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

Pro Hac Vice
Similarly, because I do not acknowledge an objective standard for badness, “it is bad” is a subjective statement to me.
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.
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.
How do you resolve that dispute? I think you have to resort to the same tools as a subjectivist would—persuasion, potentially coercion, depending on the circumstances. Am I missing something?
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.
I also don’t think that “Might Makes Right” is a coherent statement. The subjectivist doesn’t think that might creates moral good, or “right.” It could be used to compel others to obey our conception of what’s good—but that’s true for objectivists as well.
If you don’t think “might makes right” is a coherent statement then you are confessing that you know nothing about 2000 years of history and philosophy. Just so that you will know, it means that those who have the might get to choose the definition of what is morally right. Under those circumstances, morality will be redefined as anything that pleases the mighty, which can be a tyrant, a tyrannical cadre, or a tyrannical majority. The Natural Moral Law indicates that society should not kill babies. The tyrants in government, however, have decided that killing babies is morally right. In this case, might makes right---unfortunately. .
Let’s say that Allan stole from Bob, and Allan believes (honestly) that his actions are justified by Natural Moral Law.
That is a contradictory statement. Allan cannot honestly believe that his actions are justified by the Natural Moral Law, which forbids theft.
That belief is worth exactly zero in a court of law, which will judge Allan by the laws of man.
The court will judge Allan based on whichever law it honors. If it, and society, honors the natural moral law, it will penalize Allan. If it bases its civil laws on feelings or popular opinion, then Allan will be penalized if the judge feels like it and will not be penalized if the judge doesn’t feel like it. In the United States, judges do, all too often, base their decisions on their feelings.
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.
So if you’re arguing with someone and they disagree with you, how do you tell whether they’re a bad person or someone who disagrees in good faith? In other words, how do you distinguish between a natural law principle and any other moral principle?
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.
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.
For example, if scientists create artificial intelligence tomorrow, and the question is whether it’s moral to indenture such an AI to its creators for a period of service to pay for the expenses of its creation. Can men of good will argue that point?
Machines are always slaves their creators. There is nothing immoral about that. The issue is, are those machines being used morally. A machine that sucks dismembered babies out of their mother’s womb is being put to evil use. A machine that helps in a medical diagnosis is being put to good use
Do you think there have been times and places where everyone knew exactly what was good and what was bad, and people weren’t confused about morality?
Even with an understanding of the Natural Moral Law, there are many situations in which it is very difficult to know the ideal moral solution. Without an understanding of the Natural Moral Law, it is absolutely hopeless. SB: The Natural Moral Law, by definition, holds everyone accountable. Break it and you pay a price just as you pay a price for violating the civil law. Among other things, breaking the Natural Moral Law will cause the violator to form bad habits, which will compromise his ability to practice virtue. Eventually, that person becomes a slave to his own passions, which is just as bad as being a slave to a dictator. It clouds the judgment of the one enslaved such that he can no longer grasp truth. A slave to pornography for example, loses his judgment on all matters sexual. A slave to alcohol loses his judgment on all things social. And so it goes.
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. SB: The issue is that you have no rational justification for asking anyone to change his opinion about morality, which according to you is just as valid as yours, however repulsive it may be.
Sure I do. 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? 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.
As for the belief that their views are “just as valid” as mine, once again you have dramatically misstated my views. Again, I don’t ask that you agree with me, but please listen. It is not my position that all moral beliefs are “just as valid” as mine. I believe my moral principles are better. I believe that is a subjective judgment, but that only subjective judgments are possible in this case.
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.
I strongly suspect, and I speak as a trained communicator, that you will persuade few people by taking the position that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith.
I, too, am a trained communicator. In that spirit, I don’t hesitate to say that all rational people who are not psychopaths have a moral conscience and know the difference between right and wrong. I believe that they will find my arguments more persuasive than those coming from the school of “whatever I come up with is just and right if it pleases me.” SB: The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?
Again, this is a question I have answered many times in these threads. Would you do me a favor? This is something I asked of Brent as well. Would you write down what you think my answer is?
OK. That's fair. I think that you believe your opinion is better than other opinions and that yours should prevail and translated into law if you can persuade others to that effect. 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?StephenB_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

#52 KF I am sorry I do not see in your comment how it follows from that fact we are having a disagreement that we are under moral government or moral duties (by which you presumably you mean the same thing). All I see are claims that it is commonplace or that C.S. Lewis said it was so. These are not arguments. It seems that it is becoming standard practice among the ID folk here to declare that they are right because what they assert is self-evident or commonplace or what any right thinking person would recognise as true. From a debating point of view this is logically equivalent to shouting a bit louder "I am right and you are wrong".Mark Frank_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

MF: Pardon me but the answer as to the universal element in quarreling is in point 1. Showing one's opponent in the wrong and oneself in the right (by implied or explicit contrast). This, is a commonplace, visible above in this thread at fairly mild level. But, as C S Lewis astutely noted, that implies acknowledgement of being under moral duties. (One hardly ever hears in reply, shut up and go down de t'roat nicely, lunch.) The attempted dismissal -- as usual -- tellingly fails. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

SB,
I was trying to tell you in a diplomatic way that your position is illogical. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe that “feels” bad is the same as “is” bad. That fact is, it isn’t. Words mean things and you can’t twist the language that way and remain rational. . . . . It IS means it exists. It is TASTY means it is tasty. To say something IS bad is to say that it has the nature of being bad. To say that something feels bad is to say that it doesn’t please you.
This is one of the strangest things I’ve ever read. Do you think “it is tasty” is an objective statement? Because to me, it is a subjective statement. I think that because there is no objective standard for tastiness. Similarly, because I do not acknowledge an objective standard for badness, “it is bad” is a subjective statement to me.
The Natural Moral Law is not an example of moral reasoning. It is the basis for moral reasoning. There is no other basis for moral reasoning, except for might makes right. Those are your two choices. The Natural Moral Law or Might Makes Right.
So what happens when your neighbor has a different idea about what the Natural Moral Law is? How do you resolve that dispute? I think you have to resort to the same tools as a subjectivist would—persuasion, potentially coercion, depending on the circumstances. Am I missing something? I also don’t think that “Might Makes Right” is a coherent statement. The subjectivist doesn’t think that might creates moral good, or “right.” It could be used to compel others to obey our conception of what’s good—but that’s true for objectivists as well.
No one has to behave “as if morality is subjective.” No one has to be corrupted if he doesn’t want to be. Indeed, no one really lives by your standard in spite of what they say. If I lie to you or steal from you, you will be angry and say that I wronged you. It will not matter to you if I say that my behavior is in keeping with my own moral code.
Let’s say that Allan stole from Bob, and Allan believes (honestly) that his actions are justified by Natural Moral Law. That belief is worth exactly zero in a court of law, which will judge Allan by the laws of man. 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.
So if you’re arguing with someone and they disagree with you, how do you tell whether they’re a bad person or someone who disagrees in good faith? In other words, how do you distinguish between a natural law principle and any other moral principle?
The only way I know is to test their sensibilities. Tell them the truth and observe how they react. If they claim that no such thing as truth exists, you can immediately be suspicious that they are not arguing in good faith.
This assumes that you know what the truth is. Could you be mistaken? What if it’s what lawyers call a “question of first impression,” one that hasn’t arisen before? For example, if scientists create artificial intelligence tomorrow, and the question is whether it’s moral to indenture such an AI to its creators for a period of service to pay for the expenses of its creation. Can men of good will argue that point?
Do you believe that any such thing as a good life exists? If so, do you believe that some cultures lend themselves to a good life and some do not. Are those cultures that prevent you from living a good life bad cultures?
Yes, yes, and sort of. I can conceive of cultures that would be good cultures but prevent me from living a good life, such as a culture in which I had to be drafted to defend the community from an external threat. Of course, the “good” in “good life” and “good culture” is based on my subjective evaluation.
Americans are indeed confused about morality as is made clear by any “on the street” interview.
Do you think there have been times and places where everyone knew exactly what was good and what was bad, and people weren’t confused about morality?
The Natural Moral Law, by definition, holds everyone accountable. Break it and you pay a price just as you pay a price for violating the civil law. Among other things, breaking the Natural Moral Law will cause the violator to form bad habits, which will compromise his ability to practice virtue. Eventually, that person becomes a slave to his own passions, which is just as bad as being a slave to a dictator. It clouds the judgment of the one enslaved such that he can no longer grasp truth. A slave to pornography for example, loses his judgment on all matters sexual. A slave to alcohol loses his judgment on all things social. And so it goes.
Is it possible to derive an empirical test from that proposition?
The issue is that you have no rational justification for asking anyone to change his opinion about morality, which according to you is just as valid as yours, however repulsive it may be.
Sure I do. 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. As for the belief that their views are “just as valid” as mine, once again you have dramatically misstated my views. Again, I don’t ask that you agree with me, but please listen. It is not my position that all moral beliefs are “just as valid” as mine. I believe my moral principles are better. I believe that is a subjective judgment, but that only subjective judgments are possible in this case.
I am trying to persuade those onlookers who have yet to be indoctrinated and are not yet impervious to reason.
I strongly suspect, and I speak as a trained communicator, that you will persuade few people by taking the position that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith.
The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?
Again, this is a question I have answered many times in these threads. Would you do me a favor? This is something I asked of Brent as well. Would you write down what you think my answer is?
You have no answer. I can’t write down something you have not provided.
Then I’m sorry, but we really are not communicating. I have answered this question repeatedly, and fairly explicitly. If you don’t understand what my answer is, then you aren’t reading my comments for comprehension.
I have followed you every step of the way. You have no answer. You simply tell is how you arrived at your own subjective code. That doesn’t even come close to explaining why it should be given logical preference over any other subjective code, which, according to you, will always be valid. It would appear that, for you, the anti-abortion position is no more or less valid than the pro-abortion position. For you, it appears, both are equally valid. Meaning no disrespect, but if that is your position, it is a highly schizophrenic position to hold.
It is not my position. I have repeatedly, in painstaking detail, explained that I do not consider all moral beliefs equally valid. I have written nothing here (or elsewhere) that would support your assumption, “according to you [any other subjective code] will always be valid.” I do not understand how you could have read this far and understood so little.Pro Hac Vice_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

KF #46 I didn't bother to go beyond your first two points.
1 –> When we quarrel, which is depressingly often, we are seeking to show the other party in the wrong and vindicate our rights and dignity. That is a commonplace.
I am not trying to vindicate anything. I am just trying to show I am right.
2 –> By that essentially UNIVERSAL action, we imply that we are all under moral goivernment and that we have worth reflected in rights and in particular that t6o fairness and justice. Much flows from such a universal acknowledgement.
Sorry - I see nothing particularly universal about disagreeing and even it were it seems a mighty big jump to conclude we are all under moral government. You need to provide some evidence or arguments for this step.Mark Frank_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

SB: No, seems wrong is not the same as is wrong. You are simply wrong about that. “Is” refers to being, which is objective; “seems” refers to the perception of being, which is subjective. Pro Hoc Vice
I’m gobsmacked. I was trying to clarify my position, not yours. To me, as a subjectivist, I consider “feels bad” to be functionally equivalent to “bad.” I can’t tell if you misunderstood the statement, or if you’re just completely unwilling to step outside your own position to understand someone else’s.
I was trying to tell you in a diplomatic way that your position is illogical. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe that “feels” bad is the same as “is” bad. That fact is, it isn’t. Words mean things and you can’t twist the language that way and remain rational.
In any case, your statement here is false. “Is” is not always objective. “Is tasty,” “is fun,” “is boring” are not objective statements. “Is bad” isn’t either, to someone who considers “bad” a subjective value.
No. It IS means it exists. It is TASTY means it is tasty. To say something IS bad is to say that it has the nature of being bad. To say that something feels bad is to say that it doesn’t please you.
Yup. I’ve heard similar arguments from NL proponents in law school. I am not aware of any instance in which any one of them was ever able to persuade another person that “natural law” was a real thing.
Now you have changed the subject again. Everyone, even those who claim not to believe in it, knows that the Natural Moral Law cannot be proven and it is said to be self-evident. Whether or not someone is or is not persuaded that it exists is an entirely different matter.
The problem with that position is that it feels great. But it doesn’t actually have value when two people disagree about a fundamental moral value. Then the NL proponents find themselves in the same boat as everyone else—“How do I persuade this person to adopt my moral reasoning? Hectoring them about how they’re wicked for disagreeing doesn’t work, so I have to articulate why my rule is better than theirs based on shared values.” Once again, objectivism looks the same as relativism when more than one opinion is in the room.
Again, you miss the point, indicating that you are not familiar with the concept. The Natural Moral Law is not an example of moral reasoning. It is the basis for moral reasoning. There is no other basis for moral reasoning, except for might makes right. Those are your two choices. The Natural Moral Law or Might Makes Right.
As far as I’m aware, every single one of those NL proponents graduated and began practicing law in the real world, where they had to behave as if morality is subjective—because in real life, society operates that way. I’m sure many of them still believe in NL, but you couldn’t tell it from the briefs they write.
No one has to behave “as if morality is subjective.” No one has to be corrupted if he doesn’t want to be. Indeed, no one really lives by your standard in spite of what they say. If I lie to you or steal from you, you will be angry and say that I wronged you. It will not matter to you if I say that my behavior is in keeping with my own moral code.
So if you’re arguing with someone and they disagree with you, how do you tell whether they’re a bad person or someone who disagrees in good faith? In other words, how do you distinguish between a natural law principle and any other moral principle?
The only way I know is to test their sensibilities. Tell them the truth and observe how they react. If they claim that no such thing as truth exists, you can immediately be suspicious that they are not arguing in good faith.
You failed, because your attempt to show it was circular. Actually showing the existence of objective morality, which is a necessary predicate of showing an “objectively good society,” would require more effort on your part than just declaring that objective morality is true. In other words, you can’t show a thing exists with a circular hypothetical.
You are avoiding the topic. Do you believe that any such thing as a good life exists? If so, do you believe that some cultures lend themselves to a good life and some do not. Are those cultures that prevent you from living a good life bad cultures?
I disagree. We live in a subjective society right now. There’s no objective ruler to determine all moral questions for us, and Americans disagree all the time about fundamental moral issues—abortion, healthcare, marriage, drugs, etc. But we have a well-structured Constitution that protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. In other words, but see the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment.
The process of administering tyranny does not happen overnight. At this point, Americans have lost many freedoms and are in the process of losing many more. The majority is already beginning to tyrannize the minority and it will only get worse. The President of the United States enforces only those laws that he prefers; those he disdains, he will not enforce. This is a sure sign of corruption. Americans are indeed confused about morality as is made clear by any “on the street” interview. The general ignorance displayed is shocking and it goes a long way in explaining the ignorance about morality.
And of course, “natural moral law” doesn’t hold anyone to account in this world. We can’t even agree as humans on what it is. When someone transgresses it, nothing happens to them unless they’ve also transgressed the consensus temporal law (and/or custom), in which case temporal consequences, enacted by a functionally subjectivist society, may apply.
That is incorrect. The Natural Moral Law, by definition, holds everyone accountable. Break it and you pay a price just as you pay a price for violating the civil law. Among other things, breaking the Natural Moral Law will cause the violator to form bad habits, which will compromise his ability to practice virtue. Eventually, that person becomes a slave to his own passions, which is just as bad as being a slave to a dictator. It clouds the judgment of the one enslaved such that he can no longer grasp truth. A slave to pornography for example, loses his judgment on all matters sexual. A slave to alcohol loses his judgment on all things social. And so it goes.
You are repeating something that has been spat at me, without substantive variation, by four or five different commenters in these threads. I don’t ask that you agree with me, because I don’t expect internet conversations to change minds. I would appreciate it if you would listen.
Notice again how you change the subject. The issue is that you have no rational justification for asking anyone to change his opinion about morality, which according to you is just as valid as yours, however repulsive it may be. You have no standard by which moral disagreements can be settled. I am not trying to persuade you because you appear to be impervious to reason. I am trying to persuade those onlookers who have yet to be indoctrinated and are not yet impervious to reason. If everyone invents his own morality, then eventually, maybe not right away but eventually, everyone will be at war with everyone else. It will always be might makes right, and if you have no might, you will receive no justice. That fact follows as surely as the night follows day. It is logically true and, equally important, it is historically true. SB: So what? The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?
Again, this is a question I have answered many times in these threads. Would you do me a favor? This is something I asked of Brent as well. Would you write down what you think my answer is?
You have no answer. I can’t write down something you have not provided.
You can look back at my prior comments if you like. I’d love to see just a sentence or two, or more if you prefer, explaining what you think my answer to this question is. What you think I’d say right now if I were to answer this question. I think the result will really move the conversation forward in a way that just isn’t happening right now.
I have followed you every step of the way. You have no answer. You simply tell is how you arrived at your own subjective code. That doesn’t even come close to explaining why it should be given logical preference over any other subjective code, which, according to you, will always be valid. It would appear that, for you, the anti-abortion position is no more or less valid than the pro-abortion position. For you, it appears, both are equally valid. Meaning no disrespect, but if that is your position, it is a highly schizophrenic position to hold.StephenB_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Oh, and something I forgot to add to my response to StephenB but would like to throw out to any objectivists reading: Could you be wrong? Not about whether objective moral standards exist, but as to what they are. Specifically, A. Have your beliefs about what those standards are changed over time? B. If so, is it because you were mistaken or because the standards changed? C. Is it possible you are mistaken about some specific objective principle today? D. If it is possible that you are mistaken about something today, how do you know that it is possible? E. And how would you know that you were mistaken at to any specific principle? Again, I'm referring here not to the existence of objective principles as a whole, but as to the identity of specific principles. E.g., "I used to believe that it was objectively wrong reverse the polarity of the tachyon field, but now I believe it's objectively right."Pro Hac Vice_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Box,
I gather that your answer would be that, since objective morality doesn’t exist, your belief doesn’t have any logical precedence over the belief of a slave driver nor over the beliefs of Hitler nor over anyone else. You would probably also mention that, based on your beliefs, you would tell them slave drivers to stop, or to take action to stop them if necessary. But you would hasten to add that you lack any true rational foundation for this, because based on moral subjectivism you have no right whatsoever to that.
Thanks for taking the time, I sincerely appreciate it. I think this is wrong, in that it doesn’t accurately describe my position, but also one of the most helpful contributions in any of these threads because it makes a strong and sincere effort. Thank you. I’d like to respond in pieces:
[S]ince objective morality doesn’t exist, your belief doesn’t have any logical precedence over the belief of a slave driver nor over the beliefs of Hitler nor over anyone else.
No, as a subjectivist, I use my own morality as a standard to judge the moral beliefs of others. So in fact I would say that my beliefs do have precedence over others’—I think my beliefs are better than others’, albeit by my own subjective standard. There’s no, “Oh but your beliefs are just as valid as mine,” moment. That would only be the case if there were an objective standard by which to compare your beliefs and mine and find them to be equivalent. Without such a standard, I have to use my own perceptions to measure.
You would probably also mention that, based on your beliefs, you would tell them slave drivers to stop, or to take action to stop them if necessary.
Yes, of course.
But you would hasten to add that you lack any true rational foundation for this, because based on moral subjectivism you have no right whatsoever to that.
No, absolutely not. Moral subjectivism does not deprive me of the rational foundation for taking action based on my beliefs. Why would it? I believe slavery is wrong, it is logical that I would act consistently with that belief. The fact that the slaver disagrees is irrelevant. Similarly, what about subjectivism would deprive me of the right to take action based on my beliefs? If that were the case, then objectivists would have no right to act in any situation in which a Natural Law principle wasn’t at stake—and although it’s impossible to practically define the borders of Natural Law, it doesn’t cover lots of things objectivists want to take action on. (Such as zoning ordinances, nuisance laws, etc.) Again, thank you very much for responding.Pro Hac Vice_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

MF: I observe:
KF: That we are under moral government and universally acknowledge the fact when we seriously quarrel, is clear. That we imply the same when we assert our rights is equally clear. MF: It may be clear to you but it isn’t clear to me. So that doesn’t get us very far.
1 --> When we quarrel, which is depressingly often, we are seeking to show the other party in the wrong and vindicate our rights and dignity. That is a commonplace. 2 --> By that essentially UNIVERSAL action, we imply that we are all under moral goivernment and that we have worth reflected in rights and in particular that t6o fairness and justice. Much flows from such a universal acknowledgement. 3 --> To reject this, implies only t5hat we move to a worse state: fighting, so that might makes 'right'. Which is tantamount to emptying rights, justice, fairness value and worth of meaning. And which predictably ends in chaos. 4 --> Observe, MF, you do not deny that these are real you just pose on imperial skepticism. (Just as objectors above have repeatedly dodged the challenge of addressing the wrongness of kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering a child.) 5 --> However, such comes at a price, it is intertwined with the implication or at least reasonable inference that at will if such an objector thinks s/he can get away with it, her/his policy is to act as though ought is not binding if not convenient. (And it is these specific points where we most need to recognise the binding nature of OUGHT.) 6 --> And we find nowhere the faintest trace of a serious engagement of the implications of evolutionary materialism as a worldview: it implies that we live in an amoral, meaningless world and have no inherent worth or rights. 7 --> Which leads us right back to might and manipulation make 'right.' AKA, chaos and absurdity. It bears repeating, that there is but one serious candidate worldview foundation is that has capacity to sustain the weight of OUGHT: the inherently good creator God. But, we have abundant reason to infer from abundant statements and behaviour all around, that there is a deep rooted hostility and resentment of such a point, or even moreso, the reality behind that point, who speaks to us in the voice of conscience. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

PS: Note as well, the self evident needs no further "proof," proofs start from the self evident. What we see is that to reject the self evident is to surrender the life of reason -- e.g. in this case, absent recognising the equal, quasi-infinite worth of the human being, we are left to that nihilistic chaos, that might and manipulation make 'right.' The very antithesis to justice which is the fruit of the resort to the clan blood feud, or equivalently, the war of all against all. That is the true alternative to acknowledging that OUGHT is real and binding, and we live in a world that has a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. And, it is patently absurd. So, the real question we need to be asking, is why are there those who would cling to such absurdities that lead to nihilism, then to relieve chaos, dictatorship? I know this is painful, but we need to face it and think it through.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice #41
SB: So what? The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?

PHV: Again, this is a question I have answered many times in these threads. Would you do me a favor? This is something I asked of Brent as well. Would you write down what you think my answer is? You can look back at my prior comments if you like.
I gather that your answer would be that, since objective morality doesn’t exist, your belief doesn’t have any logical precedence over the belief of a slave driver nor over the beliefs of Hitler nor over anyone else. You would probably also mention that, based on your beliefs, you would tell them slave drivers to stop, or to take action to stop them if necessary. But you would hasten to add that you lack any true rational foundation for this, because based on moral subjectivism you have no right whatsoever to that.Box_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

KF #42
Onlookers: That we are under moral government and universally acknowledge the fact when we seriously quarrel, is clear. That we imply the same when we assert our rights is equally clear.
It may be clear to you but it isn’t clear to me. So that doesn’t get us very far.
The first issue is that a specific case of kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of a child as being self evidently wrong is on the table, and the challenge is put: deny it and avoid absurdity. The loudest testimony to the point is the way that his pretty straightforward challenge is consistently being diverted from
This is most peculiar. Comments #29 to #39 are all about this very issue. Mark Frank_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: That we are under moral government and universally acknowledge the fact when we seriously quarrel, is clear. That we imply the same when we assert our rights is equally clear. The first issue is that a specific case of kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of a child as being self evidently wrong is on the table, and the challenge is put: deny it and avoid absurdity. The loudest testimony to the point is the way that his pretty straightforward challenge is consistently being diverted from -- and those who are (to gain a social permission to act as they please in other matters and/or as an extension of a worldview, evolutionary materialism, dressed up in a lab coat) eager to land us in subjectivism and relativism know full well that to deny this is to reveal that the views they espouse are indefensible and patently absurd. So, it seems the case is pretty plain, as advertised. And the implications, on the quasi-infinite value of human beings [this being a classic of an innocent with great potential who OUGHT to be protected not exploited, abused and snuffed out like a rat caught in a trap . . . ] and the equal moral worth that then leads into much else, are also plain. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Well, we weren’t having the conversation I thought we were having. You’re just telling me that objective morality is true, not how to test for it or demonstrate it to someone who disagrees with you. You aren’t failing to persuade me because you’ve yet to find the right dramatization or phrasing. You’re failing to persuade me because I’m looking for some evidence of actual objectivity. “I feel it,” and “I know it,” and “I know that you know it” are not objective statements. They are statements of a subjective feeling.
Are you clear on what it means to be a moral subjectivist? Seems wrong to me is the same thing as bad, under my subjective analysis. Whether there’s a more objective test is what you are trying, and failing, to prove.
No, seems wrong is not the same as is wrong. You are simply wrong about that. “Is” refers to being, which is objective; “seems” refers to the perception of being, which is subjective.
I’m gobsmacked. I was trying to clarify my position, not yours. To me, as a subjectivist, I consider “feels bad” to be functionally equivalent to “bad.” I can’t tell if you misunderstood the statement, or if you’re just completely unwilling to step outside your own position to understand someone else’s. In any case, your statement here is false. “Is” is not always objective. “Is tasty,” “is fun,” “is boring” are not objective statements. “Is bad” isn’t either, to someone who considers “bad” a subjective value.
Again, you misunderstand. The Natural moral law, like the Law of Non-Contradiction (or the law of causality) cannot be proven. It is the standard by which other things are proven.
Yup. I’ve heard similar arguments from NL proponents in law school. I am not aware of any instance in which any one of them was ever able to persuade another person that “natural law” was a real thing. The problem with that position is that it feels great. But it doesn’t actually have value when two people disagree about a fundamental moral value. Then the NL proponents find themselves in the same boat as everyone else—“How do I persuade this person to adopt my moral reasoning? Hectoring them about how they’re wicked for disagreeing doesn’t work, so I have to articulate why my rule is better than theirs based on shared values.” Once again, objectivism looks the same as relativism when more than one opinion is in the room. As far as I’m aware, every single one of those NL proponents graduated and began practicing law in the real world, where they had to behave as if morality is subjective—because in real life, society operates that way. I’m sure many of them still believe in NL, but you couldn’t tell it from the briefs they write.
Moreover, “men of good will” disagree over “natural moral law” questions all the time.
No, they will not. No, they do not.
So if you’re arguing with someone and they disagree with you, how do you tell whether they’re a bad person or someone who disagrees in good faith? In other words, how do you distinguish between a natural law principle and any other moral principle?
I never hoped to prove that which cannot be proven. I did hope to show that there is such a thing as an objectively good society, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good way for a community to live, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good life for a person. You appear not to agree.
You failed, because your attempt to show it was circular. Actually showing the existence of objective morality, which is a necessary predicate of showing an “objectively good society,” would require more effort on your part than just declaring that objective morality is true. In other words, you can’t show a thing exists with a circular hypothetical.
Well, a consensus subjective rule will always tyrannize the minority. (We many agree to enslave you few). On the other hand, the natural moral holds everyone to account—the many, the powerful, and the few. Justice is not possible under any other circumstances.
I disagree. We live in a subjective society right now. There’s no objective ruler to determine all moral questions for us, and Americans disagree all the time about fundamental moral issues—abortion, healthcare, marriage, drugs, etc. But we have a well-structured Constitution that protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. In other words, but see the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment. And of course, “natural moral law” doesn’t hold anyone to account in this world. We can’t even agree as humans on what it is. When someone transgresses it, nothing happens to them unless they’ve also transgressed the consensus temporal law (and/or custom), in which case temporal consequences, enacted by a functionally subjectivist society, may apply.
You are totally missing the point. You feel slavery is wrong, but you cannot provide any moral justification for telling others that they shouldn’t enslave. They, like you, are going by their feelings. In like fashion, you cannot tell those who do eat babies that they should stop. They feel they should; you feel they should not.
You are repeating something that has been spat at me, without substantive variation, by four or five different commenters in these threads. I don’t ask that you agree with me, because I don’t expect internet conversations to change minds. I would appreciate it if you would listen. Even as a subjectivist, it doesn’t matter to me that “they feel they should.” I “feel they should not.” I take my actions based on my beliefs, not theirs. I don’t need for them to agree with my beliefs in order to tell them to stop, or to take action to stop them if necessary.
So what? The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?
Again, this is a question I have answered many times in these threads. Would you do me a favor? This is something I asked of Brent as well. Would you write down what you think my answer is? You can look back at my prior comments if you like. I’d love to see just a sentence or two, or more if you prefer, explaining what you think my answer to this question is. What you think I’d say right now if I were to answer this question. I think the result will really move the conversation forward in a way that just isn’t happening right now.Pro Hac Vice_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

F/N: In glancing back at the above, it is clear to me that a pivotal question is to clarify self evidence for record, and to apply that to moral issues (including the point that not all cases of murder are self evidently wrong and why that is the case). Now, a self-evident truth will meet several criteria, in order to be clearly, certainly and patently true and knowable as true on pain of absurdity:
1 --> It must actually be true, i.e. it accurately describes reality (as we credibly experience it as conscious, self aware, knowing, understanding creatures . . . BTW the parallel lines postulate is indeed true in the sort of space it describes, whether or no our actual world in the large is that sort of space . . . ) 2 --> It must be seen to be true, once one understands what is being asserted in light of common experience of being such a creature. 3 --> It will also be such that it MUST be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. 4 --> That is, to deny it, one has to immediately descend into clinging to the patently false [which includes but is not limited to the obviously self contradictory], chaotic, destructive, nonsensical, etc. (Think of denying 2 + 3 = 5 as a paradigm, or denying that error exists or denying that we are conscious.)
The point is, such extends to not only arithmetic or consciousness or human fallibility, but to morality also. To see how this applies to the world of morality, let us start with an example, as that helps us be clear and gives us a basis for looking at other cases by family resemblance. I will therefore now use the historically important and famous example of the US DOI, 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15, 13:8 - 10], 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 . . .
The basic fact that in our quarrels -- and this is a famous one -- we instinctively find ourselves demanding to be treated fairly in light of a binding expectation rooted in our value and equality as being human, speaks loud and clear. That is, we are patently, publicly, inescapably and knowingly under moral government as inherently social creatures. This holds from our being in the wombs of our mothers -- who are rendered extremely vulnerable thereby and so need the dedicated protection of the family and community -- and on through our helpless infancy in which we can only plead for help by our cries, on up into adulthood in which we too in turn become nurturing parents. We therefore plainly live in a world where moral government makes sense, there is a foundational IS that properly grounds OUGHT, for us as individuals across our lifespan, and for the families and communities without which we would struggle to survive much less thrive. For which IS there is -- across time and civilisations, only one truly serious candidate, the inherently good Creator God who has equally made us in his image and thus we rightly have well grounded, binding expectations that our lives, liberty, and fulfillment of purpose and potential should not be unduly infringed. We have inalienable rights. Which by their inherent nature as binding expectations to be treated with appropriate respect for our value as human beings, implying that others must choose aright to so treat with us, is inescapably moral. Ought is real, and pivotal. Now, to deny or act against such lands us in a morass of chaos and inconsistencies, undermining the framework of our value and thriving. A chaos that is immediately apparent on reflection for a normally functioning, experienced human being with a functional conscience unwarped by blinding ideologies or interests. (For instance, a major tactic of the abuser or oppressor is to dehumanise or demonise the intended target. People from Africa kidnapped into slavery were portrayed as criminals being transported, then were projected as inherently inferior and sub human -- never mind what was going on in the slave huts at night. Similarly, Stalin turned industrious and prosperous peasants into a criminal class and manufactured the spectre of traitors everywhere. And Hitler and co turned Poles, Jews and Slavs into subhuman prey, the mice to Nordic Cats, who were deemed superior as they had been chosen through natural selection for strength and health in the hard conditions of the ice age.) In short, widespread injustice is a moral issue and its violations of human value frustrate human thriving, individually and collectively. So, an obvious trend to social disintegration into chaos and the war of might makes or grants 'right' if a given behaviour becomes widespread should be taken as strong evidence that the behaviour patently ends in absurdity. In that context, we can see why kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering a child is a blatant case of that which is self-evidently wrong and ought not to be done. For it takes a paradigm case of an undeniable but vulnerable human being with vast potential, and twists that human being into a discardable toy to be used in ways that take twisted pleasure from inflicting pain and then robs the child of his or her life, tossing away the resulting broken body like trash. That child is a human being, undeniably, and as a child is by definition growing up into his or her potential. That child cannot consent to sexual activity, and is probably protesting and trying to cry out for help -- which calls forth powerful protective instincts, but to no avail. Then the pervert finds some way to silence the cries and takes the victim to some secluded location for he knows -- notice, KNOWS -- that any decent person chancing on the scene will intervene with all desperate and even lethal force to rescue the child from the predatory criminal. Then, knowing himself to be secure from discovery, the selfish pervert takes sick and sickening thrills from helplessness hoping for rescue futilely, and delights to inflict pain, humiliation, suffering, then takes a final twisted pleasure in putting out the spark of life, maybe further abusing the body before discarding it as if it were rubbish. Instinct alone, tells us that we understand just what is going on and cries, nay screams: wrong, absurdly wrong. Violation. Wanton despoiling and destruction of the vulnerable and precious. And we cannot even conceive a society that descends into a state where that is deemed a ho-hum norm. For, we know that long before that happens, family protective instinct will come into play: families and clans will resort to ruthless blood feuds in defence of their young, leading to the collapse of community government. And we all know where a situation of clans and blood feuds ends, a barbaric chaos that is absurd by contrast with a well ordered well governed community. So, we can see and know that such is wrong and must be wrong on pain of absurdity. In multiple ways. So much so, that -- as has happened over and over here at UD when this same paradigm case has come up again and again -- the rhetorical tactics of those who would undermine the principles that ground that cannot come out directly and assert that one is and should be free to destroy a child like that. No, they have to pose on domineering skepticism, they have to refuse to acknowledge that conscience may be a built in moral sense as valid in its own sphere as eyes and ears; with the same proviso that we may be blinded or deafened or mistake one thing for another. They have to turn about the burden of proof, they have to confuse terms and concepts, they have to divert attention from the actual case on the table, and such like. Which brings up why not all cases of murder are self-evidently wrong. For, in some cases, sufficient confusion as to human status can be thrown up, or the chaotic consequences can be apparently confined or pushed to fringe groups that can be dehumanised or demonised, or the pretence can be made that the act was legitimate self-defence etc. Abortion for convenience, the abuse of slaves, mass delusions linked to deeply enculturated racism, etc. come to mind. That is why we need clear, paradigm, self evident cases that starkly reveal the underlying principles. Which, we may then extend to those that are less clear, by way of reformation. And so we come full circle: it is self-evidently wrong, immoral, perverse, wicked and demonically evil to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. If your worldview cannot heartily concur or does not provide a frame that has in it an IS that grounds this clear OUGHT, that worldview is morally absurd, perverse, destructive and dangerous. (One may live above what that worldview would naturally lead to -- as conscience is a built-in moral sense, but the view gradually warps and dulls conscience, heart and mind in ways that are analogous to things that blind and deafen.) As a paradigm example of such destructiveness and absurdity, I cite a notorious case -- by way of warning and call to reformation -- from Dr Clinton Richard Dawkins, Sci Am, August 1995, citing in a way that draws attention to the core issue:
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.]
To see my point, simply contrast the earlier case frrom the US DOI of 1776. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2013
November
11
Nov
20
20
2013
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice
I think that society could exist, could have rules, and could enforce those rules. That would be a “well-ordered” society for the descriptive value of “well.” I would abhor that society, of course.
You think order could be preserved while the judge, who supports the torturing of babies, rules against parents who want to protect them? You don’t think that would degenerate into a war of all against all?
Are you clear on what it means to be a moral subjectivist? Seems wrong to me is the same thing as bad, under my subjective analysis. Whether there’s a more objective test is what you are trying, and failing, to prove.
No, seems wrong is not the same as is wrong. You are simply wrong about that. “Is” refers to being, which is objective; “seems” refers to the perception of being, which is subjective. I am not trying to prove anything because self-evident truths cannot be proven. The Law of Non-Contradiction is like that. It cannot be proven. You know it immediately, just as you know the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Whoops. “You’d agree with me if you weren’t a bad person” is not a logical argument. It assumes the existence of what you’re trying to prove, making it—again—circular.
Again, you misunderstand. The Natural moral law, like the Law of Non-Contradiction (or the law of causality) cannot be proven. It is the standard by which other things are proven.
Moreover, “men of good will” disagree over “natural moral law” questions all the time.
No, they will not. No, they do not.
Is abortion always wrong?
Yes.
Even if the life of the mother is at stake?
An abortion is the direct taking of a life for the purpose of ending that life. It is always evil. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the medical intervention is to save the life of the mother and the baby is accidentally killed in the process, then that is not abortion and can be morally justified.
Is no one who disagrees with you on that question “of good will”?
It depends on how they react to the truth. Men of good will always follow the light they are given. If they refuse to follow that light, then they are not of good will.
As a practical matter everyone in this conversation feels that it is wrong.
No. Some of us know that it is wrong.
The question we’re trying to answer is, is that because it’s such an extreme example that any functional human being would be socialized to agree with it as a subjective standard, or is there a definable objective standard behind it? I think you’ve abandoned the effort of proving the objective standard—now you’re just rephrasing “it exists” in elaborate ways.
I never hoped to prove that which cannot be proven. I did hope to show that there is such a thing as an objectively good society, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good way for a community to live, which is based on the standard that there is such a thing as a good life for a person. You appear not to agree.
How do you prove it to someone who disagrees with you? (“I feel like you feel the same objective standard I do” is, ironically, a subjective argument, not proof.) How do you distinguish between an objective rule and a consensus subjective rule? Are objective rules mutable over time, or not?
Well, a consensus subjective rule will always tyrannize the minority. (We many agree to enslave you few). On the other hand, the natural moral holds everyone to account—the many, the powerful, and the few. Justice is not possible under any other circumstances. SB: Or, perhaps you believe that there is no such thing as a good and healthy society or that there is no way of distinguishing it from a decadent or perverse society.
I think those are subjective definitions. Once again, you’re assuming otherwise, not proving otherwise. A transplant from 1905 might consider our society decadent and perverse because we allow the consumption of alcohol and interracial marriage, yet be considered a moral paragon by his own community back in the past. Was he always a monstrous bigot, or did the objective standards change?
Well, it’s easy for you to say that I am not proving anything, because all you have to do is dismiss what is said and claim that it was ineffectual. That doesn’t require much intellectual exertion. In any case, the Natural Moral Law covers all those situations that you mentioned. The consumption of alcohol is not inherently evil. It is the abuse of alcohol that is evil and it is on that basis that the civil law should be based. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with interracial marriage. So, the only issue at stake is whether the society will honor the natural moral law. SB: From what I gather, you don’t think it matters how a nation’s people behave as long as each member, including the leaders, gets to create his own morality.
Do I also eat babies and have concentrated molecular acid for blood? I have no idea where you gathered this nonsense. It has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. I have moral preferences. The way other people behave is relevant to those preferences. For example, I prefer freedom to slavery. If my neighbors become slavers, I absolutely think that matters, even if I’m not their target. That’s because I can and do value people who aren’t me—even strangers.
You are totally missing the point. You feel slavery is wrong, but you cannot provide any moral justification for telling others that they shouldn’t enslave. They, like you, are going by their feelings. In like fashion, you cannot tell those who do eat babies that they should stop. They feel they should; you feel they should not. SB: If, as it turns out, a leader’s subjective morality prompts him to enslave everyone else, then I have to ask: Would that be acceptable with you? If not, what is your basis for saying that it would be morally unacceptable for you and for everyone else?
No. My basis would be that I believe slavery is wrong.
So what? The slave master believes the slavery is not wrong. Why should your belief take logical precedence over his belief?
I don’t need an objective standard to hold that belief.
Of course you don’t need an objective standard to hold a subjective belief. That is obvious.
Once I hold it, it is logical for me to take action to implement it. I must weigh that implementation against the moral cost of taking action—such as infringing on others’ sovereignty—but that doesn’t preclude taking action.
You have not yet addressed the issue about the slave master who feels, like you, that it is logical for him to take action against you based on his beliefs. How should this be settled?
In your example, my belief that everyone has a right to be free would vastly outweigh my belief that the leader has a limited right to be self-sovereign, and I would certainly take action to oppose him.
So it is with him. You have settled nothing. He will war against you and you will war against him. Indeed, everyone, based on his individual and self-serving morality, will war against everyone else. Eventually, a dictator will step in to restore order and everyone will be enslaved, Do you not understand that this is the inevitable result of your moral relativism?StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB PHV has covered everything beautifully so I am going to concentrate on one aspect of your response. You want to say that what makes it absurd to deny that torturing babies is bad is your estimate of the consequences of denying it is bad if accepted as a general rule for society. It follows from this that if the those consequences did not in fact follow then it is not self-evident that torture is bad. But you have made significant assumptions about that society – for example that young need parents to protect them to survive – this is a biological fact that might have been otherwise – there are many species where this is not true. So you are saying the truth of a moral statement is dependent on a particular type of society (which as it happens is the one we have). So you appear to have become a consequentialist and a relativist! I leave you with this thought experiment. Consider the hypothetical case where there is only a lone man and a baby boy left on earth – this is the end of humanity (sounds like The Road). So there will be no consequences for society if he sets about torturing the baby because there will be no society. It appears that in this case for you it would not be self-evidently bad for him to torture the baby.Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
The only thing I am really assuming is that there is such a thing as a well-ordered society. If you disagree, then we can move on. If you agree, then I am simply pointing out that any behavior that leads to the death of a well-ordered society contradicts the requirements for maintaining a well-ordered society.
It depends on what “well-ordered society” means. A society that has rules, and where those rules are enforced? That’s what I think you mean. It’s an objective definition. If you mean a “good” society, then we’re in the swamp again—good by whose definition? It can’t be an objective good, for the purposes of your test, or the test is circular.
Does this mean that you are prepared to argue the possibility that a well-ordered society can be maintained even if it sanctions the torturing of babies? It would seem so.
I think that society could exist, could have rules, and could enforce those rules. That would be a “well-ordered” society for the descriptive value of “well.” I would abhor that society, of course.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. You have said that torturing babies is wrong or is bad, but when I inquire further, you amend that comment and say that what you really mean that it seems wrong to you and is not necessarily wrong in an objective sense. Either it is wrong or it isn’t.
Are you clear on what it means to be a moral subjectivist? Seems wrong to me is the same thing as bad, under my subjective analysis. Whether there’s a more objective test is what you are trying, and failing, to prove.
I should probably abandon the project of trying to dramatize and make plain something that is really self-evident, namely the objective moral law and the absurdity of trying to circumvent it, both at the individual and societal level.
If that means no more parade of horribles, then please. And if it means actually trying to define and operationalize “self-evident,” then double please.
These discussions soon get embarrassingly clumsy because the natural moral law really is self-evident to all men of good will.
Whoops. “You’d agree with me if you weren’t a bad person” is not a logical argument. It assumes the existence of what you’re trying to prove, making it—again—circular. Moreover, “men of good will” disagree over “natural moral law” questions all the time. Is abortion always wrong? Even if the life of the mother is at stake? Is no one who disagrees with you on that question “of good will”?
To be precise, we all know, down deep, that it is objectively wrong to torture babies—unless we are being dishonest with ourselves, or unless we have been brainwashed through perverse education, or unless our intellect has been dulled by a chain of bad habits.
As a practical matter everyone in this conversation feels that it is wrong. The question we’re trying to answer is, is that because it’s such an extreme example that any functional human being would be socialized to agree with it as a subjective standard, or is there a definable objective standard behind it? I think you’ve abandoned the effort of proving the objective standard—now you’re just rephrasing “it exists” in elaborate ways. How do you prove it to someone who disagrees with you? ("I feel like you feel the same objective standard I do" is, ironically, a subjective argument, not proof.) How do you distinguish between an objective rule and a consensus subjective rule? Are objective rules mutable over time, or not?
Or, perhaps you believe that there is no such thing as a good and healthy society or that there is no way of distinguishing it from a decadent or perverse society.
I think those are subjective definitions. Once again, you’re assuming otherwise, not proving otherwise. A transplant from 1905 might consider our society decadent and perverse because we allow the consumption of alcohol and interracial marriage, yet be considered a moral paragon by his own community back in the past. Was he always a monstrous bigot, or did the objective standards change?
From what I gather, you don’t think it matters how a nation’s people behave as long as each member, including the leaders, gets to create his own morality.
Do I also eat babies and have concentrated molecular acid for blood? I have no idea where you gathered this nonsense. It has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. I have moral preferences. The way other people behave is relevant to those preferences. For example, I prefer freedom to slavery. If my neighbors become slavers, I absolutely think that matters, even if I’m not their target. That’s because I can and do value people who aren’t me—even strangers.
If, as it turns out, a leader’s subjective morality prompts him to enslave everyone else, then I have to ask: Would that be acceptable with you? If not, what is your basis for saying that it would be morally unacceptable for you and for everyone else?
No. My basis would be that I believe slavery is wrong. I don’t need an objective standard to hold that belief. Once I hold it, it is logical for me to take action to implement it. I must weigh that implementation against the moral cost of taking action—such as infringing on others’ sovereignty—but that doesn’t preclude taking action. In your example, my belief that everyone has a right to be free would vastly outweigh my belief that the leader has a limited right to be self-sovereign, and I would certainly take action to oppose him.Pro Hac Vice_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice
Aside from MF’s cogent point that this is consequentialist argument, I think it also assumes that “well-ordered” incorporates your proposed objective standard. Otherwise the resulting society, no matter how ugly we would subjectively judge it to be, could consider itself well-ordered. Again, it’s circular.
Maybe you missed my comment to Mark about the difference between my argument and consequentialism. The only thing I am really assuming is that there is such a thing as a well-ordered society. If you disagree, then we can move on. If you agree, then I am simply pointing out that any behavior that leads to the death of a well-ordered society contradicts the requirements for maintaining a well-ordered society.
A more critical flaw is that, once again, you aren’t identifying absurd consequences. There’s nothing logically absurd about a society we would consider sick and horrible. Nor do I see why trying to hold such a sick society together would be (a) logically impossible or (b) absurd. (If it’s impossible because torturing children would make it intrinsically disordered, well, that again assumes the existence of an objective moral standard. Circular.)
Does this mean that you are prepared to argue the possibility that a well-ordered society can be maintained even if it sanctions the torturing of babies? It would seem so. SB: I am not starting from a consensus position. Quite the contrary. The Natural Moral Law is not based on consensus. If it was, it would be nothing more than an aggregation of subjective feelings.
I think you misunderstand me, which is on me. I’m taking the position that we empirically do start from a consensus position–no one in this conversation would disagree that torturing babies is wrong–and that we’re trying to tell whether that’s because of an objective standard we all feel or just because the example is such an extreme one.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. You have said that torturing babies is wrong or is bad, but when I inquire further, you amend that comment and say that what you really mean that it seems wrong to you and is not necessarily wrong in an objective sense. Either it is wrong or it isn’t.
Your test doesn’t answer that question for us. The rest of your response suggests that maybe you didn’t mean it to–we may be miscommunicating from the get-go.
I should probably abandon the project of trying to dramatize and make plain something that is really self-evident, namely the objective moral law and the absurdity of trying to circumvent it, both at the individual and societal level. These discussions soon get embarrassingly clumsy because the natural moral law really is self-evident to all men of good will. To be precise, we all know, down deep, that it is objectively wrong to torture babies—unless we are being dishonest with ourselves, or unless we have been brainwashed through perverse education, or unless our intellect has been dulled by a chain of bad habits. Naturally, the moral relativist will resist this proposition and react negatively to it. It’s human nature.
Your application of the proposed tool hits the same roadblock–you’re declaring that there are objective good and bad ends. But we’re trying to determine whether those things are truly objective, so it doesn’t get us anywhere.
If you don’t agree with me that the death of a once healthy society is an objectively bad thing, then it would certainly be a waste of my time to try to persuade you that the behavior that caused it is also objectively bad. Yet that appears to be where we are. Or, perhaps you believe that there is no such thing as a good and healthy society or that there is no way of distinguishing it from a decadent or perverse society. Indeed, you may not even accept such notions as normalcy or perversity at all. From what I gather, you don’t think it matters how a nation’s people behave as long as each member, including the leaders, gets to create his own morality. If, as it turns out, a leader’s subjective morality prompts him to enslave everyone else, then I have to ask: Would that be acceptable with you? If not, what is your basis for saying that it would be morally unacceptable for you and for everyone else?StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank
PVH has answered you very well.
I disagree. Check my response.
Do you really want to ground the self-evident truth of “torturing babies is wrong” on a empirical hypothesis about the consequences of that act? Would you really want to say murder is not self-evidently wrong if this hypothesis turned out to be false. I never thought you were a moral consequentialist.
To cite the "consequences" of violating the natural moral law is not to be a moral consequentialist, which is something different. There are consequences to violating the physical laws of nature and there are consequences of violating the moral laws of nature. That is not consequentialism, which holds, wrongly, that morality depends solely on consequences and nothing else. I am simply demonstrating the consequences and absurdity of violating the natural moral law.
1) You are assuming with no justification that everyone will act on this principle.
Where did you get a strange idea like that? You are the one who is doing the assuming here, and without any justification.
I am only asking what’s logically absurd about me believing it is OK to torture infants. No one said that a moral principle has to apply equally to all people.
Obviously, you don't understand the basic nature of an objective moral principle, which, by definition, binds everyone.
2) Some generally accepted moral principles such as not killing anyone unless they have committed a crime or in a war against you may lead to a breakdown in society in some circumstances.
Again, you miss the point. Even if your above claim was true, and I would argue vehemently that it isn't, it would not be logically impossible to maintain a well-ordered society with that ethic.
There is nothing obviously absurd to a psychopath about civil laws to protect the rights of those who torture babies, parents being forbidden to protect their young, etc.
That is a another very strange response. A psychopath is, by definition, incapable of weighing the morality of his actions against the common good.StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

You don’t think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for protesting the torture of babies? Only using the colloquial definition of "absurd." It's not logically absurd. Even if we use a very loose definition (in which case you don't have a reductio ad absurdem) this argument is circular. This is "absurd" because we assume that it's objectively wrong to torture babies, the objectivity of which is what you're trying to prove. How do you know that they are bad? What is your standard? I really don't know why I have to keep answering this question. This is not a clever gotcha question. The answer is very simple. Whether or not you agree with my position, by now I think it should be quite clear what it is: I make my own assessment, based on my subjective moral beliefs. Those beliefs come from many sources, such as my culture and upbringing. In this case, I value the welfare of children. It is logically impossible to maintain a well-ordered if that society also assumes that torturing babies is a good thing. It is absurd to try. Aside from MF's cogent point that this is consequentialist argument, I think it also assumes that "well-ordered" incorporates your proposed objective standard. Otherwise the resulting society, no matter how ugly we would subjectively judge it to be, could consider itself well-ordered. Again, it's circular. A more critical flaw is that, once again, you aren't identifying absurd consequences. There's nothing logically absurd about a society we would consider sick and horrible. Nor do I see why trying to hold such a sick society together would be (a) logically impossible or (b) absurd. (If it's impossible because torturing children would make it intrinsically disordered, well, that again assumes the existence of an objective moral standard. Circular.) A moment ago you agreed that the outcomes were “bad.” Now you are characterizing your own conclusion as my assumption. I am not starting from a consensus position. Quite the contrary. The Natural Moral Law is not based on consensus. If it was, it would be nothing more than an aggregation of subjective feelings. I think you misunderstand me, which is on me. I'm taking the position that we empirically do start from a consensus position--no one in this conversation would disagree that torturing babies is wrong--and that we're trying to tell whether that's because of an objective standard we all feel or just because the example is such an extreme one. Your test doesn't answer that question for us. The rest of your response suggests that maybe you didn't mean it to--we may be miscommunicating from the get-go. The point is not that we all recoil, which would be collective subjectivity, but that the outcomes are objectively bad, which indicates objectively bad behavior. I really did a double take at this one. We're trying to test for the existence of an objective moral standard, aren't we? Maybe we're miscommunicating severely, but this seems almost tautologically circular to me. Assessing the outcomes as "objectively bad" assumes the existence of an objective standard, which is the thing under examination. Your application of the proposed tool hits the same roadblock--you're declaring that there are objective good and bad ends. But we're trying to determine whether those things are truly objective, so it doesn't get us anywhere.Pro Hac Vice_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice:
I don’t think that analysis gets us anywhere. First of all, you haven’t actually identified absurdities. The consequences you’ve outlined are bad, but not absurd.
You don't think it's absurd to put someone in jail for protesting the torture of babies?
The consequences you’ve outlined are bad...
How do you know that they are bad? What is your standard?
An absurd result would be one that’s self-contradictory or logically impossible.
It is logically impossible to maintain a well-ordered if that society also assumes that torturing babies is a good thing. It is absurd to try.
Second, I think your test is functionally useless. It relies on us assuming that the proposed outcomes are horrible, which we do–but remember that you’re starting from a consensus position.
A moment ago you agreed that the outcomes were "bad." Now you are characterizing your own conclusion as my assumption. I am not starting from a consensus position. Quite the contrary. The Natural Moral Law is not based on consensus. If it was, it would be nothing more than an aggregation of subjective feelings.
The fact that we all recoil from your parade of horribles doesn’t answer the question at hand: do we do so because the proposition is so horrible that everyone (in present company) rejects it according to their subjective standards, or because of some external criteria?
The point is not that we all recoil, which would be collective subjectivity, but that the outcomes are objectively bad, which indicates objectively bad behavior.
Both sides agree your outcomes would be awful.
. Horrible and awful are just synonyms for bad, which, by definition, is objective. Unpleasant and repulsive are subjective reactions, which are either informed by objective realities, in which case they are appropriate, or subjective preferences, in which case they are not.
Once again, I think we need to try some borderline cases. Can you use your proposed tool to determine whether it’s self-evidently morally good to legalize pot, or some other actually disputed question?
Yes. The objective natural moral law applies to general principles. It cannot cover all cases, let alone the hard to judge cases. That is where the virtue of prudence comes in, which weighs all known objective goods against all known objective evils. Since some evils must be tolerated, this requires hard thinking. It is objectively good to promote health and objectively bad to threaten health; it is objectively good to promote freedom and objectively bad to threaten freedom; and it is objectively good to foster a wholesome culture and it is objectively bad to promote a barbaric culture. The proposed legalization of pot involves these and other issues. Prudence must weight all the objectively good things against all the objectively bad things and the circumstances as well. If there are no objectively good or bad things, then there is nothing for the virtue of prudence to do.StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

#29 StephenB PVH has answered you very well. For completeness I will describe the same thing my way.
What would the culture like be like if that kind of behavior was thought to be objectively good.
Do you really want to ground the self-evident truth of "torturing babies is wrong" on a empirical hypothesis about the consequences of that act? Would you really want to say murder is not self-evidently wrong if this hypothesis turned out to be false. I never thought you were a moral consequentialist. Some more detailed points: 1) You are assuming with no justification that everyone will act on this principle. I am only asking what's logically absurd about me believing it is OK to torture infants. No one said that a moral principle has to apply equally to all people. 2) Some generally accepted moral principles such as not killing anyone unless they have committed a crime or in a war against you may lead to a breakdown in society in some circumstances. 3) There is nothing obviously absurd to a psychopath about civil laws to protect the rights of those who torture babies, parents being forbidden to protect their young, etc.Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Among other things, civil laws would be passed to protect the rights of those who torture babies. Parents would be forbidden to protect their young and might even be jailed for intervening on their behalf. (Obviously, this is absurd). To characterize such behavior as evil would be considered a hate crime. (This is equally absurd). It would be unduly burdensome to raise children in such an environment and few would even try. I don't think that analysis gets us anywhere. First of all, you haven't actually identified absurdities. The consequences you've outlined are bad, but not absurd. An absurd result would be one that's self-contradictory or logically impossible. The things you've outlined are horrible, according to our consensus morality, but not self-contradictory. A parade of horribles is not the same as a logical test. Second, I think your test is functionally useless. It relies on us assuming that the proposed outcomes are horrible, which we do--but remember that you're starting from a consensus position. Both sides agree your outcomes would be awful. The fact that we all recoil from your parade of horribles doesn't answer the question at hand: do we do so because the proposition is so horrible that everyone (in present company) rejects it according to their subjective standards, or because of some external criteria? Once again, I think we need to try some borderline cases. Can you use your proposed tool to determine whether it's self-evidently morally good to legalize pot, or some other actually disputed question? What would it be like, for example, if everyone rationalized adultery, theft, or murder. The results would be objectively bad because the principles being flouted are objectively good. This is objectively circular, if the objective is to test the existence of moral objectivity.Pro Hac Vice_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

By the way, we can test each principle of the Natural Moral Law in the same way as outlined @29. What would it be like, for example, if everyone rationalized adultery, theft, or murder. The results would be objectively bad because the principles being flouted are objectively good. The very idea of a well-ordered society would be considered absurd and would soon die. (Not just the well-ordered society itself but even the idea of a well-ordered society). In many ways, we are almost there now.StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
When asked what absurdity comes from denying that torturing children for personal amusement is wrong there is no response. Notice that if/when this absurdity is forthcoming it has to be objectively absurd. It cannot appeal to subjective feelings about what is right or what one ought to do or is obligated to do.
I don't think that this is a very daunting task. Recall the formal mechanism for applying the principle of absurdity--reductio ad absudum (assume the opposite and observe what happens). What would the culture like be like if that kind of behavior was thought to be objectively good. One can think of a thousand different scenarios. Among other things, civil laws would be passed to protect the rights of those who torture babies. Parents would be forbidden to protect their young and might even be jailed for intervening on their behalf. (Obviously, this is absurd). To characterize such behavior as evil would be considered a hate crime. (This is equally absurd). It would be unduly burdensome to raise children in such an environment and few would even try. Eventually, the culture would simply die. In other words, the consequences of practicing and justifying the behavior would produce objectively bad consequences. It would be an absurd way to maintain a well-ordered society.StephenB_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

MF:
25: I accept that murder is wrong
And what is "wrong," on what basis, with what import, that we ought not to do it? Why? KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

#26 PHV You are certainly right the conversation has been going for many years. It goes through the same stereotyped routines like some ritual from Gormenghast. It was naive to hope something new might turn up.Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, I share your frustration. But this conversation has been going of for many years among many people, and to my knowledge no one has ever actually been able to identify objective standards or a tool for proving them. I don't think we'll get substantive answers here. It is, ultimately, a matter of faith.Pro Hac Vice_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

KF #24 What are you challenging us sceptics to deny? I accept that murder is wrong. I agree that there is a "long since generally settled consensus that wantonly taking life is something we have no right to". I agree that we will "never shake the concept that one’s own life is valuable, and that of those one cares about naturally. So, the issue is really just to extend that caring to all people". These all compatible with a subjective view of ethics. The difference appears to be that while I think these things are obviously true you say they are self-evidently true. I want to examine how "self-evidently" differs from "obviously" - as many subjective things are obviously true. So far all that self-evidently seems to mean in the context of morality is "I think it is true and anyone who denies it is a fool or a liar" which is about as subjective as you can get.Mark Frank_{November 19, 2013
November
11
Nov
19
19
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply