Friday, September 14, 2007

A Thought Following after Davis' Thought

When a person wants to do and does that which he knows is evil, he is being not just darkly evil but a dim bulb rationally. His internal admission that good and evil exists (handy to have in blaming everyone else for their sins) is an admission that an authority exists greater than man with the power and intention to reward or punish those actions respectively. The effort of evil action is preceded or followed by the wicked judging his own actions by his own feelings on the matter. "It wasn't that bad," or "It was deserved," or "But I love her," is said only by someone who believes that this ethical lapse is vindicated in the court of final appeal, the Self. Self-justification for a moralist is idiotic. Morals can only be justified by the governor of that realm (a decision rendered above man may only be rendered by a god) and I may only call on that god for justification. So you are either the god or you are not. You can't have it both ways. If I revisit what I knew was evil with my own authority I am saying that there is no oughtness, no morality.
I am speaking of the man who has acted against what he knows is good. He is a man who believes that this moral realm is like the American Constitution. He is counting on a balance of power between the president (his god) and a representative legislature (his own voice). He errs. God is a monarchist and has not called for a Senate. Our cacophony of self serving legislative voices rise up to override His veto and He will not, for morality's sake, be overridden. As we persist, we speak treason against the morality and its judge. We will be tried and we will be punished.
Isaiah 5:20-24
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!
Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble,
and as dry grass sinks down in the flame,
so their root will be as rottenness,
and their blossom go up like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

As an aside: One may have feelings of justification by an internal conscience (rightly or wrongly) and not be inconsistent. When questioned, that one would say that their conscience, which all men share from the god's design, carried the correct measure of the deed. He, the conscience follower, thought it good from the outset and was not trying to overturn a decision already made. He will agree with the above, that what makes it known as good is that God has spoken of it thusly to him. This just absolves the man of the charge of inconsistency but does not make him good.
Romans 2:15-16
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.


Thomas Banks said...

You have here described a case of narcissism at its ugliest, but such an one (I believe) could exist within the forced and ill-fitting assumption that they indeed were "Lord of the Realm." So therefore our case subject's powers of reason, so far as the case observes, are unimpaired, and it is his perception of authoritative reality that have strolled off the map.


Good eats for thoughts, in any case.

The Oracle said...

I merely suggest that to moralize is a stated claim of it is "not me" saying such morality. All the while saying "yes me" in the analysis of our own misdeeds. Is morality above you or not? Is it your own feeling on the matter or not? When I do what I know is evil I give the lie to any claim of effective morality. What happened to the just and capable agent entrusted with punishing me as I deserve?