From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 87


In article 70257, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) writes:
 
>In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca 
>(James Owens) writes:
 
>>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality 
>>is unknowable.
 
>Yep, that's pretty much it.    . . .
 
>. . .
 
>As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all 
>that was required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern
>Judaism) believed that the Torah was available for interpretation 
>to lead to an understanding of the required Morality in all its 
>nuances (->Talmud).
 
>The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an 
>interface between Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does
>not necessarily indicate anything about YHWH outside of that 
>relationship (although one can speculate).
 
>. . .
 
>. . . the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the 
>Bible to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess 
>this is where Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent 
>subjectiveness.
 
God being unknowable, I can't comment on His motives, but it would be
distressing if He allowed us to misunderstand Him through no fault of 
our own.  For sanity's sake we must assume, if we believe in Him at all,
that His message comes through somehow.  The question is whether it comes 
through immediately to every individual, or is contained in a complex 
canon that must be interpreted by experts in consultation with one another, 
or is transmitted directly through appointed representatives who are free
to interpret, extend and modify the canon.  If God's message is indeed
mediated, the further problem arises as to whether the individual under-
stands the mediated message fully and clearly.  Since the responsibility 
for understanding lies ultimately with the individual, we must assume that 
God in His benevolence guides each individual to the appropriate source 
for that individual, whereof the person may or may not drink. 
 
>>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.
 
>No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
>moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
>code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
>may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
>the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
>the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
>the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
>to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
>animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
>he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
>you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
>as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.
 
Your example is complicated in our age by the thin line between morality
and politeness.  You might have said "burp", for burping and swearing carry
about the same stigma today.  If you are talking about "taking the Lord's 
name in vain" as a serious transgression, then this example is more a case of 
hypocrisy than of varying moral codes.
 
If there is an absolute moral code, propositions or laws in that code apply
absolutely and universally, by definition.  Conceivably some moral codes
could be subsets of the universal code, as you say at the outset.  So, for
example, God's code could include, "Thou shalt not create Beings without
a hospitable planet to live on", but this law would be inapplicable to us.
Nevertheless, we would be entitled to suppose that all laws applicable
to us are also applicable to God.
 
But when you begin to ask what laws might appear in God's moral code, you have
a sense of the absurdity of the question.  Does God make laws for Himself to
follow?  Perhaps God is not the sort of being to which the category "morality"
can be sensibly applied.
-- 
                                     James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
                                     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
