Sellick says-“The thoroughness with which the Christian tradition swept the world of impossible belief left us with nowhere to go but to Christ…So when Christianity is rejected…the old…authorities…must also be rejected. There is no one else to go to except to the self… the totally free self…”

To me, Sellick is very much implying the main ethical underpinnings of behaviour are either Christian, or his “self-autonomous, Philosophy of Choice”, and this charge means that his supporters need to debate seriously the claims that other sources of ethical behaviour may exist, and if they do, then freedom to “choose” one’s own ethical basis (noting that the choice still has an ethical basis) is a good alternative “philosophy of choice” to the one Sellick presents.

It is true that Sellick has not quantified the extent of this “philosophy of choice” so has not explicitly excluded other religious and ethical philosophies as legitimate replacements to a shallow “philosophy of choice”, but if other “worthwhile” value systems could exist the point of each of the examples would lose much impact- killing “unborn babies” just to choose may be bad, but to allow a person to choose abortion because they are choosing from one of several plausible ethical considerations requires those ethical considerations to be allowed in to the debate.

3)Finally, I hope to steer clear of arguments of the third kind; suffice to say that we may find them frustrating, witty or rude, but rarely productive. On this occasion though, I do feel that if “Sells” is the handle of the author, Peter Sellick, then exhortations to ignore his detractors as trolls seem a little unfair, when there are plenty of arguments that can be debated. It makes me inclined to believe that the ambivalence from the article that has spawned the diverging views of the above lines of argument, is a deliberate affectation to exclude the “choice is complex” counter to the “choice has no inherent worth” argument with selective definition. Maybe I am being too harsh; in Sells defence, it is hard to respond to 40+ comments in only 350 words…

Thanks, Boaz, for asking me about Peter Abelard. As well as finding him in your computer in Google or Altavista you will find him in any recommended Volume of Western History.
Regarding Aristotelian influence on the Late Middle Ages by means of Islamic scholars, two important figures of the Christian church are mentioned. Placing St Thomas Aquinas first because he is the most important, as well as the most revered.

However, it was the French monk Peter Abelard who is said to have first received Golden Greek Philosophy from Islamic scholars, some say possibly in a Moorish university in Northern Spain to which had been invited any non Islamic personage who was interested. As you probably know, Islam at the time was very interested in Greek philosophy, which was also taught in the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, which was taken over by the Muslims.

After meeting Muslim teachers, Peter Abelard developed the term Sic-et-Non - Yes or No- meaning that the key to real wisdom is interrogation, diligent and unceasing.... By doubting we are led to inquiry - and from inquiry we perceive the truth.

Out of Abelard's teachings grew the philosophy of Scholasticism, which was taken by the famous religous teacher Albert Magnus whose most famous pupil was St Thomas Aquinas who in turn wrote Summa Theologica which set out to prove how a belief in God and Christ could be proven by reason.

But the essence of the whole exercise Boaz, is that it was the mixing of reason with Christian faith that advanced Western society to where it is today.

Note - Besides Google and Altavista, the historical volume I have on my desk is called. World Civilizations - by Edward McNall Burns and Philip Lee Ralph - fifth edition- volume 1
Kind Regards,
George C - WA - Bushbred

W,

If society provides someone with the freedom to say or think what they want, why must they also "respect" the individual's opinion?

You say "The point is that the values are mine, acquired in a lifetime of experience and reflection. They deserve respect, not because they are better or worse than anyone else’s, but because they are the foundation of my human-ness."

This suggests that we should respect your values simply because they are yours. Surely this is not the basis for a workable society? Do we have to respect all beliefs and values, no matter how abhorent they are to us as a society?

Freedom is about the freedom to say or believe things, but it does not follow that society must unquestioningly accept those statements or beliefs. The original article makes a good point, because, whether you are religious or not, it is plain that the secular nihilism which is being pushed by many organisations in our society is not a workable model, as the long term consequences of many "choices" are never addressed. It is expected that we simply accept them because to not accept them means that we are impeding freedom. This shows a basic misunderstanding (or subversion) of the principle of freedom.

Exercising choice has consequences. Freedom must be used responsibly, and not as an excuse to justify every whim and fancy. Decisions we make as individuals have an impact on society as a whole. We do not live, as individuals, in a vacuum, immune from the actions of others. To cry "freedom" whenever an individual does not get their way debases what freedom means, and leaves modern institutions open to attack, as people become disillusioned with the ever expanding but somehow less fulfilling range of "freedoms" available.

Society is about relinquishing some "freedom", for other things that we also enjoy, such as security. By using freedom as a defence for any sort of behaviour, we are actually undermining our own long term viability as a society. All freedom must be tempered by responsibility and by a moral code.

Interesting point, Gekko, though I think you’re confusing thought and action.

Humans do have the freedom to think and believe what they like, and the fact that certain individuals believe some pretty distasteful stuff in no way relieves us of the obligation to respect the values of others. Nor does it justify restricting freedom of thought, even if it were practical to do so.

Society rightly limits the freedom to act on beliefs, where those actions might be damaging to others. In Australia it is lawful to believe that female circumcision is an appropriate thing to do to your daughter, but we restrict the right to act on that belief because it would be inflicting damage on her.

Just about everyone holds beliefs which conflict with civil law in some way. Sellick clearly believes that abortion is wrong, yet society permits it. Others believe that euthanasia is right, but our society forbids it. When you write, “Society is about relinquishing some "freedom", for other things that we also enjoy,” you’re covering precisely this type of compromise.

Sellick’s original article posits a hypothetical group of people seeking an unlimited range of choices, in spite of the fact that no-one has been arguing for unfettered freedom. There are always restrictions, which your social-contract view points to. Ultimately the argument here is about who gets to determine those restrictions, and on what basis.

“In the absence of God and a seminal story of identity and purpose, the only thing we have to turn to is the desire of the self, epitomised by the notion of the free individual who may choose.”

Sells your statement above is what an absence of god means to you. That is your burden. For those of us who value independence and freedom of thought there is no absence. There is no void. What exists is our self determination that we exercise to a lesser or greater degree of success. How well we use our freedom of choice is related to our depth of maturity and compassion for others.

“At the end of the modern period freedom is understood as the stripping away of any allegiance.”

I have the freedom to choose allegiance. What dismays Sells is that people choose not to ally themselves with dogma. I freely offer my services to welfare agencies, for example. This is not because I am striving to be a good Christian, Muslim or citizen; it is because I desire to help.

“To be truly free is to cancel all authority escape from any informing story, disband any sense of duty and look to what the self wants, to choose between a range of value neutral options.”

No it isn’t. What Sells describes is anarchy. To be truly free is to respect others. I see little respect for others from Sells and those who follow his dogma.

“We tell our children they must follow their dream while
simultaneously removing anything that might form that dream.”

Here Sells is again displaying hypocrisy – he removes all our dreams by denying our freedom to choose.

“the totally free self, ………… and directed by whim and fleeting desire.”

Wrong, this is where maturity, responsibility, altruism and ethics aid our decisions.

However, Sells agenda is not really about freedom of choice. In all his articles, Sells is simply selling his religion – he will claim that black is white or that choice is inherently evil, in order to persuade that his way is the only way.

W,

Point taken that I am mixing thought and action, but I believe that thought and action are always inextricably linked. I don't think it's sufficient to say that "thought" is OK, but action is not. By respecting a thought, you are halfway towards legitimising the action.

Of course, people will always hold personal values which vary from the common moral code held by society. However, what we are arguing about is not whether people should be allowed to hold certain beliefs in the privacy of their own mind, because there will always be people who hold unconventional or sometimes abhorent beliefs. There is little we can do about that, unless we start dabbling in social engineering (which is arguably a greater evil).

The question I was debating is whether we should, as a society, decide that all beliefs should be respected as a matter of course, or whether we are open and honest enough to freely criticise views we do not believe should be given any credence, or more to the point, whether such views should be held up as examples of society exercising "freedom".

In other words, I don't believe that Freedom of Speech requires that all views be considered worthy of public respect until proven otherwise. Freedom of Speech has been used as a "catch all" defence to legitimise the dissemination of all sorts of ridiculous ideas and actions. This debases Freedom of Speech and makes it more susceptible to attack.

I also think that the original author, by conflating individualism with securalism, has clouded the issue. It is not that individualism per se has caused securalism (or vice versa), it is that secular interests have used individualism (and other tenets of modernism) as a substitute for belief in God, and hence the two have become (incorrectly, in my view) intertwined.

There are many ideas mixed in here, and unfortunately in 350 words I can't even begin to touch the issues raised by this article. I wonder if there is a forum where longer posts are allowed?