A Pizza Pi

Intentional misdirect, or simply conflation?

To start, I refer my children back to the introduction to a previous post on the topic. This has become a whole thread, you can tell by the photos of letters flying through the air.

Here we are. We are on pies, or pi, one or the other. I am not attacking intentions, I am not arrogant enough to claim to know them, or what is in another person’s mind. With that said, I am pointing out that my stated points of focus and disagreement are not being responded to. I will start with a quote:

There are universal truths. Pi, is one of them. Gravity, another. Some are understood naturally, others are not. Children get gravity fairly instinctually. They may not understand how it works, but they know things fall. Just play a game of “Uh-oh” or “Oops” with a toddler in a highchair. They know things go to the earth. Pi? Not so much. Morality is like gravity, it is understood, but we can improve that knowledge. Unlike gravity, its understanding is frequently subverted. Humans rarely doubt that objects fall to the earth. They often are persuaded that moral behavior is overrated, or that it is unimportant.

A side letter came after my last, and Von’s response to it. I was curious at the format, and for once, read the comments (something I advise against, almost always). In there, we find a curious statement:

I don't think so. Indeed I think that gets at the root of what I think we are disagreeing on. I would put it that the terrorist *deliberately rejects what he knows (in his heart) are moral behaviours and deliberately chooses to act in immoral ways.
-Von, In a comment on a side letter from this series

Respectfully, this is the point I am making. We know in our hearts what morality is, and this is able to be articulated without the appeal to God. Perhaps I have explained this poorly, I cannot say; I wrote the words I have written, and understand the intent and thoughts behind them. Maybe they were not as clear as I hoped. God can be used as the reason for morality, but we know in our hearts, and can use this inherent sense of right and wrong to appeal to the better parts of an individual.

Yes, in our hearts, we know. Inherently, we know. This can be turned, or corrupted, but we know. We learn through experience, play (as I have argued), or maybe simply a Divine Being dropped perfection in our hearts and society corrupts us. Either way, we are fallen, and must improve.

“I believe you are essentially arguing that no person can truly be moral without believing in God, and knowing His will”
-Me, Pizza Gravity and Sushi exist, quoted by Von

This quote is fantastically revealing. It brings out a bit of the difference between quoting and summarising because his word ‘essentially’ merges three wildly different things that I hope I never merged myself. Let us go back to  Webster:

Moral: 2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.
-Von, from Webster’s dictionary

Webster here lists several aspects of morality: an action in conformity to the divine law, an action performed by a free agent, and an action motivated by obedience to divine will. So when Fallible says ‘essentially’, the problem is that he merges all of these things, and comes out shorthanded.
-Von, A Piece of Pi

Here is my objection. I say essentially, and that single word tears apart an entire argument?

You list three things, and then, it would seem to me, break them out to get into semantics (seemingly). Essentially, as commonly understood, means fundamentally, or at a basic level. Of your three ideas, I take one for granted; we are discussing free agents, or people with agency. The other two are heavily intertwined. “In conformity to the divine law” and “motivated by obedience to divine will” are not the same, but are similar. I lumped them together, this is true; I assume that acting in accordance with and trying to obey are closely related. The “essentially” was me taking a basic human assumption, we are free to act, for granted, and then combining two similar concepts. I could have been clearer, granted, but the point stands in my mind, namely that to try to obey “divine will” implies being familiar with it, and thus acting “in conformity to it.” How can one be motivated by something one is unfamiliar with? Is my summary unfair? By the definition you quote, one must be obedient to, and act in line with, God’s will. How can one attempt obedience to a being they do not believe in? How can they hope to obey a will they do not know?

I will readily admit, I am not particularly interested in a semantics discussion. I would prefer, as previously stated, to address what I view as the overarching issue. Can morality exist, and is it possible to teach, improve upon, or recognize, without God being the answer? I have even stated, I believe multiple times, if we choose to accept that morality must be “in conformity to the divine law” and “motivated by obedience to divine will,” I have no argument. I then asked what end this leads to.

I am unsure how to proceed in this discussion. I have acknowledged, repeatedly, that by the definition given by Von, I cannot rebut this position. We have gotten to a point of what “exist” means:

I disagree that Fallible believes morality exists. Oh, I think he does understand it exists. It rests inside his heart, put there by God, perverted by sin. But his stated beliefs, the ones he uses to argue with, are not compatible with what is in his heart.

I disagree that he knows what it is. Oh, he does in his heart, his conscience, but not in his argument.

I don’t believe that sushi or pizza exist. Not in the way that gravity, pi, or morality exist. If a child were to come into dinner and see a bunch of noodles, arranged in a circle, with pizza sauce, meat, and cheese on top of them; and he were to say, “Oh, great, we’re having pizza!” we might grin and say, “Well, we normally call this spaghetti.” But we could just as well call it pizza. It might be confusing with friends and relatives but, in the end, the difference is purely subjective and linguistic.

Not so morality, pi, or gravity. Or God. They exist, unchangeable, regardless of our knowledge or definitions. They affect us constantly, unchangeably, regardless of whether we acknowledge them.
-Von, A Piece of Pi

This is true. There are malleable definitions, and laws of the universe, or nature. I grant this. The laws of gravity are more rigid than the definition of pizza, or sushi. Absolutely. This does not address the questions I posed, however.

So sure, I will accept your definition of morality to be “obedience to divine will” and concede the entire argument. The only question left is quite simple; and now what? Scolding a person and telling them no matter how hard they try, they are still immoral unless they make every decision based on a Supreme Being’s will is unlikely to lead to a better-behaved world, and far more likely to lead to nihilism. At which point I shall reference the Bible, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I wish to plant trees that bear the fruit of people behaving in a more just, upright, and moral (defined sometime after 1950) world, which involves setting an example while inviting others to behave better, even if it is not due to a fear of God’s wrath or a strong feeling of love towards God. What fruits will the argument that all hope is lost unless we first believe bear?…

…In summary, it seems we are having two different discussions. You are choosing a definition that limits the meaning of morality, and I am choosing one that broadens it. I have fully conceded that if we accept your definition, I cannot rebut it. It seems to me that you have not attempted to address some of my arguments in light of a more modern definition, which is your prerogative. This is not an attack at the intent, merely a statement that it has always come back to an older definition. Which is fine, however I would be curious what your thoughts are on improving behavior in a world that does not universally accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

In the end, I return to a pragmatic question; what is the end result?
-Me

I am not here to rebut against your belief that God is the source of morality. I am stating, I believe clearly, that we know in our hearts (please see your quote above), what morality is. Would it be better if that was done to obey God? Quite possibly. Is it worse to convince people that morality is false without knowing God’s will? I believe yes, on practical terms, not with eternal ends in mind, but regarding the immediate consequences for the immediate world we live in.

I believe encouraging better behavior is a good idea, even if not for the reasons we hold ourselves. But then we question what better means:

Fallible says that our society is better than previous societies because we don’t have slaves. I disagree that we don’t have slaves. I think we have a slavery system that is far, far worse than existed in the antebellum south, and dramatically worse than existed in the Roman days.² But my point here is that he must have been reasoning as follows:

1) Slavery is wrong

2) Our society doesn’t have slavery, these others did

ergo

3) Our society is better than those others.

I disagree with (2), but my point here is that he has nowhere to get (1). Unless there is an objective standard of morality that governs over both our society and theirs, that covers all societies and all history, then all he could be saying in (2) is his personal preference. That he prefers to live in a society that doesn’t have slaves.
-Von

I agree on point 2, and leave it there. Regarding the “objective standard” that “governs” over our society. I go back to you with what he “knows in his heart.” Morality exists. I know this in my heart, as do you. It can be corrupted, numbed, dulled, perverted or rejected. It has been on numerous occasions. That does not make it any less real, or knowable. Does better simply mean my “personal preference”? No, it means the aspiration of what he “knows in his heart.”

Again, I have stated I support taking Holy Books, or words from “holy men,'“ and then utilizing our natural faculties. These include wisdom, a sense of justice, and our inherent understanding of right and wrong. I do not see how this is out of step with knowing in our hearts, while utilizing the tools available. We can continue to go around in the shape of a pizza regarding points I have repeatedly said I will concede, or we can address the questions I have raised. I hope for the latter. We live in an imperfect world. To say it can be better is to recognize that we all know, in our hearts, that there is room for improvement.

Love,
A man who wishes for a better* world

*Yes, this is relative, but in your heart, you know what it means

A Piece of Pi