Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Moral Progress In A Materialist World

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A commenter in my last post gave a very nice summary of the current state of thinking about moral progress among matrialists.  Obviously, by definition, materialists cannot point to a transcendent moral code by which to measure moral progress.  Indeed, it is difficult for them to account for moral progress at all because if materialism is correct, the “is” in a society defines the “ought.”  The commenter took a stab at it nevertheless and came up with this: 

In terms of progress: I would say that progress is measured by the increase or decrease of the sphere of human recognition. We today recognize the humanity of African-Americans — a recognition that was denied to their ancestors. It is the contrast between the present and the past, not between the present and an imagined future, that indicates whether or not progress has occurred.  Although such recognition still has some ways to go, as measures go, it’s not a bad one.

In response I would like to pose two questions:

1.  On what basis do you say that the recognition of the humanity of African-Americans is “progress” unless you have held up the previous nonrecognition and the present recognition to a code and deterermined the former was bad (i.e., did not meet the code) and the latter is good (i.e., does meet the code)?  In other words, when you say we have “progressed” it is just another way of saying that the previous state of affairs was bad and the present state of affairs is good.  But how can you know this unless there is a code that transcends time and place by which both states of affairs can be measured.  Certainly to say that things were previously one way and now they are another is not the same as saying there has been progress.  Change is not the same as progress. 

 2.  Increasingly in our society pornography is viewed as an affirmatively good thing.  Perhaps that is even the majority view today, so let us assume for the sake of argument that the majority of people in America think pornography is a good thing.  Does the fact that the majority of people believe pornography is a good thing in fact make the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men good?  Would you say that there has been moral progress because now our society recognizes that the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men is good wheras before we believed that was bad?

Comments
This talk of ancient genocides is bad theology and bad morality. Aquinas would weep with frustration. Just ... read this: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htmBugsy
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
I just realized somthing...don't these last several posts here all talking about the supposed lack of a moral basis in "materialism" or "darwinism" all just form a fallacy whereas people are told how bad morally evolution/athiesm is, therefore evolution is wrong? That's not presenting positive evidence for your side, that's just emotional manipulation. Of course, you'll likely talk about the "logical consequences" of evolution. Whereas athiests can point to a lot of OT verses and a thousand years of history to throw back at you. BTW, the 10 Commandments are also in the OT. Just in case someone tries to say that the OT is under the "old law" or something like that. These emotional postings are useless. Why not just focus on all the supposed positive evidence for ID instead to convince people?Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Jason Rennie at #118: It depends what you are referring to? The Assyrian attack on Israel. There is nothing that needs justification. Whatever use God made of the actions of the Assyrians does not change the nature of the actions. For the usual collection of events. The background knowledge more than puts them in a context to make them understandable. Complaints about them are about as sensible as complaining about allied bombing during WW2 being unjustified because it isn’t as if there was a war going on. Yes. Context. The allied bombing and the actions of the OT god when he had women and babies killed were all to prevent some supposed greater evil. At least with the allies it's demonstrable, and there was no other way to do it. It's not like they had the power to just snap their fingers and make all the bad people in Europe disappear like magic and provide food and shelter for those Left Behind eh? Even if one buys the reasons that apologists (Robert Turkel aka James Patrick Holding and Glen Miller) list for god had to have the ancient Isrealites kill the women and children (of whichever group the Isrealites were at war with at the time) because killing them would be a less horrible fate than starvation in the desert or being forced to be raised among those who killed off their families, all this shows is Relative Morality or Situational Ethics, not any transcendent absolute morality. Relative Morality being that it's more moral to give the kids a fast death than to have them suffer a lingering death in the wilderness. Because of the situations it depicts, and the reasons apologists come up with to defend god's actions, the bible is one of the best places to read if one wants examples of situational ethics. Jason Rennie “It certainly has no relation to any moral standard ostensibly written on the heart.” Of course it does. Surely you can’t be so ignorant as to need this explained to you. I will assume you are simply being obtuse. “No self-evident moral principle undergirds this” Umm … again, you are joking right. You seem unaware that in the end, “GOD KILLS EVERYBODY”. Seriously, it is his right to do so. I don’t see why this is difficult for people to understand. You are making the common mistake of assuming you are on an level playing field with the creator. Sorry, you are mistaken. So, if god is the supreme standard of morality that we have to aspire to, then what rules does he or she have to follow? Or, to put it another way, what would the "creator" (whoever that is--wink, wink) have to do before you could say that it's an immoral act? If you say that the creator can do anything she/he wants, then morality is just relative to the desires and goals of this being. To put this another way: if the laws of morality are good because God thinks them, or if God thinks them because they are good. If they are good because God thinks them, then they are purely subjective and could have been otherwise. If God thinks them because they are good, then morality exists apart from God, and God is unnecessary to "goodness". If anyone actually wants to see what so-called "materialists" think of this as opposed to just ranting against them...Reynold Hall
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
j, Thanks for the recap. I have only met a couple honest Darwinists. Two that come here occasionally have been Allen MacNeill and great_ape who hasn't been here for quite awhile. It is amazing how the Darwinists are so uniformly evasive and disingenuous. For most of them it is that they do not know what they are defending but believe somehow it must be true. Has anyone a report on the debate last night at Cornell between Provine and Nelson?jerry
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
"but jason, the bible says that god creates good AND evil." Isaiah 45:7? Yeah well, the Bible also describes a "fallen" world caused by man using his own free-will, or in other words sinning. The take home point is that in this fallen world, God uses all things to work for good, and really, what else could a God do in a world in which He grants free-will? I know, I know...God messed with Pharaoh's free will right?shaner74
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
[Off topic:] ellazimm (27) "I’ll be very interested in what everyone thinks of Judgement Day. Living in England I’m going to have live vicariously regarding this one." __________ For those who didn't get to see the program, here are my notes ;-) : Start: ID holds that living things are "suddenly created" and are "too complex" to have evolved. The Dover Trial was basically just the Scopes Trial ("Inherit the Wind") all over again. The Establishment Clause requires "the separation of church and state" and "prevents the government from promoting or prohibiting any form of religion" 8:19 Ken Miller pronounces the word "God" the way that atheists do (IMO). Footage from the DVD of "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"(?) is shown in grainy video, to make it look ugly. 8:29 ACLU lawyers smile alot. Thomas More Law Center lawyers have frowns. 8:33 Eugenie Scott is a happy person. Rick Santorum looks like a dork. 8:40 Ken Miller thinks that evolution is change over time. 8:41 ID holds that living things appear abruptly. Nick Matzke says that ID holds that things "poof" into existence. Transitional fossils are evidence against ID. Evolutionary theory predicts a computer-generated tree of life. 8:48 Darwin proposed gradual evolution. 8:57 Darwin didn't know about genetics, but now we do, and so evolution is proven. 8:58 Robert Pennock says that flu shots are due to evolution (not intelligent design). 9:00 Eugenie Scott says "ID is a negative argument." Note: The producers focused on Creationism for the first hour. The Discovery Institute "set conditions for interviews that are not consistent with normal journalistic practices" 9:07 Mike Behe thinks that some things "could not have evolved." 9:12 The TTSS (which came after the bacterial flagellum) is an obvious evolutionary precursor of the flagellum. Really nice animations of the flagellum. 9:17 Darwinists piled a lot of big books in front of Mike Behe in the courtroom. The 1st Amendment mandates the separation of church and state. 9:27 ID is simply creationism repackaged. ID is like astrology -- Mike Behe said so. 9:34 Barbara Forrest uses "evolution" as a synonym for "Darwinism" The Wedge document looks awesome. I can think of a lot of bad names for Lori Lebo. The Discovery Institute distanced themselves from the trial when they lost. Judge Jones said that "ID is not science," so the matter is settled. __________ The program's producers conveniently avoid explaining that the essence of Darwin's theory is that all of evolution is undirected (i.e., without a goal) and purposeless -- that it's not just an innocuous theory of common descent. They likewise avoid explaining what ID really is. They stay true to the old Darwinist trick: get students nodding about change over time and common descent -- before zinging them with "by the way, it's all entirely undirected and meaningless." (But, in this case, the producers neatly omit the last half half of the lesson.) They're scared to tell the truth about both Darwinism and ID.j
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
getawitness, My comments about honesty were not directed at anyone in particular but based on my observations the last two years since I have been commenting on this blog. I really think that the information is clear as to what would have happened if we had invaded Japan. I have the exact number somewhere on another computer of the body bags/coffins planned for the invasion. They expected around 1 million casualties but not all of these kia. My wife's father was part of the proposed invasion force and he was stationed in the Phillipines till late 1945. They expected huge numbers of Japanese to be killed either by kia or suicide. The three previous events to the invasion of Japan were Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa and on each one the Japanese fought to the death or committed suicide. What were they going to do when their homeland was to be invaded. It was more sacred to them than the United States is to us. My father's first cousin who is still alive was a supply officer and sent by the Navy to take part in negotiations for sending supplies to the Soviets to help with their invasion of Japan. They were to invade from the north in late 1945 or early 1946 and if that happened Japan would have been forever divided and Korea would never have been able to stay free. Russia still has a few islands that belonged to Japan. If we had invaded Japan 100 of times more civilians would have died than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Interesting these were the two biggest Christian centers in Japan. Nagasaki was not the original target. Kokura was but it was cloud covered so they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. I have been to both places and each is a thriving city. The Japanese are a very industrious people. Thucydides was the first to point out that war is the result of weakness in his history of the Peloponnesian War. It is when your opponent thinks you are weak that they invade. Certainly WWII illustrates this in spades and there is evidence of this in the world today. It may be our squeamishness that causes the next major catastrophe because no one else seems willing to fight, certainly not the Europeans. They have bought into the heaven on earth philosophy and no one fights for that because you might die.jerry
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Jason, About my views about Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, you wrote This is where basic reading comprehension skills become important. Go back and read what I wrote. Okay. I was responding to this: Complaints about them are about as sensible as complaining about allied bombing during WW2 being unjustified because it isn’t as if there was a war going on. I'm sorry; please help my reading comprehension. What I am missing? I'm serious. You wrote, GOD KILLS EVERYBODY I responded skeptically to that, and that demonstrates, apparently, that I am "not interested in reasonable discourse." My position is that the statement is not reasonable discourse. It's reasonable, I suppose, in some narrow theological sense but not in terms of developing a morality that can lay claim to people generally. I'd wager the sentence GOD KILLS EVERYBODY would not go very far as a measure of sophistication in most philosophy or ethics classes. So who's unreasonable: the person who says "GOD KILLS EVERYBODY" -- written just so -- is an example of reasonable discourse, or the person who thinks it isn't?getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
but jason, the bible says that god creates good AND evil. so apparently you are not willing to take the bible on it's own terms. that's OK, you will find out someday. I for one believe G*D when he says something and don't try to secondguess it. there is a reason that the bible is called the 'bible'. hint: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I hope you find peace.Erasmus
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
"Given that, how can you possibly characterize evil as something that is absent good?" Because that has been the consistent understanding of Christian teachers going back to at least Augustine. As opposed to a dualistic understanding of good and evil like the ancient Manichean's taught. All evil things are corruptions or violations of good things.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
"Well, I’d say at least some of them were unjustified: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki . . ." This is where basic reading comprehension skills become important. Go back and read what I wrote. "“GOD KILLS EVERYBODY.” Uh huh." Ok then. Clearly you are not interested in reasonable discourse and my guess that you were a troll would appear to be correct. "I’d say they are designed to complicate moral questions, not underscore them."" For the blind, of course they are.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
If you believe in a G*D who has a will that can be thwarted by puny humans, and the absence of G*D is the presence of evil, then you worship an inferior G*D that is not the creator of the Universe...
If God wills that we obey him, who are we "puny humans" to say that he may not allow us to do otherwise?russ
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
jerry, Obviously Hiroshima and Nagasaki are controversial. Whether they saved more lives than they took is an unanswerable question that would require replaying history the other way. I'll say right off that they may have saved the life of one relative of mine (an uncle by marriage) who served in the Pacific theater and who was slated for the Japan invasion force. I view the bombings as unjustified even if they did save lives, because what is unjustifiable is the mass targeting of civilians for purposes of inducing terror (a thumbnail description of terrorism itself). In other words, I'd view those bombings as exhibiting unjustifiable tactics. Objectively? No, but in ways that are arguable beyond simply "I don't like it." With regard to [129], I understand that it seems to you like I'm just being picky here for no particular reason. I don't relish leaving that impression, but what can I do? BarryA said I was "quibbling and pettifogging" -- which is pretty amusing coming from a lawyer. I can't imagine we'll reach agreement, so I won't argue these points further here. But since you have (I think) questioned my honesty, I'll say that the views on this thread are indeed my views, I have not come by them glibly, simply, or without considerable thought, and I am not being disingenuous. In fact, I was at one point a firm believer in objective morality. I first intervened on moral issues here because of the moral hijacking of the Finnish tragedy to make a cheap point about Darwinism, which still strikes me as both predictable and depressing. I erred in hoping for a more nuanced response (nullasulus was the major advocate of subtlety on that score, for which I am grateful). StephenB [128], I can't figure out whether you think I am one of those who "believes in rational discourse" or not. I would say that I do. But I think also that rational discourse is not universal and that many arguments may (for a host of reasons) become incommensurable at some point. At present, among the disagreements that most tend toward incommensurability are those between traditional "objective" accounts of morality, truth, language, communication, etc. and "relativist" or "social constructionist" accounts of the same. (A good book on why this is so, albeit a difficult book and one written from the relativist perspective, is Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy by B. H. Smith. See also her more recent Scandalous Knowledge: Science, Truth, and the Human).getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Off topic: Ben Stein was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight and discussed his upcoming movie, "Expelled". Beck mentioned in passing that Stein was scheduled to be interviewed on Beck's AM Radio show tomorrow (Wed. 11/04).russ
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Relativism-Feet-Firmly-Planted-Mid-Air/dp/0801058066 No moral progress is possible within a materialistic worldview. It is a logically self-refuting ideology. This is not hard to figure out, just like it's not hard to figure out that random variation and natural selection did not create highly sophisticated biological computer programs.GilDodgen
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Well I am sure glad to see us getting back to the science. What I am concerned about, is as a Christian, I know that G*D creates evil. So, that being undoubtedly true unless you are willing to say that my bible is lying. Given that, how can you possibly characterize evil as something that is absent good? If G*D is good, and the bible tells us so, and he is omnipresent, which the bible tells us so, then it follows that there is nowhere that G*D is not (that includes the empty black hollow in the chests of materialists, thank you CSL). So it seems that Jason Rennie's arguments, while sophisticated, are founded on category errors. If it was G*D's will that the Assyrians were to attack the Israelites, in no way could that be viewed as evil. The fact that one, were it to happen today, would view it as evil, gives the lie to the notion that we can ever know, even if it exists, an objective morality. If you believe in a G*D who has a will that can be thwarted by puny humans, and the absence of G*D is the presence of evil, then you worship an inferior G*D that is not the creator of the Universe and the mid-atlantic rift, much less the flacterial blagellum or the chloroplast. I don't see where this discussion is going, but I am glad to see it getting back to the science.Erasmus
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
In re: (126) Rude, the comparison with embodied cognitive science of mathematics is an interesting dimension to the problem, and while I'm not unaware of it, I haven't studied it carefully. I'd be very curious to see how they get around the objections against "psychologism" raised by Frege. I'd also like to see how they explain our capacity to construct infinite sets. But, supposing that their theory shows that mathematics is not absolute, and not objective in a God's-eye-point-of-view sense of objective, I still wonder: what kind of objectivity do we need? If mathematics is objective in the sense that it regulates how any individual calculates, then does it matter that there might not be God's-eye-point-of-view objectivity? Must objectivity transcend all reasoners in order to count as genuine objectivity? I've been thinking a lot about how to re-imagine the concept of "objectivity" (and "transcendence" and "experience"). I don't have much by way of concrete results yet, and even when I do, I don't imagine that they'd be convincing to most (or any?) of the absolutists here. I just wanted to mention that in order to indicate that I'm not yet set in my ways -- not entirely, anyway!Carl Sachs
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
StevenB, I have learned a lot on this blog as two or more commenters square off against each other defending their positions. Often we reach a new consensus. However, it is often possible to judge the honesty of a commenter by how they respond to criticism of their comments. Do they thank you, nit pick some peripheral item, come back with interesting insight or do they ignore the explanations and criticism. Are they interested in solving the problem or delineating it more clearly and thus, making the discussion more coherent or do they throw road blocks in the way in an attempt to confuse issues. Are they reasonable or unreasonable Sometime I realize it is not worth responding to some comments but over a time a pattern arises with some individual's comments. As you say it liberates you when you know you can answer them but they cannot answer you. Also the nonsense about objectivity is just a smoke screen. We could not be communicating here if there was not objectivity. And believe me they understand what you are saying and if they do not respond in a constructive way that is also very objective.jerry
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
StephenB [122], my answer is maybe. I appreciate your honesty and I am not going to make a big fuss about it. When I ask someone if they believe a thing can be true and false at the same time, my purpose is to discern whether he or she believes in rational discourse. In fact, some don't. But not everyone will do me the courtesy of telling me so. When that is the case, I withdraw, because logic is the only tool I can use clarify, persuade, and establish common ground. When I find that reason in not an option, it liberates me in a strange way because I know that, under those circumstances, there is simply nothing I can say or do to change things.StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
getawitness, Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, mostly Japanese lives. It probably also kept half of Japan out of Soviet hands and we know what wonderful things they did. Foresight and hindsight support this. It is only squeamishness that is critical of these events. And maybe squeamishness is the greatest killer of all. So how do you justify that these were evil? Using what criteria?jerry
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs says, “To be frank: it seems clear to me that objective morality poses a challenge or problem for ‘materialism’ if and only if one is already in the grip of a metaphysical picture which requires that values can only be objective if they are non-natural.” Let me simplify: Objective morality is tough for materialism only if you’re not a materialist. As Clumsy Brute says, “That is a horrible argument.” Just what do you mean by “non-natural”? I suggest spending some time thinking about mathematical realism and what this might suggest in regard to objective morality. Most materialists, such as George Lakoff & Rafael E Núñez, do not like the idea, and of course you need not like it either. But you talk as though you know nothing of this, which surely isn’t so. An atheist can subscribe to mathematical realism—in fact I suspect that most physicists are atheists of that sort. That kind of materialist—Einstein probably would be an example—should have no problem with objective morality. But would a materialist who rejects that kind of transcendence be OK with objective morality? I say NO—he’s stuck with vague utilitarian notions that must be viewed as emergent from neuronal activity. Though I believe in objective morality (as explicated by natural law advocates), I have no faith in a civilization founded only on such theorizing. It’s like throwing out the Constitution of the United States and leaving everything up to the machinations of legal theorists. It’s the Hebrew Scriptures that made the difference in Western Civ. The Nazis, remember, were willing to countenance a Christianity stripped of its Jewish element (meaning the Bible), and I sense that vast hordes out there have now done just that. If there is a God, and if that God did reveal himself to a people as in the Bible, the fact that our educated elites now nearly unanimously pooh-pooh the whole thing is troublesome, to say the least.Rude
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
BarryA: "Wrong. The argument proves too much. Under this reasoning we could never make any moral judgment, as we would always have to hold our judgment in suspension until we were able to find out Yahweh’s will in that particular situation." If one is a Yahwist (for whatever reasons), and accepts the Hebrew prophets and Jesus as spokesmen for Yahweh, then it seems to me that one would be obliged to follow their instructions as a general rule, but break the established rule only when overridden by Yahweh in an obvious way, as in the case of Abraham, for example. "If a man sheds blood, then his blood must be shed" is a rule of morality. "Take your son up the mountain and kill him" is a specific overriding of that rule. Yahweh didn't make him go thru with it, but Abraham sure didn't know that, and was ready to do the job. "If a man commits adultery with another mans wife, you may, in this instance ignore the previous rule of morality, and take the adulterers out and pile stones on them." And then Yahweh supercedes that rule in a certain specific instance of David and Bethsheba, where they both should have been stoned under the previous rule of morality, but were not. Then later, Jesus comes with a whole different Way. Instead of sending the adulterous woman off to be stoned, he forgives her, because she evidently repented and mercy winds up trumping the moral code given to Moses. You see, it is simply not true that "we could never make any moral judgment." Of course we can and do all the time. There are general principles and specific guides that have been given which are normative. If and when Yahweh wants to override them he certainly seems to make it happen regardless of our level of understanding.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
StephenB [122], my answer is maybe. The only example I can think of is a mystery: as the creeds put it, Jesus is both fully man and fully God. His humanity is both true and, in a sense, false. But maybe you were thinking of a more quotidian example of violations of the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction. I'm not sure. I understand that the "fuzzy logic" community offers some potential ways out of the principle, but I'm not familiar with that literature. My violations of the principle tend to be either mystical (as above) or poetic.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
"Could you define what you would expect one to look like ?" Well, the best moral laws I know are "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as yourself." But those are examples of non-objective laws: their principles cannot be understood at all except in relative contexts.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
getawitness: I would still like to know whether or not you think a thing can be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. In either case, I would like to know why. This is not a trick question, and I am not trying to corner you.StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
"Complaints about them are about as sensible as complaining about allied bombing during WW2 being unjustified because it isn’t as if there was a war going on." Well, I'd say at least some of them were unjustified: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki . . . "GOD KILLS EVERYBODY." Uh huh. That's what I tell my kids at night: "Remember boys, God kills everybody." That helps them a lot. "That the subtly of [the parable form] is lost on you doesn’t mean it is absent." I take it you mean that the parables confirm what we already know to be true. But in fact the Gospels routinely attest that this is not true: not only that they are confusing but that they are designed to confuse. I'd say they are designed to complicate moral questions, not underscore them.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
"an objective one has never existed." Could you define what you would expect one to look like ? You seem to think that nobody could ever disagree even in principle with an objective moral law. But that is nonsense.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
"Jesus did introduce something new and important. He pointed out that morality finally finds its meaning not in “what” we do, but “why” we do it." I'm not sure that is a novel addition. It would seem to be well understood that bad motives poison a good act and no number of good motives can sanctify an evil one. Although Christ did take the whole moral law to a new level. I agree with you there.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
"But seriously. I’m not saying you can’t justify it, I’m just saying you can’t justify it objectively. Certainly it can’t be justified on the grounds of any “self-evident” moral standards." It depends what you are referring too ? The Assyrian attack on Israel. There is nothing that needs justification. Whatever use God made of the actions of the Assyrians does not change the nature of the actions. For the usual collection of events. The background knowledge more than puts them in a context to make them understandable. Complaints about them are about as sensible as complaining about allied bombing during WW2 being unjustified because it isn't as if there was a war going on. "It certainly has no relation to any moral standard ostensibly written on the heart." Of course it does. Surely you can't be so ignorant as to need this explained to you. I will assume you are simply being obtuse. "No self-evident moral principle undergirds this" Umm ... again, you are joking right. You seem unaware that in the end, "GOD KILLS EVERYBODY". Seriously, it is his right to do so. I don't see why this is difficult for people to understand. You are making the common mistake of assuming you are on an level playing field with the creator. Sorry, you are mistaken. "Note also that Jesus did not explain his moral principles either objectively or logically. Instead, he told stories. “" That the subtly of it is lost on you doesn't mean it is absent.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
BarryA [108], Dostoevsky may have been wrong at least in this sense: everything is permissible even with God. And society can prohibit lots of things without an objective moral code. In fact, I would say that it always has: while lots of (more or less) good moral codes have been written, an objective one has never existed. But by now the path is predictable: eventually we will have repeated affirmations of Paul Giem's accusation [87] -- which I had already predicted -- that non-objectivists play down actual historical evils such as the holocaust and/or have no reason to behave decently. Where's kairosfocus when you need him?getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Leave a Reply