In Which Brad R. Pitifully Asks S,N! Readers to Help Him With His Work
Posted on March 2nd, 2006 by Brad
OK, here’s the deal:
I’m writing an article about pro-war and anti-war military families and their struggle for moral authority in the debate over the Iraq war. The trouble is, I have no idea how to define moral authority except in vague, pseudo-philosophical terms. Can any current or former philosophy student/professor out there recommend a few good essays on this topic? Thanks!
[G-Love adds: I can see this one coming, so let’s just get it out of the way…
“Et tu, Bradrocket!”
Update: Teh l4m3 got it first. Man, that was quick. Please help Brad out now, thanx.]
Um, yeah, okay Jonah, whatever… [rolls eyes]
Um, yeah, okay Jonah, whatever… [rolls eyes]
Eat me, wanker! I admitted how pitiful it was! But if I could get an interesting thread going on THE PRISONER, I figured I get get some help here.
“Et tu, Bradrocket!”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I’m feeling as lazy as the Doughy Pantload. Last time I ever ask y’all bitches for help…
I recommend anything by Pastor sWank.
I think I read a few good philosophical essays on how to define “article” and “pro-war” and “struggle.”
I will go look them up for you.
See if your library has this book:
Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida
Yeah, it’s an Intro to Philospohy textbook, but it has just about any philosophical work you need, and it was a blast reading this back when I was in that class.
I would start with John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” and perhaps Nietzsche’s “The Anti-Christ”. Didn’t go too much into 20th century philosophy though.
I wish I can help you further, but I sold that book for rent money -_-
“The trouble is, I have no idea how to define moral authority except in vague, pseudo-philosophical terms.”
Don’t worry, Brad, you are not alone. This is the quintessential conundrum of the left. No God = man (or humankind to be more politically correct) is the measure of all things = everything is relative, so there is no moral basis for making any decisions or having any moral opinions = chaos. My suggestion is to start by putting God back into the moral equation.
I’d start with “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”.
“Moral authority” = Your mother.
(And you thought all that stuff about clean underwear and wiping your feet and chewing with your mouth closed wasn’t useful)
Doc – Which God should we put back in the equation? The one that says I shouldn’t eat bacon? The one that says I shouldn’t like the gays? The one that says I shouldn’t let women speak or wear pants? The one that controlls the weather? The one that controlls the oceans? There are so danged many of them!
Seriously, what about just being good for the sake of being good? For the betterment of my neighborhood, my state, my country and my species? Why not just be good because being bad is terrible? Why do you feel you need a supernatural figure to tell you right and wrong?
Damn, that’s a lot of questions.
If God’s so smart why didn’t he make hot dog trees so we wouldn’t have to process raccoon meat for Fenway Franks?
Actually Brad, putting God in the moral equasion — assuming he’s not, but he easily could be — just leads to more dead ends. Ever read that monotheistic shit? Jeee-zus!
God wipes life off the Earth, twice, he tells Abraham’s to kill his own kid, he allows his own boy to die and then he’s got the vaguely related doppleganger “Allah” who gives even more conflicting ideas about what to do in order to live the right life.
God, that diva, gives both pro- and anti-war families reasons to support their issues.
Doc – Which God should we put back in the equation? The one that says I shouldn’t eat bacon? The one that says I shouldn’t like the gays? The one that says I shouldn’t let women speak or wear pants? The one that controlls the weather? The one that controlls the oceans? There are so danged many of them!
Seriously, what about just being good for the sake of being good? For the betterment of my neighborhood, my state, my country and my species? Why not just be good because being bad is terrible? Why do you feel you need a supernatural figure to tell you right and wrong?
Damn, that’s a lot of questions.
Dang, sorry for the re-post.
The trouble is, I have no idea how to define moral authority except in vague, pseudo-philosophical terms.
Frankly, I’d be surprised if there actually was a way to define a concept like “moral authority” in any way apart from vague, pseudo-philosophical terms. At least, I don’t know if there’s one that’ll stand up after a quick rebuttal of “Oh, yeah? Sez you!”. I mean, doesn’t “moral authority” basically boil down to “cauze I (or God or Allah or Ayn Rand or whoever) said so”?
I’d be more interested in hearing what makes the anti- and pro-war families think they have “moral authority” over the other side. There’s plenty of people who think pro-war families are sell-outs, and God knows plenty of folks still think Cindy Sheehan is the devil.
I studied philosophy in college, but unfortunately (for this topic), I spent most of my time on Wittgenstein, the empiricists and the pragmatists. So, first, you have to figure out if the concept “moral authority” actually means anything concrete before you can do anything. Beyond personal definitions, I don’t really think it means anything, not as a guiding principle, anyway for society to follow, anyway.
I don’t like people who haven’t been dead for at least a millenia or two, so I’m no authority on modern philosophy, but here’s some advice from a dead guy:
These reasonings do not cohere: I am richer than you, therefore I am better than you; I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better than you. On the contrary these rather cohere, I am richer than you, therefore my possessions are greater than yours: I am more eloquent than you, therefore my speech is superior to yours. But you are neither possession nor speech.
Epictetus, Enchiridion, 44
and
The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is the practical application of principles, as, We ought not to lie; the second is that of demonstrations, as, Why it is that we ought not to lie; the third, that which gives strength and logical connection to the other two, as, Why this is a demonstration. For what is demonstration? What is a consequence; what a contradiction; what truth; what falsehood? The third point is then necessary on account of the second; and the second on account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest, is the first. But we do just the contrary. For we spend all our time on the third point, and employ all our diligence about that, and entirely neglect the first. Therefore, at the same time that we lie, how it is demonstrated that lying is wrong we have ready to hand.
Epictetus, Enchiridion, 52
Which God should we put back in the equation? The one that says I shouldn’t eat bacon? The one that says I shouldn’t like the gays? The one that says I shouldn’t let women speak or wear pants? The one that controlls the weather? The one that controlls the oceans? There are so danged many of them!Oh, come on. You know which one. The one people reference vaguely when they’re taking for granted that you’re some kind of heathen who’s explicitly and wantonly rejected morality. It’s the guy they mention in a sort of faux-avuncular, you-can-do-better-than-this, Son, joshing way: the god of the Bible, who lives in their image rather than the other way around. If they want to make war, then God is for war. If they hate the idea of gay marriage, then God hates the idea of gay marriage. And if you don’t believe in their god, or simply don’t think that belief in Him is the only path to living morally, then you’re just one of those if-it-feels-good-do-it people. Wink, wink, josh, nudge. You funny liberals, you’re like children. [just to be clear, I’m adopting a “voice” here. I don’t want to resort to the overused “end-snark” tags.]
*sigh*
a millenium, of course. That’s what I get for editing with my head up my colon.
“Which God should we put back in the equation? The one that says I shouldn’t eat bacon? The one that says I shouldn’t like the gays? The one that says I shouldn’t let women speak or wear pants? The one that controlls the weather? The one that controlls the oceans? There are so danged many of them!”
This is a problem only if you are polytheistic, Lucy. The God that says you shouldn’t eat bacon is not my God, or I, with my initials associated with the BLT sandwich, would be one of the first to fry in hell. The God I serve is a God of love who says we are all sinners, so He wouldn’t want you to be hateful towards gays, and He’s given no specific instructions on what women should and should not wear. I believe the God I serve, the God of Moses, Isaac, and Jacob, is in charge of the weather too, but this is a big conundrum for me, since I’m sure he did not send Katrina to punish sinners for their wrongdoing. Otherwise, I would have been one of the first to be struck.
Putting God back into the equation also works wonders with confusing stuff like “e to the pi i equals negative one.” Although that whole trinitarian thing tends to mess up your final computations. It’s three, no it’s one, no it’s three, ah, crap, I’m starting over.
I was quoting “Strange Forces,” BLT. You’re answering something I didn’t say.
To be fair, this is pretty cute: The God that says you shouldn’t eat bacon is not my God, or I, with my initials associated with the BLT sandwich, would be one of the first to fry in hell. Anyway, of course it’s only a problem if you are polytheistic. That was the point, I believe. One is taking for granted that there is only one god, because that is what one happens to believe, and suggesting that it would be easier to define “moral authority” if Brad were to put “God” back into the equation. Which prompts the point about polytheism.
Lucy, I must give you props for attempting to be fair (and I believe, succeeding). I will attempt to be fair, in return.
Now you’ve got me completely perplexed. I thought I was just a plain old right-wing country boy from the praireis of Saskatchewan, but you’ve now got me believing that, in my attempt to bring clarity to the situation, I’ve revealed just how complex a man I really am.
I’d like to reward you for your fairness by offering you a free mp3 copy of my modern rock remake of Dylan’s anti-war anthem, Blowin’ in the Wind.
http://www.drblt.com/music/blowin.mp3
No, it ain’t pretty, but neither is the war in Iraq.
OK, we now know Dr.BLT isn’t a (practicing) Jew or Muslim. Why isn’t this a big surprise?
Per BLT: The God that says you shouldn’t eat bacon is not my God… [and later] I believe the God I serve, the God of Moses, Isaac, and Jacob…
I’m quite sure the God of Moses, at the very least, made himself very clear about not eating bacon, or lobster, or eating meat with dairy, etc.
I was going to recommend ‘the anti-Christ’ and ‘beyond good and evil’ but I didn’t think they’d be particularly helpful, so I didn’t.
But now that I see some of the other entries, I can’t help it.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22moral+authority%22&meta=
My work here is done.
>Can any current or former philosophy student/professor out there recommend a few good essays on this topic?
Oops. What I meant to say was this:
Sadly, no.
“No god = moral relativism” is not an argument; it’s a talking point. It makes a lot of assumptions, just a few of which are 1) god exists 2) morals/ethics are impossible without one 3) beleivers aren’t moral relativists.
Now, no one has ever proved an answer to 1, and therefore no one can claim to know whether god/God/goddesses/spirits etc. exist or not. Those who traditionally claim knowledge based on the Bible are making a circular point. (“The book says god exists and is perfect and wrote this book, therefore, the book must be right about god existing.”) Supernatural claims are extraordinary claims, and require extraordinary proof. Since even ordinary proof for supernatural claims is lacking, Occam’s Razor cuts that hypothesis right out of consideration.
I’ll let one of the world’s greatest minds take number 2: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” –Einstein
He’s corroborated by the numerous atheists I know who behave much more ethically/morally than many of the religious folks I know. Find me the atheist counterpart of Pat Robertson. While you’re at it, ponder how the Crusades and the Inquisition square with “Thou shall not kill.”
When you think you’ve answered that, you’re ready for:
3. The religious right are some of the biggest moral relativists around, as you’ve just discovered. Look at their justifications of money-grubbing GOPers, their support for wars of aggression, etc. What Would Jesus Do? Almost nothing Bush has ever done.
Whether one has a conscience or not, principles or not, and humanity or not has precious little to do with religion or its absence.
Anarchist Morality
by Peter Kropotkin, 1897
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/anmoral.html
Yeah, I’m biased in this direction.
Ethics: Morality of the State
by Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin1.html
Mere Christianity By C.S. Lewis
Did I write a comment in this thread, after MCH’s, that got deleted, or did I not successfully post it after all?
Hi, speaking as a philosophy professor, one of the main problems that analytic philosophers address in this area is “How can there be such a thing as moral authority?” Shouldn’t adults be able to tell right from wrong themselves, without relying on external authorities? Karen Jones at the University of Melbourne has done some interesting work in this area — “Second-Hand Moral Knowledge” is the relevant one that I’ve read, but the top article cited there looks like it might be helpful. Unfortunately, AFAIK “Second-hand moral knowledge” is only available on line if you have JSTOR acces, and the other one isn’t available online at all.
People in English departments have also told me about work on the “literature of witness,” which seems like it might be relevant. Hm. This is an interesting article but not strictly relevant, I don’t think.
Bertrand Russell is a fairly readable expert 20th century philosopher. One related (although early) work online here.
Another guy that is important for current ethics theory is John Rawls. Wikipedia looks to be a decent start.
Also, this is pretty awesome (for giant extra nerds interested in ethics).
(If you want to read Second-Hand Moral Knowledge, but don’t have jstor-access, feel free to drop me a note.)
Here’s the problem: Or things good or bad because God made it so, or are they good or bad in themselves?
Fulsome,
Yes, but have you checked out Rawls’ son? Awesome! Dude was over at Tbogg’s blog a while back. Completely. Fucking. Insane.
This is a hard question for a couple of reasons. You mean “moral authority” in the Cindy Sheehan sense, right? That is, a person or that person’s view of an issue has MA in virtue of her position, her experience, her identity, something like that? (E.g., “Sheehan has the moral authority to question the President because she lost her son.”)
This is different from the kind of thing Jones is discussing in her article, since she’s interested in moral *knowledge* and its transmision. Your question isn’t about the kind of authority involved in traditional expertise– you’re not looking for a moral expert the way someone with a physics question would be looking for a quantum mechanics expert. MA in the Sheehan sense seems to have more to do with the idea that someone’s experiences (or identity, or…) somehow earn her the right to make demands that others cannnot make, or to have their claims given a special priority, or something like this.
One reason that there might not be much academic literature on this is because the idea looks sort of bogus. I mean, the question that Sheehan raises (to stick with an example I’m sick of) can be asked by any citizen, and it’s no less morally pressing when coming from someone without a corpse. I can’t recall seeing any work on this (as opposed to moral epistemology and moral testimony, on which there is a lot of literature.) I think there will be a lot of red herrings, in other words.
Anyway, let me think about this– maybe I’ll remember something to read. Email me if you want more detail.
I have to say, I like Dr. BLT. Doc, for a wingnut, you’re a pretty good guy.
Also, re moral authority, I suggest reading George Lukacs’ “Tactics and Ethics.” It made a big impression on me when I was 25 or so and convinced me that ethics don’t have anything to do with the Bible.
LA Confidential Pantload: I missed that. Can we get a link. That rocks!
My suggestion is to start by putting God back into the moral equation.
Sound advice.
But please, Dr. Samwich, I thought we all agreed to start using the full honorific when referring to Our Lord and Creator, since the overuse of that too-friendly nickname ‘God’ only seems to encourage his wrath. You might have noticed He’s been a bit pissy lately.
Oh, and maybe while we’re at it, we could also start reminding more often Him how incredibly big and absolutely huge He is. Gosh we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you.
Fulsome,
Delighted to oblige. Be forewarned, however, that this is the Energizer Wingnut – he kept coming back to dump in comments for like two or three days.
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html
God made you do it. Or was it SATAN? Hee hee.
Kant and Mills both have interesting arguements as to what constitutes a moral authority (I lean towards Kant myself, but both offer good arguements).
Thomas Aquinas also has some excellent work on the subject of morality, some of which relates directly to war and the nature of the authority of a wronged party, if I recall properly.
Check out Prima Secundae Partis (esp. on “Habits” PSP 49-70 and on “Law” PSP 90-108)and Secunda Secundae Partis (esp. on “Justice” SSP 57-122). Cicero’s De Officiis might also be helpful.
And if those don’t work, you can always fall back on the eternal wisdom presented here
This website offers useful summaries on a wide range of philosophers. It might be a useful place to start, although it only provides brief overviews.
Myself, I partial to Russell.
http://www.philosophypages.com/index.htm
This is the quintessential conundrum of the left. No God = man … = everything is relative, so there is no moral basis for making any decisions or having any moral opinions = chaos. My suggestion is to start by putting God back into the moral equation.
Posted by the non-bacon-hating Dr. BLT … who is totally full of shit. “The left” is full of people who believe in God. He (or She) is not the personal property of the kind of rightwing nutbags who are always talking about God as their personal savior, right in line with their personal trainer, personal manicurist, and personal dog walker.
Can someone give this yob a link to that Orwell excerpt on armchair jingoes? I’m too lazy to google. see, now I’m too tired even to hit the shift button…
The Doughy Bradload? WTF?
Temperance, is that how you show all that love of God that is bubbling over from inside your heart? By taking every opportunity to take free shots at the old sandwich doc? I’m not saying that a left-winger cannot believe in God, or that God is the sole property of the right, but for Christ’s sake, where is the love?
wow, I didnt even see that the tECHNIDA recommended ‘the Anti-Christ’ also. A wonderful book. Nevermind that its author went mad. I doubt that one can be a philosopher in the modern world without going mad, unless you rely on crutches like the concept of anthropomorphic deities who cry when you masturbate. (and isn’t that in itself a form of madness?)
Moral Authority means never having to say you’re sorry.
I think that’s Moral Majority.
Temperance, is that how you show all that love of God […] By taking every opportunity to take free shots at the old sandwich doc? I’m not saying that a left-winger cannot believe in God, or that God is the sole property of the right, but for Christ’s sake, where is the love?
You started your first comment by saying that “no God” is part of “the moral conundrum of the Left”. You did actually write that, even though it is well known that the majority of Democrat-voters believe in God.
If you don’t like it when people respond rudely to you, stop being so damn rude in the first place. Practically everything you have to say is one of the following: 1) ignorantly insulting 2) playing dumb 3) whining self-pity. It’s not even as if you’re old, ‘old doc’.
jade, I’ll only own up to 3) whining self-pity, and you must admit if you’ve read some of the vitriol I’ve been subjected to that it is not entirely unwarranted. It’s my party (the Republican Party) and I’ll cry if I want to (when I’m being persecuted for being associated with that party).
There is little difference between “God” and “no God” in the minds and hearts of some dems (not all). Their “God” has become so distant, so impersonal, so whimpy and so ill-defined that he/she/it is rendered powerless to make a difference in the world. And where is the love, or the power that comes from that divine love in “Higher Power”? The “Higher Power” that members of AA and NA speak of sounds like something from Star Trek.
the vitriol I’ve been subjected to
Wait, are Brad and Gavin forcing you to read this site? And “persecuted”? Give me a fucking break. I hope you’re being tongue-in-cheek.
Yes, “persecuted” may be a bit of a stretch. And, Sadly, no, Anne, Brad and Gavin aren’t forcing me to visit this site, but ever since I released these two covers of anti-war songs,
Blowin’ in the Wind
http://www.drblt.com/music/blowin.mp3
American Woman
http://www.drblt.com/music/AmericanWomanP.mp3
I’ve been considered persona non grata at conservative sites, and I just don’t know where to go anymore where people will accept me. This may be the closest thing to love that I’m going to find for awhile.
so impersonal, so whimpy and so ill-defined that he/she/it is rendered powerless to make a difference in the world.
Yeah, you’re totally right there doc, I mean, it’s not like all powerful god didn’t prevent that horrible Iraq war…erm… well he totally helped those tsunami… er… well in florida… hmmm… earthquake in pakistan… landslides… and Africa… Darfur…
Aw fuck it.
PS. We’ve all seen your goddam link to blowin in the wind. Stop it.
Timmah, it’s time somebody broke it to you. There are only two people visiting at this site right now who are rude, intolerant, and have bad attitudes. One is GoatBoy, and the other, (in case you hadn’t looked in the mirror lately) is you. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, or even criticizing me for any reason at all.
But there is such a thing as tact, and there is such a thing as diplomacy, and you don’t seem to have either one. When you talk to people coming off like a troglodyte, the only person you are discrediting is yourself.
Take a lesson from Brad. People like Brad R. give me a reason to believe there are still some of you liberals out there who walk the walk of tolerance understanding, and sensitivity, instead of just talking the talk.
Look man, the only time I really rip on you for no reason is when you go all link whore on a thread repeatedly.
It’s just in poor taste.
Other than that I don’t see what you’ve got your panties in a bunch over, I was just making a point about how ultimately, “God” is powerless. Either that or he doesen’t give a shit about human suffering. Take your pick.
You may see it as whoring, I see it as sharing. I don’t care if you ever buy a CD from me, Timmah. I only introduce songs if they seem relevant to shed light on a particular point I am trying to make. This goes back to your negative attitude. When someone offers you a free gift, that you are also free to accept or reject, you experience it as the person trying to sell you something. I don’t say you are whoring your words when you share them with me, and there’s no reason why sharing songs that are free should be considered whoring. I will admit that I go overboard on my “sharing” sometimes and I can understand how that could be annoying.
Now, on to the subject of God. I believe God cares about human suffering. When I’m in the midst of it, it often feels like there is no God, but when good things begin to come out of the suffering, my faith is renewed.
If you talk to people who have been through suffering much greater than I have been through, many will share with you how they experienced the love and care of God even in the midst of their suffering. It’s a matter of faith. It’s like you said, you either believe in a loving, caring God, or you don’t.
Dr. BLT, my mama done tol’ me that speaking the truth is evidence of love. One does not bother to speak truth to people one thinks are beyond benefiting from it. And the truth was, you — as evidenced by the comment I responded to — WERE totally full of shit. You can always clean the shit out, you know.
Temperence: Yo mama done fo got to tell you that you may not be the best judge of what is truth. Yo mama done fo got to teach you that even if your delusion about being the best judge of truth were not a delusion, but a truism, the way you deliver your “truth” speaks volumes about whether or not you possess the love you claim to have all tucked away, ready to be delivered in that package you call “truth.”
To quote from the title of the debut CD from Artic Monkeys:
Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not
Sometimes, you make this too easy…
Well, having come through the suffering, that’s easy for them to say. It’s not quite so easy for the piles of corpses left in the wake of a Katrina or an Iraq war to say that. If they could talk, however, I doubt very many of them would make the “God looked out for us” argument. And, don’t go hitting me with that BS, “They’re all in heaven now” bit, ‘cos that’s unprovable. Something that holds up to standard, evidence-based scrutiny, please, ‘cos there’s ample proof that those people are dead or maimed.
First of all Marq, thanks for being a little nicer, and a little less insulting and condescending than GoatBoy, or Temparence (who possesses none of what her screen name would suggest he/she possesses). I didn’t include Timmah in that category because I don’t want to be held responsible for raising his blood pressure. However, I do want to take issue with you on one point.
“And, don’t go hitting me with that BS, “They’re all in heaven now” bit, ‘cos that’s unprovable.”
It seems like you are rather eager in anticipating what my response to your response will be. That may be your stereotype of me talking, Marq. I would not dismiss that sort of major tragedy with such a trite and spiritually bankrupt statement.
I cannot pretend to understand the depth of their suffering or assume that it is easy for somebody to trust in God after coming up against that sort of profound trauma and overwhelming sense of personal loss. I have been approached by people who have shared stories of their own personal suffering and how it drew them closer to God, but I cannot say that all those who suffer share in this experience of spiritual tanscendence.
I’m not a philosophy student, and only took one class in the whole department, which I repeated.
It seems to me that “moral authority” is an attempt to redefine authority on the subject of morality (in practice, usually a subset of morality) into a commodity which can be gained, lost, etc. This redefinition tends to jive with how modern media/politcs interact, but it’s all just “is this person credible to talk about moral issue X”.
If that is the case, then one could simply apply the standard credibility tests one applies to authorites on other subjects: chemistry, physics, etc. to determine who “posesses” moral authority.