Bob Argues With a Saudi About Whether it is Good to Execute Homosexuals

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

While Saudi Arabia is in the news, I have a question for our subjectivist friends. In the United States it is considered morally wrong to execute a person for being a homosexual. In Saudi Arabia it is considered morally right to execute a person for being a homosexual.

As I understand subjectivist reasoning, morality is subjective and culturally determined. If you were in Saudi Arabia I assume you would attempt to get them to change their mind about executing homosexuals. I am curious. How would you argue for that? I can imagine a subjectivist (let’s call him “Bob”) making a number of arguments, and a probable response from a Saudi:

Bob: Executing people because they are homosexual is morally reprehensible.

Saudi: That’s just your opinion Bob. In my opinion executing people because they are homosexual is morally correct and laudable. And you yourself tell me that your personal subjective view on the matter is no “better,” in any meaningful sense of that word, than mine. So why should I care what you think?

Bob: It is not just my opinion. The people of the United States believe it is immoral to execute a person for being homosexual. The Saudi people should be more like the American people.

Saudi: Why? The analysis does not change when you compare your group to mine. Your own principles as a subjectivist tell me that the American view on the matter is no better, in any meaningful sense of that word, than the Saudi view.

Bob: Don’t you believe in moral progress? Every progressive nation believes that executing homosexuals is wrong. Don’t you want to be progressive?

Saudi: “Progressive”? By what standard are you progressive? Again, it is merely your opinion whether you are progressive. Your own first principles say there is no objective standard by which progress toward “progressive” goals can be measured. And I disagree. We consider your coddling of homosexuals not to be progressive but decadent.

Bob: Do you not care that the Western world rejects your views on this matter.

Saudi: First, you are wrong. Some progressive Westerners – the ones that understand their own premises forbid them from judging us – say “who am I to judge the Saudis.” Second, no, I don’t care what you and your friends think Bob. What is more, you yourself cannot give me a reason why I should care about what you and your friends think. Besides, I will turn it back on you: Don’t you care that the whole Islamic world rejects your views on the matter?

What am I missing? The one argument that Bob can never logically make is that it is actually objectively wrong (as opposed to wrong in his humble opinion) to execute homosexuals.

Comments

I am not knowledgeable about how an Islamist would justify their beliefs, and I certainly don't intend to defend Islam on this issue. The key point for me is that Stephen thinks that his use of reason and access to what he considers natural law is right, but that Islam, even if, as is likely, it adds arguments about reason to its invoking of the word of holy works, is false. That is a preferred choice of Stephen's: even within Christianity there are arguments about the relative merits of reason and revelation. So my conclusion is the same as before: there is no objective way to judge between competing claims of access to what are believed to be objective moral standards. Everyone makes choices about their preferred beliefs, as Steven has done. His are well thought out and solidly in the tradition of Western philosophy and theology, but ultimately they are a subjective chosen preference. (Mimus just said this much more succinctly than I did.) Due to some business concerns that have come up in my life, my playtime is over and I'm bowing out of UD for a while. I benefitted from various parts of the discussion, but I need to quit spending time on this recreational activity. Either Stephen can let this stand as the last word, or offer again his closing statement.jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason. Islamists don’t feel that way.
So you have nothing to offer other than a personal preference for one philosophy over another?Mimus_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Here is an argument I have presented before at UD which I think is worth repeating here for some context.
Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights. Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard. Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.
Please notice what I am not arguing: (1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has no logical basis for human rights. (2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no BASIS for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard. (3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, at least appears to provide such a standard. Are there others? Apparently so. However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view. Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is in even worse shape than an atheistic world view. It’s basically moral nihilism.john_a_designer_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

jdk
Both people in this scenario believe in Truth, and believe they know what the Truth is.
Actually, that is not the case. The Islamist's notion of truth is limited to a mindless faith commitmeent, while my understanding of truth is based on the integration of faith and reason. So there is no philosophical equivalency here.
StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Correction of a typo: I would reject (Islamist claims) on the grounds that they violate reason and the natural moral law. Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be *believed*, not those truths that can be *understood* through the use of reason.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

jdk:
Most likely the Saudi would invoke his religious documents, such as the Quran and the Hadith.
And I would reject it on the grounds that it violates reason and the natural moral law. Recall the main point: religious claims are based on revelation that must be believed, not which are not truths arrived at through reason. Recall my explanation about the difference between the metaphysical approach vs the epistemological approach.
Assuming that he was somewhere as close to as committed to his views about his moral standards as you are to yours, neither of you would change the other’s mind.
The difference is that I can provide good reasons for embracing my faith. The Islamist cannot. I am open to being refuted, the Islamist is not. They is why Islamists don't debate. My philosophy is that no religion should be believed unless it first passes the test of reason. Islamists don't feel that way.
He claims there are objective standards that say the homosexual should be executed, and you say there are objective standards that say he shouldn’t.
As I already noted, no one should submit his intellect and will to a religious world view unless that religion has first passed the test of reason. My religion meets that standard, his does not.StephenB_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

This current discussion is not about me: it is about how Stephen and Barry would respond to the hypothetical Saudi in the OP.jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Both people in the scenario accept that.
jdk, You are being deliberately obtuse. The initial question is one of recognition, not belief or acceptance. Do you, jdk, recognize that there is a Truth to be sought? Simple yes or no. Andrewasauber_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Both people in the scenario accept that.jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

both people in this scenario believe in Truth
jdk, You are getting ahead of where you need to start. Step one is recognizing that there is a Truth to be sought. Can we get that far for starters? Andrewasauber_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Both people in this scenario believe in Truth, and believe they know what the Truth is. Have you read the posts from about 128 onward?jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

How does anyone determine whose objective standards are right?
jdk, First you have to accept a thing called Truth, or you can't begin to answer this question. If there is no Truth to be sought, you should go watch TV because the game is over. Andrewasauber_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

JAD, what are your answers to the questions being asked of Stephen about the Saudi who believes that there are objective moral standards that believe it is morally right to execute a homosexual, even though Stephen believes there are objective moral standards that say that would be wrong. How does anyone determine whose objective standards are right? How is it anything more than each person has a subjective preference for their own objective standards? What do you say to those points?jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligations there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. How can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights? Many of our regular interlocutors here have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding? The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood that ideologically motivated groups like the social justice warrior left (so-called factions) would try to subvert the political process. This is one reason why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, which were passed very quickly, (the so-called Bill of Rights) required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of ¾ of state legislatures. It appears the founders thought this would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, apparently they didn’t notice the loophole in article III that allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the SJW left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right-- you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges who share your “enlightened” group think. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights. Moral subjectivism provides no basis to create a broad based consensus which is necessary to protect fundamental human rights.john_a_designer_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

StephenB
Anyway, that doesn’t refute my point that a life may be taken in an act of self defense.
That is your subjective opinion. I disagree. I am right.Antonin_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Most likely the Saudi would invoke his religious documents, such as the Quran and the Hadith. But that is really irrelevant to the question to you and Barry. Assuming that he was somewhere as close to as committed to his views about his moral standards as you are to yours, neither of you would change the other's mind. He claims there are objective standards that say the homosexual should be executed, and you say there are objective standards that say he shouldn't. What then? Whose objective standards are right? Do you just accept that he has as much right to live by his objective standards as you do by yours? Or do you declare his are wrong, and if so, on what grounds? What attitude do you take about the situation at this point?jdk_{October 24, 2018
October
10
Oct
24
24
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

jdk:
In 21, Stephen, you explained what you would tell the Saudi. The Saudi would you tell you were wrong about the objective standard. Then what?
I would ask him *why* he thought I was wrong about the objective standard and form a response based on his answer. It hardly makes sense to answer an empty and mindless objection such as "you are wrong."StephenB_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Perhaps you could explain it in your own words, Barry? When the Saudi says, "actually you have it wrong, it's objectively right to kill gay people" what reply to you have that adds up to more than your personal preference informed in part by your upbringing and cultural background, for one religion over another?Mimus_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Barry, do you think the Saudi would be convinced? More generally, how is one to choose which standard is correct, other to choose his own preference? The issue is not Stephens' answer: the issue is that there is no objective way to determine whose "objective" standards are true. Each person is thus left with the subjective judgment that their notions of the objective standards are true. Instead of looking at this from your preferred view, step back and look at how the situation looks to someone who is dispassionate about the situation. Is there a way to determine whose notions of what is objective is the correct one?jdk_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Mimus, As Stephen said, he answered your question very clearly. That you do not understand (or more probably, like) the answer is no one's problem but your own.Barry Arrington_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

I'm more interested in how this sort of reply is more than, to use Barry's term, a personal preference for one religious moral code over another.Mimus_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

In 21, Stephen, you explained what you would tell the Saudi. The Saudi would you tell you were wrong about the objective standard. Then what?jdk_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Mimus, jdk, @128, 129 I addressed that issue @21.StephenB_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Mimus. You asked a question like this in 26, and the real Bob in 30. Any answers, moral objectivists?jdk_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

I'll admit I haven't read every post in this very long thread. But has any moral objectivist explained how they'd argue with their fellow objectivists from Saudia Arabia that murdering people because they are gay is wrong? How would such an argument weigh up to anything more than "personal preference" in religion?Mimus_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic:
Where the Catechism speaks of the need for revelation to gain clarity I believe that is for the greater specifics that the natural law alone cannot reveal.
Yes, I agree once again. We certainly need Divine revelation, for example, to learn that we should love our enemies. We don't get that kind of information from nature. It appears that we agree after all and that it was primarily the language that required further attention. Good discussion. Thanks.StephenB_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Surely, even the pagan, who knows nothing of the bible, understands “clearly” that he should not murder, but he may not, at the same time, understand with equal clarity (or even at all) the importance of controlling his proclivity for anger, which can lead to murder.
I think that's correct, but it's a different way of phrasing it than we usually see in the discussions here. The Catechism gave an example of the natural moral law as something like "theft is wrong". Similar to as you say above, "we should not murder". To me, that is what the natural law is - a generalized concept as a foundation for human action. Where the Catechism speaks of the need for revelation to gain clarity I believe that is for the greater specifics that the natural law alone cannot reveal. In any case, I agree with your view that the natural law has been unjustly ignored and we need to return.Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Yes, most people do require information provided by Divine revelation to gain a *complete* understanding of the natural moral law, but almost everyone can grasp a *partial* understanding. If you have a partial understanding of NML, then you also understand that this same law does exist. Its basic logic.
The existence of the natural law points to, and requires a law-giver. The lawgiver is God. So, if it is understood that the natural law exists, it must be accepted that God exists. Beyond this, one of the precepts of the natural law is that God must be worshiped and reverenced as Creator. For Plato this is the virtue of piety. If the worship and reverence of God is a natural, objective moral virtue (as Aquinas says), and natural laws are self-evident, then belief in the existence of God also must be self-evident. The natural law is self-evident. Of those objective laws, one must reverence the law-maker. Thus, the existence of the law-maker is self-evident.Silver Asiatic_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Judicial murder is not self-defence.
No one ever said it was. Anyway, that doesn’t refute my point that a life may be taken in an act of self defense.StephenB_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Antonin Antonin
My refutation of your refutation was posted at 119.
Nonsense. You asserted that it is morally impermissible to take a human life for any reason. I refuted that claim.
Judicial murder is not self-defence. No one ever said it was. Anyway, that doesn't refute my point that a life may be taken in an act of self defense.
StephenB_{October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply