The goal of this post is to acknowledge that assumption of an authoritarian moral theory is to accept the reality of far more than those who hold the scientism philosophy that there is nothing beyond what is necessary for providing truth conditions for claims on natural science. Authoritarian morality does not enchant reality with as many wonders as Christianity. But it certainly fills reality with a mental life far beyond what natural science can discover.*<\/p>\n
The moral authority has to have something like the mentality we claim for ourselves and attribute to other people. The moral authority is a personal being which acts intentionality. (I underline terms suggesting mentality.) <\/p>\n
The law giver has concern<\/u> that its general laws are obeyed. There definitely is concern of the moral authority is if we regard the lawgiver as benevolent<\/u>. We recognize the benevolence of the lawgiver in our recognition that the general laws are, if obeyed, for human flourishing. The law giver recognizes<\/u> violations of its laws. The law giver has wrath<\/u> when general laws are disobeyed. The law giver prescribes<\/u> harm that ought to occur because of violations and the law giver intends<\/u> that the prescribed harm occurs. The law giver recognizes<\/u> when the prescribed harm or acceptable to it<\/u> substitute has occurred. When satisfied<\/u> the law giver resinds<\/u> the prescription for harm.<\/p>\n
So far, it may seem that these features attributed to the so-called moral law giver are only the features we would attribute to a human legislator. However, a bit of reflection brings out a tremendous difference. Start with recognition of all violations. Earlier, I called this “transparency” to the moral authority. Nothing wrong, or right for that matter, escapes the notice of the moral legislator. This is a type of omniscience.<\/u> But the moral legislator is not willful or legislates arbitrarily even if it wills<\/u> that harm ought to follow upon violations of its general laws. For the laws of the moral authority are immutable. <\/p>\n
To say that they are immutable is to say that we can not imagine them being otherwise. For instance, I cannot think of what it would be like for abortion to be morally permissible. I may wish that it were morally permissible. But that is only a wish because I cannot think of what I wish for to be true.<\/p>\n
These observations about a moral authority suffice to show that acceptance of a moral authority would certainly strike some one holding a scientist philosophy as imagining reality filled with some fantastic being.<\/p>\n
* See Christian Re-enchantment <\/a> for a sketch of how a so-called enchanted reality is philosophically forbidden to those who hold that there is nothing beyond what is necessary for providing truth conditions for claims on natural science. <\/p>\n In my book, I argued for a fundamental moral rule for male sexuality without any appeal to a moral authority. I hope to develop a stronger argument using authoritarian morality.<\/p>\n My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism <\/strong> was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page<\/a> for information about the book. See pp. 72ff. for discussion of moral harm.<\/strong> Free copies can be obtained here by credit card by paying $3.75 for shipping and handling. <\/p>\n