Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
March 20, 2021
Does Evolution have a mind of its own? Does it decide?
Ever since Darwin, there is a tendency to ground human behavior (regardless of the ethical question) on some numinous mind or intent of evolution itself. One of the most popular is the gene or species survival argument that tries to explain several acts like adultery/promiscuity and even murder and suicide as grounded in evolution's intent to make more gene copies or ensure species survival, thus attempting to deterministically ground human behaviors in some underlying, unconscious (collective) force, principle or "archetype". Thus, the responsibility is shifted from the individual to the species and from the species to the "one" that created or made possible this species. This "one" is the new scientific reality, life, elan vital, God. The evolutionary psychologist Carl Jung went to the extent of believing Satan (or the archetype of evil) as the fourth in the "divine quaternity", for he thought the Trinity was insufficient. Genesis 3 gets repeated. What elaborate enterprise to self-deception!!!!!
November 01, 2020
Practical-Logical Anomaly in the Pro-Choice Argument
(a) The fetus at or before a certain point is not a human invested with human rights (is subhuman)
(b) Therefore, abortion at or before that point is not an ethical question
(c) At that point, the mother has the priority of right to decide whether to keep or abort the pregnancy
Problematic Case: In India, abortion is illegal, so is determination of sex by ultrasound, especially due to the high risk of female feticide.
Moral Logic: Abortion on the basis of sex determination is evil. (which can be determined as early as 7 weeks)
Anomaly: How can it be evil if the fetus is subhuman? OR How can a human/female rights issue apply to the fetus?
Possible response: Abortion based on sex determination violates not the ethics of life, but the ethics of sexual equality.
Counter: How can equality be possible without life in the first place?
Conclusion: The Pro-Choice argument suffers from practical-logical inconsistency
March 22, 2019
Round-about Ethics for Benjamin
An important episode is the gathering of the entire assembly before the Lord at Mizpeh for worship, prayer, and communion.
Since, by an act of vengeance, the whole tribe of Benjamin was destroyed except a few remaining, the Israelites felt it morally obligatory to ensure that the Benjamite tribe survived through posterity. However, they had made an oath saying, "There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife." Consequently, their obligation towards the oath clashed with their obligation towards Israel (that by doing the former, they risked losing one tribe of Israel). Therefore, they decided to first find a tribe that had not been represented at the assembly before the Lord at Mizpeh. They found that Jabeshgilead was not represented. For the Israelites, this was a capital crime. It was unforgivable to ignore the national assembly before the Lord. So, they sent 12000 warriors to destroy Jabeshgilead, but bring alive all virgins they found there. The warriors did so and found 400 virgins, who were then given to the Benjamite males as wives. However, there still was a shortage. Then, the following episode takes place:
And they said, There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. Yet we cannot give them wives from our daughters.¨ For the people of Israel had sworn, Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.¨ So they said, Behold, there is the yearly feast of the LORD at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.¨ And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and snatch each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.¨ And the people of Benjamin did so and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off. Then they went and returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and lived in them. And the people of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family, and they went out from there every man to his inheritance. (Jdg 21:17-24)
The Israelites adopted a round-about tactic to ensure that their oath remained unbroken while the Benjamites also got their wives. The tactic was to create a situation that would make it legitimate for the Benjamites to steal for themselves wives, without the Israelites incurring the guilt of GIVING them women as wives. There are two things to note about this round-about tactic:
- It was clear of mens rea or criminal intention. The fathers had no intention to give their daughters as wives to the Benjamites. So, their intentions were guilt-free. This is evidenced by their complaint against the Benjamites.
- It was clear of actus reus or criminal conduct. The fathers did not act to give their daughters as wives to the Benjamites. So, they were clear of the guilt of criminal act.
In summary, the pre-monarchial community was able to solve a conflict of ethics situation successfully without any of them incurring any guilt for the same.
October 03, 2014
The Moral Basis of Indian Law
However, this doesn't mean that authority doesn't count. In fact, authority does often prescribe laws in many cases, but the laws are only instrumental towards a much larger cause. Thus, we have law-givers such as Solon, Moses, and Manu. However, the validity of the prescriptions are based on a deeper intent. The intent or the spirit of the law is what matters. It also means that where laws fail to serve the intent, they must fade away and give place to the new.
Plato's elaborative study of justice as an ethical virtue in the analogically larger Republic is based on the same understanding that ethics and politics are inseparable. Similarly, his disciple Aristotle didn't see any reason to separate the both. In the Biblical tradition, the entire Mosaic Law was based on the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, which were the essence of the Law. Jesus pointed out that they all hung on the two Great Commandments: To love God absolutely and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Of course, Paul, later submitted that the Law was only a revealer and a restricter. It revealed human sinfulness and it was meant to restrict the lawless (it was given for the lawless). Jesus pointed out that certain laws (for instance, the law of divorce) were only permissive because of the hardness of human hearts, but didn't reflect the original intent of human creation.
Looking, now, into the Indian Constitution, one asks what is Indian Law based upon ultimately. The Preamble makes the democratic nature of the Republic clear. And, so it is the people's government for sure. But, the moral philosophy is indicated in words like "humanism" and "scientific temper", featured later on under Fundamental Duties. While the temper is scientific, the philosophical ground is humanism and its philosophy of man is condensed in the section called Fundamental Rights. The Law exists to ensure the protection of these fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Consequently, any law that is inconsistent with these rights is automatically annulled.
The Fundamental Rights are not prescriptions to the people but declarations of humanism. These declarations are prescriptive only to the laws, since the laws are expected to conform to them. Thus, they not only inform but also serve as reference points, as absolute foundation, for the laws. As such, we may refer to them, with regard to humanism, as the intent, or spirit of the laws; perhaps even as the Law of the laws since they serve as the measure of all laws.
But, how do we know that these declarations are true? Perhaps, it is similar to asking about the laws of logic, "How does one know whether they are true?" The answer is: by using them or trying not to use them. One cannot deny them, but then one cannot deny anything without using them. Similarly, one cannot deny the Fundamental Rights without himself losing the rights.
June 13, 2013
Movies and the Imitative Arts - Quotes
Ravi Zacharias, EVANGELISM AND THE NEW MILLENNIUM:BARRIERS OF THE MIND, AND HUNGERS OF THE HEART, Amsterdam 2000. Sunday, July 30, 2000
"You see, the Bible does not say, “In the beginning was video.” It says in the beginning was the Word."
"What then do we make of our time when the camera controls the imagination of young minds? I am afraid some day we will wake up and wonder how we were so foolish to have missed this powerful influence. And we cannot run from it. We are in it. From the pictures that tell the story, to the music that is now visualized, we are in it. The sensations are being propelled through the eye-gate. It is not without reason that Jesus warned His listeners to let the eye be single, for it is the lamp of the body.
The implications here are extremely important. For decades science has been seen as an exacting discipline of the intellect, and the arts as a free-floating realm of the imagination. With the advance of computers, may I suggest to you that the two disciplines will converge, and the imagination may place the demand upon the sciences till a free-floating technological power will play the role of a creator of people’s fantasies. The intellect will be seduced by the imagination. The tower of Babel could well be built with one language—only it will be in pictures and accessed by buttons.
But there is another side to this, and we should not forget it. Just because this generation thinks visually does not mean they do not think deeply. They do, about the issues that trouble them. One day my eighteen-year-old son phoned home from school and said he would be a little late after school because he was stopping at the shopping mall to get something. When my wife asked him what it was he was getting, he was a little reluctant to share it because he was not sure how we would react. Then he told her what it was. He was stopping to order a little chain to put around his neck, with a pendant that just said “13.” It did not take long to figure it out, and he explained his reason. Just a few days before, in that dreadful shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, thirteen had been mercilessly shot to death. “I want to remember them,” he said, “especially the courage of the ones who were willing to lay down their lives for Jesus Christ.” You see, none of us as adults would have thought of expressing it that way. Our expression was in words. Young people often do it in symbols, and they are just as deep."
"For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise. Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for."
"Now, what is wrong with all this? Why should any man object to this or go out of his way to oppose its use in the house of God? Here is my answer:
"1. It violates the scriptural law of hearing"
"2. The religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be made, a form of entertainment."
"3. The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity."
"Sincerity for each man means staying in character with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees centered around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted to vacate his own "I-ness" and appear in that of another and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.
It is more than an etymological accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage. It means actor. With that instinct for fitness which usually marks word origins, it has been used to signify one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part. An actor is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it for effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another personality the better he is as an actor."
"4. They who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done."
"5. God has ordained four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one of them."
"Without attempting to arrange these methods in order of importance, they are prayer, song, proclamation of the message by means of words, and good works."
"6. The religious movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood of true Godliness."
"To harmonize the spirit of the religious movie with the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures is impossible. Any comparison is grotesque and, if it were not so serious, would be downright funny. Try to imagine Elijah appearing before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine Peter standing up at Pentecost and saying, "Let's have the lights out, please." When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy, on the plea that he was not a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, "I have put my words in thy mouth." Perhaps Jeremiah could have gotten on well enough without the divine touch if he had had a good 16mm projector and a reel of home-talent film."
"If the movie is needed to supplement anointed preaching it can only be because God's appointed method is inadequate and the movie can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What is that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects which preaching cannot produce (and which it should never try to produce), but dare we strive for such effects in the light of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment and a long eternity?"
"7. I am against the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it."
"First, the evil effect upon the "actors" who play the part of the various characters in the show; this is not the less because it is unsuspected. Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence? Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart."
"Secondly, it identifies religion with the theatrical world"
"Thirdly, the taste for drama which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer."
"Fourthly, the rising generation will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior, form of amusement."
"Fifthly, the religious movie is the lazy preacher's friend."
“I believe that entertainment and amusements are the work of the Enemy to keep dying men from knowing they're dying; and to keep enemies of God from remembering that they're enemies.”
"The average man... has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him"
"The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people."
Leonard Ravenhill
"Entertainment is the devil's substitute for joy. Because there isn't enough power in the house of God, people are always looking for something to take its place." (The Judgment Seat of Christ)
"I am angry that the Church, in many (and maybe most) cases, is an entertainment center." (Be Ye Angry and Sin Not)
Ravi Zacharias, "How Should Christians Watch TV"
"If anyone can conquer my imagination, he has conquered me."
"Appeals to the imagination can bypass the will and reason, and hold captive the conscience. This is why music and television are such powerful forces; they have that potential of circumventing the guardians of the soul."
"Second, television controls enormous themes in simplistic ways, making the viewer morally uncritical."
"Third, television produces a debilitating effect in concentration spans. How is it possible for a child raised on fast-moving scenes and cartoon characters to find his teacher exciting?"
"Fourth, television sets up heroes and models for the young who become almost cultic in their zeal."
"Last, from this writer's perspective, television produces a sociological phenomenon where authority is completely dislocated. A person becomes authoritative because he or she is well-known. Thus, a film actress who has no moral beliefs whatsoever becomes a powerful voice defending abortion."
"The illusionary world of most television programming runs from reality, distorts and makes enticing a way of life that is a lie. Let us instead, with all our minds seek God's truth, and do all to the glory of God. Quite candidly, could you imagine Jesus sitting in front of this instrument and feeding his mind on it?"
Bill Bright, Interview on CBN by Michael Little
Little: "Would you say that the 'Jesus' film has won more people to Christ?"
Bright: "There have been over 4.2 billion in 645 languages in 235 countries believe the film. We have reason to believe there are hundreds of millions who have made some kind of decision."
Little: "Sometimes I've read as many as 1/3 of the people who view it actually pray to receive?"
Bright: "I've seen occasions where most of the people present did that."
Little: "Yes".
Bright: "I remember a pastor of a large church in Nairobi, Kenya wanted to start a new church. So we took the film to a part of the city where there was a lot of foot-traffic and started the film. No one there but us. Soon there were about 1,500 people stopped to see it. And when the invitation was given over one half of them indicated they wanted to receive the Lord. So we started the church immediately."
Little: "Just like that?"
Bright: "You know about the Dawn Ministry?"
Little: "Yes, sure."
Bright: "Mr. Steele said their reports indicate that through the 'Jesus' film and other evangelism in which we were involved, over 750,000 churches have been started.
"Method acting is employed by actors to evoke realistic emotions into their performance by drawing on personal experiences. Raymond Hamden, doctor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, defines the purpose of method acting as “compartmentalizing their own feelings while playing another character [so] they could bring the emotions of that personal feeling to cry if they needed to with that character.” However, when these emotions are not compartmentalized, they can encroach on other facets of life, often seeming to disrupt the actor’s psyche. This occurs as the actor delves into previous emotional experiences, be they joyful or traumatic. The psychological effects, like emotional fatigue, comes, however when suppressed or unresolved raw emotions are unburied to add to the character. not just from the employing personal emotions in performance. The question becomes whether the actor calls up resolved or unresolved emotions in their acting."
"It is commonly believed that there is a strong correlation between acting and the physiological reaction to acting. According to the task-emotion theory, “the positive emotions of the actor should be coupled with a specific physiological activation. In particular, excited physical reactions were expected to co-exist with task-emotions such as tension, excitement, and challenge.”
The danger comes when control precedence “manifests itself by sudden interruptions of behavior, changes in behavior or by persistence of [character’s] behavior.”. “Control precedence” by emotions is the “feelings, thoughts, impulses, actions or activation going along with aroused emotion that takes precedence over other planned or half executed thoughts, feelings, impulses, etc.” Control precedence is the main concern for method acting. It proves a challenge for actors to come out of character after employing method acting techniques, sometimes altering their behavior, urging them to follow impulses that would be foreign to their own personal nature. This difficulty of returning to one’s own behavior is the common concern linked with method acting.
Suzanne Burgoyne, Karen Poulin, Ashley Rearden,
The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
"The theory suggests that the blurring of boundaries between actor and character may be a significant condition for impact, and that the actor's ability to control that blurring may influence whether an acting experience leads to growth or emotional distress. Since some inside-out approaches to acting encourage the actor to use her own personal experience in building a character, thus facilitating boundary blurring, this theory has major implications for theatre pedagogy.
While some of our interviewees have learned through experience that boundary blurring may become problematic, none of them reported having been taught boundary management."
"Awareness of boundary blurring appears to be a first step for students to develop strategies for boundary management. Although teachers may understand that acting can have psychological side-effects, our interviews reveal that young actors may be unaware of that possibility until they have an emotionally distressing experience. On the basis of the theory emerging from this study, we suggest that the theatre profession address boundary management as an aspect of acting pedagogy."
Plato, The Republic
"In saying this, I intended to imply that we must come to an understanding about the mimetic art, --whether the poets, in narrating their stories, are to be allowed by us to imitate, and if so, whether in whole or in part, and if the latter, in what parts; or should all imitation be prohibited?"
"no one man can imitate many things as well as he would imitate a single one?"
"Then the same person will hardly be able to play a serious part in life, and at the same time to be an imitator and imitate many other parts as well; for even when two species of imitation are nearly allied, the same persons cannot succeed in both, as, for example, the writers of tragedy and comedy"
"Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated."
"Next, there is the instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry."
"Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual character of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to the gods and the praises of famous men."
"You see, the Bible does not say, “In the beginning was video.” It says in the beginning was the Word."
"What then do we make of our time when the camera controls the imagination of young minds? I am afraid some day we will wake up and wonder how we were so foolish to have missed this powerful influence. And we cannot run from it. We are in it. From the pictures that tell the story, to the music that is now visualized, we are in it. The sensations are being propelled through the eye-gate. It is not without reason that Jesus warned His listeners to let the eye be single, for it is the lamp of the body.
The implications here are extremely important. For decades science has been seen as an exacting discipline of the intellect, and the arts as a free-floating realm of the imagination. With the advance of computers, may I suggest to you that the two disciplines will converge, and the imagination may place the demand upon the sciences till a free-floating technological power will play the role of a creator of people’s fantasies. The intellect will be seduced by the imagination. The tower of Babel could well be built with one language—only it will be in pictures and accessed by buttons.
But there is another side to this, and we should not forget it. Just because this generation thinks visually does not mean they do not think deeply. They do, about the issues that trouble them. One day my eighteen-year-old son phoned home from school and said he would be a little late after school because he was stopping at the shopping mall to get something. When my wife asked him what it was he was getting, he was a little reluctant to share it because he was not sure how we would react. Then he told her what it was. He was stopping to order a little chain to put around his neck, with a pendant that just said “13.” It did not take long to figure it out, and he explained his reason. Just a few days before, in that dreadful shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, thirteen had been mercilessly shot to death. “I want to remember them,” he said, “especially the courage of the ones who were willing to lay down their lives for Jesus Christ.” You see, none of us as adults would have thought of expressing it that way. Our expression was in words. Young people often do it in symbols, and they are just as deep."
A.W. Tozer, "The Menace of the Religious Movie".
"For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise. Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for."
"Now, what is wrong with all this? Why should any man object to this or go out of his way to oppose its use in the house of God? Here is my answer:
"1. It violates the scriptural law of hearing"
"2. The religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be made, a form of entertainment."
"3. The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity."
"Sincerity for each man means staying in character with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees centered around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted to vacate his own "I-ness" and appear in that of another and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.
It is more than an etymological accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage. It means actor. With that instinct for fitness which usually marks word origins, it has been used to signify one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part. An actor is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it for effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another personality the better he is as an actor."
"4. They who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done."
"5. God has ordained four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one of them."
"Without attempting to arrange these methods in order of importance, they are prayer, song, proclamation of the message by means of words, and good works."
"6. The religious movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood of true Godliness."
"To harmonize the spirit of the religious movie with the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures is impossible. Any comparison is grotesque and, if it were not so serious, would be downright funny. Try to imagine Elijah appearing before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine Peter standing up at Pentecost and saying, "Let's have the lights out, please." When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy, on the plea that he was not a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, "I have put my words in thy mouth." Perhaps Jeremiah could have gotten on well enough without the divine touch if he had had a good 16mm projector and a reel of home-talent film."
"If the movie is needed to supplement anointed preaching it can only be because God's appointed method is inadequate and the movie can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What is that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects which preaching cannot produce (and which it should never try to produce), but dare we strive for such effects in the light of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment and a long eternity?"
"7. I am against the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it."
"First, the evil effect upon the "actors" who play the part of the various characters in the show; this is not the less because it is unsuspected. Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence? Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart."
"Secondly, it identifies religion with the theatrical world"
"Thirdly, the taste for drama which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer."
"Fourthly, the rising generation will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior, form of amusement."
"Fifthly, the religious movie is the lazy preacher's friend."
Tozer, Roots of the Righteous
“I believe that entertainment and amusements are the work of the Enemy to keep dying men from knowing they're dying; and to keep enemies of God from remembering that they're enemies.”
"The average man... has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him"
"The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people."
Leonard Ravenhill
"Entertainment is the devil's substitute for joy. Because there isn't enough power in the house of God, people are always looking for something to take its place." (The Judgment Seat of Christ)
"I am angry that the Church, in many (and maybe most) cases, is an entertainment center." (Be Ye Angry and Sin Not)
Ravi Zacharias, "How Should Christians Watch TV"
"If anyone can conquer my imagination, he has conquered me."
"Appeals to the imagination can bypass the will and reason, and hold captive the conscience. This is why music and television are such powerful forces; they have that potential of circumventing the guardians of the soul."
"Second, television controls enormous themes in simplistic ways, making the viewer morally uncritical."
"Third, television produces a debilitating effect in concentration spans. How is it possible for a child raised on fast-moving scenes and cartoon characters to find his teacher exciting?"
"Fourth, television sets up heroes and models for the young who become almost cultic in their zeal."
"Last, from this writer's perspective, television produces a sociological phenomenon where authority is completely dislocated. A person becomes authoritative because he or she is well-known. Thus, a film actress who has no moral beliefs whatsoever becomes a powerful voice defending abortion."
"The illusionary world of most television programming runs from reality, distorts and makes enticing a way of life that is a lie. Let us instead, with all our minds seek God's truth, and do all to the glory of God. Quite candidly, could you imagine Jesus sitting in front of this instrument and feeding his mind on it?"
Bill Bright, Interview on CBN by Michael Little
Little: "Would you say that the 'Jesus' film has won more people to Christ?"
Bright: "There have been over 4.2 billion in 645 languages in 235 countries believe the film. We have reason to believe there are hundreds of millions who have made some kind of decision."
Little: "Sometimes I've read as many as 1/3 of the people who view it actually pray to receive?"
Bright: "I've seen occasions where most of the people present did that."
Little: "Yes".
Bright: "I remember a pastor of a large church in Nairobi, Kenya wanted to start a new church. So we took the film to a part of the city where there was a lot of foot-traffic and started the film. No one there but us. Soon there were about 1,500 people stopped to see it. And when the invitation was given over one half of them indicated they wanted to receive the Lord. So we started the church immediately."
Little: "Just like that?"
Bright: "You know about the Dawn Ministry?"
Little: "Yes, sure."
Bright: "Mr. Steele said their reports indicate that through the 'Jesus' film and other evangelism in which we were involved, over 750,000 churches have been started.
FROM THE SECULAR
Psychological Effects of Method Acting, Wikipedia. June 13, 2013
"Method acting is employed by actors to evoke realistic emotions into their performance by drawing on personal experiences. Raymond Hamden, doctor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, defines the purpose of method acting as “compartmentalizing their own feelings while playing another character [so] they could bring the emotions of that personal feeling to cry if they needed to with that character.” However, when these emotions are not compartmentalized, they can encroach on other facets of life, often seeming to disrupt the actor’s psyche. This occurs as the actor delves into previous emotional experiences, be they joyful or traumatic. The psychological effects, like emotional fatigue, comes, however when suppressed or unresolved raw emotions are unburied to add to the character. not just from the employing personal emotions in performance. The question becomes whether the actor calls up resolved or unresolved emotions in their acting."
"It is commonly believed that there is a strong correlation between acting and the physiological reaction to acting. According to the task-emotion theory, “the positive emotions of the actor should be coupled with a specific physiological activation. In particular, excited physical reactions were expected to co-exist with task-emotions such as tension, excitement, and challenge.”
The danger comes when control precedence “manifests itself by sudden interruptions of behavior, changes in behavior or by persistence of [character’s] behavior.”. “Control precedence” by emotions is the “feelings, thoughts, impulses, actions or activation going along with aroused emotion that takes precedence over other planned or half executed thoughts, feelings, impulses, etc.” Control precedence is the main concern for method acting. It proves a challenge for actors to come out of character after employing method acting techniques, sometimes altering their behavior, urging them to follow impulses that would be foreign to their own personal nature. This difficulty of returning to one’s own behavior is the common concern linked with method acting.
Suzanne Burgoyne, Karen Poulin, Ashley Rearden,
The Impact of Acting on Student Actors: Boundary Blurring, Growth, and Emotional Distress
"The theory suggests that the blurring of boundaries between actor and character may be a significant condition for impact, and that the actor's ability to control that blurring may influence whether an acting experience leads to growth or emotional distress. Since some inside-out approaches to acting encourage the actor to use her own personal experience in building a character, thus facilitating boundary blurring, this theory has major implications for theatre pedagogy.
While some of our interviewees have learned through experience that boundary blurring may become problematic, none of them reported having been taught boundary management."
"Awareness of boundary blurring appears to be a first step for students to develop strategies for boundary management. Although teachers may understand that acting can have psychological side-effects, our interviews reveal that young actors may be unaware of that possibility until they have an emotionally distressing experience. On the basis of the theory emerging from this study, we suggest that the theatre profession address boundary management as an aspect of acting pedagogy."
Plato, The Republic
"In saying this, I intended to imply that we must come to an understanding about the mimetic art, --whether the poets, in narrating their stories, are to be allowed by us to imitate, and if so, whether in whole or in part, and if the latter, in what parts; or should all imitation be prohibited?"
"no one man can imitate many things as well as he would imitate a single one?"
"Then the same person will hardly be able to play a serious part in life, and at the same time to be an imitator and imitate many other parts as well; for even when two species of imitation are nearly allied, the same persons cannot succeed in both, as, for example, the writers of tragedy and comedy"
Aristotle, Poetics
"Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them lying deep in our nature. First, the instinct of imitation is implanted in man from childhood, one difference between him and other animals being that he is the most imitative of living creatures, and through imitation learns his earliest lessons; and no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated."
"Next, there is the instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry."
"Poetry now diverged in two directions, according to the individual character of the writers. The graver spirits imitated noble actions, and the actions of good men. The more trivial sort imitated the actions of meaner persons, at first composing satires, as the former did hymns to the gods and the praises of famous men."
August 15, 2000
DEMOCRACY AND ETHICS
© Domenic Marbaniang, 1999.
India is a democratic country; and by that we mean it is governed by us, its people [“democracy”, from the Greek democratia: demos, people, and kratia, government or rule]. Ethics refers to the study of moral conduct, of “what one ought to do”.
Our nation recognizes the ideals of Justice, liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in its constitution. With the complexity of religious beliefs, its diversities, secularistic views, and the influence of the media ethical decisions are becoming more and more difficult in our society. The film producer defends his stance of overloading his film with sex as right, while a religious or even a secular man opposes it as morally depraving and detrimental to society. The advertisement agencies technically propagate lies deluding people to believe something which is not true. Our nation has found itself in a closet of ethical relativism – subjectivism and conventionalism. Variant religions assume their own moral standards. The Western culture is having a profound influence in our society, especially through the media (TV, Cinema, Song Albums, Novels, Journals, etc.). In such a context of diversity, and complexity, what kind of ethical standard should we, as citizens of democratic India, adopt form making ethical decisions? Following are some options:
1. Ethical Egoism (from the Greek ego, I). It is a consequentialist ethical theory (“the end justifies the means”) which asserts that “right” is what is beneficial in the end to the individual (“to me”). Two of its forms are: Hedonism, according to which pleasure is the ultimate good; and Self-realization, according to which knowledge, power, or rational self-interest, and the promotion of all one’s capacities is the ultimate good. Its method of justification is self-interest.
This theory, of course, poses a number of problems. There is the issue of conflicting interests, the danger of self-benefit at the expense of others; and in a democratic country like ours, it cannot be the ultimate standard of ethical decisions.
2. Utilitarianism: This also is a consequentialist theory that asserts that “right” is what produces the greatest quantity of happiness or pleasure. Its two forms are: Act Utilitarianism, the morality of an action is determined by the quantity of happiness it produces for the most people; Rule Utilitarianism, our actions should be governed by such a rule that produces the greatest happiness for the most people. Its method of justification is empirical evidence.
The problem of this theory mainly consists in the problem of knowledge. How do I know that my action have produced the greatest happiness for the most people? How can I trust the authenticity of the consequences? What about the minority? Is what is happiness to me, or in my sight, happiness to everybody else?
3. Altruism: (from the Italian altrui, “someone else). This is the theory of self-sacrifice, of concern for the welfare of others, and as such is opposed to egoism. It is the attitude of selflessness. It is doubtful if this theory is applicable to the majority: for a person cannot be selfless unless this position and attitude produces in him a greater satisfaction and happiness.
Now, which of the above criteria is applicable in a democratic society? It is my opinion that none of them as a solitude can be applied. A person should consider egoism (not total egoism) for self-development, utilitarianism for society’s benefit and happiness, and altruism that he may not become overly self-interested but will have concern for the welfare of others as well. The blending of these three together will produce an ethical standard applicable in a democratic society; a democratic ethic, which has respect for the ideals, aspirations, and talents of others.
December 02, 1998
Christian Agapistic Ethics
From Marbaniang, Domenic. Ethics (1998). Published as Philosophical Ethics (2012)
2.1.1.3. Christianity and Normative Ethics
Christian ethics, as the author believes, is a mean between Teleological and Deontological Ethics. The concept is that of a God who wills a universal law for all humans, at all times, a Will that is in accordance to His own nature and, therefore, a necessary, for all existence contingent on Him. Any being that rebels against this Will rebels against its own well-being or good, that is contingent on the Creator. The good expresses the teleological dimension and the necessary will expresses the deontological dimensions of Christian ethics. Since this Will is of Divine nature, it must be revealed by the illumination of the Spirit in man. Since man, as the Revelation (Scripture) tells us, is created in the image and likeness of God, he is able to know and choose this will for his life. However, the fallennes of man has alienated him from the divine will. Therefore, for the unsaved, the ethical code is terrestrially oriented or teleological. Thus, the five general laws: one for honor of parents, and four against falsehood, murder, theft, and adultery.
The above laws are not absolutes: they are externals of an intrinsic Law that is an attribute of the Creator Himself. The Biblical word used is agape. This view of Biblical ethics is also known as the Ethics of Love, or Judeo-Christian Agapistic Ethics.[1]
The basis of Biblical ethics is Matthew 22: 37 – 40.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like unto it. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Hunnex outlines four lines of interpretations of Biblical agapistic ethics within Christianity: Traditional, Evangelical, nontraditional, and Pure agapism.
2.1.1.3.1. Traditional Agapistic Ethics
Based on the rule “Love the Lord thy God with all your being” (it implies obedience to His commands) and “Love your neighbor as yourself,”it is also known as deontological agapism , or act deontology because of its emphasis on the ought, which originates in the divine command.
2.1.1.3.2. Evangelical Agapistic Ethics
According to Evangelical agapistic ethics, the indwelling Christ is the source of that supernatural love that produces acts in conformity to Biblical imperatives. This is also known as authoritarian agapism. Those without the indwelling Christ have the moral law “written in their hearts” that distinguishes right from wrong (Rom. 2. 14 – 15).
2.1.1.3.3. Nontraditional Agapistic Ethics
The focus on the present human reality or situations gives rise to a form of act deontology or situation ethics (e.g., in Fletcher, Gustafson, Tillich, or Lehmann) or utilitarianism, wherein man becomes the measure of all things and loving one’s neighbor is equal to loving God. The law of love, here, becomes or approximates the principle of benevolence.
2.1.1.3.4. Pure Agapism
Pure agapism frees love from any objects such as God or neighbor and considers love by itself alone as the only moral absolute; thus, pure. However, love can not be understood by itself alone. Love must either be understood as love-acts or love-rules; therefore, Act agapism and Rule agapism.
2.1.1.3.4.1. Act Agapism
Love rather than rules becomes the determiner of right or wrong acts in any given situation (situationism, religious existentialism, antinomianism).
2.1.1.3.4.2. Rule Agapism
One should only follow love-producing or love-embodying rules.
[1] Hunnex, Charts, p. 26.
The desire of man for the good is often clouded by his immediate responses to things and experiences immediate, which he thinks and feels are good. Impatience and lack of self-restraint together with ignorance and lack of discretion are the main reasons for such deviations. Theistic absolutism offers the solution to this problem by stating that the God of this creation has given us His moral laws which are absolute; adherence to His laws is the solution to life’s problems.
That is a wonderful solution; for here man is no longer called to drag on his autonomous reason, but confidently walk according to the revealed laws of God. But, as we have already seen in Chapter two, theistic absolutism raises two problems:
(1) Knowledge of the law is not enough. Wisdom and the ability and strength to perform must accompany it.
(2) That the moral laws of God (especially the Ten Commandments) are absolutes and yet conflict at times.
Let us deal with problem #2 first, and then proceed on to the first. Are the moral laws of God [all of them] absolutes? The answer is “No”. [Some] are relative to people, circumstances, places, and times; so that “Do not kill” is relative to the true Israelite brotherhood, and “Kill the Amalekites” is relative to the people circumstances of Amalekites. There is only one law that is absolute, unchanging, unconditional, and commanding the strictest obedience: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve.” (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10). It is unconditional and absolute without exceptions (Romans 1:18-24; 25-32). This is the standard whereby all other laws gain their position. This is the King of the laws, the others are servants and subjects. That doesn’t disvalue them. They serve their purpose in their own limitations. They “ought” to be followed without exceptions, but in their own limitations, as the law of gravity functions within its own limitations; the law of aerodynamics within its own area and position. We need to understand which of these laws are to be followed in a given situation.
The second problem (the first one, actually for it’s the prime) is the insufficiency to fulfill the command. Christians call it “the fallen nature of man” that cannot fulfill the law of God. This time the Christian denies his autonomous reasoning and clings to the God-given solution – the Cross of Christ. The laws of God have found their perfection in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him and walk in His footsteps (in His manner, as He would do it if He were here) obey the Father and do His will. On the Cross, the old man (sin-nature) has died – the penalty of sin removed [God’s law makes man responsible to His Court of Justice]. Today the power of sin is being removed. The Holy Spirit’s power is available for our strength and sufficiency, His guidance to direct us to do what is “right”, what is “good” in the sight of the Lord; for what is good is what is approved as good by God: HE IS GOOD HIMSELF and the creator of all good things.
Christian ethics is Christo-centric ethics, not man-dependent ethics. Reason and experience are directed by the Holy Spirit as you give Him freedom to do so. “What must I do in this situation?” then finds its answer in the love of Christ, and so of His children, the willingness to do as He would do, and the guidance and strength from the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christianity. To deny this is to deny Christ and His Cross. To deny this is to deny God and His Holy Spirit.
“What I ought to do” is “what God decides”, not “what I decide” in Christian ethics – the ethics of Faith, Love, and Loyalty. “Not by sight, do we walk, but by faith”, “We make it our aim to please Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:7, 9).
2.1.1.3. Christianity and Normative Ethics
Christian ethics, as the author believes, is a mean between Teleological and Deontological Ethics. The concept is that of a God who wills a universal law for all humans, at all times, a Will that is in accordance to His own nature and, therefore, a necessary, for all existence contingent on Him. Any being that rebels against this Will rebels against its own well-being or good, that is contingent on the Creator. The good expresses the teleological dimension and the necessary will expresses the deontological dimensions of Christian ethics. Since this Will is of Divine nature, it must be revealed by the illumination of the Spirit in man. Since man, as the Revelation (Scripture) tells us, is created in the image and likeness of God, he is able to know and choose this will for his life. However, the fallennes of man has alienated him from the divine will. Therefore, for the unsaved, the ethical code is terrestrially oriented or teleological. Thus, the five general laws: one for honor of parents, and four against falsehood, murder, theft, and adultery.
The above laws are not absolutes: they are externals of an intrinsic Law that is an attribute of the Creator Himself. The Biblical word used is agape. This view of Biblical ethics is also known as the Ethics of Love, or Judeo-Christian Agapistic Ethics.[1]
The basis of Biblical ethics is Matthew 22: 37 – 40.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like unto it. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Hunnex outlines four lines of interpretations of Biblical agapistic ethics within Christianity: Traditional, Evangelical, nontraditional, and Pure agapism.
2.1.1.3.1. Traditional Agapistic Ethics
Based on the rule “Love the Lord thy God with all your being” (it implies obedience to His commands) and “Love your neighbor as yourself,”it is also known as deontological agapism , or act deontology because of its emphasis on the ought, which originates in the divine command.
2.1.1.3.2. Evangelical Agapistic Ethics
According to Evangelical agapistic ethics, the indwelling Christ is the source of that supernatural love that produces acts in conformity to Biblical imperatives. This is also known as authoritarian agapism. Those without the indwelling Christ have the moral law “written in their hearts” that distinguishes right from wrong (Rom. 2. 14 – 15).
2.1.1.3.3. Nontraditional Agapistic Ethics
The focus on the present human reality or situations gives rise to a form of act deontology or situation ethics (e.g., in Fletcher, Gustafson, Tillich, or Lehmann) or utilitarianism, wherein man becomes the measure of all things and loving one’s neighbor is equal to loving God. The law of love, here, becomes or approximates the principle of benevolence.
2.1.1.3.4. Pure Agapism
Pure agapism frees love from any objects such as God or neighbor and considers love by itself alone as the only moral absolute; thus, pure. However, love can not be understood by itself alone. Love must either be understood as love-acts or love-rules; therefore, Act agapism and Rule agapism.
2.1.1.3.4.1. Act Agapism
Love rather than rules becomes the determiner of right or wrong acts in any given situation (situationism, religious existentialism, antinomianism).
2.1.1.3.4.2. Rule Agapism
One should only follow love-producing or love-embodying rules.
[1] Hunnex, Charts, p. 26.
The Absolute Law of God and Christian Ethics
The desire of man for the good is often clouded by his immediate responses to things and experiences immediate, which he thinks and feels are good. Impatience and lack of self-restraint together with ignorance and lack of discretion are the main reasons for such deviations. Theistic absolutism offers the solution to this problem by stating that the God of this creation has given us His moral laws which are absolute; adherence to His laws is the solution to life’s problems.
That is a wonderful solution; for here man is no longer called to drag on his autonomous reason, but confidently walk according to the revealed laws of God. But, as we have already seen in Chapter two, theistic absolutism raises two problems:
(1) Knowledge of the law is not enough. Wisdom and the ability and strength to perform must accompany it.
(2) That the moral laws of God (especially the Ten Commandments) are absolutes and yet conflict at times.
Let us deal with problem #2 first, and then proceed on to the first. Are the moral laws of God [all of them] absolutes? The answer is “No”. [Some] are relative to people, circumstances, places, and times; so that “Do not kill” is relative to the true Israelite brotherhood, and “Kill the Amalekites” is relative to the people circumstances of Amalekites. There is only one law that is absolute, unchanging, unconditional, and commanding the strictest obedience: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve.” (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10). It is unconditional and absolute without exceptions (Romans 1:18-24; 25-32). This is the standard whereby all other laws gain their position. This is the King of the laws, the others are servants and subjects. That doesn’t disvalue them. They serve their purpose in their own limitations. They “ought” to be followed without exceptions, but in their own limitations, as the law of gravity functions within its own limitations; the law of aerodynamics within its own area and position. We need to understand which of these laws are to be followed in a given situation.
The second problem (the first one, actually for it’s the prime) is the insufficiency to fulfill the command. Christians call it “the fallen nature of man” that cannot fulfill the law of God. This time the Christian denies his autonomous reasoning and clings to the God-given solution – the Cross of Christ. The laws of God have found their perfection in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in Him and walk in His footsteps (in His manner, as He would do it if He were here) obey the Father and do His will. On the Cross, the old man (sin-nature) has died – the penalty of sin removed [God’s law makes man responsible to His Court of Justice]. Today the power of sin is being removed. The Holy Spirit’s power is available for our strength and sufficiency, His guidance to direct us to do what is “right”, what is “good” in the sight of the Lord; for what is good is what is approved as good by God: HE IS GOOD HIMSELF and the creator of all good things.
Christian ethics is Christo-centric ethics, not man-dependent ethics. Reason and experience are directed by the Holy Spirit as you give Him freedom to do so. “What must I do in this situation?” then finds its answer in the love of Christ, and so of His children, the willingness to do as He would do, and the guidance and strength from the Holy Spirit. To deny this is to deny Christianity. To deny this is to deny Christ and His Cross. To deny this is to deny God and His Holy Spirit.
“What I ought to do” is “what God decides”, not “what I decide” in Christian ethics – the ethics of Faith, Love, and Loyalty. “Not by sight, do we walk, but by faith”, “We make it our aim to please Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:7, 9).
Naturalistic Ethics
From Marbaniang, Domenic. Ethics (1998), Published as Philosophical Ethics (2012)
This society, thus, is naturalistic and autonomous. Human reason, emotions, experiences, and aesthetic contemplation play an important role in making ethical decisions.
3.2. The Knowledge of an “Ought”
An understanding of “ought” is impossible without the knowledge of good and evil. An understanding of “ought” is also impossible without the realization of and reality of freewill and volition. “Freedom of will” is knowledge a priori: a man need not be told he has freewill to know that he has it for sure (the linguistic term may be new to him but the concept of “freedom” is there a priori). The knowledge of good[1] is knowledge a priori; for without an a priori knowledge of “good” there wouldn’t be any problem of evil. This knowledge is basic, from where we begin to make any meaningful ethical statement. It can neither be proved nor denied, but is assumed and known in making any aesthetic or ethical statement. Here we arrive at our main question: “Is the knowledge of an “ought” a priori? “Ought” reflects desire for the good and so an attitude of duty or obligation that arises out of the desire for the good. So, the question may be recast as: “Is the desire and inclination for the “good” innate [a priori]?” The answer should be “Yes.” To deny this is to affirm it: the denial shows a desire for the good that the denial is good, well-desired, and rightly done (was ought to be done).[2] From this concept of “ought” a priori proceeds statements of “what ought to be” (a posteriori).
Therefore, the knowledge of “ought” by knowledge of “good” a priori and knowledge of “freedom” a priori is a priori. The knowledge, forms, ideas of “good”, “just”, “truth” existing in the mind a priori, reason evaluating experience to see what things etc conform to these forms and thus are “good”, “just”, or “true”.[3]
3.3. The Knowledge of What is the Good
Now, there is the desire for the good and a knowledge that things ought to be good; there is the freewill to choose what is the good: but the problem to solve is, “What is the good?” And here we face an epistemological problem: “How do we know what’s good?” The best answer, I believe, is: “By the consequences” – whether that be of an act or of a rule.
If the rule is good and the act is good, the consequence is good.
If the rule is good and the act is bad, the consequence is bad.
If the rule is bad and the act is bad, the consequence is bad.
Note: The consequences justify the act or the rule. A thing is called good or bad by its functional consequence.
That consequences, results, or ends show whether an act or a rule was right or not cannot be denied sufficiently. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is evil becomes knowledge a posteriori. In such a situation, knowledge becomes relative and the thing, act, and rule are neither good nor bad in themselves [i.e intrinsically; they are only so in relation to the results].
There are three levels of compulsion or moral obligation in an autonomous society. The three of them result from egoistic and utilitarianistic dispositions. The third one results from the first and the second.
3.4.1. Compulsion by self-dignity or dignity value. At the root of self-dignity is an egoistic tendency; at the root of dignity value, a utilitarian tendency.
There may be many factors that back an egoistic tendency of self-dignity; but one of the strongest of these is possession. Now possession would mean anything that comes under “my” (my car, my land, my money, my house, my wife, my husband, my children, my self). The principle “none should trespass my territory” arises from this tendency. The compulsion factor of self-dignity is like “I cannot help guarding my… and keeping my self-respect, for if I do not do that I lose my self-dignity”, “What will he think of me if I do this or eat this?” “Regardless of what I like or dislike, my position must be secure” etc. Two main factors guide the decisions: “ought”, “dutymindedness” instilled by parents, guardians, teachers, and elders; reason based on experience.
The dignity value tendency may arise from autonomous reasoning, but most of the time results from instilled morality. Each person has a distinct dignity in the society and should be so valued accordingly. Our actions should be an expression of our value of their dignity. This sense is by compulsion – to be self-secured and desire other’s happiness.
3.4.2. Compulsion by aesthetic, axiological, or emotive contemplation and by compassion and desire for truth, beauty, peace, justice. Phrases like “I love,” “I like” have an aesthetic connotation. Ethical decisions are then in response to such contemplations. Something seems to me wonderful; what “ought” I to do for it?
Aesthetic Contemplation: This butterfly is beautiful. I like it.
Aesthetic Desire: I desire it to be so, beautiful. It pleases me.
Aesthetic Obligation/Ethical Desire [Principle]: It “ought” not be killed and deformed. None ought to destroy its beauty. I do not want to destroy it.
Emotive Contemplation: I do not like pain. What pains me surely pains others.
Emotive Desire: I do not desire others to suffer pain; it’s bad, I feel it.
Ethical Obligation [Principle]: I ought not [do not] want to hurt others.
This level of obligation is not so much duty-bound, but arises direct out of one’s emotional responses. There is one particular problem at this level. Our likes and dislikes are not always stable; they also tend to wear out with time and in repeated encounters – it is natural that they change and fluctuate with time.
3.4.3. Compulsion by society’s law, legalistic obligation. As has already been observed, discretion and experience play an important role in understanding and following what is good. It is also necessary to be said that a higher moral society would be that in which the majority rulers are wise, experiences, and well-trained in knowledge and discernment. The morality of a society depends on the nature of majority discretion. The more unreasonable, stupid, and darkened is the thinking, the more depraved is the morality. As a matter of fact, where the majority do not exhibit discretion, legalistic obligation is also deemed foolishness; for only the wise understand the significance of law and restraint in society [Fools ought to be restrained or else they may prove too dangerous to the society].
The laws of the autonomous society depend mainly on reason and so are not free from error. The limitations of reason and knowledge can’t be denied. How are consequences judged or foreseen before they come to pass? But should we always wait till the consequences take place? When some government legalizes drinking liquor [In the state of Andhra Pradesh, India, liquor had to be forbidden], on what basis does it do that; has it evaluated the consequences adequately and found them good (psychologically, physically, sociologically)? Well, that was not a compulsory law, but hasn’t that got an influence in society? Can homosexuality be authoritatively legalized without understanding the total consequences?
It must of necessity be understood that within the self of man, or within the structure of society there is a battle between the desire for good versus the desire for immediate satisfaction – and the latter is stronger; the desire for wisdom versus the presence of ignorance and blurred vision; the desire for the eternal versus the appeal of the temporal…. It is evident that the discrepancy of facts is abounding. Man’s limitations, lack of sufficient knowledge, self-control, and power of discernment do not allow him to reach to the objective Good – that which makes him perfect, sound, complete, and flawless. There can be no solution in an autonomous society; for what is “the good” is not so easily apprehended and followed.
[1] “Good”: the positive, sound, beneficial quality [of act, rule, or consequence]; the absence of evil [evil: pain, injury, hurt, the negation of good]. The good mentioned is not what is good, referring to an act or thing; but the concept and idea of good, innate.
[2] Now to say that I do not desire the good is self-contradictory [If good is not spoken of as what good is objectively, but as meaning “the better”]. For desire implies desire for the good. A person who says he doesn’t desire the good actually means that his not desiring the good is good, which is self-contradictory. When someone says that he has no desire either for good or for evil, we can’t refute him unless we see whether he proves his point in practice. But to say that one should not have any desire at all (e.g. as in Buddhism) or any desire for the good (Bhagavad Gita) implies that such desire is evil (i.e. not good), [which means to say] “Let us desire the good, the good is not to desire the good” – This is self-contradictory.
[3] Reason, then, evaluating experience produces the “ought to be” which reflects the idea of “ought” a priori.[Platonic sense]
3. Applied Ethics in a Naturalistic Autonomous Society
This chapter is important before we move into the next chapter where we will be dealing mainly with the importance of God, Scripture, Church, and Evangelical Christianity in relation to ethics.3.1. Naturalistic Autonomous Society
It wouldn’t be appropriate to call this society godless; for man at times tends to look to a greater power beyond him in awe or aspiration. But, it is necessary to say that here is no impulsion to follow any kind of divine edict or law under fear of punishment: the idea of God, practically, seems nonsensical in this setting.This society, thus, is naturalistic and autonomous. Human reason, emotions, experiences, and aesthetic contemplation play an important role in making ethical decisions.
3.2. The Knowledge of an “Ought”
An understanding of “ought” is impossible without the knowledge of good and evil. An understanding of “ought” is also impossible without the realization of and reality of freewill and volition. “Freedom of will” is knowledge a priori: a man need not be told he has freewill to know that he has it for sure (the linguistic term may be new to him but the concept of “freedom” is there a priori). The knowledge of good[1] is knowledge a priori; for without an a priori knowledge of “good” there wouldn’t be any problem of evil. This knowledge is basic, from where we begin to make any meaningful ethical statement. It can neither be proved nor denied, but is assumed and known in making any aesthetic or ethical statement. Here we arrive at our main question: “Is the knowledge of an “ought” a priori? “Ought” reflects desire for the good and so an attitude of duty or obligation that arises out of the desire for the good. So, the question may be recast as: “Is the desire and inclination for the “good” innate [a priori]?” The answer should be “Yes.” To deny this is to affirm it: the denial shows a desire for the good that the denial is good, well-desired, and rightly done (was ought to be done).[2] From this concept of “ought” a priori proceeds statements of “what ought to be” (a posteriori).
Therefore, the knowledge of “ought” by knowledge of “good” a priori and knowledge of “freedom” a priori is a priori. The knowledge, forms, ideas of “good”, “just”, “truth” existing in the mind a priori, reason evaluating experience to see what things etc conform to these forms and thus are “good”, “just”, or “true”.[3]
3.3. The Knowledge of What is the Good
Now, there is the desire for the good and a knowledge that things ought to be good; there is the freewill to choose what is the good: but the problem to solve is, “What is the good?” And here we face an epistemological problem: “How do we know what’s good?” The best answer, I believe, is: “By the consequences” – whether that be of an act or of a rule.
If the rule is good and the act is good, the consequence is good.
If the rule is good and the act is bad, the consequence is bad.
If the rule is bad and the act is bad, the consequence is bad.
Note: The consequences justify the act or the rule. A thing is called good or bad by its functional consequence.
That consequences, results, or ends show whether an act or a rule was right or not cannot be denied sufficiently. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is evil becomes knowledge a posteriori. In such a situation, knowledge becomes relative and the thing, act, and rule are neither good nor bad in themselves [i.e intrinsically; they are only so in relation to the results].
3.4. The Autonomous Society and Its Ethics
The impulsion of “God’s Law”, as we have already said, is absent from an autonomous society. Ethics, then in such a setting is relative due to the limitation of human reason, knowledge, and experience. It should be noted that the notion of ethics implies a step towards betterment and positivity; not towards destruction. It arises from the very nature of man’s desire for sublimity. “Good” evidently is objective – that which enhances one’s total capacities and brings him happiness or the enhancement of one’s total capacities and the bringing of happiness. Man, being finite [his short life, limited experience, knowledge, etc], his knowledge of what’s good and what’s right is limited to speculation, assumptions, analysis, and judgement by knowledge of consequences a posteriori; the experience itself being not always totally adequate and complete. And, so it is natural that ethical principles and moral judgement in such society tends to change, vary, and fluctuate.There are three levels of compulsion or moral obligation in an autonomous society. The three of them result from egoistic and utilitarianistic dispositions. The third one results from the first and the second.
3.4.1. Compulsion by self-dignity or dignity value. At the root of self-dignity is an egoistic tendency; at the root of dignity value, a utilitarian tendency.
There may be many factors that back an egoistic tendency of self-dignity; but one of the strongest of these is possession. Now possession would mean anything that comes under “my” (my car, my land, my money, my house, my wife, my husband, my children, my self). The principle “none should trespass my territory” arises from this tendency. The compulsion factor of self-dignity is like “I cannot help guarding my… and keeping my self-respect, for if I do not do that I lose my self-dignity”, “What will he think of me if I do this or eat this?” “Regardless of what I like or dislike, my position must be secure” etc. Two main factors guide the decisions: “ought”, “dutymindedness” instilled by parents, guardians, teachers, and elders; reason based on experience.
The dignity value tendency may arise from autonomous reasoning, but most of the time results from instilled morality. Each person has a distinct dignity in the society and should be so valued accordingly. Our actions should be an expression of our value of their dignity. This sense is by compulsion – to be self-secured and desire other’s happiness.
3.4.2. Compulsion by aesthetic, axiological, or emotive contemplation and by compassion and desire for truth, beauty, peace, justice. Phrases like “I love,” “I like” have an aesthetic connotation. Ethical decisions are then in response to such contemplations. Something seems to me wonderful; what “ought” I to do for it?
Aesthetic Contemplation: This butterfly is beautiful. I like it.
Aesthetic Desire: I desire it to be so, beautiful. It pleases me.
Aesthetic Obligation/Ethical Desire [Principle]: It “ought” not be killed and deformed. None ought to destroy its beauty. I do not want to destroy it.
Emotive Contemplation: I do not like pain. What pains me surely pains others.
Emotive Desire: I do not desire others to suffer pain; it’s bad, I feel it.
Ethical Obligation [Principle]: I ought not [do not] want to hurt others.
This level of obligation is not so much duty-bound, but arises direct out of one’s emotional responses. There is one particular problem at this level. Our likes and dislikes are not always stable; they also tend to wear out with time and in repeated encounters – it is natural that they change and fluctuate with time.
3.4.3. Compulsion by society’s law, legalistic obligation. As has already been observed, discretion and experience play an important role in understanding and following what is good. It is also necessary to be said that a higher moral society would be that in which the majority rulers are wise, experiences, and well-trained in knowledge and discernment. The morality of a society depends on the nature of majority discretion. The more unreasonable, stupid, and darkened is the thinking, the more depraved is the morality. As a matter of fact, where the majority do not exhibit discretion, legalistic obligation is also deemed foolishness; for only the wise understand the significance of law and restraint in society [Fools ought to be restrained or else they may prove too dangerous to the society].
The laws of the autonomous society depend mainly on reason and so are not free from error. The limitations of reason and knowledge can’t be denied. How are consequences judged or foreseen before they come to pass? But should we always wait till the consequences take place? When some government legalizes drinking liquor [In the state of Andhra Pradesh, India, liquor had to be forbidden], on what basis does it do that; has it evaluated the consequences adequately and found them good (psychologically, physically, sociologically)? Well, that was not a compulsory law, but hasn’t that got an influence in society? Can homosexuality be authoritatively legalized without understanding the total consequences?
It must of necessity be understood that within the self of man, or within the structure of society there is a battle between the desire for good versus the desire for immediate satisfaction – and the latter is stronger; the desire for wisdom versus the presence of ignorance and blurred vision; the desire for the eternal versus the appeal of the temporal…. It is evident that the discrepancy of facts is abounding. Man’s limitations, lack of sufficient knowledge, self-control, and power of discernment do not allow him to reach to the objective Good – that which makes him perfect, sound, complete, and flawless. There can be no solution in an autonomous society; for what is “the good” is not so easily apprehended and followed.
[1] “Good”: the positive, sound, beneficial quality [of act, rule, or consequence]; the absence of evil [evil: pain, injury, hurt, the negation of good]. The good mentioned is not what is good, referring to an act or thing; but the concept and idea of good, innate.
[2] Now to say that I do not desire the good is self-contradictory [If good is not spoken of as what good is objectively, but as meaning “the better”]. For desire implies desire for the good. A person who says he doesn’t desire the good actually means that his not desiring the good is good, which is self-contradictory. When someone says that he has no desire either for good or for evil, we can’t refute him unless we see whether he proves his point in practice. But to say that one should not have any desire at all (e.g. as in Buddhism) or any desire for the good (Bhagavad Gita) implies that such desire is evil (i.e. not good), [which means to say] “Let us desire the good, the good is not to desire the good” – This is self-contradictory.
[3] Reason, then, evaluating experience produces the “ought to be” which reflects the idea of “ought” a priori.[Platonic sense]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)