A note on materialism and objective morality

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 19, 2015

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News}

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

Recently, StephenB wrote, RDFish is wrong; Barry Arrington is right: Materialism cannot be reconciled with objective morality:

In several previous posts, RDFish stumbled into a serious philosophical error that needs to be addressed. Barry Arrington had made the unassailable point that materialism (understood as physicalism) is incompatible with such concepts as good, evil, and objective morality. The reason is clear: Materialism reduces all choices to electro-chemical processes in the brain. With that model, all apparent moral decisions are really nothing more than chemcial-physical operations or functions.

Though RDF failed to refute the argument, confront the argument, or even define his own terms, he sought, nevertheless, to attack it through the back door, claiming that past atheist philosophers embraced both metaphysical materialism and objective morality.

I wonder if, for some readers, there may be a possible source of confusion: One can be a non-theist and still believe in objective morality. A non-theist may believe that the universe operates in a way that includes a moral component that it is not synonymous with a personal God (for example, the more austere forms of Buddhism). Then objective morality is part of objective reality.

Breaking that law is as likely as breaking the laws of nature, perhaps less so, and there are consequences. With materialism and physicalism, there is no such morality and no consequences by definition,. Which could be one reason that atheistic regimes in communist countries like China had such a high body count in the 20th century. – O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Zachriel
All you’ve done is substituted another term for the one at issue. What is ‘just’ can still coherently be considered subjective. For instance, someone may consider duty more important than liberty.
No. You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. I know that you don't believe in the existence of innate rights or inherent dignity, but you don't get to change the definitions of words. Innate rights are objective by definition. They are understood to be natural rights. Nature is objective, not subjective. Objective rights can vary in importance, so your second comment is irrelevant.
If you mean humans have certain propensities, that they prefer tea to torture, then sure, that can be considered objective.
No, what humans prefer is subjective. A preference relates to the subject and doesn't necessarily apply to all other subjects. Objective truths apply to all subjects. An innate right is one that is possessed by all subjects. Inherent dignity is something that applies to all subjects. Subjective opinions are irrelevant to concept of objectivity.StephenB_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Zachriel No. To be independent in space-time doesn't mean to be causally independent. Computers can run after their programmer has gone home, they can be "independent in space-time". But they are not causally independent, because their working do depend on their programmer, also when he has gone home. Computers are not ontological controllers, because to be such one has to be independent in causation, i.e. one has to be a free being/agent/knower, and a computer is neither free, nor being, nor agent, nor knower.niwrad_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

GCS
The word objective vs subjective seems to have lost meaning.
I find the term 'objective', in this case, to be difficult to understand and explain. I know many promoters of "objective morality" offer conflicting ideas on what the term means. In my view, the best (and maybe only) way to use the term 'objective' with morality as in contrast to subjective. So possibly, "non-subjective" would be a clearer term for it. "I love the IBM Corporation. But 'objectively speaking' how is the stock performance?" So, subjectively, we could say "the company is doing great". But objectively, the stock is either up or down. We can reference the stock performance. We cannot reference the subjective idea that "the company is doing great" because that's a subjective interpretation of the data. It's an opinion that could be contradicted. With objective morals, where can you reference "the stock prices" as in the example I gave? The only way to do it is have some external, accessible, code of morals, promulgated by a recognized authority, that can be publicly assessed. To me, that's the only difference. You can't assess a subjective moral code since it is entirely interpreted by the individual and it applies only to that individual. You can review various norms that someone expresses "I believe that eating meat is immoral". But you can't assess the entire code since it makse sense only to the individual and for the individual. Some speak of "the objective moral code" and that tends to refer to natural law morality. But in this case, I think the term "objective", while correct, is confusing. The natural moral law is universal, but it is accessed 'internally', in the conscience of each person. It is expressed objectively in norms like the Golden Rule or the Silver Rule. But it's difficult to find an official, final, publicly expressed, objective-thing called "the natural moral law". In that case, I think terms like "binding, universsal, natural, law of conscience" is better than "objective" as descriptors.Silver Asiatic_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

niwrad: Here “on their own” can only mean “they can run independently after having been programmed and scheduled to do so”. Sure. And that means they can act as top-down controllers per the original contention.
Box: neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power.
There is nothing in the claim which qualifies the PRNL based on its origin, and would actually be contrary to the argument, which depends on the relationship of the parts to the whole.Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Good Afternoon. Maybe a new perspective, a new question is necessary. The word objective vs subjective seems to have lost meaning. I propose the question: By what authority do you make the decision. You may have to redo the question for multiple levels, but eventually you have to reach a final authority. Then you can say I believe something specifically on this authority. Example: In an earlier post it was admitted that the person learned it on the authority of his parents. If that is the final authority than every parent has that same level of authority and conflicting opinions are just that, conflicting opinions. If you don't want to accept that conclusion then you need to go to the next level of authority, where did his parents get their authority. Continue till you find the authority you are willing to finally base it on. Try it out. It may help us in these dilemmas.GCS_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: "Computers can act on their own." Here "on their own" can only mean "they can run independently after having been programmed and scheduled to do so". But Box and I mean "on their own" in the ontological sense. You equivocate the two meanings to deny ontology. Zachriel: "By that reasoning, given that humans are designed, they aren’t True Controllers either." No. The situations are different. Computers are artificial machines, external to their designer. Humans are intelligent beings, direct forms of the Being itself. So, while computers cannot be true controllers, humans can be, insofar they are manifested forms of the Ultimate Controller. But of course if one denies ontology all that is dead letter.niwrad_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Computers can act on their own.
No, computers can act only as they are programmed.Joe_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

StephenB: An innate right is an objective right. right [noun], something to which one has a just claim All you've done is substituted another term for the one at issue. What is 'just' can still coherently be considered subjective. For instance, someone may consider duty more important than liberty. If you mean humans have certain propensities, that they prefer tea to torture, then sure, that can be considered objective. If you mean they empathize with others, then sure, that can be considered objective. But that is not the same as saying there is something independent of humans that represents a moral universe.Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

SB: An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective. By definition?! Yes, by definition. An innate right is an objective right.
An innate sense of beauty is not, by definition, objective.
Irrelevant. An innate "sense," which is subjective, has nothing to do with an "innate" right, which is objective, just as it has nothing to do with "inherent dignity," which is also objective.StephenB_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

StephenB: An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective. By definition?! An innate sense of beauty is not, by definition, objective.Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
“This painting is beautiful” does not imply that beauty is objective.
Irrelevant. An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective.StephenB_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

niwrad: Box is right that “a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter.” Computers can act on their own. That's rather the point of using a computer as a control device. niwrad: true controller Ah yes, but not a True Controller™.
Manager: Can you make me a device that acts as a controller for the manufacturing process? Computer geek: Sure can. The computer will collect data, form generalizations, and make decisions. It will control the entire process. You can spend the rest of your day playing Angry Birds working on your next project. UD Engineer: Ah yes, but it's not a True Controller™. Computer geek {rolls eyes}
By that reasoning, given that humans are designed, they aren't True Controllers™ either.Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

F/U #76, Top-down causation can lead to the same effect as bottom-up causation. Translation: intentional and unintentional acts can result in the same outcome. We can even organize bottom-up causes in a way that they can be in sync with (more accurately: replace/automate parts of) top-down causation — a computer, a doorbell. However that does not mean that intentional and unintentional can ever be conflated.Box_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Zachriel Box is right that "a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter." In fact, when a computer "controls" processes it does NOT it on its own, rather only as tool of the true controller, the causal agent, the person, the programmer. If you strip out the string on-its-own you reject the essential thing in the issue. At this point, done this error, all tools could become causal agents on matter, when they are only simple tools. Do you see the absurdity? In short, as "good" materialist, you deny ontology, again and again.niwrad_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Box: a computer doesn’t “collect data”
Manager: I want a machine that collects all the data crossing our servers.
Box: doesn’t “form generalizations”
Manager: I want it to sort through the data looking for trends and other generalizations about users who visit our website.
Box: and doesn’t “make decisions”
Manager: Then I want it to decide on an ad that might interest the user based on those generalizations.

UD Engineer: Can't be done. Only humans can collect data, form generalizations, and make decisions. Manager: How about you? Computer geek: It's already in the software package. You just have to enable it by beating Angry Birds at level ten. Manager {scowls} Computer geek: Just kidding. Heh. Just press the activate button.
Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Zach, a computer doesn't "collect data", doesn't "form generalizations" and doesn't "make decisions"; and neither does a doorbell. There is no person, no interest in data, no understanding of whatever and no overview that can be a basis for decisions. Those are all inaccurate descriptions of what's going on. What's going on are bottom-up processes that are meticulously organized by intelligent designers to be in sync with top-down instructions. Again, there is no person with a plan, there is nothing in the computer that does anything intentional/top-down. We are used to talk about computers as if they are persons, but obviously that's not about reality.Box_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Manager: I want a machine that can exert top-down control of the manufacturing process. UD Engineer: Can't be done. Only humans can have top-down control. Manager: How about you? Computer geek: Sure. I've already been working on the software. It's a simple matter to interface with the manufacturing process. It'll also handle inventory, requisitions, and you can play Angry Birds.
Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Box: So no, a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter. Of course a computer can act as a top-down controller. That's one of their most common functions. They can "collect data, form generalizations, then make a decision that effects a global action." A quill pen is not a controller. It doesn't "collect data, form generalizations, then make a decision that effects a global action".Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Zchriel, a computer is instrumental to an agent to exert top-down control, however so is a quill pen or a doorbell. Neither a computer, nor a quill pen, nor a doorbell is a person. So no, a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter. Like a quill pen all a pc can do is execute top-down instructions by true causal agents.Box_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

StephenB: You have just discovered the truth of objective morality. Notice that you didn’t say, “To me, slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.” You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. "This painting is beautiful" does not imply that beauty is objective. Box: (5.) neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power. A computer can exhibit top-down control. Top-down, in this case, might mean collecting data, forming generalizations, then making a decision that effects a global action. This top-down control is not an illusion, even though it is a result of PRNL.Zachriel_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

(1.) non-reductive materialism states that *PRNL and conglomerates of PRNL are all that exist. (2.) PRNL doesn’t concern itself with morality. (3.) morality—if it exists—stems from a top-down prescriptive power that acts on PRNL, uncaused by PRNL. (4.) a conglomerate of PRNL and its emergent properties is a mere expression of PRNL, is fully explained bottom-up by PRNL and depends fully on PRNL. (5.) neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power. (6.) non-reductive materialism does not accommodate morality. - - - - *PRNL: ‘Particles in motion and their reactions governed by natural law’ * - - - - See this OP by W.J.Murray.Box_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Alicia Renard
Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.
Forget about everything else you have said. This statement is absolutely correct. I congratulate you. You have just discovered the truth of objective morality. Notice that you didn't say, "To me, slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration." You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. Let's finish the thought: All people deserve equal rights and consideration because they have inherent human dignity, therefore, we should not make slaves of any: it is wrong--period. It is wrong for me, for you, for the slave owner--for everyone. Any opinion or feeling to the contrary is irrelevant. We are all bound by that objective moral truth.StephenB_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

H: On the contrary, any bacterium can "tell" you that feeding is not always an act reflective of agent-choice and intentional action. Morality by contrast, is. There is thus a category confusion involved in your attempted comparison. Evolutionary Materialism, more specifically, seeks to ground reality in matter, energy, space time and a blind chance and mechanical necessity purposeless change across time from hydrogen to humans. That is in mindless cosmological, chemical, biological and socio-cultural evolutions; emphasis on mindless. It therefore has in it no world-foundational IS capable of grounding OUGHT. Where, ought-ness is the core manifestation of our being under moral government and the attempt to deny the objectivity of such by asserting or implying this patently obvious sense [often, reflected in conscience] is delusional, injects general delusion into our mental life, ending in self-referential incoherence and absurdity. There is no such import for feeding, as our friendly little bacterium can readily demonstrate as it engulfs some thing as food. The root point, is that if we are under moral government (on pain of absurdity on attempted denial), then there must be a world-foundational IS that grounds ought. There is just one serious candidate after centuries of discussion: the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of service by doing the good. Where also, any serious candidate necessary being will be either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or else will be actual. As an analysis of possible vs impossible being, non-being, contingency, sufficiency of reason for being and necessity of being will readily show. (And, BTW, that is a key part of the problem, we don't tend to be familiar with such issues nowadays, making such a discussion seem strange indeed.) Ontological and moral, foundational level worldview reasoning, in short, poses the challenge that not only is ethical theism a serious worldview option, but that those who would dismiss the reality of God have taken up the -- unmet! -- burden of warrant to show that such a Supreme Being is impossible. So, much food for thought lurks beneath the surface of these current exchanges at UD. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Box @52: I'd go for 'pointlessly simplistic' rather than 'simple'.
Let’s keep things simple: (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with morality. (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality.
Let’s see how this works for something else. (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with feeding. (3.) materialism does not accommodate feeding. Good grief! Materialism doesn't accommodate anything!Hangonasec_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

The Reality of the Moral Law by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 2 / Mere Christianity Chapter 3) - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A What Lies Behind the Moral Law by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 3, Chapter 4) - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcgbornagain77_{April 20, 2015
April
04
Apr
20
20
2015
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

And if any human here think they are materially free they are deluded, you are a slave as we speak, sure you don't get flogged anymore but do something wrong and you get that nice white letter warning you..... You get up everyday at 06:00 you go to bed everyday and slave till 22:00 to make ends meet..... Slavery is alive and well, the slave masters have just become smarter.Andre_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

stenosesmella.... And in the 21st century there is no slavery? No human trafficking? This is an abomination has always been and will always be...... What is the Bible's stance on this? "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) So there you go...... Don't confuse Biblical slavery with modern day slavery they are not the same thing no matter how much you want them to be.....Andre_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

There is one majestically big difference between Slavery in the Bible and slavery in the 18th - 19th century..... Slaves in the Bible owned land, property and their own possessions..... Then of course you forgot obviously, selectively that tribal chiefs sold their people willingly in Africa for goods.... You know the old willing buyer and willing seller principle? It cuts both ways.....Andre_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "According to you, the morality by which every person decides right and wrong for himself is a reasonable standard." For them, yes. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. For example, there are many people who, for reasons that are valid according to their own morality, believe that same sex marriage is wrong and fight to deny it to those who desire it. I think that they are wrong, for reasons that are valid according to my morality, and I oppose their fight to have it banned. We are talking about two opposite views that are honestly held. Is one side objectively right and the other objectively wrong? Or are they both based on subjectively derived morals? You mention that chattel slavery is objectively wrong based on the inherent dignity and uniqueness of humans. If this is such an objective "truth" why have we only made serious attempts to live according to this objective truth in the most recent tiny fraction of our existence. Surely an objective truth would be as true 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 years ago as it is today. As uncomfortable as it may be to some, I don't see any evidence that there are objective truths in morality. If there were, why does human history demonstrate a pattern that moral norms change so dramatically over time, from society to society, and even within a single generation? How do you ground your morality in an objective norm for which there is no agreement on?stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

I’d ask StephenB a question now, considering I’ve earne the right to a reciprocal response. Somehow, i suspect StephenB doesn’t consider people who disagree with him as worthy of reciprocal consideration.
See StephenB, you ought do this and you ought not do that. Posts by professed materialists simply ooze with moral judgments. Odd that.Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply