Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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:

  1. 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?

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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
StephenB
Is this your way of ignoring my refutation of your claims about turning the other cheek @114.
My refutation of your refutation was posted at 119.Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Antonin:
I think you are playing fast and loose with the word “judgment”. Who are you to judge, Stephen?
I am morally entitled to judge anyone's behavior, including yours. It is one's ultimate intentions that I am not permitted to judge. Is this your way of ignoring my refutation of your claims about turning the other cheek @114.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
I gather you don’t understand the difference between making rational judgments and making a moral judgment on the state of someone’s soul.
I think you are playing fast and loose with the word "judgment". Who are you to judge, Stephen?
In the former context, I exercise my judgment every day. You should try exercising yours.
I decide things in the course of my daily life. I don't judge who should live or die, that's for God to decide.Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
He meant that we must control our fighting nature.
Judicial murder is not self-defence. The killing is not "unintended".Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
I’m just not sure if today’s atheists really respect Aristotle and Cicero very much though. I think that if they did, they’d be much further along the pathway to theistic belief than they are.
I understand your concern and I agree. To me, the question is this: How do we return to rationality while our culture remains steeped in the anti-intellectualism brought to us courtesy of most modern philosophers, who abandoned reason long ago. There is no way to return to the rational world view without, well - returning. I think the modern chaos is less about disagreeing with Aristotle, Plato, Cicero etc. (and Augustine and Aquinas) and more about ignoring them. Peter Kreeft calls it "chronological snobbery" - the false notion that the latest is always the best.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
SB: A baby is an "innocent human being." Antonin:
Who are you to judge, Stephen?
I gather you don't understand the difference between making rational judgments and making a moral judgment on the state of someone's soul. In the former context, I exercise my judgment every day. You should try exercising yours.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Antonin
Francis is trying to bring us back to those truths spoken on the Mount of Olives.
Ok, but he has been asked to clarify (and justify) certain of his proclamations and he may discover that he was mistaken about some various points. At this moment, we do not know.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
StephenB
When you approach an atheist with the proposition that Christians believe in natural law (many, perhaps most, by the way, do not) he will respond by saying what jdk says. “Sure you do, its part of your faith commitment. What is that do me.” But when you say that informed pagans (Aristotle, Cicero) also say so, and when they agree that some moral truths are self evident (needing no faith to grasp) that can be very persuasive.
I accept your view and experience as being valid for what you've seen. As I said, it's a prudential judgement - basically "what works for me" in an argumentation. Yes, if an atheist will be open to Aristotle and other classical philosophers than that is the best way. I think an argument from authority like that is useful. We do it all the time - referencing evolutionists and atheistic scientists to argue from their point of view. I'm just not sure if today's atheists really respect Aristotle and Cicero very much though. I think that if they did, they'd be much further along the pathway to theistic belief than they are. I wonder if argument from moral law is really any different (more or less effective) than arguing from the laws of logic (or math). The fact that logic gives rightness and wrongness seems to be the same point - that a transcendent collection of laws give order to the universe.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Antonin:
When Our Lord said “turn the other cheek” was He not speaking God’s will?
Yes. He meant that we must control our fighting nature. He wasn't preaching pacifism. Two thousand years of Catholic Teaching confirms that point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also makes it plain: 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
There’s nothing that Pope Francis can do to overturn truths that were given by Christ to the apostles. I don’t see where the Sermon on the Mount says anything different. In fact, we have the text of that sermon from the very same Church who codified the New Testament and declared it to be divinely revealed.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, His chosen apostles and the Holy Father speak with one voice, as far as I can see. Francis is trying to bring us back to those truths spoken on the Mount of Olives.Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
It has nothing to do with self defense. Please try to make the requisite intellectual distinctions.
When Our Lord said "turn the other cheek" was He not speaking God's will?Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
...an innocent human being...
Who are you to judge, Stephen?Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
He promised that He will not lie and deceive – His Church will not teach something evil one day and then correct it later. The death penalty, as StephenB pointed out, cannot be classified as intrinsically evil since it is permitted in some cases.
You can't, as a true Catholic, pick and choose. Life is sacred. All life, your own and everyone else's from conception to natural death.Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
The Pope and the Church continue to sort that out and make it more clear and refined for each new generation. I think Pope Francis is reacting to the domination of the Anglo-Protestant empire in the world (via USA) and also trying to reconcile some aspects of theological modernism.
Well, I hear the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ when the Holy Father speaks. Certainly the distortion of the Christian message promulgated by some US TV evangelists needs speaking against.Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Antonin
The taking of life not inherently evil?
Not necessarily. You are permitted to take a life in self defense if there is no other way out. So it is with a soldier in battle. Didn't you know that?
Do you want to rethink that? Are you really Catholic or are you pro-choice?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt just a little bit longer. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the deliberate and unecessary taking of an innocent human being. It has nothing to do with self defense. Please try to make the requisite intellectual distinctions.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
I look at the implications just in terms of arguing with atheists. To focus on the natural law alone … as an abstraction, in my opinion is a very flimsy foundation for an argument. Yes, the pre-Christian philosophers used this, but we’ve got 2000 years of Christian thought that they didn’t have.
When you approach an atheist with the proposition that Christians believe in natural law (many, perhaps most, by the way, do not) he will respond by saying what jdk says. "Sure you do, its part of your faith commitment. What is that do me." But when you say that informed pagans (Aristotle, Cicero) also say so, and when they agree that some moral truths are self evident (needing no faith to grasp) that can be very persuasive.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Antonin
And where does Our Lord stand on capital punishment? On wealth? On returning violence with violence? Going that extra mile?
The Pope and the Church continue to sort that out and make it more clear and refined for each new generation. I think Pope Francis is reacting to the domination of the Anglo-Protestant empire in the world (via USA) and also trying to reconcile some aspects of theological modernism.
How do you know this? If Our Lord returned to walk among us again, what might he say?
I know this by Faith in the Church He founded - and in which He speaks and acts. He promised that He will not lie and deceive - His Church will not teach something evil one day and then correct it later. The death penalty, as StephenB pointed out, cannot be classified as intrinsically evil since it is permitted in some cases.
Are you really a true believer? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Has the message changed?
There's nothing that Pope Francis can do to overturn truths that were given by Christ to the apostles. I don't see where the Sermon on the Mount says anything different. In fact, we have the text of that sermon from the very same Church who codified the New Testament and declared it to be divinely revealed. "I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church ... for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel" - St. Augustine http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htmSilver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
So if the Church teaches for 2000 years that the death penalty is not inherently evil...
The taking of life not inherently evil? Do you want to rethink that? Are you really Catholic or are you pro-choice?Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Antonin to Silver Asiatic
How do you know this? If Our Lord returned to walk among us again, what might he say? Are you really a true believer? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Has the message changed?
Antonin, everything Silver Asiatic says about unchaning and developing doctrine are true. None of your questions are relevant to those points.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Apologies for 102. I attributed SA's comments to Antonin. Please disregard. What happened to our editing option?StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Antonin
Yes, as knowledge grows, God reveals new aspects of teachings previously unknown. So yes, the Church reflects that. But a substantial contradiction in divine;y revealed teaching is not possible.
That is correct. So if anyone, even a pope, tries to change the substance of any Catholic teaching, that teaching cannot be legitimate. It would mean that either the old teaching or the new teaching is in error and papal infallibility would be undermined. So if the Church teaches for 2000 years that the death penalty is not inherently evil, then any pope, including Francis, who says that it is would be out of line. So where is our disagreement? This discussion, however, is getting far afield from the subject of the natural moral law.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Aquinas summarizing natural law: “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” The argument I use is just a development from this. 1. The first steps in assessing what is good is an intellectual process – it occurs in the mind. 2. Making the choice for good requires Intellectual Virtues. 3. Intellectual virtues move towards “the good of the mind” – and the good of the mind is “conformity to truth”.
That works for me, but I find nothing in that formulation that requires supernatural revelation. I think that the controversy between us stems from your use of the word "clearly." This one word really does require some unpacking. 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. However, if he applies reason (or consults the New Testament), his understanding of the NML will deepen. None of this contradicts the idea that some elements of the NML can be understood apart from revelation.
So, assessing and embracing the truth is a necessary moral virtue that enables the choice of good and evil. Conforming to the truth is an objective moral norm in itself.
Yes. The point is that nature (and human nature) does provide some moral truths that are also confirmed by and improved on by Divine revelation. Everyone agrees, I gather, that the natural moral law does not contain "saving" information. However, one can be saved if that is all he has access to provided he follows truth as far as he can take it and provided he does not resist higher truths when presented to him.StephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
Yes, true
I sense a "but" coming... :)
but the Divine Revelation of Our Lord was given to the apostles and handed on until today, without substantial change.
And where does Our Lord stand on capital punishment? On wealth? On returning violence with violence? Going that extra mile?
Yes, as knowledge grows, God reveals new aspects of teachings previously unknown. So yes, the Church reflects that. But a substantial contradiction in divine;y revealed teaching is not possible.
How do you know this? If Our Lord returned to walk among us again, what might he say?
It has never happened and cannot happen.
Are you really a true believer? Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Has the message changed?Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
BA 80 & 81 -- good points, as always. Thanks.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
jdk:
Looming in the background of the discussions about objective moral truths such as we are having in this thread are metaphysical beliefs such as presented here. Fairly obviously, people who don’t have the same or similar beliefs about this view will not agree about specific details.
There are two things to consider here: First, the metaphysical approach, which proceeds from reality to the perceiver of reality, and second, the epistemological approach, which proceeds from the perceiver of reality to reality. So far, those of us who advocate reason and the natural moral law are, for the most part, taking the epistemological approach. We don't begin by assuming the truth of our world view, we begin by acknowledging self evident truths and then we try to discern what that could mean. By contrast, the previous description of Catholicism and the NML relies more heavily on the metaphysical approach but also pays tribute to the epistemological approach. I included that section only to show that God's natural revelation can be grasped through the use of reason unaided by Divine revelation. It was not meant to show that the natural moral law exists. That is strictly an epistemological exercise guided by unaided reason, but it is also something that is confirmed by religious faithStephenB
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Antonin
What is the church if not the teachings of Our Lord?
Yes, true but the Divine Revelation of Our Lord was given to the apostles and handed on until today, without substantial change. Yes, as knowledge grows, God reveals new aspects of teachings previously unknown. So yes, the Church reflects that. But a substantial contradiction in divine;y revealed teaching is not possible. It has never happened and cannot happen.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Aquinas summarizing natural law: “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” The argument I use is just a development from this. 1. The first steps in assessing what is good is an intellectual process - it occurs in the mind. 2. Making the choice for good requires Intellectual Virtues. 3. Intellectual virtues move towards "the good of the mind" - and the good of the mind is "conformity to truth". So, assessing and embracing the truth is a necessary moral virtue that enables the choice of good and evil. Conforming to the truth is an objective moral norm in itself. In fact, I would say it is "THE moral norm". Why? Because every intellectual act requires an acknowledgement that the truth has a higher value in goodness than falsehood does. The acceptance of truth is an objective moral act of the natural law that every human accepts - without exception. Proof 1. If truth was equal with falsehood, it would be possible to posit "completeness" or "fulness" for either value. 2. To strive to always tell the truth, would be to strive for a "completeness" of truth. By eliminating and reducing lies, dishonesty and falsehood this goal is possible. 3. To strive to always tell falsehoods would mean that one would have to falsely assert every principle. But the assertion of any principle (e.g. "I am going to always tell a lie") is an assertion of a Truth - thus making this proposition impossible. To achieve "completeness" of truth is a possible goal. To acheive "completeness" of falsehood is impossible. Since that which can reach completeness or perfection has a greater goodness than that which cannot reach completenes/perfection - then Truth has a greater value of goodness than does falsehood. This is a universal, objective moral norm - Necessarily known by every human being. It is impossible to refute this argument.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
...the Pope is bound by the eternal teachings of the Church...
What is the church if not the teachings of Our Lord?Antonin
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Antonin
You seem quite critical of the Holy Father.
Just interjecting, but the Pope is bound by the eternal teachings of the Church just like any rank-and-file believer is. Additionally, when a clarification of teaching is requested it is not a matter of being critical of him, but of seeking understanding and in some cases, pointing to a problem (not everything the Pope says is protected by the Seal). St. Paul did that to the first pope when Peter fell into Judiazing tendencies. So, there's room for respectful criticism.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
JAD
from Taylor Marshall And even if a human person followed natural law perfectly, he would not attain to Heaven, because sanctifying grace is needed to enter the Beatific Vision (vision of God). So then, God gave “Divine Law” in the form of the Old Testament but perfectly in the New Testament. The New Law of the New Testament is really the Holy Spirit who communicates mercy, grace, and love to our souls and body. Hence, the human person after Adam and Eve needs Divine Law to perfect what natural law cannot do. (The heresy of Pelagianism holds that humans can be saved by perfectly following natural law – a big no-no for Catholics!)
That's pretty important. I look at the implications just in terms of arguing with atheists. To focus on the natural law alone ... as an abstraction, in my opinion is a very flimsy foundation for an argument. Yes, the pre-Christian philosophers used this, but we've got 2000 years of Christian thought that they didn't have.
Thomas Aquinas would say that natural law in the heart of man would argue against idolatry, polytheism, atheism, etc. Hence, the idolatry of, say, Hinduism is banned under natural law.
Ok, I cannot imagine arguments here including that point when it comes to natural law. But think about it. We talk about torturing babies, but atheism and Hinduism, for example, are violations of the natural moral law.Silver Asiatic
October 23, 2018
October
10
Oct
23
23
2018
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 10

Leave a Reply