Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
PPS, I am applying the corollary to SA's rules, that if you link they won't click and read.kairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
F/N: This Good Friday-Resurrection Sunday weekend, let us pause to reflect on The Scandal of the Cross: https://dashhouse.com/the-scandal-of-the-cross-1-corinthians-117-25/ KF PS, Let me clip remarks by the unacknowledged founding father of our civilisation:
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater [rhetor] of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach2 to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,3 not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being4 might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him5 you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
God's folly and God's weakness exceed man's wisdom and man's strength. Indeed, let us note one of the most sobering warnings of scripture:
Rom 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,5 as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”6 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [--> notice, willful suppression of evident truth] 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! [--> reason being morally governed, to reject moral government pivoting on first self evident duties is to fatally undermine reason and self control on a civilisational basis] . . . . 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Let us take due heed.kairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Sev, 310:
Human morality is arguably founded on nothing more than concern for the well-being of ourselves and others in society. There is no reason to think that this unimaginably vast Universe is in the least bit concerned about our well-being or is even capable of such concern. Functionally, the God of Christianity appears notable only by His absence where human suffering is concerned, although belief in a benevolent Creator is clearly of great psychological benefit to those who believe.
On points of comment, at minimum for record: >>Human morality is arguably founded on nothing more than concern for the well-being of ourselves and others in society.>> 1 - Immediately, see the appeals to duty to truth, right reason, warrant etc? The branch on which we all sit, pervasive first principle, self evident first truths strike again, shattering your argument in its opening words. 2 - Of course, you are arguing in effect that love for, respect of, the rights of, neighbour are pivotal to working out detailed moral rules, decisions, conduct. Yes, one of the ciceronian first duties is duty to neighbour, thus as corollaries, to fairness and justice. 3 - Where, justice is that civil peace in which there is due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. 4 - However, this is only about knowability so far, it has not resolved the Hume and Euthyphro challenges on logic of being roots. 5 - That requires analysis on roots of reality, the only level where the is-ought gap can be soundly bridged. See my comment to you here. >>There is no reason to think that this unimaginably vast Universe is in the least bit concerned about our well-being or is even capable of such concern.>> 6 -- Red herring, led away to strawman then knocked over; the physical cosmos is not generally seen as in itself a personal being so it is not the locus of moral concern. 7 - This is a case where a merely physical is cannot ground ought, i.e. physicalism and wider evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot ground moral government, is thus amoral, and invites the notion that moral perceptions are subjective and relativist, i.e. delusional. Which brings grand delusion into mind yet again on such thinking. 8 - Recall, more broadly, Haldane's warning:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
>> Functionally, the God of Christianity appears notable only by His absence where human suffering is concerned,>> 9 - A largely empty assertion, evading first that ethical theism is a far broader generic philosophical position . . . and ignoring the scandal of the cross, rather than merely religious dogmatic imposition [where, in the core, it is affirmed by the Christian faith that all men have adequate intellectual access to God if they are but willing], and that there is the little unanswered problem of the collapse of the argument from evils, post Plantinga's free will defence. >> although belief in a benevolent Creator is clearly of great psychological benefit>> 10 - The crutch argument. Oddly, literally on Christmas morning 1987, I nearly broke my ankle and badly sprained it. For some reason no crutches were to be had and I had to unscrew a broom handle and use it as improvised substitute. Lesson learned! 11 - The lesson? When you are hurt, a crutch is a very helpful thing, not to be despised or dismissed. And, as a race of finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill willed creatures, we are hurting. >> to those who believe. >> 12 - Guess what? We ALL believe, as the Agrippa trilemma so directly implies: if A why? B. But why B? C, D . . . so infinite regress [impossible], or question begging circularity [common but fallacious], or acknowledging a faith point F, with first plausibles that frame our worldviews. 13 - That is, we all live by faith, the issue is to examine on comparative difficulties and seek a reasonable, responsible well founded faith. 14 - And since on this Good Friday morning, the Christian Faith as usual is in the cross hairs here at UD, I note here on in context, start by taking out an hour to watch the video. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
VL, SA is right by direct extension,
amoral (e??m?r?l) adj 1. having no moral quality; nonmoral 2. without moral standards or principles amorality n a?morally adv Usage: Amoral is often wrongly used where immoral is meant. Immoral is properly used to talk about the breaking of moral rules, amoral about people who have no moral code or about places or situations where moral considerations do not apply Collins English Dictionary
That which discredits and breaks down credibility of self evident first principles of morality and their status as knowable, objective first truths is amoral, whether by intent or consequence is of little relevance. So too, that which implies or outright asserts, there are no intelligible or knowable, objective first moral truths -- the axioms of morality are being sidelined so indifference to right, wrong, prudence etc results, meanwhile distorted moral outrage then attaches to targets of the daily two minute hate. That is why, with all due respect, it is fair comment to note with Lewis Vaughn and many others, that radical relativism, subjectivism, hyperskepticism etc are corrosive and an open invitation to destructive nihilism and chaos. Thus, onward, frankly, lawless oligarchy. And that is no empty, emotive fallacious appeal to consequences. Mutiny on the ship of state has predictably disastrous consequences which in all prudence we should heed. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
JVL, pardon but as fair comment: you have misjudged the geostrategic issues and may be unaware of relevant history (especially how the post WW1 League of Nations system collapsed as power mad tyrants precipitated WW2). You may find the recent OP here at UD helpful. Also, this draws in a key issue, many polarised, morally tinged and governed exchanges -- much of politics and policy discussion, today -- pivot on debates over what is factually so [truth], what is well reasoned, what is warranted, what is known/unknown, what is prudent, just, fair. All of which tie to the branch on which we all sit, self evident Ciceronian first duties. Indeed, second fair comment, part of the reaction to such self evident principles is that they will cut across many agendas and preferences. Moral error has real world, destructive consequences, never mind convenient dismissive talking points about fallacies of appeal to consequences. A likely destructive, absurd result is a relevant issue and refusal to be prudent is destructive to rationality and common good sense. But the misanthropes like it that way. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
SA, you write, "I mean by amoral. What I’m talking about is “a system by which it is not possible to assert that something is truly right or wrong’." Then you are using the word incorrectly. That confuses the discussion. I know you are talking about "a system by which it is not possible to assert that something is truly right or wrong". Calling that amoral is incorrect because that is not what the word means. If we can be clear about how that is an inappropriate word, then I'd be glad to move on to one of your next points about what you think is illogical about my position.Viola Lee
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
Seversky
Just as Peter was powerless to prevent his denials of knowing Jesus, even though he was warned specifically of what was about to happen, so what will be, will be, regardless of what we might want.
Peter did not perceive himself to be powerless. He repented of his action - and that repentance meant that he knew he could have made a better choice. That's how it works even though God knows the end, God does not force the decisions that lead there. We all have freedom to make moral decisions, and that's why our conscience afflicts us when we choose badly.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
VL
So it is wrong to say that my position, as quoted above, is amoral.
You gave the definition of amoral as: “having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong.” I don't think that's fully accurate in the context I'm using. What I'm saying is not oriented to individuals "having or showing no concern". Whether a person is concerned or not is irrelevant to what I mean by amoral. What I'm talking about is "a system by which it is not possible to assert that something is truly right or wrong'. I'm talking about subjective morals. In that system, no matter how much one is concerned or not, there is no way to state that one's moral choices are good or evil. This cannot be said with logical consistency. That is why it is illogical. Here's an example: It is said, "taste in music is subjective". People may think one piece of music is good and another person may think it is bad. Each person may be highly concerned about whether the music they like is good or bad - but in reality, they cannot state that what they like is better or worse than what others like. "Taste in music is subjective. A person may like Elvis Presley's music and another person dislike it." On that basis, the subjectivist is saying that "there is no good or bad for music". Some like it, others don't. We do not expect everyone to think my tastes are good. We do not expect everyone to agree and we must accept the differences in taste as the ordinary, normal part of subjective opinion on music. Now substitute morals. "Moral norms are subjective" Some people want to commit genocide against innocent people and others do not. There's no right or wrong. Some people like one thing, others like another.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Human morality is arguably founded on nothing more than concern for the well-being of ourselves and others in society. There is no reason to think that this unimaginably vast Universe is in the least bit concerned about our well-being or is even capable of such concern. Functionally, the God of Christianity appears notable only by His absence where human suffering is concerned, although belief in a benevolent Creator is clearly of great psychological benefit to those who believe. And the problem with any free-will defense of God's inaction founders on the presumption of His omniscience and omnipresence. If God exists in all times as well as in all places then He knows what is in our future because He is already there to see it. In that case what purpose can it serve to sit back and watch our little dramas play out when He already knows the outcome? In fact, as I have argued before, His knowledge of our future would seem to preclude the possibility of our having free will. This, in turn, makes any concern about the imminent collapse of civilization pointless. Just as Peter was powerless to prevent his denials of knowing Jesus, even though he was warned specifically of what was about to happen, so what will be, will be, regardless of what we might want.Seversky
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
JVL, I lived through the great debate over economics, and its resolution as what was utterly ill founded collapsed. That makes me all too aware of the price of irrationality dressed up in the garb of brilliance and even soundness. Time will tell, and there manifestly are first truths and duties on the table with powerful track record. My wish is that we come to our senses and avert going over the cliff. I do not fear for the truths, but I am concerned for us. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
to SA, re 280. First, I made a few points at 280 to which you responded only with an assertion, but not with an actual reply to my specifics. I said I would only be interested in continuing if I got some response to my points. I think we should take one thing at a time. For instance, you wrote, “Each person creates their own morality. So, that’s the definition of a subjective, amoral system.” I explained some reasons why people choosing their morals is not amoral. I wrote,
My position is not “amoral”. I believe that people, besides being rational and free-willed, have a moral nature: the capacity and need to make moral judgments that in part tap into deep commonalities in our nature about the importance of caring for the welfare of others as well as ourselves.
There is no “definition” that says people acting as moral agents, without reference to any outside standards, but drawing on their own rationality and concern for their own and others welfare is “amoral.” That is only a “definition” because you think it’s true, but it’s not any kind of a standard definition. Amoral means “having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong.” But, I repeat: people do have a moral nature, and they do care, often very much, about whether their behavior is right or wrong. That is an observable, empirical fact. This is a separate issue from whether the moral standards they live by are related to some objective, universal standards or not, which is a philosophical, metaphysical issue of a different sort. So it is wrong to say that my position, as quoted above, is amoral. Comment?Viola Lee
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
JVL
And yet, some Christians disagree with you. How do you propose to resolve that conflict?
I try to engage with my fellow Christians and reason with them, so they can see the higher-level morality that comes through Christian faith. That is, there's a greater moral authority for the Christian than just the universal moral norms. The Christian believes that God has revealed more detailed moral truths through the Church, authorized to teach in the name of God. But for atheists here, I wouldn't talk about such things at that higher level. All we can do with atheists and deists is talk about the built-in moral law which are the general moral precepts objective in human rational nature. From that, atheists can discover that God is the author of the moral law and then they can discover the truths of the Christian revelation.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Woke Math https://spectator.org/woke-math-oregon/ The toolkit, according to a Fox News report, includes a list of ways “white supremacy culture” supposedly “infiltrates math classrooms.” The ones cited include that the “focus is on getting the ‘right’ answer’,” and students are “required to ‘show their work,’ ” which used to be keys to teaching math to grade-schoolers. The toolkit says that “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so.” It adds that “Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.” The toolkit encourages teachers not to focus on students getting the “right” answer but to come up with more than one answer to questions that are “equally right,” ...Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
But there is literally millennia of mathematics that virtually all mathematicians agree on.
Not really. A math teacher of a 3rd grade level don't agree with a PhD mathematician because they live in different planets of maths . It's about levels of understanding and knowledge. The maths of a PhD mathematician is a "foreign language" for a math teacher of 3rd grade. So no not all mathematicians agree on math because not all have the same level of understanding and knowledge .Sandy
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Same sex marriage is clearly a violation of the natural law, the primary purpose of marriage, an unjust distortion of the value of human life and relationships, a denial of the dignity of men and women for who they are and how they are constituted, and an exercise in lying and social and personal manipulation. Applying the term “marriage” to such relationships is unjust and irrational. So, an application of universal objective moral principles would clearly condemn such actions. And yet, some Christians disagree with you. How do you propose to resolve that conflict? Who gets to decide whose interpretation is the one society will live with? Do you agree with: If a man lieth with another man, both must be killed. (Leviticus 20:13) It's very late for me; I'm going to 'hit the hay' as it were. I shall return tomorrow.JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Voting rights require an application of the objective moral norms of justice, fairness, respect for human life and that good governance is for the common good of society and the benefit of human growth in virtue. So again, whether someone needs to show a driver’s license at the voting booth is not a universal objective moral norm. I'm not talking about whether or not you need to show a driving license; I'm talking about who should be granted the right to vote in the first place!! I know it's an application of basic principles; I'm just pointing out that people still disagree and not just on the application of moral norms but sometimes on what those moral norms are. And, it appears, that just and sensible applications of objective moral norms can change radically in a couple of hundred years. Which is why I think it might be better to talk about some concrete examples: Again, is it morally right for US tax payers to sanction sending arms and munitions to Ukraine to kill, maim and disable thousands of young, naive Russians soldiers most of whom are just following orders, many of whom are probably trying to support their families back home? If resolving that issue just requires sensible, enlightened application of the objective moral norms of society then just spell that out please. NOT saying I would but if I did disagree with your reasoned application of the objective moral norms of society in the above situation then how would you propose to resolve the disagreement?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
JVL
It seems to me that if you are just, exercise temperance, are prudent, have humility and generosity then you might very well agree that same-sex marriage is not a problem.
Same sex marriage is clearly a violation of the natural law, the primary purpose of marriage, an unjust distortion of the value of human life and relationships, a denial of the dignity of men and women for who they are and how they are constituted, and an exercise in lying and social and personal manipulation. Applying the term "marriage" to such relationships is unjust and irrational. So, an application of universal objective moral principles would clearly condemn such actions.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
JVL
Did the objective moral standard change or our interpretation of it?
When talking about voting rights or how election districts should be fairly allocated, we're not talking about the universal, objective moral law. I have said this, with an extensive explanation three times now. I know you are more than intelligent enough to understand what axiomatic, moral, first principles are - so, I'm not going to answer it again. I try to take some time and care with responses, so I'll just hope you consider and read them. Repeating the same questions that have already been answered, without actually adding to your understanding is not the way to proceed. Voting rights require an application of the objective moral norms of justice, fairness, respect for human life and that good governance is for the common good of society and the benefit of human growth in virtue. So again, whether someone needs to show a driver's license at the voting booth is not a universal objective moral norm.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: But the norm is a fixed aspect of human nature. It speaks to our conscience. Murder, theft, torture, lying – those are basic fundamental objective evils to avoid. Justice, temperance, prudence, fortitude, humility, generosity, courage – those are basic virtues. How they are applied can be debatable. Is it murder to send equipment to another country so they can kill soldiers invading their country but who are not threatening yours? Also, I am interested in some less volatile issues that still cause great consternation and discord. For example: should same-sex marriage be allowed? It seems to me that if you are just, exercise temperance, are prudent, have humility and generosity then you might very well agree that same-sex marriage is not a problem. But there are many people who profess to believe in an objective moral standard who think it should not be allowed under any circumstances, period. How does one resolve that particular issue? It used to be widely held that women should not be given the right to vote; many and various reasons were given and supported. But we think differently now. Did the objective moral standard change or our interpretation of it? If our interpretation changed then how can we be sure at any one point in time if we've got it right?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
JVL
But surely you do agree that some issues are still not resolved even after all that is tried.
You speak here of "some issues". You've repeated that. I invite you to re-read what I said about the general, axiomatic nature of the objective moral norms. They're not "some issues". They're foundational. Nobody is debating that innocent people should be killed for no reason. That's a basic, objective norm. "Some issues" that may flow from that axiom can, indeed, be subject to debate. But the norm is a fixed aspect of human nature. It speaks to our conscience. Murder, theft, torture, lying - those are basic fundamental objective evils to avoid. Justice, temperance, prudence, fortitude, humility, generosity, courage - those are basic virtues. How they are applied can be debatable. We resolve debates this way: The wise man will concede to the best, most rational argument within a sincere conversation. The unwise man is convinced only of his own opinion, even when refuted. How should we deal with the unwise? We can only try to educate and persuade - unless they are a danger to themselves and others and then then must be arrested or hospitalized.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Let's consider some examples: Do you think it's moral for the US to be sending arms and munitions to Ukraine which will be used to kill Russians soldiers and, inevitably, some innocent civilians who get hit accidentally? Should the US have sent arms and munitions to Ukraine in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea? Should the US have intervened when Russia 'helped' the Syrian government put down a rebellion?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: So, there are several ways to judge various moral claims against the objective norms. Reason, truth, conscience, virtue, integrity, justice – all of those are used. Of course all those things should be used. I quite agree. But surely you do agree that some issues are still not resolved even after all that is tried. What happens then? And what happens if the resolution changes over time? Does that mean the moral standard was not objective?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
JVL People reject the first principles of logic and math also. They exclude themselves from rational discourse. Some people, sadly also, are mentally ill. We seek to take care of them. A person who irrationally thinks that he has the moral command to kill everybody he doesn't like will be evaluated for mental illness. He's clearly "disagreeing about objective moral norms".Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Sandy
That’s why if you want to learn about Christianity you don’t go to self-appointed Christians that you just can’t know for sure that they are Christians you go directly to Church Fathers books.
That is true because the objective moral law only provides the basics - like the ten commandments does. But to find the details it is essential to consult authorized teachers. That's the virtue of "counsel" - meaning, we don't just trust our own opinion but look to those who are wise. The virtue of piety is essential for human life. We have to give honor and respect to that which deserves it -- and God deserves the greatest honor and respect. So, the sincere worship of God is a necessary moral value.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Sandy: there a mathematicians that stop at 1+1 and there are doctors in math, or have few PhD. If I ask them I would get different answers about math. Maybe about things like the axiom of choice or whether or not theorems are discovered or invented. But there is literally millennia of mathematics that virtually all mathematicians agree on. Same with Christians. It’s not about objective morality it’s about different levels of understanding of that objective morality. But whose to say who has the better understanding when the parties disagree?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: I will suggest that any difference on objective matters can be addressed on the underlying first principles, evidence and quality of logic. And yet, sometimes, reasonable, intelligent folks who believe in an objective moral standard disagree. I think discussion and debate and the willingness to compromise are all important parts of resolving conflicts; but what happens when two people disagree on first principles?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
JVL
an objective moral standard and two individuals who both claim to be following that objective moral standard disagree then how can the disagreement be resolved
It is resolved with an appeal to human reason since the objective moral law aligns with the rational nature of man. The rational nature of man directs him towards what is true and good, towards fulfillment of his becoming a good person. If the moral norm is irrational, then it cannot be an objective good. If it leads to the destruction of himself or others, then it cannot be a universal good for himself or others. If a person says "I think killing all the Jews and putting all my other enemies in prison to be tortured is an objective moral norm" - then that idea has to be subjected to rational analysis. But an idea like that strikes against the human conscience and would indicate injustice, insincerity, and irrationality - none of which can be correct. So, there are several ways to judge various moral claims against the objective norms. Reason, truth, conscience, virtue, integrity, justice - all of those are used.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: There is always room for disagreement in the specifics on various actions. But the norms themselves are not up for debate. It seems to me that sometimes the norms are debated and disagreed upon by those professing to believe in an objective moral standard. In that situation how can the disparity be resolved?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
JVL, there a mathematicians that stop at 1+1 and there are doctors in math, or have few PhD. If I ask them I would get different answers about math. Same with Christians. It's not about objective morality it's about different levels of understanding of that objective morality. That's why if you want to learn about Christianity you don't go to self-appointed Christians that you just can't know for sure that they are Christians you go directly to Church Fathers books.Sandy
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
JVL, I will come back later, I have CMOS IC pulldown resistors on the mind just now. I will suggest that any difference on objective matters can be addressed on the underlying first principles, evidence and quality of logic. In fact, the sound form of sustainable development policy thinking is an application of the Kantian Categorical Imperative and I found Bariloche Foundation of Argentina excellent in its use of scenario based planning contemplating business as usual and alternative options projected across a world model. The gap between expected and alternative outcomes can motivate, empower and guide positive change. Put in simpler terms, wisdom is justified by her children. KF PS, kindly observe that the objectors to the Ciceronian first duties have repeatedly been unable but to implicitly appeal to same. This shows their branch on which we sit first principle and indeed self evident character. Moreover, our civilisation was actually built on these, especially the breakthrough to rights respecting constitutional democracy. See US DoI, 1776, the charter for such. And yes, there were huge disagreements to the point of continued fighting of a war. But today, even the British will concede the point. (BTW, it seems there is currently a push to remove Boris Johnson on grounds of a party where he allegedly flouted the lockdown principles he proposed for others.)kairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 13

Leave a Reply