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
Mike1962 writes: I readily assent that the Holocaust was evil relative to western morality, and my Baptist and Mormon upbringing. But “truly evil” assumes we know what Yahweh’s will was (assuming a Yahwist view here) regarding the situation. 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. Was Ted Bundy evil? Well, I can’t say, because I simply can’t discount the possibility that Yahweh told him to rape and murder all those women. The argument borders on (no, it goes past the border) the absurd.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
StephenB, no argument here. That's why I said his ethical teachings are sublime. Still, he did not teach a new ethics. He taught us a better way to understand the ethical code that was there all along.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Barry A: Jason Rennie: I am generally in agreement with your well-developed theme that there is only one moral code. There is no “Christian Moral Code” that would separate it from what we all know (if we acknowledge it) as the "natural moral law." In general, I think that is a fair statement, and I think it both frames issue and defines the debate. I would, however, humbly submit this amendment. 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. In other words, he probes the behavior for intentions, motives, and patterns, dramatizing the point that we can do the right things for the wrong reasons. In my judgment, that takes objective morality to a whole new level. In fact, it goes the materialists one better. It points out that even the natural moral law in its primitive state is not as noble as it is in its perfect state.StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
mike1962 [109], Is not the very idea you have in your head right now of an absolute morality, regardless of what it might be, an interesting, and perhaps, puzzling notion? Well, sure. That's partly why I'm still here. (Though I'm not sure the notion in my head is of an absolute morality. There are absolute revulsions etc.) Clumsy Brute [106], You dance really well. That’s an unnecessarily complicated way of admitting that you do not believe in an objective Moral Law. I have a question for you: Is the notion “objective” objectively incoherent? Or is it just incoherent for you? ;-) About the dancing: I used to teach at Arthur Murray Da-- no, wait, that was D. James Kennedy. About the incoherence of objectivity: objectivity is a historical concept. To put a new wrinkle in it, I'd say that objectivity is relatively incoherent: pretty incoherent for me and those sharing convergent thought-styles (to use a term from Fleck), but likely less incoherent and maybe pretty coherent for lots of others. Objective/subject and absolute/relative are different conceptual axes. Carl Sachs [100], quite right. Materialism as such does not seem to require abandoning objectivity. Since I'm not a materialist myself, I'll not say that for sure, however. I'm happy to be a non-materialist, non-objectivist, relativist Christian. Jason Rennie [97], to paraphrase one evil guy, Who now remembers the Assyrian genocide? 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. This happens all the time with Biblical morality. In fact, the first moral prohibition -- "don't eat that fruit over there" -- is so far from being self-evident as to be absurd. It certainly has no relation to any moral standard ostensibly written on the heart. Well, perhaps the relation of Adam and Eve to God, if you take the story literally (I do not). But that's not an objective standard: it's relational. Another example: the flood of Noah's time. Any child old enough to understand this will find it confusing, even repugnant. For most people, it offends our sense of right and wrong (note I did not say objective sense). "Really? God killed everbody except this one guy? And his wife and family?" No self-evident moral principle undergirds this: that's why it has to be explained carefully, in fact tip-toeing around self-evident moral principles It can only be explained by means of theology, which Mencken memorably defined as "the explanation of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing." Note also that Jesus did not explain his moral principles either objectively or logically. Instead, he told stories. "Who is my neighbor?" "There was this Samaritan..." So when you, Jason [102], say I don’t generally let something as inaccurate and ephemeral as feelings guide my actions where possible, I'm perplexed, both because I don't think intellect works without feelings -- see Damasio's book Descartes' Error -- and because appeals to emotion are used routinely in almost all moral texts inlcuding the Bible.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
“But what if Yahweh told you in a metaphysical certain way that the Holocaust was his will? Would it have been truly evil or not?” But Yahweh tells us in a metaphysical certain way that thou shalt not murder, that we shoud be merciful and compassionate, and that we should love our neighbor. People in the past have believed that their creator take pleasure in slaughter and the sacrifice of their children. Yahweh makes it clear He doesn't. We have to take the reality as it is.tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
"But what if Yahweh told you in a metaphysical certain way that the Holocaust was his will? Would it have been truly evil or not?" Is there any doubt at all that the holocaust was inline with the sovereign will of God ? That does not render the act other than one of monstrous evil and it does not get the perpetrators off the hook for their actions. That God can bring some good (and more good than evil even) from this event does not change the nature of the act itself. "There are a few ways to answer this, depending on one’s definition of “evil.”" I'm pretty sure there is only one meaningful way to define evil. Evil is the absence of the good. Suffering is just one manifestation of evil. It should be obvious from evil a couple of minutes reflection that evil is not a thing, just as darkness is not a thing as such, but the absence of something else. "If we define evil as going contrary to Yahweh’s will, then it would have been evil if it was not Yahweh’s will, and would not have been evil if it had been Yahweh’s will." That definition would be defective though. Especially in light of the usual distinction between God's moral will and God's sovereign will. Frankly that definition you put forward would apply to Allah better than God.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
DLH, "What BarryA is referring to is moral evil explicitly contrary to moral law, such as the Holocaust, directly by persons, and indirectly by evil intelligent agents." Does that mean that evil intelligent agents can introduce new evil CSI????? Or is that CSEI? I'm just tryin' to get back to the science here.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
getawitness, Forget about the particulars of this or that moral code. Is not the very idea you have in your head right now of an absolute> morality, regardless of what it might be, an interesting, and perhaps, puzzling notion? How can a sense of the absolute exist in a collection of atoms? I don't know about you, but I find it, well, attractive.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
At the end of the day, the materialist is forced to say, “The good is the desirable, and the desirable is what I actually desire.” Dostoevsky summed it all up nicely in The Brothers Karamozov: "Without God [by which he meant God’s transcendent moral code] anything is permissible and everything is now permissible."BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
-----getawitness: "I don’t believe in things I find incoherent. On the other hand, I don’t exactly disbelieve them either, since I think disbelieving would posit a kind of minimal coherence to the principle." Do you believe that a thing can be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances? If so, why? If not, why not?StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
getawitness [42,79]: "I believe in a moral law but find the notion of “objective” law incoherent...I don’t believe in things I find incoherent. On the other hand, I don’t exactly disbelieve them either, since I think disbelieving would posit a kind of minimal coherence to the principle." You dance really well. That's an unnecessarily complicated way of admitting that you do not believe in an objective Moral Law. I have a question for you: Is the notion "objective" objectively incoherent? Or is it just incoherent for you? ;-)Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs, You said, "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." This sounds as though you are saying, "The 'objective morality or materialism' dichotomy is only a problem for people who already believe the dichotomy." That is a horrible argument. One could simply reverse this and say, "Carl, the reason you don't think there is a dichotomy is because you already believe there is no dichotomy." Many great philosophers (materialists and theists alike) have agreed on this dichotomy. It is perfectly rational. I think the burden of proof is on the new philosophers, such as yourself, who want to claim the contrary. If there is no God, then how can there be an OBJECTIVE moral law?Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
I think that there are two objective moralities, and many subjective ones. The first objective one is the simple hedonist one that we are all born with. Pleasure is good, pain is bad. The other objective morality is the one that a transcendent being (God) reveals; a higher morality if you will. But how is that revealed, and how do we know it is objective and not subjective?Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Jason, See post #95mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
“You do believe in objective morality and think mass slaughter is always wrong — except when it’s right!” Don’t equivocate on terms. That I am mature enough to think carefully about something and understand the context and reality of the situation is not a bad thing. Jason, I am struggling with this and perhaps it is because I am not as versed in Christian theology as you are. Could you perhaps take a moment and help my understand why slaughter, as practiced on the Assyrians, is not objectively evil? I struggle with the explanation that God willed it. Perhaps it is my 21st century mindset, but there is a fine line between mystic and schizophrenic. How do we know what God truly willed?poachy
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
"But would you, as an eye witness to the slaughter of innocent baby’s *felt* strongly that those baby’s fate was evil?" I don't generally let something as inaccurate and ephemeral as feelings guide my actions where possible. "Or would you have jumped right on it, as a 21st century Christian and helped bash in the baby’s skulls? (Sorry, if this offends you, but I believe it is necessary to make my point.)" Mike you aren't even in the league of what it would take to insult or offend me. What would I have done ? No idea, i'm not in the situation. "But what about the “innocent” ones? What about the innocent little kids and babies who were ripped out of their mother’s wombs and had their heads bashed in against the rocks by the invaders because northern tribes of Israel had rebelled against Yahweh? (See Hosea 13:16)" Is this not the fault of the parents ? They are the ones who put their children in such circumstances. Plus there is assumptions in your claim underlying their fate. What do you base these assumptions on, and unless they are explicitly biblical assumptions they are invalid given the context of the claim. "You would have thought the act was evil, wouldn’t you? Your most bedrock feelings would undoubtedly have said yes." I don't trust feelings, but additionally what makes you claim it was not an evil act for the Assyrian invader in question ? "But, as the text states, Yahweh allowed the situation as an effect of the guilt of the adults’ rebellion. (The babies sure didn’t bring this on themselves.)" The parents brought it on their offspring by their rebellion. But you are assuming that the Assyrians are blameless for their conduct while they were being used as an instrument of judgment. What exactly do you base this claim on ? "So what is right? The feeling of evil you (like me) would have surely had on seeing an invader bash the babies heads, or Yahweh’s decision to send in the invaders to make a mess of them?" Why is it either/or ? There is no contradiction between the two that is explicit. You may have some implicit premise that makes a contradiction but you need to make it an explict premise and we can examine its reasonableness. "So being a Yahwist, I would have to side with Kierkegaard and say that no moral argument, Nature Law or otherwise, can deal with a situation like this. Yahweh’s will trumps our assessment." You are mistaken IMO. Also, you seem to be missing the obvious point that in the end , "God kills everybody". There are no deaths that are not caused directly by or allowed to come to pass by Him.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
It might be time for everyone to step back and define what is evil and how that differs from what we find unpleasant or undesirable. And does what we find unpleasant or undesirable change with circumstances and is really relativistic. And if something is evil what does it apply to. Is it the act or is it what happens to someone or is it the person who is responsible for the action. We do use the expression an "evil person." Does it only apply to humans or can it apply to animals and if it applies to animals how do we distinguish between a slug and man's best friend. Supposedly the main issue in Christianity is salvation and given that, there is only one true evil, the lack of salvation. So are the other things which we are considering evil only worldly things and not really truly evil but only reflect our squeamish feelings and what makes us squeamish changes as we get more technological advanced or our environment changes. Then there is the question is it possible for one person to cause another person to lose salvation? And then an even more interesting question is can that person be saved?jerry
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
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. In the absence of that assumption, there is simply no reason -- none at all -- that objective morality poses any challenge or problem for "materialism." There may be reasons for or against objectivity in morality, and there may be debates worth having about what objective morality does and does not mean. (I tend towards a deflationary account of morality as objective but fallible.) And there may be reasons for or against materialism in metaphysics, whatever "materialism" is. (I tend to think that materialism is utterly unworkable, but that's as may be.) But since I'm not now and never have been Christian, and my interest in Christian ethics and theology only goes so far, I'll bow out of the rest of this conversation.Carl Sachs
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
DLH: "The examples you gave of death and suffering are nominally natural occurrences such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. What BarryA is referring to is moral evil explicitly contrary to moral law, such as the Holocaust, directly by persons, and indirectly by evil intelligent agents." So then, would you considering that suffering requires an active agent to be "truly evil?" Anyway, see my previous post. I think that's pretty much all I can for now.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
"Interesting. I don’t believe in some phantom objectivity, and yet I think genocide is always wrong." Wrong only means something like, "I don't like genocide" so your proclamation lacks meaning. "You do believe in objective morality and think mass slaughter is always wrong — except when it’s right!" Don't equivocate on terms. That I am mature enough to think carefully about something and understand the context and reality of the situation is not a bad thing. "Clearly your principled defense of slaughter beats my wishy-washy abhorrence of same." Easily because your "abhorrence" is based on a lack of understanding of the whole situation. Blathering on like you do from your position of profound ignorance is not really a virtue. "Who’s the relativist here?" You are. A robust and mature moral foundation will include things like just war theory and realism about the nature of the application of force, weighing consequences etc, by comparison a knee jerk revulsion without consideration of the actual situation is typical of an immature and underdeveloped moral sense. Its ok, you can work on it.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
getawitness: "mike1962 — is trying to suggest that the holocaust is not really evil. Of course it is. It does not, however, necessitate a universal moral code." What do you mean by "really evil?" By what standard are you judging that the Holocaust was "really evil?" "There were Christians on both sides: plenty quoted the Bible (New Testament too) to support slavery." My point was that the people who were responsible for the abolition of slavery were logically acting out Christ's teachings. They were not logically acting out the idea that morality is simply cultural preference. The pro-slavery Christians were acting inconsistent with Christ's teachings.Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Getting back to the essence: BarryA, "The holocaust was “truly evil.” By “truly evil” I mean that even if in the opinion of any person or group of persons or an entire society, the holocaust was good, it would still be evil. Indeed, if everyone in the world thought the holocaust was good, they would all be wrong, and the holocaust would still be truly evil." But what if Yahweh told you in a metaphysical certain way that the Holocaust was his will? Would it have been truly evil or not? There are a few ways to answer this, depending on one's definition of "evil." If we define evil as suffering, then the Holocaust was evil, since the victims obviously suffered. (This seems to be the definition assumed here today.) If we define evil as going contrary to Yahweh's will, then it would have been evil if it was not Yahweh's will, and would not have been evil if it had been Yahweh's will. This seems patently clear to me.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
mike1962 The examples you gave of death and suffering are nominally natural occurrences such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. What BarryA is referring to is moral evil explicitly contrary to moral law, such as the Holocaust, directly by persons, and indirectly by evil intelligent agents.DLH
