Jaw Dropping Stupidity

_{Barry Arrington

August 22, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Sometimes a materialist will post a comment, and I will read it and then just sit there with my mouth literally agape, wondering at the sheer stupidity on display. I got that treat today when Rationalitys bane posted this gem:

we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.

Jack Kreb quoted RB’s little aphorism and added: “Excellent statement.”

So let me get this straight fellas. Morality is entirely subjective. If this means anything, it means that we are not accountable to any standard of objective moral truth, because no such standard exists. According to my dictionary “responsibility” means “the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.” But wait a minute. You just said we are not accountable to a standard of moral truth, because no such standard exists.

RB’s statement boils down to this. We are better off not pretending we are accountable and live our lives knowing we are accountable.”

*palm forehead*

Comments

Pindi said:
Well, I guess we are different. I do find personal achievements and earning the approval of my friends, family, and peers, inspiring.
I imagine you do. That's probably because you avoid thinking about the nihilistic ramifications of your worldview and act and think as if morality is objective and act and think as if you and others have free will.
And I think you have a non-conventional view of theism. Those on this board who are Christians (which I know is not you) do, I think, obtain inspiration from pleasing God.
So?
The thing about the Olympic team was not about morality, but just to illustrate my point that we get inspiration from obtaining the approval of our peers. We are community and social based animals.
Same can be said of a Nazi, a jihadist, or a gang-banger, and under moral subjectivism, each is equally right and moral. Under atheistic materialism, you feel inspired whenever a causal chain of physical events dictates that you feel inspired, whether it's because you ate a piece of cherry pie or if you see Jimmy beat his girlfriend and it inspires you to beat yours. Your "inspiration" is just a cheap physical sensation that practically anything can trigger. Yippee.
With regard to your comment @25, no, I don’t agree. It’s perfectly fine to make an argument that something is better than something else based on purely personal preference.
What does "perfectly fine" mean?
Do you never have arguments with your friends over the relative merits of your favourite band?
I can't for the life of me imagine a life so utterly devoid of substance that one would spend any time nonsensically arguing about personal preferences.William J Murray_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

RB:
Sorry Barry, but I believe that it is my moral responsibility to pay taxes. Not more than I have to, but my fair share.
Fair share? Why are you using the language of objective morality. According to you, there is no such thing as fair or just. You are contradicting yourself.
How would I morally justify (subjectively, of course) accessing universal health care, unemployment insurance, welfare, roads, water, sewer, police protection, etc. Or are you one of these freeloaders who believe that you are entitled to these things without paying?
More contradictions. According to your subjectivism, Barry is entitled to services if his subjective morality allows it and you are entitled to services for the same reason Who are you to impose your subjective standard on Barry. You are, once again, assuming the same standard of objective morality that you disavow.StephenB_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

WJM Well, I guess we are different. I do find personal achievements and earning the approval of my friends, family, and peers, inspiring. And I think you have a non-conventional view of theism. Those on this board who are Christians (which I know is not you) do, I think, obtain inspiration from pleasing God. The thing about the Olympic team was not about morality, but just to illustrate my point that we get inspiration from obtaining the approval of our peers. We are community and social based animals. With regard to your comment @25, no, I don't agree. It's perfectly fine to make an argument that something is better than something else based on purely personal preference. Do you never have arguments with your friends over the relative merits of your favourite band?Pindi_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Pindi said:
That is silly. Every time you say something is better than something else are you asserting that it is objectively better?
If one is going to make an argument that something is actually better than another thing, you generally have to reference something more objective or logical than "personal preference" to make that case. Unless moral subjectivists think that moral subjectivism is actually better, in some objectivs sense, than moral objectivism, why argue the matter at all?William J Murray_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Pindi said:
You minimise the complexity of jdk’s expression by your paraphrasing.
No, I reveal jdk's moral outlook for what it is. Complexity is often added to hide what is really there.
But it’s essentially true, except you missed out an important point. “Benefits us all” includes oneself. We all act to try and meet our own needs and desires, some of those needs and desires being the approval of our fellow human beings. What is uninspiring about that?
What is inspiring about it? People doing whatever they do because biochemistry compels them to do so. What should such events "inspire" me to do? Exactly nothing that I'm not already doing - whatever biochemistry compels me to do.
Our Olympic team just got home from Rio. A big crowd there to meet them. Why do they compete? A big part of it is to achieve the approval of their fellow citizens (as well as their own satisfaction).
I don't see how this is ralated to morality. In any event, what's inspiring about bits of matter being push around by chemistry and physics into doing whatever it does?
What is the theist’s version of your statement? “It’s how God expects me to act so to win his approval I try to act accordingly”.
No, it would be "Regardless of social norms or popularity, I do what is right no matter what it costs me personally."
I find the non-theist view vastly more inspiring.
Doing what is popular because you also enjoy it - yes, quite inspiring.William J Murray_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Inspiring. Yup. Whichever way the wind happens to be blowing at the moment.Mung_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Autodidaktos: That is silly. Every time you say something is better than something else are you asserting that it is objectively better?Pindi_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

WJM @17 You minimise the complexity of jdk's expression by your paraphrasing. But it's essentially true, except you missed out an important point. "Benefits us all" includes oneself. We all act to try and meet our own needs and desires, some of those needs and desires being the approval of our fellow human beings. What is uninspiring about that? Our Olympic team just got home from Rio. A big crowd there to meet them. Why do they compete? A big part of it is to achieve the approval of their fellow citizens (as well as their own satisfaction). What is the theist's version of your statement? "It's how God expects me to act so to win his approval I try to act accordingly". I find the non-theist view vastly more inspiring.Pindi_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Evidently no one has pointed out the obvious -- if one asserts that it is "better" to deny objective morality, then they have unwittingly made a claim which they consider to be objectively true about the nature of the Good. Oh well.Autodidaktos_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

William J Murray, excellent summary (as usual)! Atheists hoping for a more just society might as well hope for a more just set of laws for chemistry and physics. Complete amorality is the base line of AM and any claims that atheists make towards morality (i.e. You ought) is to be judged by that base line of complete amorality. Anyone who lived his life according to the dictates of the atheistic worldview would be considered a complete psychopath.bornagain77_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Logically, under atheistic materialism (A/M), the world is always morally perfect. It would be delusional to think material beings should behave in any way other than the way they actually behave. Under A/M, people would always necessarily act in accordance with their human natures. It would be impossible for them not to. To think that humans can somehow force themselves to do something other than what material forces dictate is to profess a belief in the supernatural. Under A/M, humans are whatever their biochemistry dictates, nothing more or less. Until the atheistic materialist can act as if every human act is perfectly moral (they did what they should have done due to their biochemical nature), they are hypocrites who profess one thing (morality is dictated by biochemistry) but act another way (as if humans can somehow override the biochemistry that dictates their actions) , and are delusional to expect material beings to act, or should act, any way other than the way they factually act.William J Murray_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

jdk said:
I am a member of human society, and along with all my fellow humans, work towards and strive to live up to norms of behavior that benefit us all so we can be happy, healthy, and productive. (You now, the life and liberty stuff.)
"It's how everyone around me acts and expects me to act, so to win their approval I try to act accordingly." Inspiring.William J Murray_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

jdk...you are insane.Truth Will Set You Free_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

barry writes,
You want there to be no standard outside yourself to which you are accountable.
No Barry. It seems like you are not making an effort to understand a different view. (Not agree with, just understand.) I am accountable to the larger bodies of people that make up my circle of communities: my family, my local work and social communities, and, more abstractly, my country and mankind in general. I am not a psychopathic nihilistic island: I am a member of human society, and along with all my fellow humans, work towards and strive to live up to norms of behavior that benefit us all so we can be happy, healthy, and productive. (You now, the life and liberty stuff.) I don't need God to tell me those things are what I should be doing. I can figure that out without him.jdk_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Rationalitys bane: Again, there is no such thing as an ethical truth.

Origenes: To be clear, according to you, “it is evil to torture infants for pleasure” is not an ethical truth?

Rationalitys bane: I don’t believe that “evil” as you probably see it exists as an objective measure.
To be clear, according to you, it is not objectively evil to torture infants for pleasure? In reality “evil” does not exist, and torturing infants for pleasure is simply a matter of personal preference?Origenes_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Barry:
In the context of the comment explored in the OP, you had moral accountability in view. The stupidity of your statement having been exposed, you switch to legal accountability.
Sorry Barry, but I believe that it is my moral responsibility to pay taxes. Not more than I have to, but my fair share. How would I morally justify (subjectively, of course) accessing universal health care, unemployment insurance, welfare, roads, water, sewer, police protection, etc. Or are you one of these freeloaders who believe that you are entitled to these things without paying?
In the context of the comment explored in the OP, you had moral accountability in view."
Again, as a tax lawyer, are you stating for the record that people don't have a moral obligation to pay taxes. Does the IRS know this? Hopefully they don't monitor websites run by tax lawyers.
So, RB, are you going to say that when you said we should “lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do,” all you had in view was “if you break the law you go to jail.
*Palm forehead*Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

RB:
do I have an objective moral requirement to pay taxes? No. Am I held accountable if I don’t?
How predictable. An equivocation on the word accountable. You are really quite hopeless. In the context of the comment explored in the OP, you had moral accountability in view. The stupidity of your statement having been exposed, you switch to legal accountability. So, RB, are you going to say that when you said we should "lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do," all you had in view was "if you break the law you go to jail." There is another word for equivocation RB: Lie.Barry Arrington_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Standards exist to which we accountable, Barry, but they come from our nature as social human beings, and from the society around us, not from some outside objective source.
Why does that make the standards to which we are accountable subjective and not objective? Oh, and how can one be accountable to a standard?Mung_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

O, "Nope, Barry Arrington commented on you talking about subjective morality." Nope, he was talking about my objection to objective morality. But given the way he twists others' words, I can see where you would be confused. "That’s a very accurate summary. Indeed … jaw dropping stupidity." I agree that Barry's summary is jaw-dropping stupid. But since it is a complete misrepresentation of what I actually said, I don't take offence.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Barry@6, do I have an objective moral requirement to pay taxes? No. Am I held accountable if I don't? Yes. Do I have an objective moral requirement not to speed. No. Can I be held accountable if I do? Yes. Do I have an objective moral requirement to be faithful to my wife? No. Are there consequences if I am not? Yes. If I am a county clerk in Kentucky, do I have an objective moral requirement to issue a marriage licence to a same sex couple? No. Will I be held accountable if I don't? Yes. So, please explain to me again how not having objective moral truths means that you are not accountable?Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Rationalitys bane: Actually I was talking about objective morality ...
Nope, Barry Arrington commented on you talking about subjective morality.
Barry Arrington: RB’s statement boils down to this. “We are better off not pretending we are accountable and live our lives knowing we are accountable.”
That's a very accurate summary. Indeed ... jaw dropping stupidity.Origenes_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

O, "To be clear, according to you, “it is evil to torture infants for pleasure” is not an ethical truth?" Remember, I include "evil" in scare quotes to qualify my answers. I don't believe that "evil" as you probably see it exists as an objective measure. To my subjective morality I believe that torturing infants is morally wrong and I would do everything in my power to prevent it. As I am sure that you would. But there have been cultures that used it as a religious ritual (ie, morally acceptable). I have heard the argument that these cultures simply misinterpreted the objective value. But my question is, how do you know that they were wrong in their interpretation of objective morality and we are right. The same applies to the holocaust, or slavery. Majority opinion? I have been repeatedly told here that majority opinion is not necessarily a measure of objective truth.Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

RB: Let's look at what the word "accountable" means RB: My dictionary says it means:
subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.
Accountability, by definition, involves an obligation to report, explain, or justify. But if there is no external standard to appeal to, how does one even begin to do this? I can just imagine it now. RB to himself: Time for my accountability report. RB answers himself: How did I do? RB answers himself again: Well, I certainly agree with me. RB answers himself again: Well, all up to snuff then? RB answers himself again: Yep, tip top. RB answers himself again. Well OK then. Until next time.Barry Arrington_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Barry, "If this means anything, it means that we are not accountable to any standard of objective moral truth, Correct. "...because no such standard exists. " I think you are finally getting this. "According to my dictionary “responsibility” means “the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.” But wait a minute. You just said we are not accountable to a standard of moral truth, because no such standard exists." Actually I was talking about objective morality, but I think that you are really understanding this. I have high hopes for you. "RB’s statement boils down to this. "We are better off not pretending we are accountable and live our lives knowing we are accountable.”" So much for the high hopes I had for you. Remember when I apologized for saying that one of your comments was stupid? I am afraid that I must take that apology back. Are you suggesting that it is only possible to be accountable to an objective moral truth? think about your own precession before you answer. As a "wise" man once said *PALM FOREHEAD*Rationalitys bane_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Rationalitys bane: Again, there is no such thing as an ethical truth.
To be clear, according to you, "it is evil to torture infants for pleasure" is not an ethical truth?Origenes_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Jack, I understand that you want to have it both ways. You want there to be no standard outside yourself to which you are accountable. But you shrink back from the nihilism that entails, as any reasonable person would. So when it suits you, you say there is no standard. But no sane person lives their life as if that were true. So when pressed you spew some idiocy about being accountable to our "nature as social human beings," as if that were a standard at all. I am sad for you.Barry Arrington_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

How narrow is your understanding of non-European, non-Christian cultures? Or are you so deeply sold on whichever culture you happen to like that any and all deviations from that culture, even within that culture over the centuries, are, in your personal, VERY subjective opinion "wrong"? Slavery was WIDELY accepted for millennia, and even Paul orders Christian slaves of Christian masters to be GOOD slaves. Then SUDDENLY in the 19th century some Europeans decided it wasn't nice and should be stopped. Except in those cases (like India and the Congo) where it was useful and profitable to continue either open slavery or go through the charade of declaring slavery to be "courvee labor". So was Slavery ALWAYS wrong? Or is Slavery ALWAYS morally acceptable, but now SOCIALLY unacceptable? And what about "lifeboat" morality? When the Russian Communists were sending thousands of arguably "innocent" prisoners to prison camps inside the Arctic Circle by train, there was a shortage of any "moral" passenger cars, so prisoners were ordered to simply LIE DOWN on flatcars before they were covered with a canvas tarp. Experienced prisoners knew that they could survive the trip ONLY by fighting their way to the center of the car and using the bodies of their doomed fellow prisoner as insulation. Is that "moral"? Or is NOT fighting for the center "suicide" and therefore "immoral"? And how many people does one have to kill before it counts as "genocide", genocide having been declared to be immoral by a small group of Europeans with Christian roots? The Anglo-American terror bombing of Europe during WW2 killed MILLIONS of civilians and was colloquially called "baby-killing" in discussions amongst the targeting folks. So who exactly was acting immorally? The targeting guys who knew which targets got picked? The bombing force commanders who knew EXACTLY what their thousands of airplanes were used for? The flight crews who should have understood enough about happened to people on the receiving end of their bombs? Or perhaps the politicians who approved the entire "strategic bombing" farce? The fear amongst the "anti-baby-killing" targeting staff was that if word leaked out to American VOTERS about what "strategic bombing" meant in practice, the Army Air Corps would NEVER become the independent US Air Force... Etc., etc. And on strictly religious questions, is Divorce immoral? Didn't JC himself SPECIFICALLY reject it? Biologists, and especially Embryologists, KNOW that Life begins at Conception. So isn't abortion Murder? (Murder being "the taking of innocent life", and pre-born babies are about as innocent as you can get.) How about executing people for Heresy or Blasphemy? Since I'm not a Moslem, is it moral or immoral for a conforming Moslem to kill me? There simply ISN'T any standard for Morality, and never has been. Each person chooses a set of moral principles (Jewish, Christian, Druidic, Hindu, Moslem, homicidal maniac thieves, etc.) and then feels varying levels of person uneasiness when he or she violates one of those principles. Societies choose one of the more popular sets of morals and declares them to be "laws". The Druids, and living practitioners of Shamanism, believe that life is merely an adventure we have before we die. And when we die, we ALL, every single human who ever lives, goes to the same "heaven" where they can experience the Creator directly. But of course as thinking humans, we should try to play nice with others while we're waiting for death.mahuna_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Standards exist to which we accountable, Barry, but they come from our nature as social human beings, and from the society around us, not from some outside objective source. Since to you standards are nothing if they don't come from an outside source, you dismiss any other view as stupid. Given that I know we (the many people who believe somewhat as I and RB do) are not stupid, and in fact are well-educated in a variety of fields, I think, perhaps, you are stupid for dismissing so blatantly anyone who doesn't agree with you. But that is your problem, not mine. So I'll just agree to disagree with you, and let it go at that.jdk_{August 22, 2016
August
08
Aug
22
22
2016
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply