Latest / Reformed Thinking / Is True Virtue Based on Feeling or Objective Reality? | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Is True Virtue Based on Feeling or Objective Reality? | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine stepping into an alternate universe for a second.
0:03
A place where cruelty tastes sweet on the tongue and, you
0:07
know, an act of genuine kindness actually makes you physically
0:09
nauseous. Oh wow, that is quite the image.
0:13
Right. It is a horrific thought
0:15
experiment, but it brings up a real question.
0:17
Could God have created a world where torturing an innocent
0:21
person was considered objectively good?
0:24
I mean, it sounds unthinkable. It does, but getting to the
0:27
bottom of why the answer to that question is an absolute
0:30
resounding Noel. It requires us to figure out how
0:33
human beings actually sense right and wrong in the first
0:35
place. Yeah, that is the real core of
0:37
it. So welcome to reformed thinking.
0:39
Today we are opening up a rather astonishing text by Jonathan
0:43
Edwards. We are looking at his essay, The
0:45
Nature of True Virtue. Yeah, and we are asking a highly
0:48
specific question about the mechanics of human morality.
0:52
Is recognizing A moral good a math problem that we calculate
0:55
through pure logic, or is it an innate sense, like something
0:59
operating much closer to the physical way we taste our food?
1:02
It is a massive question, honestly, and Edwards approaches
1:05
it with an incredibly analytical, almost surgical eye.
1:08
He really does. He is trying to isolate the
1:10
absolute bedrock of what makes a good thing good, and more than
1:14
that, he wants to understand the mechanism of how we as humans
1:18
perceive that goodness on a daily basis.
1:20
Right, he doesn't want to just give us a list of rules.
1:23
Spot on. He wants to dissect the anatomy
1:26
of moral perception itself. So right off the bat, before we
1:29
can even touch the concept of morality, Edwards forces the
1:32
reader to define beauty. Yes, she equates virtue with a
1:36
certain kind of beautiful nature, form or quality.
1:39
But we have to clarify something right now for everyone
1:41
listening. When he says beauty, he isn't
1:43
talking about like a painting in a museum or a nice sunset over
1:47
the ocean. No, not at all.
1:48
Yeah, he is speaking about a quality that appears agreeable
1:51
or comely in itself. The phrase he leans on is
1:54
immediately pleasant to the mind.
1:56
Immediately. Pleasant.
1:57
Yeah. That immediacy is the hinge of
1:59
his entire opening argument. He draws a massive, sharp line
2:02
between utility and true beauty. I see.
2:05
So if you like something because of what it produces, that is
2:08
indirect. That's right.
2:09
Let's ground this so it does not stay floating in the
2:12
philosophical clouds. Let's say I go to the hardware
2:15
store, look at a really well designed shovel and think, well
2:18
that is a fantastic. Shovel.
2:20
OK, a shovel. But I am not experiencing an
2:23
immediate visceral sensation of beauty.
2:26
I am running a very fast pragmatic calculation in my
2:30
head. Cost benefit analysis,
2:31
basically. Yeah, this shovel is built well,
2:34
so it will dig holes efficiently.
2:36
Those holes will allow me to plant apple trees.
2:39
And you like apples? I do like apples, so the shovel
2:42
is a means to an end. It is agreeable to me indirectly
2:45
based on a chain of future events.
2:47
And Edward states plainly that such indirect agreeableness is
2:50
not beauty. Really, he just writes it off.
2:52
He calls that being eligible for something else with which it is
2:55
connected. True beauty hits you when a form
2:58
or equality appears lovely and pleasing in itself, completely
3:01
devoid of any future calculations.
3:03
You do not run the math. No math at all.
3:06
The sensation of the idea is immediate upon perception.
3:09
He uses a very physical, tactile example in the text that I love.
3:14
He talks about tasting the sweetness of honey.
3:16
Oh yeah, that is a great one. Think about putting a spoonful
3:19
of raw honey into your mouth. You do not deduce that it is
3:22
sweet through a series of logical syllogisms.
3:25
Right, you do not sit there and analyze the chemical composition
3:29
of the fructose. No, and you don't map out the
3:31
nutritional benefits to your body and then conclude.
3:34
Therefore, I shall now experience sweetness.
3:37
That would be ridiculous. The physical sensation bypasses
3:40
all of that logic. You just taste it.
3:43
The harmony of a tune is another vivid illustration he provides.
