The $68,584 Question

_{Barry Arrington
September 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

There is such a thing as a professional “ethicist,” and as of this writing the median annual income of a clinical ethicist is $68,584. Here is one job description for such a position:

Offers guidance to patients, their families, and professional staff on ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns stemming from clinical interactions between health care professionals and patients. Provides guidance to the institutional ethics committee pertaining to policy formulation and educational and case review activities. Develops institutional policies concerning ethical issues such as “do-not-resuscitate” and “withdrawal of life-support”. Requires a master’s degree or doctorate related to health ethics and at least 5 years of experience in the field.

I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith. By definition he believes certain actions are really wrong and other actions are really right, and therefore he often has something meaningful to say.

My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. See here for Philip Johnson’s informative take on the issue.

After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.

I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person asserts that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.

Comments

@Silver Asiatic #113 It seems to me that "Darwinism", or perhaps "Neo-Darwinism", might be better described as the theory that the mechanism of Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations (the originally unknown source of Darwin's 'variations') has played the central or primary role in bringing about the full array of diversity we see in the world of life. Darwin's supporters often insist that even Darwin knew that Natural Selection was not the ONLY engine of evolution, and they take the same position today. They say that Natural Selection is central, but that other mechanisms of evolution can help stuff along. Regarding Neo-Darwinism, I think it's important to note that this view of evolutionary theory is not only upheld by certain prominent atheist evolutionists and theistic evolutionists, but that it is essentially equivalent to THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION as it is presented to the public in the popular media. The popular media does not present evolutionary theory in terms of self-organization, or 'natural genetic engineering', or talk about pre-adapted genetic toolkits, or much of anything else. The theory of evolution, as it is presented to the public for consumption, is almost exclusively of a Neo-Darwinian sort, appealing to hardcore gradualism and long waiting periods for minor genetic mutations to build up to big morphological changes over evolutionary time. Why is "Evolution" presented to the public this way? Because it offers the most plausible-sounding story for the masses who don't really have any awareness at all what is happening at the biochemical level. Not even a slightly informed layman's understanding. The attraction of Neo-Darwinism as a picture of evolution is that it basically allows people to picture living organisms as instances of playdough, where, starting from an undifferentiated blob of malleable dough, you can gradually move from one shape into another, over and over, in tiny increments. If you can visualize life that way, what could be more plausible than the Neo-Darwinian picture of evolution? If proponents of evolutionary theory (and by this I mean those who think that all aspects of life can be explained by recourse only to material mechanisms) would like proponents of ID to spend less time focusing on the specifically Neo-Darwinian picture of evolution, then they should start turning their severe criticisms and insults toward the media outlets who continue to encourage belief in evolution on the basis of the plausibility of Neo-Darwinism to the uninitiated. But they will be in no rush to do this, because the desired goal is to have people believe in "Evolution", not to have people properly understand the types of evolutionary models and mechanisms that they have turned to upon the failure of Neo-Darwinism. I think it's also important to note that the REASON we still have prominent evolutionists, like Dawkins, who adhere to the Neo-Darwinian model is because they strongly believe that only the Neo-Darwinian model is capable of offering some kind of plausible explanation for the addition of large amounts of new functional information to the genome, whereas the post-Darwinian models tend to take the presence of the genetic information for granted and/or offer no plausible-sounding explanation for how it might have come about in the first place.HeKS_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

SA:
A_B: Darwinism refers to the theory that all the development of biological life can be reduced to mutations and natural selection. It’s the view that Richard Dawkins still holds. What you’re saying is that theory has been falsified. It’s not true that “all the development” of biological life can be reduced to Darwinian processes.
Your first sentence is simply wrong. Darwin never suggested that the development of life can be reduced to mutations and natural selection. How could he have given that nobody knew what mutations were. And the statement about Dawkins is a gross oversimplification of his views. He definitely thinks that selection is the most important mechanism but he also acknowledges that genetic drift is one of the drivers of change, something that was never proposed by Darwin. It has been a long time since I read Darwin's work but I will take your word that he proposed that the development of life can be reduced to a source of variation in the population and natural selection (we will ignore the idea of sexual selection as it it just a variation on natural selection). If this is true, then pure Darwinism was falsified in the early part of the last century. Which is why I argue that referring to current evolutionary theory as Darwinism is misleading, and in the case of its use by creationists, intentional misrepresentation. But falsification of the specific details of his theory is not evidence for creationism any more than it is evidence for astral projection or leprechauns. As new information became available, evolutionary theory has been modified. And it will continue to be modified as additional information is collected.Acartia_bogart_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

A_B: Darwinism refers to the theory that all the development of biological life can be reduced to mutations and natural selection. It's the view that Richard Dawkins still holds. What you're saying is that theory has been falsified. It's not true that "all the development" of biological life can be reduced to Darwinian processes.Silver Asiatic_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
Where of course, he is also repeating by insinuation a slander that design Thought is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo.” He full well knows or should know that this is false labelling, but he obviously, sadly, is now addicted to speaking with disregard to the truth
K, as you well know, I am simply using the strategy intentionally used by creationists when describing evolutionary theory. Creationists insist on using (probably through direct instruction) the term Darwinism to describe evolutionary theory. My use of the term creationist is far more accurate to reality than your use of the term Darwinism. ID, no matter how you define it, requires a designer (i.e., creator). All Darwin proposed was one mechanism that is known to occur (i.e, natural selection). All he knew was that natural selection relied on the availability of variation within a population, but he had no idea where it came from. He did not even rule out Lamarckism. Since then, Mendel's work became known, DNA and RNA was discovered, population genetics became better understood, genetic drift was discovered, neutral theory was proposed, numerous gene shuffling processes were discovered, mutagenic chemicals and radiation were discovered, horizontal gene transfer was discovered, the importance of sex became better understood. And I am sure that I am missing other mechanisms that are important to evolution. In spite of knowing that it is inaccurate, UD and UD commenters continue to use the Darwinism term to refer to evolutionary theory. In a previous post, I have asked if UD has a style guide for it's contributing authors (I would be very surprised if it didn't) and if instructions are provided for the use of the Darwinism term. Since you are one of the contributing authors, I will certainly accept any answer you give to this.Acartia_bogart_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

A_B:
And a question for Barry. Someone was recently blocked from commenting for calling you a liar. Is this sanction only applied to non-creationists?
A_B, perhaps I should clarify the moderation policy for you. Banning may occur if someone FALSELY accuses another participant of being a liar.Barry Arrington_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

F/N: I'll bet there will be no objectors to take up Plato's remark or Locke's cite of Hooker -- which is a capital case of ideas with consequences, here, modern liberty and democracy. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

PS: I wouldn't worry about any shortage of objectors to the design inference, new or recycled. And if we make any serious blunder or leave any opening, there will be any number showing up to swarm down. Actually, if we say anything that can be twisted to seem to be an opening, cf comment no 1 above.kairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

BM, try WUWT . . . the other place he used to hang out at. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

[are there any others left?]
while we're at it: Where is DaveScot?BM40_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

A UD parable: Long ago, there was a machine, with only two buttons. The Red button was Evil, and was an offense to GOD and His nature. The Green button was Good, and reflected the Holy nature of GOD. Because Man ate from the tree of the knowledge of Buttons, Man knew that he should only press the Green button. In addition, GOD wrote an instruction manual explaining WHY man should only press the Green button. For thousands of years, GOD-believers pressed the buttons. Because men do bad things, some of the time they pressed the Green button, but sometimes they pressed the Red button. As time passed, some people were born who didn't know about GOD, or didn't believe in GOD. Over time a new field of study grew up around why men should press the Green button and not the Red button - men called it "Ethics". And lo, one could earn $68,584 teaching which button to push! And the GOD-believers knew they should press the Green button, because...GOD. But they were confused - what reason would men who didn't believe in GOD give, for why they should only press the Green button? "Everyone knows you should only press the Green button!" But why is it better to press the Green button? "Are you saying we don't know how to press the Green button? You're so dumb!" No - we want to know why you think it is better to press the Green button? "GOD-believers press the Red button just as often as we do!" But why is it better to press the Green button? "My intuition, that GOD didn't put in me, tells me to press the Green button!" But what if someone else's intution tells them to press the Red button? Why should they press the Green button? "You clearly don't understand! You GOD-believers are so stupid! Now where's my check?"drc466_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

WJM @97. Please forgive me. It was not my intention to come at this in any way close to A_B and his ilk. I reflect now in the light of morning how I could have sounded that way and I regret my tone. I have finally found a place that has the intellectual heavy lifting that I have thirsted for in these debates and they do serve the most useful purpose of enlightening the undecided and spectatorial among us with the necessary grist for meaningful decision making. Again, my apologies.AnimatedDust_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Let's get things straight, There's one real question that has been left unanswered.
Do they also try to talk people out of their favorite color or flavor of ice cream?
As to the original post, most people could do the job that could handle the stress. You would mostly be helping people choose their own choices as long as they were within the legal and policy standards of the medical facility. Most of the law and policies are made from premade decisions and the ethicist is there to help people figure out what their choices are and the different ways they can go about them. Now, they theory is mostly that the lawyers and policy makers have already made their decisions on the ethics and choices available. I'm not sure how the theist, atheist decisions would go, but most likely it'll go based off of existing criteria and social norms. As a Christian, my morals are based on the Bible and my best ability to interpret it. So, if I were a lawyer or policy maker, then I'd be the one with the actual decision on how things are supposed to go. Perhaps a fun direction to take the conversation would be how the legal precedents are evolving with the changing beliefs and seeing just how fragile the pieces of paper we write our laws on are. Those are the ones that really need to be here having these ethics discussions.MrCollins_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

If you look at the questions posed to A_B, the toughest ones include the little word "why". The problem is that ID is looking at the Big Why. That's the discussion of origins. But if you answer the question as if it's a Small Why, then the main point never registers. If you start out by concluding "there is no Big Why", then it's harder to find ultimate answers. We point out, "there is no grounding of morals" in the atheistic view. That statement looks at something ultimate - not something subjective and ephemeral. "Why should you be concerned about moral violations?" "Why do you engage UD on this issue?" We're looking at the Big Why - the philosophical or scientific origins of what's going on. When there is nihilism at the origin - then there is no answer to any ultimate questions. Some atheists made that clear (Provine, Nietzsche, Sartre) - but almost nobody lives up to the idea. To hear this ... "Yes, I blatantly lie in my conversations because lying is not morally different than the truth". That would be refreshing to hear. However, now try to convince anyone that lying has the same moral value as truth. To convince someone of that, you have to use reasoning - which is based on valuing truth as radically higher than falsehood. It's virtually impossible to live consistently as an atheistic-materialist. That's the problem. So everyone who adopts that view is compromised.Silver Asiatic_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

We often comment not for the sake of those who have no intention or capacity for meaningful debate, but perhaps for others not closed off to sound argument that might be lurking.
Agreed. I want to say that I appreciate Acartia_bogart, Graham2, Mark Frank and others [are there any others left?] who participate here and engage in arguments. The ad hominems and ridicule are not pleasant but at least they're taking the time to respond. I think UD has lost a bit in engagement with opposition lately. Admittedly, some opponents were rightly banned. Others tend to dominate a discussion (RDFish). But I have some sympathy for A_B, for example, when he is virtually alone against the entire UD community here. It's difficult to respond to 15 different people simultaneously. But the benefit for us is not only the hope of convincing him, and the good hope that lurkers will benefit -- but also, we get a chance to keep improving our arguments. We can learn a lot. Yes, it's like Whack-a-Mole but sometimes there are worthwhile criticisms that we can encounter. Also, on a personal level, it's good to handle angry opposition and try to calm it down -- there are some character-building opportunities along the way. Trying to get an atheist to be more open to the ID evidence is a challenge - but it does happen, in small steps. True, there's always a way to squirm out of a solid argument, but over time, even hardened-atheists will soften their position. Some will concede major points. I've seen atheists move from hard-materialism to deism via discussions like this on-line. Not every atheist is immune to good argumentation. I also don't agree that it necessarily takes a miracle from God for someone to be convinced of the existence of an intelligent designer (the goal of ID). If that was the case, then ID should include a campaign of prayer for opponents - but ID is a science project that uses reason, observations and arguments. That's really sufficient for anyone to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation for the universe and nature. Yes, to move to a belief in some kind of Christianity or other theistic religion requires more than arguments. But I wouldn't give up hope on the power of discussion. The great philosophers of the past won people over to a theistic view and they didn't use revelation or scriptures to do it. That's the challenge for ID and I think it's worth working on it.Silver Asiatic_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

#91 AnimatedDust Check this out: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mark-frank-poses-an-interesting-thought-experiment-on-free-will/#comment-513180 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mark-frank-poses-an-interesting-thought-experiment-on-free-will/#comment-513221Dionisio_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Andre @ 93
Well said and absolutely true, no theist ever convinced me of God’s existence, God did that.
:) "...flesh and blood has not revealed this to you..." [Matthew 16:17]Dionisio_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

AD asks:
When will you figure that out?
Many of us have figured it out. What atheists/materialists deny is often the obvious, which no argument can penetrate. We often comment not for the sake of those who have no intention or capacity for meaningful debate, but perhaps for others not closed off to sound argument that might be lurking. Reading such arguments here and in similar such places helped me move from atheism to theism. It seems to me that your comments are much like theirs, assuming a superior position and presuming to scold us for participation in a venue designed for such debate even in ignorance of our own motivations for doing so.William J Murray_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Coincidence? Today at Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140902114230.htm I am in the habit of reading Science Daily every day. Nothing under the sun is alien to scientists, even human and animal behavior.Cabal_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: A_B's label, name-call and dismiss tactic in reply to highlighting a pattern of distractive atmosphere poisoning rhetoric commonly resorted to by evo mat advocates and fellow travellers in and around UD for years and years, is simply a further manifestation of the same tactic. Where of course, he is also repeating by insinuation a slander that design Thought is "Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo." He full well knows or should know that this is false labelling, but he obviously, sadly, is now addicted to speaking with disregard to the truth. He is unlikely to pay any attention to correction just now, but the onlooker needs to recognise the tactics in play and what they imply on the force of the point made in the OP. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2014
September
09
Sep
5
05
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: As one of the distractive tactics in discussion threads is to bury inconvenient remarks in irrelevancies, let me again draw attention tot the substantial point from 79 above: ______________ >> Plato, c 360 BC, in The Laws Bk X, was dead on target about the foundations and implications of an evo mat worldview:
>> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >>
2300 years ago, the matter was clear. Hasn’t changed since. Only difference, is, we have implanted consciences [which if not systematically misled, warped, besotted or benumbed point us to duty] that in turn speaks to our being under Law. Thence the Who who Sez aright, with the right to say so. But also, as creatures with responsible freedom, we may choose a-wrong. Hence, the perennial challenge to acknowledge and turn from the wrong towards the right. >> _______________ The perennial ducking, dodging, side-tracking and atmosphere poisoning tactics we see instead of responsible serious grappling with pivotal issues speak volumes. Let me grab another bit of history, where Locke went in Ch 2 of his 2nd Treatise on civl gov't, when he set out to ground rights and justice, namely "The Judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker" in his 1594+ Ecclesiastical Polity:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80
Ideas have consequences, and so do irresponsible evo mat and fellow traveller rhetorical games. KFkairosfocus_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

What is the source of the ethical behavior seen in so many animal species, dogs, horses, elephants, dolphins? I believe many presumably atheistic animal species treat their young better than some presumably Christian humans treat their young. Christians don't have a monopoly on ethics; we find ethical and unethical behaviour everywhere we find people - regardless of religion. If your religion says it is ok to chop heads of, that's what you do. What about the many examples of unethical behavior by prominent Christian leaders, clergy, politicians? I believe some self-declared Christians suffer an intellectual scotoma.Cabal_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

AD: That resort to rhetorical gamesmanship -- to manipulation -- is exactly and tellingly revealing of the force of the underlying grounding challenge and the lack of responsibility on the part of too many evo mat advocates and fellow travellers. I will not bother to give the short word label for speaking with disregard to truth in the hope that what is said or suggested is accepted as true . . . but that is a material issue as well, and utterly revealing of the hollowness of the evo mat agenda. KFkairosfocus_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

AnimatedDust Well said and absolutely true, no theist ever convinced me of God's existence, God did that.Andre_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

A_B: I continue to be exceedingly busy but glanced at your onward what are you talking about remark. In response, kindly cf my first remark in this thread at 57, yesterday morning: _________ >> Re A-B @ 1 , . . . opening words in the very first coment:
Barry, please explain to me why a person without any theistic beliefs cannot have any ethics?
Notice, what BA ACTUALLY stated, the issue of grounding in light of the IS-OUGHT gap:
My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. See here for Philip Johnson’s informative take on the issue. After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness. I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person denies that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.
Notice, BA’s emphasis on grounding. If this were a first time problem, I would say it is a matter of misreading, but in fact it is a STANDARD tactic of materialists to twist the issue of grounding of ethics into how dare you say we cannot behave ethically. The issue of ethical breakdown IS important, when the grounding of ethics is undermined in a culture, but the grounding question cannot be properly brushed aside by twisting it into something it is not. Indeed, this sort of persistent strawman tactic illustrates exactly the undermining of ethical standards that the question of want of grounding raises. And, I would think grounding is always a pivotal issue, for any serious discussion or praxis. >> __________ Following up BA's internal links, we see Wikipedia speaking of Leff on the grand sez who (after the clip on "napalming babies"):
. . . Leff attempts to directly address whether a normative morality can exist without God. [2] Leff answers the question in the negative. Leff states that absent an ultimate authority figure (i.e. God) handing down moral laws from on-high there is no reason for any person to prefer one set of behavior identified as "moral" to another. Leff terms this "the Grand Sez Who." In particular, it is impossible to resolve the conflict between the rights of the individual and the power of the collective, even though much of the time we can pretend that, for instance, the Constitution tells us where to draw the line. There are bound to be cases where we are left on our own, with no authoritative referee; there is no "brooding omnipresence in the sky", in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., whom Leff quotes approvingly.
Philip Johnson, also linked, observes:
The Biden-Thomas exchange reflected at the partisan political level a problem that permeates the literature of legal philosophy. I call this problem the modernist impasse. Modernism is the condition that begins when humans understand that God is really dead and that they therefore have to decide all the big questions for themselves. Modernism at times produces an exhilarating sense of liberation: we can do whatever we like, because there is no unimpeachable authority to prevent us. Modernism at other times is downright scary: how can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute? Yale Law Professor Arthur Leff expressed the bewilderment of an agnostic culture that yearns for enduring values in a brilliant lecture delivered at Duke University in 1979, a few years before his untimely death from cancer. The published lecture”titled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law””is frequently quoted in law review articles, but it is little known outside the world of legal scholarship. It happens to be one of the best statements of the modernist impasse that I know. As Leff put it,
I want to believe”and so do you”in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe”and so do you”in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it.
The heart of the problem, according to Leff, is that any normative statement [--> i.e. a genuinely binding OUGHT] implies the existence of an authoritative evaluator [--> i.e. a genuinely grounding IS]. But with God out of the picture, every human becomes a “godlet””with as much authority to set standards as any other godlet or combination of godlets. [--> hence, the pivotal point that either there is no basis for OUGHT . . . including fundamental rights . . . beyond might and manipulation, or else there is a world-foundational IS capable of shouldering that awesome weight. There is precisely one serious candidate . . . ] For example, if a human moralist says “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” he invites “the formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in barrooms and schoolyards as ‘the grand sez who?’“ Persons who want to commit adultery, or who sympathize with those who do, can offer the crushing rejoinder: What gives you the authority to prescribe what is good for me ? . . .
This is of course the precise state of play since Plato in The Laws Bk X, as was cited in 79 above and as has been brought to your attention and that of other evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers any number of times, including above and over the past several weeks. Almost without exception, it is ignored in haste to rush on to distractive rhetorical tactics. It is also quite clear from the above thread and the points as highlighted that you distorted the substance of the OP in literally the first words of the first comment of the thread of comments. It is further quite clear from above as happened across yesterday, that you proceeded to try to poison the well by repeated arguments, that theists are generally immoral, evil and barbarous, through the typical one sided and misleading litany of talking points commonly used by today's street-corner Village Atheists 2.0. All of this, in the teeth of repeated attempts by several commenters to draw your attention to the substantial . . . and highly material . . . issue of the grounding of morality on evolutionary materialism. A challenge that has remained unmet by evolutionary materialist atheists since at least 360 BC, per the above cited challenge from Plato in The Laws, Bk X, which highlighted radical relativisation of values and knowledge, inherent amorality and the opening of the door to the nihilist's "might and manipulation make 'right' . . ." credo, carried by ruthless domineering factions. Your continued insistence on such tactics is of course, a par for the course case in point of said manipulative, ruthless, domineering behaviour. Your behaviour aptly, inadvertently but tellingly, underscores the point BA has made in his OP. And it is a plain manifestation of the trifecta of fallacies that are all too familiar from too many evo mat objectors here at UD or in the penumbra of objector sites: red herrings led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, distract, polarise and poison the atmosphere for discussion of a central and highly momentous issue for our civilisation: where do we find an IS that grounds OUGHT, in a world where lab coat clad evolutionary materialism too often dominates thought. It is time for a more sober, more responsible response from evo mat advocates and their fellow travellers and enablers. KFkairosfocus_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

Fascinating discussion. I have spent hours reading it. However, it seems to me that A_B is assuming the position of a superior tennis player who stands at the center of the baseline and by his superior play is causing all of the UD heavy hitters to have to run all over the court. Of all the substantive arguments that you make, he disregards them at his pleasure and hits the ball to yet another corner, and you willingly respond and dutifully hit it back. You seem oblivious to the fact that he cares nothing about your substantive answers and is merely here for his own facile amusement. His targets constantly move-- his onjections constantly change. He is unconvinced at all because he is after all, your garden-variety atheist who believes himself at this moment in time to be intellectually superior to the lot of you. Why do you keep playing tennis? Atheists will never really accept defeat even after their eternal choice is actualized upon their death. Thereafter, they will continue to claim any number of ridiculous arguments as to why they have been wronged by the all-powerful creator they denied for their entire earthly existence. There, their captive audience of the like minded will all howl in agreement at the utter unfairness of their conscious eternal choice. Until then, you all run, breathlessly, hitting the ball right back at them, waiting for them to come up with another question the send you breathlessly running after it. Give an atheist a thousand reasons for the existence of God he will demand 1001. It never ends. When will you figure that out?AnimatedDust_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Mung: "But given that you don’t care one way or another, why are you even bothering to post here at UD?" Let's just call it a guilty pleasure. But a bigger question is, since you think that my views have no rational basis, why do you feel obliged to respond to my comments? And a question for Barry. Someone was recently blocked from commenting for calling you a liar. Is this sanction only applied to non-creationists? Mung said: "You obviously care, which directly contradicts your assertion that you don’t care. You’re a liar." if I cared, that would hurt.Acartia_bogart_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Mung: “Why ought anyone even bother to attempt to provide you with an answer to that question?” Acartia_bogart: "Personally, I don’t care one way or the other." Given your declaration that you don't care one way or another, how do you explain your insistence on a response? You obviously care, which directly contradicts your assertion that you don't care. You're a liar. Acartia_bogart: "But since it was essentially the obverse of the question that Barry was asking, I don’t see where your objection is coming from." But given that you don't care, one way or another, why do you care? Acartia_bogart: "But since it was essentially the obverse of the question that Barry was asking, I don’t see where your objection is coming from." I deny your assertion that "it was essentially the obverse of the question that Barry was asking." That's where my objection is coming from. But given that you don't care one way or another, why are you even bothering to post here at UD?Mung_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. But since it was essentially the obverse of the question that Barry was asking, I don’t see where your objection is coming from.
It's not an objection. It's a question. If morality is subjective, and Mr. Arrington subjectively considers materialists amoral and unfit to be ethicists, why did you object? If we subjectively consider all atheists hopelessly immoral, why are you objecting after you agree it's all a matter of personal preference? Let me refer you to my maxim: If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. Why are you arguing here? Is it objectively wrong to consider atheists immoral? To consider them less moral than theists? To consider them unfit for duty as ethicists? No? Then why are you trying to argue others out of that view? You're complaining about the personal preference of others when all you have to support your own moral views is the exact same principle - personal preference.William J Murray_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart, the morally superior atheist:
I really have to start drinking at noon like you do.
Given that you have no ethical reason why you ought not engage in ad hominem, what constrains you? Obviously, nothing. You can make up anything about anybody, declare it to be fact, and there is no reason you ought not do so. Do you agree or disagree?Mung_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Acadia_Bogart: So, one more try. Why is the average theist’s ethical and moral standards better (more objective) than the average atheist’s? OK what if a handsome famous NFL player is seriously injured and is in the hospital. So a particularly attractive nurse asks the patient if there is anything she can do for his comfort, and the patient, particularly bored and lonely, has an interesting proposition. The nurse on her off time complies, in the hospital room. She is found out and is fired. She continues to visit the patient for more of the same after finding a new job. Now is it likely a medical ethicist of the "progressive", atheist position with the usual 'let it slide' mentality of those kinds of people, would advise that young nurse at her new place of employment to take the same course of action as that a traditionally theistic ethicist would?groovamos_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply