Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The “is-ought” problem. Is it a true dichotomy or a deceptive bluff?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you do know that just ain’t so. — Mark Twain

According to the overrated philosopher, David Hume, we should not try to draw logical conclusions about objective morality based on our knowledge of the real world. This was his smug way of claiming that humans are incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Through the years, his devoted followers have tweaked his message into a flat out declaration: We cannot derive an “ought to” (a moral code) from the “is.” (the way things are). Just to make sure that we don’t misunderstand, they characterize this formulation as “Hume’s Law.”

The only problem with this philosophy is that it is tragically, clumsily, and inexcusably—wrong. On the contrary, we can learn a great deal about the moral law from the observable facts of nature as long as we acknowledge the point that some truths are self-evident.

Unfortunately, hyper-skeptics cannot grasp this point because they first fail to understand that morality is a measure of, and is dependent on, what is good. If there is no (objective) good, then morality cannot exist. But we know that some things, such as life, are obviously good for humans – universally, absolutely, and objectively good. It is the same for goods that flow from life, such as the desire to survive and reproduce. As would be expected of objectively good things, they exist in a hierarchy, which means that we can differentiate between lower goods (wants) and higher goods (needs).

People want food that is pleasing to the palate, for example, but they need food that meets their nutritional requirements. The latter good is more important than the former, even if it is not perceived to be so. If one allows his desire for pleasure to overpower his desire for good health, he will eventually lose the capacity to be pleased and the opportunity to be healthy. It is self-evident to any rational person that the desire for long-term health is a higher good than the desire for momentary pleasure.

So it is with sex. Humans may want to experience immediate physical gratification, but if they ignore the higher needs, such as the desire for love and respect, they will harm themselves and others. Sexual responsibility is less about submitting to the technology of birth control and more about responding to the challenge of self-disciplined behavior.

Again, through nature, we learn that the good of procreation is made possible by the complementarity of the species. That is why a marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman: the difference between them allows them to unite in one flesh. Two members of the same sex cannot become one flesh because it is the complementarity that makes the oneness possible. From Biology, we also discover that sex has a specific function, which means that it can be misused by those who do not respect its intended purpose.

From the all this information about the “is,” (complementarity and biology) we can derive four distinct moral conclusions: [a] Men should not have sex with men. [b] Women should not have sex with women. [c] Same sex marriage cannot and does not exist. [d] Any law that defines so-called “gay marriage” as a true marriage is an evil lie and should be resisted.

In a broader sense, the lower goods, such as fun, pleasure, and delight, are designed as an incentive for pursuing the higher goods, such as love, self-esteem, self-control, meaning, and purpose, which are the ones that matter most in any discussion of morality. Because we really need them, they are good for us and we ought to have them. As Mortimer Adler says, we ought to desire whatever is really good for us and nothing else.

From the testimony of social scientists, we learn that humans are social beings, so we may safely conclude that they ought to reproduce, build families and establish communities. In every area of life, there are legitimate moral needs that ought to be pursued and illegitimate wants that ought to be eschewed.

Moral growth, therefore, involves a definitive behavioral strategy: We should learn to like what is good for us and to dislike what is bad for us. In other words, we should form good habits so that they will crowd out the bad habits. Nature not only teaches us about the need for virtue, it also helps us to acquire it through practice. Psychologists tell us that it takes three to six weeks to form a new habit.

The take home message, then, should be clear: Beware of the hyper-skeptical doctrine that goes by the name of Hume’s “law.” The so-called “is – ought” dichotomy is a deceptive bluff. It poses no intellectual challenge to the natural moral law or the human capacity to apprehend it.

 

 

Comments
“Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now.” ? Arnold Joseph Toynbee I think this quote applies to all Western nations. There are nations in East Europe who try to preserve traditional values but I don't know for how long.Eugen
July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
SB, a pendulum may oscillate for minor swings, but a violent swing may break it. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @121 Yes, there seems to be a limit on how much evil a society can absorb before is self-destructs. Indeed, when one studies the trajectory of cultures that come and go, the graph always appears to be the same: Cultures rise, and cultures fall. I don't know of a single one that ever found its way back. As you often say, though, we have the opportunity right now to break this trend, but it appears that the adults in the room cannot get everyone else on board. So the descent continues. Obviously this is in direct contrast to "Pendulum theory," which says that when a culture reaches a certain point in its descent, it automatically "swings back" in the other direction in order to compensate for its immoral excesses. I know a lot of people who console themselves with this idea, but I don't think the evidence bears it out.StephenB
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Bob O'H
Which seems to be very close to a “might makes right” argument. Is it necessary for the rest of your argument?
It is not necessary for the rest of my argument. However, the might makes right argument rests on the idea that no objective moral code exists. There are two ways to think of God's "punishment." If a group (or an individual) decides to keep breaking the commandments, there is a natural consequence to that behavior independent of God's direct action. In the bible, for example, there is the punishment where God "turns them over to a reprobate mind." In effect, all he is doing is withdrawing Divine help and allowing the sinner to have his own way and suffer the consequences of his actions- by allowing effects to follow causes. Essentially, that is what hell is all about. In the end, God finally says, "OK, have it your own way. Thy will be done." So it is with Adam and Eve. Their "punishment" was, in many respects, the predictable and natural consequence of breaking trust with God and losing the relationship that kept their lives in tact. There is another sense in the Old Testament, less common, where God takes direct action and metes out a specific punishment, and of course, many of these are reported in the bible. In this case, it isn't God's might or power (might makes right) that justifies the action but rather God's justice. It is simply a matter of giving each person or group its due. All things, good and bad, have a price. That is the nature of justice.StephenB
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
MatSpirit's question in 77 has been answered in 84 and 85ET
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
And your response is to refuse to defend God.
As if we need to defend God. What is wrong with you?ET
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
StephenB - thanks for that explanation. The "for the greater good" explanation makes some sense (it's the trolley problem writ large!), although I wonder about this argument:
It is no different with God. Everything turns on the reason that he takes the life that he has given. In the broader sense, he is entitled to take any life he chooses because every creature’s beginning (and continued existence) depends on him anyway. So there is nothing unjust in God’s decision to take back what belongs to him.
Which seems to be very close to a "might makes right" argument. Is it necessary for the rest of your argument?Bob O'H
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
SB, yes that is a valid philosophical-theological view, one informed by the sort of considerations I put up yesterday on ANE societies. We fail to appreciate, too often, that absent serious resources tracing to economic development and growth, linked technologies that facilitate government and mass education, etc, societies cannot sustain large prison institutions and cannot tolerate habitual criminality. Given fragility, those societies and constituent clans/families are going to have a threshold where one becomes a mortal enemy and will be subject to death as penalty, starting with things like brigandage. If there is a danger of hereditary war, then that mortal enmity will attach to the clan or at higher level the opposed state and its hard core clans. (In my onward linked I give the case of how attempted destruction of the jews was a result of a nigh on 1,000 year continuation and compared Rome vs Carthage which was an extension of the Canaanite-Phoenecian culture. BTW, some aspects of current conflict in the ME have this character.) Yes, there is failure to note that some "nations" can become plagues on the earth, spreading ruinous contagion, often tied to aspects of paganism and/or decadence of the core elites -- ritual child sacrifice being a pretty good index of that level of degeneration. Ritualisation or entrenching of sexual perversities is another. So, we need to understand the difference between moral principle and civil law with penalties i/l/o the issues of the times. By C1 in Palestine, we see where fragility is less [though brigandage and rebellion or civil war are big issues], and we actually see famine relief efforts in the mid 40's. In earlier times that would imply what Hitler et al in effect imposed on Russia, mass die-off from effects of starvation. I already spoke to betrothal as unconsummated marriage [requiring divorce to break it] and a clan-clan agreement, so that adultery was treason and could trigger feud. At royal level, we have record of how it contributed to civil war in the house of David. By the time of Joseph and Mary, a quiet divorce and in effect becoming a lifelong dependent on the clan, was a serious option. All of this sets a context for understanding the impact of say the case in John 8, of the woman dragged before Jesus to set up a deadly dilemma, and Jesus' strategy in handling it. Which, in turn, is a major precedent for Christian moral thought and for the principle of redemptive transformation. Mary Magdalene (likely also Mary of Bethany) multiplies the case. Meanwhile, all along, we must note how silent advocates and enablers of evolutionary materialism have been on the IS-OUGHT gap and the need to resolve it at world-roots. The only serious option actually on the table remains the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. I suspect, some of what has come out helps to fill in the substance of this compressed summary. For instance, reasonable and evident nature show that we are not dealing with arbitrary imposition. They also highlight that schemes such as evolutionary materialism that undermine reason and the moral government of that reason, are destructive. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2018
July
07
Jul
1
01
2018
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
On Mat Spirit's question, the issue put forward is whether or not one kind of killing is better or worse than another. As I pointed out @29, everything turns on the why. Even with humans, to kill in self defense is a totally different thing than to commit murder. Indeed, in that narrow context, first degree murder is worse than second degree murder. So the amount of evil is inseparable from the intentions behind the act - and, of course, the nature of the act. It is no different with God. Everything turns on the reason that he takes the life that he has given. In the broader sense, he is entitled to take any life he chooses because every creature's beginning (and continued existence) depends on him anyway. So there is nothing unjust in God's decision to take back what belongs to him. Further justification is found in the fact that God knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. Because he is all knowing, he knows the ultimate consequences of his every act and every human act. From the standpoint of one's eternal destiny, to die early might be better than to live a long life, depending on the state of his soul. God takes these and many other things into account in making his decisions. Also he must make calculations for man's free will and allow it to play out. The God of the Old Testament is working through a developmental history that finds its culmination in the New Testament. The reason God's behavior in the (O.T.) can seem harsh is because the direction of salvation history is established early, which means that God may have to take drastic action against those who disobey him at critical times in the process. These extreme actions are always preceded by repeated warnings, sometimes for hundreds of years. Critics are totally unaware and unconcerned about the kind of patience involved in holding back for so long. In many cases, it is a response to certain continued outrageous actions, such as child sacrifice. In fact, some cultures can (and did) become so ugly and so sinful, that restoration is (was) impossible, which means that the only option is to simply eliminate them. Atheists cannot understand the idea that a culture can be so bad that nothing can be done for it because they have no standard for measuring the degree of evil involved.StephenB
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
BO'H: First, God does not need me to defend him! Also, before raising debate talk-points on such matters as are above, advocates or enablers of evolutionary materialism need to ground responsible rational morally governed freedom; or else they are implicitly grounding their case on might and manipulation making 'right,' 'truth,' justice,' 'knowledge' etc. Not a promising start. That is already a key result. What I have also done is to take time to focus the prior question, what is good/evil, better/worse. Until we are on the same page on the nature of morality, onward questions cannot be soundly addressed. Next, perhaps it has escaped your notice that I started from several self evident moral truths and a plumbline case, to set the stage for resolving that. I have put up a definition in that light, having also noted on the comparative difficulties challenges faced by evolutionary materialism. Then overnight and earlier today, I have addressed the implications of civil code i/l/o ANE circumstances, contrasting moral principles and civil code requirements in fragile, marginal societies. I have also gone on to speak to a key case, adultery, pointing out the implication of clan and inter-clan agreement betrayal under ANE circumstances c 1400 BC vs c 30 AD. Specific cases are on the table and -- through the case of divorce -- the principle of regulating an evil in order to avert a greater one. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Here, we have a challenge being put up to the God described in the Bible, which pivots on what good vs evil, and bad vs worse [i.e. lesser of evils] are.
Indeed. And your response is to refuse to defend God.Bob O'H
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
PPPS: I answer the wider awful Christendom/God as moral monster claim at 101 level here: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-9-sins-of-christendom.html#u9_intro --> And BTW, the edit comment feature is utterly broken.kairosfocus
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
PPS: There was a cut-off in 114 likely due to an open tag symbol after a b. Let me go back to the clip from 113: >>I agree that MatSpirit’s question at 77 was loaded, but I think it was loaded in an interesting way, because it suggests that there are acts which MatSpirit considers immoral, but which you consider moral (I guess by virtue of who carried them out).>>kairosfocus
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
PS: Let us note from 2350+ years ago:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[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 . . . [such that] 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 [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] 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, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
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 -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
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 influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
BO'H: Pardon, but on the table is an evident case of self-referential incoherence compounded by amorality opening the door to nihilism; evolutionary materialism. Such is a fatal flaw, and it directly sets up a problem whereby those who advocate or enable it end in might and manipulation making 'truth' 'right' 'rights' 'logic' 'knowledge etc. That is a problem, which has to be faced; on long experience, our pointing it out makes little impression. It needs to be faced by those who advocate or enable, on a live case. Here, we have a challenge being put up to the God described in the Bible, which pivots on what good vs evil, and bad vs worse [i.e. lesser of evils] are. Underneath, it implies access to knowledge on morality, thus to moral truth and to warrant. So, it implies living in a world where there are moral truths that can be warranted. Instantly, big worldview problems which materially affect the underlying case. And, on track record, resistance to correction. So, we are left to: you broke it, you fix it. If MS et al can actually provide a coherent world root framework for responsible, rational freedom on evolutionary materialist premises, they would have a leg to stand on. Such would also be a breakthrough. But, I am not holding my breath, and duly note that if they had answers they would have long since been triumphantly announced. This is a case where sustained silence on a core issue speaks. I will continue to make a case cumulatively from my side, but I have little basis for confidence that the other side will be seriously responsive to claims made by theists. (Recall, ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked have never been taken off the table by Dawkins et al. That's part of the "you broke it . . . ") Now you go on to: >>[MS] suggests that there are acts which MatSpirit considers immoral, but which you consider moral (I guess b> You will observe that this pivots on what is immoral vs what is CONSIDERED -- perceived -- immoral. So, the gap between perception and warranted, credible truth is on the table. Are there objective moral truths? If not, then all there are is battling perceptions and might and manipulation to establish first rhetorical dominance then to impose on the ground by in the end force. Where, in the mix there lurks the implication that there is no question that we find ourselves perceiving moral duties as binding obligations. Thus, we see the issue of grand, pervasive delusion, utterly undermining credibility of the mind. Such then ties in with the further problem of going beyond a GIGO-limited, blind cause-effect driven computational substrate to responsibly and rationally free contemplation, warrant and conclusion. Self-referential incoherence, in short. So far, we see no serious answers from an evolutionary materialistic perspective, and that needs to be noted. This leads to the position: you need legs to stand on to make your case, going right back to "you broke it . . . " At this point, we see that one alternative has a basic framework for responsible, rational, contemplative, morally governed freedom -- notwithstanding that we are finite, fallible, struggling and too often ill-willed. The other, evidently, does not. Similarly, one side can address what is good or evil, and what is a lesser of evils in a world of such creatures. So far, silence on the other side. All of this goes to balance on comparative, worldview level difficulties. Now, too, I find it interesting that you have been in effect unresponsive to a key part of the puzzle I have put on the table. Let me clip from 110 above:
. . . we must understand how marginal and fragile ANE societies were, leading to much harsher measures to deal with chaotic behaviours of various kinds that attacked life or family stability. Note, for example, they simply did not have resources to support large long-term prison populations and reversion to criminality on release. Nor could they tolerate a high incidence of family [ --> i.e. clan] feuds. In that context, if you were guilty of criminality that could not be covered by fines or forced labour as compensation, frankly, you were going to be treated for cause as a mortal enemy of the society. Survival was on the line and the margin for generosity was thin. If you threatened that margin, your life was forfeit, for cause. That explains a lot, and it brings to bear issues of lesser evils and regulating the hardness of men’s hearts. For example, lex talionis was a RESTRICTION on punishment: punishments and fines must be proportional to the crime, not in great excess. Today, we can afford to be a lot more lenient. (But if the chaotic nonsense that runs like a wild, hellish fire through our civilisation triggers collapse, we are going to see a much harder time. And we seem to be oblivious to the implications of nukes and other weapons lying around.) But to get to this in a more substantial way, we have to first ground reason, morality, justice and more; justice being a specifically moral issue.
Notice, I here point to the issue of civil penalties and defence of the civil peace of justice. When survival of the community is marginal and acts that undermine it are on the table, there is a reason why those who have become destructive will find themselves responded to as mortal enemies of the community and in some cases viewed as traitors to it and/or to their clans. So, the issue has moved beyond abstract right/wrong to the real world implication of Kant's Categorical Imperative: were evils to become widespread, they would undermine and could even destroy community life, leading to utter chaos and devastation of life-prospects. But such then brings out that we mark a difference between the abstract principle of right vs wrong and the civil code that defends a community from the destructive impact of spreading evils. The issue of impact and ability to tolerate a certain degree of chaos varies with times and circumstances, also just how widespread a phenomenon is. In that context, we must further reckon with the issue of the inherent instability of free democratic communities; which tend towards ruinous anarchy which repels to the pole of restoring order at any price. A good example is provided through an incident in the gospels:
John 8 Amplified Bible (AMP) The Adulterous Woman 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came back into the temple [court], and all the people were coming to Him. He sat down and began teaching them. 3 Now the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. They made her stand in the center of the court, 4 and they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women [to death]. So what do You say [to do with her—what is Your sentence]?” 6 They said this to test Him, hoping that they would have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and began writing on the ground with His finger. 7 However, when they persisted in questioning Him, He straightened up and said, “He who is without [any] sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Then He stooped down again and started writing on the ground. 9 They listened [to His reply], and they began to go out one by one, starting with the oldest ones, until He was left alone, with the woman [standing there before Him] in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She answered, “No one, Lord!” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on sin no more.”] [AMP]
Notice, we are some 1400 years beyond Moses and there is no civil danger of a clan war over the behaviour of this woman; though the abuse of her case could have triggered grave injustice -- if Jesus simply said yes or no,he would be impaled on horns of a deadly dilemma: [A] stone -- rebel vs. Rome (and a crucifixion), [B] do not stone -- rebel vs Moses (and a lynching). This, of course, also shows the nature of loaded questions demanding simplistic yes or no answers. We also have a far more settled and relatively prosperous society in C1 Judaea, Samaria and Galilee, so while the moral principle remains, the civil-clan danger does not. And indeed, in Jesus' own case, Joseph was inclined to quietly divorce his betrothed wife Mary on presumption of adultery. (Betrothal was far stronger than engagement, it was a clan agreement of unconsummated marriage towards setting up a new household and required a divorce to break it.) That is, Joseph would have left Mary to be a lifelong charge on her clan (with her child), in defence of his own integrity. But, on the strength of a Divine revelation, he accepted the social disgrace and carried forward the marriage to the setting up of a new household. So, now, we see Jesus' response in light of a new circumstance: he first exposed the accusers by using writing in the dust(which doubtless many common people would struggle to read -- my guess is, he used Hebrew text in a day when the common speech was Aramaic). This scattered the accusers who obviously realised they could be publicly exposed. Then, he turned to the woman, who was patently guilty. He then opened the window of gracious, redemptive mercy: turn from your life of sin, Veronica. (Or, so, tradition tells us she was named.) This stands by sharp contrast with how he took a whip to the Temple Money-changers and their tables. Likely, twice. Mere words were not enough to deal with entrenched, established corruption of a key national and spiritual institution, the Temple. Thirdly, I am always exercised by his response in Mt 19 on divorce law. He contrasts creation order with civil law regulation of a social order constrained by the hardness of men's hearts and the need for progressive enlightenment and reformation. Without sufficient community support, laws become unenforceable and invite contempt to the state. That happened in the US with prohibition of alcohol, and may be happening again -- at likely worse cost -- with various drugs starting with ganja/marijuana. So we see that in the beginning God made us male and female [the reproductive unit at the heart of the family], and for this cause a MAN shall leave his family of origin and cleave to his WIFE, forming a new one-flesh union. Thus, the next generation. Jesus sets the principle: what God joins, let not man sever. This echoes the prophet Malachi speaking in the name of the Lord: "I hate divorce." So, we see a picture in which an evil is regulated [not instituted] in civil law, in order to restrain worse evils. But always, the moral principle remains and the spiritual challenge to turn to the right, repairing the damage done through the wrongs. In this context of a distinction between civil code in defence of community stability and survival and the principle driven issues of justice, morality, righteousness and reform, we can then strike a more balanced understanding. Taking the case of adultery discovered at the point of consummation as a part of the wedding feast as a slice of the cake with all of the ingredients, we see that such is clan-agreement betrayal. Such adultery [or just unjustified accusation] could easily trigger clan war in a situation of societies that were far more fragile and marginal than ours are today. Indeed, at a later time in Arabia, there was an incident with Mohammed's wife Aisha that had to be rapidly defused, swords were already drawn. In short, adultery was clan treason, not just ill advised indulgence. (Note the case of David and Bathsheba, where his adultery led to conspiracy and murder, then to undermining his moral authority and ultimately to civil war. Ahitophel, the counsellor who turned against David was Bathsheba's grandfather and doubtless clan lord.) So, we can see why adultery faced the sort of penalty listed: betrayal of the clans was a survival issue. But that is not the whole story, it is also a spiritual violation, relative to the creation order of marriage and due loyalty to the ultimate Lord. As such, spiritual measures of repentance and reform are also needed. And, it is utter folly for us to imagine we can now traipse in and willy-nilly rewrite creation order based principles. This includes all forms of undermining marriage and family, and it includes the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb on pretence of rights of a woman to kill her unborn child. I add, it also includes the notion that marriage is a mere social arrangement and so we are free to redefine it in defiance of creation order. And more. KFkairosfocus
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Nope, there is an answer to be developed in due course, but the first phase is that we have to be on the same page.
Right. And that means both sides need to communicate with each other. Telling the other side that it's their fault and they need to fix it isn't going to work (especially when the message is hidden in some extremely verbose prose). FWIW, I agree that MatSpirit's question at 77 was loaded, but I think it was loaded in an interesting way, because it suggests that there are acts which MatSpirit considers immoral, but which you consider moral (I guess b<y virtue of who carried them out). You could use that to acknowledge that there is a difference in how these acts are judged, and then explain how you come to your conclusion. If you can do that so readers understand a bit more about your world view (regardless of whether they agree with it), then you will have helped to bridge that gap.Bob O'H
June 30, 2018
June
06
Jun
30
30
2018
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
F/N: On subjectivist and relativist Ethics from a textbook
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
KFkairosfocus
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
PS: God help us, we have to restore the plausibility of reason itself! Even Mathematics is under pressure. We are playing with hellish matches we do not begin to understand.kairosfocus
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
F/N: Let me bring forward my argument from 89:
>> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . 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 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] 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, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>>
I went on to note:
It is clear that there is no cogent relativist response to the objectivity or the grounding of moral governance. Indeed, it looks a lot like animosity motivates attempts to undermine what they do not like, while trying to manipulate then through lawfare to usurp the sword of justice and impose will to power. Long, grim history paid for in blood and tears serves as a warning, if we will heed it,
Note too, 105, where I said:
I was asked a LOADED question, and pointed out that the effect of the loading was such that I have cause to lack confidence that there is sufficient in-common at worldviews level to address it with profit. And certainly, to take it up as though we can assume responsible, rational freedom under the in part self-evident law of our nature. I also pointed out where the trouble came from and suggested, you broke it you fix it. I have subsequently pointed to how we can set about building the required in-common. If you disagree, kindly explain to us how on evolutionary materialistic scientism oughtness can be coherently addressed such that we do not end in might and manipulation make ‘right’/ ‘truth’/ ‘logic’/ ‘warrant’/ ‘knowledge etc. Indeed, how we rise beyond GIGO-limited blindly mechanical computational substrates to responsibly and rationally free mind and the like. When the heavy worldviews lifting is done, we can then responsibly address issues in philosophical theology etc with some hope of success. Things that are going to pivot on things such as naturally evident creation-order purpose — e.g. the NECOP of the mind is to seek, warrant and acknowledge truth towards wisdom. Where, evil then is the wrenching, privation or frustration of some entity subject to responsible rational freedom — thus, moral government — out of alignment with its appropriate end; typically leading to chaos.
I guess I can now add that we must understand how marginal and fragile ANE societies were, leading to much harsher measures to deal with chaotic behaviours of various kinds that attacked life or family stability. Note, for example, they simply did not have resources to support large long-term prison populations and reversion to criminality on release. Nor could they tolerate a high incidence of family feuds. In that context, if you were guilty of criminality that could not be covered by fines or forced labour as compensation, frankly, you were going to be treated for cause as a mortal enemy of the society. Survival was on the line and the margin for generosity was thin. If you threatened that margin, your life was forfeit, for cause. That explains a lot, and it brings to bear issues of lesser evils and regulating the hardness of men's hearts. For example, lex talionis was a RESTRICTION on punishment: punishments and fines must be proportional to the crime, not in great excess. Today, we can afford to be a lot more lenient. (But if the chaotic nonsense that runs like a wild, hellish fire through our civilisation triggers collapse, we are going to see a much harder time. And we seem to be oblivious to the implications of nukes and other weapons lying around.) But to get to this in a more substantial way, we have to first ground reason, morality, justice and more; justice being a specifically moral issue. KFkairosfocus
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
BO'H: Nope, there is an answer to be developed in due course, but the first phase is that we have to be on the same page. Unfortunately, the key problem is a worldviews one and that by definition is not simple. Thus, why I have pointed out the issue and that those who got us into the problem are the ones who need to get us out of it again -- and no, this is one where they have to work this out and see for themselves, they will not see it if we tell them, as we have any number of times. Trying to turn back the burden to ethical theism does not work; evolutionary materialism has too often assumed a default it has no right to. Until you have felt the full force of the question, the significance of the answer will be lost on you. If, on evolutionary materialistic premises, you have an ability to ground morality, bridging IS-OUGHT other than might and/or manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'reason,' 'knowledge etc, that is a start. Likewise, there is a problem of grounding reason that transcends blind, GIGO-limited cause-effect, non-rational chains in computational substrates. Failing which, the question is not only loaded but ill-founded, committing the fallacy of the kidnapped premises. Notice, I have already put on the table a way to identify self-evident truths of the natural moral law, and in that context have offered a definition of evil and by implication, of good. Such will be crucial onward. KF PS: Note my 76 again:
see why it is so important to first see that there are abstract, necessarily existing mathematical entities and/or facts, starting with the natural numbers? That is, abstract BE-ing is a facet of reality. In some cases at least, self evident and not just necessary. This sets a context to address the logic and study of BE-ing, ontology. In this case, we then see that objective realities and responsible, reasonable warrant for acknowledging same allow us to transcend the perceptions (sometimes — but not always, essentially arbitrary opinions) of subjects; which marks the way in which objective truth moves beyond subjectivity. Subjects may know objectively, through rational, responsible warrant. Where, of course, evolutionary materialistic objectors face the dilemma that mathematical realities are at the heart of the core sciences. Once such are acknowledged, much else melts away in the pattern of objections. In this context, oughts can be warranted as true, i.e. correctly describing duties of morally governed, responsibly rational creatures; sometimes even to self-evident certainty. Such duties are abstract and are no more reducible to arrangements of components of computational substrates than are numbers. In this context, the IS-OUGHT gap is about ultimate warrant of duty in a unified coherent world, which can only be done at world root level. The error of attempting to reduce reality to physical aspects then comes out in how even mathematics falls apart as an aspect of reasoning. For example, one mere configuration of computational components is PHYSICALLY, causally bound to another, not by the abstract ground-consequent force of logical warrant — and that is before we touch on inductive grounding. So, yes, we traipse into truly foundational concerns here
. . . then my 78:
I suggest that — given relevant general considerations on the nature of ethics — you need to start with fundamental issues that are prior to particular moral (or rhetorical) concerns. Specifically, with generally framed warrant for oughtness; there is no point trying to warrant oughtness within a framework that implies that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘rights,’ ‘truth,’ ‘reason,’ ‘warrant,’ knowledge’ etc, including knowledge on issues of oughtness including ‘good,’ ‘bad’ and ‘worse.’ Here, we start with, how is the is-ought gap bridged, given that it is central to moral government, which we cannot evade starting with duties of care to truthfulness and sound reasoning? Absent a clear resolution of such from your apparent side, there is no basis for any responsible discussion, much less one on matters of philosophical theology and linked ethics and points of concern including matters that are often raised by those more concerned to play at putting God in the dock and/or Christian-baiting than serious discussion on matters that are outside the usual remit of this blog. That, is how broken discourse now is in our civilisation, and the breaking came from your side. So, no, I will not try to build without a foundation where there is common ground for moral government in a world where we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. Your side broke it, your side now needs to fix it. Just as, your side has utterly undermined rationality and even ontology to the point that what IS, is open for debate even with mathematics. I have already put on the table a moral plumbline test, the unfortunately real-world case that it is self-evidently wrong and evil and wicked to waylay, kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child on the way home from school. This case can help fix the rot, by clarifying duty and its roots. Likewise, for cause, I have little confidence in the moral judgements made in an age where many who wish to embark on topics such as you raise are implicated in enabling the ongoing worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of a million more of our living posterity in the womb at the rate of another million per WEEK; on a baseline of 800+ millions over 40+ years. For cause, I consider that the mindset behind such is debased and utterly bankrupt. So, when we are satisfied that we are on the same page, there is reason for confidence that we can have a responsible discussion; otherwise, it is a waste of effort to try to debate the difference in ontological status between God and man, the issues of nations becoming plagues on the earth when the cup of their iniquity has brimmed over, the willful hardness of heart to moral duty, the judgements of consequences of moral follly, the role of prophetic warning and of protecting wider humanity from a spreading taint, or the whys and wherefores of civil codes, much less the way our day views moral perversities and the onward willful destruction of foundational institutions such as marriage, etc.
kairosfocus
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
kf - perhaps if you had simply written "that is a loaded question, so I am not going to answer it" things might have been clearer. At least then we would have known why you were refusing to answer it. I'm afraid your writing is often obtuse: I appreciate that you understand what you write, but I suspect for most readers it is almost opaque. If you think there is a problem because both sides have widely differing views, so can't understand each other, I think the solution is to try to bridge that gap, rather than refusing to do anything other than accusing the other side of being wrong, and saying they should sort it out. if you don't want to discuss, fine. But if you do, the onus on you to find common ground.Bob O'H
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, Mung, You are right. My answer to Mat Spirit's question was @29, not @58StephenB
June 29, 2018
June
06
Jun
29
29
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
PS: This onward thread underscores the force of my point: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialist-matspirit-tucks-tail-and-runs-when-confronted-with-incoherence-of-his-position/kairosfocus
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
BO'H: I was asked a LOADED question, and pointed out that the effect of the loading was such that I have cause to lack confidence that there is sufficient in-common at worldviews level to address it with profit. And certainly, to take it up as though we can assume responsible, rational freedom under the in part self-evident law of our nature. I also pointed out where the trouble came from and suggested, you broke it you fix it. I have subsequently pointed to how we can set about building the required in-common. If you disagree, kindly explain to us how on evolutionary materialistic scientism oughtness can be coherently addressed such that we do not end in might and manipulation make 'right'/ 'truth'/ 'logic'/ 'warrant'/ 'knowledge etc. Indeed, how we rise beyond GIGO-limited blindly mechanical computational substrates to responsibly and rationally free mind and the like. When the heavy worldviews lifting is done, we can then responsibly address issues in philosophical theology etc with some hope of success. Things that are going to pivot on things such as naturally evident creation-order purpose -- e.g. the NECOP of the mind is to seek, warrant and acknowledge truth towards wisdom. Where, evil then is the wrenching, privation or frustration of some entity subject to responsible rational freedom -- thus, moral government -- out of alignment with its appropriate end; typically leading to chaos. KFkairosfocus
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identificationET
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
https://www.dhs.gov/real-id https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqsMung
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
...you can’t make a moral judgment because you disagree with someone else’s views on morals.
That's not what he said.Mung
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
kf @ 93 - Your post at 78 is a nice illustration of the problem. You are asked a direct question, and you don't even attempt to answer it. Instead we get a wall of text about a "generally framed warrant for oughtness" (whatever that is!). Rather than provide an answer, you end up arguing (as far as I can tell - your language is convoluted) that you can't make a moral judgment because you disagree with someone else's views on morals.Bob O'H
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Mung needs to come up with a new line. Driver's licenses have been used as valid ID's since their inception. They are still used as such everywhere. Only recently has the TSA made an issue out of using them due to some trust issues with some States.ET
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
I find it ironic that Bob O'H accuses kf of obfuscation. However, I do think kf makes the issue much more complicated than it needs to be. I think we should start with some basic premises and propositions rather than a long confusing laundry list. As a moral realist I would argue that unless there are real binding moral obligations interpersonal morality and universal human rights make absolutely no sense in real practical terms. If morality is simply based on individual subjective opinions and group think how is anyone obligated to accept it as binding? For example, if human rights are not really fundamental, universal and binding obligations, what good are they? Aren’t they just delusions? And if backed with the force of law, what “right” does anyone have to force a delusion on anyone else? It becomes doubly absurd when a person does this knowingly, which is what the anti-realist is doing. On another thread, “As astrology goes mainstream, will Big Science start to accommodate it?” Seversky, argued:
As I said, atheists can construct rational worldviews and moral codes. It’s just that they cannot appeal to the unquestionable authority of some deity to support them.
I asked: “As an atheist, are you morally obligated to be honest and tell the truth?” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/as-astrology-goes-mainstream-will-big-science-start-to-accommodate-it/#comment-661037 My point is, why should I take anything an atheist says seriously if he isn’t obligated to tell the truth? And, how can I trust anything an atheist says if he believes there is no thing as moral truth? If there is no such thing as moral truth how can I be sure he is telling the truth in the most trivial common sense way? If there is no such thing as moral truth then according to anti-realist all we’re left with are just arbitrary subjective opinions. How are an atheists subjective opinions (or anyone else’s) be binding on everyone else? Again, from an antirealist view, moral obligations are just delusions. That’s all they can be.john_a_designer
June 28, 2018
June
06
Jun
28
28
2018
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply