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

jdk you state,
"my chosen belief"
And exactly how do Darwinian Atheists, who hold to reductive materialism (which denies the reality of free will), "choose" to believe in anything? Darwinian atheists are meat robots with no free will of their own. They have no more control over their actions and beliefs than a leaf blowing in the wind has control over its own fate. And that catastrophic epistemological failure inherent to the Darwinian worldview, in their denial of free will, is even before we get into the abject failure of Darwinian atheists to account for their own 'subjective' conscious experience in the first place, i.e. qualia. In other words, if a Darwinian atheist is going to claim that morality is merely 'subjective', might he not also be required to give an account for his 'subjective' conscious experience in the first place? Or do Darwinian atheists get a free pass on everything when it comes to ever having to provide any scientific evidence whatsoever for any of their grand claims? If so, Darwinian atheists are not doing science in the least little bit, but are instead up to their necks soaking in a imaginary religion of their own making!bornagain77_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

I answered your question, Barry. I wrote, "Barry, my chosen belief, as explained in a couple of posts here today, is that tbff is never right, and I can’t imagine any circumstances for which that would be true." I didn't assent to the dichotomy you proposed, however. In what ways did I not answer honestly?jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

JDK dodged my question at 56. Unsurprising. It is literally impossible to answer honestly and continue to maintain his argument.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

re 56: Barry, my chosen belief, as explained in a couple of posts here today, is that tbff is never right, and I can't imagine any circumstances for which that would be true. I also think, as I have described numerous times, that this belief is tied to such basic core aspects of human nature that virtually all human beings agree about this. But this is a statement about the nature of human beings, including my own internal experience of the nature of my self. It doesn't mean, to repeat myself again, that the source of this commonality is some transcendent world of moral truths. It is probably time for all of us to quit repeating ourselves.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

re 55: Stephen writes,
Yes, and I dare say that you also *know* that it is wrong to torture babies for fun. It is not the kind of thing you need to take on faith or confirm by societal agreement.
I know for a certainty that I think tbff is wrong, not on faith (I have no idea what that means) nor because it is confirmed by societal agreement. You guys don't seem to have read, or comprehended, what I wrote in 1 and 10. My belief is a choice I have made, based on my own internal understanding of key components of my self, such as empathy, compassion, deep appreciation for the way human beings start from such undeveloped creature, etc. If this is elf-evident in any way it is that it is evident to my self, by understanding my self, not because it is self-evident because it comes from any thing outside of, and transcendent to, my self. It is also a fact that almost all human beings think likewise, because, I believe there is a common core of such feelings in all human beings irrespective of culture. Also, the following sentence that I wrote is not clear. I wrote, "This one argument which Barry always brings up about whether tbff is “self-evident” because it is so strongly held across cultures doesn’t not address the bigger picture." I know that Barry doesn't think this. What I meant to say is that Barry fixates on this one example and doesn't address the bigger picture that there is a large spectrum of moral variability across cultures. You get around this by writing, "If you know that even one human action is wrong (ttbff), then you also know that the objective moral law exists." No, because, as explained numerous times, I think there is a valid reason why tbff is universally considered wrong: transcendent moral truths are not a necessary explanation. Stephen writes,
Of course, it is possible for this knowledge to be suppressed through ideological brainwashing or the effects of immoral behavior.
Is it true that you are offering these as explanations for my beliefs on this matter?jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

JAD writes,
They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality.
No, I am not claiming that I know with certainty that there are no universal moral truths. I am just saying that I don't believe there are, based on, as all my beliefs are, an overall weighing of what I see as evidence, both from my internal experience and what I know about the world. Also, I think the arguments and evidence presented for the existence of universal moral truths are not at all convincing or compelling. So my belief is that such truths don't exist, but believing that is different from claiming that I somehow know it to be so.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

JDK, Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either torturing babies for fun is a self-evident, objective moral truth or you will allow for the possibility, however unlikely in your subjective estimate, that somewhere sometime, it is actually a good thing. Allowing for that possibility is evil. Do you allow for that possibility JDK?Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

jdk
Stephen(and Barry): I understand that you believe that moral codes exist outside of you, and were ther before you were born, and that you are able to know them as self-evident truths.
Yes, and I dare say that you also *know* that it is wrong to torture babies for fun. It is not the kind of thing you need to take on faith or confirm by societal agreement. As I recall, you have acknowledged the point several times in the past but tried to walk it back when we begin to explain its implications. Are you, once again, walking it back? Are you now claiming that you really don't know that it is wrong to do this?
This one argument which Barry always brings up about whether tbff is “self-evident” because it is so strongly held across cultures doesn’t not address the bigger picture, which is the lack of evidence for the existence of an objective, transcendent reality, and the lack of any means for determining these moral truths across varying cultures.
This statement reflects a serious misunderstanding of the arguments being made. Barry (and I) are not saying that the existence of moral truth is confirmed by the fact that it is strongly held across cultures. We are saying that it is strongly held across cultures because it is universally known to be true. Moreover, no amount of evidence could ever confirm the existence of a self evident truth, such as the reality of the objective moral law. You can't get moral truth from observing human actions, but you can interpret human actions from the perspective of moral truth. That you would even use the word "evidence" in this context suggests that you do not understand the nature of a self-evident truth. If you know that even one human action is wrong (ttbff), then you also know that the objective moral law exists. Of course, it is possible for this knowledge to be suppressed through ideological brainwashing or the effects of immoral behavior.StephenB_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Stephen(and Barry): I understand that you believe that moral codes exist outside of you, and were ther before you were born, and that you are able to know them as self-evident truths. I don't believe that is true. This one argument which Barry always brings up about whether tbff is "self-evident" because it is so strongly held across cultures doesn't not address the bigger picture, which is the lack of evidence for the existence of an objective, transcendent reality, and the lack of any means for determining these moral truths across varying cultures. So we have different beliefs. We will have to, once again, leave it at that, I think.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

jdk:
No Barry: pointing to a belief universally held by human beings is NOT the same as, or necessary evidence for, the existence of a transcendent truth. It is just evidence that human beings have a common core nature in some respects.
Barry is right. You miss the distinction between believing and knowing. We don’t simply “believe” that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, we know it as a self evident truth. Self evident truths are not believed, they are understood. Thus, they are not believed because they are universally held, they are universally held because they are known to be true.StephenB_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

No Barry: pointing to a belief universally held by human beings is NOT the same as, or necessary evidence for, the existence of a transcendent truth. It is just evidence that human beings have a common core nature in some respects. Barry is right. You miss the distinction between believing and knowing. We don't simply "believe" that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, we know it as a self evident truth. Self evident truths are not believed, they are understood. Thus, they are not believed because they are universally held, they are universally held because they are known to be true.StephenB_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?john_a_designer_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

jdk
I accept that you, Stephen (to make this less abstract) have moral codes that you have constructed for yourself, and you are “entitled” to do so.
You are not addressing the point. Why would you try to persuade the Saudi to change his moral code if you believe that no individualized moral code is superior to any other? For my part, I did not construct a personal moral code for myself. I adopted the objective moral code that came *before* I was born. You constructed a personal code that came *after* you were born.
I have moral codes that are different than yours. I support your right to have your moral codes, but I still can, and will, when the opportunity arises, resist your acting on your moral codes if it impacts situations that I am involved in.
Yes, you believe that your moral code is superior to mine and that your actions (based on that code) are superior to mine, otherwise, you wouldn’t bother to resist. At the same time, you say that no one moral code or action is superior to any other. Do you understand the contradiction?
If someone is working to make same-sex marriage illegal, for instance, than I will be active in opposing that.
Of course. In theory, you say that no moral code is superior to any other, but in practice you believe that your amorality is *superior* to my objective morality - and that advocates for the latter should be defeated. The only question left to be answered is whether or not you also think they should also be silenced. Moral relativists always become tyrants when they get the chance. They will persecute anyone who dares to speak the truth, which is this: All homosexual behavior is disordered and “gay marriage” is a logical contradiction. No rational case can be made for it. That point is clear to anyone who has read the Supreme Court’s irrational approach to the subject.StephenB_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

No Barry: pointing to a belief universally held by human beings is NOT the same as, or necessary evidence for, the existence of a transcendent truth. It is just evidence that human beings have a common core nature in some respects. I don't get that you don't get the distinction. I don't expect you to agree that I am right about this being a common core of humanity rather than a transcendent truth, but I would think that you would understand that it is a possibly true and different view than yours.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

JDK
There are extreme psychological pathologies from which someone might reach this conclusion [i.e., that torturing babies for fun is good], but the rest of us would consider those sick people.
Here is how you know that it is objective. If one of those people told you it was good to torture babies for fun, you would know with absolute certainty he was wrong. It would be just as if he told you that 2+2=3,287. You cannot have it both ways Jack. Either you allow that he might be right or you insist you are certain he is wrong. And if the latter, you have objective morality with respect to at least one self-evident moral truth. It does not matter that some moral truths are not self-evident. No one would say that 2+2=4 is not self-evident merely because there are other, more subtle mathematical truths that are not self-evident.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

I certainly can't imagine a situation where I would think tbff would be OK. Given what I know about human beings, and this is a fact based on empirical evidence, I can't imagine a situation where any substantial group would think it was OK. (There are extreme psychological pathologies from which someone might reach this conclusion, but the rest of us would consider those sick people.) But not being able to imagine that situation about human beings is a very different kind of thing than not being able to imagine 2 + 2 = 4 could be otherwise. One difference is the tbff is on one end of a spectrum of actions that range from virtually universal to those that are highly variable. Tbff for fun is universally condemned, but homosexuality, for instance is not. This is not true of math. So I don't think your analogy is valid.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

JDK:
it just means that in some ways all human beings are alike.
No, that is wrong. Not only is torturing babies for fun wrong, it is not possible to imagine a circumstance where it would be otherwise in the same way it is not possible to imagine that 2+2=4 could be otherwise. Are you saying you can imagine it being otherwise? If so, we can be very sure you are lying, because we know you cannot.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Theft Murder Sacrilege Ingratitude Rape Those are objective moral evils.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

... why did we lose the editing feature? "... must conclude ..."Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

jdk The subjectivist view much conclude that what is true has equal value to what is false. Subjectively, a person can choose either what is true or what is false - both have equal value. You can see how this is impossible and no subjectivist will ever (can ever) do that.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

jdk Morality is about the rightness or wrongness of human acts. An objective moral principle is that truth has a different value of goodness than does falseness. So, when faced with any choice, a person cannot conclude that whatever is true is equal to that which is false. Truth has a higher value in goodness, so morally we choose what is true. To the extent that we know the truth of things, it is morally better to choose that which is true.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

SA, that sentence just moves the goalposts to the subject of truth: I don't think it clears anything up at all. I don't even really know what it means: can you clarify or give an example?jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

jdk
That doesn’t mean that there are transcendent truths: it just means that in some ways all human beings are alike.
Following my reply to Bob O'H, I offer this as a transcendent, objective moral norm: "Truth has greater value in goodness than does falsehood". That is objective, not subjective. It is universal, not tied to culture or historical period. It is not merely something common in humanity but an essential norm. Every subjectivist embraces that objective moral referent and none oppose it.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Barry, we agree that tbff is wrong, and most (virtually all) people agree. Human beings have some deep commonalities despite their cultural differences. That doesn't mean that there are transcendent truths: it just means that in some ways all human beings are alike.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

re 37: Yes. There are people who believe there are objective moral truths, and those that don't. That appears to be what we are discussing.jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

jdk
The continued insistence on a “contradiction” only comes from those who believe objective standards exist: the contradiction comes from, might I say, the irrationality of that belief?
But I think you referred to a clash of principles, right?Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H
One thing I’ve never seen is a statement of these objective moral referents, and a demonstration that they are objective. It seems to me that without that this whole discussion is pointless: if we don’t know what these objective referents are, then don’t we have to operate subjectively?
Others can answer this much better than I can, with specifics of the moral referents - but one that I have come up with (I think it's the only one I've got) is: "Truth has a different value in goodness than falsehood". I believe that's an objective moral referent that necessarily transcends and opposes subjectivism. Subjectivism would necessarily oppose that statement I made. In subjectivism, truth and falsehood have equal value. In subjectivism, truth does not have a different value in goodness than falsehood. From that position, we derive all rational human thought. That is realist philosophy as opposed to subjectivism. "In the beginning was the Word" - Jesus Christ is the Logos, the principle of rationality. The Truth. That distinction between truth and falsehood, reality and illusion is the foundation of Western thought (idea of Logos introduced by Greeks then adopted by Catholicism later). But as for specific objective moral referents other than that I don't know.Silver Asiatic_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

JDK:
there is no “objective” way to decide which view is “correct”, so competing subjective views is all we’ve got.
Nonsense. Are you denying the self-evident objective truth that it is wrong to torture babies for fun?Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

re 31: But there is no "objective" way to decide which view is "correct", so competing subjective views is all we've got. C'est la vie. The continued insistence on a "contradiction" only comes from those who believe objective standards exist: the contradiction comes from, might I say, the irrationality of that belief?jdk_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

vmahuna says, essentially, X does not agree with Y about the nature of objective morality. Therefore, there is no point in arguing. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise V. That fact that two people disagrees means either (a) both are wrong; or (b) one is right and the other wrong. In the case of (b), the point of arguing is for the person who is right to persuade the person who is wrong.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2018
October
10
Oct
22
22
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply