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
Clumsey Brute: "1) Certain things are really wrong only if there is an objective Moral Law. 2) Certain things are really wrong. 3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Law." How do you determine what is really wrong objectively?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
ellazimm, thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. Just a few quick comments. You may find it puzzling that various practices that are thoroughly disapproved of by the majority now once had majority approval, but I suspect that we shall just have to accept the fact, puzzling or not, which is why majority vote is not an unerring guide to morality. When I say that the Golden Rule is transcendent, I mean something similar to BarryA's comment that the Holocaust was "really evil". The Golden Rule is morally correct, whether you or I or our whole society believes in it or not. Can we know that? Not by experimental evidence. But the fact that it has stood the test of time, and has been widely recognized, suggests (although not infallibly) that in fact it is morally correct. I believe that it is in fact morally correct, according to a transcendent morality. I suspect that you do too; certainly you have stated that you try to live your life that way. You say, "Perhaps the materialists are wrong, abosolutely. I think the more open minded ones would say: show me the evidence." The apparent existence of a transcendent morality is evidence that the materialists are wrong. For morality is not made up of force fields or particles or some other material entity. One can deny that evidence. But one does so at the cost of getting rid of any transcendent morality. Most materialists don't really believe that. For they talk as if non-materialists are wrong, and should acknowledge this fact and change their beliefs, whereas if there truly is no transcendent morality, one cannot accurately say that one "should" do anything. And in the United States at least, the vast majority believes that materialists are wrong. If the majority rules on matters of morality, should materialists change their minds? ;) I understand the sentiment behind claiming not to be bothered by what consenting adults do as long as they stay out of your face. There are problems with this stance. If your husband/wife (I suspect you are female but cannot tell for sure from your name) decided to consent to sex acts with someone else, would it matter if you didn't find out? Would it matter if you did find out? Would the finding out be the problem? Would it matter if the person he/she was having sex acts with was infected with HIV? With Hepatitis C? How much out of your face do they have to be? Should gays be forced back into the closet so they will stay out of everyone's face? What about President Ahmadinejad, who said that there were no gays in Iran [at least not now ;) ]. How does one determine adulthood? Is 18 old enough? Should we make it 16, or 21, or is there some kind of "sex test" (perhaps an intelligence test or information test) that the person must pass? Perhaps most importantly, does the fact that consenting adults are staying out of everyone's face make what they do right, as opposed to legal? Is everything that is not illegal automatically morally right? Or vice versa?Paul Giem
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
BarryA -
Was the holocaust evil? Without a doubt.
How do you come to this conclusion? I agree with you, but I want to see what argument you use to get to it. IOW, how do you decide whether something is "truly evil"? BobBob O'H
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
“Everyone calls “fouls.” Everyone protests that certain things are wrong. By doing so we are presupposing an objective Moral Law.” I don’t know if I agree with this entirely. We all call “fouls”, but this could be based on our subjective view of a given situation. I think a more compelling argument is the overwhelming objection to things such as cold-blooded murder. Even murderers often confess the act was amoral. This does not seem to be something based upon societal acceptance/influence. For example, abortion is legal, yet a great number of people object to what society has deemed “moral”, myself included. Even in the case of women who have had abortions that I personally know, neither of them think the act was a “good choice” or “moral decision” In fact, they are both ashamed of it. I realize this is a small statistical sample, however.shaner74
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
getawitness: "I believe in a moral law but find the notion of “objective” law incoherent." So then you do not believe in an OBJECTIVE moral law. "The Bible is not “silent” on slavery; it talks about it all the time. There are even instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). Slavery of Hebrews is wrong, but slavery of others is OK (Leviticus 25:44-46). Etc. etc." I am not an adherent to Judaism, so I do not view the Old Testament books as moral commands but as historical records of what happened to the Hebrew people. "During the abolition debates, a whole new way of reading the Bible had to emerge: one which stressed broad moral principles over the “objective laws” of the Bible. And a good thing too!" I think that "whole new way of reading the Bible" emerged with Christ and his apostles. Which explains why the people mostly responsible for the abolition of slavery were Christians. You rightfully believe that America improved with the abolition of slavery. But to improve means to get closer to an objective standard. Does it not?Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Collin: "What if there are ten codes of moral law and we have some reason to believe that one of them is “the” objective law, how would we know that other than by reference to how it makes us feel and with reference to our upbringing and culture?" That's a great question. I have not researched enough in Natural Law theory to come to an informed conclusion on how we come to know it. But I would say that there is a common law that transcends all cultures. And I think our quarrels are evidence of this fact (read the opening chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity). Two cultures could not quarrel (each claiming they have been wronged somehow and each justifying their own actions) if they did not agree on some objective rules or laws. If each basketball team made up their own rules, no one could call a foul on their opponent. The only way they can call a foul is because there is an objective set of rules that both teams are aware of and agree upon. If each culture made up its own morality then no one could call a "foul" on another culture. We could not say, for example, that suicide bombing is wrong. Doing so presupposes some objective laws or rules that is independent of cultural preferences. And when a "foul" is called no culture says, "To hell with your standard." They almost always attempt to justify their actions and argue that their behavior is somehow justified due to exceptional circumstances. "Yes, suicide bombing is wrong, but these people are desperate. It is their only option." Everyone calls "fouls." Everyone protests that certain things are wrong. By doing so we are presupposing an objective Moral Law.Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
And why should you, personally, obey any of it? The honest atheist must admit that there is no basis for obeying this vestige of evolution.
Indeed. And some very prominent ones do (e.g. this Dawkins guy who seems unpopular around here). There seems to be an opinion around UD that evolutionary biology should be prescriptive about morality. But for that argument to have any weight, one has to explain why the naturalistic fallacy (which is not to be confused with the naturistic fallacy) isn't a fallacy. BobBob O'H
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
allanius, "There is a link between ID and law." Very likely. I have been arguing here for some time that ID must be seen as a perspective with spiritual implications. In this I'm closer to Dembski and Behe than is (for example) DaveScot.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
BarryA, What you call "quibbling and pettifogging" is the stuff of argument. You're a lawyer; quibbling and pettifogging is your bread and butter. :-) And I still think the syllogism equivocates on "evil" (see 37 above). StephenB, my best friend is unmarried.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
One more thing: saying "the holocaust was objectively evil, so we know that God didn't cause it" doesn't answer the question, unless you can prove the basis of the claim.Stanton Rockwell
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Sorry, but trying to limit the terms of your syllogism won't allow you to squirm out of logical discourse. Do you have certain knowledge for example, that God didn't cause the holocaust? We have documentary historical evidence of similar acts ascribed to God in the past, don't we? If God caused the holocaust to happen, then it's not objectively evil, is it?Stanton Rockwell
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
There is a link between ID and law. Not only does Michael Behe's work help to make it clear that life is unlikely to have appeared by purely natural means, but it also makes us more mindful of the great value of life. This value is the basis of revealed moral law. Hume complained about "vulgar" moralizing that typically begins by invoking an "is" but proceeds to conclusions that have no clear relation to this "is." This objection poses no difficulty with regard to revealed law, where the connection to the value of life is obvious.allanius
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Stanton, no we don't. My syllogism is limited to consideration of one and only one event -- the holocaust. Was the holocaust evil? Without a doubt. Was it evil without regard to whether any particular person or group of persons subjectively believed it to be evil? Again, without a doubt. Both of these statements are true, but they can be true ONLY if there is a transcendant moral code. Therefore, a transcendant moral code exists. Any attempt to get around this conclusion rapidly devolves into quibbling and pettifogging of the sort we have already seen.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
The Bible is not "silent" on slavery; it talks about it all the time. There are even instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7). Slavery of Hebrews is wrong, but slavery of others is OK (Leviticus 25:44-46). Etc. etc. During the abolition debates, a whole new way of reading the Bible had to emerge: one which stressed broad moral principles over the "objective laws" of the Bible. And a good thing too!getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Short answer: I believe in a moral law but find the notion of "objective" law incoherent.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
getawitness: "the Bible clearly does not view slavery as objectively wrong, so it better not be your source for an objective Moral Law." First, the Bible is not my source for the objective Moral Law, but it was a good guess at my personal religious beliefs. It was also, however, a poor attempt to dodge Barry A's and mine argument for the existence of a Moral Law. You have only responded that "materialists would deny the first premise." But you've also admitted that you are not a materialist. So do you believe in a Moral Law or not? What is your response to our arguemnt? Secondly, to comment on your Bible statement, can you back up the claim that the Bible does not view slavery as objectively wrong? It seems to me that because the Bible is silent on the slavery issue, it does not follow that it teaches slavery is okay. A document which records historic accounts of slavery, genocide, etc. cannot be said to support those events merely for recording them. But on a side note, I don't want to get into a long discussion about the Bible since it is irrelevant to our discussion. I'm more interested in your response on whether you believe in an objective Moral Law or not.Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Some of the rationalizations on this thread are not to be believed. I can just picture some of you dialoguing with Moses: “I am open to truth, but I am having serious epistemological problems with “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.” Your simplistic notion of unfaithfulness leaves me wondering if you appreciate the complexities involved in relating my conception of consciousness with the real world. Further, you appear not to be familiar with Kant’s categorical imperative. Indeed, as a theist, I am sensitive to the transcendental aspects of morality, but I also believe in an evolving moral code that reflects the environmental changes that impact human behavior. Although, I may appear to be a subjectivist, I renounce the mindless moral relativism that so many in that camp subscribe to. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that there is a subjective element involved in every objective act. If you could just be a little more explicit with your terms, I might be able to process your points and translate them into some kind of behavioral code. Besides, I’m in love with my best friend’s wife.”StephenB
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
BarryA, I'll grant that the paragraph is exactly germane, but it's not a red herring either. If it's a red herring, why do I keep hearing the contrary argument? It anticipates a common form of objection. In fact, I have seen plenty of debates about morality in which the materialist (or relativist, etc.) is told that without a transcendent moral law he has no reason for making moral judgments. I've even seen that claim made at UD, several times.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
BarryA said:
Given my definition of “truly evil” the first premise is self-evidently true.
It's not that easy, unfortunately. We have to consider instances when acts of mass homicide/genocide are not objectively wrong, as in the Old Testament.Stanton Rockwell
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Actually BarryA, as I think about it, there may be an equivocation on the term "evil." That is, in the major premise, "evil" refers to the kind of moral understanding of the premise itself (self-evident to those who accept it). But many people who don't hold to the major premise would agree with the minor premise where "evil" refers to (nearly) universal human repugnance, offensiveness -- that is, our emotional disgust at the fact of the holocaust. These two senses of "evil" should be distinguished.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
BTW getawitness, your next paragraph is a classic red herring. A prudential debate about what to do about evil has nothing to do with whether an even is in fact truly evil, which was what we were talking about. Red herrings are a rhetorical device for directing the discussion away from the main point when you are beaten on the main point. I take it that by employing this red herring, you are as much as admitting that you have been soundly thrashed. Thank you. ;-) I really do enjoy debating you.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Carl Sach -- But that’s in part because I’m deeply skeptical of their being any single correct metaphysics — whether monistic or dualistic, material or spiritual. It seems more sensible to be skeptical of a claim that there would be multiple correct metaphysics.tribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
In terms of progress: I would say that progress is measured by the increase or decrease of the sphere of human recognition. You mean like to those in the womb? /sarctribune7
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
getawitness says, "I would say that most materialists would deny the first premise." And they would be wrong. Given my definition of "truly evil" the first premise is self-evidently true.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Clumsy Brute, I think BarryA's syllogism was better formed. All I have to say about yours is that the Bible clearly does not view slavery as objectively wrong, so it better not be your source for an objective Moral Law.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
clumsy brute, say there is an objective moral law. how would we know it? What if there are ten codes of moral law and we have some reason to believe that one of them is "the" objective law, how would we know that other than by reference to how it makes us feel and with reference to our upbringing and culture?Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
BarryA, A good reformulation, though I would say that most materialists would deny the first premise. I have a hard time trying to figure out the form of that first premise, by the way: it is an O-proposition (particular affirmative) or an I-proposition (particular negative)? The question "How would you answer the Nazi?" is always interesting. But of course, as I've said before, the materialist and the non-materialist are both in the same pickle as far as what to do. The materialist is not, I think, reduced to saying "that he personally does not prefer holocausts" any more than the Christian must say that he will fight any holocaust currently ongoing. You're conflating materialism with solipsism. There are holocausts going on now about which you and I are doing nothing. If they are absolute evil, should we not quit our computers right now? The answer to moral questions, for the Christian as much as for the materialist, remains "it depends."getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
getawitness, "I love your name, by the way." Haha. Thanks. "I’d say it’s a materialist position, not the> materialist position. The existentialist, as I mentioned above, is one alternate version." I'd say they are one in the same. Jean-Paul Sartre really got to the core of the issue when he said, "Existence precedes essence." The materialist and the existentialist share the same metaphysical assumption that humans (and the world) are NOT the product of a purposeful goal-directed process. In other words, in the materialists' view there is no "way things are SUPPOSED to be." There is only the way things are. And you, Hume, Sartre, Barry A, and I all agree that one cannot get an "ought" from that metaphysical assumption. However, one CAN get an "ought" from the opposite metaphysical assumption. If essence precedes existence, then we can get an "ought." If there is in fact a "way things are SUPPOSED to be," then we can rightfully say that certain things ought not be. I think it is evident that certain things ought not be. Therefore I conclude that the materialist/existentialist metaphysic is false. "I can’t even get to the premises because the terms are so woolly." My apologies. Let me be more clear. By "objective" I mean it is independent of our beliefs/preferences. For example, slavery is wrong whether there is a law against it or not , whether I believe it or not, and whether I like it or not. It is wrong independently of my beliefs/preferences. So: 1) Slavery is objectively wrong only if there is an objective Moral Law. 2) Slavery is objectively wrong. 3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Law. Now, which premise do you disagree with? ;-)Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
OK getawitness, let’s see if we can make the syllogism more precise by using the classic example of evil. 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. Now the syllogism: An action can be truly evil only if a transcendent moral code exists. The holocaust was truly evil. Therefore, a transcendent moral code exists. Given his premises the materialist can never say the holocaust was “truly evil” in the way I’ve defined “truly evil” above. The best he can do is say something to the effect that most people think the holocaust was evil and he agrees with them. In other words, the materialist can never say that holocaust was evil in any absolute sense. All he can say is that he personally does not prefer holocausts. Since we know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the holocaust was in fact truly evil, the materialist’s position is shown to be false. Now we can, as you say, all go home. The syllogism is unanswerable.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
I think that one immediate implication of darwinism is that it may be unethical to help the weak, because they may reproduce and pass on that weakness. But with design, you might presume more easily that not only does that person have intrinsic worth (if there is a soul) but that their genes may still have positive value, front-loading type value. Could Mary have had a genetic disorder and still given birth to Jesus? I think so.Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply