Kinda like this:
In a comment to my last post A-Mat subjectivist Mimus demonstrates how he would argue to a Saudi that executing homosexuals is wrong.
I would argue that moral codes should balance the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness and thrive in their own lives with the detrimental effects of selfish or antisocial behavior. That leaves no grounds for discrimination against gay people at all, let alone their murder.
The problem with Mimus’ argument is that it is based on an equivocation. Let’s see how.
Mimus’ argument boils down to this:
Major premise: Killing someone for no reason other than that they are pursuing happiness and thriving in their own lives is evil.
Minor premise: Homosexuals are pursuing happiness and thriving in their own lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, killing homosexuals is evil.
The argument’s conclusion certainly follows from its premises. So, what is wrong with it?
The problem with the argument is that as a materialist, when Mimus uses the word “evil” he cannot mean “evil” in any objective sense of that word which the Saudi is bound to recognize. He can only mean “that which, though I have no free will, evolutionary processes have determined I do not prefer.” When Mimus’ equivocation is exposed, his real argument comes to fore:
Major premise: Killing someone for no reason other than that they are pursuing happiness and thriving in their own lives is something which, though I have no free will, evolutionary processes have determined I not prefer.
Minor premise: Homosexuals are pursuing happiness and thriving in their own lives.
Conclusion: Therefore, killing homosexuals is something which, though I have no free will, evolutionary processes have determined I not prefer.
To which the Saudi would understandably object, why should I care what evolutionary processes have determined that you not prefer?
All materialist moral arguments – without exception – are based on an identical equivocation. And when the equivocation is exposed, it is always revealed that the materialist is trying to pull himself up by his bootstraps.
Oh no, not again!!! 🙂
Deja vu: we just had this discussion, and Barry has absolutely no idea that there might be a reasonable view different than his about this subject. Maybe he should just go re-read the previous post and comments.
I, of course, admit that my preference for people being happy might not be held by everyone.
I’m still waiting for any indication of how objective morality doesn’t lead to almost identical impasses. You and the Saudi both believe in an objective moral code. What can you offer to convince him yours is right and his is wrong? Can’t he simply reply “why should I care what your beliefs”?
Mimus:
Incorrect: Islamists believe in a subjective moral code. Mohammed made up his own morality as he went along. That is why the peaceful moral code he wrote in the earlier Koran, when he was vulnerable, is different from the militant moral code he wrote in the later Koran, when he was powerful. Like you, Mohammed changed his personal subjective code to match his personal behavior, opportunities, and circumstances.
When you say that you “prefer” that people should be “happy,” I assume that you mean all people, otherwise your statement is meaningless. Should a bigot be free to murder a homosexual if it makes him happy?
Sounds a bit like the OT and the NT… Anyway,you personal opinion of Islam is not very relevant. I’m sure the hypothetical Saudi holds that he is acting in accordance with an objective moral law communicated to him by the prophet.
You can append “all else being equal” to the start if you’d like. My fuller comment makes this more clear too. But I want to emphasise, my position is not that understanding morality is easy and there are no difficult moral quandaries. It’s just hat objective morality codes don’t solve these difficulties in a satisfactory way.
I should add, you demonstrated a remarkable inability to read comments, get te point or really do anything other than repeat your own points more angrily in the other thread. So I don’t think there’s much chance in me replying to you again.
Mimus:
It isn’t my personal opinion. It is a fact. Objective morality comes from outside the person and cannot change; subjective morality comes from inside the person and does change. Mohammed’s doctrine came from him and he felt free to change it. It is, therefore, subjective. Objective morality is discovered, real and true; subjective morality is invented, unreal, and false. So you cannot compare the unchanging morality that Barry discovered with the changing morality that Mohammed invented. That Mohammed’s morality was passed along to the Saudi is irrelevant to the fact that it is subjective.
I really don’t think you understand the problem with your position. You wrote,
This statement is [a] hopelessly ambiguous and {b] filled with implicit references to objective morality. Why *should* a moral code balance anything? You have not provided any kind of argument to support that proposition. To what extent are humans *morally justified* in pursuing happiness in their own way? If there are limits, what are they? Whose *selfish* and *anti-social behavior* are you referring to – the pursuer of freedom or those who are affected by it? Absent objective morality, what is wrong with selfish and anti-social behavior?
As I said, you and this hypothetical Saudi might not share my preference for people being happy and leading fulfilling lives. I don’t dispute that.
The point I’m trying to make, and no-one seems to want to address, is that I don’t see how moral objectivism avoids the same sorts of impasses.
And all religious moral arguments run straight into the Euthyphro dilemma. Is some action intrinsically good or is it only good because God says so? In other words, are Christians are saying that they would have no idea what is morally good unless God told them and they would only follow such principles if they were threatened with eternal hell and damnation if they didn’t? On the other hand, if certain behaviors are intrinsically good, regardless of what anyone or any God says, what do we need God for? What’s to prevent us working it out for ourselves?
Mimus
At the very, very least — those who affirm objective morality can assert, logically, that all people must conform to those values.
The subjectivist does not have a logical reason to say the same thing.
Thus, the Saudi is morally correct in the subjectivist view, since the Saudi has a moral code that is equal to any other.
Sev
Natural moral law arguments are not religious as such.
They start with the belief that basic moral values are in-built into human nature. We should follow those values because that is the most logical and rational thing to do – to act in accord with our rational, human nature.
Where and why we have those moral values in-built, and why we have a rational human nature, are evidences and points that lead to the belief in God, and then to religion.
But the idea that there are objective moral norms in human beings does not start with religion, or even require it.
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers show this same thing.
SA writes,
All logical arguments are based on premises, but the premises need to have some foundation.
If objective moral values exist then “all people must conform to those values.”
It is the premise, however, that is not established.
Jack:
Indeed. I keep hoping that if I can explain things just a little more clearly, the materialists will recognize the incoherence of their worldview and come to their senses. I realize that this is an example of the triumph of hope over experience, but I keep trying.
Jack, if there is such a view, by all means tell us. You can start by letting us know why the Saudi should care about what evolutionary processes have determined Mimus not prefer.
Indeed. Tell us why the premises of Mimus’ argument (i.e., evolutionary processes have determined that I not prefer killing homosexuals) is a sound basis upon which to rest any sort of conclusion.
Mimus
You keep ignoring the issue and trying to change the subject. I understand why. Your attempt to persuade the Saudi amounts to nothing more than “I prefer vanilla, so you should too.” You have no logical basis upon which to make any moral argument. And when that is pointed out, instead of admitting that you’ve got nothing, you want to talk about something else.
Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. Like any sane person, you know for an absolute certain fact that moral statements such as “it is evil to torture babies for fun” do not rest on anything as flimsy as personal preferences. Yet your premises compel you to say they do.
Barry thinks the atheist materialist ought to understand. The atheist materialist has a subjective preference to not understand.
SA writes,
There are other explanations as to why we have a human nature that includes a moral capability and some common moral tendencies. The inference that this “points to God”, or even points to an objective referent for morals, is not itself an objectively determined truth.
That is the main point here. Those who believe in objective morality do so because of a subjective preference for that belief system.
jdk
It’s a little different. The premise is established;
“There are people who believe that objective moral values exist”.
That premise is true.
The argument then follows:
“Logically, those people who believe that OMV’s exist have a different worldview than those who do not believe they exist”.
That different worldview enables those who believe that OMV’s to consistently and logically assert that all people must obey them.
Subjectivists cannot consistently and logically assert that all people must obey their subjective moral code — or that their moral code is binding on all people, or that their code is more authoritative (better) than any possible subjectivist code.
Agreed?
jdk
What is the explanation on why we have a human nature and why there are universal moral tendencies?
Can you reference any objectively determined truth on a subjectivist basis?
As above, do you think that logical conclusions are expressions of a subjective preference?
Point 1. There is a fundamental difference between good and evil.
Ok, subjectivism disagrees there. We have to go to a higher-level point.
Point 2. There is a fundamental difference between a commitment to truth and a commitment to falsehood.
Subjectivism cannot even respond to that statement.
Because of the universal, objective moral value of truth – subjectivism fails at that point.
Being able to logically and consistently assert a conclusion based on a false (or at least unverifiable) premise is not a virtue.
See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bob-argues-with-a-saudi-about-whether-it-is-good-to-execute-homosexuals/, comments 1 and 10, for my thoughts on this.
jdk:
Evolutionists do that on a daily basis 😛
JDK:
You are confusing the process of arriving at truth with the nature of the truth arrived at. The former is epistemological and subjective; the latter is metaphysical and objective.
On the contrary. The point of objective morality is to put a check on the wrong kinds of preferences. Thus, the moral person may prefer to commit adultery, but he rules out that preference on the grounds that adultery is objectively wrong. Thus, there is often a tension between what the moral person wants to do and should do.
By contrast, If the subjectivist prefers to commit adultery, there is no moral dilemma or tension involved. Since his preferences rule, the matter is settled. He will commit adultery if he wants to and will rationalize it on the grounds that it is his morality.
In like fashion, the murderous Saudi, after consulting his subjective moral code, commits his violent act for the same reason the adulterer betrays his spouse. He wants to do it, so he does it.
For the subjectivist, there is no moral tension between what he should do and wants to do because he doesn’t believe there is any such thing as a “should” to hold him back.
Mimus:
I have already addressed this strawman argument @3.
The materialists on this thread rage, mock, scoff and attempt to re-direct.
Not a single one of them has addressed, much less refuted, the argument in the OP.
Telling, very telling.
SA, moving the topic to “the universal, objective moral value of truth” changes nothing, although it broadens the topic. As I remarked elsewhere recently, I, for instance, am very interested in truth, but I don’t believe that I, or anyone else, can find some objective, transcendent Truth about anything. Believing that such exists is just as much a subjective philosophical preference as believing objective moral values exist.
jdk
Here is a universal truth – and foundation of moral values:
“You cannot make an absolute commitment to falsehood”.
Logically, your first premise will fail.
This is an objective, universal truth. It is not subjective.
You can make an absolute moral commitment, and strive always to tell the truth – as an intellectual virtue. You can strive to understand the truth of things and to express that honestly.
“You cannot make a commitment to falsehood”. It is logically and morally impossible.
That is objective. That’s a universal truth.
Jack writes:
Self-refuting, internally incoherent nonsense.
Consider this truth claim: Objective truth does not exist.
If the claim is true it is false, because then at least one claim would be objectively true.
I understand that materialists must blither like this in order to cope with their cognitive dissonance. It is stunning that they expect the rest of us to go along.
BA
Another objective Truth. JDK thinks he thinks he wrote post # 23.
Vivid
Silver Asiatic:
Truth claims are moral claims, and it always comes down to what is true or not, and whether a person ought to assent to what is true and ought not assent to what is false.
It’s morality all the way down.
Mung
Yes, exactly. To assent to the truth is a morally good action, and humans are hard-wired for it. It is impossible for us to make an internal commitment to falsehood as a value. We would not be able to draw any conclusions in our own mind.
Still nothing from the materialists.
Come on guys. Tell us why the Saudi should care about what evolutionary processes have determined Mimus not prefer.
BA
This is the foundation of the moral law that jdk already accepts (but denies). We are oriented towards what is true – and the true is what is good.
When we reason, we draw conclusions – we seek the truth.
As you point out, even subjectivists who deny objective truth will rely on it and make statements which they think are absolutely true.
If they tried to claim that they choose to accept either true or false conclusions subjectively – that claim itself would have to be true in order for them to even understand their own thinking in their mind.
A person who tried to continually lie to himself, and to subjectively choose true or false – would basically go insane.
Of course, nobody could trust a person who states that accepting the truth or speaking the truth, is not a moral requirement. If they are willing to lie about everything, and unwilling to accept the truth even when proven – then it is impossible to reason with them.
“Right reason”, or integrity of thought, respect for the moral goodness of truth – is an absolute requirement for anyone engaging in serious discussion.
This is aside from the fact that anyone who says that the acceptance or rejection of truth is morally equivalent and can be accepted on a subjective basis – is self-refuting.
re 25: In the other Saudi thread, I had this exchange.
Vivid had written,
I replied
The same type of reply applies to 25.
Jack @ 31:
Do you know this statement is true Jack?
No, you do not. In fact, you, like everyone else, know it is false. You are absolutely certain that 2+2= 4. If you say you are not, you are liar in addition to being a fool.
2+2=4 is a mathematical identity, and it is certainly true.
As we have discussed in the past, it is also true that the number of degrees in a triangle is greater than 180° if we start with a certain assumption about parallel lines, equal to 180° if we assume something else, and less than 180° if we assume something else
Logical proofs depend on their beginning assumptions, and those assumptions are then part of the foundation for that system
I don’t think this has much do with the subject of moral objective truths. The situations are not analogous.
Jack:
And it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure is also certainly true. Deny that. I dare you.
see 18 above.
Barry: “And it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure is also certainly true. Deny that. I dare you.”
Jack: “see 18 above.”
Jack, 18 above does not deny or affirm the proposition. That is what we call an “obvious dodge.”
You said in 31: ” I just believe it is true that there is no Truth that we can know” If you are going to stand by that statement, you must deny that Truth “it is evil to torture a baby for pleasure” is also certainly true.
I gave you an opportunity to do so and you ran for cover.
You are a coward Jack.
Do you want to respond to the posts I linked to at 18? The comments on the other thread were addressed to you, Barry.
JDK:
Do you mean to say that you don’t know if the law of non-contradiction is true?
JDK
JDK
This is an irrational statement. How can you give reasons why a moral act is wrong if you don’t believe that any such thing as a morally wrong act exists?
Folks, I cross-post:
KF
SB, yes, the error of subjectivism and/or relativism is manifest. But, we are too often locked in to ideologies that drive marches of folly. KF
JDK, by confirming 2 + 2 = 4 is knowably true you decisively undermine your claim. By then trying to equate it to the circumstance where Euclid’s 5th postulate is not the only possible basis for a Geometry reflects yet another error of our day. Yes, the Greeks and others did not realise that other coherent geometries were possible and relevant. That by no means establishes that postulates are essentially arbitrary and that one can choose to operate on say 2 + 2 = 5 or 3 as the Party decides (to its advantage). How right George Orwell was to use that example in his devastating novel, 1984. KF
KF@43: You wrote: “JDK, by confirming 2 + 2 = 4 is knowably true you decisively undermine your claim.”
I suspect this might put us on the verge of the old “law of non-contradiction” discussion, to recover from which required an amnesty IIRC.
ES58, the root issue is distinct identity (as in, does a world exist, do you exist). Non-contradiction (as in, non-confusion) and excluded middle are instantly present corollaries. Also, BTW, distinct identity shows that world W = {A | ~A}, which immediately illustrates two-ness and opens up the world of number, quantity and structure so that mathematics follows as the study of the logic of structure and quantity. Those who reject the triple first principles of right reason simply show themselves to be at root — with all respect — irrational (and as failing to recognise the roots of Mathematics). Unfortunately, in an increasingly suicidal civilisation, responsible reasonable thought is at a steep discount. We need to soberly face this, if we are to have genuine hope of turning back from the brink. Frankly, I am not particularly optimistic. KF
PS: Just for a quick pointer, W = {A|~A} has A distinct from ~A, i.e. distinct identity, A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics which mark it as distinct from ~A, though both may have in-common characteristics such as membership in W. The partition is such that no x in W can be A AND ~A, non contradiction. Likewise, any x in W will be A or else ~A, not both or neither, the excluded middle. With A and ~A, we see 2 manifested and this extends to numbers more generally. Similarly, to express concepts pictorially or verbally, we critically depend on distinct identity, and of course this lies at the heart of digital technology, e.g. 1/0. The question, then, is not whether these are reasonable and pass our judgement (we have to use these to pass rational judgements!) but whether we are rational and responsible. That such can be viewed dismissively and somehow made out to be controversial speaks volumes on the sad state of our intellectual culture.
‘Barry thinks the atheist materialist ought to understand. The atheist materialist has a subjective preference to not understand.’ – Esteemed Mung.
Barry would, of course, be the last person to argue with that, but it is still good to see it couched in simple terms, since that highlights the surreal nature of these exchanges among scientists and metaphysicians.
These simple reminders are the anomalously bright, if fleeting, shafts of light that interrupt the maze of pedantry that is a ‘sine qua non’ for such exchanges with atheists, since it provides them with cover (of sorts) for equivocation, and since these simple reminders of basic truths speak to the very core of the issues. They never fail to make me laugh out loud with something approaching pure joy. To paraphrase a Pauline Epistle, you are prepared to be mad in a mad world, so that some might be saved !
To my way thinking, you guys are, on a regular basis, prepared to demean yourselves, to abase yourselves, to argue on scientific and metaphysical matters with atheists, to teach/convert them to the truth ; ultimately of theism, particularly qua Christianity, not only on the basis of sheer logic but, also, on the basis of a number of convergent, scientific truths that can only logically confirm that ultimate truth.
So iron-clad are the physical proofs, alone, of theism today, that the intermittent shafts of basic truth posted by you folk, amid all your painstaking arguments in rebuttal of the atheists’ maze of nonsense, seem to issue from another dimension – which, of course, ironically, they do.
Even the term, ‘non locality’ makes me laugh. I hadn’t realised that extra cosmic physical phenomena, such as photons of light, were so ‘old hat’ that you even have the term, ‘non local’. In a sane, non atheist-ruled world, that would be universally recognised as disqualifiying all together the opinions of atheists concerning at least theoretical physics.
As I’ve contended before, they have been almost almost all complete parasites in the development of science qua the major paradigm shifts…. and yet they still rule the roost.
To adapt a quote of Oscar Wilde on the subject of Little Nell : One would have to have a heart of stone, not to laugh at the contortions atheists go through, in their determination not to give due weight to both the multiply- binding empirical evidence, as well as the historical evidence for the non occurrence of evolution, and the evidence of the history of the major scientific advances.
——————–
Subjectivists cannot consistently and logically assert that all people must obey their subjective moral code — or that their moral code is binding on all people, or that their code is more authoritative (better) than any possible subjectivist code.
Is not this what the homosexual lobby do all the time ; with ‘tolerance’ – Chesterton’s ‘virtue of the man without principles’ – trumping all. But not logically, as you pointed out Silver Fox in your post #15
I’m still waiting for Barry to explain how he’d convince this hypothetical Saudi that gay people deserve only moderate levels of discrimination and not death.
For this,
I absolutely believe instincts exist only in our brains,and morals codes are socially constructed. Because human brains are very similar (we all share a lot of evolutionary history after all), certain moral codes are shared almost universally. But lots of our instincts are nearly universally shared. Almost anyone would agree an object over ~65C is too hot to hold. No one thinks that’s evidence that there is an external objective standard of what’s “too hot”.
Mimus:
Natural selection eliminates the less fit, with fitness being dependent on reproductive success, which is a big fat zero for same sex couples and their chosen partner. So why would Barry argue against nature?
The brain has nothing to do with morals and “instinct” is just a word for “I don’t know but this word sounds sciency”
Mimus:
Why do you think that Barry has any obligation at all do do such a thing?
Don’t you know that you cannot derive ought from is?
The alternative of course is that you can in fact derive ought from is, and that morality is therefore indeed objective.
But that’s not the world that atheists and other moral subjectivists think they inhabit, though they unquestionably act as if it is while denying it.
What would really impress me is if the acts of atheists and other moral subjectivists were in keeping with what they profess to believe.
Sadly, it appears there is no objective moral requirement for consistency.
Axel:
Subjectivists cannot consistently and logically assert that all people must obey their subjective moral code — or that their moral code is binding on all people, or that their code is more authoritative (better) than any possible subjectivist code.
Not everyone, just Barry. 🙂
Fine. Let’s take that as granted. Now, what happens when two objectivists disagree? How do you argue for one percieved-objective moral standard over another?
Comments closed. If you want to comment further on this topic, go here.