>>It is almost a cheap shot to point out the oxymoronic
character of the
>>statement "Moral judgements are always a substitute for
understanding",
>>but there it is.
Robin sez:
>A cheap shot it may be, but I don't understand it.
>Could you explain?
First off, please forgive my tendency towards glib response, I
sometimes use sarcasm or absurdity for brevity's sake, but offer it in
the context of spirited debate and intend no offense to my Buddhist
brethren.
What I'm saying is that the statement "Moral judgements are
always a substitute for understanding " reveals a moral judgement (made
by you) about moral judgements, namely that they are bad.
Some clarification. "Morality", in what I assert is the common
view, is the notion that there is "good" and "bad" (as opposed to
ethics, dealing with behavior and notions of "right" and "wrong").
Morality is not necessarily based in a view of "what God wants"; it
doesn't have to derive from religion or from anything not verifyable,
what it requires is a shared underpinning of "values", which I assert
can exist in an observable place outside of memetic transfer.
I sense that when people slam morality as being "lesser" than
understanding they are referring to the common morality of the day
(Judeo-Christian values, etc.) rather than the notion of morality
itself, which can be derived from other sources (as was the point of my
last post).
>>You haven't considered the possibility that there's an
>>alternative to moral judgement, to guide our actions.
>>Buddhism advocates compassion, not because it's moral,
>>or proper, or because God/Buddha says so, but because
>>it minimises suffering, which is precisely what we all
>>want anyway. With sufficient practicality of that sort
>>there's no need for morality, whatsoever.
Indeed. I'm not sure what you consider "morality", but the
notion that it is GOOD to minimize suffering and BAD to increase it
falls within my definition. You assert that it is GOOD to be
compassionate and practical; I agree. How did you and I get these very
same notions? (coming full circle here, folks) Memes, of course!
Thus, the real question becomes: given that we ALL abide a
"moral code", and that we see how easily it is passed on without respect
to sense or reason, can we posit a morality that is based in extant
human values? Is there such a thing?
"Moral judgement" and "intellectual scrutiny" don't have to be
incongruent, the question is on what we, as a civilization, base our
morals.
That's what I meant.
Love,
Ian