Most Forms of the Argument From Evil Are Incoherent

F/N: The onlooker should know that in another discussion thread, MF twisted my response above into an accusation that I accused him of supporting murder of children. I replied in brief there and note here on that. KF kairosfocus

I don’t according to your definition. I do according to my definition which is something like “a need to act for altruistic reasoons”. So – to return – do you believe me?

I wasn't defining conscience as "moral sense", I was describing "moral sense" as that which most people refer to as their conscience, defined by Merriam-Webster as:

the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good

"Moral" is defined thusly:

concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

So, are you saying that you have no sense whatsoever that something is right or wrong in terms of how you ought to behave? If you are claiming that you do not have a conscience, then no, I don't believe you, but I can accept it arguendo for the purpose of discussion. William J Murray

MF: Strawman. You have in front of you an explanation of why I hold that the testimony of conscience reflects accurately the OUGHT and its root in a world foundational IS. As well, you see the problem of general delusion leading to a cascade of Plato's cave delusional worlds, if one holds that the testimony that we are under moral government does not reflect reality. That strongly suggests to me that you do not have a good answer to the problem of general delusion and a cascade of delusional worlds. Other than, perhaps to replace an infinite regress with a circular one. KF kairosfocus

KF

I am sorry, I am not impressed by the switch to emotional terms.

This from the person who writes:

No morally sane person of sufficient maturity can but understand MY #1 and its corollary. Nay, our consciences scream out: WRONG, EVIL, HORROR — ACT NOW TO RESCUE! OR ELSE, YOU TOO ARE GUILTY OF BEING AN ACCESSORY AND ENABLER.

Mark Frank

PS: I have read the note you have on using moral language. Sorry, it boils down to saying morality is a circle, influenced by family resemblances. Coherence and sharing the same core values -- the resumed underlying assumptions, fail. The IS-OUGHT gap remains, and there is but one way to found a genuine ought, an IS at foundation level capable of bearing that weight. This surfaces the issue that a worldview and a world alike need foundations. kairosfocus

MF: I am sorry, I am not impressed by the switch to emotional terms. And, the very point is that OUGHT is binding and rooted in a world-foundational IS, or else it is delusion. Where, if it is delusion, you face immediately the problem of the no-firewall between the faculties of mind, and thence the cascade of Plato's cave worlds, a form of reduction to absurdity. Let me clip:

At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world . . . . Now, the skeptical question is, do we physically live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent . . . . So also, the proper stance in response to such is that this sort of appeal to general doubt or general delusion about major aspects of reality and the mind reduces to absurdity. In response, we should hold that it is senseless to assume or imply the general dubiousness or delusion of any major faculty of mind, precisely because of that absurd result. Instead, until and unless we can find evidence of specific error, we will confidently hold to what seems to be reliable, common sense reality; beginning with the bench-mark truths that are self-evident and foundational (e.g. first truths and first principles of right reason . . . ), which we will use as plumb-lines to test the systems of thought we hold. Yes, as finite, fallible, intellectually and morally struggling creatures, we must live by faith, but there is no reason why such faith should be blind, hopeless and/or absurdly irrational. Thus, we proceed on common good sense and solid first principles, until and unless we see specific good evidence and reason to acknowledge and turn from specific error. Which, we pledge to promptly do, out of our sense of a duty of care to seek and follow the truth through good reasoning on credible evidence. H'mm -- isn't that an OUGHT? Yes it is. No surprise. And, a big hint on the nature of the underlying foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. So also, we see the absurdities implied by attempted denial of moral reality through reducing it to mere [potentially] delusional subjective perceptions. Even the much prized or even vaunted rationality is in the stakes! For, if our minds are that delusional on so important a matter, we have decisively undercut the mind, period. Which should be patent, once we give it a moment’s thought in light of our experience and understanding of the world we live in. It is reasonable to hold and accept instead that: just as we have minds that allow us to make sense of the signals of our external world accessed through seeing and hearing, forming a coherent picture of the world, we have a generally [as opposed to absolutely] trustworthy sense -- conscience -- that is detecting and responding to duty in light of the value of those we interact with.

So, is morality -- OUGHTNESS -- grounded in a foundational IS or is it not? If not, then how do you escape the reductio? Or, do you simply try to ignore and distract from it by saying how strong your tastes, preferences and feelings are? KF kairosfocus

KF Corrected link http://www.markfrank.me.uk/home/writing/What%20do%20we%20mean%20when%20we%20use%20moral%20language.docx?attredirects=0&d=1 I don't have a problem with the definitions of wrong that you supply but they don't help much because they are defined in terms of moral language (immoral, unethical) and we are debating the nature of moral language as a whole. Your accusations are absurd to the point of being unbalanced. We are all just as incensed by the acts you describe in MY 1 and just as motivated to prevent it. It is deeply insulting to suggest we are not. Mark Frank

F/N: Merriam-Webster online: >> wrong noun \?ro??\ : behavior that is not morally good or correct : a harmful, unfair, or illegal act Full Definition of WRONG 1 a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause [--> and frankly, I am fearing that none of these words carries the same meaning on the two sides of the divide we are seeing] b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort 2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law 3 : the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect note the echo of error exists] b : the state of being guilty . . . Origin of WRONG Middle English, from Old English wrang, from *wrang, adjective, wrong First Known Use: before 12th century Related to WRONG Synonyms bad, evildoing, ill, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, evil Antonyms good, morality, right, virtue Related Words atrociousness, atrocity, badness, balefulness, darkness, depravedness, devilishness, diabolism, enormity, evilness, heinousness, iniquitousness, satanism, sinfulness, vileness, wickedness; devilry (or deviltry), fiendishness; cancer, canker, decay, rot, squalor; corruption, debauchery, degeneracy, depravity, indecency, malefaction, perversion, pervertedness, scurrility, scurrilousness; abomination, anathema, taboo (also tabu) Near Antonyms decency, goodness, honesty, integrity, probity, rectitude, uprightness; goodness, righteousness, virtuousness >> My specific concerns are that an imposed radical relativism and/or subjectivism influenced by evolutionary materialism is distorting the term into something else in minds deeply influenced by that system of thought, whether the influence is conscious or not. Especially, on the implications of might and manipulation make 'right.' This concern is driven by the sort of reactions that are and have been coming up to the yardstick example:

MY #1: It is self-evidently evil, bad and wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, with corollary: should one encounter such in progress, it is a duty to intervene to save the child from such a monster.

This case [and sadly, it is not merely theoretical], first confronts us with the inherent value, worth and precious significance of innocent life and person, in the form of one unable to exert the strength or persuasive eloquence to save herself or himself from such a Nero. So, it isolates the key issue of inherent right rooted in nature as a human being, thus the force of the demand that that quasi-infinite worth has to be confronted, and the issue of OUGHT as a properly binding expectation that the right to life, liberty and person be respected. In turn, this raises the issue that we are under moral government, and live in a world with a foundational IS that grounds such an OUGHT. (Like unto it, it by immediate extension also raises the issue of the even more vulnerable child in the womb, and how we respond to this case.) The case is also clear-cut. No morally sane person of sufficient maturity can but understand MY #1 and its corollary. Nay, our consciences scream out: WRONG, EVIL, HORROR -- ACT NOW TO RESCUE! OR ELSE, YOU TOO ARE GUILTY OF BEING AN ACCESSORY AND ENABLER. So, I find myself deeply, deeply troubled by the pattern of evasions, side-tracks, rhetorical devices and general want of proper response as has been evident here at UD for weeks now, once this specific yardstick case was put on the table. And, recall, this is NOT a hypothetical. There is a still grieving father, X, out there. So, I think I have reason to be increasingly deeply troubled about the moral state of our civilisation and where that points. Frankly, just like Amos of old, I am seeing and troubled by a vision of One standing on a wall with a plumb-line in His hand, and finding that that which ought to be straight and upright is instead both crooked and out of alignment. And, I am increasingly led to tremble at the terrible implications of thus being weighed in the balance and found sadly wanting. KF kairosfocus

MF: At this stage, I am inclined to think on track record -- error, reify, etc -- that you are NOT using terms with the same meaning as is commonly understood, complete with 1984 newspeak overtones; leading to a breakdown. And the link provided seems to have an error. KF kairosfocus

WJM: MF:

Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me?

WJM:

Since I consider conscience = “moral sense”, are you saying you have no conscience?

I don't according to your definition. I do according to my definition which is something like "a need to act for altruistic reasoons". So - to return - do you believe me? Mark Frank

KF

MF: Pardon, but please explain to us what “wrong” means to you as a card-carrying evolutionary materialist thinker. We need to be clear that we are speaking the same language, given what we saw done with the terms “reify” and “error” in another thread. KF

Well to some extent that is what we are debating. I am pretty sure we mean the same thing (or our argument could be settled with a dictionary) but it is hard to articulate it briefly without a circular use of other moral language. In particular we confuse the meaning of the word and the reasons why we apply it. For a more detailed explanation look here. Mark Frank

WJM: Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective?

Try to answer that question as if you were me. Just try. It's getting boring. Take care. Happy Holidays! CentralScrutinizer

KRock, Back at ya! CentralScrutinizer

@CS "WFJ asked me if I was a solipsist. I answered yes (the epistemological kind.) Other than that it is irrelevant to any issues of morality and I’m not interested if anyone takes my ES position seriously or not. Quite frankly, it’s a boring topic for me to discuss." From the sidelines, I find it fascinating. Non the less, understood! Cheers! KRock

Box, Hehe, nothing you say is interesting. Let's leave it at that. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective?

Do you really need to ask? Or are you just having fun? At any rate, the horse is near death. Let's let him die in peace. Happy Holidays! CentralScrutinizer

CS, More on your inconsistency ….

Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false. [my emphasis]

[I]dealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. [my emphasis]

The above shows that epistemological solipsism is virulently anti-materialistic. Now some statements by CS which show a totally inconsistent metaphysical bias:

CS: It’s just the way our brains happen to be programmed.

CS: Because it’s not “out there” at all. It’s wired into your brain.

CS: Your sense of moral repugnance is not “out there”, but rather it is wired into your brain.

Box

If you like, I will say, “for the sake of discussion I am a pragmatist”, and I will promise to argue as if I am one, every day, all the time, if it makes things easier for you.

Since you admit you act as if morality is objective anyway, what is the pragmatic value in believing that it is not objective? William J Murray

CS: I already understand your position. Your analogies only illustrates (or attempts to illustrate) that same position; it doesn't make a rational case for it or offer evidence for it. Your analogy is deliberately set up to represent morality as something that doesn't objectively exist. I can offer up any number of analogies that represent morality as something that does objectively exist. I don't see the point, seeing as I understand your position and argument. William J Murray

MF: Pardon, but please explain to us what "wrong" means to you as a card-carrying evolutionary materialist thinker. We need to be clear that we are speaking the same language, given what we saw done with the terms "reify" and "error" in another thread. KF kairosfocus

WJM: your “epistemological solipsism” – is a makeshift construct erected only to allow you this core belief, all of which is expendable in service of that one belief.

My epistemological solipsism is irrelevant to any issues of morality, since I give the benefit of the doubt to the thing that I'm unsure of. (Really and truly I do. So never fear. See @196.) So I'd appreciate it if you would keep that clear when addressing any issues of morality with me given it's irrelevancy, if you're interested in further discussion. If you like, I will say, "for the sake of discussion I am a pragmatist", and I will promise to argue as if I am one, every day, all the time, if it makes things easier for you. CentralScrutinizer

MF:

Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me?

Since I consider conscience = "moral sense", are you saying you have no conscience? William J Murray

WJM, See @225 for a clearer example. CentralScrutinizer

CS: The initials are WJM. There is no such thing as a "blue sky" or "blue light" when there are only the color-blind available to observe. The light is not blue; the light is simply a wavelength that most human physiologies interprets as blue. Cross a few neurons, and the same wavelength that in most people is interpreted as blue, will be green, or gray, or in some cases it will register as a sound. Color doesn't exist "out there", even for an objectivist. However, when you abandon your own examples when I show they are equally applicable to morality, and instead of accepting that by your own arguments, worldview and behavior morality should be considered as objective as anything else you consider objective, you instead set aside your worldview, change your argument and shrug off your behavior, it is clear that you have some sort of psychological or emotional commitment against the idea that morality should be considered an objective commodity. So much so that your worldview, behavioral standards and even your own arguments and examples are expendable just so you can keep believing that morality is not an objective commodity. IMO, the fundamental requirement of your belief system and worldview, then, is that morality is subjective in nature, and everything else - your "epistemological solipsism" - is a makeshift construct erected only to allow you this core belief, all of which is expendable in service of that one belief. Interesting stuff. William J Murray

WJM

Sure, that process seems fairly easy to understand. I probably use the same process about many decisions I make.

Great. So next step. I say I use that process when I make moral judgements. Do you believe me? And to save to many Qs and As I will anticipate your possible replies. * If you don't believe me then why not? * If you do believe me then it would appear we use totally different processes for making moral judgements and yet come up with broadly the same results. How come? Is it a coincidence? Mark Frank

KF #217 How many times do you have to be told: Everyone here agrees that it is clearly wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, and corollary: if one sees such in progress s/he is duty bound to intervene to try to save the child from the monster. (I only change self-evidently to clearly because there is some philosophical dispute about what self-evidently means). We are all moved and sorry about your friend and anyone else who suffers this way. We would all do everything we can to prevent it. In fact that's the paradox. In spite of heartfelt differences about the nature of morality, on a vast range of issues including this one we would come to the same conclusions and act with the same passion. However, the debate here is not about the wrongness of the action. It is a philosophical debate about the nature of morality. It has been debated hundreds of times on UD alone generating thousands of comments without any sign of anyone shifting their position or learning anything. Yes I am tired of going round in circles and I am sorry that you don't want to join me in trying move beyond it. But to suggest I am doing it to “evade the force of MY 1” thus implying I do not wholeheartedly condemn the assailant of your friend is a nasty accusation without any foundation. Mark Frank

KRock: but Solipsism is workable only as a completely private belief. So just don’t be offeded [sic] if nobody takes you seriously, thats [sic] all.

WFJ asked me if I was a solipsist. I answered yes (the epistemological kind.) Other than that it is irrelevant to any issues of morality and I'm not interested if anyone takes my ES position seriously or not. Quite frankly, it's a boring topic for me to discuss. CentralScrutinizer

@CS "See @196" Right, but Solipsism is workable only as a completely private belief. So just don't be offeded if nobody takes you seriously, thats all. KRock

F/N 4: The dark triad -- we've been here before. KF kairosfocus

F/N 3: WHO ICD-10 statistical profile:

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others; Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations; Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them; Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence; Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

KF kairosfocus

F/N 2: Other related characteristics that sound ever so familiar:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them . . . Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love) Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim Incapable of real human attachment to another Unable to feel remorse or guilt Extreme narcissism and grandiose

Sounds a lot like web trolls are playing with fire, to me. KF kairosfocus

CS: ES is about doubt of the external world and it’s nature, not denial of it. That has nothing to do with my morality. (..) Moreover, I give “external reality” the benefit of my doubt. That is, I assume it is what is seems to be. That’s why the ES issue is entirely irrelevant to my morality. [my emphasis]

ES is entirely irrelevant to your morality. Earlier I called your thinking inconsistent and still I’m wondering how this all adds up. Anyway, now I take it then that ES does not inform your morality in any way. So what then is the philosophical basis of your morality? You told us that you regard all morality to be subjective, but I wonder what is the metaphysics behind your position? Box

KF @231, Bwahahahaha. See @196. You really crack me up You must be LOADS of fun at parties :D CentralScrutinizer

F/N: Sociopaths lack an awareness of the worth of others, and seem to therefore want to treat others as means to their ends -- holding no value in themselves only as toys, tools and instruments. A typical set of highlights:

Glibness and Superficial Charm Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. Incapacity for Love Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

It is not too hard to see that there is something very wrong here. Unless, one is in deep, enabling denial of such a destructive pattern. Problem is, this is becoming a culture that enables, excuses and rewards or even celebrates such. We are in BIG trouble as a civilisation. KF kairosfocus

SB: Indeed, he cannot be sure of major swathes of the deliverances of his experienced outer world as conveyed by his mental faculties, so on the no firewalls principle, he is facing a regress of Plato's cave worlds. That therefore points straight at his perceived inner world also. In such a setting it probably is the least of his troubles that he faces a self-contradiction as you identified. That is what comes of trying to base your worldview on radical doubt. Better, would be to acknowledge pivotal, plumb-line self-evident truths to keep the necessary faith points in alignment with reality. Then, we can instead take the positive view that we hold to the general reliability of our mental faculties, subject to the possibility of and need to correct errors. In that context, we can look at the limitations of our ability to deliver certainty with due humility and confidence. There are ever so many things we cannot formally prove beyond dispute that we for good reason are morally certain of. We need to breathe and eat, our Moms love us, other people have minds [they are not zombies or figments of our brains in vats etc], the general main outlines of history for the past several millennia, the reliability of ever so many technologies and operational scientific results used in them, and ever so much more. KF kairosfocus

KRock: Its pointless to debate someone who is unsure that any knowledge outside of there own mind, actually exists.

See @196 CentralScrutinizer

KF, See @225 CentralScrutinizer

CS: Subjective is not the opposite of objective, and objective does not entail being material or strictly an epiphenomenon of the material. KF kairosfocus

kairosfocus to Central Scrutniizer:

For, if might and manipulation make ‘right’ in your fantasy world, the issue is, will you act out?

Actually, KF, there is a more fundamental problem with CS's position: [a] On the one hand, he says that his world of experience is all that he has. Accordingly, he can't be certain that he knows anything at all about the real world. [b] On the other hand, he is certain beyond any doubt that that might makes right is an important, non-negotiable truth about the real world. StephenB

@Box (210) My response to CS was more "tongue and cheek" than anything else. That is, assuming you didn't already know that :-) Its pointless to debate someone who is unsure that any knowledge outside of there own mind, actually exists. KRock

WFJ: let me put it this way: Question: when color sighted people perceive blue light, what do they see? Answer: the color blue Question: when color blind people perceive light, what do they see? Answer: a shade of gray Question: What is objectively common about both situations? Answer: the blue light Question: when a non-sociopath sees a child being beaten how will he react? Answer: with outrage Question: when a sociopath sees a child being beaten how will he react? Answer: with apathy or delight Question: what is objectively common about both situations Answer: the child is being beaten Question: Where is this "objective morality" in both situations? Answer: ________________ <-- crickets CentralScrutinizer

CS: But the difference is, in the case of color, it’s “out there”, can be measured, and it’s not a matter of emotion. WFJ: You are assuming your conclusion here – that morality is not “out there”; that it cannot be measured, and that it is a matter of “emotion”.

Demonstrate otherwise.

CS: Now, what if we kill off all of the people who favor vanilla so that now 100% of the population thinks chocolate is the best flavor. Is the statement “chocolate is the best flavor” “objectively true”? If not, why not? WFJ: If we kill off everyone who is not color blind, is “the sky is blue” still objectively true?

Yes, in a sense. But my illustration was a bit sloppy and I will tighten it up. The sky is not, in fact, blue. The sky radiates objective electromagnetic energy at particular frequencies which are detected by our retinas, processes by the brain, and finally ends up as a subjective experience of "blue." The experience of blue is subjective. The external triggers that led to that experience objective. "External", "out there" is what "objective" means. "Internal", "in my mind", is what "subjective" means. There is no "objective" morality "out there" because "objective" doesn't mean something that's going on inside your subjective thoughts, by definition. There might be objective things that occur "out there" that trigger your response, but your response is entirely within your own mind, i.e, it is subjective. That's what subjective means. So then, when a socialpath (3% of the population) lack empathy, what is it "objectively out there" that they are not perceiving? CentralScrutinizer

CS,

But the difference is, in the case of color, it’s “out there”, can be measured, and it’s not a matter of emotion.

You are assuming your conclusion here - that morality is not "out there"; that it cannot be measured, and that it is a matter of "emotion". You haven't demonstrated that it's not "out there", that it cannot be measured, and that it is only a matter of "emotion". In fact, aren't you epistemologically incapable of demonstrating any of those claims?

Now, what if we kill off all of the people who favor vanilla so that now 100% of the population thinks chocolate is the best flavor. Is the statement “chocolate is the best flavor” “objectively true”? If not, why not?

If we kill off everyone who is not color blind, is "the sky is blue" still objectively true? William J Murray

Sidebar: an interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828 CentralScrutinizer

WFJ: So, outside of a few blind people (psychopaths),

It is estimated that about 3% of the population in the USA are sociopaths. No, they are not all serial killers, but they have no empathy like the rest of us do. That's hardly a "few" people. Now, why cannot sociopaths perceive your morality, if it is objective? CentralScrutinizer

WFJ: I think this is where you are obviously wrong. In the same sense that “Normal people with normal eyes can direct their eyes to a blue object and see blue. Most people of sound mind would agree that a blue house is “objectively blue.” … one can say “Normal people with a normal moral sense/conscience can direct their minds/sight towards a person torturing a child for persona pleasure and see that it is morally wrong. Most people of sound mind would agree that torturing a child for personal pleasure is “objectively wrong”. No moral wrangling, philosophy or “rants” necessary. No explanations or tortured arguments. Most people would immediately act as if their morality is objectively real and binding to the point of obligating them to act.

But the difference is, in the case of color, it's "out there", can be measured, and it's not a matter of emotion. Your sense of moral repugnance is not "out there", but rather it is wired into your brain. Some animals can see color. But none of them see that "objective" thing you call morality out there. Why not? Because it's not "out there" at all. It's wired into your brain. That, by definition, makes it entirely subjective. That most people feel repugnance (not all people do, you know) doesn't mean it's objectively true in the same sense as the color blue. Consider: which flavor of ice cream is the best? Chocolate or vanilla? If we did a poll, perhaps the results would fall somewhere around 50/50. Who is right? Is the statement "chocolate is better" objectively true or not? Now, what if we kill off all of the people who favor vanilla so that now 100% of the population thinks chocolate is the best flavor. Is the statement "chocolate is the best flavor" "objectively true"? If not, why not? CentralScrutinizer

Box: Doesn’t the fact that one admits to be unsure about the existence of external reality excludes one from the front rows of a debate on the ontological status of particular aspects of outside reality? Not from where I sit. See @218.

Irrespective of pragmatism, this behavior doesn’t fit at all well with epistemological solipsism.

I disagree, what can I say. If you don't thing I add anything worthwhile to any of this, then don't waste your time reading it. CentralScrutinizer

KF: MORAL YARDSTICK 1: It is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, and corollary: if one sees such in progress s/he is duty bound to intervene to try to save the child from the monster. On your version of solipsism, it seems you disagree.

Why would you think I disagree? ES is about doubt of the external world and it's nature, not denial of it. That has nothing to do with my morality. I still have to deal with conscious consequences of whatever this "external world" is. I am still emotionally affected by it whatever its nature, and act accordingly. Moreiver, I give "external reality" the benefit of my doubt. That is, I assume it is what is seems to be. That's why the ES issue is entirely irrelevant to my morality.

For, if might and manipulation make ‘right’ in your fantasy world, the issue is, will you act out?

Obviously you haven't read everything I've written here. I suggest you do that, if you are actually interested in my views. CentralScrutinizer

MF: Kindly see the just above. If you think that evasions, distortions, dismissals, verbal gymnastics and the like allow you to evade the force of MY 1 and then say "oh, we are tired of going in circles let's talk something else . . . ," think again. Think of this from the perspective of my friend X, who lost a son to such a monster or maybe it was a circle of them. KF kairosfocus

CS: Let's start with basics:

MORAL YARDSTICK 1: It is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, and corollary: if one sees such in progress s/he is duty bound to intervene to try to save the child from the monster.

On your version of solipsism, it seems you disagree. At that point, unless you show cause for me and for others to consider that you are not serious, we should ring-fence you and mark you off with a big red warning flag. For, if might and manipulation make 'right' in your fantasy world, the issue is, will you act out? End of story. KF kairosfocus

CS Doesn't the fact that one admits to be unsure about the existence of external reality excludes one from the front rows of a debate on the ontological status of particular aspects of outside reality? I mean, I suppose that one could add to the debate, by saying something profound along the lines of 'maybe it is all an illusion' or 'maybe it is not all an illusion'. But it is quite another thing to engage in the discussion by making statements as "I see that X is objective!" or 'Y is demonstrably real!". Irrespective of pragmatism, this behavior doesn't fit at all well with epistemological solipsism. Box

CS: You have described the difference between something accepted as objectively existent and something not accepted as objectively existent in your "blue" example as being what most normal people of sound mind would recognize and agree on without any philosophical quibbling or tortured explanations. IOW, they would all point at the sky and say "that is blue", and thus the "blueness" of the sky is accepted as an objective commodity. Yet, that explanation precisely describes what we find in the case of the moral equivalent of "perceiving blue"; most (virtually all, IMO) normal people of sound mind would point at someone torturing a child for their own amusement and say "that is morally wrong", and thus - by your own example - the moral wrongness of the act must be accepted as an objective commodity. William J Murray

Central Scrutinizer, claiming with apodictic certainty, that he knows something important about the external world:

Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right.

Central Scrutinizer claiming, with equal conviction, that he may not know anything at all about the external world:

It could be an illusion. Or it could have a reality close to what I’m perceiving. There’s no way to know for sure. In the end, I’m only sure that I’m conscious and experiencing “the external world.”

Unbelievable. StephenB

Normal people with normal eyes can direct their eyes to a blue object and see blue. Most people of sound mind would agree that a blue house is “objectively blue.” No philosophical wranglings necessary. It’s immediately obvious. Rants about morality being objective is not immediately obvious to anyone, as far as I can tell, and not obvious even to many who sit though the tortured explanations of why people like you think it is so. That’s how it’s different.

I think this is where you are obviously wrong. In the same sense that "Normal people with normal eyes can direct their eyes to a blue object and see blue. Most people of sound mind would agree that a blue house is “objectively blue." ... one can say "Normal people with a normal moral sense/conscience can direct their minds/sight towards a person torturing a child for persona pleasure and see that it is morally wrong. Most people of sound mind would agree that torturing a child for personal pleasure is "objectively wrong". No moral wrangling, philosophy or "rants" necessary. No explanations or tortured arguments. Most people would immediately act as if their morality is objectively real and binding to the point of obligating them to act. It seems to me that the only one attempting to torture a philosophical variance between these examples is you, in order to maintain the idea that morality is "subjective" in nature.

There is no “means” and nothing to separate. It’s because there is no objective morality to “perceive out there.”

If there is no means by which to separate an objective commodity from a subjective one, then are you saying it is completely arbitrary? You have no means by which you will decide what phenomena to treat as if objective, and what phenomena to treat as if objective? How do you decide?

Say there are two kings. One has nice clothes on. The other is naked. Your question is like you asking me by what means I can call the first king’s clothes objective and the reject the second king’s clothes as being objective. The “means” is, the second king doesn’t have any clothes to be objective “about.”

You're assuming a conclusion not available under your argument here. Let me explain why. You have already admitted that there is no way for you to be sure that "the king has no clothes on"; you have already admitted that you subjectively experience morality, which in terms of your analogy, means that you subjectively perceive a clothed emperor as well - because you experience morality. The king would only appear naked to you, so to speak, if you didn't subjectively experience morality - moral oughts, authority and obligations. So, your assertion that the king is naked can only be some kind of conclusion you have reached because it is not your de facto subjective experience. So, outside of a few blind people (psychopaths), we (including you) all see (experience) a clothed emperor (morality). Your only available argument to reach a conclusion that the emperor is not clothed (no morality "out there"), in correct relation to the analogy, would be that because we disagree on what the emperor is wearing, you conclude that he is wearing nothing at all - which is a complete non-sequitur, since only those we agree are psychopaths see the emperor as "naked" (experience no morality). You have no basis in your argument for the view that "the emperor is naked" because even you perceive him as clothed. The rational conclusion is that while we disagree on exactly what the emperor is wearing, he is wearing something, and like with all things assumed to be objective in nature, people can disagree on the appearance or qualities of that thing because they are subjectively interpreting an objectively existent commodity and can err in those perceptions/interpretations. Since even you experience morality, by what principle or means do you classify it as "not objective", especially since every sane person on the planet also experiences morality, and especially since you admit you act as if it is objective anyway? William J Murray

On the other hand CS retracts his epistemological ambition

There is nothing to retract. ES is about unsurety of what's "out there", not denial of it.

...towards knowledge in favor of a pragmatic approach which he is somehow forced to adopt. So he is willing to discuss the ‘outside’ world as if it exists – with ‘other’ people as if they exist.

It's not complicated. In a nutshell, I am unsure of the nature and existence of external reality, but I give it the benefit of my doubt.

One cannot help wondering why that is – and to what end?

See @196. Hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

Not so fast KRock! #205 CS is not a metaphysical solipsist! He is a epistemological solipsist instead. On the other hand CS retracts his epistemological ambition towards knowledge in favor of a pragmatic approach which he is somehow forced to adopt ... So he is willing to discuss the 'outside' world as if it exists - with 'other' people as if they exist. One cannot help wondering why that is - and to what end? Box

KRock: CS, I believe you are right; there is no a contradiction, so I will humbly admit my error. I believe I am unable to refute your epistemological solipsist position just as you are unable to defend it.

Right. I do not attempt to defend my epistemological solipsism nor am I interested in making converts.

Question. As a Solipsist, would not the use of language be necessarily private?

No. Epistemological solipsism does not deny the existence of external reality. It's a matter of surety of its existence, and what the nature of it might be. Moreover, I'm a pragmatist in practice. See @196.

Although I don’t agree with your philosophy, I’ve learned something about it. So thanks CS.

You bet. CentralScrutinizer

KRock, BTW, I'm not a metaphysical solipsist, merely a epistemological solipsist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism Hope this helps CentralScrutinizer

KRock, See @196 CentralScrutinizer

WJM: Now I’m really confused...Do colorblind people see “blue” when they look at what you are looking at?

No. They are impaired so they are disqualified from the discussion of "seeing blue" as an objective or subjective property.

How is perception of color qualitatively different than perception of what is morally wrong?

Normal people with normal eyes can direct their eyes to a blue object and see blue. Most people of sound mind would agree that a blue house is "objectively blue." No philosophical wranglings necessary. It's immediately obvious. Rants about morality being objective is not immediately obvious to anyone, as far as I can tell, and not obvious even to many who sit though the tortured explanations of why people like you think it is so. That's how it's different.

What is your means of separating what is a perception of an objective commodity from what is a perception of a subjective commodity? What criteria do you use?

There is no "means" and nothing to separate. It's because there is no objective morality to "perceive out there." Say there are two kings. One has nice clothes on. The other is naked. Your question is like you asking me by what means I can call the first king's clothes objective and the reject the second king's clothes as being objective. The "means" is, the second king doesn't have any clothes to be objective "about." In other words, the question is invalid. There's nothing objective "to see" when it comes to "objective morality." Because the only morality that exists is subjective. We don't see objective morality because it's "not there." Now, I acknowledge that I could be "blind" and that objective morality is really "out there" to be perceived, but I cannot perceive it. But if that's true, no amount of words you could possibly provide will ever get me to see it, just like no amount of words will make a color blind person understand what blue is. But I doubt this is the case, because the words you guys do> use, always betray the reality of the subjectivity of it all. Hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

@CS "but it’s the way the world works whether you like it or not.." Says the solipsist! :-) KRock

@CS “I’m puzzled by your statement. You’re welcome to clarify.” CS, I believe you are right; there is no a contradiction, so I will humbly admit my error. I believe I am unable to refute your epistemological solipsist position just as you are unable to defend it. Question. As a Solipsist, would not the use of language be necessarily private? Although I don't agree with your philosophy, I've learned something about it. So thanks CS. KRock

Mark Frank, Sure, that process seems fairly easy to understand. I probably use the same process about many decisions I make. William J Murray

#201 WJM What I want to know at this stage is do you understand the process that I say I go through when I make a moral judgement as described in #195 (even if you think I actually go through a different process)? Mark Frank

WJM has admitted this in so many words.

Actually, I have admitted it explicitly. However, my point is that just because I cannot show something exists in the normal physical-object sense, doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist, nor does it mean I can or even should act as if the thing doesn't have independent objective existence. Can you point to and demonstrate that sentient consciousness exits in other people? Of course not. But, as you say, one still behaves as if other people have individual sentient consciousness. We infer the objective existence of things even though they are not brick walls, so to speak, that we can point to and demonstrate (prove).

Objectivists are laboring under the delusion that when they make moral judgements they are perceiving something objective, like eyes see the color blue. They think you are blind because you cannot objectively perceive what they think they perceive. But when it boils down to any explanation of what it is they are seeing, it always comes down to processes that are very much subjective.

Now I'm really confused. You refer to "seeing the color blue" as something "objective". What do you mean by that? Do colorblind people see "blue" when they look at what you are looking at? How is perception of color qualitatively different than perception of what is morally wrong? It seems to me that what you are doing here is arbitrarily classifying some subjective perceptions as "of objectively phenomena" and others as "of subjective phenomena". What is your means of separating what is a perception of an objective commodity from what is a perception of a subjective commodity? What criteria do you use? William J Murray

WJM: How would your behavior pragmatically differ if you instead acted as if morality was an objective commodity?

I don't think it makes a difference to me or to most people. People just do what they do without considering (rather useless) philosophical meanderings about whether or not morality is subjective or objective. People are pragmatic by default and pretty much stay that way, regardless of philosophical wranglings. So my answer is: nothing, as far as I can tell. I think the real issue here is this: who is final arbiter of your morality, of what you do? No matter what your navel gazing philosophy is, everyone is the final arbiter of their own morality. Each ultimately decides for himself what is right and wrong. What people say is one thing, and what philosophers argue about is one thing, but what people actually do is what they want to do. As I originally stated, it's a subjective world, it's a Might Makes "Right" world. It's just how the world works. CentralScrutinizer

CS, I'm still confused about your behavior with regards to morality. In what way does your behavior reflect the premise that morality is (pragmatically speaking) subjective in nature? How would your behavior pragmatically differ if you instead acted as if morality was an objective commodity? William J Murray

Mark Frank, I wouldn't hold your breath. Objectivists are laboring under the delusion that when they make moral judgements they are perceiving something objective, like eyes see the color blue. They think you are blind because you cannot objectively perceive what they think they perceive. But when it boils down to any explanation of what it is they are seeing, it always comes down to processes that are very much subjective. With something physical, you can point to it and say, "there it is." But there is never anything "out there" they can point to. WJM has admitted this in so many words. Delusions are hard to break. Especially when one is emotionally committed to them. CentralScrutinizer

KF: That is, we intuitively recognise that our fellow — especially innocent — human being is of equal value as a person in his or her own right, and is of quasi-infinite worth. So, from how we cherish our own selves, we are able to see how we wish to be cherished by others, thence why by reciprocity we ought to cherish those who are as ourselves.

I don't consider intuition to be a self-evident truth. It's just the way our brains happen to be programmed. And not everyone has the same level of intuition in this matter. Try taking certain drugs, or talking to a brain damaged person. These programmed intutions can be altered. I've worked in jails and prisons with inmates, and I know how different levels of "self-evident truths" for "love toward their fellow man" can differ. The fact that it differs, and can altered means it's entirely subjective, not some perception of an external "objective truth." CentralScrutinizer

WJM @197, I can understand your confusion. So let me boil it down for you. As I've said, I am an ES but I act like a pragmatist in my daily life. We've got two subjects going now, moral relativism vs objective relativism, and now my epistemological solipsism. I'm not very interested in carrying on with discussions about my ES. For the sake of discussion of the main topic, morality, you can assume I'm a pragmatist, because that's the way I choose to operate day to day. The reason for such, I have already answered @176: "So, you see, it’s not that I don’t perceive other individuals “out there. It’s that I’m not sure about what the external world “really is.” It could be an illusion. Or it could have a reality close to what I’m perceiving. There’s no way to know for sure. In the end, I’m only sure that I’m conscious and experiencing “the external world.” But I don’t have a surety about the nature of “the external world. Pragmatically, I assume it exists, because I really have no choice, unless I want to just lie down and do nothing. That would be no fun." Now, we can continue on with the main topic if you like. I hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

KF

I have no more reason to consider my moral sense generally delusional or merely subjective and dubious than I do my vision and hearing. And while the blind and deaf and those who refuse to acknowledge what they see and hear exist, that is recognisable as willful aberration in the latter case and unfortunate handicap in the former.

I am trying to break out of the endless recycling of the same arguments. Will you join me in that effort? By comparing the way we differently make moral judgements we might at least more clearly define the difference in our positions, possibly assess how much it matters and heaven forfend even modify our beliefs (I admit the last is unlikely). I cannot detect any such moral sense in myself and yet I am able to make moral judgements. I do this by examining the consequences, comparing it to other moral judgements I have made (being consistent and remembering how I felt about those in the long run), imagining how people I respect would judge the situation etc. In the end, after taking these things into account to a greater or lesser extent, I react emotionally and conclude it is good or bad or indifferent. Without judging whether this process is faulty - do you understand it? Mark Frank

CS, you describe your belief system this way at 176:

“Solipsism… is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known (I will add “for sure”), and might not exist outside the mind.”

But before providing this essential information, here are some previous statements you made:

CS @ 132: Morality is at least subjective. That much you agree with, can’t you? What you cannot demonstrate is that any morality is objective.

Merriam-Webster defines "demonstrate" (in this context) as:

"to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence ".

How can one "prove" or "make clear" the objective existence of anything when that person holds the a priori epistemologial position that nothing can be proven or made clear to objectively exist?

CS @ 132: No, I see that morality is subjective ...

You can see the confusion you create when you make a claim that morality "is" subjective, and then later commit to the epistemological position that "everything" is subjective. I mean, so what that you "see" morality "is" subjective (meaning, in your experience), when in your experience, a brick wall is also subjective? At this point in the conversation, this appears now to be quite misleading.

CS @ 132: Subjective morality is the only category that is actually demonstrably real.

What does this mean when, under ES, only the subjective existence of anything, including a brick wall, is "demonstrably real"? Under ES, even granting that "subjective" morality is the only kind of morality that can be demonstrated to be real, that means morality is as objectively real as a brick wall, because a subjective brick wall is all that can be demonstrated to be real.

CS @ 132: Objective morality is undemonstrable, therefore, in effect, unreal.

Under epistemological solipsism, everything is undemonstrable (see definition of "demonstrate" above) in terms of their objective existence, and therefore, unreal. Right? What is the purpose in making this point about "objective morality" when it applies to everything under ES? It seems that you are again misleading people here, as if there is anything outside of mind that can be, under ES, demonstrated to be objectively real, when you apparently hold the a priori position that nothing can be so demonstrated? Armed with an understanding of your ES,one might be willing to make a relevant case - that it would in your personal benefit to act as if morality was an objective commodity, but clearly one can never demonstrate to you that morality is an objective commodity.

CS @ 132: That’s the way the world works..

Perhaps what you really mean here, under ES, is "that is the way my experience works". Surely you know that using the term "the world" here implies to everyone else that you are speaking of a world you hold to be objectively real and work a certain way whether others agree or not. Under ES, you cannot even be sure there is a world out there, much less be sure of how it works, but that is exactly what your unqualified statement here and others like it implies.

CS @ 120: Until you can demonstrate your morality is objective, you’re acting like a subjectivist.

That doesn't mean much when, under ES, such a demonstration is apparently epistemologically impossible and everyone necessarily acts like a subjectivist.

CS@111: Again, “Might Makes Right” is a fact.

In light of later revelations about your worldview, I assume you mean "a fact of your experience", not of any supposed exterior world. Do you really think that people will understand what you mean before you tell them you are an ES?

CS@109: Call me names if it makes you feel good, but it’s the way the world works whether you like it or not..

A non-misleading form of this statement woud be "that is the way my experience works, whether you like it or not." CS, surely you realize that nobody is going to argue with claims you make about your subjective experience - because such a claim is rather uninteresting, sort of like "I can't demonstrate it to you, but I experience flying pink elephants all the time. They are a fact of my experience!" It seems to me that you know this as well, and in order to make your argument interesting to others, you make statements as if they are fact claims about the nature of an objective world, knowing how we would take it and respond, when the fact is you are only making fact claims about your own personal experience.

CS@107: “Might makes right” is simply how the world works.

See above. You do not know how "the world" works; you only know how your experience works. This is misleading.

CS@99: Morality is subjective...

Compared to what, under ES? It "is" as objective as anything else under ES, is it not?

CS@75: It’s just the way reality is.

If reality = CS's experience, then okay. But it is still misleading, whether intentionally so or not. Do you really think that when someone reads this, they should know you are only making a claim about "your experience" and not an objective reality outside of your experience as well?

Might makes right no matter what your moral beliefs are. Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right. Might Makes Right is the practical reality despite anyone’s desires.

Were you making claims of fact about the experience of other people? This appears to be a set of very misleading statements in light of your epistemological position. This is what I meant in my comment, "OMG! I'm arguing with a Solipsist!"; I have no reason to make arguments about proposed objective phenomena with a solipsist because they are at least epistemologically committed to the position that the objective existence of **anything** cannot be demonstrated (proven, made clear). If I cannot even demonstrate to an ES that **I**, or a brick wall objectively exist; what hope do I have making the case that morality objectively exists? Why bother trying? More importantly, why bother challenging me to do so, over and over, when it is doomed to failure because of your epistemological commitment? That seems to me to be debating in bad faith, especially before you even reveal your worldview position that carries with it the apparent impossibility of being able to do so. Since the only "relationship" you can have with supposed "objective" commodities under ES is whether or not you act as if they are objectively existent, perhaps you could tell me how your moral behavior would be different if you acted as if morality was an objective commodity - because, to me, your described behavior already is such. William J Murray

F/N: Where this ends up: WJM, 183: >>I have a question for you [CS]. You have stated that your epistemological solipsism means that you cannot be sure of what exists outside of your mind – or even if there is an existence outside of you mind. My question to you, then, is: can you be sure of what does not exist outside of your mind?>> CS, 184: >>WJM: can you be sure of what does not exist outside of your mind? No. Can you?>> In short, CS's view ends up in propagating doubt and delusion through the view of the external world and his own mind. Apply the cascade to this and see the self-referential incoherence described above as it emerges. KF kairosfocus

MF: I have no more reason to consider my moral sense generally delusional or merely subjective and dubious than I do my vision and hearing. And while the blind and deaf and those who refuse to acknowledge what they see and hear exist, that is recognisable as willful aberration in the latter case and unfortunate handicap in the former. Especially, when I can see the following to be a pivotal self evident moral truth:

It is self evidently wrong and evil to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child, with corollary that should one see such in progress, one has a duty of intervening to save the victim from the Nero-like monster.

I hold this true on pain of immediate patent absurdity on attempted denial. Where also attempted undermining by implying general delusion is equally absurd. This immediately leads to the refutation of might makes right and therefore of any system that implies that. For, the child has no strength nor eloquence to prevent or stop the process. And yet the child has obvious equality as a person, with value as an end in him-/her- self and quasi-infinite worth that demands to be treated as I would be treated were I in those shoes . . . as once I could well have been. So also, it leads tot he conclusion that we are morally governed, we live in a world where OUGHT is real, and therefore there is a foundational reality, an IS that properly grounds OUGHT. An IS we deny or dismiss only on pain of absurdity. As is becoming ever more evident not only in discussions but in the accelerating unravelling and moral collapse of our civilisation as it increasingly insistently entertains systems of thought, law and life that substitute evil for good and darkness for true light, calling good evil and evil a right or a good. KF kairosfocus

CS: What SB did at 64 above, is to show the consistency of moral perception when blinding influences are not at work. Note also, from how John Locke cites canon Hooker at the point in his 2nd essay on civil govt, where he lays the principles for what would become modern liberty and democracy:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]

That is, we intuitively recognise that our fellow -- especially innocent -- human being is of equal value as a person in his or her own right, and is of quasi-infinite worth. So, from how we cherish our own selves, we are able to see how we wish to be cherished by others, thence why by reciprocity we ought to cherish those who are as ourselves. Now, there are ever so many views that are deleteriously influenced by two notions: (i) the Kantian view that there is an ugly and unbridgeable gulch between the inner world of appearances and that of things in themselves, and (ii) the idea that entire realms of our experience are dubious and/or delusional. For the first, from late C19, British philosopher F H Bradley pointed out that he who imagines that the external world is on the other side of a gulch and is essentially unknowable actually directly implies a strong claim to what he tries to deny as a credible possibility: knowledge of the external world. For, to claim that that world is effectively unknowable, is to claim to know A LOT about that world. That is, the claim is self-referential and incoherent. Wiser by far, is to look to something like Josiah Royce's insight that we have the in-common view that error exists, a general consensus (presumably starting with Miss Jones' Sums classes and visions of red X's . . . ). Where also, that error exists is undeniably -- so, self-evidently -- true. For, to try to deny is to assert that it is AN ERROR to think or assert that error exists. This patently refutes itself and is an error. From such, several things follow: while we know for sure error exists, we know that, know it for objective, warranted truth about the world, know it true. Reality exists as what is to be in error about. Truth exists as what accurately describes it. Knowledge, as warranted and credibly true belief. Facts, as truths of experience that can be known to moral certainty and in some cases to absolute certainty -- self evidence. And, as a result, schemes of thought that are opposed to such, are factually inadequate and lose credibility. But of course, that we may err imposes a duty of care towards truth, and a duty of humility in the face of the possibility of error. Likewise, when some scheme of thought implies that a major mental faculty, such as reason, perception or conscience is utterly subjective, dubious and even delusional we can be highly confident that it is self-undermining. For, there are no firewalls in the mind and states of general doubt or presumed delusion propagate like wildfires decisively undermining claims to reason, knowledge, and the like. This ends in a Plato's cave world of shadow-shows. Or rather an infinite cascade of them as one grand delusion being perceived only sets the stage for the next. The answer is to upend the lot. yes, our worldviews and reasonings must start from a finitely remote faith-point, but in a world where there are self evident plumbline truths, we may uise comparative difficulties to establish a reasonable worldview, and we have no good reason to accept any view that entails general delusion, as the cascade of Plato's cave delusions is absurd. Errors are possible, but will be specific and limited, and we have every good reason to treat the major faculties of mind as generally accurate absent specific reason to see a particular aspect as erroneous. Which reasoning includes solipsism as one of the views that undermines itself. I trust this helps. KF kairosfocus

(The following adapted from a comment I made on another thread a couple of days ago which rather got lost in the traffic) The metaethics argument repeats itself endlessly with apparently neither side learning anything. Here is a different way of looking at it. How is it possible for the objectivist and the subjectivist to differ over the nature of moral judgements. We presumably mean the same things by “good”, “evil” etc.(if not we are arguing about different things and can stop here). Each of us presumably knows the process we personally go through when we judge something to be good or evil. By and large we come to the same conclusions over fundamental issues such as the wrongness of murder, while disagreeing on others. So if I know my process and you know yours there appears to be only two options: * The processes are indeed different. If so how do we decide which one is correct? Indeed does it mean anything to say one is correct and the other is not? * The processes are essentially the same – in which case one or both of us is either lying or deceiving ourselves. I will dismiss the possibility of lying – why would anyone do that? So, how do we know we deceiving ourselves? ------------------------------------------- As far as the processes are concerned: As I understand it the objectivist either: a) deduces that something is good or evil by rational deduction b) in some sense perceives something is good or evil through conscience which is somewhat like a sense but it senses moral values rather than sights, sounds etc. My subjectivist process is that I have an emotional response which I express by declaring something to be good or evil. This emotional response is not a whimsical unreasoned one. It is hugely influenced by all sorts of considerations – whether others suffer, how fair things are, commitments people have made, etc – but while all of these are important, none are decisive. In the end my judgement is a personal response based on these reasons which luckily many, many people share. Are the two processes are so different? Or is one of us involved in self-deception? Mark Frank

WJM: So, you cannot be sure that morality is not a commodity that exists objectively outside of your mind?

Correct. It may very well be. But I can't be sure of it. Neither do I perceive anything that would make me think it is true. CentralScrutinizer

KRock: My own personal opinion, solipsism is an incoherent position because it assumes the very thing it trys [sic] to deny, that knowledge, etc …can not be known (or might not exist) outside oneself…

I assume "that knowledge, etc …can not be known (or might not exist) outside" of myself, but I do not deny what I assume. So there isn't a contradiction. I'm puzzled by your statement. You're welcome to clarify. CentralScrutinizer

UD is a good place to learn philosophy.I come across so many varied concepts and word which mean something different to everyone. I guess 'Solipsism' is no exception. selvaRajan

@CentralScrutinizer "I have no interest in convincing you that I am the only valid being. For one thing, I don’t think I am the only valid being. Only that I am unsure of it, and anything else outside my own consciousness." Fair enough then. My own personal opinion, solipsism is an incoherent position because it assumes the very thing it trys to deny, that knowledge, etc ...can not be known (or might not exist) outside oneself... KRock

So, you cannot be sure that morality is not a commodity that exists objectively outside of your mind? William J Murray

WJM: can you be sure of what does not exist outside of your mind?

No. Can you? CentralScrutinizer

CS: I have a question for you. You have stated that your epistemological solipsism means that you cannot be sure of what exists outside of your mind - or even if there is an existence outside of you mind. My question to you, then, is: can you be sure of what does not exist outside of your mind? William J Murray

Box, I thought I answered those question @176. Is there something unclear about what I said? CentralScrutinizer

My apologies scordova... CS it is. :-) KRock

CS #176, I take it then that your epistemology makes a sharp divide: 1.- knowledge of anything inside one’s own mind 2.- knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind The first leads to objective knowledge, while the second leads to uncertain knowledge. So, it makes a lot of sense, for an epistemological solipsist not to base his theories of reality on the second type of knowledge. So, again: why do you allow ‘daily pragmatic practice’ – which introduces unsure (second rate) knowledge about anti-solipsistical elements such as individuals – to permeate your epistemological deliberations? I find that inconsistent. Why then call yourself an epistemological solipsist? Box

Central Scrutinizer:

I notice you didn’t bother to reply to my commentary @165.

You mean your nonsensical comment about contradictions in the text that you didn't even identify? I'm supposed to guess where you think the contradictions are? Or, are you disappointed that I called your bluff about the natural moral law in the first place?

I have nothing further to discuss with you.

It hasn't been a discussion. You made uninformed claims and I corrected them. StephenB

I think you mean CS, not SC.

Thank you CS SC scordova

KRock: SC, I have to ask you again. How do you convince someone of this solipsism (epistemological) philosophical position?

I think you mean CS, not SC. I don't try to convince anyone of it.

Better yet, why even bother trying to convince someone you’re an epistemological solipsist?

I don't try to convince anyone of that either. Take my word for it or don't. Doesn't matter to me.

To convince me (or anyone for that matter) of your belief, you’ll need to convince me that you’re the only valid being and I am merely but a projection of your imagination.

I have no interest in convincing you that I am the only valid being. For one thing, I don't think I am the only valid being. Only that I am unsure of it, and anything else outside my own consciousness. CentralScrutinizer

Box: Why do you allow ‘daily pragmatic practice’ – which introduces anti-solipsistical elements such as individuals – to permeate your epistemological deliberations? I find that inconsistent. Why then call yourself an epistemological solipsist?

You seem to misunderstand what epistemological solipsism is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism "Solipsism... is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known (I will add "for sure"), and might not exist outside the mind." (The metaphysical part does not apply to me.) So, you see, it's not that I don't perceive other individuals "out there. It's that I'm not sure about what the external world "really is." It could be an illusion. Or it could have a reality close to what I'm perceiving. There's no way to know for sure. In the end, I'm only sure that I'm conscious and experiencing "the external world." But I don't have a surety about the nature of "the external world." Pragmatically, I assume it exists, because I really have no choice, unless I want to just lie down and do nothing. That would be no fun. Hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

StephenB, I notice you didn't bother to reply to my commentary @165. I have nothing further to discuss with you. CentralScrutinizer

Box, That is funny. Except only with regards to metaphysical solipsism, not epistemological solipsism, which should be obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism I'm a epistemological solipsist, not a metaphysical one. CentralScrutinizer

Solipsist joke by Alvin Plantinga:

AP: British philosopher Bertrand Russell was a solipsist for a time (why does that not surprise me?), and he once received a letter from a woman who found his arguments very convincing. Well, I suppose it’s not so hard to convince a figment of your imagination that your arguments are brilliant. Anyway, the woman commented in her letter that his description of solipsism made a lot of sense and that, “I’m surprised there are not more of us.”

WJM #143: Are you a solipsist?

CS #144: Yes. It surprises me that not everyone is a Solipsist.

Box

Central Scrutinizer

So you can copy and paste from the Abolition of Man. Well, at least you posted something. Thanks for finally doing it.

Well, of course. I could have retrieved it from a hundred sources. As I say, it isn't "my" morality.

I will tell you that there are significant differences in those texts as well. Do you accept all the contradictory differences? Obviously you could not.

So. is this like the time when I informed you about natural rights and you started lecturing me on the same subject without having the first clue about what you were talking about? Are you now going to try to teach me about the same subject that you were ignorant about until an hour ago?

I think Abolition of Man was one of his weaker works. I have sympathy for what he was attempting, but logically he failed to make his case.

Are you asking us to believe that you have given the matter any thought at all or that you have read The Abolition of Man? Two posts ago, you claimed that I couldn't deliver, which means, of course, that you had no clue about Lewis or any other exponent of the natural moral laws. Again, you display your profound ignorance. Just to make the point, I will ask the relevant question: What "argument" do you think Lewis was making. StephenB

@CentralScrutinizer "As an epistemological position [which I hold], solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. (Or if they do exist, exist in radically different sense than is apprehended.)" SC, I have to ask you again. How do you convince someone of this solipsism (epistemological) philosophical position? Better yet, why even bother trying to convince someone you’re an epistemological solipsist? It just seems bizarre. It would be like trying to convince someone that you have your own private language but that nobody can ever hear or understand it. Why would I have any reason to believe you? To convince me (or anyone for that matter) of your belief, you’ll need to convince me that you’re the only valid being and I am merely but a projection of your imagination. Good luck with that SC. It would also seem that only one person in the world could be a solipsist and correct in their belief. In other words, if I were to tell you that I too was solipsist, which one of us is right? KRock

I may be unsure about external reality, but in daily pragmatic practice I assume it exists and that other people are conscious.

Why do you allow 'daily pragmatic practice' - which introduces anti-solipsistical elements such as individuals - to permeate your epistemological deliberations? I find that inconsistent. Why then call yourself an epistemological solipsist? Box

SB: My interest in the question of CS is: How can you identify some decision as aligned with objective morality, eg: Horse racing may be deemed to be unethical. Would this decision be aligned with objective morality ?, and whether your answer is YES or NO, how do you know? Im sure there are plenty of people in both camps, so who is right ? who is wrong ? How do we know which is which ? Graham2

Central Scrutinizer

When I say they are good or bad, it is implied, given my philosophy, that I’m saying I believe they are good, and I believe they are bad. I make no objective moral declarations. If I did, then you would be right. But I don’t.

That is another irrational statement. Each time you misuse the language and choose the word "good" when your really mean something else, we are supposed to understand that you didn't really mean what the word means. Sorry, that is not the way dialogue works.

I think it’s closer to the truth that you make a lot of unfounded assumptions you when have discussions with people, and have trouble keeping the material straight.

It isn't an assumption to say that morally good means to be in accord with the moral law. All rational people understand the relationship.

I knew you couldn’t deliver the goods [natural moral law].

It is very foolish to make such uninformed statements. StephenB

Box,

CS #142: That individuals differ in their moral views is evidence that morality is subjective. Box: One question: is it appropriate for a epistemological solipsist to make this argument? I mean … individuals as in plural?

Yes. Epistemological solipsism is a view about the lack of surety about one's knowledge. Since I am unsure, I give my perceptions that external persons exist the benefit of the doubt. I may be unsure about external reality, but in daily pragmatic practice I assume it exists and that other people are conscious. CentralScrutinizer

SB: Where have you looked? Nowhere, I am sure.

You are sure?

You have received nothing but straight answers from WJM and myself, and your responses have been consistently irrational.

I disagree. The readers can decide. CentralScrutinizer

SB, So you can copy and paste from the Abolition of Man. Well, at least you posted something. Thanks for finally doing it. So, is it your claim that the sources of these "natural laws" contain no contradictions? Not just the texts you cited (from Lewis), that essentially agree, but the full text of those source? I will tell you that there are significant differences in those texts as well. Do you accept all the contradictory differences? Obviously you could not. Lewis cited a bunch of ancient texts in an attempt to show that within humanity there is a fairly standard set of ideas with regards to human behavior amongst relative equals. However, Lewis never rose above a subjective, "basically you know the Tao or you don't." I think Abolition of Man was one of his weaker works. I have sympathy for what he was attempting, but logically he failed to make his case. It boiled down to a subjective agreement with certain ideas that you either agree with or you don't, which he called the Tao. At any rate, those who held these ideas had great differences on how, say, females were treated compared to men, property rights, how slaves were to be treated, and so forth. For example, the Old Testament says that a child who curses his mother or father should be put to death. (Lev 20:9) Do you agree with this morality? CentralScrutinizer

Central Scrutinizer

I’m asking you what this objective morality is? (I didn’t ask for your “exclusive morality.”) Where do I find it?

Where have you looked? Nowhere, I am sure.

Still no straight answer from you or WJM despite the repeated enquiries from me and others.

You have received nothing but straight answers from WJM and myself, and your responses have been consistently irrational. I will provide to you the natural moral law so that you can provide another irrational response. -------------- I. The Law of General Beneficence (a) NEGATIVE ‘I have not slain men.’ (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, ‘Book of the Dead’, v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [= ERE], vol. v, p. 478) ‘Do not murder.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13) ‘Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3}n) ‘In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw… murderers.’ (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39) ‘I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478) ‘I have not been grasping.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Ibid.) ‘Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445) ‘He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.’ (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6) ‘Slander not.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445) ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16) ‘Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.’ (Hindu. Janet, p. 7) ‘Has he … driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446) ‘I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 478) ‘Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2) ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17) ‘He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4) (b) POSITIVE ‘Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv) ‘By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.’ (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)‘When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch’iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9) ‘Speak kindness … show good will.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445) ‘Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii) ‘Man is man’s delight.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál 47) ‘He who is asked for alms should always give.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 7) ‘What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?’ (Roman. Juvenal xv. 140) ‘I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.’ (Roman. Terence, Heaut. Tim.) ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18) ‘Love the stranger as thyself.’ (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34) ‘Do to men what you wish men to do to you.’ (Christian. Matthew 7:12) 2. The Law of Special Beneficence ‘It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper behaviour to parents and elder brothers is the trunk of goodness.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 2) ‘Brothers shall fight and be each others’ bane.’ (Old Norse. Account of the Evil Age before the World’s end, Volospá 45) ‘Has he insulted his elder sister?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446) ‘You will see them take care of their kindred [and] the children of their friends … never reproaching them in the least.’ (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v. 437) ‘Love thy wife studiously. Gladden her heart all thy life long.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481) ‘Nothing can ever change the claims of kinship for a right thinking man.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2600) ‘Did not Socrates love his own children, though he did so as a free man and as one not forgetting that the gods have the first claim on our friendship?’ (Greek, Epictetus, iii. 24) ‘Natural affection is a thing right and according to Nature.’ (Greek. Ibid. i. xi) ‘I ought not to be unfeeling like a statue but should fulfil both my natural and artificial relations, as a worshipper, a son, a brother, a father, and a citizen.’ (Greek. Ibid. 111. ii) ‘This first I rede thee: be blameless to thy kindred. Take no vengeance even though they do thee wrong.’ (Old Norse. Sigdrifumál, 22) ‘Is it only the sons of Atreus who love their wives? For every good man, who is right-minded, loves and cherishes his own.’ (Greek. Homer, Iliad, ix. 340) ‘The union and fellowship of men will be best preserved if each receives from us the more kindness in proportion as he is more closely connected with us.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xvi) ‘Part of us is claimed by our country, part by our parents, part by our friends.’ (Roman. Ibid. i. vii) ‘If a ruler … compassed the salvation of the whole state, surely you would call him Good? The Master said, It would no longer be a matter of “Good”. He would without doubt be a Divine Sage.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, vi. 28) ‘Has it escaped you that, in the eyes of gods and good men, your native land deserves from you more honour, worship, and reverence than your mother and father and all your ancestors? That you should give a softer answer to its anger than to a father’s anger? That if you cannot persuade it to alter its mind you must obey it in all quietness, whether it binds you or beats you or sends you to a war where you may get wounds or death?’ (Greek. Plato, Crito, 51, a, b) ‘If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith.’ (Christian. I Timothy 5:8) ‘Put them in mind to obey magistrates.’… ‘I exhort that prayers be made for kings and all that are in authority.’ (Christian. Titus 3:1 and I Timothy 2:1, 2) 3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors ‘Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 9) ‘Has he despised Father and Mother?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446) ‘I was a staff by my Father’s side … I went in and out at his command.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 481) ‘Honour thy Father and thy Mother.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12) ‘To care for parents.’ (Greek. List of duties in Epictetus, in. vii) ‘Children, old men, the poor, and the sick, should be considered as the lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 8) ‘Rise up before the hoary head and honour the old man.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:32) ‘I tended the old man, I gave him my staff.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481) ‘You will see them take care … of old men.’ (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v. 437) ‘I have not taken away the oblations of the blessed dead.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478) ‘When proper respect towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after they are far away, the moral force (tê) of a people has reached its highest point.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9) 4. Duties to Children and Posterity ‘Children, the old, the poor, etc. should be considered as lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 8) ‘To marry and to beget children.’ (Greek. List of duties. Epictetus, in. vii) ‘Can you conceive an Epicurean commonwealth? . . . What will happen? Whence is the population to be kept up? Who will educate them? Who will be Director of Adolescents? Who will be Director of Physical Training? What will be taught?’ (Greek. Ibid.) ‘Nature produces a special love of offspring’ and ‘To live according to Nature is the supreme good.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv, and De Legibus, i. xxi) ‘The second of these achievements is no less glorious than the first; for while the first did good on one occasion, the second will continue to benefit the state for ever.’ (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xxii) ‘Great reverence is owed to a child.’ (Roman. Juvenal, xiv. 47) ‘The Master said, Respect the young.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, ix. 22) ‘The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part… and we feel it very sorely.’ (Redskin. Account of the Battle of Wounded Knee. ERE v. 432) 5. The Law of Justice (a) SEXUAL JUSTICE ‘Has he approached his neighbour’s wife?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446) ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:14) ‘I saw in Nastrond (= Hell)… beguilers of others’ wives.’ (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39) (b) HONESTY ‘Has he drawn false boundaries?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446) ‘To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed.’ (Babylonian. Ibid.) ‘I have not stolen.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478) ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:15) ‘Choose loss rather than shameful gains.’ (Greek. Chilon Fr. 10. Diels) ‘Justice is the settled and permanent intention of rendering to each man his rights.’ (Roman. Justinian, Institutions, I. i) ‘If the native made a “find” of any kind (e.g., a honey tree) and marked it, it was thereafter safe for him, as far as his own tribesmen were concerned, no matter how long he left it.’ (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 441) ‘The first point of justice is that none should do any mischief to another unless he has first been attacked by the other’s wrongdoing. The second is that a man should treat common property as common property, and private property as his own. There is no such thing as private property by nature, but things have become private either through prior occupation (as when men of old came into empty territory) or by conquest, or law, or agreement, or stipulation, or casting lots.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii) (c) JUSTICE IN COURT, &C. ‘Whoso takes no bribe … well pleasing is this to Samas.’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 445) ‘I have not traduced the slave to him who is set over him.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478) ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16) ‘Regard him whom thou knowest like him whom thou knowest not.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 482) ‘Do no unrighteousness in judgement. You must not consider the fact that one party is poor nor the fact that the other is a great man.’ (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:15) 6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity ‘A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit of alms by an act of fraud.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 6) ‘Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee: thou burnest their utterance.’ (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445) ‘With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay? (Babylonian. ERE v. 446) ‘I have not spoken falsehood.’ (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478) ‘I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2738) ‘The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13) ‘In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.’ (Old Norse. Volospá 39) ‘Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man who says one thing, and hides another in his heart.’ (Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312) ‘The foundation of justice is good faith.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i.vii) ‘[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to his superiors and to keep promises.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8) ‘Anything is better than treachery.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál 124) 7. The Law of Mercy ‘The poor and the sick should be regarded as lords of the atmosphere.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 8) ‘Whoso makes intercession for the weak, well pleasing is this to Samas.’ (Babylonian. ERE v. 445) ‘Has he failed to set a prisoner free?’ (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446) ‘I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless.’ (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 446) ‘One should never strike a woman; not even with a flower.’ (Hindu. Janet, i. 8) ‘There, Thor, you got disgrace, when you beat women.’ (Old Norse. Hárbarthsljóth 38) ‘In the Dalebura tribe a woman, a cripple from birth, was carried about by the tribes-people in turn until her death at the age of sixty-six.’… ‘They never desert the sick.’ (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 443) ‘You will see them take care of… widows, orphans, and old men, never reproaching them.’ (Redskin. ERE v. 439) ‘Nature confesses that she has given to the human race the tenderest hearts, by giving us the power to weep. This is the best part of us.’ (Roman. Juvenal, xv. 131) ‘They said that he had been the mildest and gentlest of the kings of the world.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Praise of the hero in Beowulf, 3180) ‘When thou cuttest down thine harvest… and hast forgot a sheaf… thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.’ (Ancient Jewish. Deuteronomy 24:19) 8. The Law of Magnanimity (a) ‘There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii) ‘Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood.’ (English. Hooker, Laws of Eccl. Polity, I. ix. 4) ‘To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile.’ (Ancient Egyptian. The Pharaoh Senusert III, cit. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 161) ‘They came to the fields of joy, the fresh turf of the Fortunate Woods and the dwellings of the Blessed . . . here was the company of those who had suffered wounds fighting for their fatherland.’ (Roman. Virgil, Aeneid, vi. 638-9, 660) ‘Courage has got to be harder, heart the stouter, spirit the sterner, as our strength weakens. Here lies our lord, cut to pieces, out best man in the dust. If anyone thinks of leaving this battle, he can howl forever.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Maldon, 312) ‘Praise and imitate that man to whom, while life is pleasing, death is not grievous.’ (Stoic. Seneca, Ep. liv) ‘The Master said, Love learning and if attacked be ready to die for the Good Way.’ (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13) (b)‘Death is to be chosen before slavery and base deeds.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i, xxiii) ‘Death is better for every man than life with shame.’ (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2890) ‘Nature and Reason command that nothing uncomely, nothing effeminate, nothing lascivious be done or thought.’ (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv) ‘We must not listen to those who advise us “being men to think human thoughts, and being mortal to think mortal thoughts,” but must put on immortality as much as is possible and strain every nerve to live according to that best part of us, which, being small in bulk, yet much more in its power and honour surpasses all else.’ (Ancient Greek. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1177 B) ‘The soul then ought to conduct the body, and the spirit of our minds the soul. This is therefore the first Law, whereby the highest power of the mind requireth obedience at the hands of all the rest.’ (Hooker, op. cit. i. viii. 6) ‘Let him not desire to die, let him not desire to live, let him wait for his time … let him patiently bear hard words, entirely abstaining from bodily pleasures.’ (Ancient Indian. Laws of Manu. ERE ii. 98) ‘He who is unmoved, who has restrained his senses … is said to be devoted. As a flame in a windless place that flickers not, so is the devoted.’ (Ancient Indian. Bhagavad gita. ERE ii 90) (c) ‘Is not the love of Wisdom a practice of death?’ (Ancient Greek. Plato, Phadeo, 81 A) ‘I know that I hung on the gallows for nine nights, wounded with the spear as a sacrifice to Odin, myself offered to Myself.’ (Old Norse. Hávamál, I. 10 in Corpus Poeticum Boreale; stanza 139 in Hildebrand’s Lieder der Älteren Edda. 1922) ‘Verily, verily I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it.’ (Christian. John 12:24,25) StephenB

show me this objective morality of yours. Where can I find it? Good question. SB ? WJM ? Graham2

CS #142: That individuals differ in their moral views is evidence that morality is subjective.

One question: is it appropriate for a epistemological solipsist to make this argument? I mean ... individuals as in plural? Box

In other words, your prefer to avoid accepting a particular premise because of your subjective repugnance of the consequence or conclusion.

If there was a compelling rational reason to accept a premise I subjectively found repugnant, I'd set aside my repugnance and adopt the premise. William J Murray

In other words, your prefer to avoid accepting a particular premise because of your subjective repugnance of the consequence or conclusion.

I've already agreed that all my experiences and interpretations (and reactions) are subjective in nature. Where you and I differ is whether or not we believe an objectively existent commodity is causing those subjective reactions. William J Murray

SB, won’t answer the question, but if you’d like to tell us what the objective morality is, and where we can find it, that might be interesting.

There are aspects to "mind" that are objective commodities in an existent mental world our minds are part of, just as our physical bodies are part of an objective, existent physical landscape. Logic, math, geometry and morality are objectively existent mental commodities. "Mind" is a sloppy term for a many different non-physical commodities; some of these commodities are purely subjective, some are not. One can sense the objectively existent moral "landscape", so to speak, with their conscience, and can refine their correct relationship to that landscape with logic. William J Murray

WJM, Well, you basically did make a stab of it earlier:

My argument for adopting the premise that morality is objective in nature is predicated upon that conclusion being unacceptable to the person I am arguing with. Yes, it is an argument from consequence, but given that we cannot prove which premise is true, the consequences of those premises are all we have to determine which we should adopt. I cannot accept that conclusion, therefore I must adopt the premise that doesn’t lead to that conclusion.

In other words, your prefer to avoid accepting a particular premise because of your subjective repugnance of the consequence or conclusion. It's still subjective no matter how you slice it. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: I have no reason to argue with you further; you agree to the conclusions that are necessarily inferred from your premise.

You are correct. SB, won't answer the question, but if you'd like to tell us what the objective morality is, and where we can find it, that might be interesting. Happy Holidays CentralScrutinizer

StephenB,

CS: No contradiction. I have views, I assert those views and sometimes fight for them. That’s not a contradiction. I don’t have to justify them beyond the fact that I think they are correct views. If you don’t like it, too bad. SB: It is definitely a contradiction to say that you don’t believe in objective morality and, at the same time, to say you believe that some things are “good” and “bad,” or should be allowed.

When I say they are good or bad, it is implied, given my philosophy, that I'm saying I believe they are good, and I believe they are bad. I make no objective moral declarations. If I did, then you would be right. But I don't.

There is no question about it. Your lack of understanding about the meanings of words does not change the reality.

I think it's closer to the truth that you make a lot of unfounded assumptions you when have discussions with people, and have trouble keeping the material straight.

CS: If you are appealing to some objective morality, what is it, where can I find this objective morality of yours? SB: That is another illogical statement. By definition, objective morality cannot be my exclusive morality. It can only be “the” morality to which I willingly accept or stubbornly reject.

I'm asking you what this objective morality is? (I didn't ask for your "exclusive morality.") Where do I find it? Still no straight answer from you or WJM despite the repeated enquiries from me and others.

SB: They knew their views were objective just as I know their views were objective. Your lack of understanding about their political philosophy does not change the facts.

Whatever. I'm not interested in going down that rabbit trail any further since you won't give us a straight answer about what the objective morality is, and where it can be found.

CS: There is no such thing as natural rights. SB: Your dogmatism would put any religious fanatic to shame. It really is amazing to observe you as you make such a bold declaration about a subject that you just learned about an hour ago. You should read those [founding] documents sometime.

(Chuckle)

CS: So I ask: shows me this objective morality of yours. Where can I find it? SB: I will provide it for you in due time. It is a little early in the process to provide such extensive information only to have it mindlessly dismissed. That comes a little later.

Haha. So what if I "mindlessly dismiss" it? You have an opportunity to show the world how correct you are, and how foolish us subjectivists are. I knew you couldn't deliver the goods. I'm getting bored with you. Happy Holidays. CentralScrutinizer

Central Scrutinizer

No contradiction. I have views, I assert those views and sometimes fight for them. That’s not a contradiction. I don’t have to justify them beyond the fact that I think they are correct views. If you don’t like it, too bad.

It is definitely a contradiction to say that you don’t believe in objective morality and, at the same time, to say you believe that some things are “good” and “bad,” or should be allowed. There is no question about it. Your lack of understanding about the meanings of words does not change the reality.

If you are appealing to some objective morality, what is it, where can I find this objective morality of yours?

That is another illogical statement. By definition, objective morality cannot be my exclusive morality. It can only be “the” morality to which I willingly accept or stubbornly reject.

Sorry, the founders were mistaken about it if they thought their views were objective.

They knew their views were objective just as I know their views were objective. Your lack of understanding about their political philosophy does not change the facts. At least, though, you now know what they believed, as opposed to what you thought they believed prior to my intervention.

There is no such thing as natural rights.

Your dogmatism would put any religious fanatic to shame. It really is amazing to observe you as you make such a bold declaration about a subject that you just learned about an hour ago. You should read those [founding]documents sometime.

I have, and I respect why they believed the way they do. But they were subjective opinions, the products of their times.

Since you claim to have read the documents, tell me where and how they refer to the natural moral law. Feel free to Google in order to find the answer.

So I ask: shows me this objective morality of yours. Where can I find it?

I will provide it for you in due time. It is a little early in the process to provide such extensive information only to have it mindlessly dismissed. That comes a little later. StephenB

At any rate, being a Solopsist doesn’t affect the discussion we’ve been having.

I have no reason to argue with you further; you agree to the conclusions that are necessarily inferred from your premise. William J Murray

KRock, Your description is metaphysical solispsism not epistemological. So, you are right in your description in that it describes the metaphysical view. But, again, I hold to the epistemologically view, not the metaphysical view. Hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

KRock: My understanding of Solispsism is that it’s a belief that “your” own mental state(s) are the only state(s) that truely exist, everything else is a figment of your imagination. No, that's not Solispsism. But to clarify, I am an epistemological Solispsist, not a metaphysical one. From the Wikipedia page: Solipsism ... is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position [which I hold], solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. (Or if they do exist, exist in radically different sense than is apprehended.) As a metaphysical position [which I do not hold], solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism Hope that helps CentralScrutinizer

SB: Further, your morality is only about your good=–not about the common good. CS: Incorrect and non-sequitur to anything I’ve written. SB: For you, there is no such thing as “the” good, there only what you desire.

However, what I desire and "feel is right" pertains to the good of others than myself. So your statement is incorrect, and non-sequitur to anything I've written.

You have made it clear that your morality is based solely on your personal wants. The common good is based on the inherent dignity of the human person, which is an objective moral principle that you reject.

But part of my desires is to minimize suffering in other people and maximize their happiness. So again, you are incorrect.

CS: People with subjective morality can agree, form a consensus and act as a group. No need to invoke a mythical undemonstrable objective morality. SB: People cannot come together on the major moral issues.

They can't? I do it all the time. For example, I "come together" with anti-abortion groups that are against late term abortion without agreeing with their religion or having the slightest concern whether or not our views on the subject are subjective or "objective."

I gather, for example, that you support abortion and gay marriage.

I support abortion only in limited case. Gay marriage, I couldn't care less about one way or the other, personally. But as a libertarian (small L), I lean toward more freedom. But gay marriage is not something I spend much time thinking about.

I reject both. There is no way to form a consensus on either matter without one of us giving ground.

Of course there can be no consensus on such issues between people who strongly disagree. People fight about it, and the stronger wins. That's the way the world works.

I am still waiting for an answer. How should this problem be settled?

Consensus building and warfare, cultural, and physical at times. There is no other way. That's how the world works.

CS: Now you are referring to the morality (objective morality) when you allude to what “is good and bad” and “what should be allowed and disallowed.” No one who disavows objective morality, as you do, can also appeal to what is good and bad and what should be allowed.

Of course they do. I do it all the time.

You may do it all the time, but you contradict yourself every time you do it.

No contradiction. I have views, I assert those views and sometimes fight for them. That's not a contradiction. I don't have to justify them beyond the fact that I think they are correct views. If you don't like it, too bad.

What “is” good or bad is objective; what you prefer is subjective.

Mere vacuous labeling. The fact is, people have subjective views, like minded people group together and try to get their views enforced contra other groups with differing views. That's the way the world works. And each individual is asserting a subjective view.

What should be allowed or not allowed is objective;

No it isn't. It's a matter of subjective opinion.

what you prefer to be alowed (sic) or not allowed is subjective.

Are you saying you have no preference about what should be allowed or not? If you do, then by definition, it's a subjective preference. If you are appealing to some objective morality, what is it, where can I find this objective morality of yours?

You claim not to believe in objective morality, but you often forget yourself and appeal to it, as you did in this case.

No, I only appeal to my own morality, and join with like-minded others to get it enforced when it's important enough to me. What else is there to appeal to?

CS: They were men tired of imperial oppression and figured that if there is a God, he probably wants humans to govern themselves. This is hardly objective. What they believed in was subjective adjudications of their own minds just like anyone else, regardless of what they called it or what you call it. SB: Absolutely wrong. What they believed has been written in the documents that they have written. Natural rights come from the natural moral law, both of which are objective.

Show me this "natural moral law." Where is it written? Sorry, the founders were mistaken about it if they thought their views were objective. And so are you. They were the product of their times just like anyone else, with a plethora of subjective opinions on how government should be implemented.

You cannot get natural rights from subjective morality.

There is no such thing as natural rights.

Those two ideas are in conflict. You should read those documents sometime.

I have, and I respect why they believed the way they do. But they were subjective opinions, the products of their times. So I ask: shows me this objective morality of yours. Where can I find it? CentralScrutinizer

@CentralScrutinizer (144) My understanding of Solispsism is that it's a belief that "your" own mental state(s) are the only state(s) that truely exist, everything else is a figment of your imagination. Other people appear to be alive but they are not, there simply images created in your own mind. That is my understanding of Solispsism anyway... Maybe I'm wrong. How do you convince someone of this belief, let alone explain it to someone? Are you the only source of consciousness? If so, why do you think that? Would not the universe be your creation, thus rendering yourself to be omnipotent, a god so to speak? KRock

WJM: OMG! I’m arguing with a solipsist! I guess that’s something along with the LNC that I should ask at the beginning of every debate. ROFLMAO!!

Uhhh. OK.

Thanks for the entertainment, CS.

Back atcha. So now should I expect you to next tell me that it is self-evidently true to you that your all apprehensions are true? That you know for a fact that other consciousness exists beside your own? That you know for a fact that your subjective models of the "outside world" are basically real and true? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't but you can't prove it to yourself. It's a leap of faith. If you say it isn't, I cannot take you seriously. At any rate, being a Solopsist doesn't affect the discussion we've been having. You like to use the word "objective" when it is nothing more than subjective adjudications. It's not any more complicated than that. You've demonstrated that over and over. CentralScrutinizer

SB: Further, your morality is only about your good=–not about the common good. Central Scrutinizer

Incorrect and non-sequitur to anything I’ve written.

For you, there is no such thing as "the" good, there only what you desire. You have made it clear that your morality is based solely on your personal wants. The common good is based on the inherent dignity of the human person, which is an objective moral principle that you reject.

People with subjective morality can agree, form a consensus and act as a group. No need to invoke a mythical undemonstrable objective morality.

People cannot come together on the major moral issues. I gather, for example, that you support abortion and gay marriage. I reject both. There is no way to form a consensus on either matter without one of us giving ground. I am still waiting for an answer. How should this problem be settled? ------------ Now you are referring to the morality (objective morality) when you allude to what “is good and bad” and “what should be allowed and disallowed.” No one who disavows objective morality, as you do, can also appeal to what is good and bad and what should be allowed.

Of course they do. I do it all the time.

You may do it all the time, but you contradict yourself every time you do it. What "is" good or bad is objective; what you prefer is subjective. What should be allowed or not allowed is objective; what you prefer to be alowed or not allowed is subjective. You claim not to believe in objective morality, but you often forget yourself and appeal to it, as you did in this case.

They were men tired of imperial oppression and figured that if there is a God, he probably wants humans to govern themselves. This is hardly objective. What they believed in was subjective adjudications of their own minds just like anyone else, regardless of what they called it or what you call it.

Absolutely wrong. What they believed has been written in the documents that they have written. Natural rights come from the natural moral law, both of which are objective. You cannot get natural rights from subjective morality. Those two ideas are in conflict. You should read those documents sometime. StephenB

The first paragraph in #145 should be blockquoted, not that it really matters at this point. William J Murray

OMG! I'm arguing with a solipsist! I guess that's something along with the LNC that I should ask at the beginning of every debate. ROFLMAO!! Thanks for the entertainment, CS. William J Murray

Of course I can. That individuals differ in their moral views is evidence that morality is subjective. If witnesses to a crime offer radically different accounts and descriptions of the event, does that necessarily mean that the event didn't objectively occur? Or does it just mean that individual experiences and interpretations of an objectively existent phenomena can vary widely, even to the point of contradicting each other? William J Murray

Are you a solipsist?

Yes. It surprises me that everyone is not a Solipsist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsist

Is it your position that because you can only subjectively experience things, then all things that exist are only subjective commodities?

Of course. Having said that, Solipsism is not a view that only I exist, only that epistemologically speaking, the only thing I am sure about is that I exist and have conscious experiences. However, I do give my perceptions the benefit of the doubt and act as if they are real. CentralScrutinizer

Not in the sense you probably have in mind. Only if I accept unprovable assumptions about the external world can I categorize it as “objective.”

I don't understand how that answers my question. Let me rephrase it. Do you hold the belief that a brick wall objectively exists independent of your subjective experience of it? Or are you a brick wall subjectivist as well as a moral subjectivist? Are you a solipsist? William J Murray

WJM: I cannot “demonstrate it” either way. Neither can you. They are both assumptions that cannot be proven. You are no more entitled to assume it is a subjective commodity than I am entitled to assume it is an objective one; the best either of us can do is make a case as to why one should be assumed over the other one.

Of course I can. That individuals differ in their moral views is evidence that morality is subjective. That's what subjective means. There's nothing more to demonstrate. You on the other hand assert that there is some objective morality beyond the subjective moralities that people hold. I'm waiting for a detailed exposition on what your objective morality is, and the justification for why you hold it. CentralScrutinizer

Yes it is.

No, it is not. Your understanding here is logically incorrect - unless you are a solipsist. As I pointed out in a longer post, everything we experience - even brick walls and gravity - is subjectively experienced, but we maintain philsophical beliefs about those things and whether or not they objectively exist outside of our subjective experience of them. We subjectively experience brick walls and gravity, but hold the belief that they are objectively existent commodities outside of our experience of them. Admitting that we can only subjectively experience a brick wall is not the same as believing the brick wall does not objectively exist outside of our experience. If that were true, we'd all necessarily be solipsists just because we admit we can only subjectively experience everything that we experience. Are you a solipsist? Is it your position that because you can only subjectively experience things, then all things that exist are only subjective commodities? William J Murray

WJM: I cannot “demonstrate it” either way. Neither can you. They are both assumptions that cannot be proven. You are no more entitled to assume it is a subjective commodity than I am entitled to assume it is an objective one; the best either of us can do is make a case as to why one should be assumed over the other one.

So, anyway, WJM, please describe this objective morality that you hold. I would like to know what it is. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: Do you subjectively categorize a brick wall as an objective commodity?

Not in the sense you probably have in mind. Only if I accept unprovable assumptions about the external world can I categorize it as "objective." So, anyway, WJM, please describe this objective morality that you hold. I would like to know what it is. CentralScrutinizer

Morality is at least subjective. That much you agree with, can’t you? What you cannot demonstrate is that any morality is objective.

I cannot "demonstrate it" either way. Neither can you. They are both assumptions that cannot be proven. You are no more entitled to assume it is a subjective commodity than I am entitled to assume it is an objective one; the best either of us can do is make a case as to why one should be assumed over the other one. William J Murray

WJM: Admitting that all experience and interpretations thereof are subjective in nature is not the same as being a subjectivist.

Yes it is.

You are conflating a necessary condition of individual existence(subjective perspective) with a philosophical belief about the nature of what one is subjectively perceiving.

Your "objectivist" philosophical belief is subjective in nature from one end to the other. CentralScrutinizer

“Let me add a word for you that you left out: “You subjectively categorize it as a purely subjective commodity; I subjectively categorize it as an objective commodity.” Something out of nothing. Ex Nihilo. The only difference is you poof this thing out of thin air called “objective morality” whereas I perceive that it’s all subjective, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Do you subjectively categorize a brick wall as an objective commodity? William J Murray

StephenB: Obviously, you forgot the context of the discussion. You are supposed to be explaining your moral strategy for dealing with religious tyrants, secular tyrants, and mobs, none of which are interested in forming a consensus with you.

See @110 at the end.

Also, to allow for a consensus, which by definition requires that all parties must give something away for the common good, is to compromise the same morality that you said you would fight for.

Read what I've written to WJM above and see if you can figure out how I might respond to his.

Further, your morality is only about your good=–not about the common good.

Incorrect and non-sequitur to anything I've written.

You don’t even think such a thing as the common good exists

Incorrect and non-sequitur to anything I've written.

since it is a function of objective morality, which you disvow.

Incorrect and non-sequitur to anything I've written. People with subjective morality can agree, form a consensus and act as a group. No need to invoke a mythical undemonstrable objective morality.

More contradictions. Now you are referring to the morality (objective morality) when you allude to what “is good and bad” and “what should be allowed and disallowed.” No one who disavows objective morality, as you do, can also appeal to what is good and bad and what should be allowed.

Of course they do. I do it all the time.

CS: I persuade. I picket. I join activist groups. I donate time and money to groups of like minded people. We petition Congress. We vote. And when things get really bad we take up arms, like the Founders.

Like the founders????? Those men all believed in the objective natural moral law, which informed every political move that they made, every argument that they advanced, and every policy that they enacted–that same moral law that you disavow.

They were men tired of imperial oppression and figured that if there is a God, he probably wants humans to govern themselves. This is hardly objective. What they believed in was subjective adjudications of their own minds just like anyone else, regardless of what they called it or what you call it. CentralScrutinizer

At any rate, you’ve just admitted you’re a subjectivist.

Admitting that all experience and interpretations thereof are subjective in nature is not the same as being a subjectivist. You are conflating a necessary condition of individual existence(subjective perspective) with a philosophical belief about the nature of what one is subjectively perceiving. William J Murray

Mark Frank: I imagine for both of us it depends on how important we find the moral issue at stake.

You are correct, sir. CentralScrutinizer

WFM: Instead of “murder”, we can substitute “torturing children for personal pleasure”.

No problem.

In considering such an act, I subjectively experience what I hold to be a self-evident moral truth – that such an act is evil regardless of any other considerations (such as consensus, culture, etc.)

If by "self-evident" you mean that you require no mental deliberation to decide the nature of the act, then I would agree. However, behind this "self-evident" apprehension, there is a lifetime of experience, mental baggage, and natural inclination due to your DNA. A one year old baby wouldn't necessarily think torturing some other baby is necessarily evil. At any rate, you've just admitted you're a subjectivist.

All experiences are subjective, even when we experience what we hold to be an objectively existent commodity – like a brick wall or gravity. We subjectively form models about “what reality is”, and subjectively assign various phenomena and commodities values that differentiate our subjective experiences into “objectively exists” or “does not objectively exist and is subjective in nature” categories.

So you are a subjectivist. Just as I suspected.

The question, then, is where do we put the commodity we call morality? You subjectively categorize it as a purely subjective commodity; I categorize it as an objective commodity.

Let me add a word for you that you left out: "You subjectively categorize it as a purely subjective commodity; I subjectively categorize it as an objective commodity." Something out of nothing. Ex Nihilo. The only difference is you poof this thing out of thin air called "objective morality" whereas I perceive that it's all subjective, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Those two irreconcilable categorizations of “what morality is” lead to entirely different logical inferences and conclusions which should affect how we relate to moral decisions, commitments, moral obligations, authority and right. It should affect how we think about morality and act, producing different thought and behavioral ramifications.

In practice, it's all the same. No matter what we call ourselves, we all have views, we would like to see our views enforced to some degree or another. That's how the world actually works outside of academic discussions of morality.

There’s no way that I know of to “prove” that morality is subjective or objective in nature any more than I can prove that this isn’t all a delusion I am having.

Morality is at least subjective. That much you agree with, can't you? What you cannot demonstrate is that any morality is objective.

However, I still must assign morality to one category or the other. You assign morality to one category, but act as if it is in the other category.

No, I see that morality is subjective, value my own morality, and try to get it enforced, more or less (depending on the issue.) There's nothing else for me to do, if I actually care about my life and my world. Subjective morality is the only category that is actually demonstrably real. Objective morality is undemonstrable, therefore, in effect, unreal. The fact that you assign it all means you're a subjectivist. If something were objective, it would not need to be assigned. Your adjudication is a subjective act. You can't get objectivity out of subjectivity.

The only resolution is something you have agreed to – you are willing to force your personal preferences on others. I have no argument against that because that is the necessary conclusion of subjectivist morality – being willing to force one’s personal preferences on others..

It's the necessary conclusion of anyone regardless of their views of "subjectivism" or "objectivism." Most people have never even heard of these terms. People have values and they act on them. That's the way the world works. That you choose not to enforce your morality on others stems not from any notion of subjectivity or objectivity, but from some unstated value which you have not disclosed.

And no, I do not agree that my “personal preferences” are what defines morality, because I believe that many of my personal preferences are in fact immoral.

I don't consider mere personal preferences to be the basis of morality. Morality, IMO, deals with issues of fairness and justice. Not every whim whether chocolate is better than vanilla or premartial sex is good or bad. Some issues are not worth my time even if I disagree with the prevailing view. One must choose one's battles wisely.

What keeps me from engaging in those personal preferences is my perspective that morality is an objectively existent, binding obligation that carries with it inescapable consequences.

Subjective morality has consequences too. Late term abortion is evil in my subjective morality. Obviously violating that aspect of my morality has serious consequences for the baby.

If I held that morality is nothing other than “personal preferences” without necessary consequences, and was not objective in nature, I would fund my existence by stealing from others and killing anyone who got in my way.

Why? My morality is subjective, and I don't steal and kill. I believe stealing and killing is evil even though it is not derived from some mythical objective morality that you can't point to.

I’d use others as nothing more than things to get what I want and live the way I want. Logically speaking, why wouldn’t I?

Depends on what you value. If you need some mythical objective morality (that you cannot point to) to put value on the well being of others, then I feel sorry for you. At any rate, you've outed yourself as a subjectivist here. CentralScrutinizer

It seems to me that there is separate issue here which is getting confused with the subjective/objective nature of morality. Whatever view of the nature of morality one of the moral judgements you have to make is under what conditions is it moral to force others to conform to what you judge to be right. I imagine for both of us it depends on how important we find the moral issue at stake. Mark Frank

Are you OK with forcing objective moral standards on others?

For the most part, no. There are very, very few moral rules that I am willing to impose on others in the sense of intervening in their personal lives/behavior. My position is that humans should be as free as possible to be as immoral as they wish. William J Murray

If you believe murder is evil, do you believe the Ruling Powers have the obligation to enforce your view that murder is evil, and take steps to prevent it and punish those that commit it?

In #124 this looks like something I said, but it is a question CS poses. I just forgot to blockquote it and address it. I'll address it here. I believe torturing children for personal pleasure is self-evidently evil. I believe it is the moral obligation of every individual to do what they can to stop such an evil should they find it occurring, regardless of social conventions or laws. If morality is objective and carries inescapable consequences, there is no need to impose "punishments" on anyone. The farther any government gets from self-evidently true moral principles, the more oppressive it becomes. People should be as free as possible to make their own moral choices in life. Government should be about developing and maintaining a civil, free society with as little intervention as possible. The problem with the premise of subjective morality is that government is free to do whatever it wants without justifying it beyond "because we want to" or "because we feel like it". You talk about debating others and turning them to agree with your moral views, but based on what sound rational premise? If you admit you are only arguing for your personal preference, then there is no logical, objective basis for your arguments and activism; it can only be based on rhetoric and emotional pleading. However, if you hold that humans have the objective (unalienable) right to be as free as possible, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you have an assumed objective base from which to build rational arguments and debate predicated upon that convention. I cannot rationally argue you out of your subjective, personal preference, but I can perhaps rationally argue you out of a view that depends on what you consider to be binding and objective beyond your personal preference. Only if I hold that my moral views must be justifiable by some objective and binding principle or foundation can I be rationally convinced that some view of mine is in error according to those principles or foundation; if my view is that my moral views are just personal preferences, I can no more be rationally convinced otherwise than I can be rationally convinced to dislike my favorite flavor of pie. My personal preference would be to be the despotic ruler of the world, but that would not be moral. William J Murray

WJM Are you OK with forcing objective moral standards on others? Mark Mark Frank

SB: Which moral philosophies should inform the exercise of their power? Central Scrutinizer

Mine.

What is your moral philosophy concerning the use of power? StephenB

Well, I’m waiting for you to clearly expound on what this objective morality (of yours) is. Let’s see how objective it is.

I cannot prove to you it is objectively existent; I can only argue the consequences of the two assumptions. You can assume morality is subjective in nature, or you can assume it is objective in nature. Those irreconcilable premises lead to irreconcilable inferences and conclusions. You have already agreed to the conclusions that logically ensue from assuming that morality is subjective; you admit that you are okay with forcing your personal preferences on others because you feel like it and because you can. I cannot argue you out of moral subjectivity if you are okay with that. My argument for adopting the premise that morality is objective in nature is predicated upon that conclusion being unacceptable to the person I am arguing with. Yes, it is an argument from consequence, but given that we cannot prove which premise is true, the consequences of those premises are all we have to determine which we should adopt. I cannot accept that conclusion, therefore I must adopt the premise that doesn't lead to that conclusion. I also hold that there are self-evidently true moral statements, which IMO cannot exist under moral subjectivism - which is another reason why I must - logically - adopt the premise of objective morality and not the other. I also hold that I have moral obligations and rights that are universally applicable (I have both the obligation and right to intervene); personal preference doesn't provide meaningful obligations or rights, so again I must adopt one premise and not the other. William J Murray

Central Scrutinzer

Successful fights require a consensus of those waging a fight. How is this a contradiction?

Obviously, you forgot the context of the discussion. You are supposed to be explaining your moral strategy for dealing with religious tyrants, secular tyrants, and mobs, none of which are interested in forming a consensus with you. Also, to allow for a consensus, which by definition requires that all parties must give something away for the common good, is to compromise the same morality that you said you would fight for. Further, your morality is only about your good=--not about the common good. You don't even think such a thing as the common good exists, since it is a function of objective morality, which you disvow.

About what constitutes right morality. That is, what is good and bad. What should be allowed and what should be disallowed.

More contradictions. Now you are referring to the morality (objective morality) when you allude to what "is good and bad" and "what should be allowed and disallowed." No one who disavows objective morality, as you do, can also appeal to what is good and bad and what should be allowed.

I persuade. I picket. I join activist groups. I donate time and money to groups of like minded people. We petition Congress. We vote. And when things get really bad we take up arms, like the Founders.

Like the founders????? Those men all believed in the objective natural moral law, which informed every political move that they made, every argument that they advanced, and every policy that they enacted--that same moral law that you disavow. StephenB

Do you believe murder is evil?

Depends on how you define "murder". Unlawfully taking another life would be illegal, but may not be evil. It depends on the definition and the circumstances.

If so, where did you get the notion that murder is evil? Some objective morality? If so, where can this be found beyond your personal preferences or a derivation thereof?

Instead of "murder", we can substitute "torturing children for personal pleasure". In considering such an act, I subjectively experience what I hold to be a self-evident moral truth - that such an act is evil regardless of any other considerations (such as consensus, culture, etc.) All experiences are subjective, even when we experience what we hold to be an objectively existent commodity - like a brick wall or gravity. We subjectively form models about "what reality is", and subjectively assign various phenomena and commodities values that differentiate our subjective experiences into "objectively exists" or "does not objectively exist and is subjective in nature" categories. The question, then, is where do we put the commodity we call morality? You subjectively categorize it as a purely subjective commodity; I categorize it as an objective commodity. Those two irreconcilable categorizations of "what morality is" lead to entirely different logical inferences and conclusions which should affect how we relate to moral decisions, commitments, moral obligations, authority and right. It should affect how we think about morality and act, producing different thought and behavioral ramifications. There's no way that I know of to "prove" that morality is subjective or objective in nature any more than I can prove that this isn't all a delusion I am having. However, I still must assign morality to one category or the other. You assign morality to one category, but act as if it is in the other category. The only resolution is something you have agreed to - you are willing to force your personal preferences on others. I have no argument against that because that is the necessary conclusion of subjectivist morality - being willing to force one's personal preferences on others.. And no, I do not agree that my "personal preferences" are what defines morality, because I believe that many of my personal preferences are in fact immoral. What keeps me from engaging in those personal preferences is my perspective that morality is an objectively existent, binding obligation that carries with it inescapable consequences. If I held that morality is nothing other than "personal preferences" without necessary consequences, and was not objective in nature, I would fund my existence by stealing from others and killing anyone who got in my way. I'd use others as nothing more than things to get what I want and live the way I want. Logically speaking, why wouldn't I? If you believe murder is evil, do you believe the Ruling Powers have the obligation to enforce your view that murder is evil, and take steps to prevent it and punish those that commit it? William J Murray

WJM: Just because something objectively exists doesn’t mean everyone can perceive it and would agree on it.

Well, I'm waiting for you to clearly expound on what this objective morality (of yours) is. Let's see how objective it is. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: The problem here is that you are unnecessarily complicating your responses with terms that are largely inappropriate to your position, such as “actually is necessarily right in my subjective moral opinion” and “should be” opposed. These insertions give the appearance that you are saying something more objective than your position allows.

Well, if it helps, I could be put a disclaimer at the end of each post that says, "these views are the express personal, subjective opinions of the writer." CentralScrutinizer

WJM: “Nothing more” is not a judgement on the importance of your preference to you; it is a statement that moral views are personal preferences and nothing else – a fact you agree with.

"Nothing more" is superfluous and misleading.

IOW, it takes something other than (and far more important) than what I consider to be a personal preference for me to intervene on the behavior of others.

I hope so. Not all preferences are made equal. Individuals judge between them and act accordingly. The fact that you make judgements about what should be enforced or not means you a subjectivist, unless you can point to some objective standard. So far, I haven't seen one coming from any of you objectivists. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: While I appreciate your honesty, it is my position that anyone who would impose their personal preferences on others because they have the might to do so is evil.

But you do it too. Or are you not in favor of punishing murderers? Until you can demonstrate your morality is objective, you're acting like a subjectivist. And therefore "evil" in your own judgement.

IMO, might doesn’t justify anything, and should never, ever be used to coerce others into adopting what I consider to be nothing more, essentially, than personal preferences.

Are you an anarchist?

If I were to hold morality as nothing more, essentially, than personal preference, I wouldn’t bother calling my personal preferences “morals”.

Well, we disagree. The measure of my morality is my own judgements. Just like you. But I'll wait and see what you say this objective morality you think exists. Because if you have to justify with any judgements from your own mind, then you've shown yourself to be a subjectivist. Because judgements are subjective. Any subjectivist link in the chain makes you a subjectivist. The glaring reality is that individuals do not have the same minds and faculties of judgement. You seem to think yours is objective. We'll see about that.

If I didn’t consider morality to be objective and to include inescapable, objective consequences, I wouldn’t bother considering “what is moral” at all; I’d just consider what happens to be in my personal best interests at the time. I’d consider any “sense of morality” nothing more than an inhibiting characteristic, like shyness or a lack of confidence, to be discarded if possible to provide me with the maximum level of personal capacity and behavioral freedom in pursuit of my goals.

Well, good for you. But I'm very interested in this objective morality you think exists. CentralScrutinizer

That fact that I hold a particular view makes it quite important to me. For I value my own judgement. Don’t you?

"Nothing more" is not a judgement on the importance of your preference to you; it is a statement that moral views are personal preferences and nothing else - a fact you agree with. There are many things I consider to be personal preferences that are extremely important to me; none so important that I would consider coercing them upon others. I consider my morals to be "something more (or other)" than personal preference, meaning that I do not hold them to be "personal preferences". IOW, it takes something other than (and far more important) than what I consider to be a personal preference for me to intervene on the behavior of others. William J Murray

WJM: Apparently, you don’t mind admitting that something is your subjective preference while acting as if that subjective preference is objectively binding on others who do not share your preference. This necessary (logically) means that you don’t mind forcing your personal preferences on others, which I consider to be evil.

Do you believe murder is evil? If so, where did you get the notion that murder is evil? Some objective morality? If so, where can this be found beyond your personal preferences or a derivation thereof? If you believe murder is evil, do you believe the Ruling Powers have the obligation to enforce your view that murder is evil, and take steps to prevent it and punish those that commit it? CentralScrutinizer

I have never stated that whatever powers decree actually is necessarily right in my subjective moral opinion. Often it is not. And should be opposed.

The problem here is that you are unnecessarily complicating your responses with terms that are largely inappropriate to your position, such as "actually is necessarily right in my subjective moral opinion" and "should be" opposed. These insertions give the appearance that you are saying something more objective than your position allows. Let's restate this in a format that doesn't seemingly refer to some exterior, objective moral arbiter. "I have never stated that whatever powers decree will match my subjective, personal preferences. Often it does not, and I will oppose them and attempt to implement my own preferences to whatever degree I can because I want to." William J Murray

WJM: You admit that your moral preferences are not attached to anything objective – that they cannot be evaluated by any objective standard when compared to other moral views.

Correct.

IOW, they are personal preferences. You prefer the golden rule, while others prefer something else.

Fortunately, many prefer the Golden Rule or at least see it's value.

Because you do not like the fact that your morality is “nothing more”...

Who said anything about not liking the fact? I have no problem with that fact. I embrace the reality of that fact. Moreover, as previously stated, "nothing more" is your judgement, not mine. That fact that I hold a particular view makes it quite important to me. For I value my own judgement. Don't you?

...than personal preference doesn’t change the fact that unless you can attach it to some objective standard or arbiting principle, that is all it can be – your personal, subjective preference.

So what? I still am impelled to act on my preferences. It's the way I'm built. It's the way most people are built, as far as I can tell. Like it or not, it's the way the world works. Now a question for you: What objective standard do you propose and why? CentralScrutinizer

A small attempted clarification to CS's excellent account. For a subjectivist might does not make right. There is no universal right to be made. There is only what each of us judges to be right. I may be convinced that something is right and be utterly powerless to change it, but it is still right for me. Might only determines which morals people have to conform to in practice whether they think it right or not. This of course is exactly the same for someone who believes in objective morals. Mark Frank

Not some “objective morality” that everyone can perceive and agree on.

You are conflating "objectively existent" with "universal consensus". They are two different things. Just because something objectively exists doesn't mean everyone can perceive it and would agree on it. Apparently, you don't mind admitting that something is your subjective preference while acting as if that subjective preference is objectively binding on others who do not share your preference. This necessary (logically) means that you don't mind forcing your personal preferences on others, which I consider to be evil. William J Murray

“Nothing more” is a judgement on your end, not mine.

You admit that your moral preferences are not attached to anything objective - that they cannot be evaluated by any objective standard when compared to other moral views. IOW, they are personal preferences. You prefer the golden rule, while others prefer something else. Because you do not like the fact that your morality is "nothing more" than personal preference doesn't change the fact that unless you can attach it to some objective standard or arbiting principle, that is all it can be - your personal, subjective preference. William J Murray

I don’t hold Might Makes Right is wrong. I only hold it is wrong when people with opposing morality from mine use it. I think it is right when people who agree with me use it. Therefore I am consistent.

You believe your moral views are nothing more than your subjective personal preferences, and you would impose those personal preferences on others if you have the might to do so. I have no argument against those that are willing to admit that their "subjective morality" boils down to the might-makes-right capacity to enforce one's personal preferences on others however they see fit. This is, in essence, what my arguments attempt to point out to self-described moral subjectivists. Most are unwilling to accept that conclusion and attempt to wiggle out of it one way or another. I appreciate your intellectual integrity by admitting what "subjective morality" means. While I appreciate your honesty, it is my position that anyone who would impose their personal preferences on others because they have the might to do so is evil. IMO, might doesn't justify anything, and should never, ever be used to coerce others into adopting what I consider to be nothing more, essentially, than personal preferences. If I were to hold morality as nothing more, essentially, than personal preference, I wouldn't bother calling my personal preferences "morals". If I didn't consider morality to be objective and to include inescapable, objective consequences, I wouldn't bother considering "what is moral" at all; I'd just consider what happens to be in my personal best interests at the time. I'd consider any "sense of morality" nothing more than an inhibiting characteristic, like shyness or a lack of confidence, to be discarded if possible to provide me with the maximum level of personal capacity and behavioral freedom in pursuit of my goals. It's always surprising to me when someone is willing to admit the things you have admitted. William J Murray

WJM:

If you lived as if your moral views were actually nothing more than subjective, personal preferences, you would not concern yourself with what others do, morally speaking, just as you do not concern yourself with what flavor of pie they eat or what books they like to read.

Notice the words you use. "Nothing more" is a judgement on your end, not mine. That a moral judgement is subjective to me doesn't mean that it is not vitally important to me. I happen to think my view is the best, and act according to my impulse to enforce what I think is the best. It's the way I'm built.

Yet,

No "yet" required, since your first statement is bogus...

...if you saw someone you did not know torturing a child you did not know, you would feel morally obligated to intervene, and you would do so...

Yes I would.

...as if your moral views were also binding on those other people, and as if your moral views gave you some right (and obligation) to intervene in their affairs...

Yes indeed. But it's my subjective view and impulses that drive this reaction. Not some "objective morality" that everyone can perceive and agree on. Although, fortunately, the majority of humans would tend to agree that torturing children is wrong and should be stopped.

that was in principle better than the same “might makes right” that would authorize the torture as morally equivalent to your intervention in the first place.

Again, "Might Makes Right" is a fact, it is not an endorsement by those who disagree with what the powers enforce when it's perceived to be wrong by dissenters. It's simply a shorthand way of saying those in power enforce their will. This is simply a fact of life. I have never stated that whatever powers decree actually is necessarily right in my subjective moral opinion. Often it is not. And should be opposed. CentralScrutinizer

StephenB,

SB: The point was to show you that you couldn’t have meant it when you said, it doesn’t matter whose morality prevails. CS: I never said that. What post number? SB: Post #82

You're pulling a statement out of context that does not mean what you're implying it means. The exchange was:

SB: Their subjective morality is different from yours. Others think that might makes right is the only morality. If they win, they get to decide societies moral code. Whose morality should prevail? CS: Again, it doesn’t matter whose morality should prevail. (I think mine should, of course.) The point is, power decides whose does prevail.

As can clearly be seen, when I said "it doesn't matter whose morality should prevail", in that instance I was speaking with regard to the fact that morality is, in fact, imposed on society by the holders of power. Not that I don't care which morality is imposed. Of course I care, and I clearly stated that.

Did I misunderstand you?

Yes.

SB: What is your moral strategy against religious fanatics, secular fanatics, and wild mobs who want to overrule your morality with their morality? CS: Consensus building. How else? SB: A moment ago, you said you would fight for your position. Now you say that you would settle for a consensus. This seems like a contradiction. Am I misunderstanding you?

Successful fights require a consensus of those waging a fight. How is this a contradiction?

SB: The questions are these: Which kinds of people deserve to be in power… CS: Ones who agree with me. SB: About what?

About what constitutes right morality. That is, what is good and bad. What should be allowed and what should be disallowed.

SB: Can you give me an example of building a consensus around your moral desires? Or, did you mean that you built a consensus around moral desires that you had in common with others?

I persuade. I picket. I join activist groups. I donate time and money to groups of like minded people. We petition Congress. We vote. And when things get really bad we take up arms, like the Founders. I hope that helps. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: One cannot hold that might makes right is wrong and at the same time claim might makes right as what authorizes the enforcement of their morality on others.

I don't hold Might Makes Right is wrong. I only hold it is wrong when people with opposing morality from mine use it. I think it is right when people who agree with me use it. Therefore I am consistent.

Well, unless one doesn’t mind being a hypocrite.

Call me names if it makes you feel good, but it's the way the world works whether you like it or not. CentralScrutinizer

Mark Frank, I am so impressed by your concise, precise and clear responses. I do hope it will give some of the objectivists here pause for thought.

Thank you. Are these guys Objectives, in the Ayn Rand sense? CentralScrutinizer

WJM,

If you hold that your moral views are entirely subjective personal preferences, and you hold that moral consequences are arbitrarily imposed by those in power, it is logically necessary that your moral principle is might makes right – that morality is “because I feel like it” and enforced “because I can”.

"Because I feel like it" is rather crude and loaded. As I assume you have, I have come to my moral views by much thinking, life experience, and the natural cast of my mind. They are still subjective views, however, and so are yours. "Might makes right" is simply how the world works. What else do people have as a means to implement their morality? Do I think Might Makes Right is "good?" Only if used by people I agree with, naturally.

If you only hold the moral maxim of “greatest happiness and least suffering for the most people” out of personal preference, giving it the same principled validity as any other preference (hitler and torquemada),

I do not give Hitler's principles the same validity. The fact that I reject them means they are not valid in my view. Fortunately, most people agree with me.

and the only consequences of not living by that maxim are arbitrary ones imposed by those in power, then the principle that allows you to call that maxim “moral” and lends you the moral authority and right to impose it is the same principle that can be used to validate Nazis and religious zealots; might makes right.

Sure, it can be used by those who agree with the Nazis and those who disagree with the Nazis. Fortunately most people disagree with the Nazis. Fortunately the Allied powers disagreed and used their power to overthrow the Nazis and their morality. What alternative do you offer in place of power? The fact is, in practice, it's a Might Makes Right world. But to be clear, "right" should be put in quotes. It's a Make Makes "Right" world. I do not think that power determines what good morality actually is any more than you do. The powers in the USA allow partial birth abortion. I do not believe this is right. But it is "right" as a cultural practice. It's up to people like me to use power to try to overthrow it's practice.

Or in other words: “Because I feel like it” (personal preference), and “because I can” (the power to enforce it). You disagree that the principle of might makes right is morally right

No, it is a tool that is properly used by people who share my morality. Wrong in the hands of people who disagree with my morality.

but use that very principle to validate your personal preference morality and capacity to enforce it, demonstrating an appalling rational dissonance.

No dissonance. Power is a tool for getting one's way. What other tool is there? Should I lay back and do nothing?

You are using a principle you hold as “not right” to validate your personal preference as moral and authorize your right to enforce it.

Power is neural. Using power to enforce my morality is a good thing. Using power to enforce bad moralities is a bad thing. Hopefully this clarifies my view. CentralScrutinizer

One cannot hold that might makes right is wrong and at the same time claim might makes right as what authorizes the enforcement of their morality on others. Well, unless one doesn't mind being a hypocrite. William J Murray

CS - I am so impressed by your concise, precise and clear responses. I do hope it will give some of the objectivists here pause for thought. Mark Frank

Central Scrutinizer: SB: The point was to show you that you couldn’t have meant it when you said, it doesn’t matter whose morality prevails.

I never said that. What post number?

Post #82

Again, it doesn’t matter whose morality should prevail.

Did I misunderstand you? What is your moral strategy against religious fanatics, secular fanatics, and wild mobs who want to overrule your morality with their morality?

Consensus building. How else?

A moment ago, you said you would fight for your position. Now you say that you would settle for a consensus. This seems like a contradiction. Am I misunderstanding you? SB: The questions are these: Which kinds of people deserve to be in power…

Ones who agree with me.

About what? SB: Which moral philosophies should inform the exercise of their power?

Mine.

What is your moral philosophy concerning the use of power?

Not it isn’t powerless. I actively try to get people to agree with me, and build consensus toward my moral desires, with successful results.

Can you give me an example of building a consensus around your moral desires? Or, did you mean that you built a consensus around moral desires that you had in common with others? StephenB

Box,

Sometimes however, one wishes that less drastic events would suffice.

If the events were less drastic, then there would be less doubt and we would know that life was rigged and we would behave much differently. Could you imagine anyone having these discussions when only the good are rewarded or bad behavior is obviously punished. No, we must have a situation where there is doubt. There can be no smoking gun that absolutely convinces everyone. There must be a divided world. Also all unfortunate things in life can be put on some ordinal scale with a highest level of unfortunateness. There will then be an infinite gap between the most horrible thing we can think of and true evil. Until everyone understands that, they are just talking past each other. Everything that is mentioned is on this finite ordinal scale, including the torturing of infants and the incredible pain caused by some cancers. I know a family that just lost their little girl who was 7 and essentially died a very tough death. Besides the pain she had constantly, she knew she was dying. I never thought about this much till about 20 + years ago when I was preparing a lecture for an advertising class on new products. My wife and I had been in high level advertising and we knew the various systems that different agencies used to develop campaigns and that companies used to develop new products. The most common one was based on benefits. Develop a benefit that your product or service will deliver that is better than anyone else's'. Another approach was the flip side of this, problem solving, just what problems or bad occurrences does your product or service eliminate. The products could eliminate or reduce the occurrence of unpleasant things. Not torture but some potentially bad outcomes might be what one is trying to eliminate with their product. So product development is the potential elimination of what some might call minor unpleasantness or sometimes even life threatening events. As a result of all the technological and medical break throughs we live in a safer world, with less chance of disease and a potentially a more pleasant and interesting life. I did a thought experiment with my students and said what will happen if we eliminate all the pressing problems of society, medicine etc. Would we have a world with out problems. They all said no. The problems or unfortunate things would just be replaced by some other problem no one thought about or focused on before. It was then that it became apparent that there will always be unpleasant things and someone in the future will consider it evil that their child is not physically attractive, a top student and a good athlete as well as socially adept. After all, modern genetics will eliminate these as issues so when one does not have such genes, the person will be thought of as deprived. The effect of this was to understand that everything is this life is trivial and finite compared to what is being offered. And what we are calling evil is meaningless in the scheme of things. So the solution to the theodicy issue is that the so called evil is trivial and overwhelmed by the good that is being offered. jerry

I don’t live as if it is objective.

Sure you do. Your willingness to impose your moral restrictions on others is living as if your morality is objectively binding on them as well, regardless of the fact that you label your morality "subjective". If you lived as if your moral views were actually nothing more than subjective, personal preferences, you would not concern yourself with what others do, morally speaking, just as you do not concern yourself with what flavor of pie they eat or what books they like to read. Yet, if you saw someone you did not know torturing a child you did not know, you would feel morally obligated to intervene, and you would do so, as if your moral views were also binding on those other people, and as if your moral views gave you some right (and obligation) to intervene in their affairs that was in principle better than the same "might makes right" that would authorize the torture as morally equivalent to your intervention in the first place. William J Murray

Not me. Morality is subjective, but I still have a moral sense, and the fact that I’m willing to expend effort to implement my morality doesn’t mean it’s objective in nature. It just means that I want it implemented.

Well, there really isn't much point in having a debate about morality with one that not only admits they are in principle the moral equivalent of Hitler and Torquemada, but are willing to impose on others what they themselves admit is nothing but a personal preference simply because they want to and can. One cannot debate evil. William J Murray

CS, If you hold that your moral views are entirely subjective personal preferences, and you hold that moral consequences are arbitrarily imposed by those in power, it is logically necessary that your moral principle is might makes right - that morality is "because I feel like it" and enforced "because I can". If you only hold the moral maxim of "greatest happiness and least suffering for the most people" out of personal preference, giving it the same principled validity as any other preference (hitler and torquemada), and the only consequences of not living by that maxim are arbitrary ones imposed by those in power, then the principle that allows you to call that maxim "moral" and lends you the moral authority and right to impose it is the same principle that can be used to validate Nazis and religious zealots; might makes right. Or in other words: "Because I feel like it" (personal preference), and "because I can" (the power to enforce it). You disagree that the principle of might makes right is morally right, but use that very principle to validate your personal preference morality and capacity to enforce it, demonstrating an appalling rational dissonance. You are using a principle you hold as "not right" to validate your personal preference as moral and authorize your right to enforce it. William J Murray

WJM: I mean, if morality doesn’t actually have any objective consequences, and it’s all just subjective, why not just act moral when it serves your purpose and then be immoral or amoral when you can get away with it and it serves your purpose?

Who said morality doesn't have objective consequences? I didn't. I think late term abortions are immoral. Violating that morality has obvious consequences to the baby.

Under the view that morality is subjective in nature, what’s the point of **being** moral whether or not anyone is watching, especially when it puts you at risk?

Humans are apparently made with a moral sense, even if individuals disagree on the particulars.

Subjective moralists try to have their cake and eat it too; they insist morality is subjective, but talk and act as if it is objective in nature.

Not me. Morality is subjective, but I still have a moral sense, and the fact that I'm willing to expend effort to implement my morality doesn't mean it's objective in nature. It just means that I want it implemented.

What’s the point in believing morality is subjective when you must live as if it is objective?

I don't live as if it is objective. What's the point of thinking chocolate tastes good (subjective) when I "must live" as if it is an objective fact that chocolate tastes good. CentralScrutinizer

StephenB,

CS: Of course it matters to me what morality is enforced. I am very much against religious and secular fanatics and unruly mobs having their way. SB: Yes, I am sure that you feel that way now, but you didn’t feel that way until I raised the issue about religious fanatics and their perverse morality.

What? Are you a mind reader? How would you know how I feel about something before it's addressed?

SB: The point was to show you that you couldn’t have meant it when you said, it doesn’t matter whose morality prevails.

I never said that. What post number?

Yes, I am sure that you do want your morality to prevail, as we all want our individual moralities to prevail. But what is your moral strategy against religious fanatics, secular fanatics, and wild mobs who want to overrule your morality with their morality?

Consensus building. How else?

Do you labor under the illusion that they will respect your wishes when you say, “but I don’t want to live by your morality, I want to live by the Golden Rule.” Is that the argument you think will win the day.

Sometimes you have to fight for what you think is right.

The morality that prevails in the one that is enforced by those who have the most power. That point is obvious and goes without saying.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

The questions are these: Which kinds of people deserve to be in power...

Ones who agree with me.

...and which moral philosophies should inform the exercise of their power?

Mine.

How do we determine whether that power is legitimately or illegitimately held?

What do you mean by "legitimate?"

Or, do you even recognize the difference between legitimate power and illegitimate power?

Apparently not the way you understand it.

Your “I want what I want” philosophy is powerless in the face of these vital questions.

Not it isn't powerless. I actively try to get people to agree with me, and build consensus toward my moral desires, with successful results. CentralScrutinizer

WJM: You don’t agree that their morality is right compared to what standard?

Mine.

Morality either is whatever power says it is and you must agree

I may pay consequences for not abiding it, but I need not abide it nor agree with it.

...with whatever morality power imposes, or morality is something else that is not determined by whatever power says. You can’t have it both ways.

Perhaps it would be clearer to speak of individual morality and enforced morality. The power can enforce a morality but it cannot determine what I think is moral.

CS: Idealism vs reality. WJM: I’m not sure what you mean by this, and I’m not sure you even know what you mean by this.

I'm talking about individual morality vs enforced morality.

WJM: The problem is that you are employing terms that have no coherent meaning (right, ideal) without reference to a standard, but you refuse to provide the standard by which you are making these judgements about your moral system and “might makes right”.

The standard for my morality is my own judgement.

Perhaps you mean “idealism” in the conventional sense;

Correct. As I said @91, 1. I want my morality to prevail. (My ideal desire.) 2. The morality that prevails in the one that is enforced by those who have the most power. (The reality.)

...that you consider your morality “ideal”; but again, “ideal” in what sense? With regards to what goal.

For me, generally, the minimization of suffering and the maximization of happiness. The Golden Rule is a good place to start. I hope that is clear enough. CentralScrutinizer

Another way of looking at this is to put it in terms of oughts. "Might makes right" as a moral principle means that people ought to do whatever they have the power/capability to do. I don't think anyone here agrees with that, so nobody here considers "might makes right" a true or valid moral principle. One might say "people ought to behave in a way that they would like others to behave", but then the question is, why? Why ought I behave in a way that I would like others to behave? Is there a rule or inescapable karmic principle that others will treat me in a way similar to the way I treat them? I've never noticed that to be the case. When you say X moral principle is "not right", you are saying people shouldn't behave that way. When you say X moral principle is "ideal", you are saying people ought to behave that way. But why ought they? What's going to happen if they don't? What purpose is such behavior serving? Why should morality be considered at all? Why not treat it like a character flaw that just keeps us from doing things we would otherwise do for our own benefit, like being shy or having low self-esteem? I mean, if morality doesn't actually have any objective consequences, and it's all just subjective, why not just act moral when it serves your purpose and then be immoral or amoral when you can get away with it and it serves your purpose? Under the view that morality is subjective in nature, what's the point of **being** moral whether or not anyone is watching, especially when it puts you at risk? Subjective moralists try to have their cake and eat it too; they insist morality is subjective, but talk and act as if it is objective in nature. What's the point in believing morality is subjective when you must live as if it is objective? William J Murray

Central Scrutinizer

Of course it matters to me what morality is enforced. I am very much against religious and secular fanatics and unruly mobs having their way.

Yes, I am sure that you feel that way now, but you didn’t feel that way until I raised the issue about religious fanatics and their perverse morality. The point was to show you that you couldn’t have meant it when you said,

it doesn’t matter whose morality prevails.

Again you write,

I want my morality to prevail.

Yes, I am sure that you do want your morality to prevail, as we all want our individual moralities to prevail. But what is your moral strategy against religious fanatics, secular fanatics, and wild mobs who want to overrule your morality with their morality? Do you labor under the illusion that they will respect your wishes when you say, “but I don’t want to live by your morality, I want to live by the Golden Rule." Is that the argument you think will win the day.

The morality that prevails in the one that is enforced by those who have the most power.

That point is obvious and goes without saying. The questions are these: Which kinds of people deserve to be in power and which moral philosophies should inform the exercise of their power? How do we determine whether that power is legitimately or illegitimately held? Or, do you even recognize the difference between legitimate power and illegitimate power? Your “I want what I want” philosophy is powerless in the face of these vital questions. StephenB

OK, I see the problem. I admit fault in being less than clear on this. In practice, the morality that exists is the one put in place by the holders of power. I don’t necessarily agree that the powers are right.

You don't agree that their morality is right compared to what standard? Morality either is whatever power says it is and you must agree with whatever morality power imposes, or morality is something else that is not determined by whatever power says. You can't have it both ways.

Idealism vs reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, and I'm not sure you even know what you mean by this. Philosophical idealism is the view that mind is primary wrt reality, so "idealism vs reality" is a philosophical non-sequitur unless on assumes materialism = reality. Perhaps you mean "idealism" in the conventional sense; that you consider your morality "ideal"; but again, "ideal" in what sense? With regards to what goal. The problem is that you are employing terms that have no coherent meaning (right, ideal) without reference to a standard, but you refuse to provide the standard by which you are making these judgements about your moral system and "might makes right". William J Murray

CentralScrutinizer #89: I never said there was no good or bad. Just no way to objectively determine what is good or bad.

I took your 'morality is subjective' (post #34) as an absolute statement, as in 'there is no good and bad'. You hold a more subtle position. i'll sit back and relax and watch you debate powerhouses WJM and SB. Good luck :) Box

WJM: You said that regardless of what you believe, might makes right (which is a moral principle) is real.

OK, I see the problem. I admit fault in being less than clear on this. In practice, the morality that exists is the one put in place by the holders of power. I don't necessarily agree that the powers are right. Idealism vs reality. CentralScrutinizer

Central Scrutinizer, Uh, let's restore the original statement:

CS: Again, it doesn’t matter whose morality should prevail. (I think mine should, of course.) The point is, power decides whose does prevail. SB: You mean it doesn’t matter if religious fanatics or secular fanatics or unruly mobs impose an arbitrary top-down morality on you and everyone else? You don’t think that matters? That is a very strange thing to believe.

The point I was making with that is with regards to idealism vs reality. Of course it matters to me what morality is enforced. I am very much against religious and secular fanatics and unruly mobs having their way.

SB: We have already covered the fact that everyone, including you, thinks his morality should prevail. The question is about whose morality should prevail.

Mine, of course. How many times must I say it?

SB: I will not ask it too many more times, since the point has been made. Obviously, you have no answer.

What do you mean I have no answer? I've consistently answered: I want my morality to prevail. There, I put it in bold for you, so you won't miss it.

It is all to [sic] convenient for you to say that it doesn’t matter.

Hmm. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. There are two issues here. Whose morality do I want to prevail, and the reality of how morality is enforced. Let me be clear: 1. I want my morality to prevail. 2. The morality that prevails in the one that is enforced by those who have the most power. I hope that is clear enough.

CS: The point is, power decides whose does prevail SB: No, it doesn’t. Power doesn’t decide anything. People attain power. People use it and abuse it. People make decisions and then use power to enforce them. Power is a tool used by decision makers; it is not a decision maker.

By "power" I mean those who wield power. You're picking at nits and I'm getting bored. CentralScrutinizer

That’s a bizzare statement. Belief and certainty are not the same thing.

That would matter had I said something about "certainty", which I did not. You said that regardless of what you believe, might makes right (which is a moral principle) is real. That is what I referred to as knowing; you claim to know that the moral principle "might makes right" is real, but claim to believe a different moral principle is "best"? You're contradicting yourself. Either "might makes right" is the real moral principle that actually arbits moral values, or you believe in a different moral principle. You cannot both know that might makes right is real and believe in a different, contradicting moral principle. If you think "might makes right" is not a valid moral principle, then you cannot say "it is real". IOW, you can believe that in the real world the mighty can impose their moral views on others, but that doesn't make those moral views right, ** or ** you can say that might makes right. You cannot say that might makes right and then say that what might imposes may not be right.

The morality that I hold is the best as far as I can tell.

"Best" according to what means of assigning comparative value?

So yes, I believe it is the best. But do I know for fact that is it true? I don’t know. There’s no way to know.

Yet you claimed that "might makes right" is real? William J Murray

Box: You know that there is no such thing as [objective morality], but that you believe that [your morality] is actually [best]?

Correct.

IOW, you know that all moral concepts are equal

They are equal in the sense that they are equally subjective. But certainly not equal in terms of how individuals view them, and what they would be willing to do to enforce them.

...since there is no good and bad – but you believe that your moral concept is superior?

I never said there was no good or bad. Just no way to objectively determine what is good or bad. Everyone has their own view of what good and bad is. Thankfully there is a large measure of commonality. For example, most people think murder and rape is bad. I think that is fortunate. CentralScrutinizer

CS

How it should be enforced is mere wishful thinking if it doesn’t line up with reality. The bottom line is, morality is enforced by power. How else could it be enforced?

The question about which morality will prevail is separate from the question about how it will be enforced. StephenB

CS

How it should be enforced is mere wishful thinking if it doesn’t line up with reality. The bottom line is, morality is enforced by power. How else could it be enforced? The question about which morality will prevail is separate from the question of how it will be enforced.

StephenB

Central Scrutinizer

Again, it doesn’t matter whose morality should prevail.

You mean it doesn't matter if religious fanatics or secular fanatics or unruly mobs impose an arbitrary top-down morality on you and everyone else? You don't think that matters? That is a very strange thing to believe.

(I think mine should, of course.) The point is, power decides whose does prevail.

We have already covered the fact that everyone, including you, thinks his morality should prevail. The question is about whose morality should prevail. I will not ask it too many more times, since the point has been made. Obviously, you have no answer. It is all to convenient for you to say that it doesn't matter. No one else that I know of would agree with such an absurd proposition.

The point is, power decides whose does prevail

No, it doesn't. Power doesn't decide anything. People attain power. People use it and abuse it. People make decisions and then use power to enforce them. Power is a tool used by decision makers; it is not a decision maker. StephenB

Nice conversation It seems we may be missing an important point, our lack of knowledge. The argument should go this way: 1 - God is all good, has all knowledge, and is all powerful 2 - God is in charge 3 - We are not all good, do not have all knowledge, and are not all powerful 4 - Things that we see happening appear to us to be evil 5 - But God is all good . . . and (still) in charge 6 - Therefore, Ultimately whatever happens must be for the good. We, in our lack of knowledge are just not able to understand at this time. Happy Advent!!! GCS

@ CentralScrutinizer,

Box: isn’t it like saying that you know that there is no such thing as healthy smoking, but that you believe that Marlboro cigarets are actually healthy?

CentralScrutinizer: How is that analogous?

Allow me to spell it out for you: You know that there is no such thing as [objective morality], but that you believe that [your morality] is actually [best]? IOW, you know that all moral concepts are equal - since there is no good and bad - but you believe that your moral concept is superior? Box

Box: isn’t it like saying that you know that there is no such thing as healthy smoking, but that you believe that Marlboro cigarets are actually healthy?

How is that analogous? I have come to certain moral beliefs because of my experiences of life and by considering various viewpoints. I cannot prove, nor do I know that my morality is the best one. But I believe it is. What else can I believe except what I believe? CentralScrutinizer

StephenB,

CS: It’s just the way reality is. Might makes right no matter what your moral beliefs are. You can believe whatever you want, but without the power to enforce it what good is it? SB: You are not really answering my question. According to your subjective moral code, whose morality, among the millions of subjective moralities all competing for control, should be the one that society adopts and enforces by rule of law?

I answered that. You quoted it...

CS: I think mine should. Duh. And I would fight to enforce it. SB: Well, of course. You think your morality should prevail. And the sadist thinks his morality should prevail–and he will fight to enforce it. And the masochists, thieves, perverts, adulterers, and baby killers all think that their individual moralities should prevail–and they will fight to enforce it.

Thankfully, most people do not agree with them.

You seem to be saying that the only fair way to settle the matter is to let the most powerful decide.

No. Fairness has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that power is what does, in fact, decide.

That, however, would seem to contradict your earlier statement to the effect that you should be able to decide?

I don't know what you're referring to. I think those that agree with me should prevail. But that what matters in practice is that power decides whose morality is in effect.

CS: I believe the Golden Rule is right and should be followed. However, Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right. It’s idealism vs reality. SB: You are still not grasping my question? Many choose not to follow the Golden rule because their morality differs from that standard.

I find that unfortunate.

SB: Their subjective morality is different from yours. Others think that might makes right is the only morality. If they win, they get to decide societies moral code. Whose morality should prevail?

Again, it doesn't matter whose morality should prevail. (I think mine should, of course.) The point is, power decides whose does prevail.

CS: I never used “should” with respect to a sadist’s morality. The only morality with a “should” attached is the morality I believe in. Duh. SB: No, actually that isn’t true. Morality, by definition, is a statement about [what] should be as opposed to what is. Indeed, all subjective moralities contain their own novel “shoulds.”

Of course. Otherwise they wouldn't be moralities.

SB: The sadist believes that he should be able to make you suffer. You believe that he should not be able to make you suffer. The baby killer believes he should be able to kill babies. Others will argue that the baby killer should not be able to kill babies. All subjective moralities contain a should, just as the Golden Rule contains a should. So, my question persists: How should this matter of deciding whose morality be settled?

How it should be enforced is mere wishful thinking if it doesn't line up with reality. The bottom line is, morality is enforced by power. How else could it be enforced? CentralScrutinizer

Jerry: They must exist to have a meaningful world. Otherwise we would just be going through the motions. We must have doubt to achieve anything meaningful and to exercise free will. And as you comment says, you have doubt. There will always be a divided world. That is how it was set up.

Jerry, as per usual, you are making a lot of sense. Sometimes however, one wishes that less drastic events would suffice. Box

@CentralScrutinizer, isn't it like saying that you know that there is no such thing as healthy smoking, but that you believe that Marlboro cigarets are actually healthy? Box

Central Scrutinizer

It’s just the way reality is. Might makes right no matter what your moral beliefs are. You can believe whatever you want, but without the power to enforce it what good is it?

You are not really answering my question. According to your subjective moral code, whose morality, among the millions of subjective moralities all competing for control, should be the one that society adopts and enforces by rule of law?

I think mine should. Duh. And I would fight to enforce it.

Well, of course. You think your morality should prevail. And the sadist thinks his morality should prevail--and he will fight to enforce it. And the masochists, thieves, perverts, adulterers, and baby killers all think that their individual moralities should prevail--and they will fight to enforce it. You seem to be saying that the only fair way to settle the matter is to let the most powerful decide. That, however, would seem to contradict your earlier statement to the effect that you should be able to decide?

I believe the Golden Rule is right and should be followed. However, Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right. It’s idealism vs reality.

You are still not grasping my question? Many choose not to follow the Golden rule because their morality differs from that standard. Their subjective morality is different from yours. Others think that might makes right is the only morality. If they win, they get to decide societies moral code. Whose morality should prevail? <

I never used “should” with respect to a sadist’s morality. The only morality with a “should” attached is the morality I believe in. Duh.

No, actually that isn't true. Morality, by definition, is a statement about should should be as opposed to what is. Indeed, all subjective moralities contain their own novel "shoulds." The sadist believes that he should be able to make you suffer. You believe that he should not be able to make you suffer. The baby killer believes he should be able to kill babies. Others will argue that the baby killer should not be able to kill babies. All subjective moralities contain a should, just as the Golden Rule contains a should. So, my question persists: How should this matter of deciding whose morality be settled?

Your understanding of my view is muddled. Perhaps that’s my fault.

I have every confidence that we can clear it up. StephenB

Barry

You might as well say, “God does not exist because if he did he would behave in a way that I suppose most people would prefer,” because to you “commonly accepted morality” means nothing more than “that which I suppose most people prefer.” The argument is incoherent.

You play two lawyer's tricks: 1) You put in the weak "prefer" when it is much stronger - something like "find morally unacceptable". 2) You put "I suppose" in there to make it look as if it were an idle conjecture. Actually in extreme cases of evil it is absolutely without doubt. A better rendition is: "God does not exist because if he did he would behave in a way that most people find morally acceptable" You may disagree with this - but it is perfectly coherent. You do understand that incoherent is different from false? I apologise I see you did say in the OP that you think an omnipotent and benevolent God could allow evil to exist - although quite how allowing tsunami's is related to free will beats me. Mark Frank

WJM: First, you are contradicting yourself. You are flatly stating that you believe a morality you know not to be true. You cannot both believe a thing and also know it is not true.

That's a bizzare statement. Belief and certainty are not the same thing. I have beliefs but I don't have certainty about anything except the fact that I am consciously experiencing things. The morality that I hold is the best as far as I can tell. So yes, I believe it is the best. But do I know for fact that is it true? I don't know. There's no way to know. CentralScrutinizer

I believe the Golden Rule is right and should be followed. However, Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right. It’s idealism vs reality.

First, you are contradicting yourself. You are flatly stating that you believe a morality you know not to be true. You cannot both believe a thing and also know it is not true.

It’s idealism vs reality.

You're assuming that idealism is irreconcilable with reality, which has led you to your self-refuting position that you both believe X and know it to not be true at the same time. William J Murray

Central ScrutinizerI’m speaking particularly of opposing evil-doers. It boils down to that for anyone, regardless of what you believe, if you are trying to enforce your will. StephenBYou were responding to my question about whose morality should prevail if there is a conflict of interest between your morality and someone else’s morality. Your answer was, “might makes right.” “What else is there.” That’s very clear. Morality, for you, consists in the most powerful person having his way.

It's not merely "for me." It's just the way reality is. Might makes right no matter what your moral beliefs are. You can believe whatever you want, but without the power to enforce it what good is it?

CS: Jesus believed it [The Golden Rule]. And so do I SB: So, which is it. Do you believe in might makes right or in the Golden Rule. You have not thought the matter through.

I believe the Golden Rule is right and should be followed. However, Might Makes Right is reality, regardless of what I believe is right. It's idealism vs reality.

Earlier, you said that morality can be based on personal desires.

It IS based on personal desires. What else is there?

That is why I asked this question: If the sadist, whose morality is based on his personal desires, wants you to suffer, and Central Scrutinizer, whose morality is also based on his personal desires, does not want to suffer, whose morality should prevail.

I think mine should. Duh. And I would fight to enforce it.

You answered that moral question by saying the most powerful person “should” prevail, as in, “might makes right.”

I never used "should" with respect to that. Might Makes Right is the practical reality despite anyone's desires.

That is because you don’t believe that there is an objective moral code that can settle the matter, which means that it must be settled by raw power.

Disputes are all settled by raw power, despite anyone's particular desires. That's reality.

In other words, if the sadist can win the power struggle, his morality should prevail;

I never used "should" with respect to a sadist's morality. The only morality with a "should" attached is the morality I believe in. Duh.

if you win, you morality should prevail. That was your stated morality.

Your understanding of my view is muddled. Perhaps that's my fault.

So which is it: Do you believe that might makes right or that the Golden Rule makes right. You can’t have it both ways.

Idealism vs reality. I believe in the Golden Rule and I want it to prevail and I will fight to make it so. However, those who disagree may have more power. In the end, power is what matters since those who possess it will enforce their morality. CentralScrutinizer

In my #62, "The cartoon theism of theists/materialists is simply a convenient .." should be " ..of atheists/materialists ..." William J Murray

I find your arguments very compelling with regard to accommodating human free will – especially your post #62. However, with regard to earthquakes, tsunamis and young children dying of cancer … not so much. I don’t see the logical or existential necessity for those things to occur within the context of Christianity.

I'm neither a Christian nor qualified to argue Christian views. My point is that the argument from evil fails against theism in general terms. I doubt it fails against every specific form of theism. In my particular theistic views, the problem of earthquakes, tsunamis and young children dying is easily resolved from the my perspective that we all chose to come here in the first place, fully cognizant of the risks. IOW, no sentient entity is enduring anything they did not know was a very real probability. To come to this world is to sign on for suffering to some degree. It's virtually inescapable. William J Murray

I don’t see the logical or existential necessity for those things to occur within the context of Christianity.

They must exist to have a meaningful world. Otherwise we would just be going through the motions. We must have doubt to achieve anything meaningful and to exercise free will. And as you comment says, you have doubt. There will always be a divided world. That is how it was set up. jerry

Box at comment #68 has presented a more elaborate theodicy argument. The whole argument thing breaks down here

An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics.

Just what is so called evil? and does what we call evil have a purpose? I maintain that all that is called "evil" is essentially trivial compared to other alternatives and it has a purpose that is far, far greater than the temporary suffering endured. So essentially the theodicy argument breaks down when the proponent says that evil exists. At least for Christians and some other faiths it is not a problem. The suffering is finite and temporary (even the favored example of the torturing of infants) and can best be seen as such when considering the suffering we see and experience in this world is relative in nature and limited in scope. (Notice the Stanford example uses the pain of infants. This is an emotional example, not a rational one unless one wants to make the point that all infants or children are innocent. But that is not really the issue.) The suffering has a purpose. We should focus on just what that is and not that the suffering exists. Kairosfocus's comment at #44 gets at most of the issues. jerry

WJM #69, I find your arguments very compelling with regard to accommodating human free will - especially your post #62. However, with regard to earthquakes, tsunamis and young children dying of cancer ... not so much. I don't see the logical or existential necessity for those things to occur within the context of Christianity. Box

Box @68: The flaw in that argument:

In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic.

We are not aware of the limitations even an omnipotent god operates under in consideration of other existential necessities, like free will and the logically impossible, which would be "sufficiently serious" to counterbalance the "wrongmaking", so this argument has no weight. It assumes that can do what may be logically or existentially impossible, given the circumstances, simply by evoking confusing terminology ("omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent"). William J Murray

Inductive argument from stanford website: 1. Both the property of intentionally allowing an animal to die an agonizing death in a forest fire, and the property of allowing a child to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, are wrongmaking characteristics of an action, and very serious ones. 2. Our world contains animals that die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children who undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. 3. An omnipotent being could prevent such events, if he knew that those events were about to occur. 4. An omniscient being would know that such events were about to occur. 5. If a being allows something to take place that he knows is about to happen, and which he knows he could prevent, then that being intentionally allows the event in question to occur. Therefore: 6. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are cases where he intentionally allows animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer. 7. In many such cases, no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of both apply to the case in question, and also are sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristic. Therefore: 8. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics. Therefore it is likely that: 9. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that have wrongmaking properties such that there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of—that both apply to the cases in question, and that are also sufficiently serious to counterbalance the relevant wrongmaking characteristics. 10. An action is morally wrong, all things considered, if it has a wrongmaking characteristic that is not counterbalanced by any rightmaking characteristics. Therefore: 11. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then there are specific cases of such a being's intentionally allowing animals to die agonizing deaths in forest fires, and children to undergo lingering suffering and eventual death due to cancer, that are morally wrong, all things considered. Therefore: 12. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being both intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so. 13. A being who intentionally refrains from performing certain actions in situations where it is morally wrong to do so, all things considered, and knows that he is doing so, is not morally perfect. Therefore: 14. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then that being is not morally perfect. Therefore: 15. There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being. 16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being. Therefore: 17. God does not exist. Box

Central Scrutinizer

I’m speaking particularly of opposing evil-doers. It boils down to that for anyone, regardless of what you believe, if you are trying to enforce your will.

You were responding to my question about whose morality should prevail if there is a conflict of interest between your morality and someone else’s morality. Your answer was, “might makes right.” “What else is there.” That's very clear. Morality, for you, consists in the most powerful person having his way.

Jesus believed it [The Golden Rule]. And so do I

So, which is it. Do you believe in might makes right or in the Golden Rule. You have not thought the matter through. Earlier, you said that morality can be based on personal desires. That is why I asked this question: If the sadist, whose morality is based on his personal desires, wants you to suffer, and Central Scrutinizer, whose morality is also based on his personal desires, does not want to suffer, whose morality should prevail. You answered that moral question by saying the most powerful person “should” prevail, as in, “might makes right.” That is because you don’t believe that there is an objective moral code that can settle the matter, which means that it must be settled by raw power. In other words, if the sadist can win the power struggle, his morality should prevail; if you win, you morality should prevail. That was your stated morality. So which is it: Do you believe that might makes right or that the Golden Rule makes right. You can’t have it both ways. StephenB

Sorry, I forgot to address # 65 to CentralScrutinizer. CannuckianYankee

The basis for the ought is “I don’t want to suffer.” And people with empathy don’t want others to suffer either. “I don’t want to suffer” is purely borne out of a conscious desire. There is no philosophically metaphysical principle beyond that.

Understood. But you have simply minimized evil and suffering to your own personal desires. You haven't eliminated the problem of evil for an atheist. Your not wanting to suffer is an indication that you acknowledge at least some evil in the world - the evil that causes you and others to suffer. Your not wanting to suffer becomes the value judgment, and from your not wanting to suffer you derive your "ought." Answer this then: Why don't you want to suffer? What drives your desire not to? Does evolution care at all that you suffer? You mention consciousness, and I propose to you that consceiousness is not possible without a personal God. But that's another discussion. Me:

“But materialism doesn’t provide a grounding for “ought” other than one’s own whims; and it can’t even answer the question of why we even have whims.”

CS:

I agree. However, materialism, or any other “ism”, need not do that. The only “ism” the counts is the I-Do-Not-Want-To-Suffer “ism.” That’s where it all stems from. Everything else is a phantom with no actual meaning.

Again. Not wanting to suffer is a response to an ought. You don't want to suffer because you know you ought not to suffer. Where does that come from? If you say from your consciousness, you must address where that comes from, and you begin the slippery slope into the abyss of materialisms regress problem. But again, that's another discussion. CS:

Happy Holidays

Thank you. I hope you have a Merry Christmas, too. :) CannuckianYankee

Mark Frank:

God does not exist because if he did he would conform himself to commonly accepted morality.

You might as well say, “God does not exist because if he did he would behave in a way that I suppose most people would prefer,” because to you “commonly accepted morality” means nothing more than “that which I suppose most people prefer.” The argument is incoherent.

One of these has got to be wrong: * Evil exists * An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would not allow evil to exist. * There is [not] an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being Which one do you reject?

I answered this very question in the OP. Barry Arrington

As far as evil exists, if "evil" corresponds to "that which is against what god wills", or "that which is against god's nature", then for free will of any significant value to exist, the potential for evil must exist if individual with free will choose to intend evil - go against god's will or nature. Free Will without the capacity to do evil is like compatibalist free will: a semantic facade. William J Murray

I don't really understand the idea that suffering is inherently evil, or that a god that doesn't alleviate suffering is considered evil. Not to trivialize suffering, but a child suffers when you don't give it what it wants because, ultimately, we know that what the child wants is not good for it. Also, in "tough love" situations, we must let those we love suffer the consequences of their actions until they make the decision to change their behavior. In the case of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god, one must first define what those terms mean. IMO, they mean that god can do anything that can be done without violating its innate characteristics or what is logically impossible (like creating a 4-sided triangle), and creates/causes as much good as is possible given the limitations described by the nature of god (and by extension, what god creates). Much of the anti-theist perspective about evil and suffering centers around an immature and unsophisticated, almost child-like conceptualization of god and existence, as if god can simply do anything, including making a 4-sided triangle. What can "free" will be, in essence, if not the capacity to move away from god and defy god's will? If one doesn't have the capacity to choose something other than what god wills, they do not have free will. Thus, in order for free will to exist, existence must structurally support the possibility that things other than what god wills can occur. So, while god would never will suffering, suffering must be allowed to exist for those that choose to suffer. One might argue that no one chooses to suffer; I disagree, but that is irrelevant. If one chooses to suffer, the capacity to suffer, and god allowing it to happen, are logically necessary or else we cannot have free will. There must be the potential in existence for all kinds of things to occur that god would rather not occur in order for "free will" to be anything other than a facade. There's a difference between pain and suffering. There are mindsets that can alleviate much suffering; for instance, a deep conviction in the afterlife and that living has a greater purpose can alleviate much suffering, even if it doesn't alleviate the pain of losing a loved one. There are things that only suffering can teach us or mold us into which god cannot simply intervene and wave its hand to accomplish or else it violates our free will and possible some existential, necessary aspects of our existence as independent individuals. The cartoon theism of theists/materialists is simply a convenient vehicle for them to vent their childish rebellion and outrage through; they have cast themselves out of their home and have cut ties with their parent, refuse His help or advice, and then wonder why He allows them and others to suffer. If you're a parent or know other parents, you are familiar with children that go on self-destructive paths into suffering while blaming others who, in their mind, are refusing to help meet their emotional-blackmail demands. William J Murray

Mark: “I know you don’t accept A and B. But it is a coherent argument.”

Barry: Mark, : you’ve put an extraordinary amount of puerile drivel in this combox even by your standards – computers with “necessary suffering” algorithms for heaven’s sake.

Am I allowed to call you names as well – or do I get banned? (I notice you changed the comment from earlier when you said the argument was not coherent – did you change your mind?)

At the end of the day, your argument is simply this: God does not exist because if he did he would conform himself to my morality — by which I mean my subjective preferences about moral questions — which he is bound to share. It is just plain idiotic.

No it isn’t. One of my arguments is to put it concisely “God does not exist because if he did he would conform himself to commonly accepted morality”. However,  I presented another argument above which is more compelling: One of these has got to be wrong: * Evil exists * An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would not allow evil to exist. * There is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being Which one do you reject? Perhaps you should put yourself into moderation until you respond? Mark Frank

StephenB,

Central Scrutinizer: Only might makes right. I’ll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you.

I'm speaking particularly of opposing evil-doers. It boils down to that for anyone, regardless of what you believe, if you are trying to enforce your will.

Central Scrutinizer: ...just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn’t mean we don’t think the Golden Rule is not the best morality.

Jesus believed it. And so do I. But at a certain point force is required to enforce your will. Just ask Jesus about that if and when you see him filling up Megeddo with blood up to the horse's bridles.

Does it get any better than that?

Probably not. CentralScrutinizer

CentralScrutinizer: There is no absolute standard you and demonstrate objectively. Only might makes right. StephenB: Unfortunately, your first sentence is incomprehensible,

"and" = "can"

but your second sentence solves the riddle. Your idea of morality is to overpower and silence those who disagree with you.

Ultimately it comes down to that. No matter who you are and what you believe... if you want your will to be done.

Thank you for giving me a straight answer to a straight question.

You bet. CentralScrutinizer

F/N: Evil is not a separate thing but instead basically denotes the privation, perversion and frustration of things that are good in themselves, typically rooted in selfish choices and leading to harm, if unchecked to chaos. For instance our power of communication can be abused to practice lying, which if it spreads unchecked creates chaos. KF kairosfocus

"I know you don’t accept A and B. But it is a coherent argument." Mark, you’ve put an extraordinary amount of puerile drivel in this combox even by your standards – computers with “necessary suffering” algorithms for heaven’s sake. At the end of the day, your argument is simply this: God does not exist because if he did he would conform himself to my morality -- by which I mean my subjective preferences about moral questions -- which he is bound to share. It is just plain idiotic. Barry Arrington

Why should good and evil emanate from God? May be evil emanates from another being (Fallen Angel/Cherub?). Some times evil overtakes good force leading to evil events and calamities. In nature majority of forces have negative forces and particles have antiparticles, so may be this balance exists in supernatural realm too. selvaRajan

This is an example of why humanity should be wiped off the face of the earth. We can't agree on ANYTHING. We constantly bicker back and forth. We debate endlessly and spend all our time arguing. I'm an advocate for human extinction. We had our chance and we can't make it work so exterminate us an let some other animal evolve to take over. Maybe they can do a better job. JLAfan2001

Rosenberg, 'The Atheist's guide to reality', Ch.5:

Even correctly understood, there seem to be serious reasons to abstain from nihilism if we can. Here are three: First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble. Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. For our own self-respect, we need to show that nihilism doesn’t have the three problems just mentioned—no grounds to condemn Hitler, lots of reasons for other people to distrust us, and even reasons why no one should trust anyone else. We need to be convinced that these unacceptable outcomes are not ones that atheism and scientism are committed to. Such outcomes would be more than merely a public relations nightmare for scientism. They might prevent us from swallowing nihilism ourselves, and that would start unraveling scientism. To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.

Box

@ CannuckianYankee @18

I’m not certain what you meant by this. Did you mean to say “arguing the non-existence of God from evil is ridiculous?” I think the existence of evil makes God’s existence quite apparent, and that’s what makes the argument from evil “ridiculous.”

Right. I can see how my phrasing may be unclear. I'm stating that the "argument from evil" with regard to the non-existence of God, is ridiculous as the argument assumes a full understanding of God. The problem is one is assuming the nature of God, and from that, concluding the question of existence. However, if one assumes a different nature, or understanding, of God the argument fails. So, any way you cut it, the "argument from evil" is not a good argument for the non-existence of God. TSErik

Barry

Mark, One of us is certainly confused. You assert there is a difference between “the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.” And what is the difference? You assert that “I am only talking about the amount of suffering . . .” But what does “degree of suffering” mean if not “amount of suffering”? So your argument is perfectly incoherent.

Degree of suffering does mean amount of suffering. But the amount of suffering is unrelated to whether that suffering is necessary.   A tooth extraction of a bad tooth may involve a lot of suffering but is necessary. A tooth extraction of a perfectly healthy tooth (by accident perhaps) involves the same degree of suffering but is unnecessary. Do you seriously not understand the difference? Mark Frank

Barry

Why do the vast majority of people strongly believe an action or event it wrong? The materialist must say that there is no reason other than that evolution conditioned them not to prefer that action or event. So, your argument amounts to “whatever evolution has conditioned people not to prefer, God would believe is morally wrong and prevent it from happening. Since he does not, he does not exist.” The argument is absurd on its face and needs no refutation.

I don't have to say that at all. In these debates about morality you continually confuse the cause of our moral attitudes and the justification.  I believe the cause is a result of evolution and cultural conditioning just as the cause of our finding Chaplin funny is some combination of the two. But actually it doesn’t matter. The cause could have been that the designer made us that way – it would not affect the argument. Evolution doesn’t come into this. The justification is things like – decreases suffering. I don’t know why you struggle with this – VJ, for example, has no problem understanding the difference. Let’s try a slightly expanded version of the argument that makes the role of suffering clearer.   A) By “evil” events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. These include increasing suffering. B) A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments C) An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. D) But evil events, actions and people do happen. E) Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God I know you don’t accept A and B. But it is a coherent argument. Even if you find that unconvincing there is still a major problem with theodicy using the theist’s own assumptions. One of these has got to be wrong: * Evil exists * An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would not allow evil to exist. * There is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being   Which one do you reject? Mark Frank

Mark, One of us is certainly confused. You assert there is a difference between “the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.” And what is the difference? You assert that “I am only talking about the amount of suffering . . .” But what does “degree of suffering” mean if not “amount of suffering”? So your argument is perfectly incoherent. Barry Arrington

Barry – I sometimes worry about you.    I write:

You are confused about the difference between the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.

And go to some lengths to explain the difference. You respond:

Let’s focus on your assertion that the “amount of suffering” is the measure between “unnecessary” and “not unnecessary.”

Mark Frank

Mark Frank:

“Unnecessary suffering” seems to me an objective description not a value judgment.

Barry:

Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary — an essentially moral assessment — is based upon some objective standard. Staggering.

Barry:

Where, exactly is the line between unnecessary suffering and suffering that is not unnecessary? You claim to have access to an objective description of that line. Tell us where it is.

Mark:

I am only talking about the amount of suffering – something that could in theory be measured by a computer.

I will set aside the idiotic notion that a computer algorithm could measure suffering. Let's focus on your assertion that the "amount of suffering" is the measure between "unnecessary" and "not unnecessary." So, if in your opinion there has been “a lot of suffering” it is unnecessary. And if in your opinion there has been, “not that much suffering” it was not unnecessary. Nothing subjective about that determination, no sir.

But anyway there are other ways of phrasing the argument.

I suppose there are, and if the example you give is any indication, each is more facile than the last.

* By “evil” events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. * A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments. * An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. * But evil events, actions and people do happen. * Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God

Why do the vast majority of people strongly believe an action or event it wrong? The materialist must say that there is no reason other than that evolution conditioned them not to prefer that action or event. So, your argument amounts to “whatever evolution has conditioned people not to prefer, God would believe is morally wrong and prevent it from happening. Since he does not, he does not exist.” The argument is absurd on its face and needs no refutation. Barry Arrington

Graham2

This is your god-given ‘higher moral code’ or whatever you call it, at work in the real world. This isnt theory, this is how it works in practice. Charming.

No, it isn't the God-given higher moral code at work. It is a violation of the God-given higher moral code at work. But thank you for showing us that you do not know the difference. StephenB

G2: BA is of course dead right to highlight the worldview foundation level crack in your argument. Apart from the incoherence of failing to ground the ought at the root of your evident moral outrage in a worldview foundational is, it is in order to say a few words on the context of your lashing the whipping boy of the Catholic hierarchy. So, I ask: do you object to the in-progress homosexualisation of the boy scout movement? Military units? Schools? Etc? Also, the increasingly clear trend to push women into particularly ground combat units? [If so, where is the balancing outrage at this process and at those who are aiding and abetting such? (And, there is the additional concern that women are physically very vulnerable in ground combat circumstances and men are instinctively programmed to react to threats by doing anything possible at almost any cost to protect women and children.)] If you don't object to such at least as vociferously, with all due respect, I must put it to you that you too are enabling the setting up of precisely the kind of abuses that happened. If you do object [silence on related matters notwithstanding . . . ], then you are in a position to understand that when a nest of pederasts secretly infiltrates an organisation, then it is first extremely hard to detect and realise there is a systemic problem, then it becomes a major challenge to deal with the magnitude. And in the face of a hostile climate, it is going to be hard to sound reasonable. (Just think what would happen if the much higher incidence of sexual misbehaviour and bullying in and around schooling were subject to similar headlined inquisitions globally in front of rolling TV cameras etc. Would head teachers, education officers and ministers of education come off well? I rather doubt it.) I hold no brief for the Catholic hierarchy, but I do at least understand their problem in light of the now politically extremely incorrect fact that classically, homosexual behaviour particularly targets youth and boys. (This can be seen for illustrative instances from the discussion of love in The Republic, from the classic story of Jupiter and Ganymede, from the lives of the Caesars, and more, much more. Including Buggery Laws.) And so, I think we can use this context to return focus to the pivotal issue for this thread, the incoherence of ever so much arguing from evils against God. KF kairosfocus

Well Graham, at least you recognize that there is such a thing as sin. No one claims Christians are immune to sin. And to the extent that you are right, these people will have to answer to God for their actions. Claiming that some church leaders molest children is no new revelation. Sin is din no matter who does it. Either it is din or it isn't. Either it is evil or it isn't. Christians say it is both evil and din because it violates God's standard of moral purity and His command to love your neighbor as yourself. It harms others (unloving) and is a selfish act(unloving). You, God, and everyone else have every right to be angry about that. I hope you are just as angry at what the MBLA stands for and at the impurity and sin in your own heart. tjguy

F/N: It is time to outline the free will defense (as opposed to a theodicy). I use the summary here: ______________ As a preliminary, Dembski on the twin problem, good vs evil: >>In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [--> as was addressed first in the linked] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]>> Next, outlining Plantinga on the free will defense (as opposed to theodicy . . . the logically possible suffices to show coherence): >> Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:

1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.

However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:

2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.

Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. The essence of that defense is:

a: “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.] b: Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:

Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]

c: Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds [--> he here deploys the force of logical possibility], there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Johnny, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.) d: Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible. e: At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table. f: It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no unabsorbed evils, even though the atheologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs. g: However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.

Where then does the problem of evil stand today? On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >> ______________ In short, the first problem, is that evil raises the issue of good, and of the objectivity of a moral -- real, abstract -- order. Linked to this, the question entails whether we wish a world in which choice, free will, free reason, and love [queen of the virtues] are possible. Real freedom to think, love and decide comes with the price tag of being able to choose otherwise. Once that is in the backdrop, we can highlight that evil presupposes good, which then is a major challenge to those whose views are amoral. Thirdly, as the accusation "contradiction" is so stringent, we may shift to a logically possible worlds argument to show it is not so. Thus Plantinga first renders the theistic set more accurate to what theists would recognise as actual premises of theism, then uses logically possible worlds argumentation to augment the set and show it coherent once the augmentation is added. But if S = {p1, p2, . . . pn} is coherent when a possible explanation ei of e1, e2 . . . en are added, then S must be coherent even without augmentation. Fourth, when these are borne in mind, the logically possible act of redemptive intervention transforms the picture of the inductive (and even natural) problems. Fifth, the most serious challenge is one for pastoral intervention and counselling support, especially of signs of serious melancholy are present. I trust these help. KF kairosfocus

Graham2, Always amusing to be addressed in a tone of moral outrage by someone who believes that “immoral” means nothing more than “I personally disagree strongly because evolution has conditioned me to do so.” Barry Arrington

Im witnessing a royal commission (Im in Oz) into child abuse at the hands of the Catholic church, and what a spectacle it is. Priests being cross-examined by laywers (with the power to require answers), so they cant give the usual sanctimonious waffle, they have to actually tell the truth. And the truth is that the church has been abusing children for decades, and when absolutely forced to act, refuse to apologize (legal reasons), pay the victims a pittance, and wrap them up in legal agreements that are designed to protect the church. And its not just here of course, throw something at a map and it will hit a country where the priests have their hands on little boys. This is your god-given 'higher moral code' or whatever you call it, at work in the real world. This isnt theory, this is how it works in practice. Charming. Graham2

#38 Barry

just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn’t mean we don’t think the Golden Rule is not the best morality.

What's wrong with that? Many people subjectively think the Golden Rule is the best morality. Mark Frank

#8 Barry  

Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary — an essentially moral assessment — is based upon some objective standard. Staggering. Let’s test this. The phrase “unnecessary suffering” implies that there is some level of suffering that is not unnecessary. Pray tell us the objective criterion you have used to distinguish between the two. Perhaps an example will help as you ponder the question. I take it you believe the Sandy Hook shootings involved “unnecessary suffering.” I take it you would also believe that the disappointment I felt when I realized at about age 18 that I would probably never play football for the Dallas Cowboys was not unnecessary suffering. Where, exactly is the line between unnecessary suffering and suffering that is not unnecessary? You claim to have access to an objective description of that line. Tell us where it is.

You are confused about the difference between the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.  Sandy Hook involved a lot more suffering then your failure to play football. Furthermore it seems that if Sandy Hook had never happened there would not have been consequences anything like in proportion to the suffering.   Had you had your dream then I suspect Dallas Cowboys management and fans might have suffered more than you did by missing out – so you could argue it was necessary. If it had been possible for you to play with no impact on anyone else (or limiting your opportunities do even more satisfying things like banning people from debates) then a benevolent God should have let you have your dream. There is nothing subjective (or indeed moral) in that comparison. I am only talking about the amount of suffering - something that could in theory be measured by a computer. But anyway there are other ways of phrasing the argument. * By “evil”  events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. * A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments. * An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. * But evil events, actions and people do happen. * Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God. Mark Frank

Many wonder why God doesn't put a stop to all evil. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than ours so we never be able to fully answer this question until we get to heaven and can see things from His perspective or ask Him, but here are some further things to consider. I agree that the fact that "evil" bothers atheists is strong evidence that God exists. JLAFan seems to be the only consistent atheist here. But his belief in nihilism does not make it true. What if God were to wipe out everything evil in this world? That wouldn't work too well as there would be no humans left. I know of no one who has never caused others to suffer. No one! In fact the Bible says we are all sinners. Pride negatively effects our action, words, relationships, and motives, as does selfishness and personal desires for wealth, fame, happiness, comfort, and power. Some of the suffering in this world comes about due to our own sin as well. For example, we get our girlfriend pregnant and wonder why God allowed it. Or we speed and cause an accident maybe even killing someone. Why didn't God stop us from speeding or protect the other person? At what point do you want God to intervene? Do you want Him to make it impossible to speed? Or do you want Him to allow you freedom to drive irresponsibly and then protect you and others? Do you want Him to prevent you from having premarital sex so your girlfriend doesn't get pregnant? Or do you want Him to allow immorality and cover you so she doesn't get pregnant? God cannot condone sin. He wants us to understand that our actions have consequences both in this world and the next. Do you want Him to cut out your tongue so you never offend anyone - or give everyone such a thick skin that nothing you could say would offend or hurt others? But then positive encouraging complimentary words would also become meaningless because of our thick skin. You can't jump off a building and blame God for not saving you. But in essence, that is what most atheists want. They want to live life their own way, no matter if it is right or wrong, and they expect God to bless them. Then when He doesn't, it's all his fault. God gives us free will but with it comes personal responsibility. This is as it should be. What a bunch of spoiled little brats we would be if God gave us complete freedom to live however we want to while shielding us and others from the consequences of our actions! God's goodness, grace, and love are magnified in the presence of evil. If there were no such thing as evil, we would not need God. Nor would we be able to understand His greatness, glory, or goodness. I don't know if that translates as a valid reason for the existence or if that is one reason He allows it to persist, but evil does magnify God's goodness. When atheists wish God would not allow evil, they are in essence wishing for God's judgment on themselves. I guess they really only wish He would do away with certain kinds of evil - natural evil(calamities, sickness, etc.) But even sickness is a judgment for original sin as is the stress of hard work. They fail to realize that there is no such thing as a totally innocent person - outside of Jesus who willingly entered our world, suffered for our sins, died in our place to eventually do away with all evil, sin, and suffering. The judgment against evil they wish for already took place on the cross and the consequences of Jesus' victory over Satan will one day be completely realized. Evil and all sin including their sin will one day be finally and completely be judged much to their chagrin. They will realize just what they were wishing for at that time, but it will be too late. Jesus offered to take the penalty for their sin, but they rejected the offer. Freedom to choose brings responsibility for our choices. tjguy

Central Scrutinizer at 8:ll p.m.:

Only might makes right. I’ll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you.

Central Scrutinizer at 8:34 p.ml:

...just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn’t mean we don’t think the Golden Rule is not the best morality.

Does it get any better than that? StephenB

Central Scrutinizer

There is no absolute standard you and demonstrate objectively. Only might makes right.

Unfortunately, your first sentence is incomprehensible, but your second sentence solves the riddle. Your idea of morality is to overpower and silence those who disagree with you. Thank you for giving me a straight answer to a straight question.

I’ll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you, (you sadist.)

Yes, and although I am not a sadist, I appreciate the fact that you know we are in a culture war and that you have chosen to side with the barbarians. Those who cannot compete in the arena of ideas or persuade others with reasoned arguments will always try to improve their odds in other ways, either by waging a campaign of dishonesty or by resorting to physical force. Many here pretend that these conversations are just for passing the time away. You, on the other hand, seem to understand that reason is at war with atheism. Knowing that atheism will always lose in a debate, as your experience on this blog makes clear, you also realize that you must overpower your adversaries by the force of unjust laws or even violence in order to win. The good news for you is that the barbarians are winning. The government school system continues to crank out young skulls of mush who think just like you do. They can't argue their way out of a paper bag, but they sure can vote. StephenB

Collin @ 21: 1. If there is God, there must be no evil. 2. There are things in the world that, if there were a God, would be defined as evil. 3. Therefore, there is no God. I don't know that an atheist would accept this. Your conclusion (3) contradicts premise 2. 2 says that there are some things that can be defined as evil only if there is a God. 3 concludes there is no God but as a result there would also be a no things that can be defined as evil. This would then make premise 1 true by default. lpadron

And Barry, just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we don't think the Golden Rule is not the best morality. But the fact that we think so is a fact of intuition. I.e., neural programming. CentralScrutinizer

Barry, I'm not an atheist. Just a guy who recognizes the fact that morality is subjective. CentralScrutinizer

Central joins the (small) list of atheists whom I respect for following their premises to their conclusions. See comment 14 for another. I respect both of you, but, frankly, I wouldn't want to play poker with either of you. :-) Barry Arrington

StephenB: The basis of your ought is, “I don’t want to suffer.”

Yes.

The basis of the sadist ought is, “I want you to suffer.”

Yes.

By what standard should your ought prevail?

By my own standard, until the day I die. Duh. There is no absolute standard you and demonstrate objectively. Only might makes right. I'll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you, (you sadist.) What else is there. CentralScrutinizer

Barry: Now it may be that you agree with me that the atheist argument from the existence of evil is incoherent. If you do, just saying so would be nice.

Oh, you betcha. The atheist argument against God is, well, B.S., IF they assume that "God" must refer to the classical definition of God. But jettison the classic definition and atheism and any other ism is just as valid as another. The bottom line is, practically speaking, we all judge evil by our own concept of suffering. CentralScrutinizer

Barry Arrington noted

Changing the subject is not an effective way to response to an argument.

Oh, but it's usually very effective. ;-) ----------------- If there was justice, crime would be punished. It takes time to punish criminals. Justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, there is no justice. ----------------- Love conquers all. The are some people and nations that remain unconquered. Therefore, love does not exist. ----------------- Time is money. I have plenty of time. Therefore I must have plenty of money. (I don't have much money, therefore I must not have much time.) ----------------- Or how about Evil exists, therefore God is evil--better not make him mad! :o

Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ - From Matthew 25 (NIV)

-Q Querius

Random thoughts while waiting for Central Scrutinizer to answer Barry's question about the OP: Central Scrutinizer:

The basis for the ought is “I don’t want to suffer.”

The basis of your ought is, "I don't want to suffer." The basis of the sadist ought is, "I want you to suffer." By what standard should your ought prevail? StephenB

Central asks “refute what exactly”? Well, the answer should be obvious – refute the argument made in the OP if you can. I will try to explain it for you. In the OP I argued that the atheist argument from evil is incoherent. In response, you say, “Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes.” Well, perhaps it does. But I hope you can see that the statement “Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes” is not a response to “the atheist argument from evil is incoherent.” Now it may be that you agree with me that the atheist argument from the existence of evil is incoherent. If you do, just saying so would be nice. If you don’t, then perhaps you could favor us with the reasons you disagree. Changing the subject is not an effective way to response to an argument. Barry Arrington

Barry, Refute what exactly? If you jettison the notion of a classical god there is no need to justify the notion of the classic god. Duh. Namely, no need to defend an incoherent theodicy. Elementary, my dear Barry. CentralScrutinizer

CentralScrutinizer @ 24: I notice that you did not address, far less refute, the argument in the OP. I assume that if you could refute it you would. Therefore, I will accept your unwillingness to take the argument on as an admission that you cannot refute it. Merry Christmas. Barry Arrington

F/N: The argument from evil, deductive form is arguably about 40 years past sell-by date, and the inductive form is considerably weakened by linked considerations. Plantinga showed by the free will defense [cf. skeletal summary] -- NOT a theodicy -- that a reasonable and recognisable theistic concept of God is definitively coherent. And, G2 and ilk, as long as there are those . . . e.g. some of the new atheists -- who use this outdated argument or arguments that imply it to poison the atmosphere for discussion [cf. some notorious diatribes], it is in order to respond to it. KF kairosfocus

CYankee: Well, not quite. Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem becomes more apparent...

I disagree, and here's why...

... Every time you demand that something outht to be one way and not another, you are essentially saying that there is a basis for “ought.”

The basis for the ought is "I don't want to suffer." And people with empathy don't want others to suffer either. "I don't want to suffer" is purely borne out of a conscious desire. There is no philosophically metaphysical principle beyond that.

"But materialism doesn’t provide a grounding for “ought” other than one’s own whims; and it can’t even answer the question of why we even have whims."

I agree. However, materialism, or any other "ism", need not do that. The only "ism" the counts is the I-Do-Not-Want-To-Suffer "ism." That's where it all stems from. Everything else is a phantom with no actual meaning.

"The problem of evil is such because there IS a God."

No. The problem of evil (suffering) is such because there is consciousness.

"If there is no God, we should not care that there is evil,"

No. If there was no consciousness, we should not care that there is evil (suffering). The God hypothesis is unnecessary to this issue. The classical notion of God is superfluous. Consciousness is all you need. Happy Holidays. CentralScrutinizer

JLA

If there is no god then there is no good and evil. Anything goes and I accept that.

Right.

Morality is just a human construct which I have no obligation to follow. Empathy and compassion is just an evolutionary tool to propagate our DNA.

OK. I must have misunderstood your question about the prospect of your family being attacked. You wrote,

Why wouldn't God stop it?

" I guess you meant this: If God exists, why wouldn't he stop such an evil? The classical answer seems reasonable to me. God has endowed his creatures with free will, which means they can abuse the privilege, do evil things, and affect people (and nature) in adverse ways--even in ways that offend the atheists evolved sensibilities.

However, if there is a god then evil exists both moral and natural. Why does he allow them? Why intervene with the Canaanites but not with the Nazis? Why free the slaves in Egpyt but not the ones in Europe? Why not create a world that can operate without natural disasters?

God's intervention may be conditional on whether or not His help is asked for or even wanted. Or, for the sake of His plan of salvation, help may be necessary at the early stages to preserve an ethnic line has not yet been fully developed. There could be many reasons to be selective about when and if to intervene. None of this is related to the point that atheism's argument against God is incoherent, which was supposed to be the subject being discussed. StephenB

JLAfan2001, Your position is logically consistent, but I'd not like to be in a position where you could take advantage of me and get away with it. Collin

An argument from evil could be stated like this: If there is God, there must be no evil. There are things in the world that, if there were a God, would be defined as evil. Therefore, there is no God. I would then turn to the free will defense. I would also think about responding by asking if we can objectively detect good in the world. If there is objective good in the world, then there must be a benevolent God of some kind. And, borrowing from Augustine, since God is infinitely wizer and more knowledgeable than us, we are not in a position to question His means or motives. Collin

StephenB If there is no god then there is no good and evil. Anything goes and I accept that. Morality is just a human construct which I have no obligation to follow. Empathy and compassion is just an evolutionary tool to propagate our DNA. If one doesn't feel them, it doesn't make them a psychopath. That just means they evolved differently and randomly. However, if there is a god then evil exists both moral and natural. Why does he allow them? Why intervene with the Canaanites but not with the Nazis? Why free the slaves in Egpyt but not the ones in Europe? Why not create a world that can operate without natural disasters? JLAfan2001

JLAfan 2001

I personally think that there is no morality and no good or evil. Nature just is. We are animals and we act like it hence the school shootings. It wasn’t evil it, it was just nature taking it’s course. If the same were done to my family, I would attack to defend just like any other animal does. If I win, the attacker dies. If I lose, my family dies. It’s not evil, just nature and survival. Now, if there is a god, why wouldn’t he stop it?

Huh? If it isn't evil, why should God stop it? StephenB

TSE,

Arguing the EXISTENCE of God from evil is ridiculous.

I'm not certain what you meant by this. Did you mean to say "arguing the non-existence of God from evil is ridiculous?" I think the existence of evil makes God's existence quite apparent, and that's what makes the argument from evil "ridiculous." CannuckianYankee

But ID is scientific. Nothing to do with god. No No No.

Don't be churlish. Where in this thread is the discussion of science and ID tied to the philosophical discussion of the existence of God? Because this site is designed to discuss ID, it cannot discuss philosophy? You better report to all of the NDE websites then. Let them know they cannot discuss atheism. Simply because ID may lead some to consider God more carefully on a philosophical level, doesn't mean ID has ANYTHING to do with religion. TSErik

But ID is scientific. Nothing to do with god. No No No. Graham2

The "argument from evil" is nonsense. I'll paraphrase my argument from the "argument from bad design" thread as here it is also apt. The "argument from evil" completely fails at the premise. The atheist argument goes:

-If there is a source of all good, there is a God. -If the God the source of the good, there would be no evil. -There is evil, therefore there is no source of pure good and no God.

This argument completely fails as it presumes human understanding is analogous to that of God. This is completely fallacious as God, by definition, would need to be far beyond human, and even universal, understanding with regards to the mind. One cannot base an argument of objectivity on one’s own subjective assertion of what God should be. Arguing the EXISTENCE of God from evil is ridiculous. One may try and argue against, say, a certain type of God, a benevolent God, with the argument from evil saying that God is capricious and not worthy of worship. However, this person is just as silly, and just as sophomoric. This adjustment to the argument, again, presumes the mind of God. It suggests that we understand evil, agency, cause and effect, at the level of God itself. A child may presume a parent harshly chiding them, refusing to allow them cookies before dinner, as hatred. However, we know the child is young, and will pout because it lacks the capability to fully understand the actions of the parent, and we understand the parent still loves the child. It would also be important to note, that in many religious schools of thought, God isn't there to create a physical existence that is full of bubblegum farts, rainbows and smiles. The second this idea is understood, the argument from evil falls apart as the argument of evil presumes God must have wanted this existence to be perfect. @MF I must agree with Barry that it seems as though you call upon objectivity and subjectivity at a whim, lacking certain consistency. Perhaps I'm wrong as my flu has lead to far too much cough medicine today. TSErik

JLAfan2001 @ 12. My hat is off to you. Most atheists try to have their cake and eat it too. They deny God but they refuse to accept the nihilism that inevitably follows from that denial. It is truly refreshing to find an atheist who has the honesty and courage to accept the logical consequences of his own truth claims. I don’t agree with you, but I respect you far more than I respect the facile “cake and eat it too” crowd. Barry Arrington

MF Barry:

Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary — an essentially moral assessment — is based upon some objective standard. Staggering.

I noticed that too. :) CS

Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes. And while you’re wrangling about all of that, don’t forget to love your neighbor as yourself.

Well, not quite. Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem becomes more apparent. Every time you demand that something outht to be one way and not another, you are essentially saying that there is a basis for "ought." But materialism doesn't provide a grounding for "ought" other than one's own whims; and it can't even answer the question of why we even have whims. The problem of evil is such because there IS a God. If there is no God, we should not care that there is evil, nor should we recognize what it is. We should not even care to concern ourselves with "unnecessary suffering," because at the bottom of it all is meaningless existence. Remember this?

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousand of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

R. Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (Basic Books: 1995), p. 133. Dawkins has far from done away with the problem of evil here. He has made it starkly apparent in a laughable contradiction. He should not care to use words like "pitiless," "indifference," "purpose," "evil," "suffering," etc.. if the universe were actually the way he describes it. What Dawkins is implying is that you and he SHOULD care. Therefore the universe cannot be that way. Once you have someone in the universe who cares about suffering, you are contradicting the description of the universe as being entirely indifferent. And in case you a case where you try to argue that you and me are not a part of the universe, you're tossed further into an abyss of incoherence. We believe that loving our neighbor has meaning because God IS love. If there is no God, then loving someone might be a survival response, but ultimately it is meaningless. CannuckianYankee

Barry, Athesists may not have an adequate answer but neither do theists. We may not have the answer to "what is good and what is evil" but you don't have the answer as to "why god allows it" either. I personally think that there is no morality and no good or evil. Nature just is. We are animals and we act like it hence the school shootings. It wasn't evil it, it was just nature taking it's course. If the same were done to my family, I would attack to defend just like any other animal does. If I win, the attacker dies. If I lose, my family dies. It's not evil, just nature and survival. Now, if there is a god, why wouldn't he stop it? JLAfan2001

While all of the above points are interesting, I don't think they address Barry's point about the atheist's incoherent argument. Here is another way of putting it: Evil (anything that violates my evolved standard of justice) exists. Therefore, a good God, who has an unchanging standard of justice, doesn't exist because he allowed my evolved standard of justice to be violated. StephenB

JLAfan. As I said, discussions regarding the topics you raise are beyond the scope of this post. There are answers, to be sure, but I want to focus on my topic, not another topic. Do you have an answer to my argument? I suppose not. Otherwise you would have included it in your post. I see you are using the time-honored atheist tactic of "can't answer the question, then change the subject." That's OK. Refusing to answer is a sort of answer. Barry Arrington

The existence of hurricanes, earthquakes etc suggest that 1) there is no god and the laws of nature just runs it's course bowling over all organisms 2) god is not as "good" as theists make him out to be. It is possible that we may not know the mind of god and why he allows disasters but it could also be that he delights in suffering too. He's two-faced. 3) god can't create an eco-system that doesn't require these certain laws that creates disaters which means he's not all-powerful. When he creates a "new" earth, will it have the same physics that causes hurricanes or will it have "new" physics that won't? If he can create this "new" earth without disaster then why didn't he create this one like that? God is not all-good as the bible describes him or not all-powerful as the bible describes him or doesn't exist. Take your pick. JLAfan2001

Mark Frank:

“Unnecessary suffering” seems to me an objective description not a value judgment.

Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary -- an essentially moral assessment -- is based upon some objective standard. Staggering. Let’s test this. The phrase “unnecessary suffering” implies that there is some level of suffering that is not unnecessary. Pray tell us the objective criterion you have used to distinguish between the two. Perhaps an example will help as you ponder the question. I take it you believe the Sandy Hook shootings involved “unnecessary suffering.” I take it you would also believe that the disappointment I felt when I realized at about age 18 that I would probably never play football for the Dallas Cowboys was not unnecessary suffering. Where, exactly is the line between unnecessary suffering and suffering that is not unnecessary? You claim to have access to an objective description of that line. Tell us where it is. Barry Arrington

We don’t know what is necessary. In my philosophy it is entirely plausible that a human spirit needs to learn that he is not his body – by way of suffering and dying. This may very well be a lesson that needs to be learned on our way to enlightenment. On a more general note: can wisdom be acquired without suffering? The God of Christianity, according to some, seems to be more into testing people, whether they are good or bad, than giving them experiences that would help them on their way towards a higher self-awareness - being good and/or innocent gets one a much higher rating than self-awareness. This leaves open the question why it is that some people are more ‘tested’ than others. This question has to do with the question if a God – within the context of such a version of Christianity - who treats people so unevenly, can be benevolent. Why is it that some people are hardly tested at all, while others have to suffer horribly ? Box

Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes. And while you're wrangling about all of that, don't forget to love your neighbor as yourself. CentralScrutinizer

#2 CY "Unnecessary suffering" seems to me an objective description not a value judgement. Obviously you can determine whether some creature is suffering without making a value judgement about it. So the issue is only about whether "unnecessary" is a value judgement. I meant this as a short hand for "could be avoided without any significant consequences other than stopping the suffering". This is admittedly difficult to determine with certainty but is not a value judgement. If the boxing day tsunami had not happened life would almost certainly have carried on much as it did except 200,000 more people would have lived to enjoy it. Mark Frank

The solution to the theodicy issue for the Christian is in the premise,

evil exist

or as Mark Frank has framed it

There is unnecessary suffering

If neither one of these two expressions is true, then there is no contradiction with a omni-benevolent and omniscient God for the Christian. So is the suffering we see, necessary? And if this is true, why? I again ask for a definition of the word "evil." It seems to be too vague a word to have an exact definition that we all use at the same time. The word "suffering" seems to be a better word to use though the concept of "evil" seems to have a lot more attached to it than just sufferig. There is also the difference between moral evil and natural evil. The first is easier to handle in the theodicy question since it results from a will other than God. But an omniscient God could stop these acts of suffering from happening. So why doesn't He? And He could certainly stop the natural suffering such as earthquakes/tsunamis, famine, disease, illness etc from happening. Whey doesn't He? Some have offered up "The Fall" as an answer but could there be other reasons? It has occupied tens of thousands of pages. Why is it necessary? jerry

What does "omnibenevolent" mean? Any definition I heard so far is related to our relative existence of individuals. As such it has nothing to do with the Absolute (God). To apply "omnibenevolent" to God is nonsense. One cannot attribute relative dual concepts (evil, well, etc.) to the non-dual Absolute. I don't understand why some continue to use it and, doing that, offer to atheists an easy objection. niwrad

MF,

Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow unnecessary suffering (e.g. Tsunamis, malaria). Minor Premise: There is unnecessary suffering.

"Unnecessary suffering" is a value judgment, which implies evil. It's no different at all from Barry's formation of the argument. You're simply mincing words. In order to acknowledge that suffering is what it is; you'd have to believe that it is not a good thing. If suffering is not a good thing, then it is a bad thing; thus, evil. And how do you judge that suffering is "unnecessary"? In a materialistic world it is neither necessary of unnecessary. It just is. CannuckianYankee

The argument can be adjusted trivially to overcome this objection by rephrasing it terms of phenomena that we would (subjectively) reject. Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow unnecessary suffering (e.g. Tsunamis, malaria). Minor Premise: There is unnecessary suffering. Mark Frank