3:46
Oh, so how does he frame that? Well, hearing a perfectly
3:49
resolved musical chord does not require you to read a
3:52
dissertation on acoustics or sound wave frequencies to feel
3:56
the resolution. You just hear the chord and it
3:58
feels right, yeah. We are made in such a way that
4:00
the idea, as soon as it hits the mind, is grateful.
4:04
It appears beautiful instantly. So if we apply this to moral
4:08
goodness, watching someone perform a truly selfless act of
4:13
charity should hit us like that spoonful of honey.
4:16
In a structural yes, that is what he argues.
4:20
We come by the idea of moral beauty, by an immediate
4:23
sensation of the gratefulness of the idea.
4:26
OK. It is not by finding out through
4:29
argumentation any consequences. So if you see an act of true
4:32
virtue, you do not have to map out a 10 year economic
4:35
projection of how that specific charitable act will increase
4:40
society's overall productivity to know it is a good act. 100%
4:45
you perceive the beauty of the act immediately.
4:48
Because if you only value the charitable act for the societal
4:51
benefits while you are back at the hardware store looking at
4:54
the shovel. You value the utility of the
4:56
act, the pragmatism of it, but not the beauty of the virtue
4:59
itself. That is a huge dividing line.
5:01
It is true virtue is delightful in itself.
5:04
But, and this is where he adds a critical layer, this relies
5:07
heavily on what Edwards calls the frame of our minds.
5:09
The frame of our minds. Yeah, we perceive this moral
5:12
beauty because our minds are framed or designed to receive it
5:15
that way. Wait, I am struggling with this
5:17
conclusion. I have to push back here for a
5:19
second Sir, go ahead. If virtue is just a taste based
5:22
on the frame of our minds, aren't we just talking about
5:24
blatant moral relativism? I see where you're going.
5:27
Like who's to say my taste buds are right and someone else's are
5:30
wrong? If someone else is framed to
5:32
think that cruelty tastes like honey, what stops them from
5:35
saying their truth is just as valid as mine?
5:38
That is the big question. If it is all about an immediate
5:41
sensation that feels like reason is thrown out the window
5:43
entirely, well. That is the exact trap Edward
5:46
sets up to dismantle. He knows that is the natural
5:49
objection. So how does he get out of it?
5:52
He argues that this perception comes not by argumentation on
5:56
connections and consequences, but by the frame of our minds,
5:59
which he explicitly describes as a spiritual sense given of God.
6:04
But if God gives this sense, couldn't God have just flipped a
6:07
coin at the dawn of creation? A coin flip.
6:09
Yeah, you know, heads kindness is the moral good.
6:12
Tails, cruelty is the moral good.
6:15
If it is just a sentiment programmed into us by a creator,
6:18
it still feels totally arbitrary.
6:21
Edwards anticipates that specific, very heavy theological
6:25
objection. If the inward sense, whereby the
6:28
mind is disposed to delight in true virtue, is given
6:31
arbitrarily, we have a catastrophic philosophical
6:34
problem. He asks the question point
6:37
blank. Could God, if He had pleased,
6:41
given a contrary sense and determination of mind?
6:44
Could he have made a universe where cruelty was the beautiful
6:47
thing? Yes.
6:48
And would that have agreed just as well with the necessary
6:50
nature of things? He has to say no to that.
6:53
He says an absolute categorical no.
6:55
OK, good. The inward sense is not an
6:56
arbitrary assignment. Edwards argues fiercely against
6:59
the idea that a contrary sense could align with reality.
7:03
So the moral sense we have, the one that tastes goodness as
7:05
sweet, is the only possible sense.
7:08
It is the only possible sense that actually aligns with the
7:10
fundamental fabric of reality. OK, so the sentiment is tied to
7:13
something objective. It is not just a random flavor
7:16
preference God decided to download into our hardware.
7:18
No, not at all. But what makes it necessary?
7:21
Why couldn't the script be flipped?
7:23
What is this necessary nature of things that Edwards points to as
7:26
the anchor? To answer that, we must look at
7:29
how Edwards defines true virtue in its absolute essence.
7:34
He boils it down to a very dense phrase.
7:36
Lay it on me. He calls it the cordial consent
7:39
or union of being to being in general.
7:41
Wow, the cordial consent or union of being to being in
7:45
general? Yes, that sounds like high level
7:47
academic metaphysics. I need to know what that
7:50
actually looks like on a Tuesday morning.
7:52
Like how does a regular person participate in being in general?
7:55
Let's unpack the terms carefully.
7:57
Being in general refers to existence itself.
7:59
So everything. The sum total of reality, the
8:02
entire created order, and the creator behind it.
8:05
OK. And what about cordial consent?
8:07
Cordial consent means a union of the heart, an agreement, a
8:11
fundamentally benevolent frame of mind toward existence.
8:14
So true virtue is, at its core, a loving agreement with the fact
8:17
that things exist. Spot on.
8:19
So if my temper is to love being in general, I must naturally
8:23
approve of others who also love being in general.
8:26
Yes, it is a disposition of benevolence toward reality
8:29
itself. I see.
8:30
And this is how he proves God could not arbitrarily make
8:34
cruelty the standard. A contrary temper, meaning a
8:37
disposition that loves opposition to existence, or a
8:40
temper that hates being, is a plain absurdity.
8:43
Why is it absurd? It is contrary to the very
8:46
supposition of reality. Think about it mathematically.
8:50
Agreement with existence must necessarily fit better with
8:53
general existence then opposition and contrariety to
8:57
it. Let's visualize what warring
8:59
against reality actually looks like.
9:00
Let's go back to our thought experiment from the start.
9:03
If God mandated the hatred of existence was the moral ideal,
9:07
he would be mandating A literal war against himself, because the
9:11
text connects God inextricably with being in general.
9:14
God is the ultimate reality. He's the source, the foundation,
9:17
and the sustainer of all existence, right?
9:19
Therefore, without any doubt, it is logically necessary that God
9:22
should agree with himself. He must be united with himself.
9:25
He must love himself. Because if God did not love
9:28
himself, or if He opposed his own existence, the universe
9:31
would unravel instantly. It is an ontological
9:34
impossibility. So when God gives a benevolent
9:37
temper to his creatures, this is agreeable to his necessary
9:41
nature. Yes, if he were to give
9:43
creatures an opposite temper, A temper that hates existence,
9:47
that would be infinitely contrary to his own necessary
9:51
nature. It would create infinite discord
9:53
between the creator and the creature.
9:55
And not just vertical discord between the creator and the
9:58
creature. What else?
9:59
Horizontal discord among created beings themselves.
10:03
If any particular created being had a temper to oppose being in
10:06
general, that infers the greatest possible friction.
10:10
It is the ultimate antisocial behavior, right?
10:13
If your fundamental disposition is to oppose existence, you are
10:16
fundamentally opposed to everyone and everything around
10:19
you. It is a terrifying concept,
10:21
honestly. He is using this extreme thought
10:23
experiment to prove that our moral sense is not an arbitrary
10:26
setting on a dial. It is the only setting that
10:29
allows for a cohesive universe. Any other setting results in
10:32
immediate structural collapse. Yeah, So beyond the cosmic scale
10:36
of God's nature and universal existence, Edwards brings this
10:40
argument down to a very intimate human psychological level.
10:44
He does. He argues that this benevolent
10:46
temper is the only one that allows a person to agree with
10:49
themselves without having contradictory or repugnant
10:52
inclinations. He builds this on a very
10:54
specific premise regarding human nature.
10:57
He states that every being that has understanding and a will
11:01
necessarily loves happiness. Because to suppose any being
11:05
does not love happiness is to suppose they do not love what is
11:08
agreeable to them. Which is a literal contradiction
11:11
in terms. Even someone making a highly
11:12
self-destructive choice, let's say an addict, engaging in
11:15
behavior they know is ruining their life, right?
11:18
They're doing so because they're twisted.
11:19
Perception views that substance, in that brief moment, as the
11:22
most agreeable option available, or at least a temporary relief
11:26
from something less agreeable. Edward states it with blunt
11:29
logic. To say a being does not love
11:31
what is agreeable to him implies nothing is eligible to him.
11:35
He would have no faculty of choice.
11:37
He would have no will. So premise one, we all want to
11:40
be happy. We are biologically and
11:43
spiritually wired for it. That's premise 1.
11:45
Premise 2 To avoid having internal desires constantly
11:50
fighting each other, a person must approve of inclinations
11:53
that desire the happiness of being in general.
11:56
Yes, but I have to ask why? Why can't I just want happiness
12:00
for myself and want misery for everyone else?
12:03
Why can't I be successfully, happily selfish?
12:05
Well, Edwards. Points out that if you had a
12:07
temper inclining you to love the misery of being in general, and
12:10
that temper prevailed universally, it tends to
12:13
universal misery. And since I am part of the
12:15
universe, a part of being in general, a tendency toward
12:18
universal misery is a tendency toward my own misery.
12:20
Spot on. If you love universal misery,
12:22
you in effect love a tendency to your own misery.
12:25
Oh. Wow.
12:26
But we already established in the first premise that you
12:28
naturally hate your own misery and love your own happiness,
12:31
right? Thus you would be torn apart by
12:32
contradictory desires. You would have one inclination
12:35
completely repugnant to another. You would be structurally self
12:38
inconsistent. I cannot build a coherent
12:40
psychology on a desire for universal destruction because I
12:44
am trapped inside the very universe I want to destroy.
12:47
That is a great way to put it. It is like drilling massive
12:50
holes in the bottom of a wooden rowboat I am currently sitting
12:54
in. I'm cheering loudly as the cold
12:56
water rushes in while simultaneously desperately
12:59
wanting to stay dry. Yeah, the desires cannot coexist
13:03
without tearing your mind apart. And Edwards adds another layer
13:06
to this internal contradiction involving the concept of self
13:09
love and the desire to be loved by others.
13:11
I find this observation so universally true.
13:15
The text says it necessarily follows from self love that men
13:19
love to be loved by others. When others love you, their love
13:22
agrees with your own love for yourself.
13:24
It is a reinforcing feedback loop.
13:26
You value yourself, so you appreciate it when someone else
13:28
also recognizes that value. But look at what happens if a
13:32
person claims to love universal hatred.
13:34
Right, let's play that out. If your core temper is opposed
13:37
to being in general, if you champion hatred and discord,
13:41
then you are championing a system where everyone hates
13:43
everything. Meaning everyone would hate you.
13:46
Absolutely. And if you love this system of
13:49
universal hatred, you would in effect be loving the hatred of
13:53
yourself. But yourself love naturally
13:55
recoils from being hated. You shrink away from.
13:58
It so once again it is a logical impossibility to maintain self
14:01
consistency while opposing universal benevolence.
14:05
You would have one natural inclination fighting a brutal,
14:08
endless war against another. This is why Edwards says there
14:10
is no other temper but benevolence whereby a man can
14:13
agree with himself. Any other fundamental posture
14:16
toward reality creates massive internal cognitive dissonance.
14:21
Because this benevolent temper aligns so perfectly with both
14:24
cosmic reality and our own internal psychological logic,
14:28
possessing it does something very specific to the human mind.
14:30
What does it do? It grants a person a unique kind
14:33
of clarity. This is a fascinating,
14:35
fascinating pivot. In the text, Edwards takes time
14:37
to examine why the sacred scriptures frequently call this
14:40
spiritual divine sense by names like light, knowledge, and
14:43
understanding. We started this entire
14:46
conversation by comparing this sense to tasting honey, a
14:49
physical feeling, a sentiment. But now Edwards is saying this
14:53
feeling is actually a form of objective knowledge.
14:56
How does it taste become truth? It comes back to the idea of
15:00
correspondence. If the moral sense were
15:02
completely arbitrary, if God had just flipped a coin to decide
15:05
what felt good to us, then the ideas we get from that sense
15:09
would not represent anything real outside our own heads.
15:12
It would be an illusion. A pleasant matrix we are plugged
15:15
into, totally divorced from actual reality.
15:18
Edwards argues that if there were no correspondence in such a
15:21
sense with the nature of things, the idea we obtained by it could
15:24
in no respect be said to be a knowledge or perception of
15:27
anything besides what was in our own minds.
15:29
It'd be no representation of anything without.
15:31
But because we have established that this sense is not
15:34
arbitrary, that it perfectly aligns with the necessary nature
15:37
of things, and specifically with the moral perfection of the
15:40
divine being, then this feeling of beauty is actually a signal.
15:45
A signal. I like that.
15:46
It is a receiver tuning into a real external frequency.
15:50
Yes, since it is agreeable to the nature of things, It is the
15:54
representation of the moral perfection and Excellency of the
15:57
Divine being. OK, hereby we have a perception
16:01
of that moral Excellency of which we could have no true idea
16:04
without it. So when you witness an act of
16:07
true selfless benevolence and you feel that immediate
16:11
sensation of its beauty, you are not just having a nice emotional
16:15
reaction based on societal conditioning.
16:17
No, you were doing much more than that.
16:18
You are actually perceiving a hard fact about the universe.
16:21
You are acquiring true knowledge of God's nature.
16:25
And this true knowledge, Edwards argues, greatly enlightens the
16:28
mind. It assists persons to a right
16:30
understanding of things in general, allowing them to see
16:33
the nature and truth of things in their proper evidence.
16:35
The light of this spiritual sense illuminates the rest of
16:38
reality. It is a lens that brings the
16:40
entire universe into sharp focus.
16:42
Let's look at the dark side of this coin.
16:44
Let's look at what happens when you lack this spiritual sense.
16:48
Edwards issues a stark warning here.
16:50
He states with the want or lack of the spiritual sense, and the
16:54
prevalence of contrary dispositions tends to darken and
16:58
distract the mind, and dreadfully to delude and
17:00
confound men's understandings. Darken and distract the mind.
17:04
That is a terrifying phrase. Bad morals lead to bad thinking.
17:08
It is not just that you are doing bad things.
17:11
Your actual ability to reason, your cognitive processing power
17:16
becomes compromised. Think back to the internal
17:19
contradictions we just analyzed with the boat analogy.
17:21
If your dispositions are contrary to being in general,
17:24
you are constantly fighting your own natural inclinations for
17:27
happiness and self consistency. Your mind is violently divided.
17:31
You were trying to rationalize a posture toward a reality that
17:33
fundamentally clashes with reality itself.
17:36
Think about watching someone embrace highly destructive
17:38
desires or a lifestyle rooted in tearing others down.
17:42
What usually happens to their logic over a span of years?
17:45
Their ability to reason objectively about the world
17:47
around them seems to degrade. They become paranoid.
17:50
Right. They start constructing bizarre,
17:53
convoluted rationalizations to justify their behavior.
17:57
Their understanding becomes confounded, just as the text
18:00
says. Because they are trying to
18:01
navigate a universe built on connection and benevolence using
18:05
a compass explicitly calibrated for discord and opposition.
18:09
Nothing is ever going to make sense to them.
18:11
The data they receive from the world will constantly frustrate
18:14
them. Because they are misinterpreting
18:16
the fundamental laws of motion of the moral universe.
18:19
So possessing the spiritual sense is like having the
18:21
floodlights turned on in a pitch black warehouse.
18:24
Sure, you can suddenly see where the machinery is so you do not
18:27
keep walking into it and injuring yourself.
18:29
But wait, this brings up a massive, highly practical
18:32
objection that I'm sure anyone listening is thinking about
18:35
right now. I know exactly the hurdle we
18:36
have hit. If only those given a specific
18:39
spiritual sense from God can see this true beauty and have this
18:43
light, how is it that ordinary people, people who might not
18:47
claim to have any sort of divine spiritual awakening, still seem
18:51
to have a highly functional working moral compass?
18:54
Right, that is a fair observation.
18:56
We all know people who might lack this specific divine sense,
19:00
as Edwards describes it. Yet they still pay their taxes
19:02
on time, they return lost wallets, they value justice in
19:06
the court system, and they generally agree on what basic
19:09
right and wrong look like in civil society.
19:12
It is a crucial point. And Edwards does not ignore the
19:15
reality of human behavior. He introduces the concept of the
19:19
natural conscience, or the moral sense common to mankind.
19:22
OK, so there's a secondary system running in the
19:24
background, yes? This common moral sense is not
19:28
the same as the divine spiritual sense, but Edwards insists it
19:32
still aligns with the nature of things.
19:34
It is not an arbitrary sentiment either.
19:36
The text says this natural conscience approves of the exact
19:39
same things which a spiritual and divine sense approves, and
19:42
those things only. But, and this is the critical
19:45
distinction we have to parse out, not on the same grounds,
19:48
nor with the same kind of approbation.
19:50
Let me try a lengthy analogy here to really clarify this
19:52
mechanism. I want to make sure we are not
19:54
losing the thread. Go for it.
19:57
Imagine a piece of incredibly complex, beautiful music.
20:01
A masterful Symphony playing in a grand concert hall.
20:05
Now imagine two different people sitting in the front row
20:08
listening to it. OK, two people.
20:10
The first person is profoundly moved.
20:12
As the strings swell and the brass sections hit their
20:15
crescendos, this person feels the emotional majesty of the
20:19
music. They feel the tension, the sweet
20:22
release. Yeah, the sheer breathtaking
20:24
beauty of it. They taste the music soul that
20:27
is akin to the spiritual sense Edwards is describing and.
20:30
The the second person sitting next to them.
20:32
The second person might not feel that sweeping emotional majesty
20:35
at all. Maybe they are entirely tone
20:37
deaf to the emotional frequency of the music.
20:39
But the second person happens to be a brilliant mathematician,
20:42
and they are sitting there looking at the sheet music while
20:45
the orchestra plays. They can clearly recognize the
20:48
mathematical symmetry on the page.
20:49
They see how the counterpoint works perfectly.
20:52
They see the uniform intervals, the structural integrity of the
20:55
notes, the predictable resolution of the chord
20:57
progressions. They will readily agree the song
21:00
is structured correctly, masterfully even.
21:03
They approve of it, but they completely lack the taste of its
21:07
divine beauty. That is an exceptionally fitting
21:10
analogy for how Edwards frames this argument.
21:13
He says that the inferior moral sense and natural conscience
21:16
consists in approving the uniformity and natural agreement
21:19
there is between one thing and another.
21:21
Uniformity and natural agreement.
21:23
They are seeing the math on the sheet music.
21:25
Precisely, they have a disposition of mind to consent
21:28
to or like the agreement of the nature of things, or the
21:31
agreement of the nature and form of one thing with another.
21:34
They recognize when a human action structurally fits the
21:37
reality of a situation. They see the symmetry.
21:40
So when someone operating solely with a natural conscience sees a
21:43
person working hard in a field all day in the hot sun and then
21:46
receiving a fair wage at the end of the day, their mind registers
21:50
the uniformity of that transaction.
21:52
Effort matches reward, it clicks, it is symmetrical, it
21:55
makes structural sense. And conversely, when they see
21:58
someone steal the wages from that hard worker, they register
22:01
a violent clash, a lack of agreement.
22:04
It is structurally offensive to their mind's innate desire for
22:08
uniformity. Edwards argues that such a
22:10
temper of mind, one that prefers structural agreement over
22:14
structural chaos, is still more agreeable to the nature of
22:18
things than an opposite temper. So even the natural conscience,
22:22
which relies entirely on recognizing structural symmetry
22:25
rather than tasting divine beauty, is still firmly rooted
22:30
in objective reality. It is not an arbitrary
22:33
preference. Correct.
22:34
It is established an agreement with the nature of things.
22:37
He argues that no sense of mind that could be supposed of a
22:39
contrary nature and tendency could be so established.
22:42
OK, but this leads us to the final and perhaps most visible,
22:45
most glaring challenge to this entire framework Edwards has.
22:48
Built. I have a feeling I know what it
22:49
is. If mankind shares this common
22:52
natural conscience, and if we are all structurally wired to
22:55
prefer uniformity and natural agreement, why is there so much
22:58
brutal arguing over what is right and wrong?
23:01
It is a valid question. Look at human history.
23:04
Look at the Evening News. We have completely different
23:07
moral codes, wildly different laws across borders, different
23:11
ideas of what deserves A bronze statue in a public square and
23:15
what deserves a life sentence in a prison cell.
23:18
It looks messy from the outside. How can Edwards claim a
23:20
universal moral foundation when the surface of human human
23:23
interaction looks like total, unmitigated chaos?
23:26
He tackles his contradiction directly through a fascinating
23:29
linguistic argument. He looks closely at how we
23:31
actually use words in everyday life.
23:34
The text says the use of language is to express our
23:36
sentiments or ideas to each other.
23:38
Specifically, he focuses on terms by which things of a moral
23:42
nature are signified, words like right, wrong, good and evil.
23:46
These words express moral sentiments which are common to
23:49
mankind. He argues that the moral sense
23:51
in natural conscience chiefly governs the use of language.
23:54
By such words in common speech, we mean that which deserves
23:57
praise or blame. We have a shared, underlying
24:01
sense of desert. But Edwards poses the exact
24:03
question you just asked. If sentiment is the rule of
24:07
language, and sentiment is clearly different in different
24:09
persons and nations. One group vehemently praises
24:13
what another group violently blames.
24:15
How can virtue be anything other than arbitrary?
24:18
How is it not just determined by the shifting localized opinions
24:21
of men? He divides the answer into two
24:23
distinct parts. First, he asks whether men's
24:26
sentiments of moral good and evil are casual and accidental.
24:30
And his answer? His answer is that the general
24:32
disposition, the base sense of mind that recognizes a desert of
24:36
esteem or resentment, may be the same in all people.
24:40
The core concept of merit, uniformity and agreement remains
24:43
universal across the board. It is the application of that
24:46
concept that gets incredibly messy.
24:48
I see the text points out that the particular objects and
24:51
occasions with regard to which this sense is exercised may be
24:54
very various. Why?
24:55
Because of partiality or error that may attend the view or
24:58
attention to the mind. Partial attention.
25:01
We do not look at the whole picture.
25:02
We look through a keyhole and judge the entire room.
25:05
We have a variety of apprehensions about things.
25:07
We view them in various manners due to this partial attention.
25:11
Plus Edwards add to that example.
25:13
Custom, education and association contribute to these
25:17
profound differences in innumerable ways.
25:20
To pull our sheet music analogy back into the light, everyone in
25:23
the concert hall has the latent capacity to recognize
25:26
mathematical symmetry. But if one person's vision is
25:30
physically blurred, or if they have been trained rigorously
25:33
since birth by their teachers to read the bass Clef upside down,
25:36
they're going to argue fiercely with you about whether the notes
25:40
on the page match. The underlying capacity for math
25:42
is the same, but the custom and education are causing a massive
25:46
error in application. That is precisely what Edwards
25:49
is arguing. The differences between nations
25:52
concerning moral good and evil are not inconsistent with a
25:55
general moral sense common to all.
25:57
The machinery in the mind is the same.
25:59
The data being fed into it, or the cultural lens it looks
26:02
through is highly distorted. And then Edwards moves to the
26:05
second part of his answer, which deals directly with the
26:07
mechanics of how we use words. He says the use of words like
26:11
good and evil is not altogether unfixed and arbitrary.
26:15
Because language, by its very nature, requires consistency to
26:19
function as a medium of manifesting ideas, mankind is
26:24
obliged to aim at a consistent use of terms.
26:27
You have to be consistent with yourself and with others,
26:29
otherwise language completely fails to transfer meaning.
26:33
The text says men cannot call anything right or wrong
26:35
consistently any other way than by calling things so which truly
26:39
deserve praise or blame. Meaning things where there is
26:42
the most uniformity in connecting praise to them.
26:45
And here, Edwards provides 2 incredible, highly evocative
26:48
examples that vividly illiterate what happens when people try to
26:51
use more language inconsistently.
26:53
These examples are so sharp. Let's share them and break them
26:55
down. 1st the thieves and traitors.
26:58
The text describes a gang of thieves who get intensely angry
27:02
at informers, the people who turn them over to the justice
27:04
system. The thieves call the informers
27:07
behavior by the most odious names possible.
27:10
They call them evil, wrong betrayers.
27:13
Scum. But Edwards points out the
27:15
glaring psychological inconsistency here.
27:18
If the thieves put themselves in the place of those who've been
27:21
injured, the innocent people they just robbed, they would
27:24
absolutely approve of the same informer.
27:27
If a rival gang stole this thieves hidden stash, the thief
27:30
would desperately want an informer to help get his money
27:33
back. They are completely capable of
27:35
being convinced that they're applying these odious terms in
27:38
an abusive, hypocritical manner. They are using the word wrong,
27:42
not based on a universal standard of structural symmetry,
27:45
but based purely on their own partial, highly selfish
27:48
attention to the situation. They change the definition of
27:51
the word to protect their own interests.
27:53
The second example operates on a much grander historical scale.
27:57
Edwards describes an ambitious nation that prosecutes a design
28:00
of universal empire. They subdue other sovereign
28:03
nations with fire and sword. They are slaughtering innocent
28:06
populations just to conquer the globe and expand their borders.
28:10
And yet what language do they use back home to describe their
28:13
own soldiers, the affixed terms that signify the highest degrees
28:17
of virtue to the conduct of those who show the most engaged,
28:20
resolute spirit in this bloody work?
28:23
They call their killers virtuous and heroes.
28:26
They build monuments to them. But again, the inconsistency is
28:30
staggering. If another, more powerful nation
28:33
showed up on their own shores with fire and sword,
28:36
slaughtering their citizens to conquer them, would they call
28:39
those invading soldiers virtuous?
28:41
Of course not. They would call them monsters.
28:43
They would call them evil. Edwards concludes that they use
28:46
these terms inconsistently, they actively abuse language, and
28:50
they are capable of having their mouths stopped by being
28:53
confronted with this blatant inconsistency.
28:55
Because there is no other way to use terms of good.
28:58
Or I'll desert, in which mankind in general can agree.
29:01
If we do not tie our language to a universal standard of
29:04
uniformity, the words lose all coherent meaning.
29:07
Good just becomes a synonym for what benefits me right now.
29:11
Which brings to his final forceful conclusion on this
29:14
point regarding language. Mankind in general seems to
29:18
suppose some general standard or foundation in nature for a
29:22
universal consistence in the use of terms expressing moral good
29:26
and evil. We all assume the standard is
29:28
there even when we are arguing. Yes, it is evidently supposed in
29:32
all their disputes about right and wrong, if there wasn't a
29:35
shared assumption of a universal standard, we wouldn't even
29:38
bother arguing. We argue because we both believe
29:40
there is an objective truth to the matter that the other person
29:43
is failing to see. If it was just arbitrary taste,
29:46
we wouldn't argue. If I say I like chocolate ice
29:49
cream and you say you like vanilla, we don't have a fierce
29:53
blood boiling debate in the street about who is objectively
29:55
right. We just accept the difference in
29:57
taste, but when one person says a specific war is justified and
30:01
another says it is cold blooded murder, they are arguing with
30:04
such intensity because they both appeal to a standard they
30:07
believe is fixed in reality. The very act of debating
30:10
morality with another human being proves that we
30:13
instinctively know morality is not arbitrary.
30:16
We expect the other person to be able to see the same structural
30:18
uniformity we see. This has been a massive, intense
30:23
philosophical climb. Let's recap the progression of
30:26
this analysis so we can see the whole picture.
30:28
Is a great idea. We started with the idea of
30:30
virtue as an immediate taste of beauty, an agreeable sensation
30:34
in the mind that bypasses utility and calculation.
30:37
We saw how that sentiment is not a random setting, but must align
30:40
with the necessary survival of existence or being in general,
30:44
which reflects the necessary, perfectly consistent nature of
30:47
God Himself. We realized how opposing that
30:50
universal benevolence destroys our own internal consistency,
30:54
pitting our innate, undeniable desire for happiness against a
30:57
terrifying tendency toward universal misery.
31:00
We drill holes in our own boat. We discussed how the natural
31:03
conscience operates as a functional backup system,
31:06
recognizing the structural math and symmetry of morality, even
31:10
if it misses the divine melody of true virtue.
31:12
And finally, we looked at how our very language and the way we
31:15
furiously argue with each other demands a universal standard of
31:19
right and wrong, even when our partial attention or selfish
31:23
biases cause us to brutally abuse those words to suit our
31:27
own ends. It is a remarkable progression
31:29
of thought. There is immense practical value
31:32
in understanding standing this framework.
31:33
When you look at the world today, when you encounter loud,
31:36
confusing, incredibly heated moral debates online or in your
31:40
local community, it is very easy to feel entirely overwhelmed.
31:44
It really is. It is easy to throw your hands
31:46
up and think morality is just a chaotic free for all where
31:48
whoever shots the loudest wins. But armed with Edwards logic,
31:52
you can step back and recognize that people are usually not
31:55
operating without a moral compass.
31:57
The natural conscience is in there.
31:58
The innate desire for uniformity is in there.
32:01
Rather, they are often operating with a massive degree of partial
32:04
attention to the facts. They are heavily influenced by
32:06
local custom, by their specific education, by their own internal
32:10
biases, which severely distorts their application of the
32:13
universal standard. They are reading the sheet music
32:16
upside down. So I want to leave you with a
32:18
final thought to Mull over as you go about your week.
32:21
The next time you find yourself locked in a fierce, seemingly
32:24
unresolvable disagreement over what is right or wrong, stop and
32:28
ask yourself this question. Are you and your opponent
32:31
actually using completely different fundamental moral
32:34
standards? Or is one of you simply acting
32:37
like the thief who hates the informer, changing the rules of
32:41
the game when it suits your own self-interest?
32:44
That is a hard question to answer honestly.
32:45
And perhaps much more uncomfortably, where might your
32:48
own partial attention be blinding you to the objective
32:51
uniformity of the situation? Where are you demanding
32:54
consistency from others while giving yourself a pass?
32:56
A lot to think about. Sometimes looking for the jagged
32:59
white line of a broken bone on an X-ray is the wrong approach
33:03
entirely. Sometimes you have to ask
33:05
yourself if your mind is truly framed to taste the sweetness of
33:08
reality as it actually is, or if you were just arguing over the
33:11
utility of a shovel. Thanks for listening.