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Would it be helpful to understand "the Holocaust" as "Hitler's actions and motivations in perpetuating the Holocaust"? Perhaps targeting the main human source of the Holocaust's evil will help clear up some of the objections.Apollos
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
For what it's worth, the Tanakh (Old Testament) uses the term "evil" to indicate a calamity of some kind. Undesirable things that humans in Yahweh eye's are "abominable." Bad things that happen to people, like suffering and death, are "evil." When the terms are used that way, the Bible makes sense to me. And in effect, the term Barry and Jason have been using - "truly evil" - is simply too vague without further definition.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Paul Giem: "I’ll repeat the question. Do you have reason to believe that the Holocaust was not, in fact, truly evil?" I readily assent that the Holocaust was evil relative to western morality, and my Baptist and Mormon upbringing. But "truly evil" assumes we know what Yahweh's will was (assuming a Yahwist view here) regarding the situation. When I see a non-Christian getting cancer, my rock bottom feelings is that it is evil, and that death is evil, and that if there was anything I could do to stop it, I would. But what if it's God's will for that person to suffer, die and go straight to hell? What good are my innermost feelings in the situation with regards how "truly evil" it is? (For the record, if it would have been in my power to prevent the Holocaust, I would have. If it was in my power to create a paradise on this earth, I would do it immediately. But obviously my views and feeling are not relevant. And neither are anyone else's either, except the Highest Power.)mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Jason: "Actually the answer to the question is, no it was not evil." But would you, as an eye witness to the slaughter of innocent baby's *felt* strongly that those baby's fate was evil? Or would you have jumped right on it, as a 21st century Christian and helped bash in the baby's skulls? (Sorry, if this offends you, but I believe it is necessary to make my point.) "There is quite a bit of background to be gone into to understand the circumstances , have a read of http://christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html to get a feel for some of the background that you are likely missing in judging the event reasonably." Yes, I know all about that situation and the other ones in the Tanakh, which is different than the one I mentioned (Assyrian invasion of Israel.) But getting back to my question: of course, the adults were into many things you and I would undoubtably find detestable given our upbringing. But what about the "innocent" ones? What about the innocent little kids and babies who were ripped out of their mother's wombs and had their heads bashed in against the rocks by the invaders because northern tribes of Israel had rebelled against Yahweh? (See Hosea 13:16) If you would have been standing in the middle of all of that, and saw an invader bashing a baby's head against the rocks, I'm willing to bet that the same sort of feeling you get about the Holocaust would have risen up in you. You would have thought the act was evil, wouldn't you? Your most bedrock feelings would undoubtedly have said yes. But, as the text states, Yahweh allowed the situation as an effect of the guilt of the adults' rebellion. (The babies sure didn't bring this on themselves.) So what is right? The feeling of evil you (like me) would have surely had on seeing an invader bash the babies heads, or Yahweh's decision to send in the invaders to make a mess of them? So being a Yahwist, I would have to side with Kierkegaard and say that no moral argument, Nature Law or otherwise, can deal with a situation like this. Yahweh's will trumps our assessment.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Paul Giem, And so it comes: before I've even finished typing, someone -- in this case, you -- suggests that someone on the other side -- in this case, mike1962 -- is trying to suggest that the holocaust is not really evil. Of course it is. It does not, however, necessitate a universal moral code.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
BarryA, if you're not equivocating, then the syllogism is pointless. (You'd probably agree with that, since you think these things are all self-evident.) The syllogism would only work argumentatively if someone like me thinks that "evil" in the sense of (nearly) universally offensive is the same thing as "evil" in the sense of "entailing a universal moral code." Since it isn't, I can agree with the minor premise but not with the major premise. Nobody is denying, by the way, the idea that the holocaust was a great evil. What is being questioned is whether anything is evil in the sense you mean. (I'm just heading off the likely charge that those on the other side of this debate are trying to minimize the evil of the holocaust.)getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
mike1962, The evidence for the Holocaust being evil is pretty obvious to one who does not activly wish to deny it. My question was, since you do not believe that we know that beyond any shadow of doubt (otherwise you would concede the point), would you concede the point that we know that the Holocaust was evil beyond reasonable doubt, that is, doubt for which we can give a reason? Can you think of a reason why we should not believe that the Holocaust was evil? Claiming that you are only asking an epistemological question doesn't help. I am also asking an epistemological question. I assume that you try to conform your view to what you believe to be best supported epistemologically, so if I ask for your view, I am asking for (I think) what you consider to be best supported epistemologically. If there is a disconnect here, please let me know, as I have no need to discuss these issues with someone who doesn't believe what he is saying. I'll repeat the question. Do you have reason to believe that the Holocaust was not, in fact, truly evil?Paul Giem
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply