Of course not, as we have often noted in these pages.
James Davison Hunter’s and Paul Nedelisky’s Where the New Science of Morality Goes Wrong is a great primer on the subject. Their take down of Sam Harris is especially good:
The new moral scientists sometimes provide certain examples that they think illustrate that science has demonstrated (or can demonstrate) that certain moral claims are true or false. A favorite is the health or medical analogy. Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris, for example, employs the health analogy to argue that science can demonstrate moral value. A bit more circumspect than some who use the analogy, he recognizes that he’s assuming that certain observable properties are tied to certain moral values. Harris puts it this way:
Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should value health. But once we admit that health is the proper concern of medicine, we can then study and promote it through science…. I think our concern for well-being is even less in need for justification than our concern for health is.… And once we begin thinking seriously about human well-being, we will find that science can resolve specific questions about morality and human values.12
Harris makes two assumptions—first, that well-being is a moral good, and, second, that we know what the observable properties of well-being are. Yet he doesn’t see these assumptions as problematic for the scientific status of his argument. After all, he reasons, we make similar assumptions in medicine, but we can all recognize that it is still a science. But he still doesn’t recognize that this thinking is fatal to his claim that science can determine moral values. To make the problem for Harris more vivid, compare his argument above with arguments that share the same logic and structure:
-
Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should value the enslavement of Africans. But once we admit that slavery is the proper concern of social science, we can then study and promote it through science. I think our concern for embracing slavery is even less in need for justification than our concern for health is. And once we begin thinking seriously about slavery, we will find that science can resolve specific questions about morality and human values.
-
Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should value the purging of Jews, gypsies, and the mentally disabled from society. But once we admit that their eradication is the proper concern of social science, we can then study and promote it through science.
-
Science cannot tell us why, scientifically, we should value a prohibition on gay marriage. But once we admit that such a prohibition is the proper concern of social science, we can then study and promote it through science.
Of course not. Period.
Why is it even an issue? Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us. What’s the point of bothering with morality in that case?
Morality just means getting society to shun the other guy instead of you. There’s no actual basis for the choice.
Well, for those who worship in the Temple of Science, it’s a apparently a perpetual struggle to appease your god.
Phony graphs, pal review, internet trolling, character assassinations, bombs, guns, chemical and mechanical abortions… with no end in sight.
Wither art thou, morality? Modern science has banished you.
Andrew
Of course not.
On a off-topic note related to old topics,
https://thinkprogress.org/washington-supreme-court-arlenes-flowers-d15c3d7f3150#.ez80e6xa4
Strictly speaking, Islam and Atheism are not sexual orientations.
The issue is back to what marriage is.
Andrew
Science is about what is, morality is about what ought to be. No way to bridge the gap.
Barry,
I think the answer to your question is NO.
Also, I don’t think morality can be legislated.
Years ago one could fill the car tank at any gas station in my town before paying. Not anymore. Now one has to pay before starting to pump. What caused that change?
Here’s a case where a bunch of engineers laughed out loud when someone jokingly suggested an immoral action:
Long ago, when leftovers of my strong atheist past still poluted my mind, shortly before God gave me the saving faith in Christ as my Savior and Lord, I witnessed at work an unusual conversation that left me wondering for quite some time.
A few engineers from different parts of the country were in our office for a training meeting. At lunch time my supervisor invited my fellow programmers and me to join the visiting engineers for lunch.
One of the engineers told an interesting story about his visit to a large institution. He said that in their cafeteria, when he approached the cashier with his food on a tray, the cashier asked him to describe what was on the tray. The cashier was visually impaired and could not see anything on the tray, but somehow could operate the cash register!
The cashier asked what was on the tray and told him the total to pay. I don’t remember the amount, but let’s say it was $4.50.
The engineer gave the cashier a $5 bill while saying what it was. The cashier gave back the $0.50 change right away.
Immediately after we heard the interesting short story, one of my colleagues jokingly asked the storyteller if he really told the cashier what was on his tray. To my surprise, the engineer did not understand the question. I knew that engineer well, and considered him very smart, hence I was shocked by his apparent lack of capacity to understand such a simple joke. Trying to make the joke funnier, my colleague asked the storyteller if he really told the cashier the real value of the bill. Some of us there laughed out loud at the joke, but the engineer and another fellow engineer who also was visiting from another town remained serious with faces that revealed their complete misunderstanding of the funny joke.
At that point my colleague explained his joke, saying that the storyteller could have told the blind cashier that on his tray he had just one cheap item that cost less than a dollar (eg. $0.75 fountain soda) and then give the cashier a $1 bill while saying that it was a $20 bill. Thus the engineer could have made $18.25 on top of having a free lunch valued $4.50!
The other engineer who had not laughed at the joke said that he couldn’t do that. My joking colleague argued back that the cashier would not have noticed the difference and according to the storyteller no one else was around them at that moment, hence there were no potential witnesses to that moneymaking transaction.
Then I heard something I had not heard before: the second engineer said that they wouldn’t do such a thing because it isn’t pleasing to God.
Huh? Say what? Lunch time was over. I went back to my office. Haven’t forgotten that conversation yet.
Dionisio,
there is no ‘funny story’, there. If the atheists that I interact with had thought that stiffing the blind was a laughable tale, I too would quickly get new friends.
Do you really believe Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc sit around telling funny tales about how they flattened the tyres of a cripples wheel chair, or how they duped the hearing impaired?
If these are the examples of the atheists you used to know, I would seriously consider getting religious friends too!
Where is the humour? A person is at a disadvantage and is weaker, so the person with the advantage and is stronger is to use that stronger position to gain cash, or free food?
There’s no ‘irony’, that I can see, it’s not a ‘parody’ of anything, there is no observable ‘satire’, and no one slips on a banana peel, so ‘slap stick’, is out: They are the four modes of joke making in any culture, and your ‘funny’ story fails at each.
What I do see is a mean spirited, selfish streak, of the, ‘he’s a loser’ so kick him while hes down schtick. But that’s not humour, that’s the powerful abusing their power.
I don’t need to be one of your God fearing engineers to see that your former (atheist?) friends were dicks, and you were right to leave them. As a strong atheist, I too would sit by them no longer, good on you for leaving.
Rvb8. Obviously you don`t know Dawkins very well as in his world there would be no blind , crippled or handicapped,as he would ensure they are all aborted at birth.
Most atheist really do miss the point of this whole morality debate, no one is for a minute saying atheist`s cannot be moral, what we say is they have on subjective basis for said morality.So rvb8 is eating meat right or wrong, is aborting babies because they are female, mixed race,Down Syndrome, right or wrong, is leaving your wife with 3 or 4 young children , while you skip town with your 21 year old secretary right or wrong who has the final say on these matters who decides right or wrong , is there perhaps a lab test we can do to reach a conclusion.
According to Dawkins , Coyne et al , everything is a product of evolution so murder, rape, Genocide, giving to charity, helping old ladies across the road, all just selected for fitness no right no wrong just fitness.
Compared to the average readers out there, my reading comprehension is relatively low, but in case someone has it even lower and has trouble understanding the bottom line of the comment @7, here’s another story that shows that same issue but in this case associated with real horror:
http://auschwitz.org/en/histor.....s-chambers
Please, note this:
“[…] kept the people […] unaware of […]”
“They were told that […]”
In the above story, did the “SS men” lie?
Were the prisoners told the truth?
In the comment @7 does anyone have troubles seeing the issue of integrity or lack of it at the center of the story?
Don’t we have that same problem everywhere we look, starting from ourselves?
However, what’s wrong with not telling the truth?
Is there anything wrong with being dishonest?
Anything wrong with lack of integrity?
Does anyone need help to understanding this?
Already is.
Morality as defined in old books, whether Abrahamic or Buddhist or Confucian, is a long lab report from a long set of painful experiments. Civilizations figured out which behaviors lead to survival, and which behaviors lead to death. They recorded the survivable actions as “God’s Laws”.
These books are explicitly scientific and explicitly Darwinian. Natural selection at its best.
These books are NOT “scientific” in the modern sense. They do NOT advocate bizarre untestable genocidal delusions and totally disproved genocidal theories in the hope of getting billion-dollar grants.
Marfin @9:
Good comment. Thank you.
The story @7 could have been changed, so that in lieu of the visually impaired cashier, let’s suppose each item has a tag with a label displaying a unique code that identifies every item, but the customer has to take each item from the tray and scan it separately and put it back on the same tray. Let’s also assume there’s nobody else there and there aren’t cameras around. Basically it’s the customer alone deciding whether to scan every item or not, without visible consequences, except the direct monetary savings resulting from not scanning an item (specially an expensive one). Would that change the story bottom line message about integrity and honesty?
Are there other variations one could think of without changing the central lesson of the story?
Here’s another situation:
Let’s say the customer has to manually enter the price of every item on a calculator next to a box where the payment is deposited (cash only) separating the paper bills and coins by their denominations. If change is due, then one takes it from the box. Nobody watching, no cameras filming. Just you alone. No negative consequences in worldly terms.
Integrity and honesty test.
And they use both.
Andrew
The 1st commandment is Darwinian?
Andrew
Darwin who was a committed materialist by the time he wrote, Descent of Man, thought at least he could use his theory of natural selection to explain the origins of morality. Nevertheless, he was forced to concede that this did indeed lead to moral relativism.
He writes:
“If… men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.”
No naturalistic theory of evolution is sufficient to provide a basis or foundation for interpersonal moral obligations or universal human rights. The so called moral atheists who show up here are only moral because they are co-opting a tradition of moral values and human rights which is historically and culturally based Jewish-Christian thinking and belief. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has contributed virtually nothing to the west’s legacy of moral values and human rights.
Science & morality? (follow-up to comments @7, 10, 13)
Check this out:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/875802
Is there anything wrong with what that doctor did?
Why?
Science & morality? (follow-up to comments @7, 10, 13, 17)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/?s=peer+review
JAD @16
Didn’t Nietzsche say as much and also claim that our Christian-based morality would fall by the wayside because God is dead? I never read his writing, but only commentary on his works.
john_a_designer @ 16
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Naturalism/materialism are beliefs about he nature of reality. Why should they have anything to do with morality and human rights?
In fact, what else is there that could provide a “foundation” – whatever is meant by that – for morality, other than what people agree amongst themselves is best for them?
Atheism is the position that no god or Gods exist.
Dionisio,
“integrity and honesty test.‘??
Apparently your relationship with atheists was short and poor. You constantly create the situation of, ‘what would you do if nobody was watching?’
My question, as an atheist; “Why does, who is watching, matter?”
As a humanist, materialist, atheist, my morality is grounded in what I expect others to do to me! It is of no ‘moral’ benefit to me to constantly steal from, or lie to others, because then they will constantly steal from, and lie to me.
You! on the other hand, base your ‘morality’, on WHO is watching; God or whatever flavour of spiritual twaddle you are peddling.
Marfin,
Don’t put words into Dawkin’s mouth. You do not know if he would have these babies aborted do you? In that case, I can only asume your assertion is a fabrication, a lie: I believe you religious types, would call that a ‘lie’, an ‘immoral’ act.
As an ahteist it is in my own intersest to avoid lying, even though I fall short of my own atheistic morality at times: You are woeful!
If Morality is the product of selection (it is), and if it comes about by humans seeing that it is more useful to be good than bad, so what?
It is still being good, isn’t it? It still makes your life better than worse, doesn’t it? And it has the added benefit of removing that survile, crawling, abasement to that which isn’t there!
“…that it is more useful to be good than bad, so what?”
What does it mean to be good?
What does it mean to be bad?
Mung,
Atheism is based on the belief that there’s no God.
It’s a belief system.
Some folks believe that they don’t believe in anything. But that’s just their belief.
🙂
rvb8,
Sounds like you’re kinda drunk when you write the stuff you write.
Yes or no?
Be honest
Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
mike1962 @25:
I think the politely dissenting interlocutors are trying to present their beliefs the best they can.
🙂
mike1962,
aah, a slander and an insult all in one.
I wonder how long I could post here, if I were to insult the thread operators, the way I, and some other atheists are insulted here?
When you say, ‘kinda’, do you mean, ‘kind of’? I’m not trying to be a pedant, but if you are accusing me of drunken prose then you have used a rather off hand style to do it; ‘kinda’, sounds like the drunk, ‘pot calling the kettle black’, as it were; or was?
Any way, the point of my post was to point out that atheists ground their morality on what is best for them. It is a happy coincidence that, what is best for them, is also best for you. Quite simple really, no God, Bible, nonsensical Ten Nonsenses, or moral crusaders.
Kinda easy to grasp really, no need for centuries of theistic diversion about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin: one of the moral problems that so obsessed Augastine.
Dio,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate'”
I know that you were brought up never to question God, but I have a question for Him, perhaps you can answer?
Why would you want to destroy ‘wisdom’, and frustrate ‘intelligence’?
I know why these things are done here, it is to circumvent the truth. But why would an all knowing, and loving God, wish to blind the people to wisdom, and intelligence?
And more, why would you post this rediculous qoute as in some way being complimentary to your God?
Weird!
On the contrary, we do know. He said it.
Apparently “lie” doesn’t exist in your conjured up morality.
@22:
“…that it is more useful to be good than bad, so what?”
@23:
What does it mean to be good?
What does it mean to be bad?
Sorry Vy,
can’t connect to your link. However if Dawkins stood up for the rights of women to choose when and if they have children, (and I know he would), then I agree.
Could you actually write what Dawkins said in his quote that you link to. I’m sure it is out of context, missing follow up and back up information, and just another general mish mash, Gish Gallup, UNevent!
You know? Like your lot generally treats all facts, as maliaable things to be bent this way and that, as the times require; a kind of Trumpism, if you will; could mean this, could mean that, who the hell knows?
@29:
“I know that you were brought up never to question God…”
What information is such a knowledge based on?
@32:
“can’t connect to your link. ”
@30:
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/0.....-syndrome/
@22:
. “Apparently your relationship with atheists was short and poor”
What information is that statement based on?
Smooth backpedaling there rv @32.
Dio,
you do second guess the Almighty?
Also, you have had long and fruitful relations with atheists?
Vy,
thank you:) However, I really would like to know what Dawkins allegedly said.
Mung:
“Atheism is the position that no god or Gods exist.”
When will you ever get it right? The “atheist position” is that there is no evidence that any god exists.
rvb8
@29:
“I know that you were brought up never to question God…”
@33:
What information is such a knowledge based on?
rvb8
@22:
“Apparently your relationship with atheists was short and poor”
@35:
What information is that statement based on?
rvb8
@22:
“…that it is more useful to be good than bad, so what?”
@23 & @31:
What does it mean to be good?
What does it mean to be bad?
rvb8:
You may want to consider reading the comments posted @39, @40 & @41.
Thank you.
timothya @38:
Atheism is based on the belief that there’s no God.
It’s a belief system.
Some folks believe that they don’t believe in anything. But that’s just their belief.
🙂
Yes, Atheists begin by failing to describe their own position correctly.
Andrew
As I’ve pointed out to Barry before, it’s unclear how he can infallibly identify, let alone infallibly interpret, a supposed divine source of objective moral values.
Specifically, there are many claims of divine moral truth. Assuming at least one of them is accurate and complete, how does Barry know it correlates with what the Christian God supposedly values and demands? And, even if that was the case, how does he know he is correctly intepreting Christian moral texts? Unless he can infallibly identify and interpret any supposed divine moral truths, Barry must have first used human reasoning and criticism, which is the very thing he claims is inadequate, to determine which divine truth to follow and how to interpret it.
IOW, Barry thinks a morally perfect being would value and demaind X, Y and Z. Therefore, he adopts divine moral truths that correlate with his conclusions and rejects those that do not. And he has reached his conclusion about what God values and demains via human reasoning and criticism.
So, it’s unclear how he is in any better position than non-theists. I don’t think “God” is a good explanation for moral knowledge and Barry wouldn’t have the necessary access to apply them in practice, even it they did exist.
Then again, perhaps Barry can explan how he can infallibly identify and intepret divine sources of moral truth. How does he avoid appealing to the very things he claims are inadequate? How would that work in practice?
I agree that science cannot “ground” moral values.
First, science consists of conjecturing theories about how the work works and criticizing them via empirical tests and there are no empirical tests we can perform that tell us we should value truth or human flourishing.
Second, I’d suggest you’re asking the wrong question, as there are no foundations to knowledge, moral or otherwise. Knowege grows via conjecture and criticim.
Theism is a form of philosophical foundationalism that assumes that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. It says there must be some refuge of last resort we can appeal to that will not lead us astray from truth. However, it’s unclear how this would actually work in practice. Is that God speaking to you or is it your personal beliefs about what you think God would tell you?
How do you infallibly identify those voices as coming from God, demons, your own thoughts or a neurological condition? You use human reasoning and criticism to draw conclusions from your experiences because the conclusions are out there for us to experience. Human reasoning and criticism always comes first.
bb @ 19,
Here is a quote from his short tract or booklet, Twilight of the Idols, which speaks to that.
But if we reject a morality that is based on some sort higher transcendent good as Nietzcche wanted to do, with what do we replace it? That is a question for which atheistic naturalists/materialists do not appear to have an adequate answer– or if they do it is not forthcoming. Why not?
For our atheist interlocutors: The question in not whether atheists can live conventionally moral lives. I believe many can and do. The question is whether you as an atheist have any kind of sufficient basis for any kind of morality at all. If you do tell us what it is.
Showing up here and obfuscating about morality does not accomplish anything. All it does is waste peoples time, which ironically is neither respectful nor ethical.
Dionisio wrote
When the ISIS solder was asked, “Why didn’t you let the infidels live when it would have been much easier than waging an entire war to kill them?, he replied “I wouldn’t do such a thing because [letting the infidels live] isn’t pleasing to God.”
The ISIS solder is making the same appeal. How do you know he’s wrong and you’re right?
Specifically, even if some divine objective moral truth existed, you would need the ability to infallibly identify the right set of moral values and infallibly interpret them before you could actually apply them, in practice. Right?
Can you explain how that works, in detail? How else do you decide other than using human reasoning and criticism?
‘I think’, being Harris’ operative phrase, Barry, qualified, as you wittily point out, by nothing that would not lend itself to the grossest satire.
I think I’ll go with ‘rocket science’, rather than ‘brain surgery’, as a metaphor for high intelligence from now on. How did he ever qualify?
asauber @44:
Well, let me wear the ‘bona fide’ defense lawyer hat on behalf of the atheists.
See, contrary to the mistaken affirmations someone wrote* @22 & @29, I was educated in strong atheist states, along with many other strong atheist colleagues.
I had to pass the official statewide test on materialist philosophy in order to get my engineering degree.
Needless to say I passed it with bright colors.
I could teach atheism to many current atheists.
But I don’t want to squander precious time on senseless discussions with folks that don’t seem interested in having serious discussions.
Back then I believed that I was taught facts and others who thought differently were just out of touch with reality.
I strongly believed as a nonnegotiable fact that the universe had always existed, and that matter could not be created nor destroyed, just transformed. I could debate that from the ‘strong’ position that I held based on the ‘solid facts’ I had been taught. I did the same on basically any area of discussion.
When I socialized with Polish students and they told me that the soviets had killed many Polish officers in Katyn before the Nazi troops had invaded the Soviet Union, I told them that they were wrong because that sounded like dirty anti-Soviet propaganda originated on the west side of the Cold War Iron Curtain and I explained to them that the Nazis had done it.
Now, imagine this: I was teaching Polish history (which I knew almost nothing about) to Polish people, who definitely knew much more about their own country. But I believed the official information given to me back then. I took it all as solid fact. Since their statements contradicted my beliefs, I ‘knew’ they had to be wrong. I was that simple.
(*) no idea where he got that misinformation from. Did he make it up?
john_a_designer quoted:
Since “man” does not and cannot know what is good, how can “man” distinguish one true set of divine moral truths from another? How can he correctly interpret them, including the presupposition you quoted? In fact, it’s unclear how we could know any currently proposed source of divine moral truth is actually correct or even complete.
IOW, when you lack infallible access to what God values or demands, it’s unclear how this helps you in practice. A such, you’re left with irrationalism or human reasoning and criticism.
What we face on a daily basis are concrete moral problems to solve. And when we solve them, new moral problems arise, some of which we have not been presented with yet and which no holy text has yet to address. As such, it’s unclear how they could be used to solve moral problems, in practice..
Rather what I’m suggesting we do is conjecture solutions to those problems and criticize them. That’s how all knowledge grows. Including moral knowledge. We guess and criticize our guesses. And, in the process, we use background knowledge that itself came from guesses and criticism, etc. Moral knowledge genuinely created, where it did not exist before.
Assuming we haven’t killed ourselves off, been hit by an asteroid, etc. The moral problems we will face in the mid to distant future will be vastly different than we have know. New moral knowledge will be need to be created to solve them
What do I mean by rational criticism in the context of moral problems? To quote Popper…
This is opposed to the theological idea that moral knowledge doesn’t actually grow, but is bound to some ultimate authority, that “just was” complete with this moral knowledge already present. No explanation is given.
From the post: “Harris makes two assumptions—first, that well-being is a moral good, and, second, that we know what the observable properties of well-being are.”
Actually, he’s also assuming that I have a duty to care about the well-being of others. Where could such a duty possibly come from if not from a transcendent, personal being?
Seversky @20:
Please, let me know if I understood you correctly.
Here’s an example that seems to illustrate your statement:
In the 1930s the Nazi Germans agreed amongst themselves that the best for them was to annihilate everyone they considered “subhuman” or “unfit”.
Is that what you had in mind?
Your 29, rvb8.
You clearly have not the remotest acquaintance with the negative meanings of the words, ‘wisdom’ and ‘intelligence’, as used in either Judaeo-Christian scripture or, indeed, the other mainstream religions.
Even in physics, at least, since the discovery of QM, the deepest truths have been discovered to be opaque to the unaided analytical intelligence. Indeed, they are invariably paradoxical, mysterious, repugnant to reason – although, when accepted as such, they are very productive as springboards, stepping-stones, towards further discoveries through the normal application of reason.
Look up the quotes of Niels Bohr in Wikiquotes. They clearly indicate that the partisans of scientism are like monkeys, in that just as monkeys are trapped because they will not loosen their fingers around a peanut in a hole, fashioned just big enough for their narrowed fingers to enter, but not big enough their fist to be extricated, materialists can’t let go of the notion that one day, man will be able to understand everything ; almost does so now !
Hence the frequent, cretinous recourse to the use of the word, ‘counter-intuitive’, in reference to a paradox, a mystery, totally repugnant to reason ; as if they had to depend on their intuition to establish that something being simultaneously a particle and a wave was counter-rational ! Since it is now standard usage, no doubt, the ‘religious’ scientists are pretty much bound to fall in line ; given the totalitarian regime imposed by the large multinationals, funding most research.
Unless it is underpinned by spiritual understanding (including common sense and honest reasoning) the knowledge and understanding of the unaided, analytical intelligence is degraded.
Spiritual wisdom necessitates a mode of life consonant with certain basic, spiritual precepts, which Aldous Huxley described in his essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy. It makes spiritual demands on the adherent, not spiritual demands according to the adherent’s personal tastes and preferences, i.e. the atheist’s ‘smorgasbord’ religion, which as our modern world indicates is ‘all over the place’.
The last straw has to be the splicing of the paternity of ‘test-tube’ produced children. Has it happened yet ? I hope not. One of the Fatima messages of the Virgin Mary to the children was that the final conflict against the forces of darkness would concern the family. And that sure makes sense to me.
The first responsory in last Sunday’s Office of Readings in the Breviary :
Romans 12:16 ; I Corinthians 3:18-19 ; I : 23,24
‘Do not think of yourselves as wise ; if anyone among you thinks of himself as wise according to this world’s standards, he should become a fool, in order to be really wise, for what this world considers to be wisdom is nonsense in Gods’s sight.
V. We proclaim Christ on the cross, Christ who is the power of God and the wisdom of God, for what this world considers wisdom is nonsense in God’s sight.’
—————-
‘Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment;
Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment is intuition.’
Jalal-uddin Rumi
I believe Rumi was a Sufi, but while Bohr is said to have inclined towards a Buddhist perspective on things, Rumi’s words here make him sound like Bohr, but, on the other hand, one could also substitute Planck for Bohr, in terms of his perspective on the mysterious truths of QM.
critical rationalist @48:
First, thank you for your comments and your questions. I’m assuming you want to engage in a serious discussion.
Let’s start from reviewing the text you quoted fom my comment @7. I’m assuming that you read the entire comment @7 carefully before posting your comment @48.
Please, understand that the “such a thing” they wouldn’t do was lying and stealing. Do you agree with this?
IOW, the same statement could have been written this way:
What I believe they meant was that even in the case that they would be tempted to do something against other people, they would resist the temptation because they wanted to please God who has taught them to love their neighbors as themselves.
Do you understand this?
I’ll try and come back to review the rest of your comment @48, but I assume that this comment may clarify a few things for you.
Seversky: In fact, what else is there that could provide a “foundation” – whatever is meant by that – for morality, other than what people agree amongst themselves is best for them?
Yes, way to go Seversky. The Germans and their leaders had something for this called Lebensraum in which they gave themselves persmission to launch a couple of world wars, and exclude certain kinds of people from their plans by genocide. According to you, what they agreed upon among themselves was just enough to make it moral, and I would punctuate with an LOL for any of your blunders except this one because of the resulting calamity of your type of justification for morality. There are plenty of you around thinking this way obviously. Thank you so much for demonstrating the whole point of the culture war for the young ones reading this thread.
Here you go read up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
@Dionisio
I did read the entire comment and understand what was implied. I don’t see how that addresses my criticism.
Waging war is not easy. ISIS fighters are targets of airstrikes by multiple governments and despised by many around the world. Nor would such behavior be tolerated by most societies, so they live a hard life. As such, I imagine it would be tempting to let infidels live, rather than kill them. However, ISIS thinks they have identified what God truly values and demands of them and, apparently, they think that includes killing infidels. So, they resist that temptation because they want to please God and actually take their lives.
Furthermore, even if they accept the precept of “love your neighbor as you would love yourself”, their explanation of how the world works would lead to a different interpretation of who their “neighbor” is or when and what it means to “love” them. For example, if they really do believe God demands the death of infidels, they would believe others should kill them if they were infidels as well. If others did not, they would be punished eternally like they would if they should the let them live. IOW, if one took their belief seriously, threatening infidels with death is in everyone’s best interest, protects neighbors from being lead astray, etc. And if those that do not convert are a threat to them and their neighbors. You’d want the most dangerous threat removed, right?
It’s unclear how you, or anyone else for that matter, knows that’s not what God really demands unless they have an infallible way to identify and interpret divine sources of moral values, should they actually exist. So in the absence of that, what do you do instead?
I’m suggesting that one’s acceptance or rejection of that interpretation is actually based on what you personally conclude a perfectly good, transcendent being would or would not do, rather than your experience of reading the Bible. This is because nothing you experience while reading it, or any other holy text tells, you which of any is accurate or complete. All observations and experiences are, as Karl Popper put it, “theory laden.” You must interpret them with some sort of theory, such as, a perfectly good God would do X, Y, and Z, rather than A, B and C, which causes you to accept one holy text (interpreting some parts of it as metaphors and others as literal) and completely reject others.
If you can’t imagine God behaving this way, it would seem obvious to you that he would not and you would reject it. But nothing is obvious in the sense that it comes to us from the senses. Human reasoning and criticism always comes first. Including which supped divine moral code you happen to believe in.
However, feel free to explain how that wouldn’t be the case. How are you in any better position?
In the story written @7, the engineer who said that they could not lie or steal because that’s against God’s will, and the engineer who told the story about the interesting case of a visually impaired person being very capable of working at a cash register in a cafeteria, those two engineers of the story, both were -as far as I can tell- believers in Christ, who made them, made you, made me and made everything that exist, as it is written in the New Testament of the Christian Scriptures:
[John 1:1-3 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
A follower of Christ has the spirit of God dwelling within. That spirit takes the fun out of sinning. To lie or to steal is sin. It ain’t good. The joke in the store @7 suggested a sinful action. That’s why it was unacceptable to the two persons who did not laugh at the bad joke.
Apparently the cafeteria story was initially intended only to show that interesting case of a visually-impaired person doing an excellent work as a cashier. The joking questions asked by someone else were out of place, because they suggested something that was sinful and at least two persons in that story considered it unacceptable. Why unacceptable? Because they believe the written word of God tells us what is acceptable to God in this age of grace:
[Matthew 22:36-40 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
[Mark 12:29-31 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
[Luke 10:26-28 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Christ also tells us:
[Matthew 5:7,8,9 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
[Matthew 5:16 (ESV)]
Here’s what God tells us about retaliation:
[Matthew 5:38-42 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Here’s what God tells us about loving our enemies:
[Matthew 5:43-48 (ESV)]
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
The Germans who claimed to be Christians but supported or accepted the Nazi doctrine were not pleasing God. Those who love God want to please Him. Therefore, were they really Christians? However, people who don’t believe in Christ don’t care about pleasing Him, hence they could act against other people without any remorse. The examples you provided refer to those people. They don’t belong to Christ, hence they are against truth and life. Christ is the only embodiment of Truth and Life.
What God tells us is written in the Christian Scriptures, His special revelation to His people. The Bible says only what it says and it doesn’t say anything that it doesn’t say. But many won’t understand it. There was a time when I didn’t care about God or anything related to it. I was spiritually lost, but now I’m found. I was spiritually blind, but now I see. God gave me the saving faith in Christ the Lord. I did not deserve it at all. That’s amazing grace.
One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord. But then it will be too late for many to reconcile with their Creator. Now is the time to believe in Him.
groovamos @ 56
And you, like so many others here seem determined to miss the point.
Did the Germans consult the Czechs, Poles, Belgians, Dutch French or Russian before invading them? No, of course not. Do you think those other countries would have consented to invasion if they’d been asked. No, of course not. Would they have considered invasion a moral act? No, of course not.
Would the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and other nationalities or groups that the Nazis considered to be inferior have consented to being killed in huge numbers? Would they have considered it moral? I’m pretty sure the wouldn’t have. Not that they were ever asked, of course.
And that is the point. Yes, some Nazis may have considered what they did to be moral but unless they had got the agreement of all those likely to be affected by their actions then what they did was immoral. The same applies to any religion that tries to impose its beliefs on others by force.
Perhaps many Germans thought that fighting for the greater glory of the Fatherland was morally justified. Most of the rest of the world disagreed and were prepared to fight bloody wars to make their point
In a democracy, a government derives its legitimacy and authority from the expressed assent of the governed. By the same toke, the only rational basis for morality is the expressed assent of the morally governed, in other words, moral codes should be the product of inter-subjective agreement.
Seversky @59:
What is your suggestion on how to do that?
Seversky @20:
Please, let me know if I understood you correctly.
Here’s an example that seems to illustrate your statement:
In the 1930s the Nazi Germans agreed amongst themselves that the best for them was to annihilate everyone they considered “subhuman” or “unfit”.
Is that what you had in mind?
Seversky @59:
Did they have to? Why?
Seversky @59:
Were the Nazis supposed to care about others’ opinions on any subject?
Were they supposed to depend on others’ approval of their plans or actions?
Why?
Seversky @59:
Do you mean that unless the pro-abortionists get the agreement of all the unborn children likely to be affected by their actions then what they do is immoral?
Seversky @59:
What if the morally governed are divided by different opposite irreconcilable opinions?
What do you suggest to be the rational basis for morality in such a case?
I believe we humans cannot legislate morality.
I believe the moral code must come from a higher authority who is perfectly just and good.
critical rationalist @57:
See my comment @58.
rvb8,
Please note the questions for you posted @39-42.
Seversky,
Please note the questions for you posted @60-65.
And until you give a reason why subjective morals “should” be anything for anyone other than you, that assertion is no more valid than:
“moral codes should be the product of inter-subjective agreement [between family members]”
Or
“moral codes should be the product of [your mind]”
What he said, not “allegedly said”, actually said is right there in the link you’re seemingly incapable of clicking on.
The Atheist position is literally that God(s) do not exist. Whether that is due to evidence or negative emotions (as it is in > 40% of cases) is utterly irrelevant.
Dionisio @ 60
How does any democratic society – one where everyone’s opinion is heard – decide such matters? I know there are a lot of people who prefer to be told what to do rather than have to think it through themselves but why should one person’s views – whether a human dictator or a god – count over all others?
🙂
Dionisio @ 61
As I said before, the Nazis did not consult the “unfit” or “subhuman” before carrying out their policies. That’s why they had no moral grounds for what they did. “Intersubjective agreement” in this context requires the agreement of all those who might be the subject of the proposed morality.
Seversky @72:
why not?
Dionisio @ 62
If they wanted some sort of moral justification or warrant for what they did – and this discussion is about moral foundations – then they should have. Since they obviously couldn’t have cared less about such niceties, they didn’t.
Dionisio @ 63
As above, if they wanted some sort of moral foundation for what they did then they should have consulted those affected. Why shouldn’t those people be heard?
Dionisio@ 64
Basically, yes.
Personally, I believe that the right to life should cover the whole lifespan of an individual human being, from conception to coffin. Since the unborn cannot speak for themselves, I believe society has a moral duty to preserve those lives, except where doctors may be forced to make a choice between the life of the mother and that of the child.
If morality is subjective opinion, they didn’t “have” to do any such thing. You’re merely restating your opinion and subtly demanding it be used as a criteria for determining the “groundedness” of other subjective moralities.
Why should they?
Dionisio @ 65
The Golden Rule. Our common interests as human beings. And since others here are fond of the odd quote or two:
— The Immunity Syndrome. Star Trek, The Original Series
Vy @ 70
If I don’t want to be killed by other people, isn’t it rational to try to come to an agreement with those other people that I won’t kill them if they don’t kill me, in other words, we agree that in principle killing is wrong, unless you have a very good reason. Is that so difficult?
@Dionisio
Yes, the Bible says that its contents came from God. However, I could write a text that said that it too came from God. The experience you have reading either claim doesn’t include the validity of either having come from God or how to interpret them. That comes from a theory you bring to the table, so to speak.
For example, one such theory is that God would not use human beings to create an Even Newer Testament. (The Mormons disagree) Or that he wouldn’t use a nonbeliever, or that the Bible itself claims it is complete, or that other claims in the document are not in line with what a perfectly good being would value or demand, etc. None of those things are present in the experience of reading either claim.
My point isn’t that we’re completely lost or that there can be no knowledge, but that human reasoning and criticism always comes first. So, I fail to see how you’re in any better position than the non-theists you are criticizing.
I’m quite aware of this, Dionisio. In fact, you have presented a concrete example of theory by which you interpret your experience. But, again, nothing in our experience actually includes the correct interpretation.
For example, it could be that demons take the fun out of taking some actions because they know many people will take them and they want them to suffer while doing so. That theory is perfectly compatible with what you experience as well. In fact, there are an infinite number of possible compatible explanations that we have yet to conceive of.
It’s unclear how you know you have the right interpretation. Again, what I’m saying is that human reasoning and criticism comes first, which is the very thing that is supposedly flawed and cannot be trusted.
IOW, I’m trying to take your explanation for human moral behavior seriously for the purpose of criticism. And I’m assuming you really want me to take it seriously, as an explanation, as opposed to, say, dogma or faith, by asking for an alternative explanation.
Vy @ 79
Yes, I am stating my subjective opinion just like everyone else and there is no problem if each subject’s morality applies to and affects only themselves. For the person living alone on a desert island, injunctions against killing or stealing your neighbor’s property or coveting his ox are simply irrelevant. There is no neighbor to kill and no property to covet or steal.
When people live together in society, however, there is a need to regulate the way they behave towards one another. If people were able to do whatever they want there is a good chance that society would disintegrate into chaos. But if each member of society agrees that he or she will respect the interests and well-being of others in return for similar respects for his or her own interests then you have a good basis for morality. Much better than some top-down “divine command” approach as it assumes and embodies the consent of the governed.
Until you give a reason why anyone other than you “should” do anything concerning the grounding of the their own subjective morality, you’re just restating your vacuous claim using new words.
So, for the umpteenth time, WHY? What is so difficult about that question to understand? Why is my not wanting to be killed supposed to be relevant to my decision to murder others I can under an Atheistic, materialist morality-by-subjectivity worldview?
You, like many other Atheists who I’ve seen try to tackle this problem, seem quite incapable of comprehending the matter. You just keep restating stuff after stuff after stuff.
And that is the point.
Fascinating. Many would-be rapists would agree with you wrt the illegality of rape. If only it was legal, the subjective opinion of many others that rape is bad is “irrelevant”.
And if you just so happen to live in a cannibalistic society, deciding who to eat the next day is part of that.
And that is not good? Says who?
Vacuous assertion. No more valid than:
“But if each member of [your family] agrees that he or she will respect the interests and well-being of others [when it suits them and so far as they aren’t caught murdering/stealing from/raping/X’ing them] in return for similar respects [due to ignorance of your behind-the-scenes actions] for his or her own interests then you have a good basis for morality”
Much better? You seem to think claiming something like that helps your assertions.
~2+ millennia ago you couldn’t.
Demons take the fun out of sinning because they want you to feel bad for sinning? Really???
@Vy
The problem is that we have two very different perspectives.
You have the idea that moral knowledge comes from the one “true”, already complete and infallible source of moral values and demands. However, I’m suggesting we are presented with moral problems, conjecture solutions to those problems, and discard those that do not withstand criticism (which includes exposing them to empirical tests) As such, we’re coming at the issue from completely opposite ends.
There is no logical or rational “foundation” that forces anyone to value truth either. But this is not to suggest that it is completely subjective. That comes from the idea that knowledge must be based on some ultimate foundation that we can always turn to that will not lead us astray, such as an authoritative source, or it is not knowledge at all. That is a specific philosophical idea about knowledge, which isn’t limited to theism. IOW, theism is a specific case of that philosophical view.
For example, Empiricism is the idea that the ultimate foundation that cannot lead us astray is experience. Knowledge comes to us through the senses. But that idea has failed criticism as well and it merely exchanges one authority for another.
I’m suggesting that, assuming we do not give up, destroy ourselves first, etc., the people of 10,000 years from now will face new moral problems that we couldn’t even conceive of today and which no holy text will have guidance for. We will need to create new moral knowledge that didn’t exist yet. All knowledge, including moral knowledge, grows though conjecture and criticism. It falls under a universal expiation for the grown of knowledge. Just as newton unified the motion of apples and planets, Popper presented a unified, universal theory of knowledge.
On the other hand, you’re suggesting that moral knowledge doesn’t genuinely grow and has always existed as part of a being that “just was”, complete with that knowledge already present.
We’ll keep taking past each other until we address and discuss these core differences about what knowledge is, if and how it grows, etc.
Perhaps I do but seeing as I’m focused on the idea that morality-via-subjective-opinions is valid, that isn’t particularly the focus here.
I don’t take the people who use the word “empirical” in these sort of discussions very seriously.
On the contrary, I’m observing you and co try to explain why subjective opinions or the congregation thereof can offer anything that can be described as morality, especially for anyone other than yourselves.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
And theism is relevant because? I don’t spend my day thinking about theism nor do I claim I’m a theist. I say I’m a Christian and while Christianity may be theistic, theism isn’t Christian. I’d sooner see someone say they’re a deist than a theist if their position is merely the affirmation of the idea that gods exist and you’d be hard-pressed to find a Christian tell you that all god-present religions are somehow true.
Who said that assuming we don’t destroy ourselves, we’ll exist 10,000 years from now? On what basis do you claim no “holy text” will have guidance for such supposed futures? Care to explain what moral problems in an imaginary future will miraculously make Matt 22:37-40 go poof?
You see, there was a time someone somewhere suggested there was a Vulcan somewhere around Mercury or something of the sort. Similarly, people today continue to suggest we’ll find the fudge factor dark family with more searches despite all of them consistently coming up empty. Appeals to the future of this manner are not that impressive, and it seems we’re far more likely to repeat the problems of the past than head into some untethered future.
So what’s next? Don’t turn off your fellow automaton’s battery pack if they continue to report to the hive mind? Any automaton that carries out any action that is not in line with Section U of the Great Hive Mind Coalition shall be subject to shutdown as decided by the Great Council of Knowingness?
Over two millennia and we’re still at don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.
I’m waiting for anyone here to offer a valid explanation as to how morality can be derived from the subjective opinions of individuals or the congregation thereof. Whether I believe “moral knowledge” has always existed doesn’t seem very relevant especially given the fact that I don’t believe such a thing (or your presentation of it).
Seversky @74
“[…] they had no moral grounds for what they did.”
Whose moral rules or law is your affirmation based on?
Didn’t they believe they had the moral ground to do what they did?
Did they have to consult anybody besides themselves? Why?
Seversky @76:
Whose moral justification? Didn’t they have their own moral justification? Why should they want somebody else’s moral justification?
Why did they have to care about someone else’s opinion?
Seversky @77:
Wasn’t their own Nazi moral foundation sufficient for them? Why not?
Why should they want somebody else’s moral foundation?
Why should the affected be heard?
Seversky @78:
I see your point.
Seversky @80:
Which Golden Rule?
(1) the ancient Laozi (Chinese) enunciation of the sage’s virtues (unrestricted kindness, faithfulness), or
(2) the ancient negative (passive) formulation, or
(3) the NT gospels (Matthew, Luke) command for us to be positively proactive in relation to others?
“Our common interests as human beings”?
What about the case of divisive issues that keep different groups of people from having common interests?
@Vy
I wrote:
Vy wrote:
“Really???” isn’t much of an argument. Do you have specific criticism?
If we have two options …
…B sounds like the the worse of the two. Suffer now and later, rather than just later.
Perhaps you think it’s obvious that wouldn’t happen because the Bible doesn’t say that’s the case? Demons in the Judaeo-Christian sense would not take actions that would dissuade people from sinning, but I don’t think you consider only “fun” acts to be a sin or “having fun” a necessary component for committing them.
This is why I keep saying that we find ourselves with moral problems to solve.
For example, the engineer might have found himself in need of money and decided to accept a bet from one of his peers to short change the blind cashier for, say, $100. He many not enjoy doing it, but I’m guessing you still think it’s a sin regardless.
Furthermore, that assumes the Judaeo-Christian narrative is true. Demons in other religions are more about deceiving people in general.
Regardless, I do not consider either demons in any religion or The Holy Spirt to be good explanations because they are easy to vary and operate by inexplicable means and methods. Specifically, they are related to changing people’s behavior not by long chain of independent explanations that could not easily be modified to fit new criticisms, but by a single direct claim that is part of theological narrative itself: demons tempt people because “thats the role that some supernatural beings want them to play.”
So it would seem that we agree that demons are bad explanations, but for different reasons.
rvb8 re 22 Dwking actually said the women had a moral obligation to abort her down syndrome child and try again.
You then say morality is a product of selection along with good, bad, better, worse, but did not give a definition of any one of these traits. So definition please.
You seem to know what good and bad is , what is moral and what is not so once again, eating meat right or wrong, aborting children on the basis of them being female, down syndrome, mixed race, poor, is this good or bad right or wrong.Leaving your wife with four children while you skip town with you young secretary , right or wrong.
I hope you are seeing the point here that who and how do we get to make a definitive statement on the moral implications of these questions and who is the final judge.
To decide on these matters we have to have a definition of moral , right, wrong ,good ,bad, because if they are just a product of evolution and are here by selection fitness, surely they are carry the same weight of benefit and fitness to mankind .Not to mention that if you follow the materialist viewpoint to its logical conclusion then you have no freewill and the whole point of the argument about choosing to do right or wrong is moot.
Once again I await you answer to specific questions asked.
It isn’t but your intuition should have alerted you to the fact that your argument is unreasonable. It’s like saying ISIS wants their child soldiers to feel pity towards their victims and put them on the verge of not wanting to carry out their commands.
It’s obvious because that is what it is.
“We” don’t. You just keep bringing up unreasonable imaginary situations that make sense only to you and hope I, or we, can undertake the same level of mental gymnastics it took you to make such scenarios sound reasonable.
Seversky @59:
You said:
…moral codes should be the product of inter-subjective agreement
The question arises, whether this sentence is a “moral code”.
If it isn’t, then you should;o) explain, what kind of statement this might be, because to me it looks like a moral code.
If you agree that it is a moral code, then we might ask, whether this statement is self refuting.
To use the example introduced by you and/or Dionisio above at least one of the following points obtain:
1) If the German Nazis didn’t agree to be held to this moral code, then basing moral codes on inter-subjective agreement obviously didn’t apply to them.
or
2) If the German Nazis can be held to this moral code without their agreement, then there exists another source for moral codes besides inter-subjective agreement.
Another formulation of the same problem:
If moral codes should be the product of inter-subjective agreement and I do not agree to basing moral codes on inter-subjective agreement, is that code a valid moral principle to me? If not, what is the point of this moral principle? If yes, what else is there that makes this moral principle binding on me?
Seversky, can you explain this?
(English is not my first language)
hgp @97:
I see your very logical point, but have to admit didn’t see it before reading your excellent comment. Thank you.
BTW, what’s your first language? You may ignore my question if you wish. That’s fine.
FYI, my first language is Spanish.
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
Perhaps there are biblical concepts that seem described in terms that might lead to a variety of interpretations. But those terms are not fundamental. However, there are biblical terms that have been distorted even though they are clearly defined in the Christian Scripture.
Maybe some distortions have been made intentionally for a particular purpose, but it’s possible that some of the misinterpretations are the product of our human disregard for accuracy and our lack of attention to important contextual details.
For example, the term ‘church’ refers to the people who belong to Christ, which does not necessarily include all the people who claim to be Christians. It definitely does not refer to the buildings where they meet. That’s one of the confused ideas that have been incorrectly passed through history, even though it is well defined in the Bible.
What distinguish most church denominations (I’d rather call them ‘abominations’) is their different interpretations of minor issues like worship music style. However, certain denominations differ in more foundational issues.
The last book in the NT, known as Apocalypse (Revelation) contains specific messages to seven different church congregations. Those letters identify what tells each congregation apart from the true church, not from the other congregations. We still can see those same differences today. Each congregation must compare itself to the pattern given in the Bible, not to other congregations.
That’s why we refer to some congregations as biblical, because they stick to the scripture in the fundamental issues. I have Christian brothers and sisters in different congregations in different countries and continents. Their congregations may be organized following different approaches, but their core belief is the same:
1. Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is the only document from our highest authority.
2. Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
3. Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
4. Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
5. Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
Christians don’t compare to one another, but only to their common pattern: Christ. That’s why the apostle Paul claimed to be the top sinner. I can claim the same title. Every true Christian can do the same. The closer we are to the Light, the better we see our own enormous imperfections.
The good news is that Christ loves us. He fills our hearts with hope and peace. Let’s run to Him! Let’s do it now, before it’s too late. This age of grace will have an end. No one knows when. Then every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord, because He will make it very obvious to all. But then it might be too late, because faith will not be required at that moment, and it’s written that we are saved only through faith in Christ by His grace alone.
When someone claims, as Seversky has claimed on this thread, there is no moral truth (because morality in his view is “subjective”) he is making a universal truth claim about moral truth which is obviously self-refuting. By analogy he is making a claim like, “This sentence is false.”
Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation. The golden rule is one such moral principle which meaningless unless there really is interpersonal moral obligation.
Seversky’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claim they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe, but there is obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously.
Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they?
Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard– doesn’t it? But by whose standard? Yours, mine or somebody else’s? Unless there is a non-arbitrary or objective standard of honesty any discussion or debate about morality and ethics is totally meaningless. Why should I trust anyone unless I know he/she is being completely honest? But how can I know that they are being honest unless there is an objective standard of honesty?
So why does Seversky even bother? Why does he continue argue that something that only he believes must be believed by everyone else? Again that is a self-refuting if not an irrational and absurd position.
john_a_designer @100:
Regarding the above quoted text, copied from the end of the third paragraph in your comment, did you mean “there is NO obligation”?
Is the word “no” missing?
john_a_designer @100:
I think Seversky’s beliefs are very common out there. Perhaps the majority of people think that way.
Yes! It should read, “but there is NO obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously.”
Thanks.
@Vy
I’m suggesting you’re mistaken about two things. First, is the idea that they could only be mere subjective opinions unless they are based on some ultimate foundation that we could depend on to not lead us astray. That is a particular philosophical view which is not limited to theism. The second is the idea that the particular moral values you adopt are not actually the result of the very thing you claim is hopelessly deficient. Unless you have some means of infallibly identifying and interpreting any such source of divine moral values and demands, should one even exist. you must use human reasoning and criticism to select between them. That always comes first, before experience.
IOW, should we try to take your explanation seriously as an explanation for human behavior, it ends up that you’re actually doing what we’re doing. And, while there is no logical necessity that causes us to value truth or human flourishing, what we’re doing isn’t necessarily mere opinions.
Theism is a specific case of a specific philosophical view on knowledge. As such, my criticism is not limited to theism, but that philosophical view as a whole. So, I’m not merely “biased against religion” and all criticisms of that view are criticisms of theism as well.
I don’t think you understand the role i’m suggesting empirical test play in this sort of discussion. The difference between philosophy and science is the sort of criticism applied. In science, criticism includes empirical tests. But much of the observations those tests are based on are themselves theory laden and not always subject to empirical testing. So, if you think I’m an empiricist, you would be mistaken.
The idea that human beings obtain souls at conception is one such idea in which empirical criticism comes into play. Namely, the empirical observations that a single fertilized egg can split after conception into two or that two can merge into one. Where did the other soul come from? Where did the other soul go? Since there isn’t any hard to vary chain of independently formed explanations that explain how God works, how he imparts souls, how they interact with matter, if they take up space, etc. one can easily make ad-hoc changes, such as, there were really two souls in one egg, or that there really was only one soul to begin with, or that it merely transferred to some other newly conceived egg, etc. It’s a bad explanation because it’s easily varied to deflect criticism, empirical or otherwise.
Your’e saying we have a God sized hole in our conception of morality. Therefore, all we have are opinions. I’m pointing out that unless you can infallible identify and interpret any such set of moral values and demands, you have effectively the same hole as we do, in practice, when actually facing moral problems. Why should anyone have a duty to X, Y and Z if all you have are (to use your terminology) “subjective opinions or the congregation thereof” that God values and demands X, Y and Z? How are you actually in any better position than we supposedly are?
But, again, I’m not suggesting that all we have. That’s your assumption, not mine.
I didn’t. It’s common for people put, “etc” in place of an exhaustive list. And if we give up and fail to create the necessary knowledge to detect and stop an asteroid, we’ll be destroyed. The same can be said for detecting and deflection or preventing a near by supernova, etc. There is no guarantee we will survive. We must we create the necessary knowledge in time to meet the threats we will face.
If we cannot predict the impact that genuinely new knowledge will have in the future, how can I give you examples we haven’t even conceived of yet and the moral problems they will bring? Who is your neighbor? What does it mean to love them? What is life, etc.?
About the only thing that survives the planning horizon is that we cannot predict the impact that genuinely new knowledge will have. For example, when the first two computers were networked, no one had any idea that it would play a key role in toppling dictatorships. If we can’t tell what impact that the creation of knowledge will have in the future, how can we know what moral problems we will be faced with?
@Dionisio
For the purpose of discussion, let’s take this one step at a time and ignore the problem of interpretation for the moment.
How have you infallibly identified The Bible as a text that accurately and completely depicts what God values and demands? How do you know this? In other words, I’m looking for an explanation for this knowledge you claim to have.
I’m asking because, nothing in your experience of reading it tells you it is actually accurate and complete. This is because that conclusion is not “out there” for you to experience. IOW, your conclusion is based on human reasoning and criticism, because it always comes before experience.
So, using the terminology presented here, what duty should anyone have value and perform X, Y and Z if it is merely your option that God values and demands X, Y and Z? How are you in any better position, in practice?
To rephrase, what good is an authoritative source of moral values and duties if you do not have infallible access to that source when actually faced with moral problems?
They are mere subjective opinions because that is what they are. Full stop.
My mental gymnastic capabilities are nowhere near yours so you’re gonna have to stop doing it if you’re interested in getting any point across.
And since I couldn’t care less about theism, good luck with your chase.
What are you even talking about?
You should read John 3:16 or Dionisio’s posts before making claims about what is what wrt depending on God for moral guidance.
And until you offer an explanation for what explanation you’re referring to, this is more mental gymnastics.
Again, what are you even talking about? This is second time you’re repeating that piece of text almost verbatim.
You should have read past the first sentence.
Er, two souls in one body? What??? As for not understanding how God works, ya think?
I’m saying you’re gonna need more than a whole lot of baseless assertions to establish your subjective opinions as any sort of basis for morality for anyone other than you. If you take God out of the picture, all your really do have is opinions – all 7+ billion of them.
You’re making an assertion, an assertion that is based on a strawmanned idea of what dependence on God for moral guidance is supposed to be.
Seeing as I have no idea what X, Y, and Z are supposed to be coupled with the fact that I’ve never mentioned having a duty towards any X, Y and Z, I don’t know what you’re saying.
Interesting stuff. It’s an opinion that the Bible exists and words mean what they do? Got it.
You’re not “we”, not even wrt Atheists. Your mind-boggling assertions are in a league of their own.
If reading my post made you post that then *facepalm*
So there’s no reason to assume we’ll exist 10,000 years from now. Got it.
And with that it’s pretty clear you’re not comprehending my post. I was referring to the end of our current existence not some imaginary supernova or asteroids destroying our planet.
So your assertions remain baseless. Got it.
“If [you] can’t tell what impact that the creation of knowledge will have in the future [or even offer a believable example to substantiate your assertion], how can [you] know [and expect me to take you seriously when you claim “no holy text will have guidance for” such imaginary] moral problems we will [supposedly] be faced with?”
Seversky @ 20 (and 59)
When I say: “I like raspberry ice cream better than vanilla”, I’m not expecting everyone to have the same point of view and I don’t expect them to like raspberry ice cream just because I said so. When I’m saying: “Thou shalt not murder”, then I’m expecting, that everyone agrees to my point of view. There is something needed, that let’s me expect you and everyone to follow my expectation in this case. This “something” makes morality different from mere personal preferences. You can call that “something” a foundation.
“Inter-subjective agreement” (as you call it in 59) is not a good foundation for this expectation, because it leaves so many problems open, that it can’t work in reality. One obvious problem was mentioned in post 97.
Another problem: How should inter-subjective agreement be reached? This is obviously also a moral question. The rules that govern this agreement process therefore must be moral rules. Who establishes those rules? And how? Either there is a priori a moral framework in place that establishes those rules or those rules can only be arbitrary. If there is an a priori moral framework in place to establish rules for moral agreement then obviously there exists another source for moral codes, so this “inter-subjective agreement” stuff is not the foundation of morality.
But when there is no a priori framework for establishing those rules then it gets even worse: Then by necessity all rules that we follow to come to an “inter-subjective agreement” are necessarily amoral. There is then no way of making a moral distinction between me holding a gun to your head and making you agreeing with my rules (And no, I won’t do this) to any other (more mild mannered) way of coming to an agreement. People in countries like North Korea and Eritrea supposedly get their rules by a similar process as described, so this is not only theory.
Now one might want to skip this question and say: OK most people in my culture share the same expectations as to how such an agreement process should look like, so we take those rules and run with them. This obviously doesn’t make those rules in any way “moral”. The way in which people in Saudi Arabia come to the Sharia laws might be described this way. And those laws are held to be immoral by most Western people (and probably vice versa). And since those rules, which govern the establishing of “inter-subjective agreement” are amoral, there can’t be any guarantee that the moral codes developed this way are in any way moral.
Which brings us to the next problem: Even if we establish some moral rules by your process of “Inter-subjective agreement”, what about those people that don’t agree to (some of) those rules? Can I skip those rules established by my society, that I personally find unconvincing? If I (hypothetically!) personally don’t like that “thou shalt not murder” rule, can I go about killing people, because I never assented to this rule? Obviously not! Is the society allowed to force me to obeying this rule? Obviously yes! But what gives society this right? Obviously it is not “inter-subjective agreement”,because in this example I never consented to this rule.
What about me (hypothetically) helding the sincere belief, that some moral codes in my society are wrong? Am I free to disobey those codes because I didn’t give my consent? Who makes the decision? Me or society? What if society has a different moral point of view as to who makes that decision? Whose point of view is valid? That point of view with a gun in its hand?
So to sum up: “inter-subjective agreement” as a foundation for morality doesn’t work.
@Vy
I wrote:
Vy wrote:
They are because they are? That’s a tautology….
Surely, you have some reason to think they are mere subjective opinions, right?
So I should ignore all your references to the Bible or Christianity since it’s based on core principles of theism?
That doesn’t describe your belief?
It’s unclear how the mere existence of an authoritative source of moral values and duties, (should one exist) is actually helpful unless you can actually infallibly identify that source as being accurate and complete and infallibly interpret how it should be applied when actually faced with moral problems.
What other means do you have at your disposal to choose between different claims of divine moral truth other than human reasoning and criticism? Isn’t this the very same means that is supposedly deficient and makes moral claims mere opinions?
All you’ve done is push the problem of how you know what is moral into an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable ream and operates by inexplicable means, despite the fact that doesn’t actually solve the problem, in practice.
Specifically, what’s the difference between having an opinion that some source is the one accurate and complete source of divine of moral values and duties, and having an option that some value or duty is moral? Should you actually explain how you know any such source is accurate and complete, will you not make rational arguments to support your conclusion and present criticism of others that make the same claim? Will it not be based on some assumptions, such as what a perfectly good being would value and demand, or that you know because God wanted you to know via some inexplicable means?
IOW, it seems that you’re far more versed in mental gymnastics than you realize. But, if I’ve got it wrong, by all means, please give an alternate explanation
So, you don’t believe that Yahweh is the explanation for moral human behavior? If I’ve got it wrong, then what is your explanation?
First, you haven’t seen comments here dismissed as merely being “biased agains religion” by moderators at UD? I have. Second, my argument is epistemological in nature, not just theological or targeted at Christianity. Any valid criticism of that philosophical view would also be a valid criticism of Christianity if they are baed on the same philosophical theory of knowledge. Namely, that knowledge in specific spheres comes from an authoritative source that one can always turn to as a last resort that will not lead us astray (into error.)
For example empiricism shares the same philosophical view as because it says experiences is the last resort that cannot lead us astray. All knowledge comes to us from the senses. IOW, empiricism merely exchanges one supposedly infallible authoritative source wth another.
Again, if I’ve got it wrong, then explain to me how you know which source of moral values and duties is actually accurate and complete. What am I missing? How is that not effectively “your opinion” or just “an agreement between people”?
That’s precisely my point! It’s unclear how you know what set of moral values and duties are accurate and complete. So how can you employ them when faced with moral problems? You believe they are or lots of people agree is the same objection being presented.
And there are no other holy texts which also claim they are the word of God and are complete? What if none of them are accurate representations of what God values and demands?
I’m just as unclear how you got that out of what a wrote as the first time. It’s possible we won’t survive because we might not create the necessary knowledge in time to solve problems that threaten to completely wipe out humanity, and “there’s no reason” are not equivalent.
Surely you’re familiar with the definitions of “subjective” and “opinion”. Your argument is akin to that of the
regressiveprogressive who asked Ben Shapiro why the Boy Scouts should admit only boys.Core principles of theism? Fascinating. But please, do carry on and good luck with your chase.
Since you continue to demonstrate your selective blindness, here’s the relevant part from two days ago:
—
It’s unclear what part of the Bible, specifically the NT, gave you the idea that we’re supposed to be infallible or that our God-given ability to critique something automagically renders the dependency on God for moral guidance on the same level as those who choose to deny His existence and yet claim subjective opinions can poof morality into existence. Try reading Dionisio’s posts for a start.
Riiiiight. I’m the guy trotting out the strawman idea that you need to be God to know God’s moral codes are moral and that Christians are in some kind of Grand Theism Coalition with all the god-present religions. Cool story bro.
And you haven’t realized that “religion” is a buzzword used by Atheists in an attempt to discredit Christianity by conflating it with nonsense? I have.
And like I said, good luck with your chase.
I’m still waiting for you guys to present a valid case for morality via subjective opinions. Try not to get too ahead of yourself.
If by “point” you mean you can’t comprehend my post, sure.
What if you actually presented a case for morality via subjective opinions?
Selective blindness again. Try reading:
critical rationalist @105:
That’s a very good question. Thank you for asking it.
First, let me clarify what seems like an invalid assumption you made in your question:
I’m very far from being able to “infallibly identify” anything by myself. I make mistakes like everybody else, perhaps sometimes even more.
However, I believe that the authors of the Christian Scripture were inspired by God our Creator and it’s His special revelation to His people. Also I believe it reveals much about our Creator and about us (His creatures) and the intimate relation He wants to have with us.
Would you mind if we rephrase your question?
Now, having made that necessary correction, before I can try to respond the rephrased question, I would like to know a few things that might help me to give you a more accurate answer, without writing too much.
How much do you know about the Bible?
Have you ever read it?
What do you know about its origin?
What do you know about the history of the current versions we use today?
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[addendum to comment @111]
OT reference to Samaritans:
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[addendum to comment @111]
OT reference to Samaritans:
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
john_a_designer @ 100
This depends on what you mean by truth. On the correspondence theory of truth a statement is true to the extent to which it is found to correspond to what it purports to describe. In other words, it is about what is. Moral claims prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another. In other words, they are about what ought to be and, as such, they are not capable of being either true or false since they are not claims about what is.
How do you arrive at interpersonal moral obligation except by intersubjective agreement?
You don’t have to take me seriously at all if you don’t want to but if people freely enter into an agreement about what are the best ways to behave towards one another in society then they are under a self-imposed obligation to live up to the terms of that agreement. Obligations need not be imposed from outside. In fact, I would argue that the obligations that people are most likely to live up to are precisely those that they entered into of their own free will.
I decide what is moral from my point of view just as others decide what is moral from their various different points of view. But what is to prevent us from discovering that we have some views in common and maybe coming to some agreement on others, in other words, a common morality reached through intersubjective agreement?
Honesty is the behavioral property of not lying or deceiving, of being truthful as far as possible. You can only measure the honesty of someone to the extent that you can test claims that they make. But in many cases, claims are not testable. If someone tells you they like the same type of music as you, how do you tell if they mean it or they are lying to flatter you? You want an objective standard of honesty, something infallible and certain, where I would say no such thing exists or is possible. In reality we make the best judgements we can based on the limited information available and make a rough evaluation about how much confidence we have in those judgements.
I’m not arguing that everybody must believe what I believe, I’m suggesting that we can all get together and, given honesty and good will, we can reach an agreement on various moral issues through rational discussions. It may not be quick or easy but I believe it can be done. What alternative is there?
To those who prefer some sort of Divine Command morality – good is whatever God says it is – I would ask how He arrived at those judgements. Did He just toss a celestial coin to decide them or were they reached through a process of reasoning? If decided by the equivalent of a coin toss then what moral value can they possibly have. We could do the same and it would be just as meaningless. If decided by reason then what is to prevent us as (sometimes) rational beings from doing the same. Maybe our power of reason is more limited than that of a god but we still have one so why not use it?
Christians don’t have to please God because that’s their obligation, but want to please Him out of love and gratitude for God’s grace poured over us.
God loved us first and He showed us the real unconditional Agape Love.
We have no obligation but strong desire to love Him back.
Seversky @ 59:
This brings us to the next problem with your “inter-subjective agreement” theory: Who is a “moral agent” worthy of “inter-subjective agreement”?
No one asks any mosquitoes sucking blood on their arms for consent before killing them. No one asks bacteria for their consent before exterminating them with antibiotics. Even people like Seversky, I would say. The reason is simple: bacteria and mosquitoes are not “moral agents” that should be asked for their consent.
So this question is a moral question in Seversky’s theory that must be asked by necessity before any “inter-subjective agreement” can be even attempted: Am I interacting with a moral agent whose views and interests have to be taken into account or not? If Seversky is not interacting with an “moral agent”, then “inter-subjective agreement” doesn’t need to be attempted.
In the Nazi ideology all those people mentioned by Seversky above were not seen as moral agents, they were seen as “Untermenschen” (sub-humans) and/or “Volksschädlinge” (a word associating such people with vermin); so obviously given Nazi ideology, no one needed any consent from those people, since their views didn’t count, since they were not seen as “moral agents”.
When Seversky thinks these same actions are immoral, he just answered the “moral agent” question differently from the Nazis, if his “inter-subjective agreement” theory is correct. And since this question must be asked and answered before any “inter-subjective agreement” can be even attempted, there is no way to come to an agreement with those who are not counted as moral agents.
hgp,
Excellent point.
What would make a person strongly believe that all persons are moral agents without distinctions, regardless of the opinion of the majority of people who might think otherwise in a given society at some point in history?
Folks, The only thing that can successfully ground morality is a world-root level IS that is also inherently the root of OUGHT. After centuries of debate, there is precisely one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Where, as a serious candidate necessary being such a Supreme Being would either be impossible in the same way a square circle is, or else would be actual, as an inherent part of the framework of all possible worlds. Science as institution, as praxis or as body of findings does not even come close. Also, we should note that our reasoning is inextricably intertwined with responsibility to wards truth and right, so the all too common undermining of moral foundations through ill-advised ideologies is fraught with destructive consequences for our civilisation. Such as, are visible all around. KF
KF,
Excellent!
That’s the bottom line, right at the very core of the subject. Basically that’s it.
Thanks.
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[addendum to comment @112]
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve Apostles
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
A Samaritan Village Rejected Jesus
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Note the observation about the “traditional hostility of the Samaritans for the Jews”. Apparently both groups were mutually hostile to one another. Let’s keep this in mind when we read the parable of the good Samaritan.
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[addendum to comment @120]
Jesus Cleanses Ten Lepers
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
Jesus and the Woman of Samaria
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
The Jews vs. the Samaritans:
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
[addendum to comment @99]
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[addendum to comment @121]
More on the contempt Jews and Samaritans showed for one another:
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[follow-up to comments posted @110-113, 115, 120-122]
Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
critical rationalist @57:
The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.
The terms “neighbor” and “love” are clearly defined in the Christian Bible for anyone who is seriously willing to learn their meaning.
Have you ever heard or seen the term “good Samaritan”?
Do you know what it means? Where does it come from?
[follow-up to comments posted @110-113, 115, 120-123]
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries:
As one can see in the above text, the concept of neighbor is very clear. No room for misinterpretation left.
The text also provides an example of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. However, the Bible contains other important references to true love.
@Dionisio
I wrote:
You wrote:
And
Dionisio, I don’t see how you’re actually disagreeing with me. Pointing out that The Bible references actual places is a rational argument that includes empirical tests. The same can be said regarding prophecy that supposedly came true, etc.
The consensus of Christian theologists over the interpretation of scriptures, the rational arguments about why the Bible is an accurate and complete picture of what God values and demands along with various criticisms of other holy texts which make the same claim represents the use of human reasoning and criticism, which is what I’ve been suggesting all along. The is the same process which you claim can only produce subjective opinions.
So, when faced with an actual moral problem, how are you in any better position?
You believe the ultimate source of moral knowledge includes a prohibition of homosexuality. Why should anyone have a duty to “your option” of what God supposedly values and prohibits? Adding an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm which informs you using inexplicable means doesn’t actually improve your position, in practice.
This is what I mean when I say “all you’ve done is pushed the problem up a level without actually solving it.”
@Dionisio
In 10 minutes, I’ve found a number of different interpretations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
One is that the injured man is allegory for Adam and Jesus. From Wikipedia…
Furthermore, one could claim nothing conflicts with nursing an injured infidel back to heath, so he is fit to choose islam or death. It could be seen as being merciful, to allow the man a clear head to contemplate his response.
Note, I’m not advocating this at all. My point is that should you try to support your claim that it’s obvious as to who your neighbor is and what it would mean to Love them, you will make arguments or criticize other interpretations. That’s human reasoning and criticism, which has been my point. That aways comes before experience.
hgp @ 116
I see the function of morals as regulating the way human individuals behave towards one another in society, so human beings are the agents who reach agreement with each other about what is and isn’t moral.
Exactly, although human beings could, if they wanted, extend moral obligations to the treatment of other animal species.
It’s okay, I’m not asking you consider discussing morals with a mosquito or a virus.
Trying to re-classify certain groups of people as “Untermenschen” or “Volksschädlinge” doesn’t – and didn’t – get the Nazis off the hook. The groups they were trying to downgrade were human by any reasonable standards and the Nazis had no moral right to do what they did without consulting them and getting their agreement, which was never going to happen and they knew it.
critical rationalist @125-126
[follow-up to comments posted @110-113, 115, 120-124]
What exactly do you know with certainty that is not true in the Bible?
I don’t know whether your willfully ignorant or genuinely oblivious but when you make the claim that X had no moral right to do Y to Z based on your subjective standards of what ought to be, you are making a vacuous and utterly useless claim.
The way you responded to hgp without really engaging it makes me realize you’re quite skilled at hedging.
It took you what, 7+ posts of confabulation, and when you finally decide to explicitly state your claim you offer a strawman. Good job.
So your argument is that since we can do “good” science, we can also poof good moral standards into existence based on nothing but our opinions and Sev’s useless criteria of “intersubjective agreement”? Adorable!
Pray-tell, why is rape bad?
KF at 118. “Folks, The only thing that can successfully ground morality is a world-root level IS that is also inherently the root of OUGHT.”
Dionisio gets your meaning, I appear slow to grasp.
Is, “IS”, God, and “OUGHT” the rest, but dependant on God? Please could you explain (in a few sentences if possible!).
A bit like, Jesus says he is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father is the vine dresser? (Jn 15:1-11).
Thanks
mw
Seversky @ 127
Thank you for your reply. You possibly didn’t see my previous posts #97 and #107, to which my post #116 was added.
Before I continue, I want to say, that I’m not trying in any way to establish, that what the Nazis did was in any way moral. Since I belong to one of the minorities they wanted to eliminate, I have every reason not to.
My point is rather: Can we establish the wrongness of the Nazis given your “inter-subjective agreement” theory? And I think your idea can’t establish this point. Or maybe I’m overlooking something that you can enlighten me.
That’s a relief;o).
But my point isn’t: mosquitoes are moral agents. My point is rather: Given your “inter-subjective agreement” theory the question of who is and who isn’t a moral agent is itself a (foundational) moral question. Depending on the answer the entity in question is worthy of my attempts at “inter-subjective agreement” (humans) or not (mosquitoes). Somewhere in between those two there is a limit that divides moral agents from non-agents. You implicitly agree yourself when you say: “The groups they were trying to downgrade were human by any reasonable standards”. This “reasonable standard” is obviously a moral standard. If you think otherwise then please elaborate.
And (given your theory) exactly here do we have a moral question that must be answered prior to any “inter-subjective agreement”: Whenever you start an attempt at “inter-subjective agreement” you have answered this question in the affirmative beforehand. So where did you get this “reasonable standard” by which you establish, who is and who isn’t a moral agent? Seemingly not by “inter-subjective agreement”.
And this causes a dilemma for your theory: Either the moral question of who is a moral agent worthy of “inter-subjective agreement” can be answered prior to an independently of any “inter-subjective agreement” in which case “inter-subjective agreement” is obviously not the (only) source of moral codes. Or the question can only be answered by “inter-subjective agreement”, in which case your theory can’t work in practice at least not in the discussed example.
The word “re-classify” can only be applied, when there is a moral(!) classification prior to any “inter-subjective agreement” with the Nazis. The Nazis didn’t see “Untermenschen” as moral agents. So in their view, they didn’t “re-classify” anything. They just worked according to their own classification.
And that’s the problem: If “inter-subjective agreement” is the only standard by which to decide moral questions, then the Nazis didn’t do anything wrong. They just simply didn’t agree to your answer of the question who is a moral agent. Since no “inter-subjective agreement” between the two parties was established, where should any moral obligation come from? Not from the non-existing “inter-subjective agreement”. So either you agree that there is another source prior to “inter-subjective agreement” or your criticism of the Nazis exterminating “Untermenschen” becomes incoherent.
I don’t question whether the Nazis did behave amorally. They did. But this conclusion cannot be established, when you make “inter-subjective agreement” the foundation of moral obligations. Whenever anyone doesn’t agree with any moral code, then this code doesn’t apply to him, because he didn’t give his “inter-subjective agreement”.
How did you establish this view? By “inter-subjective agreement”? If not, why should anyone else be morally obligated to follow this view? Did the Nazis give their consent to this view? If not, why were they morally obligated to accept it? If they were, how was this obligation established?
Yes they could. But given your view this would be a moral obligation established between the humans involved, not a moral obligation to the mosquitoes. Such an agreement wouldn’t make mosquitoes moral agents. The Nazis could have among themselves agreed to some moral obligations to those they called “Untermenschen”, but this also wouldn’t have established the moral agent status for those so called “Untermenschen”.
How was this moral obligation established for the Nazis? They didn’t agree to there being any moral agents with whom they could have talked about any agreement, so why were they obligated to do so?
Do there exist moral obligations prior to and independent of “inter-subjective agreement”, that established this point? If yes, why are you talking about “inter-subjective agreement” establishing moral obligations when in reality you say yourself that there are prior obligations established differently? If no, how on earth do you think you can get the Nazis to have any moral obligation to those they don’t see as moral agents?
Dionisio @113:
I perceive you love your God and neighbour as yourself.
“The Christian Scripture leaves no room for misinterpretation of the most fundamental concepts, precepts and principles.”
A ‘stickler’ question; how about, Genesis 1-11, and the moral law at Sinai through which God publicly testified he is sanctifying truth, including he created in six days? Jesus, as truth (Jn 14:6) said he fulfilled to the dot the law (Matt 5:17-19, asking the Father to sanctify us in his truth (Jn 17:17). The Father said he sanctified the emerging nation of the Jew in his law (Exod 31:12-18) with very clear instructions (Num 12:1-9).
Christians certainly circumvent the morality contained in verbatim divine law by grounding it in consensus science.
It never amazes me that, apart from Dawkins, who has said deluded are evolutionist theistic Christians (and he is a fine one to talk), that people who are atheists have to my limited knowledge, in relation to ethics and morality, do not give the Judaeo-Christian movement a regular broadside reminder, that in terms of a morality, the movement hardly practices what it preaches. It does not keep in the Ten Commandments a major law dealing with worthy worship.
Of course, atheistic people not doubt think that any God who said he created in six days would be ‘crackers’ and unworthy? well, do Christians never think that we may be a root cause of why so many atheists? ‘Unless I see God created in six days, I will not believe.’
All the best
mw
MW,
Pardon, most of today was power down, and the head of the electricity utility is tentative that it may be over.
Non-being, true nothing, has no causal capability. Were there ever utter nothing, such would forever obtain.
That a world now is points to something that always was, the root of the world. What that root being — IS — was, is what we discuss.
Next, we find ourselves governed by ought, even in our reasoning.
What grounds ought?
After Hume, only something at world-root level can do so, we face a gap between what IS and what OUGHT to be.
This is the context for my discussion in 118 above, which is highly compressed:
I hope it is a tad clearer now.
KF
mw @133:
Wrong perception.
mw @133:
I would like to chat with you and answer any question you may want to ask me, but I did not understand your comment. Would you mind to rewrite it a little simpler to see if I can understand it? Please, note that English is not my first language. Thank you.
@Vy
And, apparently, you can “poof” standards of accuracy and completeness of what God values and demands “bases on nothing but opinions”?
It’s as of someone said. “Hey, I have this problem. I believe that X is morally correct. But that’s not enough because it would be “just an opinion”, so no one is actually bound to abide by it. I know! What if some transcendent authority values and demands X, so everyone must abide by it. Problem solved!”
However, they are still let with the very same problem. This is because the claim that this supposed transcendent authority actually values and demands X would be “Just an opinion” as well, so no one is actually bound to abide by it, either. IOW, they just pushed the problem up a level without actually solving it.
Nor am I saying that anything can be a foundation of morality, let alone science. Rather, science is used as one of meany ways criticize conjectured moral solutions to problems via empirical tests.
Are you asking me how do we possess the knowledge that rape is bad? Or perhaps you’re asking why people should not follow though when their sexual advances are unwanted or cannot me consented to? Or perhaps you’re asking by which ultimate authority is rape bad if not God?
While it might be nice to engage that confabulated ramble you offered and end up trying my luck in the mental gymnastics Olympic games you’re so good at, I’d rather you answer the question rambling free.
Vy @ 130
Would you like to be raped? Would you like a family member to be raped/ Would you like a dear friend to be raped? If, as I assume, your answer is a resounding “No!” in each case, then you have your answer. Of course, it’s just your opinion so are you saying it counts for nothing?
Sev, as the lion said to the gazelle, why are you bleating? You are lunch, just shut up and go down the hatch nicely. (Do you want me to cite Hitler’s version?) KF
PS: De Sade had somewhat to say about sexual matters, too: IIRC, more or less — nature has made the man stronger than the woman, and so it is the right of the man to do with her as he wishes. How can the evolutionary materialist IS then rise above naked might [–> direct force] makes right or veiled might makes right [–> manipulation/deceit] as the basis for OUGHT? And, if you had paid attention to Plato in The Laws Bk X, that has been on the table for 2350+ years.
PPS: Plato’s warning, as clipped ever so many times here at UD and as studiously — and tellingly — pointedly ignored or dismissed by Seversky, RVB8 and ilk:
That’s not an answer, that’s a presumptuous deflection that begs the question.
Until you substantiate the assumption that what X (dis)likes is what Y should (dis)like and that your (dis)likes should have any bearing on another’s or what is subjectively considered good or bad, your non-answer is begging the question and is as useless as it was for anyone other than you since you first used it.
An Atheistic evolutionist saying an evolutionarily useful way of passing on genes is not good because of his feelings? ????
@Vy
Yes, Vy. What I described is indeed mental gymnastics, which does’t solve the problem. That’s my point.
Why should anyone have a duty to “your opinion” of what God values or demands? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. However, you still haven’t taken your option out of it. All you’ve done is move the link from one place in the chain to another. That’s mental gymnastics I’m referring to.
As for answering your question, are you saying none of the options I gave you are accurate or they are all equlivents? For you convenience….
hgp @ 132
I never thought you were.
In my view, when someone asks about establishing the wrongness of something in a moral sense, if that means judging it against some sort of bedrock principle that is incontrovertibly true regardless of what anyone thinks, then they are asking for something that cannot be done because no such principle exists outside of subjective belief.
If I say that it is wrong to rape and murder a child, I am stating my personal belief. If a pedophile says that such acts are right because they give him pleasure, he is also stating an opinion. How do we decide between them? Put the issue to all the other members of society and see what they think. If, as I believe, the overwhelming majority of people would side with me then you have your answer. It may not meet the need of those who crave some sort of objective certainty in such matters but, in my view, it’s the best there is to be had.
It was never going to happen, but if the Nazis had actually asked the Czechs or Poles if they would like to be invaded and their countries absorbed into a Greater Germany, I think we know what the answer would have been. In fact, I believe that if the question had been put to the German people and they had been free to express their honest opinions, the result would have gone against the Nazis.
Moral problems arise when individuals or groups believe they are entitled to act in ways which cause distress or harm or injury to other individuals or groups without any authority to do so. And the only possible valid authority for such acts can be society as a whole including obviously the potential victims of such acts. Without such authority the acts would be immoral. That’s why, by that measure, both the Holocaust and the Great Flood in the Bible were immoral acts.
Whatever their origin or source, I would say we observe that the function of moral standards is to regulate the way human beings act towards one another in society. So, in the first instance, to be a human being in society with others is to be a moral agent. Whether agreed human moral standards are to be offered to other non-human species is again, in the first instance, something that human beings must decide. But they could only actually be applied with the consent of the other non-human species, assuming they were able to give such consent.
That’s right, they did. But all those classified by the Nazis as “untermenschen” did not or would not have agreed as, in passing, did most of those not directly affected. And if the Nazis had kept their opinions to themselves there wouldn’t have been a problem. But when they began to practice what they believed without the consent of those affected they crossed the line into immorality. The moral thing to do then became resistance to and eventually the destruction of the Nazi regime.
My answer to the question of who are moral agents is, in the first instance, quite simple. It is human beings – all human beings. Immorality consists in actions taken by human beings that cause distress or harm or injury to other human beings without their consent. That is my belief but that is all it is. The Nazis would have – and obviously did – disagree. The question then becomes how do you decide between those diametrically opposed views. Or, perhaps more accurately, who gets to decide between those positions?
My solution would be to put the question to the rest to the rest of humanity since since they were – or could ultimately have been – affected by the Nazis beliefs. I would ask them all, “How do you feel about all your Jews, gypsies, mentally ill, homosexuals and political dissidents being rounded up, put into concentration camps and gassed?” I’m pretty sure I know what the answer would be and it has nothing to do with me trying to impose my moral perspective on the rest of humanity. If you have a better solution then, by all means, let’s hear it.
Not exactly. As I’ve said, I view morals as functioning to regulate the way people behave towards one another in society. The psychopath who derives pleasure from raping and killing others may disagree with the rest of society who view such behavior with disfavor. That’s his prerogative. But if he wants to continue living freely in that society, he either finds a way to curb his baser instincts or he finds somewhere else to live.
I see the common needs which all human beings have an interest in protecting as preceding any moral obligation to protect them but, no, I don’t see moral obligations existing prior to the “inter-subjective agreement” on them.
As far as the Nazis were concerned, had I been around at the time, I might have done what little I could to persuade them to accept my view about the immorality of what they planned but I seriously doubt it would have had any effect.
kairosfocus @ 140
Then De Sade was apparently unaware of the is/ought gap.
Vy @ 142
That’s precisely the answer. The best foundation for morality lies in protecting the common or shared needs and interests of all human beings. If you have a better foundation then let’s hear it.
You didn’t answer the question. Do you think your opinion counts for nothing?
I’m not saying that my view should count for any more than that of others but neither should it count for any less. I believe it should be heard like yours and those of anyone else.
There will always be differing or conflicting views in society while human beings are as they are. We either find a way to reconcile them through “inter-subjective agreement” or whichever group has the power will impose theirs on the rest of us, in which case a lot of people will die. Take your pick.
Exactly right.
Seversky, on the contrary, De Sade tried to base the solution to the IS-OUGHT gap on an IS that is not at true world root level. Which BTW is precisely what happens with evolutionary materialism, as Plato pointed out in The Laws, Bk X, 2350+ years ago. The clever quip fails, fails in an inadvertently instructive and revealing way. KF
Without some sort of external ruling from God, is that how you see rape? Is the decision to rape analogous to choosing one ice cream flavor over another in your eyes? A mere (dis)like?
We don’t just consider whether we like something or not in deciding if something is good or bad – that’s your strawman. We also consider the harm that may be done and the feelings of others.
Rape is bad because it can be very harmful. The victim may suffer pain and be terrified by the ordeal. They may suffer mental and physical harm, be left afraid to leave their homes or to be around men in general even those who were previously considered friends. Their health may suffer as a result. Additionally they may contract any number of diseases from the rapist. All of these things may affect not just them but also the people they love. Their relationships may suffer. They may also become pregnant and become victims a second time when people like you force them to carry the rapist’s offspring to term. And they may die in childbirth at the end of that process.
To me that’s more important than a decision about ice cream. And those are better reasons to oppose rape than to ask yourself if it happens to be on a list of things God doesn’t want you to do – like wear clothes made from two different types of fabric, eat pork etc. Those things sometimes drop off the list when interpreted “correctly” and presumably when they do they become acceptable to certain people.
I would not want to be raped, or to suffer any of the possible side-effects because of that or for any other reason. Nor would I want such things to happen to my family or friends.
Contrary to anything Christians like you will say for us on our behalves, we atheists do not think that other people should be prevented from harming us while we should be free to do anything we like.
I am not special. We are not special. I do not believe myself to be saved and others ripe for rightful torment forever in hell. And the universe does not grant me, you, or anyone special rights to be protected or to inflict harm.
For this reason, if am to consider it my right not to be hurt by others without good reason then I should grant the same rights to others. It’s not rocket science. I want to live in a society where we are not all in fear of each other and we do that by working out rules that we can all live by.
From this transcript of Sam Harris’ podcast with guest David Deutsch.
This post is longer than anticipated.
Serversky @ 144
Thank you for your reply. We are making some progress. Your proposed framework for establishing moral obligations mutated visibly from the time you first mentioned it. At first you proposed that “inter-subjective agreement” alone establishes moral obligations. In your last post you implicitly changed that view and now hold that the agreement is not between individuals but that society as a whole is establishing morals obligations (in a way not specified) for all individuals within that society whether they agree or not. You state that in some cases (pedophiles, psychopaths) society is right in doing so and in other cases (Nazis imposing their views on those defined by them as “Untermenschen”) society is wrong in doing so.
As we will see again and again within your proposed framework we must presuppose some source of moral obligations and truths from outside the very framework that should be the only source of said obligations. And we will see that decisions reached by your proposed framework can be (and must be) judged by some source outside said framework if we don’t want to accept obviously horrible outcomes as moral obligations.
I do hear you. I can accept this as a statement of your personal views. But just because you have a view, that doesn’t make your view necessarily true. My outlook is quite different, but at this point we don’t need to discuss this difference. Even if we grant your opinion for the sake of argument, your proposed framework for establishing moral obligations is not working in any meaningful sense as I will try to show.
Your proposed framework is not dependent on your personal views (other as a possible input into the decision making process) so while thinking through the consequences of your proposed framework you should refrain from establishing anything based on your views alone, if there is a possibility that society as a whole might come to another view. But as we will see at crucial steps in your proposed framework you inject your own personal feelings as if they were some sort of obvious truth that society always will adopt. That’s not (necessarily) a problem within your framework, but it is a problem with your argument.
While you don’t state it in so many words, you are trying to say, that this “intersubjective agreement” is not necessarily an agreement of everyone involved but an agreement of “society as a whole”. This decision can then be imposed (by force, seemingly) on individuals that disagree. And while I’m all in favor of imposing those different views on psychopaths and child molesters, there are many cases that are a whole less clear cut. Have you ever thought about the question that “society as a whole” might be wrong (even horribly wrong) in making a decision? I will give you two links to cases that you might want to ponder that didn’t happen in Nazi Germany but within the “western world”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis#Effects_of_the_decision
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/south-korea/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison/
Was the American society right in imposing forced speech upon people with a different opinion? Is the South Korean society right in imposing military service on conscientious objectors?
In both cases “society as a whole” had a certain point of view and imposed it on a minority that thinks differently. Even the highest court agreed (at least for some time in one of those cases). Was the society right in imposing these views on individuals? If not, then your framework is not working. You need a moral arbiter that decides, when society is justified in imposing their views on individuals and when not. If this arbiter is society itself, then there is a big problem. If it is anyone else, then where do they get their authority from to decide that the very framework you proposed is coming to a wrong conclusion in any particular case? I hope you can see the problem. If that arbiter is not dependent on the society’s decision, then they must get their authority from somewhere else outside your proposed framework. And if it is dependent on society’s decision then it can’t correct any error on society’s side. So you have a circular problem here that can only be corrected from outside the framework you propose.
And if you say that the societies in question were/are right in imposing their mentioned views on individuals and minorities, then I submit that your proposed framework can lead to horribly immoral decisions getting imposed on moral individuals. And since you stated that there don’t exist any moral truths outside your proposed framework you get a contradiction: The very framework that is introduced as the only source of moral obligations leads to immoral obligations. How can that be? And how can we know it without supposing a moral standard that is prior to your framework?
Let me rephrase this using the terms of your proposed framework: If the Nazis had used another (moral) definition what constitutes a “moral agent” and if they had used another process to decide moral questions, they would have come to different moral opinions. Yes obviously (Or “d’oh” as Homer Simpson would say).
But exactly that is the problem: there is no end of possible processes for society to use for deciding moral questions. And the answer that society gives to any question is not only dependent on their “honest opinions” but to a similar (or sometimes even greater) degree it depends on the process used to convert those individual opinions into a decision of the society as a whole. To take a recent example: Using an electoral college you get Mr. Trump as the American president. Using the majority vote you (probably) would have gotten Mrs. Clinton. Which process is the correct one? If this decision is arbitrary then the outcome is arbitrary.
If we take any old process for deciding those questions as “moral” (since it was established by the society in question) then we have to live with the consequence that any decision established by that process count as “moral obligations”. If we don’t accept some processes then we decide (again) a moral question prior to any “intersubjective societal agreement” which again brakes your definition of that process as the only source of moral obligations.
The next question that has to be asked: what opinion counts as “honest opinion” and how do we differentiate this “honest opinion” from any immoral attempt to manipulate the process that establishes moral obligations? Anyone would agree that a process for establishing moral obligations shouldn’t be manipulated for selfish gains. So before society can make a decision it has to sort through the input into the decision making process and weed out any attempts at manipulationg the process.
Again, if it is society that makes that decision which opinions count and which don’t, then the Nazis were justified in using their own definition and branding anyone disagreeing as “Volksverräter” whose voice didn’t count. And if the decision of society can be wrong, how does can your framework ever hope to differentiate between the two without making arbitrary moral decisions before the process to establish said moral obligations can even start? And if you accept that the decisions, whose opinion is “honest” is arbitrary and must be arbitrary, how can we accept the outcome of such a process as a morally binding obligation, since there is fair chance, that it might have been manipulated for someone’s immoral gain?
Again, I can accept this as your personal view. But your view is a minority view even in western societies. If we take the real life example of abortion, the embryo’s views on abortion are not really heard in the debate. They are (implicitly or explicitly) irrelevant for establishing society’s rules. And there is no questions that aborted embryos are the victims of the decision. So we are back to the question (within your framework) of deciding who is a moral agent. If society can decide this question in this way without taking into account the rights of the aborted embryos, how is that distinct from the Nazis deciding that Jews and Poles and Czechs are not to be heard because they are counted as “Untermenschen”? And if society can’t decide this, then who can? And how? And why not?
Within your proposed framework society is the one to decide whose voice is counted and whose not. So just giving your opinion against the opinion of society doesn’t make society wrong within your framework. It makes you the psychopath or criminal (or “Volksverräter”) that can be forced by society to submit to its views.
I don’t know where you stand on the abortion question, and this is even not relevant for our question. If society decides and can override your views and mine, then we don’t need them.
And again you take your own personal opinion as a starting point in a framework, where your own personal opinion doesn’t really count again the decision of society as a whole. If society decides that the function of moral standards is something else, then your opinion is worthless within that society (given your framework). When the Nazis decide that the function of moral standards is to establish the superiority of the “Herrenrasse” then “moral agent” should be defined differently. The question, what function moral standard have, is again a moral question that gets to be decided by society as a whole and not by you. And if your opinion is different from the opinion of society as a whole, then within your framework society can force you to comply.
What about societies that practice abortion without consent of the aborted embryos? Is the moral thing resistance and the destruction of those societies? If not, why? And how is that different (within your framework) from what the Nazis did? And again you are giving your personal view in a moral question that would be decided not by you within your framework as if your view would count somehow.
You are giving your personal view again.
So what really made the Nazi actions wrong? Was it the decision of the rest of humanity that their actions were wrong? Or was it the fact that the Nazis lost the war? If the Nazis had won the war and their view would have won out again the view of the rest of humanity would that had made their actions moral? And the decision to force the Nazis was that an intersubjective agreement about moral questions or was it a power decision of military leaders that perceived the Nazis as a power threat? If it was a moral decision when and where and how was this stuff decided? And if it was a power question, then how such a decision influence the moral obligations of anyone?
And what about those cases where the rest of humanity said: Yes that’s wrong but we can’t be bothered to force you to accept our viewpoints? Srebrenica and Ruanda are two such cases from the recent past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
You see that this question can’t be answered easily within your framework. You are pushing the real question one step further without ever answering it: How can moral obligations be established by intersubjective agreements? What if the whole of humanity gets a moral obligation wrong? Whom can I appeal to? Or can’t the whole of humanity never be wrong?
And how does that work out without horrible consequences for us all? If the rest of humanity can impose their views on any individual society what will happen if countries with shariah law become the majority of humanity? What can stop those countries with Shariah law at some point in the future to impose their views on other societies that they deem to be immoral?
You are implicitly using your own moral views here. To demonstrate this I will reword your sentence from the point of view of Nazi society:
The psychopath who derives pleasure from viewing Jews, Gypsies etc. as real human being and thusly endangers the “Herrenrasse” may disagree with the rest of society who view such behavior with disfavor. That’s his prerogative. But if he wants to continue living freely in that society, he either finds a way to curb his baser instincts or he finds somewhere else to live.
Do you see, what happened? Your framework gives all the power of moral decision making to the society. But you don’t accept the outcome of such decisions whenever it differs (too much) from your own point of view. In effect you are making yourself the final authority in moral questions.
Then your proposed framework cannot work. There are moral questions that must necessarily be decided before any intersubjective agreement can take place: Who is a moral agent? Which process should be used to reach an intersubjective agreement? Whose opinions during this process are honest and which are manipulative? If there is no moral obligation prior to any intersubjective agreement then the answers to those questions are necessarily arbitrary and amoral. And how can we rely on an amoral and arbitrary process to lead to moral obligations that anyone must comply with?
In answer to those questions you either gave your own personal opinion (which doesn’t count here) or you didn’t see the question at all.
Another question that your framework can’t give a sensible answer to: When should society force individuals to comply with its moral decisions and when are the moral decisions of society immoral itself? Can the views of humanity as a whole (however established) be wrong?
Without giving an answer to those questions that works within your framework, your framework of intersubjective agreement becomes a meaningless shell that can accommodate every moral (and immoral) view imaginable. And the important part is: “that works within your framework”. I submit that it is impossible to answer those questions (sensibly) without having an external source of moral values.
You yourself time and again use your own opinion as if it were an obvious moral truth despite the fact, that many people on this planet would disagree with you on those very points and despite the fact that within your own framework those opinions don’t count.
The real question is: Should you have submitted to society’s moral views since they are the only source of moral obligations in your framework and become a helper in the Holocaust? Or should you have rejected the moral views of society (and by implication your own moral framework for establishing those obligations)?
Still going with confabulated rambles rather than answering the question. Carry on.
Addendum:
My point is, that given your assumptions there is NO way we can get binding moral obligations, so I can obviously not point out a better way.
The only thing we can do is to
1) establish that your assumptions lead to this outcome,
2) look for better assumptions,
3) make a good case that those assumptions are sensible, and
4) then we can have a better solution to the question of how to get binding moral obligations.
We are still stuck at point 1) here.
Why didn’t you bother to read what I was responding to before blurting stuff out? Here is Sev’s post, the thing I was responding to:
Try to ensure you’re not guilty of selective blindness next time you want to post.
Au contraire, that is your strawman.
What is harm and why is it relevant? Why should the feelings of others be considered?
Non-sequitur.
Mhmmm, so if they’re unconscious, left physically unharmed, raped by a non-infected individual, never find out about it and never get pregnant, what happens?
You see, when you mention all these horrors about “harmful” stuff as an Atheistic evolutionist, all I can do is laugh at such a fantastic level of cognitive dissonance.
Nope:
—
And Hitler would claim he had “better reasons” to kill the “sub-humans”. All you’ve done is dump vacuous platitudes.
Regurgitating refuted Atheist tropes is one way to destroy any sort of credibility you have.
And there it is again, subjective feeling-based assumptions.
It’s funny, Atheists love to say how they’re not a hive mind but when it gets down to it, that’s all they strive to be.
And if you think your vacuous declarations here speak for Atheists, dissuade yourself from believing such an illusion; this honest Atheist would love to rape your wife when you’re ready to stop putting up smokescreens.
If only deepities were interesting to me.
So you admit you gave a non-answer. Got it.
Do you think your opinion counts more than a rapist’s at the moment of rape?
Heard by whom, because of what and for what?
You can repeat “inter-subjective agreement” a gazillion times but it still remains a useless criterion and is really your attempt at imposing your subjectively “moral” beliefs on others.
I’m glad you admit to the cognitive dissonance. And a second admission? You’re on a roll!
FULLSTOP, that is it.
There is no form of mental gymnastics even if you’re a gold medalist like “critical rationalist”, hedging, twisting, turning and repetition even if you’re as good as Seversky, Sam Harris, steveh or any other Atheist that is going to get you any sort of morality in an Atheistic evolutionist universe, much less morality for anyone other themselves who declare it to be morality (a case of perpetual morality).
I was hoping that my decision to end my commenting hiatus on this blog and engage in yet another discussion with Atheists on how morality can exist in an Atheistic evolutionist universe might be fruitful. But alas, it’s just a bunch of Atheists repeating the same old arguments (and a new meaningless one) and tripping over themselves while doing so.
Vy,
On one hand, you claim that human reasoning and criticism is not sufficient to “ground morality”. Yet, when I try to take your claim seriously it seems that, should you actually try to apply it when faced with any concrete moral problem, you still have to depend on human reasoning and criticism to employ it.
Your response? It’s mental gymnastics, which really isn’t an argument or explains how you avoid the problem, in practice. So, if adding God to the picture doesn’t really help, when faced with moral problems, then what other purpose does it serve? What are you really concerned about?
I honestly don’t know.
As pointed out by the transcript, when the epistemological view that all scientific knowledge comes from or is grounded in the senses (empiricism) was shown to be nonsense, some people started claiming all scientific knowledge was nonsense. But science doesn’t come from observations, It comes from rationality and criticism.
You seem to be making the same sort of argument. Morality without God is nonsense, because there can be no moral knowledge unless it comes from or is grounded in some supernatural authority by which the final truth is already known. This is like holding morality hostage unless we accept your theological beliefs and their epistemological underpinnings.
In fact, I’d suggest that what your doing is actually immoral, because you are attempting to undermine and discount our means to correct errors.
So, again, exactly what are you concerned about, if not actually solving moral problems?
Or perhaps I am incorrect in assuming you think there really is such a thing as a moral problem and that it would be a subject of genuine concern?
Still grasping onto those straws tight and trying to deflect. Keep at it.
Vy,
If I got it wrong, explain it to me. After all, If I’m presenting a straw man as you claim, you should have no problem setting me straight with your actual concern. Right?
Er, no. There were two Atheists who were quite capable of understanding the English language just enough to answer my question and offered their responses. Since you can’t, good luck.
Your text blobs were something worth engaging when I had no idea of your interest in deflection and strawmanning. Not anymore.
Folks, I repeat from 118:
That remains the case.
KF
@Vy
I don’t see how you’re disagreeing with me. If morality isn’t something that is grounded in an authoritative source of moral knowledge, then what are you appalling to here? Being grounded in the particular authoritative moral source of Yahweh? Or have you merely defined moral values and duties from Yahweh as objective and everything as subjective.
Were is the straw man?
Vy quoted:
Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge comes from the senses. Experience is the authoritative source we can turn to that will not lead us into error. When this was shown to be false, some people claimed there was no scientific knowledge. But, like all knowledge, scientific knowledge doesn’t come from the senses. It comes from human reasoning and criticism. This gives us approximations of an objective truth. Newton’s laws of motion are one such approximation. It’s not merely our option, if it was, then how could we use it to send rovers to mars?
In the quote, moral knowledge is handed down to Moses. Yahweh is the authoritative source you can turn to that will not lead you into error. If there is no authoritative source, then there can be no moral knowledge. But this is the same problem as empiricism. We’ve just exchanged the senses with Yahweh. You’re clang there can be no moral knowledge.
Again, how have you infallibly identified Yahweh as the correct and complete source, as opposed to other texts that also claim to be from God? How do you infallibly interpret what was handed down? In both cases, you use human reasoning and criticism. That’s my point.
If there is no Truth, reasoning and criticism are not possible.
Without it there is nothing for reason to grasp.
Andrew
CR, as you know or should, the only serious candidate for grounding morality apart from arbitrary imposition is exactly what ethical theism puts forward. Namely the inherent goodness of the creator, a necessary and maximally great being who is root reality of any possible world. As a consequence, moral government is inextricably intertwined with reality and rational responsible freedom from the root of reality. Accordingly, our reasonable, responsible service will be evident to the eye of reason in its core aspects and in our manifest nature. As a result, we find ourselves under the rule of truth and that of reciprocal loving care towards neighbour who is as self. Notice, not a single appeal to scripture, though this agrees with scripture as the truth written on papyrus answers to that written in our hearts, minds and consciences — if we will not quench — by the same author and at core discernible by the same enlightened, conscience-guided reason. Only, being on paper makes it much easier to access, and harder to suppress, wrench, distort and deny. Where, the text is authenticated through the sign of the resurrection of the dead, with 500 unshakable witnesses who were not fazed by dungeon, fire, sword or worse; whose only bond was they knew the truth of the gospel and would not yield truth to lie regardless of threat or demonic persecution, torture and even judicial murder. From such also, we find that rights and responsibilities as well as freedoms find themselves in due balance only through justice. And, one of the worst violations of said responsible freedom is to pretend that we can make it up out of whole cloth and some imagined agreement of those who deem themselves peers. Down that road lies Nietzschean superman master race or class imposition on the despised others. That held for Nazis, it held for Bolsheviks, and it holds for the sneering nomenklatura of today’s self perpetuating chattering classes. who, happen to be guilty of the worst holocaust of all, 800+ million innocent unborn in 40+ years and mounting up under preening, false colours of rights and law at a million more victims, per WEEK. Instead, this utterly untoward generation is headed for the crumbling edge of a cliff, besotted and benumbed and blinded by the worst mass blood guilt in history. And, that is just the beginning. KF
PS: You have long since been confronted with the following pivotal point made by John Locke in setting the foundation for modern liberty and Democracy in his 2nd treatise on civil gov’t, by powerful citation of Hooker:
–> I cite this by way of testimony for the responsible and willing, not in any expectation of a reasonable response from you. Sorry, your track record is too long. I can only hope that one day you will wake up and do better.
A @ 162: The current “post-truth” movement is sheer madness, leading the world into a confused, chaotic, and dystopic future.
TWSYF,
And it’s amazing, but not surprising, to watch people day after day, year after year, devote themselves to Anything But Truth. And we spiral downward faster, as you have observed.
Andrew
Truth and Andy, cf 163 just above. KF
KF: Very good work… as usual.
Shocka! At least it would be if that wasn’t your FIFTH deflection. You’ve pretty much made it abundantly clear that your sight isn’t that great.
KF,
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the existence of a maximally great being necessarily results in maximally great solutions to moral problems.
It’s unclear how this helps you, in practice, when faced with a moral problem unless you know which specific supremely good values or duties are relevant in that situation.
Is stealing wrong? At best, you could say there is some applicable maximally great value or duty that that would inform you one way or the other, and someone would be bound to abide by it. But it’s unclear how you know what that is. What you would need is a way to infallibly identify which source actually contains a complete and accurate list of these supposedly maximally great values and duties, along with an infallible means to interpret those values and duties correctly in the context of that particular moral problem.
For example, the claim that morality is written on our hearts in some inexplicable way is to claim to have identified a source of maximally great values and duties. It is an interpretation of your experience and a claim that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. It’s unclear how have infallibly distinguished this source from centuries of moral progress via conjecture and criticism of moral knowledge and your own views on what is right and wrong.
Why should I be bound to “your opinion” about what a maximally great being would value or demand?
This process is still ongoing. While there is a consensus between a great number of followers and scholars based on arguments and criticisms, there are still conflicting claims about which values and duties are actually maximally great, even among Christians. Human reasoning an criticism is the very thing that supposedly is incapable of binding anyone to moral values and duties.
Any chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link and when I attempt to take your theory of morality seriously, for the purpose of criticism, it’s unclear how you can apply it to concrete moral problems that people face on a daily basis.
Is practical application really a concern on your part? If so, how does that work in practice?
Or do you have a way to infallibly identify and interpret a source of maximally great moral values and duties?
Vy,
How do I know rape is wrong?
Neither of us have infallible access to or a means to infallibly interpret a source of morality we can appeal to that will not lead us into error. So, the question becomes, how does either one of us know rape is wrong?
Any arguments you would make that the Bible, our hearts, etc. accurately reflect maximal moral values or demands represents human reasoning and criticism.
So, when faced with moral problems, we make educated guesses as how to solve them, then criticize our guesses.. This doesn’t require us to actually have infallible access to moral perfection, but only to determine what is not and to discard it. So moral knowledge grows as an approximation.
Your position seems to be that morality, philosophy and science are very different things with very different explanations, just as there was though to be different explanations for the motion of apples and planets.
I’m suggesting there is universal explanation for the growth of knowledge in all cases. Conjecture and criticism. Truth exists, just not in the sense that you think it does.
Hahaha, if at first you don’t succeed try, try again.
“‘critical rationalist’, why is rape bad?
__ Whoa, that might demonstrate the uselessness of the meaningless thesis I keep repeating about needing to be God to know God’s morals are moral and the non-sequitur about our ability to do science meaning it has anything to do with morals. So, rather than be like the wood I am and just answer, I’m gonna identify as an NNF, try to turn the question on him and hope he eats the bait. So __
*deflect*
– Two Atheists demonstrate English language is still understandable –
__ Whoops, can’t stop now __
*deflect*
*deflect*
*deflect*
*deflect*
*deflect*”
critical rationalist @ 169:
I want to inject some thoughts, that might clarify part of the existing communication problem in this thread.
I think you don’t take into account the difference between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism. It looks (to me) like you are talking in part about God’s role in a subjectivist moral environment, while KF is talking about God’s role in an objectivist moral environment.
moral objectivism = the idea, that moral values exist independently of our personal feelings and knowledge of them. This position is held mostly by theists.
moral subjectivism = the idea, that moral values are exclusively constructed (in some way) by humans.
So when looking for an answer to any practical moral problem out there, moral objectivists and moral subjectivists are doing things, that might look similarly, but are different at an important level: The objectivist is trying to find the pre-existing moral values that can be applied to the situation at hand and how to apply them. The subjectivist on the other hand is trying to create moral values ex nihilo and/or based on an arbitrary foundation before trying to apply them.
So for objectivists moral problem solving is a process of real moral knowledge-building. He is trying to approximate the existing moral values and their application in real life.
The subjectivist can’t build moral knowledge in the same sense. He is not able to approximate his knowledge to some moral reality out there, because he denies that this moral reality exists. There are only problems to be solved somehow without the possibility to ask the question: Is this the right solution? since there is no “right” solution for any standard to measure the “rightness” of moral systems doesn’t exist and has to be (arbitrarily!) created.
Moral subjectivism has several logical problems:
Before the subjectivist can establish any moral knowledge he must answer the moral question, which process he will use to establish moral truths. So a moral question that must be answered before any moral knowledge is available; therfore the answer must necessarily be arbitrary. And (to a great degree) this arbitrary decision will have an overwhelming influence on which moral values will be established as knowledge, in other words: by the degree by which the outcome is influenced by this decision, the moral subjectivist doesn’t have a moral system but an arbitrary value system that is arbitrarily labelled as “moral values”. OTOH an objectivist is trying to approximate some outer reality and so does have a very different set of challenges.
There exist four possible answers as to why should I submit to a system of moral values:
1) threat of force
2) possibility of gain
3) manipulation by others
4) insight into the correctness of the moral values
Because every subjectivist moral system can be contested in the way described above, any of those systems can’t compel anyone for reason no. 4 to follow it. And all the other reasons are not really compelling in themselves because they are amoral at best and mostly seen as immoral. But a moral system that has no moral reason to compel anyone to follow it, is next to worthless. A (good!) objectivist moral system OTOH might compel you or me by force of reason no.4
Any subjectivist system for *establishing* moral values necessarily relies on human input. Any human input might be either manipulative or not. Any moral system founded upon manipulative input hardly compels anyone to follow it in real life situations. So the moral question of which input to establishing a moral system has to discarded as manipulative must necessarily be answered before the moral system with which to answer the question is established. Since an moral objectivist doesn’t try to *establish* moral values, he doesn’t face this challenge.
And to the degree that any moral subjectivist thinks that recursively using some subjectivist process to establish moral values, he must answer the question at which point (and how and why) the arbitrary (and possibly manipulative) input to those processes will loose its devastating influence. Why should we trust the last iteration of an arbitrary (and possibly manipulated) process to give us any foundation on which we can have a chance to trust the next iteration?
Moral objecivists can talk about different moral view points because they are talking about an external objective reality. Moral subjectivists can only talk about moral differences (in any menaingfol way) to persons that have views sufficiently similar to their own views. Where those views are different enough there doesn’t exist a language to talk about those differences (or has to be established at first, which is a very painful process).
You are right that moral objectivists have a long way to go from the idea that moral values objectively exist to the point where they can know (some of) those values and apply them to real world situations. This way contains a lot of challenges and is not simple. It is possible that objectivists do make errors along this way.
But the subjectivist faces the very different challenge of establishing that there even exists a way from his ideas to a sensible moral value system at all that might be able to compel anyone to act according to its values before he faces the challenges of finding that way. If there is no way for the subjectivist to any compelling moral system then any attempt at establishing moral values is an exercise in futility.
CR,
you set up a strawman. Let me correct:
1: Our world requires a necessary being root as nothingness — non-being — has no causal powers so were there ever utter nothing, such would forever obtain.
2: The issue is, what kind of necessary being is at the root of reality.
3: We also are responsibly free and rational (or reasoned discussion such as this thread is an attempt at would collapse into absurdity).
4: That is we are morally governed under OUGHT in both reason and action.
5: Post Hume, this can only be grounded at the root of reality and this in a root that inextricably, inherently bridges the IS-OUGHT gap.
6: I have pointed out that there is just one serious candidate, after centuries of debate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing good in accord with our evident nature.
7: To object, simply put up a serious alternative root that does not readily lead to absurdities. In the case of evo mat, that includes undermining reason and implying that might and/or manipulation make “right” and “truth” etc. arguably, pantheistic and/or panentheistic proposals run into the problem of the one and the many, resulting in breakdown of responsible freedom and significance of the individual.
8: This puts ethical theism at focus, where God as neccessary, eternal being will either be impossible in the same way a square circle is, or else he will be actual. (The rhetorically convenient redefinition of atheism we often see fails to seriously address this.)
9: Maximal greatness implies good in all aspects (& not vitiated by that which is the privation, frustration or perversion of the good) and to superlative degree to the point of being nonpareil. Thus, yardstick, but in a sense accessible to sound reason on self evident first principles of general and moral reasoning.
10: As for the practical application, a yardstick is very important, always. So is taking goodness and moral governance as well as rationality out of the reach of might and manipulation make right power games.
11: I suggest that the inherent quasi-infinite value and significance of the individual [try to put a finite price on your life, mind or conscience, please and see if that is not inherently absurd . . . ] then points to our being in a community of the equally valuable, and morally governed.
12: Reason, right reason and linked responsible freedom balancing rights, freedoms and responsibilities — justice — then come to the fore.
13: in this context, we may recognise life as the first right as one robbed of life has no other rights left. In that context, respecting and loving neighbours who are as ourselves leads to a coherent and feasible framework for life in community, which is a necessary part of our existence from the womb on.
14: In that context, Locke’s use of Hooker (thus onward, Moshe, Yeshvah and Paulo, Apostolo, Mart) then finds community focus in a high-point document of high historical importance, dated July 4, 1776:
15: The sheer contrast between this pivotal document and the strawman pummelling rhetoric above reveals the absurdity of your fallacious, contempt-laced argument.
16: An absurdity that should be evident to any reasonably informed person — right from the outset.
KF
@hgp
Harris is not a moral relativist. Neither am I.
Just as some people were confused when they thought, since empiricism is nonsense, scientific knowledge must be nonsense as well.
Am I correct in assuming you subscribe to the doctrine of divine simplicity?
KF,
Would it be correct that you too subscribe to the doctrine of divine simplicity?
critical rationalist @
‘Educated guessing’ on what basis?
‘Criticizing’ on what basis?
‘Perfection’ by what standard?
‘Determine and discard’ on what basis?
—
P.s. ‘Rationalist’ on what basis? Blind particles bumping into each other?
@Origenes
It’s a navigation problem. When you do not have infallible access to a map or an infallible means to interpret it, you guess as to where to turn. Or you might even decide to staying where you are for the moment, to go back, or even conclude that you don’t actually want to get to where you were going after all. It’s the same with moral problems. No “text” can possibility describe in a completely unequivocal way what you’re supposed to do, even if it were actually correct. You have to guess what it means in the context of your moral situation. It’s a language problem. You have to guess and then criticize those guesses.
How did you reach the conclusion that the Bible is an accurate and complete view of what God values and demands of us? Not from the text itself, because there are other texts that make the same claim. Nothing in your experience tells you that. So, if not that, then what? You ended up there via human reasoning and criticism.
There is no logical or rational means to force anyone to value the truth. One could decide to ignore or even actively work against it. So, that choice isn’t scientific or even philosophical in that sense. What is moral depends on whether you think all knowledge is conjectural and subject to improvement, as opposed to being right in that the final truth is already known. That is philosophical in nature.
If the former is true, protecting the means to improving knowledge, and even improving and criticizing the knowledge of improving it itself, it is he most important thing. And that leads us to approximations, such as Harris’ human flourishing. Institutions and idea that suppress that growth are immoral.
This is what I mean by holding morality hostage unless we accept your theological beliefs and their epistemological underpinnings. Unless morality cannot be improved there can be no morality. That idea that suppresses the growth of moral knowledge.
Take homosexuality, for example, which is very controversial even amongst Christians. I know many that accept it whole heartedly and have reached that conclusion by facing the moral “problem” of having a LGBT relative, close friend or being LGBT themselves. Arguments are made about whether or not the prohibition is actually in effect today, just as there are arguments as to whether many other Old Testament laws are still in effect. Is that what God would really want if he exists? Why would God come between to people that love each other? Yet, despite all the talk of love and how central it is, I’m guessing many of you feel differently in that romantic love can only be between a man and a woman. And you will make arguments to suggest otherwise.
Just as denying two people based on race or ethnicity, denying it due to gender is immoral is well. And it is perpetuated by the idea that the final truth is already known, as found in some holy text, etc.
If you played a game against a chess program and were defeated, were you defeated by atoms?
Yes, you said that already. My question is: on what basis?
Wrong question.
Rationality requires a free responsible thinking person. A chess program does not understand anything — there is just symbol processing. There is not even someone ‘in there’ to understand anything. Therefor a chess program is not rational.
@Origenes
I’m saying we’re doing the same thing. It’s the same process.
It seems to me you have two choices here. Either you have an infallible means to identify and interpret a supposed source of moral values and duties, or you’re making educated guesses and criticizing them. If the latter, on what basis are you operating on, Origenes?
But, by all means, feel free to conjecture a third option I haven’t though of, so we can criticize that too. But, actually, that would be the second option.
Yes. That was my point. You’re asking the wrong question. You wouldn’t have been defeated by “blind particles bumping into each other” even though that’s an accurate description of the state of affairs at one particular level of explanation. So, that’s a parochial argument, in that it’s intentionally narrow is scope.
I didn’t say it was, Origenes. A mere chess program would not represent general artificial intelligence (GAI). Any true GAI would be universal in that it wouldn’t be specific to playing chess. We would get out genuinely new explanations that we didn’t put in in. While we don’t know how to program that yet, the reason it would be universal in scope wouldn’t be “just signal processing”, either. That’s yet another parochial argument.
Critical Rationalist:
Name the basis of your guesses and critiques on morality.
That particular ‘level of explanation’ leaves out the crucial involvement of the intelligent designer of the chess program. I would say that such a ‘level of explanation’ can never amount to accurate descriptions about what’s going on. It’s akin to the claim that “she was murdered by a bullet” is an accurate description at a certain level.
.. would also not be rational. Rationality requires freedom, responsibility, top-down control and personhood – all of which naturalism cannot ground.
I wrote:
Origenes
So you have no basis?
My point is that, given materialism, there is no morality to be found. One can guess and second guess and guess some more, but it’s all to no avail. There simply are no moral values and duties ‘out there’. All of reality consists of fermions and bosons, so there is no morality to be found. Nihilism.
I’m a theist. The golden rule does not exist according to materialism, but does exist in my world.
@Origenes
First, again, I’m not a moral revivalist. Neither is Harris. He’s made that very clear.
Yes, I would agree there are objective moral truths, but I do not agree there is some authoritative source of which we can rely on to not lead us into error.
Am I correct in assuming you subscribe to the doctrine of divine simplicity, as opposed to one of the two horns of the euthyphro dilemma?
Second, how do you know the golden rule is one of God’s values or duties? How do you know when it is applicable and to what degree?
At best, you could stay there are some moral values and duties, but that abstract form doesn’t help you when faced with concrete moral problems. So, unless you’ve claiming to have no conclusion as to what those are, then what is your basis?
I’m saying, if we attempt to take your claim seriously, it ends up we’re effectively doing the same thing. You just don’t realize it.
If you say some authoritative source in God’s nature, then how have you infallibly identified it? How can you infallibly interpret it?
critical rationalist @
Given materialism, ‘objective moral truths’ based on what?
My beliefs are off-topic, sorry.
These are all interesting questions. However, they are of no concern whatsoever for the materialist. In his world there is no striving towards moral truth, because there is none.
@Origenes
And..
The first statement is relevant to the second. That’s because you are implying there most be some state of affairs that results in morality and under theism / God that isn’t present under materialism, which would explain why morality wouldn’t exist in that case. Yet, apparently, you’re unwilling to explain what that is or how it works.
Then again, that’s really not much of a surprise because God is an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm that operates via inexplicable means and methods. God is only related to morality though the direct claim itself, rather than a long chain of hard to vary, independently formed explanations.
I’m suggesting the epistemological flaw here is the belief that moral knowledge needs an authoritative source and there are no authoritative source in materialism. So, there can be no moral knowledge. And there is no problem because God wants to you know his actual concrete values and duties and God gets what he wants.
Does that about sum it up?
Prussian Nights
by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Nights
http://www.templetonprize.org/previouswinner.html
“Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion on May of 1983
[emphasis added]
O:
I agree. There is no moral “truth”. Hoever, that does not mean that materialist do not strive for agreement within society for subjective moral values. Some are easy. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie,etc.. Others are more difficult. But that does not mean that materialist do not strive to have their subjective moral values adopted by others.
In many respects, accepting that morality is subjective is more robust than believing that it is objective. If you believe that your moral values are objective, you are not likely to modify them to adapt to changing times. For example, there was a time when I was opposed to same sex marriage. Slowly, I changed my opinion on it but still had reservations about same sex adoption. I now fully accept both. Many Christians, however, still vehemently oppose it because they still believe that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Both same sex marriage and adoption have been legal in Canada for well over a decade and civilization hasn’t collapsed, opposite sex marriages still exist, polygamy and bestiality are still illegal, adopted kids of same sex couples are no more likely to be homosexual than any other kid, churches are not forced to officiate over same sex marriages. All of the things that would happen if same sex marriage was legalized.
(*) [analyzed from the perspective of universally applicable objective morals]
[emphasis added]
In the mind of gold medalist mental gymnast in his ploy to evade the questions he was asked by redirecting it and stringing up word salads? Absolutely.
[emphasis added]
Indeed there isn’t, for the materialist.
Don’t lie? Hmm… That’s a new one. And killing those who rejected their “[muh feelings] agreement within society for subjective ‘moral’ ‘values’ “ certainly wasn’t a problem for these murderous “rationalists”.
They also clearly don’t mind murdering dissenters en masse.
And that continues to be one of the most useless and vacuous claims Atheists spout out in numerous forms.
“If you believe that [2 + 2 = 4], you are not likely to modify [that] to adapt to changing times”. Yeah, I heard, “science is sexist”.
“For example, there was a time when I was opposed to [racism]. Slowly, I changed my opinion on it but still had reservations about [not adopting the ‘sub-humans’]. I now fully accept both. Many [Xs], however, still vehemently oppose it because they still believe that [racism] is objectively wrong”
Gotta love that changing “morality”! The US slave owners of the past weren’t wrong, they just had a different morality and yours is changed. If slavery happens to be in vogue in the future, your “morality” can just shimmy right along with the hoard. Same with the Nazis and every other thing that is bad today.
You mean legal, not illegal and “spreading like wildfire”. Necrophilia and incest rights for the youths of Sweden seems to be an important endeavor; trying to pacify the Muslim immigrants perhaps? And lest I forget, polygamy is apparently now the “next great frontier of social liberalism” thanks to the letter-brigade.
Yeah, it’s not like same-sex relationships are more likely to be unstable which has been linked to questioning your sexuality, right?
Except of course they are, have been, “should be” and the lemmings would love nothing more. Need I mention the fact that you can kiss your business goodbye if the letter-brigade lemmings find your business to be too Christian for their liking? Yeah, yeah, “REMEMBER SEGHREGATION YHOU BIBLE-THUMPING BHIGOT!!!” ’cause race and homosexuality are on the same level… riiiight.
No kidding.
D (and O),
thanks for the very important reminders on what happens when men shake a fist at God and imagine they can govern themselves without him, turning morality into subjectivist, relativist nihilism and the power plays of might and manipulation make ‘right.’
Because men refuse to acknowledge the world-root IS who grounds OUGHT, they walk in needless blindness, with demonic ferocity.
And then their successors (who forget that some of us lived through at least some of what happened just a little while ago) want to pretend that nothing happened, nothing is wrong, there is no cause for concern, there are no hard-bought lessons of history to heed, the unborn child can be dehumanised in our perceptions and robbed of her or his life to the tune of 800+ millions under false colour of law — and mounting at a million more per week — and so forth.
Ugly, huge columns of smoke are rising up all across our civilisation, pointing to a common, demonically dirty fire that is undermining the very ground we are standing on.
The fires threaten to cause collapse that will let them engulf us all,
And still, the atheistical folly marches on.
Let me again point to Plato’s warning from 2350+ years ago, a warning the atheists, for years, have consistently dodged:
Misanthropes.
KF
PS: On the objectivity of morality, I suggest a 101 here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.....#u2_morals
@Origenes
Oh don’t worry, this time they will surely, surely get it right! They have the all-seeing eye of science!
*facepalm*
@KF, my comment “is awaiting moderation”. It has a couple of hyperlinks relevant to Armand’s claims so that might be why it’s stuck in the digital limbo.
Vy, I don’t have general mod powers and am not thread owner. Unfortunately, I cannot help. KF
Oh, OK KF. It’s been fixed though.
KF @204:
Well stated, as usual. Thanks.
Vy:
nor for theists, although they have been deceived into believing there is. Sorry to break the bad news.
Atheists do not have a monopoly on these activities. Theists have demonstrated that they are quite adept at it as well. Maybe they just learned from us atheists.
If you can’t tell the difference between mathematical truths (that exist) and moral truths (that don’t), you are beyond comprehending.
Damn, it’s almost as if there were no moral truths, just societally agreed upon subjective “truths”. I have never claimed that subjective morality always works out well for all in society. Just that history is best explained by subjective morality than it is by objective morality.
Nobody has ever said that people in society cannot lobby for whatever they would like. Whether or not society will accept what they have to say will depend on their ability to convince others. Unfortunately, history is full of cases where this has happened and things have occurred that our current society would not find acceptable. Things like the crusades, the inquisition, the Canadian residential school system, the holocaust, etc.
Except in your first example, no priest or minister is being forced to officiate at a same sex marriage. Your second example has nothing to do with a church. It is of a minister who is employed by the city to perform CIVIC marriages at city hall. By law, same sex couples have the right to get married at city hall. If the person hired to perform these ceremonies refuses to provide the service that the couple is legally entitled to, they should be fired. The fact that she is a christian minister is completely irrelevant because being a minister is not a requirement of the job.
Most jurisdictions have laws that make it against the law for a business that provides service to the general public from denying that service to people legally entitled to it based on religion, gender, sexual identity, etc. You may not like the law, but if you are a business owner you must abide by it or seek another profession. Religion is not a defence for breaking the law.
hgp has absolutely dismantled all arguments in favor of science grounding morality. I’m not sure what’s left to argue over at this point. I suppose we could argue about how well an objective morality can be ascertained by fallible people, but only in the context that it is the only option left.
Hahaha, don’t flatter yourself with vacuous assertions.
Shiny red herring but stay on focus.
You should be more worried about your lack of comprehension of that.
You don’t say…
Nor have you said anything that can honestly be considered “morality” any more than the preferences of an impoverished burglar.
Cool story bro. Hedging prowess still not as good as CR’s though.
Ya, you’re just forced to do it or have to find someone to do it… in your church. *facepalm*
And just above your excuse was “no priest or minister is being forced to officiate at a same sex marriage”.
And just as expected, “REMEMBER SEGHREGATION YHOU BIBLE-THUMPING BHIGOT!!!”.
Literally.
Vy:
No, they have to find someone to do it in the state run church. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. The law only applies to the Church of Denmark. It is not an independent church and has always been under the control of the crown. Denmark does not have separation of church and state like we have in North America.
Given materialism, in what sense do you control whether you are deceived or not? In what sense do people control their beliefs?
It seems to me that you are suggesting that humans have free responsible rational top-down control over their thoughts (neurons). How do you square that with materialism?
Again, the ugly columns of smoke rise up, and ever so many pretend that all is well . . . we are making “progress” . . . even as our civilisation refuses to ponder what can happen if we cave-in and are engulfed by the subterranean, demonic, dirty fires that rage out of control. Radical relativism, amoral schemes of thought inviting the nihilism of might and manipulation make ‘right’ or ‘truth’ etc are all the rage, and the self-congratulations on ‘progress’ abound. We refuse to heed the implications of the nihilistic agit prop and cynical media shadow shows that are going on all around us. Consciences are benumbed, ever more perverse and destructive, addictive vices demand to be re-labelled as virtues, and we refuse to acknowledge the signs of ruin. Of all these things, perhaps the strongest single indicator of just how bad we are is the commonly seen evasion or enabling of our being embroiled in the worst holocaust in history. And the march of folly to ruin dances on and on and on.
PS: A 101 on the objectivity of morality.
I can seen the urge to do the CR is quite strong with you but reading is useful:
—
Shocka!
You’ve managed to come up with the expected stories to fit the usual
backpedaling“rationalizations” for the forcing but they really are, as they’ve always been, pathetic red herrings.Vy, you should check your sources. The government only has control over the Church of Denmark. The law specifically applies to the Church of Denmark, the state church. Other churches may have chosen to marry same sex couples, but that is not forced by law.
Now, this being said, I would not be unhappy if governments and the general public pressured other churches to perform same sex ceremonies. Even as far as revoking tax free status to churches that refuse to do it. This, however, would be extremely difficult in the US because of previous supreme court rulings.
I’ve indulged your red herrings far enough.
Of course not. It wouldn’t fit the cookie-cutter Atheism you’ve presented.
Vy:
I take this to mean that you are going to stick to your alternate fact that all churches are forced by the government to marry same sex couples rather than use the real facts.
You’re free to take that up with whatever source you choose. I OTOH am going to focus on the dubious claim that “churches are not forced to officiate over same sex marriages”.