Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and Sheri S. Tepper
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 99 (43501)
06-20-2003 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by contracycle
06-19-2003 6:12 AM


Moral Authority & Legitimacy
Legitimacy is often legalistic but also often moralistic.... There IS, I would argue, a historic correlation between rulership and claims to supernatural moral authority.
I would agree with this and I think it a cogent expansion of my argument.
I would question only one thing and that is, do rulership claims to moral authority have to be based on the supernatural? I'm unsure, having not explored it, but I think you could just drop that word as superfluous, except as an entry to your next paragraph regarding priest-kings, etc.
Therefore I don't think the distinction between legal and moral authority can be neatly drawn;
Neither do I. Actions can be judged as wrong on different levels simultaneously: killing homeless people may be as illegal as it is immoral. However, we know there are differences because there are some things which would be considered immoral but are not illegal (and probably vice-versa).
I do believe that the powerful and those seeking power will use whatever they can to seek power and maintain it. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that morality was and is a tool used for that purpose--whatever basis it has come from.
wr/Geno

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by contracycle, posted 06-19-2003 6:12 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 99 (43503)
06-20-2003 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
06-20-2003 4:43 PM


Re: Morality
Paul: So how do you get from the chiefs in Iceland being priests to forming one of your "moral authorities" if you DON'T assume that religion automatically forms one ?
Geno:This is why I think we see so many "priest-kings" early in human civilization. Even your example of early Iceland provides one:
The only thing I pointed out was that early Iceland provided an example of "priest-kings".
Once again:
quote:
If you want to talk about Icelandic society and extrapolate from that, that's fine, but I think it is not a very well documented example and probably not very indicative of western civilization on the whole. I think the argument you are making is a stretch. Just because a chieftain does something, it doesn't make it a statement on his moral authority. These chieftains probably had a combination of legal and moral authority and armed strength. They probably had other sources of authority for their rule as well...perhaps personal charisma or a hereditary claim....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2003 4:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2003 9:21 AM Geno has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 93 of 99 (43527)
06-21-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Geno
06-20-2003 5:00 PM


Re: Morality
Now, now Geno you aren''t entirely accurately representing the discussion, are you ?
When I suggested that the early settlement oiof Iceland did not have one of oyur moral authorities you answered:
"Are you kidding me? Paul, I believe you are pulling my leg!"
And what did you have to back up that rejection ? The fact that the Icelandic chiefs (who weren't kings in our sense) were also priests.
It is quite obvious that you believed that the priestly status automatically meant some organised monolithic religious authority dictating ideas of right and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Geno, posted 06-20-2003 5:00 PM Geno has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Geno, posted 06-21-2003 12:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 99 (43536)
06-21-2003 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
06-21-2003 9:21 AM


Re: Morality
It is quite obvious that you believed that the priestly status automatically meant some organised monolithic religious authority dictating ideas of right and wrong.
Not so! When I said I thought you were pulling my leg, I meant it! I thought you had picked this obscure topic to use as a strawman.
If that's not the case, please tell me now. If you honestly think this is the best example to support your position, you have to admit, as I freely do, it is rather arcane.
I've never said that the chief priestly status 'automatically' made them moral authorities. You assumed that. I do admit that it's plausible that they embodied some moral authority by virtue of their position--but as I'm not an expert in early Icelandic culture, I'd have to refer to one...which I've done, but I haven't gotten an answer. If you are an expert in early Icelandic culture, then by all means present your credentials.
wr/Geno

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2003 9:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2003 8:25 AM Geno has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 99 (43599)
06-22-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Geno
06-21-2003 12:54 PM


Why would Iceland be arcane ? It's one of the better documented societies.
I've already presented points in my favour and been met with no serious response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Geno, posted 06-21-2003 12:54 PM Geno has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Geno, posted 06-22-2003 10:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 99 (43691)
06-22-2003 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PaulK
06-22-2003 8:25 AM


Arcane
Why would Iceland be arcane ? It's one of the better documented societies.
A. Because it is arcane and b. because it's not well documented. My sources report that for most of early Icelandic civilization, there's only one source, and that it was written down about 200 years afterwards. That is not well documented.
I've already presented points in my favour and been met with no serious response.
That's a good one Paul. Of course, you've never really laid down your theory, but only played opposition to mine. You've made some good points and I've modified my theory on that basis, but this whole discussion about early Icelandic society is ridiculous and I'm not going to have it.
Since you've not denied my strawman accusation I have to assume that you do not deny it and frankly I don't have time to play games.
If you would like to discuss this or other topics without the games, I'm happy to continue, otherwise Admin may close this topic at any time.
r/Geno

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2003 8:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 6:07 AM Geno has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 99 (43724)
06-23-2003 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Geno
06-22-2003 10:31 PM


Re: Arcane
I see. Since you can't answer my points you're going to accuse me of playing games.
If you aren't able to hold up your end of the discussion then please bow out gracefully rather than throwing false and hypocritical accusations.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Geno, posted 06-22-2003 10:31 PM Geno has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 99 (44294)
06-26-2003 6:34 AM


Geno Asked:
quote:
I would question only one thing and that is, do rulership claims to moral authority have to be based on the supernatural? I'm unsure, having not explored it, but I think you could just drop that word as superfluous, except as an entry to your next paragraph regarding priest-kings, etc.
No. I would argue that the ideology of democracy is also a claim to moral authority. It is a moral authority I find more convincing and acceptable than one based on a supernatural claim.
I think the claim to supernatural insight should be read with emphasis on the SUPER. Even if I were endowed with a formal position of moral authority, a pronouncement I made would only carry the weight of my position. However, if I alleged that a supreme being had revealed to me a fundamental truth about the nature of reality, I would be asserting a .... I was going to say "stronger" but will instead say "more vigorous"... claim which is tacitly supported by whatever else we might think about that supernatural being.

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Geno, posted 06-30-2003 4:06 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Geno
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 99 (44718)
06-30-2003 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by contracycle
06-26-2003 6:34 AM


Moral Authority
Sorry for the delay.
The bottom line with this is, do you accept these moral authorities and how they tell you how to live? If so, why?
Thanks,
Geno

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by contracycle, posted 06-26-2003 6:34 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024