site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34441 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

China and india in the middle ages and early modernity were more orderly and advanced societies than europe without knowing christianity. IMO what brings order in society is not any particular ideology but the enforcement, through violence, of the rule of law.

Religion in this sense, probably just offers a cope: human justice isn't perfect but those who escape it will be punished in the next life.

BTW, thinking that morality descends from god directly is not universal in christian theology, IIRC aquinas believed that it was derived from human nature.

IIRC aquinas believed that it was derived from human nature

Okay, this needs clarification. What we are talking about here are the three Theological Virtues - Faith, Hope, Charity/Love - and the Four Cardinal Virtues - Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude. The three theological virtues are only known by divine revelation and the grace of God. The four cardinal virtues arise out of natural law/human nature and can be held by anyone, including pagans.

Hit me up, Tommy A:

Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 61

Question 61. The cardinal virtues

  1. Should the moral virtues be called cardinal or principal virtues?

  2. Their number

  3. Which are they?

  4. Do they differ from one another?

  5. Are they fittingly divided into social, perfecting, perfect, and exemplar virtues?

Taking an excerpt from Article 1:

I answer that, When we speak of virtue simply, we are understood to speak of human virtue. Now human virtue, as stated above (I-II:56:3), is one that answers to the perfect idea of virtue, which requires rectitude of the appetite: for such like virtue not only confers the faculty of doing well, but also causes the good deed done. On the other hand, the name virtue is applied to one that answers imperfectly to the idea of virtue, and does not require rectitude of the appetite: because it merely confers the faculty of doing well without causing the good deed to be done. Now it is evident that the perfect is principal as compared to the imperfect: and so those virtues which imply rectitude of the appetite are called principal virtues. Such are the moral virtues, and prudence alone, of the intellectual virtues, for it is also something of a moral virtue, as was clearly shown above (I-II:57:4). Consequently, those virtues which are called principal or cardinal are fittingly placed among the moral virtues.

From a different question about the moral and intellectual virtues:

Reply to Objection 3. Faith, hope, and charity are superhuman virtues: for they are virtues of man as sharing in the grace of God.

And then another one about the theological virtues:

Article 2. Whether the theological virtues are distinct from the intellectual and moral virtues?

Objection 1. It would seem that the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues. For the theological virtues, if they be in a human soul, must needs perfect it, either as to the intellective, or as to the appetitive part. Now the virtues which perfect the intellective part are called intellectual; and the virtues which perfect the appetitive part, are called moral. Therefore, the theological virtues are not distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Objection 2. Further, the theological virtues are those which direct us to God. Now, among the intellectual virtues there is one which directs us to God: this is wisdom, which is about Divine things, since it considers the highest cause. Therefore the theological virtues are not distinct from the intellectual virtues.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv) shows how the four cardinal virtues are the "order of love." Now love is charity, which is a theological virtue. Therefore the moral virtues are not distinct from the theological.

On the contrary, That which is above man's nature is distinct from that which is according to his nature. But the theological virtues are above man's nature; while the intellectual and moral virtues are in proportion to his nature, as clearly shown above (I-II:58:3). Therefore they are distinct from one another.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:54:2 ad 1), habits are specifically distinct from one another in respect of the formal difference of their objects. Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Reply to Objection 1. The intellectual and moral virtues perfect man's intellect and appetite according to the capacity of human nature; the theological virtues, supernaturally.

Reply to Objection 2. The wisdom which the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3,7) reckons as an intellectual virtue, considers Divine things so far as they are open to the research of human reason. Theological virtue, on the other hand, is about those same things so far as they surpass human reason.

Reply to Objection 3. Though charity is love, yet love is not always charity. When, then, it is stated that every virtue is the order of love, this can be understood either of love in the general sense, or of the love of charity. If it be understood of love, commonly so called, then each virtue is stated to be the order of love, in so far as each cardinal virtue requires ordinate emotions; and love is the root and cause of every emotion, as stated above (I-II:27:4; I-II:28:6 ad 2; I-II:41:2 ad 1). If, however, it be understood of the love of charity, it does not mean that every other virtue is charity essentially: but that all other virtues depend on charity in some way, as we shall show further on (Question 65, Articles 2 and 5; II-II:23:7).

I was also thinking about quaestio 90 and following of the first part of the second part.

IMO what brings order in society is not any particular ideology but the enforcement, through violence, of the rule of law.

Yes. We're not talking about order. We're talking about morality.

You'll have to clarify, then. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are we talking about morality of the individual (as in: the ability of an individual to know good from evil) or are we talking about the moral basis of laws? Something else?

Right, my point here is that without reference to God 'morality' is an unintelligible term. We can talk about order, or smooth social functioning, or game theory -- all kinds of things! But those are not what we mean when we talk about morality. Morality is what is right above all those other concerns by dint of our relationship to our creator.

Morality is what is right above all those other concerns by dint of our relationship to our creator.

Well, yeah, if you define "morality" specifically to mean "doing the will of the Christian God", then it's definitely true that without the Christian God there can be no morality. But then this isn't a very useful statement.

We might more generally define "morality" as "actions in accordance with one's telos", which moves the problem back a step.

But it does leave us in more or less the same position, because now we need a telos, and that is not something we can give ourselves! Maybe 'survival' but that's a losing game at both the micro and macro scales, and we all know it. Also moloch, etc.

For most of Western history "morality" has meant precisely "actions in accordance with the will of our Creator," and a "good person" is one who acts accordingly.

In the pre-Christian West, a "good man" looked a lot more like Genghis Khan. He was the one who brought benefit to his people, typically at the horrific expense of others. Mercy, compassion, and so on were considered weaknesses, even to the point that the Roman goddess of such wasn't really. Clementia -- clemency -- is not the same thing. It's more like, the ability to overlook another's shortcomings to work together more effectively, as is beneficial for bringing temporal benefit to the people. A man who organized others to sail down the coast and rape, kill, loot, etc. was among the best of men.

Christianity changed a lot. All of a sudden it was considered wrong to, idk, kill inconvenient children, slaves, etc. All of a sudden there was this notion that the powerful had an obligation to the weak. And much, much more.

Now, an atheist can say something like, "Of course I can be moral! I can also perform common-sense game theoretical calculations with the aim of maximizing utilons!" But this is really not the same thing at all, and also I call BS on consequentialism because we are at best capable of tracking consequences to a few degrees out, after which we have no idea what the effects of our actions really are, and also I'm highly skeptical of the idea that "everyone matters" follows naturally.

Societies oriented toward a higher divine will (generally Abrahamic afaict) generated higher moralities. Within this moral ecosystem, defectors (atheists) were able to say, "But I don't need to believe in that telos to act the same as everyone else!" And to a point this is true, but it does suggest a frame within which atheism is a moral parasite. Able to crib, that is, but not to generate. And as a society takes its eyes off the telos, it naturally starts to backslide toward baseline human """morality""", which is not, imo, a good thing. But I can only make such normative statements because I'm still fixed on the telos.

Well, yeah, if you define "morality" specifically to mean "doing the will of the Christian God", then it's definitely true that without the Christian God there can be no morality. But then this isn't a very useful statement.

Sure it is. Just not for you.

Genghis Khan was a good religious person acting according to the will of his creator, Tengri.

"When the blue sky [Tengri] above and the brown earth below were created, between them a human being was created. Over the human beings, my ancestors Bumin Kagan and Istemi Kagan ruled. They ruled people by Turkish laws, they led them and succeeded" (face 1, line 1); "Tengri creates death. Human beings have all been created in order to die"

Atheists are 'defectors' to the morality-creating will of one more of such deities.

My morality is nothing compared to the will of tengri. Sure, I can 'parasite' off the morality of the religious when I pillage and rape, but I am incapable of generating something so beautifully circular.

You're the only one here talking about 'religion' like it's a useful or applicable category.

What is the difference between tengri's "good" will and your god's will?

More comments

I am incapable of generating something so beautifully circular.

And incapable of generating offspring either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

26 March 1941 (age 81)

Spouses Marian Stamp(m. 1967; div. 1984) Eve Barham(m. 1984, divorced) Lalla Ward(m. 1992; sep. 2016)

Children 1 (one)

Perhaps some kind of... Natural selection so to speak?

(For some reason your comment only appeared now. )

What does that have to do with anything? Besides, Jesus and his theologians can't brag on that front. Revealed preference, people generally don't care about passing on their genes, you can't 'live on', or take them with you. Oh no, they've lost a meaningless game that has nothing to do with them.

More comments

I disagree, I think our brains are sufficiently similar that if we understood them better we could come to formalize some basic universal principles of morality, indepent of trascendental beliefs. This is one way to come to an objective morality without revelation, there are others.

There's also a big difference between claiming that you need a god to define morality vs claiming that you specifically need the christian god.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats