On the defence of moral virtue in the face of simplistic, nihilistic 'anti-morality'.

Aristotelian philosophy provides a framework for the development of legitimately authoritative systems of human morality based in rationalism & steered firmly away from the nihilism of the late 19th century & the subsequent emotivism of the early 20th century. The question around which the work of Alisdair Macintyre revolves, is whether it was correct in the first place to refute the Aristotelian moral principle. As follows:

It was because a moral tradition of which Aristotle’s thought was the intellectual core was repudiated during the transitions of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries that the Enlightenment project of discovering new rational secular foundations for morality had to be undertaken. And it was because that project failed, because the views advanced by its most intellectually powerful protagonists, and more especially by Kant, could not be sustained in the face of rational criticism that Nietzsche and all his existentialist and emotivist successors were able to mount their apparently successful critique of all previous morality. Hence the defensibility of the Nietzschean position turns in the end on the answer to the question: was it right in the first place to reject Aristotle?

(p. 117, 'After Virtue' by Alisdair MacIntyre )

An excellent summary of that work just quoted is available here: Metasophist ~ After Virtue: A Summary (Tony O' Connor)

That article just linked is an excellent, if somewhat dense, refutation of the 'antichrist' anti-morality philosophy ascribed to Nietsche & others, with his vociferous hatred of Christianity, claiming that Christian morality is based on nothing at all substantive, just a breath of wind with no legitimate authority to lay claim to a rational basis or even a framework within which morality can be assessed. The basis for that claim is that Aristotelian morality was rejected/refuted, and there can thus be no accredited system by which one can ascribe legitimate authority to a set of beliefs. But was it right of philosophers such as Kant to reject Aristotelian morality? The answer, is a definitive NO - there was nothing particularly wrong with Aristotelian morality claims, and in fact they were & remain exceptionally enlightened positions, I believe providentially inspired in the work of centuries prior to Christ's appearance on Earth.

The idea of a telos and virtue are central to the Aristotelian framework. Telos can be understood as purpose or end: the ideal point or climax towards which one’s life is moving — and it is also possible for an entire society to have a telos.

In a teleological framework, ethics can then be understood as that which helps man move from where he is to this desired end. Without a telos, there can be no ethics, and moral statements become nothing but garble. The Enlightenment-era attack and destruction of teleological morality thus rendered morality incoherent.

After Virtue: A Summary

Teleological philosophy just feels right to me, as soon as I get into it. There is something sounding the clear tone of the rational, conveying common-sense & vital energy of what we know instinctively to be good, what simply feels correct in our spirit when we put our thoughts down on the page. I believe that Aristotle provides the framework within which the 'philosophy' of Christ can be better understood in its total & objective sense, a morality tapestry spun on the loom of our Creator, something of the elans vital, which propels us forward towards an end that is right, good, noble, pure & true.

Aristotle described the conscious practice of virtue to achieve the most desired end of a human life - eudaimonia, described as follows:

But what was the telos for Aristotle? The answer is eudaimonia - which can be understood as a “state of being well and doing well in being well, of a man’s being well-favored himself and in relation to the divine.” Aristotle rejected identifying this with money, honour, or pleasure. But for Aristotle, eudaimonia was not universally accessible – one can be excluded from it by adversity, ugliness, low birth and childlessness.

Furthermore, to attain eudaimonia, one needs to develop the virtues – and not just one or some of them, but all of them. A full discussion of the virtues and vices in the Nicomachean Ethics – which includes two vices for every virtue – is outside the scope of this summary. But there are some worth mentioning, such as phronêsis, which is knowing how to exercise judgment in particular cases. Without this virtue, none of the other virtues can really be exercised as the “very same action which would in one situation be liberality could in another be prodigality and in a third meanness.” In other words, a virtue in one circumstance can be a vice in another, and vice versa.

What strikes me is that although there is one very specific difference between the fundamental belief of Aristotle concerning virtue & the cultivation of man's ideal state, and the Christ-centred philosophy of the Apostles a few hundred years later, there is in fact a huge agreement on the myriad forms of virtue which MUST be practiced to fulfil the ideal condition of a human life by its culmination. The one principle difference is the matter of salvation by grace & not by works - we are saved from our low born condition not by the works of our hands, hearts or minds, but by the undeserved favour of the Most High God, who enraptures all humans on the basis of this qualifier that is singular & unique in all of the religions & philosophies the entire world over. If God were to enrapture humans to Himself on the basis of their virtuous practice alone, then there would be an extremely unfair advantage in the hands of an economic elite, with the poor & downtrodden being turfed out of the conversation because they are too busy struggling to keep body & soul together to spend any time worrying about great works of virtue. Salvation is a free & equally presented gift to all Humanity, and it could only ever be that way.

