Although you’re not focusing on comparing your model to alternatives here, I still feel the need to start by expressing that this is a much-needed counter (or perhaps supplement – see below) to the values-centric models which have predominated moral psychology recently. My own view at this point is that models like Moral Foundations Theory may do a decent job at a descriptive/anthropological level (answering, “What categories of action tend to, or at least have the potential to be, moralized by humans?”) but that such models should never have made strong claims about being able to explain moral diversity (e.g., Do we really think individual differences in how much people value harm prevention in the abstract are going to be the best explanation for the tremendous moral diversity seen in, say, views on when and why it is acceptable to kill another person?) So whereas values-centric models like MFT may supplement and help clarify certain aspects of your model – namely, what sorts of actions might be counted as “behaving better/worse toward X”– I don’t think they get us much closer to explaining why people apply rules like “do no harm” with as much flexibility as they do in practice (where your model comes in!)
Two big questions I had after reading, though:
(1) The notion that moral judgments derive entirely from “is” beliefs strikes me as the strongest claim here and I wonder about certain aspects of this. With respect to “builders,” I agree that agency and existential closeness would count as descriptive “is” beliefs but isn’t there an “ought” contained within the notion of inherent value? It seems to me that a belief that “X is inherently valuable” is translatable to, “It would be better for X to exist [or be treated well] than to not exist [or be treated poorly]” – in other words, “X ought to exist” or “X ought to be treated well.” I had a similar thought about a potentially hidden “ought” premise in your screwdriver example, as well; following Belief #2, wouldn’t we need one additional premise along the lines of, “It would be better for me to complete my present task than not complete it” (i.e., “I ought to complete my present task”) to arrive at your conclusion?
(2) I really like the “builders/benders/attractors” taxonomy and am on board with the notion that the combination of these variables is likely to have far greater predictive validity for a wide range of moral judgments as compared to something like the MFQ (in other words, exactly what you found in the article with Rottman, which I hope gets published soon!) Something I wondered about, though, is how you conceptualize the relationship between these three different components and relatedly, where builder beliefs come from in the first place (and what would explain diversity in builder beliefs). For example, I think a lot of social science research supports the general notion that one’s ingroup/culture is determinative of many of their builder beliefs about to whom we owe moral consideration (e.g., as much as I might like to attribute my conviction that “slavery is wrong” to my own internal moral compass and rational faculties, this conviction is likely attributable in large part to the fact that this is what pretty much everyone around me has believed from the time I was born). Would this be an example of a builder belief being foundationally rooted in certain “attractor beliefs” (e.g., I ought to believe what others around me believe) and would your model allow for this sort of thing? I’m not sure that you explicitly say anything here that goes against this, but I wondered whether this would be consistent with your characterization of builder beliefs as having relatively stronger effects upon moral judgment than attractor beliefs (as opposed to the case above, where I'd argue that attractor beliefs have quite strong effects in that they are causally responsible for the builder beliefs in question). It’s possible all of this is just a misinterpretation of “attractors” but I was curious to hear your thoughts. Also just to be clear, I’m not saying attractors would be the only basis for builder beliefs and variability therein (e.g., I think other builder beliefs, such as “my offspring are inherently valuable and must be protected” could be explained fairly well by innate/evolved tendencies rather than the sort of cultural evolution in morality I’m describing above).
Thank you for these insightful comments and incisive questions, Dylan! I hope my answers make sense…
On whether “is” precedes “ought” in the case of “builders.”
There is a tight correlation between the view that something has inherent value and the view that it is, let’s say, “morally worthy” (e.g., “that it ought to exist and be treated well”). So, it’s a great question to ask which comes first—in the sense of which depends on which? If someone asks me “why do you think your daughter is inherently valuable?” I would not answer “because she ought to exist and be treated well.” That would be a tautology, in the unhelpful sense where I haven’t added anything meaningful. By contrast, if someone asks, “why do you think your daughter ought to exist and be treated well,” I might respond with something like, “because she’s Billie—this beautiful, hilarious dancing star.” Here, my reference to the inherent value I see in my daughter contributes something meaningful. Her qualities, which I love, make her seem worthy (to me) of every good thing. That’s not just a meaningless tautology—I’ve expressed some “is” about her that functions as a grounding for my sense of her moral worthiness (the “ought”). The specific words that I use aren’t what matters. The logic would be the same if I made some more prosaic reference to my daughter’s humanity, like “she ought to exist and be treated well because, just like everyone else, she’s a human being.” Here, as in the more romantic response, my reference to Billie’s (inherently valuable) humanity functions as a grounding for my sense that she ought to exist and be treated well. So, that’s a long winded way of saying that I really like the question, and I think that (phenomenologically) the “is” of my daughter’s inherent value precedes (and grounds) the “ought” of her moral worthiness.
2. On the power of attractors
Individually, attractors are weak, but there are so many attractors woven together into any cultural environment that they are collectively powerful. Moreover, beliefs tend to invoke other beliefs—in effect, calling their functions. For instance, the “bender” belief that “life begins at conception” calls attracting functions like “I’m a conservative” and building functions like “human life is sacred.” In the case of slavery, in the Antebellum South, there were lots of shorthand ways of invoking webs of builders, benders, and attractors that made up an ideology supportive of slavery. But the work of trying to justify slavery was still done by the specific beliefs that supported the practice. So, I think that you’re spot on to point out that attractors seem to shape our sense of right and wrong in profound ways. But I think that the way they do this is via strength in numbers and also, crucially, by calling building/bending functions. I hope that answers your question, but please follow up if not!
This is a thoughtful breakdown of a process and I feel like I have a grasp of thanks to this article! I would find it worthwhile to do a small group session where we deconstruct some of our unconscious beliefs in this manner and see if there are some patterns that shake out. Though, I'm sure you've done this work as part of your research.
Regarding the following:
"I’ll be applying my research experience toward the area of business strategy consulting. If that seems like an odd left turn, that’s because it is."
I disagree, I think your knowledge of the human condition will be a very interesting and unique asset that distinguishes you from others in the field!
Is paying attention to the choices one is making. Is one true to one’s own values. Is one building in order to live more fully. Jesus said, “for everyone who listens with an open heart will receive progressively more revelation until he has more than enough.” He then quotes Isaiah who said, “Although they listen carefully to everything I speak, they don’t understand a thing I say. They look and pretend to see, but the eyes of their hearts are closed…they have deliberately shut their eyes to the truth (Matthew 13).
So the point of moral cognition is to use the knowledge that you possess to feed the actions that you take. There would be no motive to study this subject unless it was to reflect and build upon truth. The point is to be kicked in the butt, told to wake up and smell the roses. Because having knowledge for knowledge’s sake would be the equivalent of shutting one’s eyes to the practical use of knowledge.
A good synonym for cognition is awareness. “As a result of our personal involvement with things, there is latent value carried within our mere understanding of what something ‘is’—value that is called forth by the right context.”
Moreover, this latent value is actually a progression of values. “We infer ‘ought’ from ‘is’ because there is latent value hidden within the ‘is’, and the relevant context activates that value and indicates how we ought to behave.”
There is an echo here of what Jesus meant by seed that is cast upon good soil that bears fruit. The good soil isn’t perfect soil, it is receptive soil. It is the “mere understanding” quoted above which produces growth because it is focused upon the “right context.”
Therefore we have the ability (we being made in the image of God) to open up to truth and behave accordingly. And it may explain if peers have their “eyes wide shut” the “languishing.”
It seems that when Nicodemus came to Jesus he was asking why his “cultural” beliefs which through rigorous thinking were producing normative conclusions that didn’t look like the conclusions and practices that were coming forth from Jesus. He came because the “is’s” that he had depended upon were being challenged. And when he was being honest with himself he could see that his fruit was lacking.
I love the pursuit of moral awareness because it produces honest conviction. The keeping of the Ten Commandments was not an end in itself. It was to recognize the failure to keep them. And to look for the reasons why.
The is/ought model opens an intriguing discussion when we look at the evolution of “is” and how it relates to good and evil. Adam and Eve lived within the context that they heard God and then acted accordingly. But then the Serpent, wise in the ways of deceit, fed them new information. Yes God had said certain things but actually “you will not die if you go against his will, but in fact your eyes will be opened and you will become like him.” This introduced the idea that they could enjoy this tasty “apple” with even more benefits as a result. But then those feelings changed. They felt the need to hide, the need to cover up their bodies—feelings of shame. The “is” became relevant. It meant we need to discover what reality looks like and how to survive—hence the “ought.” The situation was that they felt badly about themselves and they needed to build a defense to protect themselves. And maybe, if the defense was strong enough they could even thrive. Cain and Abel saw that they should repair the relationship with their Creator with offerings. This strategy failed when Cain’s was rejected and Abel’s involving the firstborn of his flocks was accepted. Cain killed Abel but the account from God’s perspective highlighted his long range plan to make a way to fix his relationship with mankind.
People would continue to evaluate their “is”—how they felt in certain situations and what they would do about it. In fact their feelings would guide their actions and of course this leads to good as well as bad outcomes. Welcome to the merry go round of day to day living. So, “the most robust pathway into moral thought is the building pathway whereby moral relationships emerge in the first place” and “ these builder beliefs are so deeply ingrained as to be automatic and outside our control.”
I think this means that morality itself has become the key factor in our survival as a race. And our moral choices are based upon our feelings which leads us to rationalize our actions.
Again, pointing to Jesus. In scripture he is called the last Adam and the second man. As the last Adam he is the culmination of our patterns of morality and brokenness, taking all of this behavior to the cross. And as the second man he leads a new race of humanity that again enjoys a personal connection with the Creator. This connection has been repaired by Jesus and is available to all who come to him to receive it. And from the standpoint of the Creator Jesus has always been the plan. As to whether God is good or evil one only has to observe the life of Jesus, the exact reflection of God, to see that everything he ever did was good. As he shared with Nicodemus, he was sent not to condemn people but to rescue them.
Thanks so much for allowing me to continue to reflect on this model and learn from it! I’m sure there will be much response in many directions.
Thanks Bree for this important and inciteful article. These are my initial thoughts using the thoughts of Jesus. First: if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more your Heavenly Father…(Matthew 7:11)
The point being that there is what we have determined to be best for our children set at odds with what our Father above considers best. This moral knowledge moves beyond what we might derive through reason-highlighting human imperfection contrasted with God’s perfect goodness.
Secondly, Saul of Tarsus, a man of intellect and religious and moral standing in the community is convinced that the world is a better place without Christians. He meets Jesus in a vision and discovers again an interpretation of what is moral is beyond his understanding.
Thirdly, Nicodemus, a leader of Jewish religious thinking comes to Jesus to get his take on life. The first words out of Jesus’s mouth are, “Nicodemus, listen to this eternal truth: before a man can even perceive God’s Kingdom, they must first experience a rebirth.” In other words Nicodemus came looking for knowledge, Jesus offered him life.
And finally, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well and a discussion ensues regarding their differences in religion. Jesus’s response includes “if you knew who I am and the gift God wants to give you, you’d ask me for a drink and I’d give you living water.” In other words, he references water from another realm that would bring one a life we know nothing about.
Jesus places the type of discussion within the bounds of human reason as without having the possibility of understanding what he is bringing—words that bring life, including moral understanding, unrelatable to human thinking without the addition of his own personal interpretation due to his presence (coming as a result of rebirth).
So, based upon these scriptural encounters with Jesus, morality that would bring truth, light and clarity to the human condition ensues from the realm from which Jesus was sent. Continuing the verse from Matthew 7:11, “If you, imperfect as you are, know how to take care of your children and give them what’s best, how much more ready is your Heavenly Father to give wonderful gifts to those who ask him.”
Here we learn from Jesus that he will impart his wisdom and morality if we ask him. We know that our own reasoning will not produce any progress in moral thinking unless we get help. The hope of moral thinking that reflects the thinking of the Creator must come through a personal encounter with Jesus.
In your words, “Thus whenever and wherever we derive a strong conclusion that we ‘ought’ to do one thing rather than another, there exists underneath this normative conclusion a set of ‘is’ premises that merely describe relevant things in the world relevant things in the world and our relationship to them.”
So if the “is” becomes the I Am then the pathway to the ought becomes a journey of discovery, combining a cooperation between imperfect “me” and “Perfect Him.”
Thanks for sharing this perspective, which is of great interest to me, with such clarity and detail. I've addressed this to some extent in past publications by noting that there are different kinds of moral relationships that entail different sorts of moral responsibility. There is the kind of moral responsibility I feel toward my daughter, which entails a lot of caring and protecting, and the kind of moral responsibility believers feel toward God, which may entail obedience, and even (as you suggest) a subordination of one's own reason. And these different types of relationship can come into conflict. The biblical story that illustrates this conflict most forcefully for me is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son. With respect to Abraham's moral relationship toward his son, the act is deeply immoral. But Abraham is also in a moral relationship with God, and this relationship entails faith and obedience, among other things. The question for Abraham is which relationship to prioritize--It's a pickle. The question that arises for me is this: How can anyone know if God is evil? I gather the answer is something like a personal encounter...
Excellent post, Bree!
Although you’re not focusing on comparing your model to alternatives here, I still feel the need to start by expressing that this is a much-needed counter (or perhaps supplement – see below) to the values-centric models which have predominated moral psychology recently. My own view at this point is that models like Moral Foundations Theory may do a decent job at a descriptive/anthropological level (answering, “What categories of action tend to, or at least have the potential to be, moralized by humans?”) but that such models should never have made strong claims about being able to explain moral diversity (e.g., Do we really think individual differences in how much people value harm prevention in the abstract are going to be the best explanation for the tremendous moral diversity seen in, say, views on when and why it is acceptable to kill another person?) So whereas values-centric models like MFT may supplement and help clarify certain aspects of your model – namely, what sorts of actions might be counted as “behaving better/worse toward X”– I don’t think they get us much closer to explaining why people apply rules like “do no harm” with as much flexibility as they do in practice (where your model comes in!)
Two big questions I had after reading, though:
(1) The notion that moral judgments derive entirely from “is” beliefs strikes me as the strongest claim here and I wonder about certain aspects of this. With respect to “builders,” I agree that agency and existential closeness would count as descriptive “is” beliefs but isn’t there an “ought” contained within the notion of inherent value? It seems to me that a belief that “X is inherently valuable” is translatable to, “It would be better for X to exist [or be treated well] than to not exist [or be treated poorly]” – in other words, “X ought to exist” or “X ought to be treated well.” I had a similar thought about a potentially hidden “ought” premise in your screwdriver example, as well; following Belief #2, wouldn’t we need one additional premise along the lines of, “It would be better for me to complete my present task than not complete it” (i.e., “I ought to complete my present task”) to arrive at your conclusion?
(2) I really like the “builders/benders/attractors” taxonomy and am on board with the notion that the combination of these variables is likely to have far greater predictive validity for a wide range of moral judgments as compared to something like the MFQ (in other words, exactly what you found in the article with Rottman, which I hope gets published soon!) Something I wondered about, though, is how you conceptualize the relationship between these three different components and relatedly, where builder beliefs come from in the first place (and what would explain diversity in builder beliefs). For example, I think a lot of social science research supports the general notion that one’s ingroup/culture is determinative of many of their builder beliefs about to whom we owe moral consideration (e.g., as much as I might like to attribute my conviction that “slavery is wrong” to my own internal moral compass and rational faculties, this conviction is likely attributable in large part to the fact that this is what pretty much everyone around me has believed from the time I was born). Would this be an example of a builder belief being foundationally rooted in certain “attractor beliefs” (e.g., I ought to believe what others around me believe) and would your model allow for this sort of thing? I’m not sure that you explicitly say anything here that goes against this, but I wondered whether this would be consistent with your characterization of builder beliefs as having relatively stronger effects upon moral judgment than attractor beliefs (as opposed to the case above, where I'd argue that attractor beliefs have quite strong effects in that they are causally responsible for the builder beliefs in question). It’s possible all of this is just a misinterpretation of “attractors” but I was curious to hear your thoughts. Also just to be clear, I’m not saying attractors would be the only basis for builder beliefs and variability therein (e.g., I think other builder beliefs, such as “my offspring are inherently valuable and must be protected” could be explained fairly well by innate/evolved tendencies rather than the sort of cultural evolution in morality I’m describing above).
Excited to read your future posts!
Thank you for these insightful comments and incisive questions, Dylan! I hope my answers make sense…
On whether “is” precedes “ought” in the case of “builders.”
There is a tight correlation between the view that something has inherent value and the view that it is, let’s say, “morally worthy” (e.g., “that it ought to exist and be treated well”). So, it’s a great question to ask which comes first—in the sense of which depends on which? If someone asks me “why do you think your daughter is inherently valuable?” I would not answer “because she ought to exist and be treated well.” That would be a tautology, in the unhelpful sense where I haven’t added anything meaningful. By contrast, if someone asks, “why do you think your daughter ought to exist and be treated well,” I might respond with something like, “because she’s Billie—this beautiful, hilarious dancing star.” Here, my reference to the inherent value I see in my daughter contributes something meaningful. Her qualities, which I love, make her seem worthy (to me) of every good thing. That’s not just a meaningless tautology—I’ve expressed some “is” about her that functions as a grounding for my sense of her moral worthiness (the “ought”). The specific words that I use aren’t what matters. The logic would be the same if I made some more prosaic reference to my daughter’s humanity, like “she ought to exist and be treated well because, just like everyone else, she’s a human being.” Here, as in the more romantic response, my reference to Billie’s (inherently valuable) humanity functions as a grounding for my sense that she ought to exist and be treated well. So, that’s a long winded way of saying that I really like the question, and I think that (phenomenologically) the “is” of my daughter’s inherent value precedes (and grounds) the “ought” of her moral worthiness.
2. On the power of attractors
Individually, attractors are weak, but there are so many attractors woven together into any cultural environment that they are collectively powerful. Moreover, beliefs tend to invoke other beliefs—in effect, calling their functions. For instance, the “bender” belief that “life begins at conception” calls attracting functions like “I’m a conservative” and building functions like “human life is sacred.” In the case of slavery, in the Antebellum South, there were lots of shorthand ways of invoking webs of builders, benders, and attractors that made up an ideology supportive of slavery. But the work of trying to justify slavery was still done by the specific beliefs that supported the practice. So, I think that you’re spot on to point out that attractors seem to shape our sense of right and wrong in profound ways. But I think that the way they do this is via strength in numbers and also, crucially, by calling building/bending functions. I hope that answers your question, but please follow up if not!
This is a thoughtful breakdown of a process and I feel like I have a grasp of thanks to this article! I would find it worthwhile to do a small group session where we deconstruct some of our unconscious beliefs in this manner and see if there are some patterns that shake out. Though, I'm sure you've done this work as part of your research.
Regarding the following:
"I’ll be applying my research experience toward the area of business strategy consulting. If that seems like an odd left turn, that’s because it is."
I disagree, I think your knowledge of the human condition will be a very interesting and unique asset that distinguishes you from others in the field!
Thanks for the kind words, Julien! A group discussion would definitely be fun for me, so we can chat about it.
The heart of Bree’s post…
Is paying attention to the choices one is making. Is one true to one’s own values. Is one building in order to live more fully. Jesus said, “for everyone who listens with an open heart will receive progressively more revelation until he has more than enough.” He then quotes Isaiah who said, “Although they listen carefully to everything I speak, they don’t understand a thing I say. They look and pretend to see, but the eyes of their hearts are closed…they have deliberately shut their eyes to the truth (Matthew 13).
So the point of moral cognition is to use the knowledge that you possess to feed the actions that you take. There would be no motive to study this subject unless it was to reflect and build upon truth. The point is to be kicked in the butt, told to wake up and smell the roses. Because having knowledge for knowledge’s sake would be the equivalent of shutting one’s eyes to the practical use of knowledge.
A good synonym for cognition is awareness. “As a result of our personal involvement with things, there is latent value carried within our mere understanding of what something ‘is’—value that is called forth by the right context.”
Moreover, this latent value is actually a progression of values. “We infer ‘ought’ from ‘is’ because there is latent value hidden within the ‘is’, and the relevant context activates that value and indicates how we ought to behave.”
There is an echo here of what Jesus meant by seed that is cast upon good soil that bears fruit. The good soil isn’t perfect soil, it is receptive soil. It is the “mere understanding” quoted above which produces growth because it is focused upon the “right context.”
Therefore we have the ability (we being made in the image of God) to open up to truth and behave accordingly. And it may explain if peers have their “eyes wide shut” the “languishing.”
It seems that when Nicodemus came to Jesus he was asking why his “cultural” beliefs which through rigorous thinking were producing normative conclusions that didn’t look like the conclusions and practices that were coming forth from Jesus. He came because the “is’s” that he had depended upon were being challenged. And when he was being honest with himself he could see that his fruit was lacking.
I love the pursuit of moral awareness because it produces honest conviction. The keeping of the Ten Commandments was not an end in itself. It was to recognize the failure to keep them. And to look for the reasons why.
The is/ought model opens an intriguing discussion when we look at the evolution of “is” and how it relates to good and evil. Adam and Eve lived within the context that they heard God and then acted accordingly. But then the Serpent, wise in the ways of deceit, fed them new information. Yes God had said certain things but actually “you will not die if you go against his will, but in fact your eyes will be opened and you will become like him.” This introduced the idea that they could enjoy this tasty “apple” with even more benefits as a result. But then those feelings changed. They felt the need to hide, the need to cover up their bodies—feelings of shame. The “is” became relevant. It meant we need to discover what reality looks like and how to survive—hence the “ought.” The situation was that they felt badly about themselves and they needed to build a defense to protect themselves. And maybe, if the defense was strong enough they could even thrive. Cain and Abel saw that they should repair the relationship with their Creator with offerings. This strategy failed when Cain’s was rejected and Abel’s involving the firstborn of his flocks was accepted. Cain killed Abel but the account from God’s perspective highlighted his long range plan to make a way to fix his relationship with mankind.
People would continue to evaluate their “is”—how they felt in certain situations and what they would do about it. In fact their feelings would guide their actions and of course this leads to good as well as bad outcomes. Welcome to the merry go round of day to day living. So, “the most robust pathway into moral thought is the building pathway whereby moral relationships emerge in the first place” and “ these builder beliefs are so deeply ingrained as to be automatic and outside our control.”
I think this means that morality itself has become the key factor in our survival as a race. And our moral choices are based upon our feelings which leads us to rationalize our actions.
Again, pointing to Jesus. In scripture he is called the last Adam and the second man. As the last Adam he is the culmination of our patterns of morality and brokenness, taking all of this behavior to the cross. And as the second man he leads a new race of humanity that again enjoys a personal connection with the Creator. This connection has been repaired by Jesus and is available to all who come to him to receive it. And from the standpoint of the Creator Jesus has always been the plan. As to whether God is good or evil one only has to observe the life of Jesus, the exact reflection of God, to see that everything he ever did was good. As he shared with Nicodemus, he was sent not to condemn people but to rescue them.
Thanks so much for allowing me to continue to reflect on this model and learn from it! I’m sure there will be much response in many directions.
Thanks Bree for this important and inciteful article. These are my initial thoughts using the thoughts of Jesus. First: if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more your Heavenly Father…(Matthew 7:11)
The point being that there is what we have determined to be best for our children set at odds with what our Father above considers best. This moral knowledge moves beyond what we might derive through reason-highlighting human imperfection contrasted with God’s perfect goodness.
Secondly, Saul of Tarsus, a man of intellect and religious and moral standing in the community is convinced that the world is a better place without Christians. He meets Jesus in a vision and discovers again an interpretation of what is moral is beyond his understanding.
Thirdly, Nicodemus, a leader of Jewish religious thinking comes to Jesus to get his take on life. The first words out of Jesus’s mouth are, “Nicodemus, listen to this eternal truth: before a man can even perceive God’s Kingdom, they must first experience a rebirth.” In other words Nicodemus came looking for knowledge, Jesus offered him life.
And finally, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well and a discussion ensues regarding their differences in religion. Jesus’s response includes “if you knew who I am and the gift God wants to give you, you’d ask me for a drink and I’d give you living water.” In other words, he references water from another realm that would bring one a life we know nothing about.
Jesus places the type of discussion within the bounds of human reason as without having the possibility of understanding what he is bringing—words that bring life, including moral understanding, unrelatable to human thinking without the addition of his own personal interpretation due to his presence (coming as a result of rebirth).
So, based upon these scriptural encounters with Jesus, morality that would bring truth, light and clarity to the human condition ensues from the realm from which Jesus was sent. Continuing the verse from Matthew 7:11, “If you, imperfect as you are, know how to take care of your children and give them what’s best, how much more ready is your Heavenly Father to give wonderful gifts to those who ask him.”
Here we learn from Jesus that he will impart his wisdom and morality if we ask him. We know that our own reasoning will not produce any progress in moral thinking unless we get help. The hope of moral thinking that reflects the thinking of the Creator must come through a personal encounter with Jesus.
In your words, “Thus whenever and wherever we derive a strong conclusion that we ‘ought’ to do one thing rather than another, there exists underneath this normative conclusion a set of ‘is’ premises that merely describe relevant things in the world relevant things in the world and our relationship to them.”
So if the “is” becomes the I Am then the pathway to the ought becomes a journey of discovery, combining a cooperation between imperfect “me” and “Perfect Him.”
Thanks for the opportunity to respond!
Thanks for sharing this perspective, which is of great interest to me, with such clarity and detail. I've addressed this to some extent in past publications by noting that there are different kinds of moral relationships that entail different sorts of moral responsibility. There is the kind of moral responsibility I feel toward my daughter, which entails a lot of caring and protecting, and the kind of moral responsibility believers feel toward God, which may entail obedience, and even (as you suggest) a subordination of one's own reason. And these different types of relationship can come into conflict. The biblical story that illustrates this conflict most forcefully for me is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice his son. With respect to Abraham's moral relationship toward his son, the act is deeply immoral. But Abraham is also in a moral relationship with God, and this relationship entails faith and obedience, among other things. The question for Abraham is which relationship to prioritize--It's a pickle. The question that arises for me is this: How can anyone know if God is evil? I gather the answer is something like a personal encounter...