5 ms·

Telling Right From Wrong

23 points by J3L2404 16y ago

jackfoxy 16y ago
I have heard (but never confirmed for myself) that the term translated as sin into English from the Torah has more of the sense to miss the mark in the original Hebrew. It appears from this summary this atheist has replaced traditional Western religious-based morality with the very same moral system, sans God.
- alexandros 16y ago
  The word you are looking for is the Greek "hamartia" (αμαρτία) [1]. This does make the biblical association you're trying to set up significantly less tenable. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia
  - wolfhumble 16y ago
    Well, the hebrew word: Torah, means "instruction" (תּוֹרָה). So I guess that means if you forget the instruction, you are certainly missing the mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- beagle3 16y ago
  The hebrew word for sin is חטא ("het"), which shares a root with להחטיא ("to miss the mark"). Hebrew forms start with a 3-letter base[1], which gets put into various templates for conjugations of time, person, active/passive and other nuances. So it seems that you're right there. [1] modern hebrew also has 4-letter bases and supposedly even a couple of 5-letter ones -- rumour has it that the 5 letter ones never found their way out of a dictionary though.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Building a plausible a-religious moral philosophy always reminded me of building a plausible perpetual motion machine. How can you conceal the fact that you're trying to extract a conclusion from a system that doesn't have a premise? Well, there are indeed lots of methods of misdirection. The last try at building a perpetual motion machine that I remember involved claiming to have a device for "amplifying power" but not being able to hook the device to itself "somehow". Made the system harder to disprove.
- Herring 16y ago
  Building a moral system from premises always reminded me of Data in star trek trying to understand emotions logically. It just doesn't work that way. Every culture has a system of morality, even apes have a strong sense of fairness. And one would have to be very ignorant of the bible (or any religious text i've seen) to think morals come from it.
- rue 16y ago
  A religious basis doesn't make a moral philosophy any more reasonable (you can't argue real divine inspiration without proof). I am not sure if you even intended to imply that, of course. A "scientific" moral philosophy is still rooted in some fundamental non-objective rule, of course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing nor does it affect its plausibility. One fundamental is that humans are separated from other animals[1] not just by self-awareness but also awareness of others — and the resulting effect of empathy. With this information, it can be argued that this ability bestows an obligation to care for others. A consistent moral philosophy can be built from that and other observations. [1] This could apply to equal or lesser degree to some other species but we have no way of verifying it currently.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  Religion is a subset of metaphysics. Ethics is a subset of metaphysics. Neither is a subset of the other. I don't understand your objection to ethical claims unfounded in religion.
- unoti 16y ago
  > Building a plausible a-religious moral philosophy... You should definitely read Anathem by Neal Stephenson! He does exactly that, and a lot of other things.
Avshalom 16y ago
right: -> wrong: 1=2
jessriedel 16y ago
This is still a distinctly minority view among moral philosophers. I believe (I can't find the survey at the moment) that most think the is-ought gap is fundamental.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  That's not completely true. You have to separate universal moral framework from a relativist system. In this case is-ought doesn't come in to play (as Hume himself acknowledged in the answer to the question of induction). I'm more focused in epistemology myself but I also happen to be a Hume nut.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    Maybe you can educate me here. Once you've crossed the relativist bridge, doesn't the study of morality just become anthropology, not philosophy?
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Sure. Nietzsche was one of the first to approach this subject. In "The Gay Science" he built out the ethical self-actualization as a rejection of nihilism. Later existentialists (Camus, Sarte) did the same thing but attempted to connect it on a more human basis with freedom. Some even approached the same question with a theological perspective (Kierkegaard). The phenomenologists wanted us to throw everything we thought we knew about existence and morality out the window, so I'm not even going to touch on Hiedegger et al (if you're interested you can slave your way through Zein und Seit yourself). The Neo-Kantians endeavor to correct the mistakes Kant made following the CI and deal more with a "personal" CI, if you will (quite complicated, can't explain in a few sentences). Overall, I think that's a pretty good reading list to start with. You should probably read this[1] as an introduction, as well as [2]. Remember though: philosophy almost never comes up with correct answers, it only shows which answers are almost definitely wrong. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
stjohn 16y ago
The link doesn't work for me, but this does: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010lives.html#view=philippa_foot http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010l...

23 points by J3L2404 16y ago

I have heard (but never confirmed for myself) that the term translated as sin into English from the Torah has more of the sense to miss the mark in the original Hebrew. It appears from this summary this atheist has replaced traditional Western religious-based morality with the very same moral system, sans God.

alexandros 16y ago
The word you are looking for is the Greek "hamartia" (αμαρτία) [1]. This does make the biblical association you're trying to set up significantly less tenable. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia
- wolfhumble 16y ago
  Well, the hebrew word: Torah, means "instruction" (תּוֹרָה). So I guess that means if you forget the instruction, you are certainly missing the mark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
beagle3 16y ago
The hebrew word for sin is חטא ("het"), which shares a root with להחטיא ("to miss the mark"). Hebrew forms start with a 3-letter base[1], which gets put into various templates for conjugations of time, person, active/passive and other nuances. So it seems that you're right there. [1] modern hebrew also has 4-letter bases and supposedly even a couple of 5-letter ones -- rumour has it that the 5 letter ones never found their way out of a dictionary though.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Building a plausible a-religious moral philosophy always reminded me of building a plausible perpetual motion machine. How can you conceal the fact that you're trying to extract a conclusion from a system that doesn't have a premise? Well, there are indeed lots of methods of misdirection. The last try at building a perpetual motion machine that I remember involved claiming to have a device for "amplifying power" but not being able to hook the device to itself "somehow". Made the system harder to disprove.

Herring 16y ago
Building a moral system from premises always reminded me of Data in star trek trying to understand emotions logically. It just doesn't work that way. Every culture has a system of morality, even apes have a strong sense of fairness. And one would have to be very ignorant of the bible (or any religious text i've seen) to think morals come from it.
rue 16y ago
A religious basis doesn't make a moral philosophy any more reasonable (you can't argue real divine inspiration without proof). I am not sure if you even intended to imply that, of course. A "scientific" moral philosophy is still rooted in some fundamental non-objective rule, of course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing nor does it affect its plausibility. One fundamental is that humans are separated from other animals[1] not just by self-awareness but also awareness of others — and the resulting effect of empathy. With this information, it can be argued that this ability bestows an obligation to care for others. A consistent moral philosophy can be built from that and other observations. [1] This could apply to equal or lesser degree to some other species but we have no way of verifying it currently.
jemfinch 16y ago
Religion is a subset of metaphysics. Ethics is a subset of metaphysics. Neither is a subset of the other. I don't understand your objection to ethical claims unfounded in religion.
unoti 16y ago
> Building a plausible a-religious moral philosophy... You should definitely read Anathem by Neal Stephenson! He does exactly that, and a lot of other things.

Avshalom 16y ago

right: -> wrong: 1=2

jessriedel 16y ago

This is still a distinctly minority view among moral philosophers. I believe (I can't find the survey at the moment) that most think the is-ought gap is fundamental.

Locke1689 16y ago
That's not completely true. You have to separate universal moral framework from a relativist system. In this case is-ought doesn't come in to play (as Hume himself acknowledged in the answer to the question of induction). I'm more focused in epistemology myself but I also happen to be a Hume nut.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  Maybe you can educate me here. Once you've crossed the relativist bridge, doesn't the study of morality just become anthropology, not philosophy?
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Sure. Nietzsche was one of the first to approach this subject. In "The Gay Science" he built out the ethical self-actualization as a rejection of nihilism. Later existentialists (Camus, Sarte) did the same thing but attempted to connect it on a more human basis with freedom. Some even approached the same question with a theological perspective (Kierkegaard). The phenomenologists wanted us to throw everything we thought we knew about existence and morality out the window, so I'm not even going to touch on Hiedegger et al (if you're interested you can slave your way through Zein und Seit yourself). The Neo-Kantians endeavor to correct the mistakes Kant made following the CI and deal more with a "personal" CI, if you will (quite complicated, can't explain in a few sentences). Overall, I think that's a pretty good reading list to start with. You should probably read this[1] as an introduction, as well as [2]. Remember though: philosophy almost never comes up with correct answers, it only shows which answers are almost definitely wrong. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

stjohn 16y ago

The link doesn't work for me, but this does: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010lives.html#view=philippa_foot http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/26/magazine/2010l...