However, adherence to the equivalent of Aristotelian morality is an extremely correct & valid attitude to adopt as a person who has been saved by the work of the redemptive grace of Christ, because yes, we are required to be ambassadors in the world, a city on a hill, shining its light for all to see. For those who are not Christians, Aristotelian morality is the prima facie standard for moral philosophy, worthy of being adopted as a guide to behaviour throughout the world. It is understandable that some people have had a bad experience of Christianity in their lifetimes, and so I would never condemn someone who said that they don't necessarily believe that becoming a Christian is necessary for salvation/ being enraptured to God at the conclusion of one's earthly life. However, my honest advice is that if you can believe in Christ as the great redeemer, the Son of God, even if you're not sure about the church itself, that is the most valuable, self-supporting single belief that you can adhere to.

Within the context of an Aristotelian moral system, that belief can be framed & enshrined, creating a perfect system synthesising everything we can discern about morality from our own (divinely created) philosophical imagination, and the revealed wisdom of the Christ, the Lord of Creation.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I'm not learned in 300 BC philosophy, but since you point to the Christ, I'll say, Messianic morality is our goal since the beginning. Divine discipline, if you will. Really, if you will it.

The Five Horsemen of the New Atheism would REEEspond otherwise, but there is nothing new about that behavior either. So not happy, lol.

Thank you for your insight, FITO. Happy Easter, no matter your calendar.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Been to a grocery store lately? 70 percent can't read the side of a cereal box. All they know is what they want, and what they want is all they know. The schools have failed them. Their parents have failed them. The decline int9 the abyss is assured.

Science tells us that the atom is 99.99999% empty space. Nothing more than a mathematical point that may only consist of energy. The same energy that powers the pixels in a tv screen. Yet we do not say that the pixels in a tv screen are evil because they portray an image that disgusts our mind. It seems that evil only exist in the perception of images. Not within the images in themselves.

If we negate all the unreal, only our I AM remains. That be what God told Moses in Exodus 3.4 "I AM THAT I AM". So I ask you, what is the path to God?

I Am (is) The Bread Of Life (John 6:35)
I Am (is) The Light Of The World (John 8:12)
I Am (is) The Gate For The Sheep (John 10:7)
I Am (is) The Good Shepherd (John 10:11)
I Am (is) The Resurrection And The Life (John 11:25)
I Am (is) The Way The Truth And The Life (John 14:6)
I Am (is) The True Vine (John 15:1)

a reply to: TonyS

That's a somewhat bleak assessment, but I can't say that I disagree with you. The system is grinding to a halt because of insane Clown World policies & directives issued by the WEF goons, and indeed most people have no idea how to even want a happy, successful life. Success is defined subjectively in the final analysis, but as per Aristotle it shouldn't be dependent on wealth, power or pleasure as the driving motive force behind an assessment of 'success'.

Being at peace with oneself, with the world as it is, and with the divine Creator, is what creates true & lasting success, steady state happiness, and peaks of exuberant joyfulness as we revel in His presence by whatever means we find culturally desirable. We cannot lose faith in the good seed which is planted in the subconscious minds of all Western peoples born prior to 1990. Back then we understood that there was a correct moral way to live, and a rebellious, evil way to live. After the eighties the lines got blurred & MTV taught us to live the rebel lifestyle full of sex, drugs, rock & roll, made more accessible & desirable than ever when they showed us raucous Spring Break pool parties in California, as we trudged through the puddles & got drenched in cold rain on the way back from school here in the UK. Yet at that time, any halfway decent working & middle class home taught their children at least a semblance of Christ-centred values. The eighties is when the corruption of the youth by sophistry & misinformation/ disinformation of a spiritual nature began to get much, much worse, seeds of that rebellion having been planted in the sixties with the parents of us eighties kids.

When I was younger I had my own personal Yoda. He was much older but always treated me as an equal. He was one of the most brilliant people I have ever known, and I have known some truly brilliant folks.

