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
Yes, the easiest way to avoid facing the fact that one's beliefs are obviously erroneous is to complicate simple questions that cast a glaring light on them. If there are no objectively valid moral truths, then the resulting logical conclusion is that for someone, somewhere, it's possible that it is okay to torture a child for fun. It's really that simple. If you cannot live with that, you must give up the idea that morality is relative and accept the logical consequences of all that entails. To paraphrase the Robert Duvall character in Secondhand Lions: There are some things a man must believe whether they are true or not.William J Murray
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST
UD Editors have removed this poster's attempt to redirect the questions to consideration of obscure Old Testament texts. The following remains: I give a solid "true, true" to both of Barry's questions.CentralScrutinizer
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST
It's funny, Maus, because you are painting Barry as disingenuous for being too black and white, when in actuality you ripped out the part that showed he wasn't in fact doing so.Brent
August 26, 2012
August
08
Aug
26
26
2012
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PST
What's so hard about typing "false". Barry is asking for YOUR position. It's that simple.Brent
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PST
To the materialists on here: Weren't the turks just demonstrating 'survival of the fittest'? The strong dominate the 'weak' and nothing is immoral because it's all just 'nature' at the laws of physics (like lightning striking someone)? Especially if we take as 'fact' the belief we have no free will..."no more than a bowl of sugar" according to Anthony Cashmore in PNAS Morality NEEDS an ultimate moral authority, which is GOD. Without Him we're just accidental chemicals at the mercy of physics and not superior to, or more special than any other living organism (according to atheist Ruse)Blue_Savannah
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PST
@Maus: Barry Arrington insulted you by calling you a coward and that you have no right to be taken seriously. You can cry about how mean the internet is, ... or you can man up and answer the damn questions, you've been asked to answer at the beginning of this thread. What will it be? Tobi.JWTruthInLove
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PST
Recently uploaded William Lane Craig video
"Can We Be Good Without God?" William Lane Craig Lecture - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzlEnrJfDBc
bornagain77
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PST
F/N to save a side-track, here is a 101 level discussion on first principles of right reason and what is linked to them. KFkairosfocus
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST
Maus: Answer this, please: what is a self-evident truth? Can we reason without reference to them, starting with the first principles of right reason? What happens when we try to deny such? Turning to morality, the claim is that a certain moral claim is self-evident. If so, the result of an attempt to deny it will be patently obvious to someone who can reason at concrete operations level, with a minimum of abstractions. That is, by reference to concrete consequences it will reduce to absurdity. And so, contrary to your suggestion, I am making no assumptions, I am simply calling for those who would deny the self evident status to provide a counter example to the absurdities -- in moral cases, most notably by blatant hypocrisy -- that obtain. Next, perhaps it has not dawned on you that I am a protestant, and would agree that the Spanish Inquisition was a capital case of corruptions of power masquerading in religious guise. And as I am not an interested party, I can speak on the behalf of the Catholic tradition without fear of being deemed and dismissed as an apologist. So, I note to you that the two leading exemplars of Catholic spirituality in Spain at the time of Torquemada, objected to it. Similarly, the named inquisitor had to be guarded by a troop at all times, i.e. he faced the decided objection of the public. Nor can what that man did find any justification in the ethics taught by Jesus and his apostles, starting with that the civil authority is God's servant -- so, accountable to him! -- to do us good. (I would suggest that any successful spiritual movement, no matter how noble its principles, will face periods of abuse by the powerful. The Borgias are no exemplars for anyone, but when he passed on I publicly called John Paul II, The Great. And, I still say when our generation's history is written, he will be one of the shining mountain peaks.) I cited the cases in Pakistan to show concrete examples of innocent children abused. Trying to suggest that others have been abusive does not answer to the problem. It only shows a red herring. The challenge to show how denial of the claimed self evident truth fails to lead to absurdity, still stands. Let's start here. Had one of those Turks in the novel based on real incidents had his baby treated that way he would have been incensed and would have felt justified to kill the one who did that. And, they knew this, so the behaviour (sadly, based on real incidents) was indefensible. Similarly, had a girl of the majority in Pakistan or a boy been treated like that, there would have been not a protest march but a major riot. In short, it is clear that these behaviours and the like are indefensible and are KNOWN to be indefensible. Those who do them would react with extreme rage and violence probably if they were the victims' families. And so we are right back to what John Locke turned to when in Ch 2 of the 2nd Essay on Civil Govt, he wished to ground democracy as we know it. For he cited "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker" in his 1594+ Ecclesiastical polity:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
The evidence is, that the goodly canon is right. And, I assert that one cannot deny this without ending up in an absurd welter of hypocrisies, obfuscations, distractions and evasions that will at once make it clear that one is in the wrong, and deep down knows it. If you think not, then let me know why. Which is also what Barry A has asked for. KFkairosfocus
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST
--Central Scrutinizer: "Having said that, the “self-evident” thing needs a little elaboration. I was raised in a Christian home with Christian morality in a basically Christian society instilled in my brain." Self evident truths, such as the Natural Moral Law, can be apprehended apart from Christian formation. It is precisely that dynamic that Barry is referring to. In the middle of the night, even the untutored barbarian knows that something is wrong with his behavior. --"I don’t know how much of the “self-evident”-ness of it is due to the natural wiring of my brain and the cultural conditioning thereof. The old nature vs nurture thing." Nature provides the reasoning capacity to instinctively grasp the self evident truth in its primitive form while the nurturing component can fine-tune it into a more sophisticated, more easily articulated, moral code. --"Assuming it’s all nature, a none of nurture, the “self-evident”-ness of your propositions would be due to whoever and/or whatever “programmed” by brain to see them as self-evident. I happen to think the Designer programmed my brain that way." That is a different issue. Clearly, God is the cause of the capacity to recognize a self-evident truth. 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.StephenB
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST
Maus, You can answer the question just fine, if you will. But, I would really like to know how anyone could even define morality in subjective terms. Morality entails the meaning of ought from an outside source. As soon as you turn the source inward we are no longer talking morality. Maybe high ideals in some sense (whatever "high" means), but not morality.Brent
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST
Barry A: CentralScrutinizer...You don’t have the courage to answer the questions.
Well, yes, I do have the courage to answer: 1. true 2. true But I didn't bother answering before because, as I said, I'm not a materialist. Thus not a target of your questions. Having said that, the "self-evident" thing needs a little elaboration. I was raised in a Christian home with Christian morality in a basically Christian society instilled in my brain. I don't know how "self-evident" your propositions 1 and 2 would be had I been raised otherwise. I don't know how much of the "self-evident"-ness of it is due to the natural wiring of my brain and the cultural conditioning thereof. The old nature vs nurture thing. Assuming it's all nature, a none of nurture, the "self-evident"-ness of your propositions would be due to whoever and/or whatever "programmed" by brain to see them as self-evident. I happen to think the Designer programmed my brain that way.CentralScrutinizer
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST
Semi OT: I was recently, very angrily (hatefully?), accused of being a hateful, intolerant, bigoted, Christian for questioning why someone else thought is was morally OK for gays to get married. i.e. What is you moral justification for gay marriage I wanted to know. Basically he could provide no moral foundation for why he believed it was OK for gays to be married other than to angrily accuse me of being a hateful, intolerant, and bigoted Christian for opposing his opinion on the matter. Apparently intolerance only applies to those who hold differing opinions to his on the matter.,,, Consistency in argumentation was not his strong suit. :) Anyways, that is why this following article I stumbled across this morning was refreshing
I am a Hate-Filled Christian - August 24, 2012 Excerpt: Now, I no longer resist the argument. I’m willing to confess. I am a Christian — a conservative evangelical Christian to boot — and there are many things I hate. I am hate-filled. I hate that I fall short of the imitation of Christ. I hate the sin that threatens to consume me, and hate that I so often take for granted the grace that refuses to allow me to be consumed. I hate my pride and I hate the fact that I have hurt people.,,, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/08/24/i-am-a-hate-filled-christian/
bornagain77
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PST
The main problem is not atheism itself in the classical sense, as for instance Bertrand Russell (who had six children of his own) was an atheist; but the problem is utilitarianism. The forerunner of utilitarianism was David Hume who said that it cannot be rationally proven why it is bad or good, for example, a man being a parricide (killing his own father), because — he said — what is considered whether good or bad depends upon a singular pleasure or displeasure of a concrete individual. He wrote: “I do not know why it is rationally preferable getting a wound in my finger than getting the whole world destroyed”. David Hume inverted the ideological relation between “just” and “useful”. Before him, the common-sense would say that “it is useful because it is just” (and “justice” did not then mean “equality”). After Hume, at the least the political elites began saying “it is just because it is useful”. Carl Menger (and the Marginalists) went even far: he wrote: “The prayer is useful to the holy man as well as crime is useful for the criminal man”. Then we got the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. And Hayek himself adopted David Hume's moral skepticism. The individual wishes and desires were put at the center of ethics. The result of this ideological “evolution”, throughout the 20th century, is Peter Singer who clearly and irrevocably stands for infanticide.Orlando Braga
August 25, 2012
August
08
Aug
25
25
2012
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PST
Carthago delenda est. Sigh . . .kairosfocus
August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PST
BA: Pardon, let me restructure and respond directly: YES, YES. Why: 1: So long as we inescapably recognise that we have rights -- "you unfair me" [which is exactly what the whining against UD often boils down to . . . often unwarranted, sometimes we indeed stumble and need to correct] -- we acknowledge the objectivity of morals. 2: But, a right is a morally grounded demand to be treated based on our inherent worth as human beings. 3: A child or baby is recognisably just such a human being. 4: To torture such -- inflict great pain -- or otherwise abuse without reasonable justification is patently wrong. (I am not saying that all infliction of pain is wrong, but e.g. an emergency appendectomy to save life in absence of adequate anesthesia is based on the premise that pain is a lesser evil than death under the circumstances). 5: We recognise this from our own demand for fairness. 6: Of course any number of objections can and will be made. 7: But all of these founder on the contradiction that the objectors cannot live consistent with their implied views, especially when they are on the receiving end of the real or perceived abuse. 8: So, I hold that this is reductio ad absurdum, patent absurdum too. 9: Unfortunately, it is evident that there are any number out there willing to cling to absurdity because of commitment to an agenda, and to cluster in mutually supportive factions that will fight to the rhetorical death to defend their imagined right to be absurd. 10: And, as studies show, only about 1 adult in 3 at best can follow an abstract case. So, the absurd can only be apealed to in defence of self-evidence if it is obvious on pretty concrete cases. 11: The torturing innocent babies case is just such. So in the end We can only look on and gently expose the nonsense, calling it what it is. Gradually, more and more people will see the nonsense for what it is and will see the misbehaviour of the factions for what t=it is, and social support will erode bit by bit, never mind the bitter enders. Then, one day -- I presently project a decade out if we stand firm -- a tipping point will be reached and the Berlin Wall will come down. Cartago delenda est! KFkairosfocus
August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PST
Maus: Sadly, the examples cited by BA are unfortunately all too credibly real. And so to point to the possibility and to say that there is and can be no warrant for such behaviour, is not only true but necessarily true on pain of immediate and patent absurdity on its denial is a very legitimate move. If you or others wish to dispute this, it is up to you to provide a counter-instance where it is morally reasonable to torture innocent children for profit and/or pleasure. Remember, we have a case in hand of a Downs syndrome girl of 11 years being beaten by a crowd and being put in gaol on a charge that carries a death penalty, and a boy of 12 years who was kidnapped, cut up like a fish while still alive and burned almost beyond recognition. As current [non-?] news. KFkairosfocus
August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST
Materialists, start your equivocation engines!William J Murray
August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply