Today in class we were reading an editorial by Joel Marks called "Confessions of an ex-moralist". Based on your careful reading of this article:
1. What was the author's view about the nature of morality before his 'anti-epiphany'?
2. What was the realization that led him to change his view?
3. What is the foundation of the author's new view? What is the fundamental insight at the heart of this new view?
4. Is the author's view of morality satisfactory? Does it successfully account for our everyday moral experience?
The author's view of morality is that other animals have an inherent right not to be eaten or used by humans. His realization happened when his friend told her belief in God. That belief was that, the quality lay not in the sunset but in her relation to the sunset. So the author thought that, is morality not God. The author's new foundation is that we should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. He thought it was Godless God secular morality. Yes, the author's view of morality is satisfactory, because it seems to be the right thing to do. And yes, it does account for everyday moral experience, like when he wrote "Now I will call a spade a spade and declare simply that I very much dislike it and want it to stop." It accounts for evryday moral experience like when you think about something, and you wonder if it is right or wrong.
ReplyDeletethe author an atheist. in other words, he does not believe in God. His friend does believe in God, and he shares his experience about his sunsets. the author says that the sunset is what someone perceives of it. the author has his own opinions, and he can convince someone about his beliefs, but he can not use God in his explanation, considering that he is an atheist. he says that is chicks are slaughtered alive, it can be perceive as right or wrong depending on how the person feels about it.
ReplyDelete1. The editor's view of morality was largely objectivist, believing that some acts were intrinsically right or wrong, such as saying that throwing male chicks into a meat grinder was wrong.
ReplyDelete2. The realization that led him to change his view was the realization that things like the sunset held no inherent beauty, and things like lies held no inherent immorality, thus morality did not truly exist in his view.
3. The above realization is the foundation of the author's new view on morality, as like him, it states that logically morality does not exist.
4. I would say that yes, the author's view of morality is technically satisfactory, in that it would sufficiently explain the morality of our daily lives, though how spiritually satisfying it is is largely a matter of perspective.
Before his anti-epiphany, Joel Marks believed that animals had the inherent right to not be used by humans. The author's friend described a sunset's beauty to him; that's when he realized that the beauty of the sunset didn't come from the actual sunset, but from his friend's perception of the sunset. "Beauty (or in Joel Marks' view, morality) is in the eye of the beholder." There is no way to say whether the author's view is right or wrong, but there are many people who would object that there is a set standard for certain issues on what is right and what is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe Authors view on the nature of morality before his anit epiphany is that a person should not treat another person differently than another person, based on some kind of personal biase or, that person's personal beliefs. The realization that made this person realize this is that right and wrong, is concived by each person and their attitude towards the action. I might think one thing is ok while you might think the same thing is wrong (that is what he basically said).
ReplyDeleteThe foundation of this view is what I just said, I might think one thing is ok while you might think the same thing is wrong. There is no real insight to this it is just someone's opinion. I think in a way the Author's veiw was satisfactory. I might have a different opinion on something than you do, but if that question is a basic moral question I don't agree with that person.
Frank Punzi
In the past, Marks had always believed that there were "right" and "wrong" actions; he had been an absolutist. One day he became an atheist, and soon after that, by following a perfectly logical thought process, he concluded that if God did not exist (which he indeed did BELIEVE to be true), then absolute morality could exist neither. However, this did not eliminate his personal preferences, and he decided to argue them as such, and not absolute rights and wrongs. However, I feel that this is impractical, and the best aproach to morality is to acknowledge its existence.
ReplyDeleteBefore Mr. Mark's “anti-epiphany”, his view of morality was similar to most people's. This common view on morality is that there is a basic right and wrong to everything. This is shown in one of his examples of throwing male chicks into a meat grinder while they are alive and conscious. The realization that led him to change his view was when one of his friends were explaining their belief in God to him. He realized that in an event such as a sunset, the beauty of the sunset is not within the sunset itself but within the relationship between the person and the sunset. The foundation for his newfound view is the realization he had with the sunset. The basis of his new view is that morality does not actually exist, just personal preference. The author's view is satisfactory in the sense that it satisfies his own beliefs. It does account for our everyday moral experience, even though it is not entirely agreed upon by most people, it is a way to look at life.
ReplyDeleteBefore his "anti-epiphany", Joel Marks's view on morality was similar to that of just about everybody else: certain things were simply intrinsically 'right' or 'wrong'. His change in thought was triggered by his friend's explanation of her belief in God through the beauty of a sunset. He realized then that beauty is not a social standard, it is in the eye of the beholder, a personal preference. Not everyone will agree on the beauty of a sunset, thus it is not a set standard that it be beautiful. Couldn't this perspective be applied to morality? He was led by this to the belief that morality is not a set standard. Murder isn't wrong, but it isn't right either, it is just his personal preference that it not be perpetrated.
ReplyDeleteYes, it accounts for everything in the average daily order of matters social (including law: law is justified as a message and penalty set by a society for performing an act that they as a whole do not approve of). However, for me at least, it certainly doesn't cover the questions of the feeling of God's spiritual presence, and of the inspiration behind the work of great artists and people of artistic passion.
--Gareth Haynes
Before John Marks had his anti-epiphany, he thought the same way that society thinks. He wouldn't approve of murder, inequality, etc. Then he came to the "realization" that "the lie is not outrageous. It is the person's reaction that is outrageous." John Marks basically thinks that morals do not exist. He is saying that there is no right or wrong; there are only peoples reactions and beliefs. I personally do not think that Marks's view on morality if satisfactory. He talks about how morals do not exist. Yet, he still has his own set of morals and what he thinks is right. He thinks it is wrong to put chicks in a meat grinder, for homosexuals to be ridiculed and that the Holocaust should have never happened. Even if he isn't SAYING right or wrong, he still seems to have his own set of morals. I think his argument is a contradiction, honestly.
ReplyDeletebefore his anti epiphany Mr. Mark felt the views that there is a right and wrong that is generally accepted. His realization happened when his friend told her belief in God. That belief was that, the quality lay not in the sunset but in her relation to the sunset. So the author thought that, is morality not God. The author's new foundation is that we should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Now he sees that if there is no god to set the moral standards, what are morals? and he feels content about his apathy
ReplyDeletePrior to Joel Marks' "anti-epiphany," he had believed that there were simply "right" and "wrong" actions, like most people. His view was altered, though, by an explanation of a friend's relationship to God. The friend used the sunset to represent God and explained to Marks that the sunset was not beautiful in itself, the beauty was truly in how the sunset related to whomever was viewing it. The foundation of Marks' new view is the idea that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder; that a person's morals are dependent on how the situations relate to that person. His view of morality is certainly adequate and accounts for most daily occurrences, regardless of whether or not others object to these beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBefore his "anti-epiphany", Marks viewed the nature of morality just as most everyone else did: that things are either "right" or "wrong". The realization that led him to change his view was his friend's explanation of the sunset. This led Marks to realize that the sunset itself was not beautiful, but rather his reaction to the sunset was caused because he thought the sunset was beautiful. The foundation of his new view is that things are not "right" or "wrong", but that people believe them to be right or wrong. The author's view makes sense and is valid. However, I do not believe that it accounts for our everyday moral experiences. I still strongly believe that some things will always be wrong, no matter how you look at them.
ReplyDeleteThe view that Mark had before his 'anti-epiphan' he viewed morality as simply either right or wrong. The realization that made him change his view what when he heard the explanation of the sunset. When he heard this he realized the sunset was not beautiful but its beautiful because he thinks its is beautiful. His new view is what people believe to right or wrong. His new view can be argued that it is right but to me it does not account for everyday morality.
ReplyDeleteBefore John Marks had his so called 'anti-epiphany' he thought of morality as just being right or wrong and never both. this all changed when he heard an explanation of the sunset. what he realized from it was that the sun setting is not beautiful but it can be if you think it is beautiful. This also links to his new thought which is that right and wrong is only what people believe as right and wrong. This new view could be arguable as being right but not for everyday morality.
ReplyDeleteBefore Joel Marks had his anti-epiphany, he had the idea that animals were destined to not be killed by humans because of their species. When he became an athiest, he decided that he would also rule out that morality existed in the universe. However, this is contradictory to how he lives his life because he still follows the law and continually tries to do the right thing. Even though he doesn;t believe a God created the universe, he should still accept the fact that there is a moral order instilled into humans.
ReplyDeleteJoel Marks when he was an atheist he thought that we shouldn't kill an animal just because people think that god gave them to us for our purposes. He did to get rid of the moral argument in his opinion through the article.Still out of everything he still believes that you have to do the right thing. The thin about him that was weird was he didn't believe that god is the creator of the universe. Towards the end of the article he started to believe that humans might have some sense of morals.
ReplyDelete