While discussing this topic, or one very near to it, he described the two conditions of the human experience as chaos and rational order. When in chaos there is no order or sense to a person's actions. They react to stimuli without the presence of forethought, just action/reaction, based entirely on sensory or emotional stimulation. Plants, even single cell organisms, are capable of this interaction. As such, this is not the paramount achievement of humanity.

It follows to reason then that a more ordered rational system of navigating our surroundings is more attuned to a satisfactory moral/ethical benchmark. This may vary from person to person, but in general it holds true that a rational response to a given set of conditions is infinitely preferable to a knee-jerk response of emotional lashing out without fully comprehending the situation or the ramifications of the response itself.

I always found it interesting that most people consider their moral/ethical beliefs to be rather personal. This is illogical to me since morals and ethics have little or no meaning within an individual. They only have value or substance when applied to other persons. The very essence of moral/ethical behavior is not personal but communal. A solitary man with unwavering moral and ethical substance has no more or less meaning than a solitary man of chaotic murderous intent. It is only when in the company of others that these 'personal' beliefs become relevant. It is for this reason, I believe, that organized religion has some influence among societies. Finding ones 'community' is essential for development and growth, both as an individual and as part of that society/community.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I hate Nietzsche. But I can accept he participated in the liberation of the individual from what I'd call 'fake-moral social pressure'. I mean a person is not good or evil just based on how willingly they seek out experiences the broader public doesn't understand, or vice versa how much they deny their identity or parts of it to stay in line of the herd.
It's really liberation vs surpression, not good vs evil.

For any real understanding of morals one needs people pushing the boundaries, or to go there yourself.
Like you single out 'sex, drugs and rock'n roll' as immoral, but often those are great experiences, where people bond and human interactions happen, that are much more 'true' than those in a restrictive setting of superficial ethics imposed on you through peer pressure of Christian or other social standards.

a reply to: glend

It seems that evil only exist in the perception of images. Not within the images in themselves.

Right, so I'm going to ask you to stand on one side of the fence or another with a basic question that negates everything you have just posted as being pure nonsense, and in fact quite an 'evil' perspective in & of itself:

If a 55 year old paedophile kidnapped seven small children of both sexes over the course of twenty years, raping, torturing & then killing them after they became too broken to 'enjoy' any more, would you try to claim to the parents of those poor children that their deaths were entirely morally neutral, because due to the atom's construction, everything is an image, nothing actually matters, there is no such thing as an objective morality..?

The answer, I believe, is: "Of course not - that's evil, obscene & absurd!"

What you have failed to take into account is the human nervous system, which is an acquired bodily system we are born with, which we cannot negate or obfuscate - interconnected, electrified/CHI-driven neurons & nerve fibres that map our consciousness into a physical world which is tainted by the second law of thermodynamics (the Fall - the mythic yet self-evident corruption of what was once pristine & perfect, in a paradisical state, prior to the emergence of humans in this world..) The nervous system demands that pain be a reality, to protect us from events that would be destructive if we had no means to recognise a spectrum of potential harms being inflicted by the source of the destructive action.

Regardless therefore, of whether Reality per se happens to be a simulation (& personally I am of the opinion that it might be), the truth of the matter is that our nervous system generates pain in response to bodily trauma of any type. Our minds, so delicately interwoven with the complex material processes which govern our physical wellbeing in a human body, can be traumatised to such an extent by physical pain, and the fear of it, and the after-effects of it, that the mind of even a mentally strong adult can be fractured almost beyond repair. MK-Ultra was a systematic attempt to ensure that the process of fracturing someone's mind for purely militaristic or perverse purposes could be controlled down to the N'th degree.

Going back to my original question, after all that I have said, how would you speak with the parents of the murdered children, remembering that they were tortured before death over long periods of time for the sexual gratification of the killer? What would you say in defence of your 'atoms are images hence there is no objective morality (& by extension, no need to adopt formal rules of morality when dealing with the sexual conduct of perverts towards little children), in the knowledge that this perversion & degeneracy is so extreme in this case that the pervert kills the child while engaged in the outworkings of his fantasy...?

This is the same question I pose to anyone who comes around shouting that there is no such thing as objective morality, that good & evil are just subjective definitions useful for the changeable purposes of Mankind, whether things are good or bad depends entirely on nothing whatsoever. Because these lunatics genuinely believe that there is no such thing as an objectively evil action. You yourself are claiming a similar version of that same ridiculous assertion, by saying that the structure of atoms prove that all bodies & entities in the known universe are nothing but images, and therefore, there is no way that real suffering is occurring - your apparent logic, by which you appear to assert emphatically that no suffering is occurring, is entirely flawed.

What you're describing was actually utilised as a heretical Gnostic doctrine regarding Christ's death on the Cross.

They also claimed Godhood falsely, as you did just now.

They claimed, in the 1st century after Jesus' death, that Jesus wasn't fully constituted as a flesh & blood human, living fully within our world, subject to the same physical laws that the rest of humanity are subject to. They claimed that He was similar to a ghost, that his apparent corporeality was in fact not objectively corporeal at all; He had just 'gone through the motions' of death on the Cross, all the while not truly suffering the agonising death which had been handed down to Him by the Jews in league with Roman authorites.

If He did not suffer objectively as a real human being, then the substitutionary sacrifice made for the purpose of redeeming Mankind was a sham, a hollowed-out fiction in which He never suffered the agonising death of crucifixion, and therefore He did not actually accomplish the completion of a real sacrifice, hence a wildly different interpretation of His life, ministry & death/ resurrection/ ascension allegedly needed to be constructed.

Of course, ultimately the most truthful doctrine won the day - we're all aware that 99% of churches worldwide teach that Jesus suffered & died for our sins on the Cross, so that we can be offered the free gift of grace in which we are invited to partake in the Kingdom of Heaven's objectives & enjoyments of all things good & holy, saved from suffering in this life & in the life to come, protected from demonic forces, able to meet with God without fear of condemnation.

We are saved by a free gift of grace, so that none of us can boast that salvation came as the result of our own lawful & charitable efforts in this world of decay & corruption.

None of us are immune from the effects of the mysterious incident recorded in the Book of Genesis - the 'Fall of Man' - we all suffer due to the fruit of the poisonous tree, we all need God to enrapture us to Himself on the day of our departure from this life. Salvation therefore comes through grace which is portioned out to us if we will accept & believe that Jesus died for our sins, so that we can be forgiven & released into total freedom one fine day when we shuffle off this mortal coil.. That's it.

The Gospel of John describes our obligation in this regard in the simplest of terms, so that even a five year old could understand it & weigh it in their heart to assess whether it seemed truthful, a good idea, or conversely something deceptive, not to be trusted. Obviously children will trust in Jesus, the kind man who was also magically the God of the whole universe, who was born into the humblest of circumstances, in a manger - the God who actually owns everything in Creation & truly loves all of His people, giving them good gifts throughout their lives.

The terms of John's Gospel are as follows:

..[T]hey inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.”

John 6: 28-29

I must therefore refute in the strongest possible terms the assertion that there is no such thing as objective morality, "..because everything is just images with no real pain or suffering involved in the picture at any stage" (para). Clearly this is a warped & incorrect perspective - your argument is indefensible.

Incidentally, even if we live in a simulation, nobody can claim that our lives, suffering, loves, joyous occasions & peace as we pass from this life to the next are not objectively real - in the sense that we all share these 'teleological' experiences & relationships together.


FITO.

a reply to: Peeple

I'm not denying that sex, drugs & rock & roll are not enjoyable experiences which cause young (or old) people to bond, form relationships & network with friends towards the creation of new & exciting opportunities in business & the creative arts, as a further example. I'm mainly suggesting that moderation & research are the best ways forward in enjoying anything at all in the world which has been 'created' to be enjoyable. Pleasure is fine within safe limits between consenting adults, where the innocent or vulnerable are not exploited or exposed to inappropriate materials or behaviour from those in a position by which they really should know better than to exploit or expose people to materials you wouldn't want to show your grandmother. I do hold that there are objective wrongs in this sphere, but I recognise most of the issues as being symptomatic indicators of a Fallen world in need of redemption.

Heck, I enjoyed the occasional ecstasy pill in my past & cannot say with integrity that it wasn't thoroughly enjoyable, because it absolutely was. It was one of the best experiences of my life that first night I tried one (well, the first part of the night was - the second part of the night left a lot to be desired). Having said that, in later life I found that entering into the legitimately real & genuine presence of God via the Holy Spirit in prayer & worship is a far greater experience than forcing open the serotonin tap in my brain for one night of drifting in a haze of extendedd hyper-happiness.

And indeed, I'm not condemning the existence & utility of the ecstasy molecule, because it's actually being proven in human trials that it is remarkably effective in healing traumatic PTSD symptoms (post-traumatic stress disorder). Furthermore, evidence is being gathered at a rate of knots that other chemical substances historically used for 'shamanic' & recreational purposes have a fantastic utility as tools for totally & completely liberating the poor individuals who suffer with severe depression. It can be seen through University College London research that two individual large doses of magic mushrooms, delivered two to four weeks apart, after each dose then being led to recline in a therapy suite with two professionally trained psychotherapists to help 'guide' the participant through the inner work of the unconscious mind interacting with the psilocybin molecule via the brain. These counsellors then basically comfort the participant through difficult aspects of the experience, uplifting them as more joyous feelings & beliefs begin to surface - eventually experiencing sweet relief, delivering those poor souls who have suffered from untreatable depression for many years in some cases, even decades. The entirety of their depression can actually be completely & totally healed & transformed with even just a single dose! The only problem I foresee is the possibility that the pharmaceutical companies will attempt to patent prescription medications based on the psilocybin molecule which won't go far enough in terms of the dose quantity dispensed, on only two (unprofitable) occasions when combined with suitable therapist guidance. Instead of the two 'heroic' doses in the presence of trained counsellors, it might be the case that Big Pharma attempts to legitimise 'micro dosing', which is not effective for the healing of depression, according to existing research (though again I don't necessarily disapprove of micro-dosing, because I perceive its incredible utility for enhancing creativity for people working in industries where creative solutions (to design problems in particular - as a designer myself) can be explored effectively under such a protocol..

What I am objecting to, in the sense of the sex, drugs, rock & roll, is that many, many people take every aspect of that to excess, causing damage to themselves & others as a direct result of being unwilling or unable to temper their enthusiasm for the sex & drugs in particular (though there's some rather strong evidence that certain types of music are closely associated with increased suicide or active shooter risks, and that should NOT be taken lightly.

What that music is doing to the brainwaves/thoughts of listeners is anybody's guess, but I'm 100% confident that it wouldn't be good.. Not good at all... I believe that there is a spectrum of human spirit resonance/ echo effects in music which is activated in either a wholesome & beautiful manner, or else in a destructive, dysharmonic & ugly manner (or anywhere in between) - as evidenced in part by the ice crystals studies conducted by Professor Masuru Emoto. He was able to conclusively demonstrate that when beautiful, harmonic/melodic music is played in the presence of the formation of water crystals under magnification, then beautiful & unique geometric forms will be generated by the ice. Conversely, when dysharmonic, aggressive & hateful music is played in the presence of ice crystals forming under magnification, then the result was ugly, asymmetrical, broken crystals, which could not be said by any stretch of the imagination to be beautiful to behold.

Professor Masuru Emoto, Ice Crystal Study Into the Effects of Music on Crystal Formation

Hence I'm generally urging caution regarding the excess use of porn or sex to 'feel good' about life, or an excess/inappropriate use of drugs for the same reason - and with music, I firmly believe that we should seek the balance, harmony & melodic beauty of genteel music of many genres, rather than ugly death metal-type stuff, which may be warping the fabric of your soul as you listen to its hateful, hissing, screeching bull#.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Sure everything too much becomes a problem. Balance and harmony just intuitivly are the right goal. Internal and external.
However that doesn't solve the issue of our 'natural state' being one of conflict. The internal aspect of the struggle between the animalistic side humans just undeniably have and our 'higher' intelligence and awareness and all that it brings with it.
I don't know if declaring about 50% of our 'real self' evil is the right approach to manage it. So surpression even under the best circumstances can only lead to more conflict.
Which is as I said earlier the opposite of our goal: balance & harmony

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

When the universe creates human beings. We are all entrapped in a womb for eight months. Suffering ill health, old age (senescence,senility etc) and finally death. But we do not label the universe as evil for causing that suffering. Yet when the universe creates a being with the neurology of a psychopath with heightened sexual attraction for young children we label the person as evil. Giving no empathy for the poor soul trapped in that horror show. We may even think that person could escape that nightmare if they really wanted too. Whilst we with more normal neurology, remain fixated within our own dream....

Matthew 7:1-2 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

As for the parents, I cannot answer for God, why suffering exists. I can only offer my time and empathy to people that suffer.

If the world is a dream so must be pain. When the Buddhist Quang Duc set himself on fire in 1963 in protest of murders by government forces. Bystanders said he never flinched a muscle nor uttered a word as his body turned black in the fire. We are all capable of taking refuge in our soul. In which the absolute reality alone exists.