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

stenosemella:
I have never met anyone who doesn’t have their own ideas about right and wrong.
So? That's not what you were talking about. You weren't talking about beliefs about right and wrong. A belief that there is no right or wrong would constitute a belief about right and wrong. You claimed that everyone believes in right and wrong. Sociopaths. Psychopaths. Newborn babies. Everyone.
Do you honestly believe that this is something that theists have a monopoly on?
I have no idea now what you're talking about. stenosemella:
All we are debating is where this source of right and wrong comes from. Not whether or not it is restricted to people of one philosophy or another.
I don't believe we're debating. What [it] are you talking about?Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

stenosemella
I find it unacceptable to impose on others that which I would not find acceptable to be imposed on me. That rationale is good enough for me.
That is, indeed, praiseworthy. What about those who find it acceptable to impose slavery on others? According to you, the morality by which every person decides right and wrong for himself is a reasonable standard. Accordingly, The slave owners are following their personal preferences and you are following your personal preferences. Are their personal preferences to be respected as well as yours? If not, why not? If so, how should the issue be settled? (Assume that their position is as uncompromising as yours)
Maybe I would have a better understanding of your question if would tell me why you think slavery is wrong (assuming that you do).
I am surprised that you don't remember that you asked me this same question @15 and received a full answer: "If, by slavery, you mean chattel slavery, then yes, slavery is objectively wrong. The objective truth comes from the fact that human beings have inherent dignity owing to their human nature, which is distinct from the nature of animals. It isn’t just theists who accept the objectivity of this moral truth. Even secularists have made the same point in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is free of all theological language."StephenB_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

SB: I am not asking where your (stenosemella( belief came from. Alicia Renard
Why not? Aren’t you curious?
Because he already told me? It came from his parents? If you are going to inject yourself into a discussion, at least have the courtesy to follow it.
Slavery is bad for slaves. It’s not complicated.
I agree. The question is, why is it bad for them.
The floggings.
Your answer is irrational. First, you say there is no such thing as objective bad. Then you say the floggings are bad.
No! Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.
Slavery might be bad for the slaves, but it is good for their masters. Why should it matter if it is bad for slaves if it is good for the slave master? What is your answer?
I’ll accept the slaves own assessment about their conditions under slavery as being bad.
So, if anyone says something is bad for them, that means it is bad? Is that your logic? If you say that vegetables are bad for you, does that mean that they are bad for you?
Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.
That is the closest thing you have had to a thought all day. Why do they deserver equal rights and consideration?
I’d ask StephenB a question now, considering I’ve earne the right to a reciprocal response.
You have been answering questions that I asked of someone else, which was designed to stimulate his thinking, not yours. You can begin by answering my question above.
Somehow, i suspect StephenB doesn’t consider people who disagree with him as worthy of reciprocal consideration.
Does that mean that you are going to ask me an intelligent question or does it mean that you are going to fuss all day about the right to ask me an intelligent question? Also, I’m not much interested in stephenB’s personal philosophy though I defend to the death his right to hold it. Are you for real. First, you carry on about your right to ask me a question; then you fail to ask a question; then you claim that you are not interested in the answer. Ask anything that you like.StephenB_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "I realize that you are trying hard to answer honestly, and I appreciate it. But you are still begging the question: Why do you find it unacceptable?" I thought I had explained this. I find it unacceptable to impose on others that which I would not find acceptable to be imposed on me. That rationale is good enough for me. Obviously, the extent to which I would find something unacceptable would depend on the severity of the imposition. Killing is severe, slavery less so, stealing less so, and so on. Maybe I would have a better understanding of your question if would tell me why you think slavery is wrong (assuming that you do).stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Mung: So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? stenosemella: Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? Mung: Yes, I do find that strange. Or remarkable. Don’t you? Why should I? I have never met anyone who doesn't have their own ideas about right and wrong. Do you honestly believe that this is something that theists have a monopoly on? All we are debating is where this source of right and wrong comes from. Not whether or not it is restricted to people of one philosophy or another.stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Mung: And these behavioral patterns are what you call morality? Morality generally refers to principles of behavior. Mung: Isn’t that a bit circular? No. It's an observation that people have moral sensibilities. Mung: How is shame not bound up in notions of ought and ought not? Shame is bound in notions of ought and ought not. Box: (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. False. Box: (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with morality. Depends on how the particles are arranged. Box: (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality. False.Zachriel_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

stenosemella
But with regard to “why” slavery is wrong, not how I came to believe that it was, slavery is wrong because I can’t envision a situation where slavery would be an acceptable condition for me. If you think that is selfish, so be it.
I realize that you are trying hard to answer honestly, and I appreciate it. But you are still begging the question: Why do you find it unacceptable?StephenB_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Mung: So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? stenosemella: Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? Yes, I do find that strange. Or remarkable. Don't you? Box: (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality. Unless it's subjective morality. They are all for that.Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

There is a difference between calling yourself a materialist and being a logically-consistent materialist. Also, even if you are a logically-consistent materialist, that doesn't mean you actually live in a materialist reality. So, saying that you are a materialist and you feel that some things are right, and other wrong, makes no headway in any argument attempting to logically justify the behavior of a logically-consistent subjectivist that supposedly lives in a materialist world. One would expect materialists to sense moral oughts anyway if the lived in a world where morality refers to an objective commodity and their beliefs are wrong. Also, those materialists may or may not be logically-consisetent subjectivists. So, saying that materialists feel moral responsibilities and obligations adds nothing to the case. What the moral subjectivist must do is logically justify, under moral subjectivism, (1) why anyone should care about morality in the first place, and (2) what principle or commodity justifies unilateral moral interventions.William J Murray_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

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.Box_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

"So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? " Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? "Is there a reason anyone ought to believe in right and wrong, and what is that reason?" No reason at all other than the fact that everyone does. Again, do you find this strange? "If not, why should I care about your analysis of anything I or anyone else writes here at UD?" Whether or not you ignore (avoid) my analysis is completely up to you.stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Most humans have a strong moral sensibilities. Just as they feel pain when they stub their toe, humans empathize with others, and can feel shame and pride. This results in certain behavioral patterns.
And these behavioral patterns are what you call morality? Isn't that a bit circular? : shame : a feeling of guilt, regret, or sadness that you have because you know you have done something wrong 1 a : a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety How is shame not bound up in notions of ought and ought not? How do you cross the is/ought gap. or do you deny one exists? https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/the-isought-gap-how-do-we-get-ought-from-is/Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Good grief. I add to my comments that you don't understand dichotomy either.Upright BiPed_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Your link doesn’t work.
Sorry about that. UP wrote:
By extension, it must be good for the slave owners.
Some reading for you
No matter.
Yes, that's probably true. It's not as if slavery exists today.
It’s clear to me that you just don’t get it.
You are rather a victim of your own certainty.
Slavery is bad bad for everyone.
Mostly for the slaves.
cheers
IgualmenteAlicia Renard_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

stenosemella, do you have some reason why I ought not be wrong? One that you can ground in materialism? Just read your posts to Barry. Chock full of implied ought and ought not. Based on what? So you're telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? Do they have an objective basis for their belief in right and wrong? Is there a reason anyone ought to believe in right and wrong, and what is that reason? If not, why should I care about your analysis of anything I or anyone else writes here at UD?Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

#34 Your link doesn't work. No matter. It's clear to me that you just don't get it. Slavery is bad bad for everyone. cheersUpright BiPed_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Barry, the ball is in your court. You really ought to hit it back, else you're not playing the game, and that's just not sporting of you. /sarcasmMung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Materialists say morality is subjective. But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Materialists ignore that little problem. Not that they ought not ignore it, oh no. There’s no room for ought in materialism either. Which is why every materialist I’ve ever encountered is a hypocrite." Or you are simply wrong that morality cannot exist in materialists. Which is the most likely conclusion.stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Mung: But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Most humans have a strong moral sensibilities. Just as they feel pain when they stub their toe, humans empathize with others, and can feel shame and pride. This results in certain behavioral patterns.Zachriel_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Seriously. Reading the posts of the materialists here is like reading the novel Gadsby.Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Theists claim that there is a subset of objective morality. Materialists say that there isn’t.
Materialists say morality is subjective. But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Materialists ignore that little problem. Not that they ought not ignore it, oh no. There's no room for ought in materialism either. Which is why every materialist I've ever encountered is a hypocrite.Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Is slavery objectively wrong (1) and if so, where does this objective “truth” come from (2). 1. Yes. 2. The Declaration of Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
The quotation "All men are created equal" has been called an "immortal declaration", and "perhaps [the] single phrase" of the American Revolutionary period with the greatest "continuing importance". Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
Mung_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Alicia Renard: Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.
So baby slaying is good, simply because baby slayers say it's good for them?
Alicia Renard: Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.
Why? Because they say so?Box_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

"Slavery in biblical times was mostly good for slaves." The same argument that was used well into the mid 1800s. StephenB, fair enough question. As with all of us, our initial beliefs about right and wrong came from our parents and our early teachings. Some of these stick with us simply because our experiences don't contradict them. And sometimes they change because our experiences contradict our teachings. For example, I think it is fair to say that all of our parents taught us that lying is always bad. But as we get older we realize that it isn't always as black and white as that. We often tell "white" lies to avoid unnecessarily hurting someone. For slavery, my beliefs started from parental teachings, probably centred around the idea of racism. My subsequent examination of history and the impact it has had on those involved in slavery simply confirmed my parents' teachings. The fact that it is considered by most other people on earth to be wrong simply reinforces my subjectively derived belief. I would like to think that I would ultimately come to the same moral conclusions if I were raised by racist parents and sent to the Westboro Baptist church, but the evidence suggests that the probability would be low. But with regard to "why" slavery is wrong, not how I came to believe that it was, slavery is wrong because I can't envision a situation where slavery would be an acceptable condition for me. If you think that is selfish, so be it.stenosemella_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB asks [stenosemella]
I am not asking where your belief came from.
Why not? Aren't you curious? I mean I thought the whole shtick here is to ask gotcha questions you know the objective answers to 'cos you got your holy book.
I am asking why you think slavery is bad.
There is no objective bad. "Bad" only makes sense in the context of "Bad for someone or something. Slavery is bad for slaves. It's not complicated.
Or, if you like, why did your parents think it was bad? What is it about slavery that you (and they) think is bad?
The floggings.
Or, are you saying that it is bad simply because your parents thought it was bad?
No! Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.
If so, then whose opinion would be correct if your subjective morality became different from your parent’s subjective morality?
I'll accept the slaves own assessment about their conditions under slavery as being bad.
Or, are you saying that you believed slavery is bad because of what the larger society believed? In that case, what makes it bad, society’s view or your parent’s view?
No. Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. 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. Also, I'm not much interested in stephenB's personal philosophy though I defend to the death his right to hold it.Alicia Renard_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Also, Stenosemella, in fact, God did forbid the Jews from making slaves of their own people, stating that it was an abomination in his eyes. The reason why God countenanced it with regard to foreigners would have been a factor in the rationale for Paul's evident condoning of it in the New Testament, namely, the axiom defined by Augustine that Grace builds upon Nature. The other factor, linked to it, is that the Faith, the theology of it, was intended to evolve at fallen man's pace. Not all of it, of course, but parts, such as this issue of slavery. In a similar way, Christians were commanded to honour the emperor. Imagine honourng Nero ! It meant putting Nero's character issues to one side, and accepting the status quo, because revolution was not the Christian way, nor at all a practicable proposition by a long chalk, at that stage . I think it is well arguable, however, that there was no excuse for JPII remaining silent, 2000 years later, during Pinochet's US-backed coup, since though Communist, it had been democratically elected. The left in the UK and Scandinavia proved that a more equitable society was possible without the rich even feeling the pinch. Alas, because it was not accompanied by a comparable spiritual growth, but rather the reverse, it's all now gone 'the way of the pear'. Old Labour stole its concern that almost everyone should be fed, clothed and housed, from Judaeo-Christianity - without, of course, acknowledging it. Interesting how satanically Christendom, despite the Churches' condemnation eventually imposed a slavery on Africans that was so satanic, compared to that of the Old World. Maybe to that of the Corsairs. More is given, more is expected, and failure will see the individual worse than the ordinary run of evil people. We are either higher than animals or lower. There is no middle ground. Not that virtue necessarily implies formal religious belief. The deepest pits of hell are likely to be populated by high churchmen, theologians, etc.Axel_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

stenosemellaA
StephenB, my conclusion that slavery is bad (subjectively so, in my case) is the result of my upbringing, including religious teachings and other experiences.
I am not asking where your belief came from. I am asking why you think slavery is bad. Or, if you like, why did your parents think it was bad? What is it about slavery that you (and they) think is bad? Or, are you saying that it is bad simply because your parents thought it was bad? If so, then whose opinion would be correct if your subjective morality became different from your parent's subjective morality? Or, are you saying that you believed slavery is bad because of what the larger society believed? In that case, what makes it bad, society's view or your parent's view?StephenB_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

By extension, it must be good for the slave owners.
Some reading for you.Alicia Renard_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Seversky: A volcano, a Boeing 747 and the Mona Lisa are all just particles in motion. That doesn’t mean they are all the same thing or we have no way to distinguish between them.
So what? "We" are also particles in motion. "Particles in motion that have a way to distinguish between various groups of particles in motion", doesn't seem to be of any importance.Box_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

JDH, 'It is easy to come up with a hypothetical where it would be correct to practice slavery – suppose that you live in a country where any adult not attached to a household as either a family member or household slave is automatically conscripted into the king’s army to go fight ridiculous battles and to die a painful useless death. Well in this case keeping as many slaves as you could afford would be the correct thing to do. Slavery would not be wrong here.' No. Absolutely not. It would depend entirely on the choice of the person whether he chose to be enslaved, i.e. be stripped of all human dignity and even subject to physical maiming and murder. I should imagine most men - indeed most women, would choose to die on a battle-field than be permanently cowed and tyrannized as a slave. Nor would there ever be any need for the slave-owner to enslave a man wishing to avoid fighting in battle at all costs; to tyrannize him, depriving him of all dignity, maybe splitting his family and selling members to different people. Even if he paid him nothing, but provided just board and a primitive lodging. And finally depriving him of the opportunity to change his mind and leave. This is not about context at all. Slavery is always a formal evil and an actual one, because of our inherent human dignity as human beings made in the age of God. Sometimes we are faced with dilemmas in which we have choose the lesser of two evils. We still sin formally by doing so, but actually it was a good action, nevertheless, the best in the circumstances.Axel_{April 19, 2015
April
04
Apr
19
19
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply