outlined above: "If Lott believes that he is not missing out on something
[intellectually and/or morally], he is not. It's not up to anyone but HIM
to decide."
Turning to the more specific point, I personally find it odd that you are
willing to say that if a person's sight were genetically eliminated by other
human beings that there would be no sense of the individual missing
something. I think that most people would understand that to be crippling
to the individual, if not a great injustice.
More than that, your position would logically lead to the fact that if we
could genetically breed individuals _without certain desires_, there would
be no obligation on our part to see that they were outfitted with those
features (of whatever kind) that they might be without due to our
intervention. Again, I find this counterintuitive.
Would you also, based upon someone's desires (according to what you've said
above), put as much weight into someone's "entitlement" to having, say, eyes
surgically installed in their palms, or three additional pairs of arms being
attached to their sides, as you would applying medical technology to help a
blind person see? Are you willing to say that one is not more deserving
than the other?
Finally, you wrote:
> BTW, I'm getting kind of tired of everyone stating
> Christian Morality as something that just popped
> into existence in the Bible, like it never existed
> before then. Pishtosh. True Morality (capital M)
> existed long before Christians wrote it down, they
> can't lay claim to it as being Their Idea.
The Bible says as much, Todd. As far as I know, no Christians believe that
it "popped into existence" when the ink and paper of the Scriptures finally
met. Paul, for example, speaks to this point in the first chapter of
Romans. What I've articulated so far finds a great deal of support from
thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others in the Western Tradition.
The greatest contribution of Augustine and Aquinas was their synthesis - the
"finding coherence between" - of Christian belief and the works of Plato and
Aristotle, respectively. So both the Bible and the tradition of the church
acknowledge a Morality that can and is known at some level by all men
(typically referred to as general revelation by theologians) apart from
Scripture.
Of course, I do believe that the TM is (ideal) Christian morality, but
everyone has to take a position at some point; the question is always, Which
worldview is true? Which provides an adequate ontological account of that
morality?
Do you believe in a "True Morality" - capital "M"?
Thanks for your interest. Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) You must not have talked to very many blind people. Many consider it an inconvenience, not crippling. Only the blind can truly state whether it is crippling or not, and that on a personal basis. (...) Good luck breeding/not breeding desires (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| (...) This brings up a larger argument - are these changes "artificial"? I contend they are not. Evolution can come in many forms, and we are simply accelerating it with our own discoveries. If those changes are created by humans, I contend they are (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
