By his standards it is the reasoned I do not find fiction compelling and why I really HATE fiction!

Just thought I would mention it.

Now that I've had a shower and coffee:

You have to hinge a story on some sort of premise - if this is a moral absolute (as I'm understanding it) then the author him(her)self is choosing the absolutes that rule that world created by the story. I've no problem with the idea that something has to be absolute in order to create tension. My problem is that a Judeo-Christian worldview is necessary - that morals have to be understood to come from God - in order for something to be treated as an absolute in fiction.

I can't believe I'm wasting time on this rather than putting on my panty-hose, but here goes:

To go to his example, if we decide as a society that stealing is bad (and we have - we can argue the origin of that law and whether it was Jewish in nature or perhaps codified much earlier than Jews) then we've decided it's an absolute. To my understanding, at least. I don't know where the relativism part comes into this. Perhaps you can correct me, since I don't engage in the mental masturbation that is philosophy. If it is relative because others might not think stealing is bad...well, I'd like to point out that even in Judeo-Christian worldviews there is conflict over what's actually right and wrong - how is that not ALSO relative and requiring a consensus?

A compelling story deals with the building of a point of tension and then the climax, and then the aftermath. This does not require a particular worldview - just a conflict. The rest is up to how the author portrays it. It's also a highly subjective opinion.

Hope you got your pantihose on and are having a great Valentine's Day night TSQ!

It's not likely to be, but thanks anyway.

(February 14, 2012 at 1:35 am)Ryft Wrote: Unsurprisingly and quite appropriately, he was rather disappointed with the quality of the objections, including the title Summer gave it (presumably for the lulz).

I'll be sure to print out his objections so I can wipe my ass with it.

I notice he ignored several comments that had valid points but weren't couched in the same sort of apologist language he would have preferred.

Sorry, Ryft. His problem comes down again to whether or not morals come from God, which is an entirely different argument from "Is this a good story."

And I totally gave the thread that title for the lulz, like most of my threads. Mainly because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Besides the point that summer has made about whether or not morals come from god, he has made an entirely subjective argument stemming on the fact that he believes good fiction must deal with the concept of right and wrong. Good fiction can be about an introspective journey, or it can be about overcoming adversity. Good fiction does not require dealing with right and wrong.

I'm surprised that he gave me a particular shoutout!

Since it appears he's reading this discussion, let me give a couple more points:

Quote:Moral Absolutism is tethered specifically to a Judeo-Christian worldview.

If I'm reading this correctly, you believe that certain things are always wrong, regardless of who does it. Presumably you think that killing people is one of these things. Since you doubtless consider yourself a Christian, 2 Chronicles 13.20 has God directly killing Jeroboam. So, either you have to assume that either God is justified in killing him and the rule against killing isn't as absolute; or it is absolute and you're worshipping a murderer.

Quote:I mean, why is it “better” that she and her child survive? On what grounds?

Because if the author is doing his job right, she has gotten you invested in their characters?

Quote:(Note: Readers hated that The Hunger Games trilogy ended on such a bleak note. However, if there is no Hope or Virtue, then why not end it there?)

I refer you to my previous point; Suzanne Collins has managed to get millions of people invested in her characters, and thus, we get pissed off when their ends don't fit with our hopes.

Quote:As to Objection #2 – A belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity — I’d ask, in which worldview? Not the relativistic worldview, for Good and Evil are subjectively defined. They are not “real” except to the individual who believes them to be.

Well, Hinduism has the struggle against Good and Evil in the Mahabharata and especially in the Bhagavad Gita.
And if you're looking for something more Western, but still not Judeo-Christian, there's clearly a battle between good and evil to be found in Homer's Odyssey.

Quote:Two of the major world religions — Judeo-Christianity and Islam — see morals as rooted in God (even though their conceptions of God differ). In Hinduism, the third great world religion, God is in everything, both good and evil. As a result, there is no absolute morality. Through the law of karma, the soul (Atman) simply migrates back to God (Brahman).

So, basically, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, you say morality comes from God. Since Hinduism doesn't work that way, there can't be moral absolutes. Have you ever considered the possibility that, for some people and ideologies, morality comes from actually doing things that help those around you?

Quote:Any belief system that appeals to a Moral Law evokes a Judeo-Christian worldview. How? Because a Moral Law implies a Moral Lawgiver.

And why must the Moral Lawgiver be Jehovah? Is it so impossible that, back in the days when humans were learning the ability to reason and they realised that they needed to keep people in line in order that the societies they had created, laws had to be created and internalised in the populace?

Quote:Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards.

And even with God, society tends to do the same thing, and individuals are more or less free to do the same, but if it conflicts with society, they'll punish him.

Quote:Either Morals are static or elastic, unchanging or always changing, real or illusory.

So, either morals have to be Platonic Forms or they're just arbitrary? And the possibility that they're just a by-product of people realising that they have to live in groups and lay some ground rules so it works out well is impossible why?

And about moral changes, Just look at history: in the 1800s, slavery was more or less accepted as a fact of life in America. Now, slavery is considered wrong. About a hundred years ago, Tsar Nicholas II decreed anti-semitism "A Good Cause," and now, outside of parts of the Middle East, anti-semitism is frowned upon throughout the world.

(February 14, 2012 at 8:08 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: You have to hinge a story on some sort of premise. If this is a moral absolute (as I'm understanding it) then the author himself or herself is choosing the absolutes which rule that world created by the story. I've no problem with the idea that something has to be absolute in order to create tension. My problem is that a Judeo-Christian worldview is necessary, that morals have to be understood to come from God in order for something to be treated as an absolute in fiction.

If I understand the point he is arguing, and I am confident that I do, then I would suggest that Duran is not claiming that in order to create tension in a story the author has to treat ethical absolutes in a Judeo-Christian context; in other words, she is not compelled to invoke that worldview within her story. In fact, the author does not have to account for those ethical absolutes at all within the story, describing and explaining the philosophical justification. Yet she does invariably use ethical absolutes to achieve that tension (2012a, par. 17). "Life, like good stories, has something at stake. It's why the struggle of good and evil is at the heart of life and fiction," he observes, "[and] why messiah figures are so prolific in literature and resonate so powerfully in our psyche" (par. 21).

But the author does inexorably draw upon a biblical worldview, even if unconsciously, because apart from that framework of reality things like "absolute evil" are unintelligible concepts. "In fact, if evil is simply an illusion, then fictional evil is the most illusory of all things" (par. 22; emphasis his). And, again, when he says "a biblical worldview" what he means is "a perspective or set of assumptions that generally coheres with how the Bible frames reality" (par. 11). What he is arguing for is the recognition "that any appeal to good and evil, right and wrong—a universe where absolutes exist—is intrinsically tethered to a Judeo-Christian worldview" (2012b, par. 21). Whether consciously or unconsciously, that is the framework of reality being employed when invoking ethical absolutes, because that is the only framework which coherently produces such things. As such, his point certainly allows for an author who consciously rejects the biblical worldview, even though the ethical absolutes which drive her story are unintelligible apart from it. Perhaps she has never critically engaged the point philosophically herself; after all, her craft is writing good stories, not developing rigorous meta-ethics.

(February 14, 2012 at 8:08 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: To go to his example, if we decide as a society that stealing is bad [...] then we've decided it's an absolute. To my understanding, at least. I don't know where the relativism part comes into this. Perhaps you can correct me, since I don't engage in [...] philosophy.

If our society has decided that P is morally wrong, then the moral wrongness of P is relative (to our society that decided it); and if P is relative, then it is not absolute—by definition. (And if societies A, B, and C all decided that P is morally wrong, then the moral wrongness of P is relative to societies A, B, and C; in other words, it is still definitionally not absolute.)

(February 14, 2012 at 8:08 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: If it is relative because others might not think stealing is bad [...]

It is relative because its moral wrongness is relative to the individual or society that decided so. If it were absolute, then its moral wrongness would be independent of what any individual or society decides.

(February 14, 2012 at 8:08 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Even in Judeo-Christian worldviews there is conflict over what's actually right and wrong. How is that not also relative and requiring a consensus?

Because there is a difference between what is moral (ethics) and what morality is (meta-ethics). First, pointing to arguments between groups A and B over the former does not somehow prove a disagreement between them over the latter. Second, even if two Judeo-Christian groups conflicted over whether or not morality is absolute, that does not somehow prove it is not (viz. from the fact that it is impossible for them to both be right it does not follow that they are both therefore wrong).

(February 14, 2012 at 9:40 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Sorry, Ryft. His problem comes down again to whether or not morals come from God, which is an entirely different argument from "Is this a good story."

No, his argument is that we have good stories because they presuppose and appeal to "real" ethical tensions, which presuppose and appeal to ethical absolutes, which are inexorably tethered to a Judeo-Christian worldview. "Therefore, good stories require an appeal to a Judeo-Christian worldview" (2012a, par. 22), even if not consciously.

(February 14, 2012 at 9:40 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: And I totally gave the thread that title for the lulz, like most of my threads. Mainly because I don't have a stick up my ass.

Which is precisely what I reckoned.

----------
References:

Duran, M. (2012, January 9). "Why a Judeo-Christian worldview is essential to good fiction." DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/01/why-a-judeo...d-fiction/

__________ (2012, February 6). "Without moral absolutes, your story sucks!" DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/02/without-mor...ory-sucks/

His argument rests on the idea that any appeal to right and wrong is an appeal to absolute right and wrong, but if I create a character that is a killer, that character is still just as evil even if killing is only determined to be wrong by human consensus.

Regardless of whether this is true, protagonists and antagonists that blur the line between good and evil can be equally compelling. Therefore, no appeal to absolute morality is need.

Also, his argument says that good fiction requires an appeal to Judeo-Christian worldview, which if you follow his argument means that good fiction requires an ethical dilemma which I stated previously it does not. Good fiction can be about personal growth or overcoming adversity. It does not require a moral dilemma.