Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Self Evident Moral Truth [Updated]

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some years ago I posted an excerpt from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov brings his indictment against God to his brother Alyosha.  In it he describes a number of atrocities based on real life stories.  (Warning:  Not for the faint of heart): 

People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that’s all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mother’s eyes. Doing it before the mother’s eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion; they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say.

 I asked our materialist friends whether it is self-evidently true that torturing young children for fun is morally evil in all places at all times even if everyone believes otherwise for whatever reason.  I got a lot of hand waving and attempts to change the subject.  I did not get any unequivocal answers from our materialist interlocutors.   

Let’s try again.  I say two things:  (1) Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil; and (2) this is true at all times and in all places and in all cultures and under all circumstances even if everyone in a particular place and time were to disagree with me. 

I challenge materialists everywhere.  Come onto this website and start your answer with the following:   

Response to proposition one:  True or False

Response to proposition two:  True or False 

Then defend your position. 

All attempts to evade the question or change the subject (such as bringing up specious discussions of obscure Old Testament texts) will be ruthlessly deleted, so don’t waste our time trying to put them in the combox.   

Do you have the courage to face the questions head on?  In my experience, some materialists do but most do not.  We’ll see.

UPDATE: This post has been up three days now.  Only two materialists have had the courage to answer the questions.  There have been several attempts to obfuscate, confuse and change the subject, all of which, as promised, have been ruthlessly deleted.  Come on materialists.  You’re letting your side down.  Have the courage to come in here and defend your views. 

Comments
timothya: I guess you either will not, or cannot, answer the question, because you keep begging the question. You have now moved the question from: (1) "what standard is used to claim that 'taking personal responsibility' is ***better*** than abrogating that responsibility to a sky pixie, to the question: (2) "what standard is used to claim that 'taking personal responsibility' is ***better*** than accepting what other people (whomever I decide) say on the matter"? This is standard question-begging, and also hypocritical when you consider that you also said: “The existing social consensus does in my opinion define “morality” …” Also: are you not going to tell me what "taking personal responsibility" means, and how it is significant? Who or what are you accountable to when you "take personal responsibility"? Is it anything more than empty rhetoric? Are you also not going to respond to the self contradiction I pointed out above? Here it is again: timothya said: “The existing social consensus does in my opinion define “morality” …” timothya said: “And, no, I don’t believe that that there is a moral standard beyond personal views.” timothya, I suggest you stop and really consider the problems you are facing here. When this kind of hypocrisy, self-conflict and question-begging pile up, it's because you have an irrational worldview on the subject at hand.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST
“Without accepting that some things are self-evidently true, no meaningful debate is possible. We must accept logical principles as valid or else we cannot make valid statements about anything. You cannot prove logical principles are valid, because without logical principles, there’s nothing to use to make such proofs.” Agree “Can anyone prove that they have free will? No, but we must assume it or else we have no basis to make arguments or moral choices. Agree “That, too, must be accepted as a self-evident truth.” Well, you have your friends at “Why evolution is true” that do not accept the existance of free will, then it is not a self evident truth. At least for every person. May be you have to clarify what do you mean by “self evident”. “And so, we come to morality; without self-evident truths, we are left with moral solipsism, and have no reason to even argue it. Yet, here you are, and others, arguing about morality as if there is some truth to find, as if it matters, as if some things are actually right, wrong, better, worse, and that there is “progress” towards some standard that can be achieved.” The lack of progress if self-evident moral truths do not exists do not make self-evident moral truths exist. “If we cannot agree that it is self-evidently wrong to torture children for fun, no matter if others accept it a or not, but that it is as wrong as the proposition that A does not equal A, and as wrong as the proposition that we do not have free will but are all just biological automatons barking at each other according to the whim of chemistry and physics, and as wrong as the proposition that everything we experience is a solipsistic delusion … then we have no grounds to debate morality. You might as well debate a solipsist about whether or not other people exist, or debate someone who eschews logic on the topic of exclusionary principles.” Do not have grounds to debate morality is possible answer, you have to demostrate that your proposition is a self evident truth. When you deny that A cannot be not-A at the same time you enter in contradiction, you cannot follow an argument. I can say there is not self.evident moral truth a mantain a logical argument. Of course The end of that argument is that moral is a subjective concept and I have to accept the consecuences of that, but that can be a truth.Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST
The answer should be obvious to you: if I delegate my moral choices to a sky pixie, then I have assume it makes correct decisions about how I should behave. But, the only basis I have for understanding the sky pixie's moral imperatives are what other human beings say about the matter (the Pope, the local megachurch pastor, the ayatollah, you etc etc). You do see the problem, don't you?timothya
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST
TA asks: "What question is being begged? It isn’t clear to me." The question of what standard you are referring to when you say it is ***better*** that you take responsibility for your moral choices instead of abrogating it to a mythical sky pixie. Better by what standard?William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PST
Blas said: "You can make a logical argument that given the definition of numbers and multiplication 9 x 9 can be only 81. Can you make the same with your first proposition or any other moral statement?" How will you convince them that logical principles are valid? Without accepting that some things are self-evidently true, no meaningful debate is possible. We must accept logical principles as valid or else we cannot make valid statements about anything. You cannot prove logical principles are valid, because without logical principles, there's nothing to use to make such proofs. Can anyone prove that they have free will? No, but we must assume it or else we have no basis to make arguments or moral choices. That, too, must be accepted as a self-evident truth. Can I prove that anything actually exists outside of my mind? Nope, we are all trapped in Plato's cave - but, we must accept it as a self-evident truth that an outside world exists, or we are all confined to solipsism. And so, we come to morality; without self-evident truths, we are left with moral solipsism, and have no reason to even argue it. Yet, here you are, and others, arguing about morality as if there is some truth to find, as if it matters, as if some things are actually right, wrong, better, worse, and that there is "progress" towards some standard that can be achieved. If we cannot agree that it is self-evidently wrong to torture children for fun, no matter if others accept it a or not, but that it is as wrong as the proposition that A does not equal A, and as wrong as the proposition that we do not have free will but are all just biological automatons barking at each other according to the whim of chemistry and physics, and as wrong as the proposition that everything we experience is a solipsistic delusion ... then we have no grounds to debate morality. You might as well debate a solipsist about whether or not other people exist, or debate someone who eschews logic on the topic of exclusionary principles. If you cannot agree that it is self-evidently immoral for all people in all cultures to torture children, even if they believe otherwise, then you are a moral solipsist and your arguments about morality are nothing but sophistry.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PST
William J Murray posted this:
By what standard is one better than the other? You’re still begging the question, not answering it.
What question is being begged? It isn't clear to me.timothya
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST
timothya: Also, please educate me what it means to "take responsibility" for your choices, if there is no standard according to which you will be held accountable, and no one or thing outside of yourself to hold you accountable? If morality is whatever you personally think it is, who or what are you being accountable to? Yourself? Really? So when you "take responsibility" for your actions, the only entity you are accountable to is ... yourself? Hmmm ... Jeffrey Dahmer "taking responsibility" for his actions via Jeffrey Dahmer's personal code of morality doesn't really seem to me to matter much. Sounds more like someone blowing the smoke of evasive sophistry.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PST
timothya said: "Better because I take responsibility for my moral choices, and I don’t abrogate them to a mythical sky pixie." By what standard is one better than the other? You're still begging the question, not answering it. timothya said: "The existing social consensus does in my opinion define “morality” ..." timothya said: "And, no, I don’t believe that that there is a moral standard beyond personal views." As I said, the materialist/atheist view constantly produces self-conflicting, hypocritical statements.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PST
William J Murray posted this:
Better by what standard?
Better because I take responsibility for my moral choices, and I don't abrogate them to a mythical sky pixie.
Apparently, you don’t realize that everything you argue about morality implicates that you actually believe there is a standard of morality that is beyond personal views, social consensus or any so-called authority.
And, no, I don't believe that that there is a moral standard beyond personal views. Morality as a concept only makes sense if it is instantiated in personal views. I believe that morality is constructed by real, actual human beings consciously making decisions about their behaviour in a social structure.timothya
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PST
timothya said: "I don’t agree with this reasoning at all. The existing social consensus does in my opinion define “morality”, but it also defines the questions where a consensual moral stance is lacking, and should be addressed." Except when you disagree with the existing social consensus, right? If so, then for you social consensus doesn't define morality at all, you're just using that to blow smoke. If you accept existing social consensus as that which defines morality (morality being that which humans ought, and ought not, do), then you accept that whatever society says you ought do is that which you ought do. However, if you disagree with social consensus, if you work to alter it or do not feel compelled to obey it, then you certainly do not hold social consensus as that which "defines morality". timothya said: "Whatever the real value of that gesture might be, it is clear that social consensus can in fact progress on moral questions." Progress towards what? Again, you make these statements as if there is an objective standard towards which society can progress towards. If at one point the social consensus was to not make such a gesture, that was the moral position at the time, and under the logic of your position everyone should accept that social consensus as "what is moral". If they did so, why would anyone work to change the social viewpoint? And why would anyone call a change in that viewpoint "progress", as if the change from one to the other indicates a better morality? Better by what standard? Apparently, you don't realize that everything you argue about morality implicates that you actually believe there is a standard of morality that is beyond personal views, social consensus or any so-called authority. A Gene said: "Whilst I think torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible, I wouldn’t want to be arrogant enough to claim to speak for everyone." Look at it this way; if a group of people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, would they be wrong? So, in that same sense, if a group of people believed that it was morally good to torture children for fun, would they be wrong?William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PST
"That person’s disagreement would not make the fact that 9 x 9 = 81 any less self evident. " You can make a logical argument that given the definition of numbers and multiplication 9 x 9 can be only 81. Can you make the same with your first proposition or any other moral statement?Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST
Barry Arrington posted this:
StephenB, exactly. And what I did not say to Blas and perhaps should have is that his view of morality makes moral progress impossible. The very word “progress” implies a progression toward an as yet unmet objective. If Blas is correct, if at any given time the existing societal consensus defines morality, then by definition there is nothing toward which to progress.
I don't agree with this reasoning at all. The existing social consensus does in my opinion define "morality", but it also defines the questions where a consensual moral stance is lacking, and should be addressed. To give you an example. Some years ago, the government of my country suggested that it might be a valuable gesture of reconciliation between the dominant (predominantly Anglo-Celtic) population and indigenous people, in the form of a public apology for past actions and neglect. The proposal received significant public majority support, an achievement that would have been unthinkable not many years earlier. Whatever the real value of that gesture might be, it is clear that social consensus can in fact progress on moral questions.timothya
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PST
Your error is in assuming that a person cannot be mistaken about self-evident truth. You seem to believe that “self-evident” is the same as “universally agreed.” It is not. It is possible to find a person who would say 9 x 9 is not 81. That person’s disagreement would not make the fact that 9 x 9 = 81 any less self evident.
This is why I asked (in a deleted comment) self-evident to whom. If it's meant as self-evident to me, as William J. Murray suggested, then Bias's point has force - it is clear that if people take different positions on one moral statement, then it can't be self-evident what the moral position is. Whilst I think torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible, I wouldn't want to be arrogant enough to claim to speak for everyone. If you meant self-evident to some other group, can you clarify who it is meant to be self-evident to?A Gene
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PST
@Barry, How about a post from the other end of the spectrum? I think it would be quite interesting to ask: Do you believe anything to be objectively wrong? Example for parents (I think a lot of us are): Is it actually wrong for your children to lie to you?Brent
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PST
StephenB, exactly. And what I did not say to Blas and perhaps should have is that his view of morality makes moral progress impossible. The very word “progress” implies a progression toward an as yet unmet objective. If Blas is correct, if at any given time the existing societal consensus defines morality, then by definition there is nothing toward which to progress.Barry Arrington
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PST
--BarryA: "Holding people in subjugation on the basis of nothing other than the color of their skin is evil. It does not matter how many people disagree. Indeed, if everyone in the world were to disagree with me, everyone else would be wrong and I would be right." Exactly right. Indeed, your observation is not only true, it describes a historical reality. When Martin Luther King said that Americans must stop oppressing blacks, he didn't based his demand on popular opinion because he recognized that consensus decisions cannot be the final arbiter of justice. Indeed, his was the minority opinion. What mattered was the difference between right and wrong. From the inside of a jail, he argued that any human law not rooted in the natural law is an unjust law. The one thing he didn't say (excuse me CentralScrutinizer) is that he felt repulsed by the whole thing. We don't change the world by reporting our feelings, but we move mountains when we say, "This isn't right."-- It must stop."StephenB
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PST
Blas: “For any behavior it is possible to find people that find it morally right or people that find it morally wrong. Then morality is not self evident it is disputed.” Your error is in assuming that a person cannot be mistaken about self-evident truth. You seem to believe that “self-evident” is the same as “universally agreed.” It is not. It is possible to find a person who would say 9 x 9 is not 81. That person’s disagreement would not make the fact that 9 x 9 = 81 any less self evident. In the same way, even if a person sincerely believed that torturing a child for fun was good, he would be wrong and the proposition “torturing a child for fun is evil” would not be any less self-evident. Blas writes: “Who is right or wrong in that situation [i.e., whether forced segregation is morally right] depends on what you think is morally wrong or morally right.” Now you are blithering nonsense. You are like the person in the example above who makes a mistake at multiplication. It does no good to "argue" for the proposition that 9 x 9 = 81. You either accept it as self-evidently true or you do not. By definition one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself. If you refuse to acknowledge a self evident truth, as you just have, you don’t need an argument; you need simple correction. I will now correct you: Holding people in subjugation on the basis of nothing other than the color of their skin is evil. It does not matter how many people disagree. Indeed, if everyone in the world were to disagree with me, everyone else would be wrong and I would be right.Barry Arrington
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST
Stephen: Feelings of revulsion can mislead, depending on whether or not they conform to the natural moral law. Self evident truths, both moral and intellectual, cannot mislead precisely because they are true.
I would put it this way: "so-called 'self-evident moral law' can mislead, depending on whether or not it conforms to the primal feelings of natural pathological programming." You're off in the weeds. You're appealing to something that cannot possibly be "self-evidently true." Your idea of "natural moral law" that is "self-evident" is something derived from some intellectual philosophy that is far from self-evident. If it were, you wouldn't have to point it out to anyone. Anyway, I'm getting bored with the topic. Have a great week.CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST
CentralScrutinizer, Feelings of revulsion can mislead, depending on whether or not they conform to the natural moral law. Self evident truths, both moral and intellectual, cannot mislead precisely because they are true. It is the same with the Laws of logic. How you feel about the Laws of Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle, and Identity, has nothing at all to do with their validity. How you feel about the Ten Commandments has nothing at all to do with their aptness for the human condition. How you feel about adultery has nothing to do with its morally illicit nature It is the Natural Moral Law that informs us about whether our revulsion to this or that act is reasonable. At one extreme, Puritans find sex and physical affection disgusting; at the other extreme, libertines find all self-control and chastity disgusting. In both cases, feelings untutored by the natural moral law lead to perversity. Feelings serve a noble purpose, but they are not fundamental to understanding moral truth and can, as a matter of fact, get in the way. One cannot build a well-ordered society on feelings.StephenB
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PST
"Blas writes that nothing about morality is self-evident. How do you know that Blas?" For any behavior it is possible to find people that find it morally right or people that find it morally wrong. Then morality is not self evident it is disputed. "Let me demonstrate. Let’s assume that all white people except for one in the Jim Crow south believed that forced segregation was moral. That one person would have been right and everyone else would have been wrong." Who is right or wrong in that situation depends o n what you think is morally wrong or morally right. All the white people though they were right and theone wrong. Another exampleof the not self evidence of morality.Blas
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST
Stephen: The whole point about a self-evident truth, logical or moral, is that no evidence or reasoning process is necessary to apprehend it.
If you substituted "inbred emotional revulsion" instead of "self-evident truth, logical or moral" with regards to torturing babies, your statement would be just as true, and any materialist can agree with it.
CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST
Stephen: I suspect that is true or almost true. The issue, though, is whether they can provide a rational justification for that opposition. They cannot.
And my point is: who cares? They can give an in-bred emotional reason for it: we're programmed to feel that way, whatever the source. And that source is more primal and immediate and motivating than any philosophical argument.
The knowledge precedes the feeling.
No it doesn't. Any five year old child will feel revulsion at the torturing of an baby. If you tried to pitch your philosophy to them they would look at you sideways.
You feel outrage because you know instinctively that the act is immoral. The Natural Moral Law really is a Law of reason.
Reason may come to see why, or not, but such contemplation is much further down the road. The emotional instinct is there long before any philosophical musings, which may never come. Nobody need provide any reason whatsoever why they feel outrage at the torturing of babies except that it's utterly repulsive. And what really counts to any victim is the actions that follow our repulsed feelings.CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PST
I'm new here. Why do you use materialist as a synonym for atheist? UD: Because as a matter of logic, all atheists must be materialists and all materialists must be atheists.fluster
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST
Blas writes that nothing about morality is self-evident. How do you know that Blas? Did you reason to the position or is it self-evident? If you reasoned to the position, please tell me how you did that. Remember, an assertion is not an argument. Blas writes that proposition (2) is contradictory because if everyone in a particular place and time disagrees with one about a moral proposition then it is not true at all times and in all places. Blas, you only think it is contradictory because you have failed to examine your own premises. Your reasoning appears to be: 1. Morality is defined by social consensus 2. Therefore, it is a contradiction in terms to speak of a moral proposition with which everyone disagrees. The problem with your position is that your first premise is false. Let me demonstrate. Let’s assume that all white people except for one in the Jim Crow south believed that forced segregation was moral. That one person would have been right and everyone else would have been wrong.Barry Arrington
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PST
--“Central Scrutinizer: I’ll bet 100% of the materialists here are re-soundly against baby torture, and would oppose somebody who tried to do it.” I suspect that is true or almost true. The issue, though, is whether they can provide a rational justification for that opposition. They cannot. [In any case, do you agree that the evil of torturing babies for fun (at all times and in all place and under all circumstances) is self-evident?] ---"Yes. But I would define “self-evident” as “utterly repugnant.” It’s not reason and logic that makes me (or anyone else) think it’s evil. It’s the feeling I get when I contemplate the suffering of the victim. It’s empathy that makes it evil. Not logic." The knowledge precedes the feeling. You feel outrage because you know instinctively that the act is immoral. The Natural Moral Law really is a Law of reason. Because the act is so obviously unjust, you feel revulsion. In like fashion, you know that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. The feelings of revulsion are appropriate, but the incoherence of the materialist position is a problem with reason, not emotion. --“That’s why 5 years old kids who know no philosophy would agree that it’s “self-evidently evil” to watch a baby being tortured.” The whole point about a self-evident truth, logical or moral, is that no evidence or reasoning process is necessary to apprehend it. --“ It’s programmed into our emotions, not our reason. The reason comes later as we gazed at our navels. The rational justification is an afterthought, and theists and atheists alike generally share the revulsion due to the emotional, pathological programming that makes it horrendously, i.e, “self-evidently”, evil.” It is not programmed into or socialized into the person. Otherwise, those who are not so programmed would not have the knowledge. On the contrary, everyone has the innate capacity to grasp a self-evident truth when they reach the age of reason. Socialization can fine tune it, or harm its development, but the capacity to understand it at the most basic level is already there. Society can enhance or diminish human conscience, but it cannot create it. The only recommendation I can make is to suggest that you investigate the natural moral law. The best source I know of is J. Budziszewski.StephenB
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST
1) Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil False. Nothing about moral is self evident. (2) this is true at all times and in all places and in all cultures and under all circumstances even if everyone in a particular place and time were to disagree with me. False. This statement is contradictory itself. If everyone in a particular place and time disagree with you it can´t be true at all times and in all places.Blas
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PST
--Lar Tanner: "OK, here’s my question:" --"Is it morally wrong to slice off the foreskin of an eight-day-old male’s penis? Is it morally wrong to ritually circumcise a female child?" There is a difference between something that is self evidently true, such as the immorality of torturing babies for fun, and something that can be discerned only after examining the evidence and applying reason's rules. Your question is irrelevant because it falls into the second category. Still, I will answer: With respect to the male child, it is not "self-evidently" wrong, but reason can attempt to calculate the moral nature of the act by weighing possible medical benefits against possible medical problems. It is not wrong at all times and in all places because, as far as we know, some medical benefits exist. With respect to the female chile, it is not "self-evidently" wrong, but reason and evidence make the immorality of the act clear. There are no medical benefits and the medical harm is evident. It is, therefore, wrong-- at all times, in all places, and for all people.StephenB
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST
Stephen @49, I know Christians who are pro-abortion and I know atheists who are anti-abortion. Being "philosophically correct" about some "transcendent moral law" doesn't seem to matter to either camps.
I think the materialists who visit this thread fall into the latter category. Insofar as they refuse to answer Barry’s questions about baby torture, they are cowards.
I'll bet 100% of the materialists here are re-soundly against baby torture, and would oppose somebody who tried to do it.
It is possible, however, to lie to one’s self and others on matters that are obvious to all rational people.
So everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a liar and a coward?
they are cowards because they refuse to look at the pictures and the images? More importantly, they are cowards because they (the politicians, media pundits, and television executives) refuse to allow these images to be shown, knowing that abortion would likely cease if all people could examine the physical evidence for themselves.
I agree with you there. The facts should not be suppressed. But you're riding the horse a bit outside the reservation. I've seen pictures of many abortions. I am not against abortion up until the time when brain waves begin. Prior to that time I think abortion is benign, since there is no "human there." Does this make me a liar or coward in your view? There are gray areas. And rational people can disagree without being liars and cowards.
In any case, do you agree that the evil of torturing babies for fun (at all times and in all place and under all circumstances) is self-evident?
Yes. But I would define "self-evident" as "utterly repugnant." It's not reason and logic that makes me (or anyone else) think it's evil. It's the feeling I get when I contemplate the suffering of the victim. It's empathy that makes it evil. Not logic. That's why 5 years old kids who know no philosophy would agree that it's "self-evidently evil" to watch a baby being tortured. It's programmed into our emotions, not our reason. The reason comes later as we gazed at our navels. The rational justification is an afterthought, and theists and atheists alike generally share the revulsion due to the emotional, pathological programming that makes it horrendously, i.e, "self-evidently", evil.CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST
Barry @43: A materialist can do many things. But one of the things he cannot do is affirm the existence of an objective transcendent moral standard, because if materialism is true there is nothing upon which to base such a standard.
Right. But what practical difference does it make? All high-falutin' philosophy aside, if somebody is repulsed by baby torture they are most likely going to support banning it and prosecuting the perpetrators, whether they are theists or atheists. I have several atheists friends. They are all resoundly against baby torture. And they would probably fight against it with more vehemence when some of my lukewarm Christian friends. What matters is practical action.
Once again we have an atheist materialist who refuses to accept the logical consequences of his own materialism. Instead, he rejects those consequences and pays the price of logical incoherence.
But what is the practical consequence? *Everyone's* philosophy runs into incoherence at some point, all philosophy leads to irrational dead-end, including yours. It has little or nothing to do with torturing babies as a practical matter. There are very good atheists and very bad Christians. Their respective navel gazing with regards to all of this is largely irrelevant.CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PST
--CentralScrutinizer: "How do you know they are cowards and not merely honest?" I am discussing the attitude of double-minded partisans who influence public policy--pro-choice proponents who seek to rationalize evil. They are cowards because they run for the hills when someone offers to show them the pictures of an aborted fetus or the moving images of a baby fighting for his/her life. When people run away from the truth, they are cowards. I don't want to distract unduly from Barry's point, however. I was answering your question about the repercussions of materialist rationalization on issues of life and death. While the evil of abortion may not be self-evidently true to all people, the evil of torturing babies for fun is self-evidently true to all people. Do you agree? --"Maybe it’s not self-evident to them that the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the woman to terminate." On the subject of abortion, I am not referring to uneducated girls and young women who have been lied to by Planned Parenthood and have had no chance to study the biological facts. I can also make allowances for those who have been brainwashed in postmodernist philosophy, whose capacity to reason has been compromised. Quite often, ignorance, not cowardice, is the issue. However, invincible ignorance soon becomes willful ignorance. I think the materialists who visit this thread fall into the latter category. Insofar as they refuse to answer Barry's questions about baby torture, they are cowards. --Maybe their self-evident sense of justice tips their actions to favor the woman instead of the fetus." You are misusing that term. It is not possible for a self-evident truth to be a falsehood or even a subject for debate. It is possible, however, to lie to one's self and others on matters that are obvious to all rational people. --"Are they cowards merely because they don’t agree with you?" No, they are cowards because they refuse to look at the pictures and the images? More importantly, they are cowards because they (the politicians, media pundits, and television executives) refuse to allow these images to be shown, knowing that abortion would likely cease if all people could examine the physical evidence for themselves. In any case, do you agree that the evil of torturing babies for fun (at all times and in all place and under all circumstances) is self-evident?StephenB
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply