| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Moral Authority Fallacy | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 12:00 PM (476 Views) | |
| cmoehle | Jun 26 2006, 12:00 PM Post #1 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
This I found to be an interesting self-reflective editorial, self-reflective for a forum as a whole, since what is a forum, but a place for people to express opinions. The editorial is on opinions, and the moral authority behind them. I'll leave a lot out, the part that uses Noam Chomsky out as an extended example of someone who just because he is an expert in one area (linguistics) it not necessarily an expert in another (political morality). Heck, he's even wrong in his theory of semantics, lol. It's long, perhaps, but things are slow... The Chomsky Fallacy
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 26 2006, 01:10 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Jane
|
I'll agree and disagree with this. Granted, there is no ABSOLUTE source for moral authority. We have only ourselves, and are sometimes mistaken. But Since this is all we have... ourselves... it is natural for us to seek confirmation or corroboration of our ideas. So we look for expert advice. I look to the pope... not because I think he is infallible, but because he surrounds himself with numerous experts and draws on their advice as much as possible. Looking to Rome is looking to team of people, not one man, and these people are theologians AND scientists. (they learned something from their galileo error) And, because the rc church is world wide, encompassing many cultures, it strives to answer to ALL, not just me. It looks for unity through generality. But I look at the infallibility thing differently than most catholics. I don't see it as a guarantee of truth... an absolute. I see it as an assurance that we are not held accountable for honest mistakes. (if we are held accountable at all) Now, I can do what a lot of people do. I can seek out experts myself and read and think and study and work on it, but I'd rather let somebody else do all that hard work... most of it, anyway, and also, I know that human beings tend to look for people who agree with them instead of just looking for truth no matter how sour it is. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 26 2006, 04:10 PM Post #3 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I'll agree, the author diminishes the potential influences of others too much to make his point. Like you, I don't trust myself alone, but seek others to question and challenge that, and assemble the pieces best I can into a system of morality. I won't even argue the Pope is not a good source of morality for the reasons you give, for you, just not me. That is what the author is trying to get at, that no one person or book or thing can be appealed to as an absolute authority. If that's so, then what is truth? And let's not get into silly metaphysics! |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 26 2006, 04:21 PM Post #4 |
|
Member
|
Yes, lets not! God (the truth through the bible) is my moral authority. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 26 2006, 05:26 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Member
|
Assuming (without any means other than self-referential) that the bible is telling the truth. Oh, ugly tautology! |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 26 2006, 05:47 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Jane
|
the truth is, we don't know. all we can do is do the best we can with the most sincerity we can muster and move forward.... leaving open the possibility we might have to say we made an error and start again. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 26 2006, 05:58 PM Post #7 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Well, but, is truth something found only individually--my truth, or can it be found somehow socially--our truth? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 26 2006, 08:14 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Jane
|
I don't know know. It seems to me that people generally agree on some of the basics like lying, stealing and murder. I don't know of any society that promotes those things as okay within their respective societies. I mean, the native americans didn't steal from each other, but raiding another tribe was ok. (and they are only one example of such behavior... lots of other societies felt the same way, even through today) the idea that if it's wrong for me to do it to my next door neighbor, it's wrong for me to do it to a stranger, or even my enemy, developed late in man's social/moral history, and is still in the growing stage. So it seems that individuals or small groups, along the way, act as catalysts, pushing their societies to amend their moral codes. This works if the idea catches on and is accepted by the majority of the society, but that takes time. As a catholic, I was taught that if you believe something is a sin and you do it anyway, it's a sin... for you... whether it's REALLY a sin or not, because it's basically a personal, defiant act against God. But does it work the other way around? Suppose you don't believe it's a sin? Suppose you believe God wants you to rip the heart out of a living human sacrifice? Or whatever..... Is ignorance a valid excuse? Given man's history of violence done in God's name, I have to think it is. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 27 2006, 04:36 AM Post #9 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I think those things are moral prohibitions, Jane, that, yes, we can most all of us agree on. But I'm concerned here more with how you, how do we arrive at truth. We all can witness the same events, have before us the same set of facts, assuming no one turns a blind eye, but we argue different opinions about what it means to us, and how we should act in response. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 27 2006, 10:43 AM Post #10 |
|
Member
|
Where do you get tautology? By faith, I accept the Bible as truth. This is the essence of religion. It is not empirical like science. Faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (from dictionary.com) |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 27 2006, 11:39 AM Post #11 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
My favorite economist, Arnold Kling, writes in That's Your Cue
Of course that's just his opinion. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 27 2006, 12:00 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Member
|
The bible is true because you accept the bible is true. The Koran is true because people accept the Koran is true. The Book of Mormon is true because people accept the Book of Mormon is true. LaVey's Satanist bible is true because people accept the Satanist bible is true. Does anyone see a pattern here? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 27 2006, 12:07 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Member
|
Or, as Vonnegut calls these "memberships in groups" a granfalloon. From the Wikipedia's "Granfalloon" entry:
and:
|
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 27 2006, 12:07 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Jane
|
you're right. we do. even those who use the Bible as their source of truth cannot agree in entirety. Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. What the heck does that mean? It looks to me that He meant we should strive to live as He lived. (and died) but His way of life was a self-sacrificing life, giving to the last breath. very few people REALLY want to do that, me included. so the answer for me is, the real truth hurts, so I'd rather dance around it than take it on as my partner. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 27 2006, 12:48 PM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
This pattern does not prove the conclusion being drawn. For example.... Ford trucks are the best because people who own them say they are. Chevy trucks are the best because people who own them say they are. Dodge trucks are the best because people who own them say they are. Nissan trucks are the best because people who own them say they are. Toyota trucks are the best because people who own them say they are. Using your logic you would have to assume that it is impossible for any truck to be the best one, because people disagree on which one is the best. Illogical. Pick a criteria, apply it and then you can choose accurately which one is the best. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










1:27 PM Jul 11