Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

William Lane Craig’s video on the objectivity of morality and the linked reality of God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here:

[youtube OxiAikEk2vU]

In this video, Dr Craig argues that we have good reason to accept the objectivity of ought, and from that we see that there is a credible ground of such, God.

In slightly more details, if one rejects the objectivity of the general sense of OUGHT as governing our behaviour, we are implying a general delusion.

Where, as there are no firewalls in the mind . . . a general delusion undermines the general credibility of knowledge and rationality.

And in practice even those who most passionately argue for moral subjectivity live by the premise that moral principles such as fairness, justice, doing good by neighbour etc are binding. That is, there is no good reason to doubt that reality.

OUGHT, credibly, is real and binding.

But if OUGHT is real, it has to be grounded in a foundational IS in the cosmos.

After centuries of debate, there is still only one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being.

Essentially, the being we find referred to in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 (which also shows the positive, liberating historic impact of such a view):

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

(Readers may wish to see this discussion in context as well.)

By way of contrast, on the evolutionary materialist perspective, we may for instance see Dawkins, in  as reproduced in “God’s Utility Function” in Sci Am in 1995:

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . 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 and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]

. . . or (adding overnight), Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in the 1991 form of the essay, “The Evolution of Ethics”

The time has come to take seriously the fact [[–> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will  … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external groundingEthics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. [= evolutionary materialist philosophical premise, duly dressed up in a lab coat . . . ] Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.

. . . and Provine in his Darwin Day address at U. Tenn 1998:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

With Sir Francis Crick backing up in an inadvertent self-refutation:

. . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” [–> But Sir Francis, what does this imply about your own responsible freedom and ability to choose to think reasonably?] This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. [Cf. dramatisation of unintended potential consequences, here.]

So, it seems that if we are inclined to accept evolutionary materialist scientism and to reject God, we do end up in a want of foundation for morality. Which carries the onward implication of a general delusion and breakdown of the credibility of rational mindedness and responsible freedom.

Thus, reductio ad absurdum.

At least, that is how it looks from where I sit and type. Thoughts? (And if the thoughts are evolutionary materialistic, how do you ground credibility of mind and morals on such? For surely, blindly mechanical computation is not contemplation.) END

PS: I think it worth adding (Jan 29) a Koukl lecture:

[vimeo 9026899]

 

Comments
Silver Asiatic: It depends on what you mean by the terms ‘morality’ and ‘objective’. The usual sense. objective, of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers moral, concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior Silver Asiatic: Depends on what you mean by ‘argument’. argument, a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion Typically, one tried to find common ground from which to build the argument. Silver Asiatic: That’s an exception to the objective norm. Apparently, so is human sacrifice, or conquest. Silver Asiatic: If you’re saying that truth is morally equivalent to falsehood then I couldn’t assess the value of what you’re saying. Well, we are very partial to the truth, but that doesn't make our predilections objective reality. The range of human views on moral conduct shows that morality is not independent of the human observer, but a consequence of human nature and cultural milieu.Zachriel
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Zac
That codes are written down doesn’t mean morality is objective.
It depends on what you mean by the terms 'morality' and 'objective'.
Silver Asiatic: They’re moral laws or values – seen to be part of human nature and also given by God. They’re fixed in that sense. Repeating your position is not an argument.
Depends on what you mean by 'argument'. Repeating a point in different terms is often a successful means of educating or arguing.
Silver Asiatic: Truth-telling is a good example of an objective moral value (not an entire code itself, but one value in a code). It’s still an in-group out-group dynamic. It’s usually acceptable to deceive one’s enemy.
That's an exception to the objective norm. Interpretations of objective morals can vary. Again, you can't analyze the morality of anything without accepting the objective moral norm of truth-telling. If you're saying that truth is morally equivalent to falsehood then I couldn't assess the value of what you're saying.
Silver Asiatic: So, that is the scriptural paradigm standard for neighbourliness, directly taught by the principal teacher of the Judaeo Christian ethical tradition. Altruism predates Jesus, and is one of a range of such behaviors in humans.
You're responding to someone else here - not me.Silver Asiatic
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Brent: You are literally saying that what everyone does is morally acceptable, period. No, but that doesn't make morality objective. Brent: You are saying that simply by virtue of someone doing something, they must have thought it right, and for them, therefore, it was right. No. People often do things they regret or feel guilty about. Brent: By this standard of yours you would have to empty the prisons of the world of all but those who say boldly, “Yeah, I knew what I was doing was wrong.” No, because society imposes standards. Turns out that most people share certain values, especially within a given culture. That results in a widespread basis for codes of conduct, both legal and social. Brent: YOU might not like it (what they’ve done), but cosmically speaking, you have to judge them by their own standard of morality, which, according to you, they automatically do simply by not being dumb enough to admit they knew what they did was wrong. Someone said, "Judge not lest you be judged." Earlier in the thread this person was said to be the fount of objective morality.Zachriel
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
SM: It is designed in. Organisation, in general is about putting multiple parts together in insightful ways to achieve a resulting function. I suggest that vast integrated interacting ecosystems up to planetary level may also reflect designs; though that is a general expectation not an inductive explanation. We already have strong indicators of fine tuning written into physics and cosmology, and in the organisation of life forms from the cell on up, not to mention indicators or at least hints of terraforming of our planet -- esp the atmosphere -- for complex multicellular life. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Joe @ 221, Fascinating. How does ID explain the permeation of cooperation in biology? Thanks.sergmendes
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Of related interest to the OP, Kant's empirical requirement for the moral argument for God to be verified, (influences arising from outside space-time), has now been met in quantum mechanics: God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - Antoine Suarez - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk Antoine Suarez is the founding director of the Center for Quantum Philosophy in Zurich, based on philosophical questions raised in the 1970's and 1980's by John Bell. Suarez and Valerio Scarani, inspired by discussions with Bell, proposed in 1997 the "before-before" experiment (which confirmed quantum non-locality from another angle).,,, http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/suarez/bornagain77
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
In biology, we talk about an “advantageous” mutation if it is associated with a positive selection coefficient, not if it makes its carrier friendlier and cuddlier.
Yes, and in that context "advantageous" could mean just about anything, even something that is detrimental.Joe
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Yes, helping one another is a human trait.
Actually cooperation permeates biology. ID explains it rather easily. Unguided evolution not so much.Joe
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Brent: You most definitely do have a value judgment when you say stable and advantageous. Nope. Stable means "lasting without much dramatic change", not "good". "Advantageous" means "leading to survival and growth rather than decline and collapse". I can easily imagine a set of cultural values which are "morally bad" from my subjective point of view (and possibly yours as well), but which are part of an ideology making a culture survive and spread. For example, slavery may be economically advantageous. Or you can have a religion giving its believers a powerful heroic ethos and making them great warriors, but demanding human sacrifice once or twice a year to appease the gods. In biology, we talk about an "advantageous" mutation if it is associated with a positive selection coefficient, not if it makes its carrier friendlier and cuddlier. The adjective carries no value judgment if it's used in such a technical sense.Piotr
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Zach, you are just begging the question, and in the worst way. You are literally saying that what everyone does is morally acceptable, period. You are saying that simply by virtue of someone doing something, they must have thought it right, and for them, therefore, it was right. By this standard of yours you would have to empty the prisons of the world of all but those who say boldly, "Yeah, I knew what I was doing was wrong." But anyone who gave any excuse for their action, in your tacit admission, has justified their actions. YOU might not like it (what they've done), but cosmically speaking, you have to judge them by their own standard of morality, which, according to you, they automatically do simply by not being dumb enough to admit they knew what they did was wrong. Most people would call that wicked.Brent
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Not so fast there Piotr, not so fast. You most definitely do have a value judgment when you say stable and advantageous. Why you don't think so is a mystery to me. After all, what you call a stable society is an unstable one if you can find anyone whose morality says that societies are better off collapsing and the citizens dying. Or advantageous, you have to have a definite idea of what is better, the slight progress toward which you can call an advantage. But you just think this subjectively (along with everyone else on the planet). Right! So. We are to believe that: Morality isn't objective because it has changed (but it hasn't). Morality isn't objective because it is unchanged, thereby proving it is a social convention (but it isn't). Morality isn't objective because we can't agree on what is moral (but we do). Do any of those three facts (that are not facts) strike anyone else as dogmatic question begging?Brent
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Brent: Sacrifice to their god was their ‘justification’. That's right. Brent: They knew it was evil and still did it. They knew it was a sacrifice, giving something they valued. They thought it was the right thing to do.Zachriel
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Zach, You're not dealing honestly here. Sacrifice to their god was their 'justification'. They knew it was evil and still did it. They rationalized a 'justification' to satisfy their own lusts. Morality didn't change, and never has. I didn't say that I was presently trying to prove objectivity, just make you admit that your "fact" that morality has changed is clearly not a fact at all. If you say that morality has changed and therefore it is not objective (even though with these cases provided it wouldn't follow even if you were correct --- people do, you know, get their sums wrong sometimes), I just am showing you that you cannot back up your claim, and that one reason you had held to discount the objectivity of moral values is worthy of nothing but a trash bin.Brent
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Timmy: What it means is that “selflessness” is reducible to evolutionary instinct, and since the rest of us are talking about a selflessness that is not reducible to evolutionary instinct, we are the ones who get to keep the term. No, it just results in confusion when what everyone recognizes as a selfless act is referred to as selfish. When a mother sacrifices herself for her children, she's doesn't consider it as evolutionarily advantageous. Timmy: Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. You’ve continually ignored the fact that this blows the “group status” dynamic out of the water. Haven't ignored it at all. People sincerely disagree in their evaluation of that sentiment. It's not a universally held value. Timmy: And the reason Jesus managed to get so many people to behave altruistically is that he revealed and appealed to the objective morality that they already knew about. Yes, helping one another is a human trait. So is jealousy, hate, love, pride, embarrassment, belonging, and a whole panoply of socially-driven emotions.Zachriel
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Z: Yes. I shortened it to avoid typing so many words. Group status, obviously, refers to whether you are "in" the group or "out" of the group. "That doesn’t mean the person isn’t acting selflessly. [...] That this love is a evolutionary advantage isn’t her motivation." What it means is that "selflessness" is reducible to evolutionary instinct, and since the rest of us are talking about a selflessness that is not reducible to evolutionary instinct, we are the ones who get to keep the term. Just like how it's asinine when atheists talk about "the mind" or "consciousness", both of which are (in atheist terms) reducible to mathematics. But atheists are very dishonest about these things. "Is that what you mean?" Obviously not, so why waste your time asking? Also, did you figure out yet that mathematics is just "shared"? "It’s still an in-group out-group dynamic. It’s usually acceptable to deceive one’s enemy." Love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you. You've continually ignored the fact that this blows the "group status" dynamic out of the water. "Altruism predates Jesus, and is one of a range of such behaviors in humans. " And the reason Jesus managed to get so many people to behave altruistically is that he revealed and appealed to the objective morality that they already knew about.Timmy
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Brent, What I note again, however, is that you throw around the idea of what is GOOD for society. How do you make a judgment about what is GOOD for society? What does it mean for society to FLOURISH? What does it mean to have a STABLE society? First, I didn't use the adjective "good" (or "bad", for that matter). I did say "advantageous" and "stable", which don't have moral implications. I have my own idea of what is "good", but it's my subjective opinion (it does reflect to a large extent the norm and values of the culture I'm part of, albeit strongly personalised). I didn't say, either, that it was "objectively good" for a society to survive and flourish. It's a fact of life that different cultures and the norms they produce are in competition; and that some cultures manage to survive a long time flourish while others collapse of become assimilated. Their success depends at least partly on things like effective cooperation and collective problem solving. We are social animals and most of us wouldn't be able to survive on our own, so acculturation is a necessity to everybody. I have to do other things now, so I can't reply at length. I'll be back later on.Piotr
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Brent: You tacitly said, no, you couldn’t provide me with that information. We said it wasn't relevant because we already provided one plausible falsification that morality doesn't change; human sacrifice. We also noted that lack of falsification doesn't support the contrary claim.Zachriel
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Zach, I had asked you:
Zach, Would you tell me of any society that has upheld selfishness as a virtue? Will you find the society that thought it good to be a coward? Could you show me the society which said killing for no good reason was fine? Please introduce me to the society that thought stealing from their neighbor was praiseworthy. I’d like to be informed of the society who encouraged their young children to grow into robust liars. Please show us the society that thought it good to cheat in sport or business. TIA
You tacitly said, no, you couldn't provide me with that information.
There are many commonalities in human culture. That doesn’t make morality objective, just shared.
You therefore take back your assertion that morality has changed, or is inconsistent among societies, correct?Brent
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: My argument is to distinguish first between subjective and objective morality. Objective moral codes are given as universal and for the moral improvement of the person. That codes are written down doesn't mean morality is objective. Silver Asiatic: They’re moral laws or values – seen to be part of human nature and also given by God. They’re fixed in that sense. Repeating your position is not an argument. Silver Asiatic: Truth-telling is a good example of an objective moral value (not an entire code itself, but one value in a code). It's still an in-group out-group dynamic. It's usually acceptable to deceive one's enemy. Silver Asiatic: So, that is the scriptural paradigm standard for neighbourliness, directly taught by the principal teacher of the Judaeo Christian ethical tradition. Altruism predates Jesus, and is one of a range of such behaviors in humans. Brent: First, you say morality has changed in order to show it isn’t objective. Changing morality contradicts the notion that morality is objective. Brent: When shown it hasn’t, you say, well, of course it hasn’t, but what does that prove? It doesn't have to change in every instance to show that it has changed in some instances. Furthermore, lack of falsification is not evidence of the contrary claim. Brent: Whoever these groups are, they are acting under the belief (rationalized belief) that they have a good reason to do that which they know they need a good reason to do. Humans have moral sensibilities, so they justify their actions. Having moral sensibilities is not the same as saying morality is objective. For instance, mothers nurture their young because they have a fondness for their young. That doesn't mean fondness has an objective basis. It's how mammalian mothers feel. Similarly, humans form relationships with other humans, and those relationships are tempered by how they are viewed by others. Hence, they will help others to attain their approval, and avoid actions that would bring on condemnation by the group. Brent: There is within everyone a sense that something is not right about unjustified killing. Unless you stretch justification to include conquest, slaughtering the men and children, and enslaving the women, then you are simply wrong.Zachriel
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Piotr,
I had said:
So . . . you don’t believe these “social conventions” are moral issues? You deny morality altogether? Is there a contradiction in saying that morality will lead to cooperation and stable societies?
You said: Where did I say I denied morality? Morality is individual, social norms are collective.
In saying:
You list a number of antisocial behaviours and ask if societies tolerate them. Game theory will tell you that such behaviour, if practiced by a sufficiently large proportion of individuals, will make cooperation impossible. Society will disintegrate. It follows that stable societies have to restrict such behaviour if they are to survive.
Of course, you did change what I said. I didn't say "tolerate", but asked whether they actually thought them good. There is a big difference. Anyway . . . when you immediately jump to pointing to cooperation of the society for the societies' good, you disregard moral intuitions entirely as a cause and what informs individuals to cooperate, and probably more importantly, how to cooperate (and you just did it again). You have it that the society makes individuals, while it is much truer to say it the other way round, for without individuals you have no society. You can start with individuals and build a society, but you cannot build individuals in a society that doesn't already have them. You throw morality under the bus, as if this isn't the thing which informs individuals how to build a society. A society can't be built on trust if trust wasn't at the root, from the beginning, for as you seem to indicate you know, society would never get off the ground that way. But if the society can't get off the ground without trust in the first place, how is it that the society was able to "hand down" this trust to its individuals? It's truer to say that the individuals handed trust up to the society. You've got the whole thing upside down and inside out at once. What my main point was previously is that you cannot just say that morality wasn't the thing that helped societies form. In the way you did it comes across as if you think there is a contradiction in the concept I laid out just now, that it is much more likely --- nay, only logical --- that morality is at the root of society and a necessary ingredient without which no society could be formed.
There is usually a close match between the two because we undergo socialisation and acculturation as children, internalising the cultural norms shared by those around us. Social stability and individual morality co-evolve. The former is older in a purely historical sense (there are highly social animals to whom I wouldn’t attribute much “morality”), but in humans they simply develop together in the process of cultural evolution.
Here you seem to be caught in the trap of thinking that, if morality was a real objective thing, that we couldn't learn it or be taught it by the societies we live in. Clearly that isn't the case, just as we teach math which is an objective reality.
If I say that game theory predicts which behavioural patterns (transmittable across generations) are stable and advantageous for social groups, that doesn’t mean that people who follow them do so out of selfish motives. Zachriel discussed that in #194. I would say that what matters socially how you behave towards fellow human beings, not what your internal motivation is. That’s why the separation of state from church is such a good idea.
I'm not particularly griping about the selfish motives aspect. What I note again, however, is that you throw around the idea of what is GOOD for society. How do you make a judgment about what is GOOD for society? What does it mean for society to FLOURISH? What does it mean to have a STABLE society? TIA again.Brent
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
F/N: I should point out that I distinguish an informal or formal moral code from the question as to whether the terms of the code at any given place and time are objectively justified. Quite often, we err morally as we err scientifically, mathematically, perceptually, etc. But the very fact that we are concerned to detect and correct errors, points to the underlying operations of all sorts of OUGHTS. Oughts on responsible freedom, commitment to truth and soundness in thought, and more. We constantly, unconsciously reflect how we are governed by OUGHT, as shone in our hearts and minds by conscience, involving felt responses to all sorts of judgements or evaluations. And, thus it is vital for us to hold views that do not entail general delusion, as that is an ultimate form of reductio that frustrates the very credibility of reasoned thought we seek. But of course the pivotal point is that the acceptance of the general testimony of conscience points to our being under the government of OUGHT, that obligation of moral character is real. Thence the issue of the world foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. For which after centuries of debate, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being, the root of reality. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
Piotr, social norms are dominant moral codes in a community backed up by folkways level sanctions and sometimes institutional ones. Further to all this, the Categorical Imperative pivots on identifying whether a behaviour parasites off that people don't normally live like that and/or if something were to become dominant, it would undermine the community. And, it is in fact a test of objectivity, on grounds that the right supports the civil peace of justice and human flourishing; which of course are morally desirable ends which normally functional people acknowledge we ought to pursue, in turn reflecting the inherent value of the neighbour who is as we are. For instance if manipulative deceit were to become the norm in communication, trust and community would utterly break down. Such a test is not the be all and end all, but it is helpful. linked, the call to reform -- note the word shift to "evolution" -- is a call in light of first moral principles; with the linked point that cultures can decline to the point of moral bankruptcy in which good is treated as if it were bad and bad is prized and protected as if it were good. Boiled down, by changing terms and speaking of game theory, you have not removed the issue of objective moral truth and its binding nature. KF PS: Would you consent to separation of church and ideological, lab coat clad a priori evolutionary materialist scientism? Or, are you simply seeking to sustain dominance of this substantial equivalent to an established church in our time? Never mind its inherent self referential incoherence that undermines credibility of mind and conscience and implication that might and manipulation make 'right.' The scare quotes highlighting that it implies outright that such is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.kairosfocus
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Brent, So . . . you don’t believe these “social conventions” are moral issues? You deny morality altogether? Is there a contradiction in saying that morality will lead to cooperation and stable societies? Where did I say I denied morality? Morality is individual, social norms are collective. There is usually a close match between the two because we undergo socialisation and acculturation as children, internalising the cultural norms shared by those around us. Social stability and individual morality co-evolve. The former is older in a purely historical sense (there are highly social animals to whom I wouldn't attribute much "morality"), but in humans they simply develop together in the process of cultural evolution. If I say that game theory predicts which behavioural patterns (transmittable across generations) are stable and advantageous for social groups, that doesn't mean that people who follow them do so out of selfish motives. Zachriel discussed that in #194. I would say that what matters socially how you behave towards fellow human beings, not what your internal motivation is. That's why the separation of state from church is such a good idea.Piotr
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
Piotr: Notice, to abuse, a group first denigrates and dehumanises its targets to create a perceived excuse. That directly implies that they implicitly recognise that one's neighbours are valuable moral equals to be treated with respect etc. That is, we see here exactly the shadow of the very moral law being dismissed. And, Jesus' parable on the neighbourly heretic racially distinct enemy speaks to exactly that tactic. KFkairosfocus
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
Brent, an important perspective on neighbourliness, which highlights the power of Jesus' parable on the decent enemy. (This brings to mind a vid of a delegation of the elderly survivors of the 28th Maori battalion attending a memorial service for General Rommel.) KF PS: And yes, sometimes apt stories make a point more effectively than elaborate arguments. But, they must be apt.kairosfocus
January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Noses on our faces. Funny how we can't see them, being so close to our eyes. We kind of see them, but can't really make out what they are. We feel them, and they feel strange; certainly unlike the rest of our body. Yet, for all that, we forget mostly they are there. Until we see them on others faces we have no idea what they even really look like. If I don't like having a nose, it would be pretty hard to deny having one. I have this faintish shadow of it always. I feel it there. It causes me, sometimes, to go into violent convulsions (no doubt one reason why I don't like having it). It causes me to mind it even though I really would rather not. It can be messy, and cause for discomfort. I would like to just deny my nose altogether, but people would laugh and jeer, so that isn't a desirable option. My plan in ridding myself of my nostrils, then, is to deny its importance. I may still have one, but I need not admit to its being "all that". I have one, but it's relatively benign, and I could have got along just fine without it. What of the others? They seem, mostly, to admire theirs. They smell the roses and swear that life tastes better when their noses are healthy. But, different cultures go for different tastes, and not all like to smell roses. Some even like the smell of barn animals for crying out loud! Me? I know better than to take this as evidence that noses are anything really important. Certainly all noses would agree that either roses were the correct smell to be enjoyed, or cheese the best taste for all palettes, if noses were important really. Sure, I have a nose, but since people differ in how to best make use of theirs, it isn't, quite obviously, an important part of my face, even if I wouldn't look human without it.Brent
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Piotr,
You list a number of antisocial behaviours and ask if societies tolerate them. Game theory will tell you that such behaviour, if practiced by a sufficiently large proportion of individuals, will make cooperation impossible. Society will disintegrate. It follows that stable societies have to restrict such behaviour if they are to survive.
So . . . you don't believe these "social conventions" are moral issues? You deny morality altogether? Is there a contradiction in saying that morality will lead to cooperation and stable societies? If there is not (and there isn't), flourishing societies don't speak to my point at all. To YOUR point, however, they do, for when I ask you what is meant, of course, by flourishing, or stable, you also need an objective starting point to make a determination of what a flourishing or stable society would be.
Note, however, that if “neighbours” belong to an out-group, many communities don’t mind killing them, taking away their property, cheating them in business, etc. They might even regard such behaviour as patriotic and praiseworthy.
You are only reiterating my point. Whoever these groups are, they are acting under the belief (rationalized belief) that they have a good reason to do that which they know they need a good reason to do. They don't do it within their group because they know it is wrong. I.E., they know the moral law, but disagree on how far it extends.
Or, say, “is it OK to kill animals for sport”? Many people in our own civilisation think it’s perfectly fine. The great Christian philosopher and moralist William Lane Craig, Doctor Invincibilis, has recently argued that animals (other than the great apes and humans) don’t “really” suffer ’cause they lack WLC’s sophisticated neural pathways allowing him to experience a higher-order awareness of having subjective mental states. Therefore, they are not aware of being in pain. If they show its symptoms — kicking about and screaming when you torture them — it’s only a physiological reaction without any moral significance. What can I say? I’m glad there’s no chance WLC could ever get near my family pets.
Thanks again for proving my point. There is within everyone a sense that something is not right about unjustified killing. It's universal, end of story. I and others have said this time and time again in this thread, and time and time again that the disagreement with societies among each other, and even individuals within those societies, about how far and to whom (or what) this moral intuition extends, is the only disagreement.Brent
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Zackriel,
There are many commonalities in human culture. That doesn’t make morality objective, just shared.
Precious! First, you say morality has changed in order to show it isn't objective. When shown it hasn't, you say, well, of course it hasn't, but what does that prove? You are hard to keep up with, I give you that.Brent
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
SA #196, Excellent point!Box
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Piotr, With all due respect, you tried to do exactly what that lawyer did 2,000 years ago by asking or implying much the same question. Let the answer stand as it did in Palestine so long ago. G'night. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply