So Two Atheists Are Playing Cards And One Says to the Other . . .

_{Barry Arrington

August 21, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Watching atheists debate moral issues is fascinating. Like a man wading a river with water up to his nose and saying “water, what water?” they are up to their noses in irony and yet appear to be completely oblivious to it.

Two atheists debating moral issues are like two card players arguing over whether a particular play is legal when one of them is judging the play by the rules of bridge and the other is judging the play by the rules of poker.

The rules of bridge and the rules of poker, like the rules of all card games, are arbitrary. Arbitrary rules work fine so long as all the players agree to abide by them. But what happens when I want to abide by the rules of bridge and you want to abide by the rules of poker? Who gets to decide whether the arbitrary rules of poker or the arbitrary rules of bridge apply? The answer, of course, is there is no standard by which we may judge whether the rules of poker are superior to the rules of bridge. It is a matter of preference.

Sal’s post about Richard Dawkins’ views on infidelity reminded me of Phillip Johnson’s famous “the grand sez who” article.

http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9303/articles/pjohnson.html

Atheists’ moral “rules” are nothing but expressions of preference. Dawkins asks “Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined?” Given atheist premises there is no possible answer to this question other than “I prefer not to.” Dawkins apparently prefers otherwise. Who is to judge between the two preferences?

Notice here that the utilitarian/consequentialist “harm principle” to which many atheists instinctively resort when it comes to moral questions does absolutely no good. Let’s assume the wife prefers monogamy and the husband wants to sleep around. The “traditional values” atheist says the wife’s position is the moral position because infidelity harms her in obvious ways. Dawkins says the wife should lighten up, because not only is she not harmed in any way, but also her narrow-minded anti-free love bigotry is harmful to the husband, because it denies him pleasure to which he is inclined. On what ground can we judge between the asserted harms? There is none.

Notice also that evolutionary storytelling is singularly unhelpful. Dawkins says we evolved to have sexual jealousy. Does he not also have to say that the urge to have sex with more than one partner is an evolved trait? After all, on his premises there is no other explanation for the existence of that trait. So when one evolved trait conflicts with anther evolved trait who gets to decide which evolved trait should prevail? In this particular instance Dawkins has volunteered to show us the way, but why should anyone care what Dawkins’ arbitrary preferences are as opposed to the arbitrary preferences of, say, the Pope?

At the end of the day, on atheist premises good and evil are empty concepts. There is only “I prefer.” In other contexts Dawkins himself expresses this plainly when he writes that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Why, then, does Dawkins believe he has any warrant to lecture us on moral issues? After all, the obvious answer to any moral assertion he may make is “sez who?”to which he must answer “sez me.” And the obvious answer to that is “why should I care what you say” to which the answer is . . . [crickets].

Comments

LT: "Sure you can. Some food choices are healthier and more nutritious than others." In order for this to be analogous to our debate about morality, you'd have to admit that some actions are "more good" than others, and can be shown to be "more good" by some objective standard (which would make it amenable to rational argument). However, you've already said that no such intrinsically valid standard exists. So all you're doing here is blowing more obfuscatory smoke to cover your subjectivism. Note the contradiction when you later say: LT: "Why would one try to find something that didn’t exist?" If moral truths do not exist, then there's no way to make the claim that some things are "more good" than others, showing the lie in your food comparison. In your analogy, if no "food truths" exist to be rationally uncovered, there's no way to claim that "some food is more nutritious than other food". So you're just blowing ill-considered smoke to hide the emptiness of any such "debate". LT: "Hogwash. You’re saying that I need to have a rational and rationalized philosophy already in place before I can do or say anything. That’s just not reality. You’re describing fantasy. " No, what I'm describing is the fact that you have not considered the ramifications of what you are arguing. People do all sorts of things that are irrational, and hold all sorts of irreconcilable, self-contradictory, ill-considered beliefs. You can say you are a moral relativist, and make all kinds of empty, ill-considered, self-contradictory statements in an attempt to promote that perspective, but at the end of the day you cannot live that way unless you're a sociopath. You still act, think, and behave as if some things are wrong, and as if you have the capacity to discern good from evil, and as if you have an obligation to thwart evil and pursue what is good. Otherwise, you wouldn't even bother making an argument here as if pursuing the truth of such matters was good, and as if allowing erroneous thought about morality to advance was wrong. LT: "Should you care about this? I know I do, but do you want to determine for yourself how serious the matter is and what actions you should take, or do you want to be told what to think and believe about it? Do you want to be told what response to take?" There's no reason to care about it whatsoever under moral relativism. What are you going to do about it? You already have said you don't have the right to try to enforce your particular "flavor" of morality on others, so anything you do - including advocating against it or trying to make people feel bad about it - is to some degree trying to impose your personal morality onto others. Like I said - you're not a moral relativist or a moral subjectivist, because if you were it wouldn't matter to you if somewhere in the world slavery existed, or if your neighbor was beating his child senseless every night. But you do care, and you would act, and you do advocate for what is right and against what is wrong, because your "moral relativism" is a hollow, intellectual shell at odds with how you actually live your life. LT: "Tell me, now that you know slavery still exists, what exactly is the moral action that you will take? What is the moral action that must be imposed upon every single one of your objective-morals brethren to address the wrong?" I never said any action should be imposed on anyone for any reason. You are assuming things about me and my argument that are erroneous. My argument here is not about what anyone should do in the face of something that is wrong, nor is it about action anyone should take to do right: my argument is about nothing other than the necessity of accepting the primary principle that without us assuming that an objective, factual, real commodity of "good" & "evil" exists, there's nothing meaningful to argue or debate. If morality is purely subjective, what logical, rationally sound reason do I have for caring if slavery still exists today? Or if my neighbor beats his child? Or if muslims butcher the genitalia of little girls? Or if some christian sect burns some people they believe are witches? What logical reason do I employ for acting to change their minds or behaviors? The only reason available to the moral relativist is purely selfish: they just want other people to act in a way they personally prefer. LT: "I’m serious. You’ve signed up for objectivism, so now show me how you practice it." I practice morality under the assumption that it reflects an actual, real, objectively existent commodity. That means some things are good, and some are bad, independent of any individual opinion about it. That means I have an obligation to do good as best I can, and an obligation to avoid evil as best I can. As with any commodity assumed to be objective, I look for self-evidently true statements that serve to describe the nature of that commodity (like self-evidently true statements that describe the effects of gravity or electricity). The first such self-evidently true moral statement is that it is wrong to torture children for one's personal pleasure. It is as obvious as the statement "what goes up must come down". From that and similarly self-evidently true statements, I form the principled basis for a broader system of morality that derives necessarily true and conditionally true statements about what is good, and what is evil, from those initial self-evidently true statements and by employing the principles of logic. I am obligated to arrange my actions in this world to pursue what I understand through reason and first principle to be good, and not try to rationalize "whatever I feel" into being "good". My preferences are subordinate to the factual, actual good. As KF here reiterates and has been shown to be the case in over 2000 years of philosophy, you cannot get an ought from an is. What is good - how humans ought behave - must be real in itself, which means humans must have a purpose. Without such a universal purpose, then humans are free to do whatever they wish, for whatever purpose they wish, and call whatever they wish "good", and nobody has any right to say or advocate otherwise on any binding or significant principle other than the very principle that empowers everyone: "because I say so". You either believe in an actual, real good that authorizes behavior accordingly, or your only ultimate justification is "because I say so", or "might makes right". I know as a self-evident truth that "might makes right" is not a moral principle, therefore moral relativism is evil, because "might makes right" (because I say so, because I prefer it) is ultimately the only authorization a moral relativist has. Now, what do I do about it? More importantly, why should I do anything about it? You seem to fear that I would impose behaviors on you. Why should I do that? For a moral objectivist like me, there are inescapable ramifications to good and evil behavior, just as there are inescapable ramfications to behavior in terms of interacting with gravity or electricity. When I advocate or argue morality, I do so because I care about the harm that others are doing to themselves, not because I want to force them to behave like me. Forcing others to behave like me by law or might or by using rhetoric or emotional manipulation to try and get others to do what I want for no ultimate reason other than that it is my personal preference is wrong. Only a moral objectivist has the assumed foundation by which to rationally and factually argue morality by merit, and only a moral objectivist has a sound reason to do so other than - ultimately - selfishness. IOW, a moral subjectivist cannot rationally justify trying to get others to behave a certain way (give up slavery or beating their child) other than that is what they personally wish them to do, even if they use some contrived other reason that might appeal to the person they are trying to convince. Furthermore, according to what basis does a moral relativist presume to advocate against a behavior that is socially accepted? If society says it is okay to objectify women and treat them like property, what is the basis for the relativist to buck the system? The only principle the relativist has is the same one that authorizes the activity - "because I say so", or "I prefer it". However, the moral objectivist has such a basis; somethings are factually good, and factually evil, regardless of what any supposed authority or society itself says. Furthermore, because it is a factual commodity of reality, "what is good" is as discoverable to anyone looking for it as are the basic principles of gravity or electricity. Furthermore, public opinion and figures of authority do not decide what is factual about gravity or electricity, and neither do they decide or decree what is factual about morality. Thus, I have the right (as given by actual, fundamental purpose) and the authority to discern what is factually good and evil (not invent or make up, but discern), and the motivation to pursue good and dissuade evil as best I can using only good means, and the rationale to allow those that insist on doing evil to themselves to do so without forcing them to do otherwise, and the capacity and right to intervene on behalf of innocent or weak others. Which is how any reasonable, self-respecting person acts, even if they are in error about what is good and what is evil, and even if they intellectually argue otherwise.William J Murray_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Barry@62
Can it really be LarTanner, that the only reason you can say that torturing babies for fun is wrong is that you, personally, do not agree with it? As I argue in the above post, this seems self-evidently wrong to me.
I think a good response to this is the analogy I start to lay out in comment 63. There, I say that even though you may "prefer" some foods, we can have a rational discussion on the relative health effects and benefits of a particular diet. Why, then, should you change your dietary "preferences"? Because you can live healthier, longer, and happier by altering your diet to include more vegetables and less fats/sodium. My disagreement isn't the only thing; your long-term welfare is at issue, too. Now, you may refuse to change your diet, but that's a separate matter that does not change whether one diet is better for you than another. This is, of course, all illustration. I'm not talking about you, Barry, or your real diet, which I know nothing about. But the analogy is that some behaviors have better long-term consequences for people and societies. Volunteering to help a neighbor is an example of a behavior that can be shown to foster good will and stable relationships. As a regular practice, corporal punishment can be shown to have detrimental effects on children and parent-offspring relationships. So, like overwhelmingly most people (I hope) torturing babies for fun or not-for-fun is something I disagree with. Beyond my personal disagreement is the physical distress torture would inflict on a child and the social damage to the character of the torturer. So what's wrong with baby torture? What's wrong is the damage to self-interest that it would inflict upon the perpetrator and any community sanctioning it. No one is left unharmed. Pertinent to your link. The Russian pogroms are justifiably infamous. The descendants of the perpetrators carry the guilt and shame of those actions to this day. The history of Russia is forever marred by the brutality its generals and military leveled against the most vulnerable.LarTanner_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

WJM@60:
I can no more debate your moral preferences than I can debate what foods or fashions you prefer.
Sure you can. Some food choices are healthier and more nutritious than others--this is a basis for rational debate. Some people have different dietary needs than others. This too is a basis for rational disagreement. There's plenty of room for reason-based, evidence-based discussion. @61:
all of your moral “arguments” are nothing but attempts at manipulation towards your preferences, not any attempt to find moral truths that – according to your position – do not exist.
Why would one try to find something that didn't exist?
If one assumes, however, that good and evil are not relative, but rather are grounded in objective reality, then one has a basis for meaningful argument and debate, and for taking action against evil and for good.
Hogwash. You're saying that I need to have a rational and rationalized philosophy already in place before I can do or say anything. That's just not reality. You're describing fantasy. The basis for meaningful argument and debate is the defining of assumptions (i.e., premises). You start from one premise, and I start from another. Like it or not, we are right now arguing and debating meaningfully, if not effectively. The only way to make argument and debate meaningless is to refuse to define, acknowledge, and proceed from premises. My position is not without premises. You just don't like them, and you think yours are super(ior). And by the way, in argument emotional appeals are valid and extremely effective. If I want to persuade someone and influence behavior, I need all the tools at my disposal. That includes emotional appeals. And I can think of lots of times people have acted on subjective preferences. Heck, I do it all the time. Your claim that preferences provide no basis for "taking action" against evil and for good is preposterous. If I consider it evil, I can govern myself to act against it. If I consider it good, I can praise and support it. That's my prerogative. To say my preferences don't allow to act is to detach philosophy from reality.
Under moral relativism, why should anyone care if there are slaves? Why should anyone risk their lives for abolition, or equal rights, or to protect children and the innocent? Who cares if we take the land from native americans and kill them off, or herd Jews into gas chambers?
WJM, did you know that slavery still exists today? According to the Wikipedia article on slavery (take it as you will), there are between 12-27 million people enslaved in the world right now. Should you care about this? I know I do, but do you want to determine for yourself how serious the matter is and what actions you should take, or do you want to be told what to think and believe about it? Do you want to be told what response to take? Tell me, now that you know slavery still exists, what exactly is the moral action that you will take? What is the moral action that must be imposed upon every single one of your objective-morals brethren to address the wrong?
But then, the only people who actually practice moral subjectivism/relativism are sociopaths.
I know this was part of your big finish, but maybe you could tome it down. Show me the empirical data supporting that (all) people who practice moral subjectivism/relativism are sociopaths. For myself, I might wonder that if in practice people are actually relativists and only philosophically committed to objectivity. But that's a different matter. First, let me know about how you as an objectivist will now conduct your life--as you must, per absolute standards--knowing and caring about the slavery in the world. I assume all--and I mean all--the other objectivists will take action too, as they must. Absolute standards, of course. I'm serious. You've signed up for objectivism, so now show me how you practice it.LarTanner_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

LarTanner, yes there are instances in human history where children have been tortured for pleasure. I blogged about one such here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-murdering-babies-ever-good/ You say: “Your morals are preferential, and there’s no reason for anyone to care about what you prefer.” These Turks to whom Dostoevsky was referring, it seems had a moral preference. Their preference was to assert (by their actions) that torturing babies for fun is a moral thing to do. Now, you obviously prefer to say they were wrong. But you say there is no reason for anyone (including these Turks) to care about what you prefer. Can it really be LarTanner, that the only reason you can say that torturing babies for fun is wrong is that you, personally, do not agree with it? As I argue in the above post, this seems self-evidently wrong to me.Barry Arrington_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

LT: "But please note that it’s not the only objection that can be made. There are rational and practical objections, too, which are quite powerful. I could say,”that’s a human being just like you,” or “that’s someone’s child just as you are someone’s child.” I could point out that the community will rail against the torturer, and possibly execute him/her as well as drive out his/her family." Those are not rational objections - they are appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion can be made either way, depending on preference. Practicality is not an objective or sound basis, because it depends on what one's goal is (their preference) as to what is the most practical way to achieve it. As a theist, I have access to a different assumption than you have access to. As an atheist, you must assume morality - what is considered good or bad - is ultimately subjective. Therefore, you have no basis for making a case that an action "is" bad; all you can do is try and manipulate others emotionally or through rhetoric to do what you would prefer they do. Therefore, all of your moral "arguments" are nothing but attempts at manipulation towards your preferences, not any attempt to find moral truths that - according to your position - do not exist. If one assumes, however, that good and evil are not relative, but rather are grounded in objective reality, then one has a basis for meaningful argument and debate, and for taking action against evil and for good. Note how your moral relativism leaves you without even the right or power to stop someone from torturing, killing and cannibalizing children. My, it's a good thing our history wasn't writ by moral relativists in this country, don't you think? Under moral relativism, why should anyone care if there are slaves? Why should anyone risk their lives for abolition, or equal rights, or to protect children and the innocent? Who cares if we take the land from native americans and kill them off, or herd Jews into gas chambers? But then, the only people who actually practice moral subjectivism/relativism are sociopaths. It's an empty position to advocate, one no sane person can actually live by, or would want to (even Dawkins admits this). It's the typical, baseless, empty posturing of a pseudo-intellectual committed to atheism that hasn't taken the time to really inspect the ramifications of what they are so superficially believing.William J Murray_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

LT: "But, to use your characterization of my views, what I’ve just stated is my preference, and I cannot guarantee that 100% of others (past, present, and future) agree with my preferences. Neither do I have the authority to force my personal views on others." Thank you for simply admitting you're a moral relativist. I can no more debate your moral preferences than I can debate what foods or fashions you prefer. Rational, logical debates require a sound, binding premise to arbit differences. Personal preference is not a sound, binding basis for such arguments.William J Murray_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

WJM@55:
LT: “If you and I disagree and we wish to have that disagreement resolved , then we both need to accept the authority of an independent party to rule on the matter for us.” But you’ve rejected that avenue in any meaningful sense when you say “I reject that any work, person, institution, or idea has any automatic, intrinsic moral authority.” Obviously, any third-party or exterior “authority” we agree to is not binding to one that has already dismissed that entity as a source of intrinsic authority on the matter being arbited.
I must not understand your point. If we disagree with each other and then both decide to have an impartial judge settle the case for us, what's the problem? There would be no philosophical inconsistency on my part to abide by the judge's authority because I still believe the judge's authority has been conferred. The judge was not born into authority. Neither is the general role of judge intrinsically authoritative, as I think we both would agree that a judge from the nation of France would have no proper jurisdiction in the matter. Maybe we are having mutual confusion on the word "intrinsic"? I tend to mean something like "inborn" or "automatic," so when you tell me that a judge has "intrinsic authority," that sounds nonsensical to me, as in I truly cannot understand what meaning you intend to convey. You say:
If you don’t answer any other question, answer this one: Is it morally wrong, in any culture at any time and by any person, to torture children for their personal pleasure?
I think it is morally wrong, I don't know anyone who would think it morally right, and I am not sure that anyone I've ever read about in history or fiction (American Psycho comes to mind) would declare it morally right. But, to use your characterization of my views, what I've just stated is my preference, and I cannot guarantee that 100% of others (past, present, and future) agree with my preferences. Neither do I have the authority to force my personal views on others. As an atheist, I do not have a "foundation" for ethics--in the sense of the term used by Barry in comment 53. However, I do have a foundation for personal ethics, in my sense of the term "foundation." One nit before I move on. In your question, you use the word "torture." This term brought to mind the careful distinction brought in earlier in this thread. Someone talking about the fifth commandment pointed out that the commandment prohibited "murder," not "killing." You see the difference, right? Killing can be justifiable, even good. Murder can never be. Terms like "torture" and "murder," in common usage, already come with negative moral freight. By definition, they are morally bad or legally prohibited. So, I welcome questions on serious moral issues, but I don't like questions that already contain the answer in them. I'm not trying to be all postmodern-y and define away something like torture, but if we are trying to evaluate a specific moral question we cannot use words that themselves convey a moral outcome. And so I'm interested: if torture is wrong by definition, and torture of a child is especially heinous, why did you feel the need to add on "for personal pleasure"? If I may guess your rationale, I think you want to show me and everyone that even with an example of something we cannot conceive anyone, ever, finding at all moral, the strongest objection the atheist ethicist can muster is "I dislike it." (Hopefully, I could also say it's against the law, but that's a different [though not unrelated] matter.) I do think that's the strongest moral objection that can be made. There is no equation or formula that pops out the answer, as far as I can tell. But please note that it's not the only objection that can be made. There are rational and practical objections, too, which are quite powerful. I could say,"that's a human being just like you," or "that's someone's child just as you are someone's child." I could point out that the community will rail against the torturer, and possibly execute him/her as well as drive out his/her family. Please also note that I have argued that the strongest moral objection a theist can make does not seem to me stronger than the atheist's objection. I would be interested to hear what specific objection you could make as a theist that would be more powerful than the atheist's. All I can think of is the threat of losing heaven and suffering eternal damnation. That is powerful--if the torturer believes your threat. On the other hand, "I object" is pretty powerful, whether it comes from one defiant revolutionary or millions of people in a society. A person who says "I object" and then intervenes in what s/he perceives to be injustice--because who else will?--can be very effective.LarTanner_{August 24, 2012
August
08
Aug
24
24
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

--Lar: “Lots of people, books, and institutions are acceptable as moral authorities. They just don’t possess authority intrinsically or for all time or in every single instance of human behavior for millions of years. My personal favorite authorities are the meditations of Marcus Aurelius and the Pirkei Avos. I like the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson.” If they possess no “intrinsic moral authority for all times or in every single instance,” then they have no moral authority. To have moral authority is to have the right to bind everyone to the code in question. Without that binding power, there is no authority. The two go together. Accordingly, if you arrogate unto yourself the right to pick and choose which elements of a given source possess intrinsic moral authority and which ones do not, then you are also saying that you are the final moral authority by presuming the right to make that selection. That you prefer some authors over others is irrelevant. --“Really? After all this time and all I’ve discussed you still persist in saying I have “no standard”? Have you understood at all anything I’ve written?” I am afraid you have not answered the question. Who or what is the moral the moral authority of the U.S. Constitution that you claim has some moral standing? Why, in your judgment, does it have any moral authority at all? Meanwhile, my earlier questions persist and remain unanswered: Exactly what kinds of foundational principles for civil law are you proposing? If 80% of the people decide that all atheists should immediately be executed, would that constitute moral public policy? If not, why not? Is adultery a morally good or a morally bad act? You asked me two questions: --“On what specific matters do you and God disagree?” No disagreements. God created human nature and is, therefore, the only one who is qualified to expound on a moral code proper to that same human nature. That same morality exists in a less developed form as the Natural Moral Law. The purpose for the moral law is to guide us toward our final end and to steer us away from final destruction. If we have no final end or destiny, then morality serves no purpose at all. --“What about you and Jesus? No disagreements. Jesus’ moral code is perfect in every way because it speaks to man’s purpose and man’s nature. If man has no nature, then obviously there can be no moral code proper to it, which simply means that there can be no moral code That is basic logic. The challenge is to apply an unchanging moral code to ever changing circumstances. This can be very challenging at times since the proper application isn't always clear and, at times, requires a large measure of prudence and wisdom. On the other hand, when the code itself is also thought to be changeable, or subjective, or relative, there is no hope because there is no direction.StephenB_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Really, the essence of the argument about morality is relatively simple; one either believes there is a factual, true, objective principle (or set of principles) involved, or one does not. Either we are interpreting an objective, factual good when we make moral decisions and arguments, or we are interpreting subjective feelings and ideas. If we hold what we are ultimately debating to be subjective in nature, there is no sense in "debating" it at all (debating in the sense of a logical argument). I like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla, there is no debate to be had. It's a matter of personal preference. I like to give to charity and help the less fortunate, others like to kill and cannibalize young children. If it's just a matter of personal preference and no objective, factual, binding moral truth exists, then let's just admit what we're doing here is rhetorical in nature and stop waving our hands to distract from what is ultimately nothing other than comnplete moral relativism.William J Murray_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

LarTanner at 54:
We have, then, fundamentally irreconcilable viewpoints, right? If so, the question now is how we get along. Do we turn our backs to each other and walk away, or do we never speak of the matter again, or do we covertly/overtly try to persuade the other that his view is wrong? Your thoughts?
Well, for one thing I have removed you from the moderation queue. Please try to keep your sometimes overly sardonic responses in check. I will try to do the same (no guarantees). I appreciate the time you and other materialists spend here at UD. We need to push each other and keep each other honest. Otherwise, it is easy to get intellectually lazy. I do not expect to convince you and presume you do not expect to convince me. Still, there is value in our exchange. Several thousand lurkers visit UD each day. I put my arguments out there for them. They are the audience and the ultimate judges of who “won.” So keep coming. Keep hammering away at us. Let the chips fall where they may.Barry Arrington_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

LT: "No, I get the salient point." I don't think you do, but we'll get to that. LT: "I even basically agree with you, except I think you invest too much into the term “objective.”" I only "invest" in it when my investment in it is required in order to assume a debate can be resolved by something other than rhetoric and subjective considerations, and I only invest as much as is necessary. I think perhaps this is where you fail in your perspective, as we will soon see. LT: "If you and I disagree and we wish to have that disagreement resolved , then we both need to accept the authority of an independent party to rule on the matter for us." But you've rejected that avenue in any meaningful sense when you say “I reject that any work, person, institution, or idea has any automatic, intrinsic moral authority.” Obviously, any third-party or exterior "authority" we agree to is not binding to one that has already dismissed that entity as a source of intrinsic authority on the matter being arbited. LT: "For example, you say I stole your Matchbox cars. I say the cars never belonged to you in the first place. Our case can be decided by a party (perhaps a text or a person) without a stake in the outcome and without preference for either one of us." Why would either of us submit to such an arbitrary authority unless we believed in the inherent moral validity of the principle being applied, and had faith in the capacity of the ruling entity for fair judgement thereof? But, you have rejected that acceptance of validity, and you have rejected that faith. So now you are hand-waving to distract from an argument you've already emptied of any binding personal validity. LT "All I am really saying is that the authority of that party is something granted and not intrinsic." I think this is where you miss the point entirely. It's not about the authority of any "party", it is about the validity of the concept of morality in the first place. Unless I believe that some things are right and some are wrong, I have no basis for giving a crap what any "authority" says about it whatsoever, and no reason to "submit" to any supposed authority on the matter. You and I must agree that there is an objectively valid principle (whether we initially agree on what it is or not) that can be used to rationally arbit our debate about what is moral and what is not, regardless of whether or not we agree that there is any authority figure/entity/text in existence we trust to use the principle to judge our case. LT: "Moreover, that party does not need to have intrinsic authority to rule effectively in our case. More-moreover, if that party is going to continue to serve authoritatively, it must evolve to accommodate new and different scenarios; otherwise, it must be replaced." Unless we both agree with the principle being used by any such authority figure, we have no reason to go to the authority figure. This is where you are missing the boat: it's not about the authority figure, the person, the entity, the text, etc; it's about whether or not you and I can agree that there is a binding, objectively valid principle of morality in the first place. If morality is entirely subjective with no objectively valid moorings, why bother bringing in a third party unless we both agree to the principle by which the third party is going to attempt to arbit our disagreement? LT: "(Incidentally, this final statement is precisely the reason that religions and legal systems require some much commentary and amendments. The initial strictures have a lifespan.)" You are confusing wording and culture with underlying principle. Unless we first agree that stealing is objectively wrong, we have no reason to bring in any third party to determine if what occurred is "stealing" or not. If I don't believe stealing is wrong, why should I let myself become party to a judgement about something I don't think requires any such judgement? LT: "So, we really are quite close on some fundamental issues. We can talk meaningfully about morally good and bad behaviors. Nothing about believing in a certain god or not believing prevents us from sharing many, if not most, values." That depends on what you call "meaningfully". A debate about entirely subjective values cannot be rationally or factually arbited. If I refuse to admit that theft or murder are objectively immoral actions, then we cannot "meaningfully" debate moral matters. We can gossip, rhetorically chat, and appeal to emotions and all sorts of irrational feelings, but there's no rational, factual way to arbit disagreements that do not initially accept a factual, objective basis. LT: "But I think we see today what happens when we try to force ancient morality onto modern issues. Fill in the blanks for examples…." I think what we see today is what happens when people dismiss well-thought traditional views as if automatically inapplicable to modern times out of an undeserved sense of intellectual superiority. Tell me, why should I agree in the first place that theft is immoral? Why should I agree in the second place to arbit our debate with anything other than a gun? Your entire argument is an exercise in unexamined question-begging. If you don't answer any other question, answer this one: Is it morally wrong, in any culture at any time and by any person, to torture children for their personal pleasure?William J Murray_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Barry @53, A lucid summary of the confusion. I agree with everything you have written. We have, then, fundamentally irreconcilable viewpoints, right? If so, the question now is how we get along. Do we turn our backs to each other and walk away, or do we never speak of the matter again, or do we covertly/overtly try to persuade the other that his view is wrong? Your thoughts?LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

LarTanner@52: The discussion you and I have been having is a perfect example of this aphorism: “Disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray You write: “Your morals are preferential, and there’s no reason for anyone to care about what you prefer.” The point of the OP in a nutshell is that the atheist must say this. I could not have have summed the matter up more succinctly. Here is where we moved into confusion (rather than disagreement). You write: “There are several viable foundations for ethics, just nothing that gets an automatic pass.” The crux of the confusion is that you and I mean different things by the word “foundation.” When I use the word “foundation,” I mean “the objective base on which all ethics rests.” You deny that such a thing exists, and when you use the word “foundation” you appear to mean “general guidelines from various sources that I might use to inform my preferences about which moral precepts to accept or reject.” You write: “[For the atheist] to say ‘there is simply no foundation for ethics’ is not true and not what I have argued.” Well it depends on what one means by “foundation” doesn’t it. If one means what I mean by the word “foundation,” the statement “the atheist believes there is simply no foundation for ethics” is obviously true. On the other hand, if one means what you mean by the word “foundation,” the statement “the atheist believes there is simply no foundation for ethics” is obviously false.Barry Arrington_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Barry@51, Sure. Of course, we are all in the same proverbial boat. Your morals are preferential, and there's no reason for anyone to care about what you prefer. Careful with one persistent detail. There are several viable foundations for ethics, just nothing that gets an automatic pass. To say "there is simply no foundation for ethics" is not true and not what I have argued.LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

LarTanner writes:
Of course! One of the main points of what I stated much earlier is that my caring or preferring is irrelevant. As I argued, focus on the content, not the person/institution advocating the content. Am I “the judge of all things,” as you say. Well, each of us has to judge things. That comes with the territory when one is a rational animal. I know I don’t want to abdicate that personal responsibility for a mess of pottage.
Thank you. I am surprised, but you did answer the ultimate question. We appear to be in perfect agreement. In the second paragraph of your response you concede that morality is nothing more than what you prefer. In the first paragraph you concede there is no reason for anyone to care about what you prefer. Of course you do say “focus on the content.” Well, of course, the question I have been trying to get at is “By what standard should we evaluate the content?” And you just answered it. You are a pure moral relativist, and in your view the only standard by which to evaluate the “content” is whether you subjectively prefer the “content” or not. At least you’re honest about that. Unlike Will Provine, who is always candid about the implications of his atheism, most atheists seem to try to hide the fact that one of the implications of atheism is that there is simply no foundation for ethics. Thank you again for your candor.Barry Arrington_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

You still refuse to answer the basic question, which is: “Why on earth should I or anyone else care what LarTanner prefers?” I assume you will continue to avoid that question, but, of course, the answer is obvious. There is no reason I or anyone else should care what you prefer.
Of course! One of the main points of what I stated much earlier is that my caring or preferring is irrelevant. As I argued, focus on the content, not the person/institution advocating the content. Am I "the judge of all things," as you say. Well, each of us has to judge things. That comes with the territory when one is a rational animal. I know I don't want to abdicate that personal responsibility for a mess of pottage.LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

LarTanner: “I don’t accept “societal consensus” as a necessary moral authority” “Lots of people, books, and institutions are acceptable as moral authorities. They just don’t possess authority intrinsically” “My personal favorite authorities are . . .” “They [i.e., my moral views] are all open to revision.” “I think the founding documents of the USA–i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution–are pretty good.” “I reject that any work, person, institution, or idea has any automatic, intrinsic moral authority.” “I deny the universality of natural law, but classical theories of natural law are interesting.” I get it. In your moral framework YOU are the judge of all things. Morality does not hold you accountable; you hold morality accountable. For you, morality is nothing but a matter of LarTanner’s personal preference. But don’t you see that that is what we have been saying all along. When you say something is wrong you are saying nothing more than “I personally do not prefer it.” When you say something is right you are saying nothing more than “I personally prefer it.” You still refuse to answer the basic question, which is: “Why on earth should I or anyone else care what LarTanner prefers?” I assume you will continue to avoid that question, but, of course, the answer is obvious. There is no reason I or anyone else should care what you prefer.Barry Arrington_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

WJM
I think you – and others – miss the salient point that the question refers to. Unless the two people involved in a morality debate agree that there is an objective good – a standard of good that is objectively valid – then the debate/argument can only be rhetorical/subjective in nature. IOW, it’s not that any individual “who sez” is intrinsically/obviously more valid than any other; the point is that unless you and I agree that there is an objective standard by which competing moral claims can be arbited, what is the basis for arbiting our debate?
No, I get the salient point. I even basically agree with you, except I think you invest too much into the term "objective." If you and I disagree and we wish to have that disagreement resolved , then we both need to accept the authority of an independent party to rule on the matter for us. For example, you say I stole your Matchbox cars. I say the cars never belonged to you in the first place. Our case can be decided by a party (perhaps a text or a person) without a stake in the outcome and without preference for either one of us. All I am really saying is that the authority of that party is something granted and not intrinsic. Moreover, that party does not need to have intrinsic authority to rule effectively in our case. More-moreover, if that party is going to continue to serve authoritatively, it must evolve to accommodate new and different scenarios; otherwise, it must be replaced. (Incidentally, this final statement is precisely the reason that religions and legal systems require some much commentary and amendments. The initial strictures have a lifespan.) So, we really are quite close on some fundamental issues. We can talk meaningfully about morally good and bad behaviors. Nothing about believing in a certain god or not believing prevents us from sharing many, if not most, values. But I think we see today what happens when we try to force ancient morality onto modern issues. Fill in the blanks for examples....LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
You reject any moral AUTHORITY outside of yourself except for societal consensus.
But I don't accept "societal consensus" as a necessary moral authority, and I don't know why you think I would.
I challenge you to name any other acceptable moral authority and you refuse to respond.
I missed your "challenge," then. Lots of people, books, and institutions are acceptable as moral authorities. They just don't possess authority intrinsically or for all time or in every single instance of human behavior for millions of years. My personal favorite authorities are the meditations of Marcus Aurelius and the Pirkei Avos. I like the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Which of the Ten Commandments do you think may not be binding in every case?
"I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Ex 20:2)
Which moral statements attributed to Jesus are, in your judgment, “bizarre or garbage?”
You may question their status as moral statements, but then George W. Bush called Jesus a political philosopher, so we're in Humpty-Dumpty times. My favorite gems include Matt. 10:32-39, Mark 12-14/Matt. 21:18-22, and Luke 8:26-33. Great stuff.
But you have no standard for judging the moral status of that document–no standard for believing which parts ought to be amended.
Really? After all this time and all I've discussed you still persist in saying I have "no standard"? Have you understood at all anything I've written?
ndeed, you appear not to know about the moral authority behind the US Constitution, which is named in the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, please. This petty posturing of yours is embarrassing.
Which of your views about morality do you accept without question and which ones are open to revision?
They are all open to revision. At 42, I have lots of life yet to experience and much to learn.
Exactly what kinds of foundational principles for civil law are you proposing? If 80% of the people decide that all atheists should immediately be executed, would that be acceptable? If not, why not? What moral authority outside of yourself and societal consensus do you accept? Why did you deny that the Natural Moral Law or the Bible constitute objective morality?
I think the founding documents of the USA--i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--are pretty good. Acceptable to whom and on what basis? To me, no. To US law? no. I have names some works that I personally accept as moral authorities. I reject that any work, person, institution, or idea has any automatic, intrinsic moral authority. I deny the universality of natural law, but classical theories of natural law are interesting. Sacred texts like the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek New Testament, and the Koran (among many others) are best understood in the times and places of their composition. While some statements continue to have prima facie relevance today, many more are irrelevant and/or require feats of retroactive interpretation to make them fit modern progress in our understanding of humanity and civil justice. Now that I've answered all of your questions, perhaps you will answer mine: 1) How does answering "God says so" to a moral question (e.g., should any two non-related consenting adults be allowed to marry each other?) fully resolve that question? 2) How do children learn what is morally right and what is morally wrong? 3) What qualifies as an objective moral standard, and how do precepts from the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek New Testament, the Koran, the Analects of Confucius, and others meet the standard? 4) When standards in #3 conflict, how should anyone resolve the conflict in favor of one or the other standard? 5) How specifically has your acceptance of an objective moral authority influenced your moral behavior toward others? For instance, were you ever about to murder someone and then stopped because you remembered the fifth commandment? 6) What specific moral behaviors toward others do you do (or not do) that necessarily require an "objective" source such as the Bible? That is what does the Bible give you that you could not, even in principle, get from a non-Biblical source? (If you do not want to use the Bible, substitute the source of your choice.) 7) Millions of people around the world today and throughout the past centuries believe the Buddha was the most "beautiful, loving and wonderful person to have walked the earth." Do you agree? On what basis could such a thing be decided? 8) On what specific matters do you and God disagree? What about you and Jesus? Many thanks!LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

LarTanner said: "Perhaps you can explain why your particular answer to “who sez” should hold more weight than someone else’s answer." I think you - and others - miss the salient point that the question refers to. Unless the two people involved in a morality debate agree that there is an objective good - a standard of good that is objectively valid - then the debate/argument can only be rhetorical/subjective in nature. IOW, it's not that any individual "who sez" is intrinsically/obviously more valid than any other; the point is that unless you and I agree that there is an objective standard by which competing moral claims can be arbited, what is the basis for arbiting our debate? You can say that the only outside authority that you submit to is social consensus, but I doubt you actually submit your moral views to social consensus. I would expect that you disagree with social consensus at least in some areas, and you might even work to change the consensus view. What do you think the consensus view on morality is here at UD? Why are you not conforming to it, but are rather arguing aginst it? So, at the end of the day, while you (and other atheists) might hold "social consensus" or "secular humanism" up as some sort of exterior standard to lay claim to (IMO, to avoid being seen/characterized as a complete moral relativist), the fact probably is that if you disagree with any particular points of such exterior rules, you will not attempt to change your own view to conform to that outside rule (as you are not doing so here at UD). LarTanner said: "What I reject is that any source is inherently and necessarily authoritative." LarTanner said: ”Finally, I can accept my thinking on many moral questions while also realizing that I can be incorrect and should be prepared to change my views.” Incorrect according to what? If you reject "any" source as authoritative, how can whatever you think be "incorrect"? Since it is apparent that you accept no source as factual or objective, how is one to change your mind about what is moral absent facts or any accepted objective basis? Rhetoric? Appeal to emotion? What sound logical basis is left for arbiting what is morally good or evil? Even if we do not agree on a particular source for objective moral values, unless you agree that objective moral values exist (such as: it is always immmoral, in all cases, in all cultures, to torture children for personal pleasure, regardless of what anyone says or believes to the contrary), then all you are doing in this thread is hand-waving and attempting to distract others (and possibly yourself) from your moral relativism, where nothing is intrinsically good or bad and if someone thinks it is good to torture a child for fun, then for them, it is so.William J Murray_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

--Lar: "You consistently tell me what I accept and reject," I am simply calling attention to your own statements. --"I do not–repeat, DO NOT–reject any morality coming from any source outside myself." You reject any moral AUTHORITY outside of yourself except for societal consensus. I confirm that point each time I challenge you to name any other acceptable moral authority and you refuse to respond. --"What I reject is that any source is inherently and necessarily authoritative." You reject the authority of the Natural Moral Law. You reject the authority of Biblical morality. You reject the authority of the Church. You reject the authority of every moral source outside of yourself except for society's consensus, which is always changing. Even then, you likely pick and choose which of those changing standards that you happen to prefer, which means, in the final analysis, you accept only yourself as the final moral authority. --"Therefore I can accept some precepts (perhaps) in the decalogue without taking those precepts as always and in-every-single-case binding." Which of the Ten Commandments do you think may not be binding in every case? Give me an example where you think the standard might no hold. (Understand that the fifth commandment forbids "murder" not "killing.") --"I can see that some statements of the Hebrew Scriptures, filtered and attributed to Jesus, are helpful while others are bizarre or garbage." Which moral statements attributed to Jesus are, in your judgment, "bizarre or garbage?" --"I can assent to having the US Constitution as the law of (my) land, while also believing that parts of it ought to be amended." But you have no standard for judging the moral status of that document--no standard for believing which parts ought to be amended. Indeed, you appear not to know about the moral authority behind the US Constitution, which is named in the Declaration of Independence. --"Finally, I can accept my thinking on many moral questions while also realizing that I can be incorrect and should be prepared to change my views." Which of your views about morality do you accept without question and which ones are open to revision? --"what questions of yours really remain?" All those above as well as these four from 35 and 40 that were left unanswered: Exactly what kinds of foundational principles for civil law are you proposing? If 80% of the people decide that all atheists should immediately be executed, would that be acceptable? If not, why not? What moral authority outside of yourself and societal consensus do you accept? Why did you deny that the Natural Moral Law or the Bible constitute objective morality?StephenB_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Optimus @43
The grand ‘sez who’ is not about trying to convince another person to accept a certain standard of morality. Rather, it points at the problem of relativism. Without universally acknowledged standard, concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are meaningless.
This is simply not so in reality, especially your last statement. It is a fact that we currently have no universally acknowledged standard of moral rightness and wrongness. Agree? Yet, moral concepts are not meaningless: others in this very thread have assented to the idea that we can establish good and bad locally. This cannot be so if good and bad are "meaningless." Another argument I have put out in this threas--but without a response--is that "sez who" does not get one out of what you call "the problem of relativism." Even if we both agree on the identity of the "who," we still have to determine what "who" said and how "who" meant it to be taken. This determination leads us right back to the very same "sez who" problem. Optimus and Barry: do you agree? How does one now get out the the "sez who" problem? This thinking has lead me to point out that there may be other ways which do a better job of adjudicating between conflicting moral claims. But you folks don't want to take this idea seriously. I'll now skip the middle part of your post. It doesn't interest me, but let me know if there's something you think I really ought to address. Your last paragraph, however, says:
Concerning your statement that God has no more moral authority than Tom Cruise, it is statements like this that suggest that you are not a serious thinking person. A hypothetical God would absolutely have the right to establish objectively right and wrong.
I agree with the last statement to a certain extent. By "hypothetical God," you are referring to the Philosophers' God. This is the deity whose attributes are pondered by pre-Christian philosophers such as Aristotle; by folks such as Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, and Ockham; and by non-Christian philosophers such as Averroes and Maimonides. I know this God, but the one I am talking about is not hypothetical. I am talking about the Biblical God, the fictional character named--multiply named--in the Hebrew Scriptures and its offspring religious texts, including Christian and Islamic. That God, the Biblical one, is no moral authority. You may object and argue that the Biblical God and the Philosophers' God are one and the same. I'd be thrilled to hear your defense of this. Until you persuade me, however, the distinction is useful because the character of one is spelled out in narratives and direct quotations--however much we may want to argue over their content. The existence and attributes of the other is extrapolated from nature and from observing human behavior. In other words, the Biblical God is documented, and the Philosophers' God is speculated. That said, the relationship between the Philosophers' God and morality has several problems. For one, consider your closing remark: how is it that God established physical laws and the universe always follows them, while he also established moral laws and people routinely break them? Another problem is the morality of the Philosophers' God. I'm referring to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Postulating the Philosophers' God as the "ground of being" doesn't resolve the dilemma because while the Philosophers' God is said to be omnipotent, he cannot do absolutely anything. The Philosophers' God cannot make a square circle or make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it. That is, he cannot violate his own laws. If he is good, then the self-evident brutality of the world (no, it's not ALL brutal) is either a violation or the Philosophers' God isn't all good or he isn't all-powerful. Plantinga's fee-will defense notwithstanding, the problem(s) of evils continue to vex the Philosophers' God, in my opinion.LarTanner_{August 23, 2012
August
08
Aug
23
23
2012
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

LarTanner @41 It seems that you are missing the point yet again. The grand 'sez who' is not about trying to convince another person to accept a certain standard of morality. Rather, it points at the problem of relativism. Without universally acknowledged standard, concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are meaningless. Seeking to equate right with what is in a person's best interests is just asking for trouble. If you were a guard in a Nazi concentration camp, it would undoubtedly be in your personal best interests to go along with the program and be party to genocide. If you were a firefighter, it would undoubtedly NOT be in your best interests to run into a burning building to rescue a trapped person. As the foregoing examples show, there is no correlation between self-interest and 'rightness.' Another tiresome atheistic proposal for establishing morality is the 'do no harm' idea. This quickly falls flat upon scrutiny. If I kill an organism to eat it, I have obviously harmed it. Is that wrong? Am I obliged to starve myself to be a moral person? Should we hold criminally accountable a wolf who kills and eats a sheep? One may protest, "It only applies to situations where there is no necessity to harm another being." This is no escape, however. For what if there is a situation where necessity could be argued? Perhaps someone might feel it necessary to kill another human being, not because of direct physical threat, but because in some indirect fashion that person presents a challenge to survival (perhaps an aged parent or a disabled person whose care costs are skyhigh). Even if you would argue against such an act, the problem is that it is hardly clear cut. The principle provides no reliable standard. Another problem with this idea is that many who pay lip service to it happily ignore it where it concerns matters like sexuality. It is a fact of medical science that sexual promiscuity can be damaging to one's own health and that of one's partner(s). Yet how many atheists does one hear condemning sexual promiscuity on the grounds that it may cause harm to others? Concerning your statement that God has no more moral authority than Tom Cruise, it is statements like this that suggest that you are not a serious thinking person. A hypothetical God would absolutely have the right to establish objectively right and wrong. The act of creation itself carries certain intrinsic rights that are acknowledged the world over. That's what patents and copyrights are all about. We recognize that when someone makes something (whether a tool, a machine, a piece of software, a book, etc.), he/she has a right to exercise control over it and to receive profit that it may produce(at least in some measure). Therefore, if God is the architect of existence, it would be fitting for him to establish laws of morality, just as he would establish the physical laws.Optimus_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

UD Editors: LarTanner, we get to your comments as soon as we can, taking into account that UD is an all volunteer operation and we all have day jobs.
Not sure how flexible the design of this site is, but if we could "Like" and "Dislike" posts, or even rate them based on 1 to 5 stars, moderators could consider letting comments through and only looking at those deemed truly negative by the community. That could also introduce a new way to present possible threads of interest.Mung_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Barry@38
I have made my point about a dozen times. Can it really be true that you don’t grasp it yet? Astonishing. Here it is one last time: An atheist may make moral pronouncements, but he has no answer when he is asked “sez who” other than “sez me.” Thus, the atheist cannot ground his moral judgments on anything other than his personal preferences and he can provide no reason why anyone else should agree with his personal preferences.
Ah, well I already answered your point at 27. You have not responded to that. So now I'm astonished. Here was the thrust of the answer I gave. Please follow along. You don't have an answer to "sez who?" any more than I do. You may answer, "God sez, that's who," but that answer is feeble because (1) 'God' has no more moral authority than Richard Dawkins or anyone else, and (2) If you take the God idea seriously, you don't really know what God says or what God means. You need to rely on the Church, or on the "fathers" or on Joel Osteen, or Rabbi Kook, or Osama bin Laden. So, "sez who?" stinks as a question. If you want to argue with someone that they shouldn't commit or sanction genocide, you can say "ABC prohibits it." If that person says back "Well, XYZ permits it," then you are out of luck. And the genocide will proceed as planned. But if you point out that committing genocide is ultimately against their interests, you might stand a better chance. Historically, those who have committed atrocities have themselves died horribly, or been jailed, or brought infamy and grief upon their families and country. So, to sum up, if you want another to accept your morals "God sez" is no better than "Tom Cruise sez." God's fictional and crazy, and Tom Cruise is just crazy. You'll do better to tell your conversational partner that violating your morals will be against their self-interest (too much risk, too little reward). Of course, both approaches work even better when there's a specific system of punishment in place. But in the end, neither you nor I can respond very well to "who sez?" Perhaps you can explain why your particular answer to "who sez" should hold more weight than someone else's answer. StephenB@38
So, it is clear that you reject morality coming from any source outside of yourself except for popular opinion.
You consistently tell me what I accept and reject, and you are wrong almost 100% of the time! If I'm not as responsive as you wish, maybe you should consider that you really are not understanding. I do not--repeat, DO NOT--reject any morality coming from any source outside myself. What I reject is that any source is inherently and necessarily authoritative. Therefore I can accept some precepts (perhaps) in the decalogue without taking those precepts as always and in-every-single-case binding. I can see that some statements of the Hebrew Scriptures, filtered and attributed to Jesus, are helpful while others are bizarre or garbage. I can assent to having the US Constitution as the law of (my) land, while also believing that parts of it ought to be amended. Finally, I can accept my thinking on many moral questions while also realizing that I can be incorrect and should be prepared to change my views. So, given that I do not reject morality per se but rather reject, specifically, that holy texts such as the Hebrew Scriptures, Greek New Testament, Koran, etc. provide intrinsically authoritative and binding moral pronouncements, what questions of yours really remain?LarTanner_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

--Lar: "You already have all the tools you need from me, here in this thread, to run through this example yourself." --"I can’t help thinking that your request is but the prelude leading to a different point. If so, care to make that point? I bet we all can guess what it is!" I simply asked you to use your own tools to discern whether or not adultery is evil or relatively evil or good or relatively good. You didn't even bother to try. The point should be obvious: If you, thinking that your tools have some value, cannot use them to answer a simple question about morality, then you should not expect someone like me, who knows that they have no value, to use them--especially since I already know the right answer to the question. Adultery is objectively evil, is always wrong, and cannot, therefore, be a "relative evil." [You have already ruled out the Natural Moral Law, The Ten Commandments, and the Bible on the grounds that they are absolute and objective]. --"I have not ruled them out, I don’t think they are absolute, and I don’t think they are objective. Congratulations on the trifecta." First of all, you did rule them out. You wrote, "On atheist premises, there is no agency or church-head proclaiming moral law from a “ground of being.” Similarly, there is no ruler with automatic authority to impose his or her values on people." So, it is clear that you reject morality coming from any source outside of yourself except for popular opinion. Indeed, I asked you to tell me which of your foundational "laws" you would use to ground civil law. You decided to pass on that one as well. (That is why you avoided answering another simple question: If 80% of the people decide to execute atheists, would that be permissible? Is it necessary for me to explain why you didn't respond? All right, I will explain. If you answer yes, then you have signed your own death warrant, which you are unwilling to do. If you answer no, then you are confessing that an objective morality that transcends popular opinion does, indeed, exist. So, you evade. Second, If you "don't think" that the Ten Commandments, the Natural Moral Law, and the Bible constitute objective and absolute standards for morality, then (excuse me) you are simply unacquainted with the facts.StephenB_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

There is no concept so empty as one where exterminating millions of Jews can be equally seen as good or evil, nor is it "hysterical" to point out the calamitous mental deficiency of those who would make such an equivocation.William J Murray_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

LarTanner: “And, indeed, the Holocaust–which was perpetrated against groups in addition to European Jews–was justified as being morally good.” Agreed. But I am sure you will agree that it was not morally good. But you and I mean different things by “morally good.” I mean that those who perpetrated the holocaust transgressed an objective transcendent moral code. You mean “I personally do not prefer holocausts.” But, again, you can provide no reason why your personal predilections should be binding on anyone else. LarTanner: “Moreover, very many people who claimed to have moral authority and who represented themselves as having access to objectively determined moral laws either sanctioned the Holocaust and/or didn’t think it necessary to act against those particular actions of the Nazi regime.” Perhaps that is true. If it is, I am sure you will agree that the people of whom you speak were not acting in a way that was morally good. But, again, you and I mean different things by “morally good.” I mean that the those who lied about the moral status of the holocaust or failed to act against it transgressed an objective transcendent moral code. You mean “I personally do not prefer lying about the moral status of the holocaust or failing to act against it.” But, again, you can provide no reason why your personal predilections should be binding on anyone else. LarTanner. “Just what is your point, Barry?” I have made my point about a dozen times. Can it really be true that you don’t grasp it yet? Astonishing. Here it is one last time: An atheist may make moral pronouncements, but he has no answer when he is asked “sez who” other than “sez me.” Thus, the atheist cannot ground his moral judgments on anything other than his personal preferences and he can provide no reason why anyone else should agree with his personal preferences.Barry Arrington_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

I've sought to be responsive to comments directed at mine, but I'm now tired of waiting on UD moderation. If I don't respond to future comments, it's not because I didn't want to; it's because UD's policy makes it too difficult to hold a real discussion. But I guess real discussion has never been what UD is all about. UD Editors: LarTanner, we get to your comments as soon as we can, taking into account that UD is an all volunteer operation and we all have day jobs. Of course you don't have to respond to any more comments. Indeed, if I had been thrashed as soundly as you have been in this thread, I would probably pick up my marbles and go home too. LarTanner_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB
You have already ruled out the Natural Moral Law, The Ten Commandments, and the Bible on the grounds that they are absolute and objective.
I have not ruled them out, I don't think they are absolute, and I don't think they are objective. Congratulations on the trifecta.LarTanner_{August 22, 2012
August
08
Aug
22
22
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply