I could have understood it if it had been a football player. From a quarterback, or whatever-you-call-em, it would have been understandable. After all, they commonly make such brilliant observations on television as "I think we did real good." But I expected better from the rest of society. I expected better from tv producers, for heavens sake!, who work (I thought) from a script or whatnot. But there it was. "I think I did good."

And is radio any better? It is not. I actually heard one fine young man, in an attempt to sell I forget what, ask sweetly, "Do you get the feeling people are disrespecting you?"

I give up. I'm moving to Great Britain, and taking my frustrations with me.

I can hear my little brothers playing down the street and around the corner. By a trick of distance, their voices echo...

I can remember being 7, and playing with pleasant abandon all day.

I remember when dinnertime was a grievance; every meal a race. I remember cold popsicles--my favorite was orange--that melted too fast. I remember the sting of a scraped knee mingling with the sting of peroxide.

I remember playing with the neighbor girl's new pug-faced puppy, and nearly suffocating him in his new styrofoam "house". I remember trying to sell my prized possessions in a garage sale before my mother stopped me.

I remember how I got the scar on the knuckle of my left ring finger--pushing an empty stroller down the driveway at Millenbach, and tripping, my finger crushed underneath.

I remember Mrs. B handing me a pale yellow iris--the first 'real' flower I ever had--from her garden. I remember my first piano teacher.

I remember rolling down a hill with my cousins in Ohio, and landing in poison ivy. I remember my Aunt handing out creamsicles afterwards--and I was hooked for life.

I remember the first time my dad put on 'Tomorrow is My Dancing Day' for my sister and me, and let us dance our hearts out.

I remember playing "boys against the girls", and being on the boys side.

I remember what it was like to be a kid.

Summertime is for remembering.

Aha! I found another one:


Jody,

Thank you for emailing. Before I forget, would you mind forwarding this email to Andy? I believe it will answer the question he put to me on the blog. (I would CC it to him, but I don’t have his email address.) Thanks!

Ok…I am familiar with Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the issue that you raise. You argue, along with Plato, that only two alternatives exist. Either Right is Right because God commands it, in which case He is simply making a decision on an arbitrary basis, OR a separate standard of Right exists and God merely recognizes that standard, in which case He is no longer sovereign.

However, many philosophers insist that this is a faulty dilemma—that there is a third possibility. This third alternative is that God neither commands “x” because “x” is good, nor is “x” good simply because God says so—rather, God’s own nature necessarily defines Right and Wrong. God is, by definition, the ultimate standard of Right and Wrong—if there was a standard to which He had to submit, He would no longer be God.

It would, however, take a great deal of words from me, and patience from you, for me to fully explain my stance—rather, I recently came across an excellent article that outlined exactly what I believe. I am including the link to that article for you. If I could put my position as clearly as the author of this article, I would do so, but I think he does a far better job explaining than I can do at the present time! Please read the article, then, and take it from there.

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm

Perhaps in a later email (it’s after midnight here…I don’t have time to address the issue tonight) you could explain what your basis for moral values is, and I’ll explain why I believe that the Greeks’ system of ethics is useless without a belief in God.

I hope this email answers both your objections and Andy’s—let me know what you think of the article.

Jamie

Quite a while ago, while I was still partnering on Deux Ego, I had a series of discussions with a guy named Jody, about the difference between objective and subjective morality. He was, if I recall correctly, an atheist, who thought subjective morality was "silly", but wouldn't accept objective morality as the only other alternative.

I don't know what effect, if any, these conversations had, since they ended in a stalemate--neither of us willing to change our beliefs on the subject--but they were useful to me in thinking the matter through more fully for myself.

I wish I could find all the emails that tracked our discussion, but all I could find was this reply that I sent to Jody in answer to why one must accept either subjective or objective morality.

Read at your leisure, and please comment! Tell me I'm right, tell me I'm wrong, tell me you hate my site, but tell me something! (That was a hint to all you lurkers who never comment.)

Jody,

You know, there is no middle ground between objective and subjective morality. Either morality is objective...or it isn't, in which case it is subjective.

At the moment I am going to bypass your other comments and concentrate on the issue of morality. I recently read a book by Paul Chamberlain entitled "Can We Be Good Without God?", which, though badly written, presented sound logic and ideas.

The author suggests first that subjective morality is a ridiculous concept, as attractive a notion as it may seem at first. You don't (apparently) believe in a standard of objective morality--hence you must believe in subjective morality to some degree, subjectivity being defined as "non-objectivity". (He defines objective morality, btw, as "an objective entity independent of any human being. This entity we could call moral value, or moral truth, or a set of moral principles, or a moral standard...what we call it is not important. What is important is that this moral standard is independent of any person. We don't determine or control it. It does not change from one person to another. Nor does it go away because we don't appreciate it...Objective morality is simply there for us to discover and measure our actions against." I am not assuming that you don't know what "objective morality" means, but I am simply defining the term so we're both sure how I'm using it.)

Now, I think you will find that it is impossible to carry a subjective view of morality to its logical end. You must have discovered something of the sort already, or you wouldn't have called subjective morality "silly". The logical end of subjective morals is always chaos--"every man being a law unto himself". Subjective morality does not work. However, you won't accept the only other option, which is objective morality. So what do you do? You can't live your life on a completely subjective level, anymore than I can live out a belief that "objects don't exist". I would lose that belief quickly enough the first time I ignored a speeding train or car.

So, this is the dilemma then. Before we can discuss whether objective morality can or cannot be found in "social benefits", or in anything other than God, we first have to agree that subjective morality is logically ridiculous, and so cross it off the list of possibilities.

So...objective morality or subjective? You can have your pick, but you do believe and live out one of them.

Jamie