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 also say that proposition 2 is true, assuming we are talking about human children.” So, torturing animal babies/cubs for fun is totally okay? Seriously? “However, I would note one part of proposition 1 (my emphasis added): (1) Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil; Why did Barry include the “for fun” part? Would the question be so easily answered if it had been left out? We would then have to specify the word “torture”.” Yes, I believe the question would be as easily answered. “Example 1: children raised in the Christian tradition are taught that they are tainted by a sin committed by a far-distant ancestor. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture.” I think that you are projecting here. Being taught that you are a sinner is not a thought crime. Children routinely suffer birth defects from their parents; should their parents be charged with a crime for giving birth to them? Your problem here is that you want to believe that you, as an adult atheist human, are faultless. Or at least that’s what you want others to think. You probably are honest and fair with others. But you are not perfect. That is what Christian children are taught—that they are imperfect and thus in need of a mediator between them and perfection, which is God. This is most assuredly not torture for anyone with any sense of humility or modesty. “Example 2: children raised in some religious traditions (the Plymouth Brethren, for instance), who choose to leave their community of belief are routinely cut off by their kin from any human contact. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture.” You are clearly projecting here. Anyone who chooses to leave a religious community of his or her own free will is not cut off from all human contact, just that of the religious community. Why would this even be a problem, I wonder? If the person feels that they are being stifled by following a rigid moral standard, then leave and find other people—atheists, presumably—who don’t follow the same rigid moral standard. Assuming that there are more people who don’t follow the community’s moral standards then there are community members, the person who left should have more friends/relationships then when he/she was in the community. Tell me again why this is torture, because it most certainly isn’t.Barb
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST
LT: You forgot to include the most significant aspect of any moral question: what is the intent? (This is why the "for fun" was used as a qualifier in the original question.) But, I can still answer: I don't see how either act could be justified on any moral grounds. There might be other intentions/grounds for doing such things, but I don't see how they would be moral reasonings.William J Murray
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST
OK, here's my question: [part 1] 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? [part 2] Does your answer to part 1 hold 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 you? I ask for two reasons. (1) I think it helps to have a more specific, real-world example to use. (2) The word "torture" is morally wrong by definition. "Torture" comes from the Latin for twisting or tormenting. As a verb, its definitions from Dictionary.com include:
6. to subject to torture. 7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind. 8. to force or extort by torture. 9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form. 10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
So, to use the word torture is to describe something that is already morally wrong whenever, wherever, and however it occurs. Thus, there's no way for anyone to affirm the moral rightness of torture, even where one may find it to be a legitimate method of information gathering: "It's wrong but we'll do it anyway to achieve an end that we think takes precedence." Words, therefore, are important, and we need to be careful with them. If the first question in the OP concerns a child of 17 years and 11 months who also happens to be an experienced terrorist with psychopathic tendencies, and who also has declared to have a live bomb about to go off somewhere in the city--I wonder if the original questioner and others (including myself) will want to modify their answers at all.LarTanner
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST
Then I answer true on the second one, too. Any chance you can release my question as I wrote it? I think it goes directly to why one cannot answer anything but true to the two questions, no matter their stance on morality and moral truths. With thanks, LTLarTanner
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
UD Editors: LarTanner, you have answered the first question "true." If you answer the second question then you can ask a question of your own.LarTanner
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST
William J. Murray, @ 31 timothya said three things: (1) “I am an atheist and a materialist." (2) “Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil.” (3) “Statement (2) 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.” 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. 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.Barry Arrington
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PST
Projecting the rationale for a specific moral code onto an unobservable sky pixie is actually an excuse for not taking personal responsibility for working out how you should behave.
Stop using our words, please. Thank you.Brent
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST
IOW: TA teaches his children what he thinks is right and how he thinks they should come to their moral decisions (and how they shouldn't). (1) TA either believes he is teaching his children truths about morality, or (2) TA knows he is just subjectively programming his children to think the way he wants them to. Since TA is a moral relativist, the answer cannot be (1), so the answer must be 2. So, how is what TA is teaching his children any different than what (under his perspective) anyone else is teaching their children? If morality is subjective, then whatever you feel like teaching your children for whatever reason is just as good as what anyone else is doing. Yet here TA is, arguing for his particular moral system, and against that of others.William J Murray
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST
TA said: "There is no coherent rational basis for believing that a sky pixie exists." Please present your argument for that claim. TA said: "Attempting to construct moral codes on such a belief generates hypocritical, self-contradictory statements". Please present your case that this is so. TA said:"The doctrine of original sin is an example of such a phenomenon." I don't know of any literature or culture has a moral code based on any "sky pixie", much less such a moral code including "original sin". Please present your case about the how such a belief necessarily generates hypocritical, self-contradictory beliefs.William J Murray
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PST
timothya you dogmatically claim:
There is no coherent rational basis for believing that a sky pixie exists
OK, to support you dogmatic claim, exactly where is your empirical evidence supporting such certainty on your part that God does not exist? I have seen no evidence! Moreover the subjective personal preference of the rebellious hearts of atheists is certainly not evidence! On the other hand, here are a few arguments that lay out a rational basis for belief in God:
Theist Arguments - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJVXl-PJUw TWO DOZEN (OR SO) THEISTIC ARGUMENTS - Lecture Notes by Alvin Plantinga - Professor of Philosophy Notre Dame http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/theisticarguments.html
bornagain77
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST
William J Murray posted this:
Note how the lack of coherent rational basis and reconciliation of beliefs to fundamental first principles always generates hypocritical, self-contradictory statements.
I agree with you that a lack of coherent rationality leads to hypocritical, self-contradictory statements. There is no coherent rational basis for believing that a sky pixie exists. Attempting to construct moral codes on such a belief generates hypocritical, self-contradictory statements. The doctrine of original sin is an example of such a phenomenon.timothya
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST
timothya you claim:
3. The existence of any particular human being is actually an accident. The ratio of male sperm to female eggs is in the range of 10 million to one. Do the maths to work out the improbability of your actual existence.
So improbability against any particular sperm joining a egg is conclusive scientific proof for you that humans are accidental??? But along the same line of reasoning, why are not the calculations against humans even existing in the first place, which vastly outstrip the 'natural' probabilistic resources of the universe, not scientific proof for you to believe that humans are not an accident? Are do probabilities only count for you when they support your desired conclusion? Indeed, math is not kind to Darwinism in the least when considering the probability of humans 'randomly' evolving:
In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA
Along that same line:
Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, a close friend of Einstein, was a preeminent logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Paso Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY - WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
timothya, perhaps you should like to establish a proper empirical basis for your materialistic presuppositions before you go making unsupportable claims for your atheistic beliefs? Seeing as quantum mechanics has, for all practical purposes, destroyed such a hope for materialists such as you, perhaps you should just accept that you are wrong?bornagain77
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PST
tjguy said: "And Timothya, if all morality is relative, why should your opinion matter to me?" For that matter, why does he even argue his case here? Is he pursuing the "truth" about what morality is, and making a casse for the "truth" about what anyone should believe about it? Why? To get people to behave more morally? How can that be? If not, then can we just label his argument as rhetoric and sophistry?William J Murray
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST
TA says: "2. Projecting the rationale for a specific moral code onto an unobservable sky pixie is actually an excuse for not taking personal responsibility for working out how you should behave." Note how the lack of coherent rational basis and reconciliation of beliefs to fundamental first principles always generates hypocritical, self-contradictory statements. If one is supposed to assume their personal responsibility (free will?) for working out how they behave, and they do so by adopting a specific moral code they believe comes from an unobservable sky pixie, who are you to tell them such a subjective moral perspective is wrong ("an excuse for not taking personal responsibility")? Even as you try to claim the moral high ground via relativism, you argue and present your case as if there are objectively right and wrong ways to go about it. As I've already said: we simply cannot live as if moral relativism is true. If we did, we wouldn't teach our kids anything about "what it is their moral responsibility" to do, or not do, except to manipulate them to do what we want - and we'd accept that as what we are doing. You can huff and puff all day long about moral relativism, but you cannot argue or act as if it is true, because there'd be nothing (about morality) to argue or act in accordance with. You'd set aside claims of morality or ethics and just say "you do what you do because you want to", and leave it at that.William J Murray
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
Tjguy posted this:
I would say that when atheists teach their kids that that they are nothing more than bags of chemicals, that objective morality doesn’t exist, and that their existence is accidental, I think this is a form of child abuse.
So you would say, but that is certainly not what I taught my child. In detail: 1. A human is not a bag of chemicals, but it is important to understand how biochemistry affects human behaviour. For example, someone suffering from schizophrenia or clinical depression is actually experiencing a malfunction in their underlying, really-existing bag of chemicals, not some religiously moral defect. 2. Projecting the rationale for a specific moral code onto an unobservable sky pixie is actually an excuse for not taking personal responsibility for working out how you should behave. 3. The existence of any particular human being is actually an accident. The ratio of male sperm to female eggs is in the range of 10 million to one. Do the maths to work out the improbability of your actual existence. I do note that you did not address the forms of "not for fun" child torture that some religious organisations indulge in. Funny about that - Big Tent indeed.timothya
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PST
Timothya says: Example 1: children raised in the Christian tradition are taught that they are tainted by a sin committed by a far-distant ancestor. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture. Example 2: children raised in some religious traditions (the Plymouth Brethren, for instance), who choose to leave their community of belief are routinely cut off by their kin from any human contact. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture." And Timothya, if all morality is relative, why should your opinion matter to me? I would say that when atheists teach their kids that that they are nothing more than bags of chemicals, that objective morality doesn't exist, and that their existence is accidental, I think this is a form of child abuse. You are leading your children away from their only hope of salvation, teaching them that sin doesn't matter, and that it in fact does not even exist. You are robbing them of true meaning and purpose in life. But what does that matter to you? Whether it is true or not, you are free to do as you see fit because all morality is relative.tjguy
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PST
StephenB: ...because cowardly enablers say, “I find abortion personally repugnant, but I can’t really say for sure that it is wrong.”
How do you know they are cowards and not merely honest? Maybe it's not self-evident to them that the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the woman to terminate. Maybe their self-evident sense of justice tips their actions to favor the woman instead of the fetus. Are they cowards merely because they don't agree with you?CentralScrutinizer
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PST
Barry Arrington posted this:
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 am an atheist and a materialist in matters of science and personal belief. I say that proposition 1 is true, assuming we are talking about human children. I also say that proposition 2 is true, assuming we are talking about human children. However, I would note one part of proposition 1 (my emphasis added):
(1) Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil;
Why did Barry include the "for fun" part? Would the question be so easily answered if it had been left out? We would then have to specify the word "torture". Example 1: children raised in the Christian tradition are taught that they are tainted by a sin committed by a far-distant ancestor. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture. Example 2: children raised in some religious traditions (the Plymouth Brethren, for instance), who choose to leave their community of belief are routinely cut off by their kin from any human contact. I think that form of thought-crime fits the definition of torture.timothya
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PST
Barry- There may be a flaw in your argument. Ya see materialists are not self-aware so it follows that not very much is self-evident to them. Just sayin'...Joe
August 27, 2012
August
08
Aug
27
27
2012
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PST
AG: “I don’t think Barry would set up the problem like this, so what does he mean by self-evident? Self evident to who?” To you. The question is about your beliefs.
Fair enough. For me, torturing young children for fun is morally wrong, but I don't think I'd describe this as "self-evident" - I think one needs a moral compass to start thinking about moral questions, and this takes some development. So it might be self-evident given a specific set of moral principles, but are these principles self-evident? I'm not sure. Given that I think torturing young children for fun is morally wrong, I think it would be morally wrong (according to my morals) when and wherever it occurred, regardless of the ideas of the people involved.A Gene
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PST
barry arrington, pardon, intention of yours of seeing materialists submit statements first? then i submit in improper turn? statement of mine seen equal to materialist statement? unaware of Maus and Mung of thought materialist, guessed of them I D supporters. sergiosergiomendes
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PST
--Central Scrutinzer: "If we approach the subject in an agnostic fashion, what is inconsistent or evasive with a materialist objecting to baby torture simply on the subjective grounds that it is repugnant to him? What’s the point of pursuing it further? Pressing with, “why is it repugnant to you?”, doesn’t appear to have an practical relevance." Moral relativism doesn't just militate against truth, it also gets people killed. In the United States alone, over 50,000,000 babies have been tortured and killed in the womb since 1973 because cowardly enablers say, "I find abortion personally repugnant, but I can't really say for sure that it is wrong."StephenB
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PST
No Maus! No Maus!Mung
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST
StephenB: The question on the table is whether materialists, who deny both moral truth and their capacity to know it, can, without equivocating, make that case in the context of Barry’s concrete example.
If we approach the subject in an agnostic fashion, what is inconsistent or evasive with a materialist objecting to baby torture simply on the subjective grounds that it is repugnant to him? What's the point of pursuing it further? Pressing with, "why is it repugnant to you?", doesn't appear to have an practical relevance. Whether God or Evolution writ-large wired our brains that way, the effect is the same, is it not? Nearly all humans are appalled by baby torture, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, and atheist. As for those few sick souls out there who actually would condone and even derive pleasure from torturing babies, they would probably tell you to go f*ck off if you dared broach the question of "morality" to them. The conversation would be a non-starter. So what's the point here? Just to harass materialists?CentralScrutinizer
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PST
UD Editors: Maus is no longer with us. Maus
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PST
Barry @37, Could you unpack you statement please? What particular conclusion is Mark avoiding? What contortions is he employing? ThanksCentralScrutinizer
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PST
Dr. Torley @ 36. The mental contortions to which some people will resort to avoid the conclusions compelled by their own premises is nothing short of astonishing.Barry Arrington
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PST
It appears that one materialist has penned a response to your challenge, Barry. See here.vjtorley
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST
AG: "I don’t think Barry would set up the problem like this, so what does he mean by self-evident? Self evident to who?" To you. The question is about your beliefs. If you were on the outside of a culture looking in, and they considered it good to torture children, would you consider it good for them to torture children? Would you say, "well, it's okay for them"? Or would you hold their actions as morally wrong and either try to talk them out of it, or try and stop them, or if they asked you to participate, would you refuse on the grounds that it was morally wrong? AG: "True. But if that’s so, then we have to deal with it, however unpleasant it is." Until and unless we know (if that is even possible), we have to decide what to believe about it.William J Murray
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST
@sergiomendes: It's conserend with science, philophy and theology. This is a culture war and must be fought on all fronts. Tobi.JWTruthInLove
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply