Materialist Derangement Syndrome on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 18, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have already coined the term “Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.” See here. Closely related to DDS is MDS (“Materialist Derangement Syndrome”), which pathology Mark Frank aptly demonstrates in this exchange:

Barry: Here is a self-evident moral truth: “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”

Mark Frank:

Usually you define self-evident as leading to absurdity. What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

(We must have held this debate over 100 times on UD by now – but I never saw an answer to this).

Mark keeps asking over and over for someone to demonstrate to him why a self-evident truth is true, when he has been told over and over again that self-evident truths cannot be demonstrated – self-evident principles are not conclusions that one reasons to; they are premises upon which all reasoning is based.

Mark, maybe you will finally get it if you ponder these questions. What kind of absurdity would result from denying that:

2+2=4

That a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

That you are conscious

That a finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts

BTW, you also suggest that William Lane Craig would deny that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. This statement is outrageously false. Do you have no shame sir?

Alan Fox comes in a close second with this gem of MDS:

Comment 57 posted at 3:14: “Moral absolutes, there ain’t!”

Comment 58 posted at 3:20: “all [people] deserved the universal right to life.”

Psychologists talk about the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting beliefs. People cope with cognitive dissonance by engaging in dissonance reduction. Alan appears to be able to deny a concept and then affirm it six minutes later. His dissonance reduction coping strategies must be a marvel to behold. Alternatively, Alan may well be a closet ID proponent shilling as a materialist. That would make sense.

Comments

StephenB #78 Gun Ownership – I don’t want to get into this particular debate – we have too many going on already. I think you are being incredibly over simple but I haven’t the time to prove it along with everything else. #79
The reason that you have no definition of “morally good” is because you believe that no such thing as moral goodness exists.
I do have a definition – subjectivity does not exclude a definition – we have definitions for subjective concepts like “funny”, “ irritating” or “attractive”. I even wrote a small piece on it. #81 Let’s leave the dispute about subjective morals to #79. This is about whether “the number of cultural indicators for moral outrages, as measured objectively, was much LOWER” 100 years ago. I note that you have still failed to provide a single reference or statistic to support your case. Murder:
If there are fewer opportunities for murder, then that context must be taken into account.
So what - the lack of opportunity for murder is one of things causing society to be less depraved.
Also, I examined the graphs from disinterested sources and the murder rate is about the same as it was one hundred years ago
But you said the indicators were much lower 100 years ago. Much the same is not much lower. Teenage Pregnancy
This is a good example of ignoring contextual elements. The birth control pill came out a short time after the “peak.”
So what – the the birth control pill is one of things causing society to be less depraved. (Actually it wasn’t approved until 1960 so you still have a good ten years of decline to account for) Disintegration of the family
I really don’t know what to say to someone who doesn’t know about the disintegration of the family or who thinks that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I guess that’s your problem. But I don’t dispute the families split up physically much more often now. Education – this is utterly bizarre. Do you seriously think that education standards were higher in 1913 then they are now? I suggest reading the reference I gave you. Here are few extracts: * In 1900 only 50% of children even enrolled in school. By 1945 it had still only risen to 75%. * In 1940, more than half of the U.S. population had completed no more than an eighth grade education. * Adult illiteracy: This is complicated by the many different definitions of literacy. One some definitions then the USA would be nearly 50% illiterate! But if we mean can read a simple sentence then the USA currently has less than 1% literacy (see CIA world fact book). For comparison in 1910 it is 10.7%. It drops steadily with a blip in 1950 to 0.6% in 1979. There the table stops but I guess once you are that low figures are hard to discriminate. cultural depravity or deterioration of art Looks like you have no data so you content yourself with a personal comment. black disenfranchishment, premature death, religious intolerance, and animal abuse
The difference is that I recognize black disenfranchishment, premature death, religious intolerance, and animal abuse as objective evils. For you, they are simply things that displease you.
Don’t change the subject. Do you recognise them as objective indicators of the quality of US culture that have improved enormously since 1913? (Please don’t make me look up the figures – I think we both recognise that they have all improved)Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Do Guns Make a Nation Safer?
We then sought to evaluate whether possessing guns would make a nation safer, as has been a widespread contention. We used the crime rate per 100,000 population as an indicator of safety of the nation. There was no significant correlation (r¼0.33) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (P¼.10), arguing against the notion of more guns translating into less crime (Figure, B)
From a study of Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths in 27 countries, published in The American Journal of Medicine Vol 126, No 10, October 2013. Link: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934313004440.pdfDaniel King_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Hi, StephenB
In any given culture, the murder rate goes up when gun ownership goes down and vice versa. It is even true from city to city. When firearms become increasingly plentiful, crime goes down–every time, no exceptions.
Those are startling claims. What is the evidence to support them?Daniel King_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Mark
* We will disagree about what are moral outrages – aspects of sexual immorality, family disintegration in particular.
Actually, you have no grounds for characterizing any outrage an an outrage. Your only two categories are [a] things you like and [b] things you don't like.
Murder and violent crime are lower than 100 years ago, peaked in the early 90s and now dropping. You have conjectured about the cause (more guns) but remember we are not discussing the cause – just the indicators.
If there are fewer opportunities for murder, then that context must be taken into account. Also, I examined the graphs from disinterested sources and the murder rate is about the same as it was one hundred years ago (even though the opportunities for murder are far lower today given the widespread ownership of weapons for self defense).
Sexual immorality – I suspect our opinions as to what is decline are poles apart – the one objective indicator I produced – the teenage pregnancy – no data prior to 1950 but peaked then and has been dropping ever since.
This is a good example of ignoring contextual elements. The birth control pill came out a short time after the "peak."
Family disintegration – we probably disagree as to what is decline – divorce rates have certainly increased but I see that as purely a formalisation of families that have effectively disintegrated. I have no data on effective disintegration.
I really don't know what to say to someone who doesn't know about the disintegration of the family or who thinks that it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Obviously [educational] standards much higher than they were 100 years ago.
Obviously they are much lower. Was that a typo or did you really mean what you wrote?
Over 10% of the population was illiterate and nearly 50% of blacks were illiterate.
Illiteracy has been increasing steadily for the last one hundred years.
I personally agree child education standards have dropped in the USA in the last 30 years, but I suspect adult education opportunities has more than compensated for the recent decline in children’s education standards but I can’t be bothered to dig up the figures.
It seems that context has suddenly become important to you. What happened to your claim that context should be prescinded from indicators? In any case, if adult education could compensate for substandard child education, then the illiteracy rates would not continue to rise. For one who insists on objective data, you are quite willing to offer your own "suspicions" as arguments. How is it that I must accept the burden of providing evidence for my claims while you feel free to exempt yourself from that same standard?
I don’t know how you objectively measure cultural depravity or deterioration of art and you have provided no figures.
Again, I don't think you would recognize cultural depravity or artistic perversity because you don't think any such things exists. For you, there is nothing exceptional or depraved about the Vagina Monologues and the photographs of Christ dipped in urine.
* Equality of effective franchise – most blacks did not have an effective opportunity to vote * Childhood mortality * Religious tolerance * Treatment of animals and so on
The difference is that I recognize black disenfranchishment, premature death, religious intolerance, and animal abuse as objective evils. For you, they are simply things that displease you.
All in all it is almost impossible to evaluate the cultures of the two periods. It is too subjective and too complicated. But maybe if you actually produce some data you can change my mind.
The problem is that you don't think any such thing as an objectively good or bad culture exists or could exist. That is why you shrug off the problem of disintegrating families. No amount of data could change that.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Barna Group and Gallup Poll survey results reveal what SB is alluding to in terms of decline. Now, moral relativists may not agree with the polling results as moral behavior indicators listed in those studies may be a morally acceptable in their worldview. Without Bible as the basis it will be difficult for MF to agree with Barna Group and Gallup Poll survey results and conclusions.Chalciss_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Well you can define “morally good” as “according to its nature” but that’s not my definition.... and we are talking about different things. I see no reason to do what you define as “morally good”.
The reason that you have no definition of "morally good" is because you believe that no such thing as moral goodness exists.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

#73 So it was the increase in gun ownership that lowered the murder rate! I thought we were looking at objective measures of the decline of society. This is shear conjecture. The murder rate is much lower in countries with far lower levels of gun ownership.
Yes, it was the increase in gun ownership. You cannot legitimately compare one country with another due to a number of factors that are too complicated to summarize in one paragraph. In any given culture, the murder rate goes up when gun ownership goes down and vice versa. It is even true from city to city. When firearms become increasingly plentiful, crime goes down--every time, no exceptions.StephenB_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB #72
However, the overall picture still indicates cultural decline, as you seem to have discovered. Did you follow up on the problem of education, which also supports my thesis?
let’s step back from this for a moment. The question is – has there been a cultural decline in the last 100 years. You don’t say what culture so I will limit it to the USA. Let’s not confuse the issue by asking why there has been a decline or not – the question is difficult enough as it is. You say that:
the number of cultural indicators for moral outrages, as measured objectively, was much LOWER. Today, those indicators are up (murder, sexual immorality, theft, family disintegration, cultural depravity, deterioration of art, deterioration of education [by about six grade levels] etc). (My emphasis)
A few points: * We will disagree about what are moral outrages – aspects of sexual immorality, family disintegration in particular. * We may not have figures for hundred years ago but can make a good estimate if we have figures for say 60 years ago and can see the trend * You have not produced a single reference or statistic to back up your objective claims Working through your list: Murder and violent crime are lower than 100 years ago, peaked in the early 90s and now dropping. You have conjectured about the cause (more guns) but remember we are not discussing the cause – just the indicators. Sexual immorality – I suspect our opinions as to what is decline are poles apart – the one objective indicator I produced - the teenage pregnancy – no data prior to 1950 but peaked then and has been dropping ever since. Theft – no data. Family disintegration – we probably disagree as to what is decline – divorce rates have certainly increased but I see that as purely a formalisation of families that have effectively disintegrated. I have no data on effective disintegration. Education. Obviously standards much higher than they were 100 years ago. Very few children even finished high school. Over 10% of the population was illiterate and nearly 50% of blacks were illiterate. I personally agree child education standards have dropped in the USA in the last 30 years, but I suspect adult education opportunities has more than compensated for the recent decline in children’s education standards but I can’t be bothered to dig up the figures. I don’t know how you objectively measure cultural depravity or deterioration of art and you have provided no figures. But you have been fairly selective in your list. How about: * Equality of effective franchise – most blacks did not have an effective opportunity to vote * Childhood mortality * Religious tolerance * Treatment of animals and so on All in all it is almost impossible to evaluate the cultures of the two periods. It is too subjective and too complicated. But maybe if you actually produce some data you can change my mind.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB #74 Well you can define "morally good" as "according to its nature" but that's not my definition and we are talking about different things. I see no reason to do what you define as "morally good". I am not sure what the nature of a being is but presumably it is part of the nature of the malaria plasmodium to cause immense suffering and death - particularly among children. Is that morally good?Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB #73 So it was the increase in gun ownership that lowered the murder rate! I thought we were looking at objective measures of the decline of society. This is shear conjecture. The murder rate is much lower in countries with far lower levels of gun ownership.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2013
November
11
Nov
23
23
2013
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank
I am not sure what our “nature” is but let that be for the time being. How do you respond to the person who says “I admit we have a nature but there is no moral requirement to do things that are appropriate to our nature. What matters morally is …..” (and then he goes on to list his favourite moral principles). Do you just say he is self-evidently wrong?
I would say that he is logically wrong. A thing's (or a person's) nature determines what is good or bad for it (him or her) and, therefore, what "matters." It violates the nature of a car to put water in the gas tank or molasses in the crankcase. It violates the nature of a person to put poison in his mind.StephenB_{November 22, 2013
November
11
Nov
22
22
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank, I now understand that this alleged exception to my thesis was not really an exception. In the early part of the 20th Century, few people owned guns because few people presented a threat. When the culture began to decline, it became evident that the average citizen was going to have to protect himself from the barbarians, so more and more people purchased firearms for personal and home protection. That is a fact that is easily verified by the sales. Even at that the murder rate did not go down and would have been much higher if the number of people capable of protecting themselves had not increased. So my thesis is in tact. All the cultural indicator present pattern of deterioration--all of them. As the Natural Moral Law is abandoned, society goes into decline.StephenB_{November 22, 2013
November
11
Nov
22
22
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
Homicide rates in the USA are currently lower than they were in 1910 (they went higher in the period from the 60s to 90s and then declined to a lower figure). Reference: I can find no figures for other types of crime.
Based on the studies I examined, the murder rate in the early 20th Century was about the same as it is now, with several ups and downs in the meantime. Either way, I agree that I cannot use that one statistic to support my thesis. However, the overall picture still indicates cultural decline, as you seem to have discovered. Did you follow up on the problem of education, which also supports my thesis?
Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary – or is it another case of self-evident?
You didn't really think that comment through. An appeal to evidence can hardly constitute an attempt to call something self evident. Stay tuned for my answer to your question (a good one) about the requirement to base morality on nature, stay tuned.StephenB_{November 22, 2013
November
11
Nov
22
22
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

#70 StephenB Homicide rates in the USA are currently lower than they were in 1910 (they went higher in the period from the 60s to 90s and then declined to a lower figure). Reference: I can find no figures for other types of crime. I can’t find any figures for US teenage pregnancy rates prior to 1950 but as I say they have declined steadily since then and that is a period of 60 years. What this has to do with Clinton I cannot imagine, the trend started way before the 1990s. It can’t be anything to do with abortion – we are talking pregnancy rates not birth rates . Progress in education is extremely difficult to measure because no one has really decided what the objective of education is. I am certainly prepared to accept that despite apparent improvements in exam results UK child education standards have declined over the last 30 years or so as measured by my personal aims for education (this is compensated for to a large extent by a huge improvement in adult education). As to objective measures – I can’t find historical data going back more than a decade or two and I am not sure what it would mean anyway. Geographically the PISA report is very well respected and shows the top countries in order to be Korea, Finland, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Estonia, Switzerland, Poland, Iceland, USA. All of the countries in front of the USA are markedly more atheistic/materialistic. So it is hard to attribute any decline in education standards to a decline in acceptance of the NML or indeed religiosity in general. Looking at your other measures – I don’t see how you objectively measure deterioration in art and “cultural depravity” – perhaps you can provide a few references. Sexual immorality rather depends on what you count as immoral – but I fully accept that a wider range of sexual behaviour is practiced and condoned. Family disintegration as measured by divorce has, I am sure, increased a lot since the 1910s as divorce was extremely difficult both legally and culturally in the early 1900s. Whether families forced to stay together because of this were better off is hard to say. All in all it is a mixed picture of social indicators and no reason for supposing any decline is due to a lack of acceptance of the NML or religion. Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary – or is it another case of self-evident?Mark Frank_{November 22, 2013
November
11
Nov
22
22
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Mark @67, My time line is the last one hundred years. It takes that long to get a dependable trend because of the amplitude effect. Things go up and down in the short run but the overall picture forms a graph that goes only one direction. That is because of what is known as "lag time." It takes a few years, sometimes a few decades to experience and measure the effect from decisions and policies undertaken in the past. From the early 1900's all the positive indicators have dropped and all the negative indicators have risen. (I would rather not discuss the reasons why teenage pregnancy went down after the Bill Clinton years).
Education standards may have been dropping in the USA and the UK but they are just fine in many other largely atheist/materialist societies such as the Nordics.
All education in the West has gone south. Believe it or not, a college education in 2000 was the equivalent of a high school education in 1950 and a grade school education in 1900. Many college graduates could not pass the eight grade education test at the turn of the century.StephenB_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

#67 StephenB
Also, things were better in the last century because the number of cultural indicators for moral outrages, as measured objectively, was much LOWER. Today, those indicators are up (murder, sexual immorality, theft, family disintegration, cultural depravity, deterioration of art, deterioration of education [by about six grade levels] etc).
Now we are talking facts. That's much easier! Are you talking about the USA, the West or the world generally? Most of your indicators can be disputed - but it depends which geography you are concerned with. For example: Crime generally, including murder and theft, has been dropping steadily in the USA since the mid-1990s and many Western countries since the early 2000s. Education standards may have been dropping in the USA and the UK but they are just fine in many other largely atheist/materialist societies such as the Nordics. The US teenage pregnancy rate was at its highest in the 1950s and has decreased steadily since then. Certainly I can see no case for saying things were MUCH lower.Mark Frank_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

#64 StephenB Thanks. That is the most productive comment I have seen in this debate. I am not sure what our "nature" is but let that be for the time being. How do you respond to the person who says "I admit we have a nature but there is no moral requirement to do things that are appropriate to our nature. What matters morally is ....." (and then he goes on to list his favourite moral principles). Do you just say he is self-evidently wrong?Mark Frank_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

Sorry, I wrote this backwards. It should read, "Also, things were better in the last century because the number of cultural indicators for moral outrages, as measured objectively, was much LOWER. Today, those indicators are up (murder, sexual immorality, theft, family disintegration, cultural depravity, deterioration of art, deterioration of education [by about six grade levels] etc).StephenB_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Pro Hoc Vice
Elsewhere you said that “our knowledge of the Natural Moral Law is quite primitive in the beginning and needs to be fine-tuned, either through religious education or moral training.” If two people can’t possibly disagree about what the NML says, then how can they have two different understandings of it? What could there be to teach in religious or moral training, if the teacher and student couldn’t possibly disagree even before the training begins?
It is one thing to know a general principle in its primitive form (Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Neighbor) and quite another thing to grasp its more subtle implications (Thou Shalt Not Wish Him Dead). It is one thing to know the letter of the law; it is another thing to know the spirit of the law.
I’m dubious of the historical proposition here. If you mean “one hundred years ago” in the general sense of “in a bygone age,” American history is replete with laws that are grotesque to us today. Slavery, child labor, forced sterilization, Jim Crow, etc. (If you mean exactly 100 years ago, it’s no better—I certainly don’t think the South was treating blacks according to any decent standard at that time.) I don’t think you can find a real historical era in which laws were actually set according to some presumed “Natural Moral Law.” Laws are made by humans, who disagree about these things. Empirically. Even if you assume that deep down they all feel the same way, amongst one another human beings dispute about what the proper rules for society should be. And that’s always been the case.
Much of what you say is true. However, the key point is that both the people and many of the rulers accepted the natural law in principle. They could be persuaded to change outrageous behavior on the grounds that it really was outrageous. No longer. Now the only outrage is to remind someone of the natural moral law. Also, things were better in the last century because the number of cultural indicators for moral outrages, as measured objectively, was much higher (murder, sexual immorality, theft, family disintegration, cultural depravity, deterioration of art, deterioration of education [by about six grade levels] etc). SB: [Could I be mistaken] About the nature of the Natural Moral Law? No.
So to use the example of the American South, generations of otherwise good Christian men grew up believing that slavery was an acceptable practice. I take your position to be that they were all wrong.
Of course.
But if you can’t be mistaken about what the NML says, then what was going on in their heads?
They knew they were doing the wrong thing, but they simply preferred to do it anyway. Some of it was peer pressure; some of it was flat out bigotry.
I disagree about why he prevailed [Martin Luther King]. I think he identified shared moral values, for example that it is unjust to mistreat a man based on the color of his skin. I don’t think he was identifying an objective principle. In support of that, I offer the following hypothetical:
I agree in a qualified way. Appealing to shared values was certainly a part of his strategy even if he was arguing against the majority position. In other words, he was, as you suggest, arguing with their nobler instincts while he was against their behavior. You are quite right when you say that persuasion cannot stand solely on the demand for justice. However, I would argue that he was, even in his attempt to unify (while also calling to account), appealing to an objective principle, namely the justice component of the Natural Moral Law (not simply his novel perception of justice).
By the 1960s, though, society had come to a point where a plurality did share enough of those values for MLK to appeal to them. In effect, I think he was telling them, “You believe that all men are equal, but you are abiding by laws that do not treat all men equally. The mismatch between your principles and your actions puts a lie to your principles, unless you take action to correct it.”
I think it is a question of depth. Everyone knows (there’s that self-evident component again) that it is unjust to persecute someone on the basis of skin color. However, not everyone is introspective about it until someone raises his consciousness. So, I don’t think there was a plurality of shared values on the surface, but I do think there was a plurality of untapped shared values. Still, these shared values were grounded in the objective truths found in the Declaration of Independence, which makes a strong claim about objectivity. (All men are Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights) Those shared values did not just emerge through social interaction. They came from the top. (The decline came from both the top and the bottom after the top dumbed down the bottom).
As a practical example, I’m a Texan. I think the recent spate of anti-choice laws recently enacted here are atrocious. But I think the process by which they were passed was fair.
As Ronald Reagan once said, “I notice that all those who favor abortion have already been born.”StephenB_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

/abortion & context To be clear: I believe in the existence of objective morality - StephenB, Barry, WJM and others make a very strong case. However also believe that we need a full understanding of an act before we can pass judgement. I for one believe in the immortality of the human soul and reincarnation. In this context abortion is a relatively small transgression. The human soul who intended to incarnate may feel disappointment, but other than that she or he is undamaged and will receive another chance elsewhere.Box_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
It appears you accept that people have other moral principles which they sincerely believe but yours (the NLM) are self-evidently correct and theirs are not (possibly they think the same about their beliefs). Is that a fair summary?
I can understand how it might seem that way since I am not granting moral equivalence to both positions. Think of this way. The Natural Moral Law defines behavior that is appropriate for our nature, hence the word “natural.” Among other things, it tells us what we should love and what we should hate. I think you would agree, for example, that we should love other humans more than we love power. If we reverse that order, we are acting contrary to our nature. Similarly, in accordance with our nature, we should hate tyranny and wanton violence, but we should love our neighbor. Again, if we reverse that order, we are acting contrary to our nature. Suppose now that a libertine, touting his subjectively derived morality and denying that humans have a nature, tells us that we are free to value sex above all else. Or, using that same rationale, suppose a bigot insists that we should love racial purity most of all. Are they wrong? If humans have no nature, then the answer is clearly no—they are not wrong. Under those circumstances, they are free to invent any morality that is congenial with their inclinations. If we do have a nature, however, then the answer is yes---they are wrong. Suppose further that the libertine and the bigot insist that their subjective morality is just as valid as ours. Again, the answer is clear. If we have a nature, they are wrong; if we do not have a nature; they are right (except for the ironic fact that they can’t be right in either case since, given their philsophy, there can be no such thing as right and wrong).StephenB_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

PHV: "I think the recent spate of anti-choice laws recently enacted here are atrocious." The babies who will not be slaughtered as a result of the passage of those laws would, when they get older, probably disagree.Barry Arrington_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

SB, Thanks for the regard re: my health--I'm fine, just fighting a nasty cold. If my responses are incoherent, I plead the cold medicine. I’m going to skip some sideline issues for the sake of streamlining the conversation; if I skip anything you’d prefer that I address, just let me know.
It isn’t a question of what you mean. It is a question of what words mean and whether or not you are going to misuse the language. It “is” bad means objectively bad. It “seems” bad means subjectively bad. If you mean something different from what the words themselves mean, then you are being neither consistent nor rational.
Once again, I’m trying to articulate what my beliefs are. I don’t believe “bad” is an objective statement, any more than “tasty” is. “It is tasty” is a subjective statement. So is “it is bad,” if you start from the assumption that “bad” is a subjective quality. I’m not asking you to agree with that assumption. I really don’t understand why you keep insisting that it’s not consistent with my own beliefs to use it as I am.
So what happens when your neighbor has a different idea about what the Natural Moral Law is?
That isn’t possible. It is possible that my neighbor may think it should be applied differently, but my neighbor will understand as clearly as I do that he should not cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery.
Elsewhere you said that “our knowledge of the Natural Moral Law is quite primitive in the beginning and needs to be fine-tuned, either through religious education or moral training.” If two people can’t possibly disagree about what the NML says, then how can they have two different understandings of it? What could there be to teach in religious or moral training, if the teacher and student couldn’t possibly disagree even before the training begins?
There is no dispute about the principles of the Natural Moral Law. The only dispute is on the hard cases that require thoughtful reflection on its implications and applications. The way to settle it is to apply reason and the Natural Moral Law, which is, itself, based on reason.
This might be your answer to the above question, but it’s not clear to me.
Those laws are enacted exactly as if we live in a subjective world—by people debating and using political processes to determine the best consensual rules. Allan and Bob, just like you and me, live in a subjectivist world.
It depends on which decade you are talking about. One hundred years ago, civil laws were based primarily (thought with some exceptions) on the unchanging Natural Moral Law. Today, they are based primarily (though with some exceptions) on the changing standards of popular opinion. When popular opinion rules, the standards of justice keep changing.
I’m dubious of the historical proposition here. If you mean “one hundred years ago” in the general sense of “in a bygone age,” American history is replete with laws that are grotesque to us today. Slavery, child labor, forced sterilization, Jim Crow, etc. (If you mean exactly 100 years ago, it’s no better—I certainly don’t think the South was treating blacks according to any decent standard at that time.) I don’t think you can find a real historical era in which laws were actually set according to some presumed “Natural Moral Law.” Laws are made by humans, who disagree about these things. Empirically. Even if you assume that deep down they all feel the same way, amongst one another human beings dispute about what the proper rules for society should be. And that’s always been the case.
The Natural Moral Law doesn’t change because human nature doesn’t change. Subjective law is always changing because it is based on feeling, so it is easy to compare the former with the latter.
This assumes that you know what the truth is. Could you be mistaken?
About the nature of the Natural Moral Law? No.
So to use the example of the American South, generations of otherwise good Christian men grew up believing that slavery was an acceptable practice. I take your position to be that they were all wrong. But if you can’t be mistaken about what the NML says, then what was going on in their heads?
What if it’s what lawyers call a “question of first impression,” one that hasn’t arisen before?
There are no new principles of the moral law. Only new applications.
That’s a useful distinction, thank you. I think it makes the hypo immaterial, although I'd certainly disagree that a machine is a slave to its creator if the machine is sentient. (But sci-fi hypos, while fun, are not very useful.)
Is it possible to derive an empirical test from that proposition?
Yes. The three ways of testing those who have become slaves to vice are [a] interviewing the slave [b] surveying a number of slaves, and [c] observing how slaves act and comparing their behavior to that of a normal person. I notice, though, that you avoided the substance of my comment.
I didn’t intend to, and I’m not sure what I missed. If you’ll point it out, I’ll address it.
I ask them to change their opinion because I think my opinion is better. If I want to persuade them, then I need to find common values and articulate why my position achieves those values more effectively. Pretty simple.
Yes, and they will also seek to persuade you using the same methods. Eventually, someone’s opinion will be translated into a law and everyone will have to obey that law. So whose opinion should prevail? Is it the one held by the person who argues most persuasively?
Barring issues of coercion, that’s the view that will prevail. In my opinion, the view that should prevail is the one I prefer.
In the earlier part of the twentieth century, most people felt and argued on behalf of the proposition that black people are inferior to white people and, as a result, didn’t deserve the same level of human rights. Blacks told everyone that they “felt” persecuted, which they were, but few people cared because they “felt” that blacks were less than fully human. In the 1960’s, however, Martin Luther King held their feet to the fire and said, in effect, “it doesn’t matter how you feel, this persecution is unjust because it violates the Natural Moral Law. It doesn’t matter how you feel or how many numbers you have on your side. You are morally wrong and you must stop it.” He prevailed because he rose above feelings and instructed his adversaries on the Natural Moral Law. That is what you call rational justification. He knew he was right and knew they were wrong and he wasn’t about to put up with any nonsense to the effect that they deserved to prevail because they had derived their own moral values from experience.
I disagree about why he prevailed. I think he identified shared moral values, for example that it is unjust to mistreat a man based on the color of his skin. I don’t think he was identifying an objective principle. In support of that, I offer the following hypothetical: what would have happened if he had gone to Atlanta in 1810 and claimed that the Natural Moral Law required treating all men as equals? He would not have been listened to, because his audience wouldn’t have shared those predicate values. By the 1960s, though, society had come to a point where a plurality did share enough of those values for MLK to appeal to them. In effect, I think he was telling them, “You believe that all men are equal, but you are abiding by laws that do not treat all men equally. The mismatch between your principles and your actions puts a lie to your principles, unless you take action to correct it.” If his audience didn’t share his belief that black men deserved to be treated equally, they wouldn’t have listened to him. Just as 1810 Atlanta wouldn’t have listened to him.
Duly noted. You believe that your moral principles are better than those of your adversary, and he believes that his moral principles are better than yours. That doesn’t speak to the issue of who ought to prevail.
Not if you mean “ought” objectively, no it doesn’t.
What I don’t understand is this: Do you think it is equally fair if those who believe their opinion is better than yours manage to convert their opinions into law and force you to act against your own principles?
Fair? Sure, as long as the same rules apply to everyone. That doesn’t mean that the resulting laws will be good or right by my lights—lots of terrible things are fair. As a practical example, I’m a Texan. I think the recent spate of anti-choice laws recently enacted here are atrocious. But I think the process by which they were passed was fair.Pro Hac Vice_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB It appears you accept that people have other moral principles which they sincerely believe but yours (the NLM) are self-evidently correct and theirs are not (possibly they think the same about their beliefs). Is that a fair summary?Mark Frank_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: “As PHV is unwell, I hope he wont mind me picking up a couple of points.” No, not at all. I am sorry that PHV is not doing well. SB: That isn’t possible. It is possible that my neighbor may think it [Natural Moral Law] should be applied differently, but my neighbor will understand as clearly as I do that he should not cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery.
It what sense “not possible”? Clearly some people (and all people below a certain age) do not understand that they should not cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery. And sometimes (Aztecs for example) they justify these attitudes based on beliefs about external rules handed down to them by some kind of divinity.
People can find numerous ways to rationalize doing what they want to do even when they know they should not do it. Some come to that point through perverse educational and environmental influences. For others, it is a question of losing their power to practice virtue by forming the wrong kinds of habits. If a man doesn’t conform his life to a principle, he will soon find a principle that conforms to his life.
1) Trivially you might say that anyone who does not understand that he should not murder etc is not conforming to the NML because it is part of the definition of NML that you should not murder etc. So it is true by definition that if you do not think it is wrong to murder then you have not got an idea about the NLM. But this is trivial and gives no special authority to NML over any other sets of laws or principles.
The question was trivial because it challenged the very definition of the Natural Moral Law, so the answer was bound to also be trivial. It isn’t possible to believe that theft can be reconciled with the NML, which by definition, forbids it.
2) That somehow the NML is magical so that all people are aware of it and cannot get it wrong. So anyone who does not conform is wilfully ignoring what they know deep in their hearts. This seems absurd. Your neighbour is a human being. Human beings make mistakes about the most basic things, even things you call self-evident, such as the sum of 2 and 2. What gives you the confidence that your neighbour cannot make a similar mistake about the NML? You might even have misunderstood yourself! You are only human.
Our knowledge of the Natural Moral Law is quite primitive in the beginning and needs to be fine-tuned, either through religious education or moral training. So yes, mistakes can be made and misunderstandings are certainly possible. A person may know instinctively, for example, that theft is wrong but he may not realize that he is stealing from his employer if he fails to give a fair days work for a fair days pay. Also, perverse educational and cultural influences can brainwash an individual and compromise his natural ability to know moral truths. Hence, terrorists can be persuaded to fly airplanes into buildings with false promises about the hereafter.
Being a Christian, MLK justified his views through the NML. His belief presumably gave him certainty in his opinion and helped him to carry on the fight and I am delighted about that. That doesn’t prove the NML exists.
I agree that it didn’t prove the existence of the NML, which as I often point out, cannot be proven. It is self-evident. What it did prove is that only a belief in the NML could have turned things around, which was my point. He could not have created the same result by saying that he would prefer that people stop behaving that way.
People have justified and propagated ethical views against the tide on the basis of different principles – some which most people would in retrospect applaud (Ghandi) – others they would not (Osama Bin Laden). And other people (including me) shared the same moral judgement as MLK for different reasons.
I think you will find that all appeals for change, even inadvisable change, involve the belief that some things are right and some things are wrong. The problem is that demagogues use the language of the NML to stump for immoral things. Many, for example, call for gay marriage, a bad thing, in the name of human rights, a good thing.
I don’t know why you say he rose above feelings. His speeches were among the most emotionally charged I know – and quite right too. If he had not appealed to subjective emotions but just tried to argue his case on rational grounds then he would probably have failed.
What I meant was that he rose above the temptation to justify his mission in the name of his own feelings. He didn’t say, “Stop. I feel that you are wrong.” He said, Stop. You are wrong.” Big difference.
Someone who believed that other races were inferior could respond by saying either the NML is wrong or by saying something on the lines that it doesn’t apply to all races.
You bet. That is precisely what many do. In effect, they say that the Natural Moral Law is wrong and the law of the jungle is right. Or, they may say that the Natural Moral Law is wrong and that their interpretation of God’s law is right. The NML is the safeguard against all of these abuses. That is why tyrants (religious and secular) militate against it.
At that point his campaign would have become an academic discussion on what exactly the NML meant. And, as discussed above, we all know that people can make logical errors.
People can make logical errors concerning many ideas. That doesn’t make the idea itself wrong. Some people ask me, for example, to prove or provide evidence for the NML. That is a logical error. By definition, Self-evident truths cannot be proven.
At the root of this I think you are assuming that if there is no ultimate unassailable justification for a moral judgement then it is not justified at all. This is wrong.
I disagee. One cannot logically say, “Stop, you are wrong,” if no such thing as wrong exists. One can only say, “Stop, I would prefer that you not do this.” Of course, much harm can be done if a person assigns objective wrongness to something that isn’t objectively wrong or objective rightness to something that isn’t objectively right. At the same time, much harm can be done when someone says that no such thing as objective right and wrong exists. In other words, the tyrant who exaggerates or misrepresents the NML at one extreme, and the skeptic who denies it at the other extreme, are both being unreasonable.StephenB_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB #54 As PHV is unwell, I hope he wont mind me picking up a couple of points. PHV: So what happens when your neighbor has a different idea about what the Natural Moral Law is? SB: That isn’t possible. It is possible that my neighbor may think it should be applied differently, but my neighbor will understand as clearly as I do that he should not cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery. It what sense “not possible”? Clearly some people (and all people below a certain age) do not understand that they should not cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery. And sometimes (Aztecs for example) they justify these attitudes based on beliefs about external rules handed down to them by some kind of divinity. I can think of a couple of things you might be getting at here. 1) Trivially you might say that anyone who does not understand that he should not murder etc is not conforming to the NML because it is part of the definition of NML that you should not murder etc. So it is true by definition that if you do not think it is wrong to murder then you have not got an idea about the NLM. But this is trivial and gives no special authority to NML over any other sets of laws or principles. 2) That somehow the NML is magical so that all people are aware of it and cannot get it wrong. So anyone who does not conform is wilfully ignoring what they know deep in their hearts. This seems absurd. Your neighbour is a human being. Human beings make mistakes about the most basic things, even things you call self-evident, such as the sum of 2 and 2. What gives you the confidence that your neighbour cannot make a similar mistake about the NML? You might even have misunderstood yourself! You are only human. SB: In the 1960’s, however, Martin Luther King held their feet to the fire and said, in effect, “it doesn’t matter how you feel, this persecution is unjust because it violates the Natural Moral Law. It doesn’t matter how you feel or how many numbers you have on your side. You are morally wrong and you must stop it.” He prevailed because he rose above feelings and instructed his adversaries on the Natural Moral Law. That is what you call rational justification. He knew he was right and knew they were wrong and he wasn’t about to put up with any nonsense to the effect that they deserved to prevail because they had derived their own moral values from experience. Being a Christian, MLK justified his views through the NML. His belief presumably gave him certainty in his opinion and helped him to carry on the fight and I am delighted about that. That doesn’t prove the NML exists. People have justified and propagated ethical views against the tide on the basis of different principles – some which most people would in retrospect applaud (Ghandi) – others they would not (Osama Bin Laden). And other people (including me) shared the same moral judgement as MLK for different reasons. I don’t know why you say he rose above feelings. His speeches were among the most emotionally charged I know – and quite right too. If he had not appealed to subjective emotions but just tried to argue his case on rational grounds then he would probably have failed. Someone who believed that other races were inferior could respond by saying either the NML is wrong or by saying something on the lines that it doesn’t apply to all races. At that point his campaign would have become an academic discussion on what exactly the NML meant. And, as discussed above, we all know that people can make logical errors. At the root of this I think you are assuming that if there is no ultimate unassailable justification for a moral judgement then it is not justified at all. This is wrong.Mark Frank_{November 21, 2013
November
11
Nov
21
21
2013
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

PHV: Pardon, but that is the wrong way around as even the course of the progress of science tells us. We properly start from the clear, simple and self evident to move to the complex and puzzling. And in a world where even arithmetic etc are such that there is no set of axioms that are coherent and can reach all true claims, where also there is no procedure for guaranteeing coherence of limited systems, we must accept the reality of an irreducibly complex world of thought and that there will always be things that may well not only be undecided but undecidable. It is quite clear that it is wrong to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a child. So, what does that entail? Once we settle that, we can proceed to harder questions. That there may be problems we have no current or prospective globally acceptable answers to does not invalidate that there are some things that we do have good and insightful answers to. and, in praxis, we accept for good reason the standard of moral certainty in vital and consequential matters: we know we may err so we are duty-bound to make decisions on the principle that on the reasonably accessible information and common good sense, it would be irresponsible to act otherwise than we are about to. So, if there is reasonable doubt and life or the like is at stake proof must be beyond reasonable doubt, with a right of appeal, cross-check and reasonable delay before carrying out extreme and irrevocable actions. Where, for instance, we can compensate and apologise to a gaoled innocent who has been vindicated [especially if we make provisions for self-improvement while in gaol], but we cannot bring back an innocent who was railroaded through a kangaroo court leaping to a pre-determined prejudicial verdict and then hastily executed. (Though of course, there is a world famous exception: that was Friday, but Sunday was a-coming!) In that context, the claimed dilemma posed of how many guilty men one would be willing to let free rather than punish one innocent is misconstrued, loaded, misdirected and composed to confuse the pivotal issue of justice. (I suggest a careful reading of the opening chapters of Simon Greenleaf's Evidence as a tonic.) KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

MF: Pardon, but the point is that in practice the way we quarrel (trying to show ourselves in the right and the other in the wrong) indicates that there is an effectively universal acknowledgement of the force of ought -- even by those who formally espouse views that contradict such. Which, patently, is highly significant. The choice is, global delusion that undermines the credibility of the mind (and I know some do argue that . . . apparently failing to realise what a global delusion implies), or that there is something there that we are sensing. Where, remember if even one of the billions here senses aright, we do face ought as obligation. The alternative is to imply such a fundamental defect in our conscious minds that the crack will necessarily run through all -- and that is literally all -- the deliverances of mind. (In short, we would be in the self-referential incoherences and hall of mirrors infinite regress of self-refutations implied by a Plato's Cave world. To which the answer is, that is absurd, we cannot go anywhere by dismissing the general credibility of mind. So, it is -- yup -- self-evident that we must respect the core credibility of minds, to even have this conversation. Minds that also happen to give us as a core deliverance, the premise that we have a worth and dignity that confers rights and by reciprocity, duties of care one for the other, i.e. the weight of OUGHT is real and requires a worldview foundational IS capable of bearing it.) Namely, that we have a quasi-infinite value, moral worth and fundamental equality linked to purpose and potential that gives us rights, starting with life, liberty and freedom to pursue the end and potential we sense for ourselves. Thus -- on pain of implying general delusion comparable to The Matrix or its classical antecedent Plato's Cave -- there is a general, binding obligation to cherish and respect neighbour as self. Which is particularly evident in the -- sadly not merely hypothetical -- case of how self-evidently wrong it is to kidnap, torture, sexually violate (notice how we describe rape) and murder a child. I again find it helpful to refer to the historically important point in Locke's c. 1690 2nd essay on civil govt, ch 2 sec 5, where he cites this from Canon Richard Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity 1594+, noting the pivotal role it played in the emergence of 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]
Of course, it is useful to underscore that, contrary to a lot of well-poisoning rhetoric all over the Internet and elsewhere, THAT is what the core Biblical ethic argues [esp in Rom 2:12 - 15 and 13:8 - 10], and it is significant to note the specific historical impact of it. But, that is just a matter of setting record straight. The main point is, the sense of our own worth and dignity extends to those who so obviously are as we are -- including children (for we were all once in the wombs of our mothers and causes of our mothers being in special need of deference and protection, then we were helpless babies and vulnerable children). So, simple reciprocity tells us much about duty to respect and cherish neighbour as self. It is those who would deny such or toss up hyper-skeptical objections implying an attitude that once one can object and demand arbitrarily high proof, one can dismiss. (Where, too often, such refuse to acknowledge the dependence of proofs on self-evident start points, not only first principles of right reason and causality, but also first principles of moral government. For the alternative to moral government is might and manipulation make 'right.' Which, rightly, should make us shudder. But of course, such first principles tend to point in directions many of us are loath to go.) KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

SB, We're pretty close to the end of a conversation, then--you've articulated your position to the point where I think I understand it, and I think you're pretty close to understanding mine. Having said that, you've asked some provocative questions and I'd like to answer them. Your MLK example is the best counterpoint I've read in this string of threads. I had hoped to respond tonight, but frankly I'm sick and writing just isn't fun while I'm coughing up a lung. I'll have to get to it tomorrow, when I can get my hands on some Dayquil. Sorry for the delay. In the meantime, or afterwards if you prefer, I'd like you to give us your answer to an interesting ethical question discussed on another blog today: the N Guilty Men problem. It's a classic legal/moral dilemma, and it's much better than the hypos I've been trying to construct. It has real-world consequences, it's puzzled legal scholars for generations, and it's not binary. N doesn't have to be just 1 or 0, and of course the classical answer is 10. What is the Natural Moral Law value for n?Pro Hac Vice_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
It may be clear to you but it isn’t clear to me.
So? You think if it's clear to KF it ought to be clear to you too? How so? Is that a self-evident truth? You people kill me. Really.Mung_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply