Comments on: Debating the Morality of the Free Market http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/ The blog of the monthly conservative journal of UNC-Chapel Hill Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:50:13 +0000 hourly 1 By: Riley Matheson http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2651 Riley Matheson Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:50:20 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2651 "This is all well and good, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the point I was trying to make, which was that unlimited majority rule is dangerous when it is coupled with a lack of absolute morals." I now see that this comment was posted in response to Tracy, and not to me. Sorry, this computer doesn't allow me to make these distinctions very easily. “This is all well and good, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the point I was trying to make, which was that unlimited majority rule is dangerous when it is coupled with a lack of absolute morals.”

I now see that this comment was posted in response to Tracy, and not to me. Sorry, this computer doesn’t allow me to make these distinctions very easily.

]]> By: Riley Matheson http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2644 Riley Matheson Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:41:54 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2644 Although NJR has already made clear "how (what I said) has anything to do with the point (you were) trying to make," I'll add one quick comment. What I said basically solves the argument between you and Jonathan. You both are wrong in two different ways. Jonathan is wrong because he makes the erroneous assumption that "God (does not come) down to us and (legislate) in all matters civil and ecclesiastical," whereas you erroneously assume that there can be moral absolutes without a central, special, and specific highest authority that ultimately can't be questioned by just any individual (this assumption of yours is implicit in your not being a Catholic). Although NJR has already made clear “how (what I said) has anything to do with the point (you were) trying to make,” I’ll add one quick comment. What I said basically solves the argument between you and Jonathan. You both are wrong in two different ways. Jonathan is wrong because he makes the erroneous assumption that “God (does not come) down to us and (legislate) in all matters civil and ecclesiastical,” whereas you erroneously assume that there can be moral absolutes without a central, special, and specific highest authority that ultimately can’t be questioned by just any individual (this assumption of yours is implicit in your not being a Catholic).

]]> By: NJR http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2639 NJR Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:51:19 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2639 Quick question, Chris. How much safer is unlimited majority rule with absolute morals? I mean, major decisions are still being made based on how the majority of people feel about the issue. The terms "absolute" and "majority rule" simply cannot coexist. Either there is an absolute authority, or that authority is based on the collective individual's judgment. Quick question, Chris.

How much safer is unlimited majority rule with absolute morals? I mean, major decisions are still being made based on how the majority of people feel about the issue.

The terms "absolute" and "majority rule" simply cannot coexist. Either there is an absolute authority, or that authority is based on the collective individual's judgment.

]]> By: cwjones http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2638 cwjones Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:50:36 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2638 This is all well and good, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the point I was trying to make, which was that unlimited majority rule is dangerous when it is coupled with a lack of absolute morals. This is all well and good, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the point I was trying to make, which was that unlimited majority rule is dangerous when it is coupled with a lack of absolute morals.

]]> By: Tracy http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2636 Tracy Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:49:11 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2636 But don't you think, as a student of the historical context of Nazism, that it's a bit ridiculous to judge every majority-minority ethnic relation in the light of something that happened around 64 years ago in Germany, and that virtually everyone condemns anyway? I'm only asking because I just get sick of hearing people accuse their enemies of Nazism all the time. I think it's juvenile. But don't you think, as a student of the historical context of Nazism, that it's a bit ridiculous to judge every majority-minority ethnic relation in the light of something that happened around 64 years ago in Germany, and that virtually everyone condemns anyway? I'm only asking because I just get sick of hearing people accuse their enemies of Nazism all the time. I think it's juvenile.

]]> By: cwjones http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2630 cwjones Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:30:29 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2630 Because I'm a student of the history of the second world war and totalitarianism. Because I'm a student of the history of the second world war and totalitarianism.

]]> By: Tracy http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2629 Tracy Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:22:48 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2629 Why does everything always have to be about the Nazis and ethnic minorities with you, Chris? Why does everything always have to be about the Nazis and ethnic minorities with you, Chris?

]]> By: Riley Matheson http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2627 Riley Matheson Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:48:09 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2627 You guys are debating a topic that has virtually been settled in Catholic circles. You see, in Catholicism, there is a central authority (the Holy See, dogmatic Church documents that can’t be changed, legal formulas that virtually can’t be misinterpreted, etc.). That central authority is believed to be infallible (in certain circumstances) in matters of faith and morals. Thus, there is no doubt (nor will there ever be) that abortion is wrong, that sex between members of the same sex is always and intrinsically wrong, that women cannot become priests, etc. There is no serious debate on these topics, nor will there ever be. And sure, one could argue that a debate is always possible—after all, look at all the “progress” we’ve made. But that’s where the Holy Spirit comes into play. Catholics believe that Papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals (in the appropriate circumstances) is made possible by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is not actually speaking—God is speaking through him. Basically, by listening to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, we are listening to God Himself. Maybe this sounds crazy to you non-Catholics, but it’s really not much different from the Protestant belief that God directly inspired the various authors of the Bible and therefore everything in the Bible is truth spoken from the mouth of God. Obviously, Protestantism cannot even hold a candle to Catholicism in this regard. Protestants are always splitting hairs over the smallest matters, which have long been settled in Catholic circles. But that’s not the only problem with Protestantism. Each individual Protestant thinks of himself as the highest authority in matters of faith and morals. That’s why there is so little unity among Protestants as compared to Catholics. A Catholic, if he’s going to be a Catholic, is ultimately going to have to accept what the Church teaches. If he doesn’t accept it, he either has to keep his mouth shut about it or he has to leave. The Church isn’t going to change, only certain renegades are going to decide that they don’t like what the Church taught, teaches, and will always teach. You guys are debating a topic that has virtually been settled in Catholic circles. You see, in Catholicism, there is a central authority (the Holy See, dogmatic Church documents that can’t be changed, legal formulas that
virtually can’t be misinterpreted, etc.). That central authority is believed to be infallible (in certain circumstances) in matters of faith and morals. Thus, there is no doubt (nor will there ever be) that abortion is wrong, that sex between members of the same sex is always and intrinsically wrong, that women cannot become priests, etc. There is no serious debate on these topics, nor will there ever be.

And sure, one could argue that a debate is always possible—after all, look at all the “progress” we’ve made. But that’s where the Holy Spirit comes into play. Catholics believe that Papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals (in the appropriate circumstances) is made possible by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is not actually speaking—God is speaking through him. Basically, by listening to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, we are listening to God Himself.

Maybe this sounds crazy to you non-Catholics, but it’s really not much different from the Protestant belief that God directly inspired the various
authors of the Bible and therefore everything in the Bible is truth spoken from the mouth of God.

Obviously, Protestantism cannot even hold a candle to Catholicism in this regard. Protestants are always splitting hairs over the smallest matters, which have long been settled in Catholic circles. But that’s not the only problem with Protestantism. Each individual Protestant thinks of himself as the highest authority in matters of faith and morals. That’s why there is so little unity among Protestants as compared to Catholics. A Catholic, if he’s going to be a Catholic, is ultimately going to have to accept what the Church teaches. If he doesn’t accept it, he either has to keep his mouth shut about it or he has to leave. The Church isn’t going to change, only certain renegades are going to decide that they don’t like what the Church
taught, teaches, and will always teach.

]]> By: cwjones http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2624 cwjones Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:37:09 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2624 "I would say that this is a tragic scenario much more common in religious communities than within one population that accepts socially constructed morality, wouldn't you?" And that's just the problem. With no universally true morality (and therefore no true morality, and no objective right and wrong), it's completely OK for people to do whatever they want towards each other within a society. I'm not saying that moral codes can't evolve on their own inside human societies. I'm saying that in a world with only socially constructed morality, there is no reason why any society's moral code is better or worse than another's. Therefore, you have no grounds to make the moral judgment of "tragic" on a society which makes such a choice. "I would say that this is a tragic scenario much more common in religious communities than within one population that accepts socially constructed morality, wouldn't you?"

And that's just the problem. With no universally true morality (and therefore no true morality, and no objective right and wrong), it's completely OK for people to do whatever they want towards each other within a society.

I'm not saying that moral codes can't evolve on their own inside human societies. I'm saying that in a world with only socially constructed morality, there is no reason why any society's moral code is better or worse than another's. Therefore, you have no grounds to make the moral judgment of "tragic" on a society which makes such a choice.

]]> By: Jonathan Pattishall http://crdaily.com/2009/11/debating-the-morality-of-the-free-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2621 Jonathan Pattishall Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:11:44 +0000 http://crdaily.com/?p=3629#comment-2621 Every system is liable to change, even one based on a religious text, because textual systems always face the problem of interpretation. There is no unified, static Christian morality today for that very reason. The whole history of religion is a history of the crisis of interpretation. Christian morality has changed often; generally people have been killed in the attempts to stifle such changes, not because the changes themselves lead to such killing. Until God comes down to us and legislates in all matters civil and ecclesiastical, then everything is up to us. Whether its through interpretation of religious texts written by men, or the artificial construction of new systems and ethical standards, we might as well accept that morality is socially constructed. "After all, if the majority decides what is right and what is wrong and they decide it is right to rise up and kill all the ethnic minorities in their community, what is there to say that's wrong?" I would say that this is a tragic scenario much more common in religious communities than within one population that accepts socially constructed morality, wouldn't you? What examples do we have of the latter? Finally, you didn't address the issue of theocracy. Isn't the justification of government by appeal to divine law theocratic in nature? And if so, isn't theocracy itself a pervasively despotic system? Every system is liable to change, even one based on a religious text, because textual systems always face the problem of interpretation. There is no unified, static Christian morality today for that very reason. The whole history of religion is a history of the crisis of interpretation. Christian morality has changed often; generally people have been killed in the attempts to stifle such changes, not because the changes themselves lead to such killing. Until God comes down to us and legislates in all matters civil and ecclesiastical, then everything is up to us. Whether its through interpretation of religious texts written by men, or the artificial construction of new systems and ethical standards, we might as well accept that morality is socially constructed.

"After all, if the majority decides what is right and what is wrong and they decide it is right to rise up and kill all the ethnic minorities in their community, what is there to say that's wrong?"

I would say that this is a tragic scenario much more common in religious communities than within one population that accepts socially constructed morality, wouldn't you? What examples do we have of the latter?

Finally, you didn't address the issue of theocracy. Isn't the justification of government by appeal to divine law theocratic in nature? And if so, isn't theocracy itself a pervasively despotic system?

]]>