Thread Title At TSZ Headlines Moral Confusion of Materialists

_{William Murray

May 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

Irish Voters Do the Right Thing. Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual

There is no “the” right thing under materialism and moral subjectivism. There is no “the” wrong side. Had Irish voters elected to round up and execute all gays and lesbians, under materialism and moral subjectivism that too would have been a right thing. Had they elected to lobotomize them, that too would have been a right thing, made right by that which legitimizes as right any subjective moral or ethical good under materialism: the individual, or the group, or the community, or the society, or the culture consider a thing to be good or right.

That headline corrected for logical consistency under materialism and moral subjectivism would be: “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing What I Personally Preferred. Church Was On the Wrong Side, In Disagreement With My Personal Preferences As Usual.”

Only a moral outlook where morality is guided by an absolute, objective commodity can be logically consistent with that thread headline. Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality. As I have said before, materialists cannot even act or argue as if materialism is true.

Comments

StephenB wrote @75 “I asked the question because I knew that you could not answer it from a materialist perspective.” Ah, but I did. Or are you going to join Mr. Murray in acting as materialist Pope and tell materialists what they are supposed to think? “Again, you are avoiding the question. I know why taking away someone’s freedom is a bad thing. You do not. You are proving my point with your evasion.” My answer is precisely on point. Observation of human behavior is a rational basis for a materialist response. “Under materialism (defined as physicalism), there are no metaphysical truths, no moral truths, or no evils of any kind. Under that world view, things are just the way they are–nothing more.” Sorry, your Holiness, but your papal reign over materialism has been invalidated. @76, StephenB asked “Where are you getting your ‘personal dignity’ and your ‘Golden Rule’ and your ‘Second Great Commandment?’ It certainly cannot be derived from a materialistic world view, which is the point at issue.” Sure they can. Materialists can observe the world in which they live and recognize the existence and relationship of things in the world and the implications of those things and their relationships. Materialism does not require that morality be based on quantum physics or chemistry. Materialism does not require a world view that disregards the world we live in. StephenB finished with “Objective morality must precede humanity, both logically and chronologically.” Nonsense. There is no logical reason for this requirement, in fact the requirement is destructive of your point. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that some “preceding” morality exists. Like any natural phenomena, perception of this morality would occur through the human mind. To the extent that these observation are subjective, this morality will be subjective too. How do we remove this subjective distortion of an objective morality? Claiming that we are able to perceive this morality objectively “because God said so” does not help. Which God said it? They said to whom? Further, if no deity says it to me, then “God says so” becomes “some guy says that God said so” and objectivity is obliterated. Short of personal communications with the deity, objective morality becomes nothing more than the “prophet’s” personal preference. Since no deity has ever spoken to me (and many others report the same) your ‘because God said” morality becomes a “because some humans said God said”. If all the humans who claimed to have heard from God reported the same moral commands, we’d be well off, but they don’t. Their disagreements are sometimes extreme. So for the many people like me, we have no option but to reason it out sans deity. Unless you claim to have had some direct communion with the All Mighty, you choose to believe what you’ve been told about God’s commands because they are your preference. You choose to believe they are universal and absolute, because that is your preference. If you do claim to have had some direct communion with the All Mighty, then you have yet to provide convincing evidence of that. Why should we believe you are speaking for your God instead of just for yourself? Go back to the hypo. If (for the sake of argument) there exists some “preceding” morality, perception of this morality would occur through the human mind. To the extent that these observation are subjective, this morality will be subjective too. How do we remove this subjective distortion of an objective morality? We can reason it out. We can examine our different subjective determinations and hope to find the objective nugget that we have all missed before. That’s how reason works. And at least reason is accessible to all, and explicable. Reason is not based on mere preference. The rules of logic and reason are not subjective, they are observable, and have been observed since at least the time of the Greeks (if not much sooner). They have been observed and remarked on across cultures and time. With reason, we can reach an agreement on the moral basics; this is something humans have been doing with some success for millennia. sean s.sean samis_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Mr. Murray wrote @ 73, “And, that morality and what we call ‘rationality’ are themselves physically generated patterns of thinking that vary from person to person and from group to group according to these physical interactions and processes.” No. Rationality is invariant because it is determined by the operation of natural laws. Nothing is rational for some and irrational for others. What varies is the ability of individuals to recognize and respond to rationality. “materialism provides no basis for the expectation that you can [debias]”. No. Experience in the world provides that expectation, and the world is a material place. “Under logically-consistent materialism, the idiosyncratic cultural biases are physically baked into the individual’s physical system which produces their thoughts, including how they reason.” No. Materialism makes no such assumptions or assertions; and those assertions are not logically consistent with what we observe in the world. “there is no neutral space under materialism available where such ‘debiasing’ can take place.” No special space is needed. Two individuals with different biases can observe and interact wherever they meet. “As a materialist, you are necessarily embedded in an ocean of variant biases you cannot escape from;” No. All anyone needs is the basic and pretty common ability to be rational. What it means to be rational is not idiosyncratic. “What does “choice” mean under materialism?” Don’t get distracted with the sterile debate about free will and determinism. Choice “under materialism” means pretty much what it means in ordinary usage. A rational mind can choose any response that it is aware of, awareness coming from education, experience, or imagination. “ Please re-read the OP. I said nothing about deities or the supernatural, other than to say that theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality, which is logically required to make statements like “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing. Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual”.” Reread it yourself. Is there such a thing as a godless, fully naturalistic theism? If theism is required as you say, then you are talking about deities or the supernatural even if you do so implicitly; that’s pretty much built into what theism means. And of course, your point that “ theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality,” is wrong on at least two levels. All theism is subjective, and theisms altogether do not achieve absolutes. “The challenge posed in the OP is: given moral subjectivism and materialism,” These two, moral subjectivism and materialism are not the same things, one does not imply the other. Your challenge really is against “subjective” morality which has the flaw you indicate, but my response has been to demonstrate that materialism does not lead to moral subjectivism ANY MORE THAN THEISTIC MORALITIES DO. My response to your “challenge” is to demonstrate the basics of a non-theistic morality that is not “subjective” morality. “You misunderstand me. It doesn’t have anything to do with where you get your morals from; it has to do with whether or not you can logically support both those views, and how you behave, morally speaking (such as, if you say that the Irish vote is “the right thing”).” If you are claiming that my views are merely personal preferences (which is your claim) then where I get my morals matters a lot. My views cannot be merely personal preferences when they arise from rational, widely held human beliefs. “Christianity has the logical foundation for supporting the view that a thing ‘is’ right or ‘is’ wrong because, in Christianity, morality is presumed to be absolute and objective and applies to everyone and every culture.” Well, first, your presumption is not necessary, so the logical foundation is therefore SUBJECTIVE. Oddly enough, the system I described asserts an absolute, objective morality that applies to all. So I guess my view has a logical foundation at least as much as yours. The difference between your Christianity and my view is nothing more than the source of information. You use your personal preference in religious traditions (of which there are many) and I rely on reason, which has a singular set of principles. “BTW, don’t mistake this for an argument for Christianity. My point is that Theisms, whether producing a good or bad morality, have the logical justification for judging what the Irish did as “the right thing” or “the wrong thing”.” I accept that as true, although it does not help you at all to say this. It reinforces the fact that your “logical” foundation is based on a personal religious preference. Your logical structure is built on a foundation of sand. Theisms generally do not advocate the same moral principles, you could mine them for a general set of such principles, but then you’d be doing what I’m doing! “‘Irish Voters Do The Right Thing’ is not a statement derivable under materialism/moral subjectivism.” ... but it is under materialism alone, as I have shown already. ‘Materialism’ and ‘moral subjectivism’ are not these same things, nor are they bound together. “one moral view cannot be better than another unless there is something objective to refer to to make a comparison; otherwise, it’s nothing more, categorically, than personal preference, even if very strongly felt.” My system is as rational as need be. That is the “something objective” you are looking for. “by ‘rational’ ... Do you mean that it provides a sound, logical foundation, framework, and set of inferences that are all logically consistent and match your actual behavior and moral expectations?” That works for me, tho’ I rush to say that no person ever behaves in perfect accord with their own beliefs. We are all sinners; even materialists know that. Sin: human attributes (weakness, fear, hunger, ignorance, etc.) which interfere with the achievement of human goals or expectations. “only they can decide what is right or wrong for them.” Not my words, not something I agree with. Evil is clear, nothing that is evil is good, not ever. All I have said is that everyone gets to decide whether non-evil things are good for themselves. “You’ve made no case for an objective, absolute morality. Do you not understand that ‘moral subjectivism’ is the opposite of, and cannot provide for, an absolute, objective morality?” I have made my case. The fact that you think I endorse ‘moral subjectivism’ proves you have not read or comprehended my case. “Do you not understand that materialism can only generate personal, subjective moral perspectives that happen to be shared by others which generate various cultural, moral norms – which themselves are not objective and absolute?” I understand that your preference is to define ‘materialism’ this way, but I remind you that you have no standing to define ‘materialism’ to any materialist; just as that no materialist can define your beliefs for you. Materialism can (as I’ve shown) generate objective rational moral findings. sean s.sean samis_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

'Let me be clear: ....' Steady, Sean. You're sounding like our UK politicians...Axel_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

sean
Such a pathway is not needed. Moral considerations (harm, intent, necessity, responsibility, benefit, etc) do not manifest themselves until there is an actor capable of moral action. When considering things like mental states and moral actions, one need not base them on quantum physics.
We are discussing your claim that metaphysical materialism can be the basis for what is morally right and morally wrong. I am saying (and proving, I believe) that the gap from materialism to morality simply cannot be bridged, that is, there is no logical pathway from the former to the latter. Plenty of materialists are honest enough to understand the point. Will Provine, a materialist/Darwinist, is a good example. SB: “What moral justification did you have in mind?” (This was regarding the recent vote in Ireland).
These justifications: protection of equality before the law, protection of religious liberty, protection of personal dignity, obedience to the Golden Rule, obedience to the Second Great Commandment, etc. These provide ample moral justification.
Meaning no disrespect, but you appear not to even understand your own argument. Where are you getting your "personal dignity" and your "Golden Rule" and your "Second Great Commandment?' It certainly cannot be derived from a materialistic world view, which is the point at issue. In the same way, objectively morality cannot come from humans that have allegedly been produced by materialistic processes. Whatever arbitrary moral code humans might come up with would be subjective by definition. Objective morality must precede humanity, both logically and chronologically.StephenB_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

SB: Why is it evil (not good) to harm someone unnecessarily? You are nowhere even close to making the journey from matter to morality. sean
Let someone harm you without need or cause, and you will promptly realize why it is evil. The last leg of this journey is filled in by the realities of life. You can lead a horse to water …
I didn’t ask the question because I didn’t know the answer. I asked the question because I knew that you could not answer it from a materialist perspective. Just so that you will know, harming someone is bad because it takes away something from the person that is good. A thing is good for a person or object if it facilitates the purpose for which each was made. Thus, it is good for a computer to update its processes bad for a computer to immerse it in water. Everything turns on the reason it was made. In keeping with that point, humans were made to know the truth, make good moral choices, and use those faculties to pursue their ultimate destiny. In that sense, they have inherent dignity because it was conferred on them by their Creator, who has those same qualities in far greater magnitude. A good moral choice is one that puts them on the path to achieving their destiny; a bad moral choice is one that pulls them away from it. If they have no purpose or destiny, then there can be no such thing as good or evil for them. Accordingly, it is good for them to be helped along that path and bad for them to be deterred from it. Thus, it is bad to enslave someone because it violates their inherent dignity as thinking choosing beings and deters them from pursuing their destiny. If they were not designed for a purpose, then there can be no such thing as good or bad for them. Good or bad is always defined in the context of purpose. Evil is simply a privation of the good. Unlike good, it has no substance. Murder is bad because it takes away something good, namely life. It isn’t bad simply because the person being murdered may not like it, just as it isn't good because the murderer may like it. SB: “Why does every person have a right to liberty? Why is it a bad thing to deprive someone of it?”
Again, if we take away yours, you’d suddenly realize why. If we take away anyone’s we can take away yours, so we must not take away anyones’. Even the ancients realized this.
Again, you are avoiding the question. I know why taking away someone’s freedom is a bad thing. You do not. You are proving my point with your evasion. . SB: “Why are you right? Why are they [tyrants] wrong?”
Because tyrants will only disagree as long as they are not the slaves. Make them the slave and suddenly they agree. It is not rocket science.</blockquote? You are repeating yourself even as you continue to avoid the question. Provide a clear explanation why it is bad for a tyrant to enslave someone. SB: “Good is usually defined in terms of purpose and function.”
… and usually those purposes and functions are the alleviation or prevention of harms. And when those purposes and functions become harmful, the good becomes the bad.
Purpose and function define what it means to be good—and what it means to be bad. The purpose of a roof is to prevent water from destroying your house, which would be a harm. Good and bad are defined in that context: A good roof is one that protects your house from harm. Or, again, a good roof is one that operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. A bad roof is one that does not operate according to its purpose. Materialism has no answer for why a thing is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. Under materialism (defined as physicalism), there are no metaphysical truths, no moral truths, or no evils of any kind. Under that world view, things are just the way they are--nothing more.
StephenB_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

sean: I said in the OP that morality under materialism/moral subjectivism is made right by that which legitimizes as right any subjective moral or ethical good: the individual, or the group, or the community, or the society, or the culture consider a thing to be good or right. In your following statements, you have provided two descriptions of the development of a morality; nature and nurture producing social norms; and you, as an individual, picking what moral maxims you consider best. Neither of those are moralities rooted in anything objective and absolute, but instead depend on exactly what I said they would - the culture, or personal moral preferences. You haven't refuted what I said, sean. You've confirmed it.William J Murray_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

sean said:
The “materialistic” beginnings of a moral system are very basic: we are material, living creatures who are vulnerable to injuries, age, ignorance, and other weaknesses. Nature has made us social creatures that generally do best living in stable communities. We are capable of acquiring some knowledge and some foresight. All simple facts.
I assume that if you are arguing for the materialist perspective, biological evolution and the material, physical interactions of humans at the social level result in the variations of human thought and behavior at the individual and social levels, and that there is nothing acting on humans in a top-down manner not ultimately generated by the natural law & stochastic process available under materialism. And, that morality and what we call "rationality" are themselves physically generated patterns of thinking that vary from person to person and from group to group according to these physical interactions and processes.
By “debiased” I mean moral principles extracted from idiosyncratic cultural aspects.
This is problematic from the materialist perspective. Please remember I am not arguing that you actually cannot do this, but rather that, logically speaking, materialism provides no basis for the expectation that you can do this. Under logically-consistent materialism, the idiosyncratic cultural biases are physically baked into the individual's physical system which produces their thoughts, including how they reason. One has no perspective from "outside" of that biased system, because, under logically-consistent materialism, that is all one is - a necessarily biased physical process that generates thought according to its particular biases. Under materialism, there is no space to sit outside of that system and evaluate it objectively, or to make unbiased assessments of what is cultural bias and what is not. When challenged how one can debias their views, you respond:
No person can do this alone; neither can a culture in isolation.
But, there is no neutral space under materialism available where such "debiasing" can take place. Other people and other cultures will have their baked-in biases. Upon physically interacting with them your biases may change due to the physical interaction, but there's no logical room available under materialism for "objectivity" or an "unbiased" space/perspective where you can "debias" your views. As a materialist, you are necessarily embedded in an ocean of variant biases you cannot escape from; you can change your biases, but you cannot be anything other than physically biased - one way or another - in your views.
Yes indeed. And they all worshiped deities too. Slave masters and Klansmen and Nazi’s went to their churches too.
I haven't made an argument here that theism necessarily produces better moralities, so I don't see how this is relevant.
It’s important to remember our dark past, but also to remember that we are not prisoners of it unless we choose to be. We can do better; we are doing better.
What does "choice" mean under materialism? Are our choices not reducible to the physical processes that generate them, ultimately nothing more than the outcome of matter interacting according to natural laws and chance? Can I make a choice that conflict with what natural processes determine, whether predictable or not? What doo does it do to say that "I" can make a choice, when both what "I" am, and what that choice is, is determined by natural law and chance physical forces?
I don’t claim my views are better than anyone else’s. The challenge has been to justify a moral system without recourse to deities or the supernatural.
Please re-read the OP. I said nothing about deities or the supernatural, other than to say that theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality, which is logically required to make statements like "Irish Voters Do the Right Thing. Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual". Unless you're making the case for an absolute, objective morality under materialism, you're mistaken about the challenge presented by the OP. The challenge posed in the OP is: given moral subjectivism and materialism, how can any particular outcome of the Irish vote be called the morally "wrong" choice in a logically justifiable way, except in that the vote differs from one's particular, individual, idiosyncratic moral preferences?
I don’t claim my views are better than anyone else’s.
Then there would be no way to justify the Irish vote, had it gone the other way, as "the wrong thing"; you could only say that it is not the vote you would have preferred, morally speaking.
There is much griping on this thread about my borrowing from Christianity (“freeloading”) but then you fret that my ideas are all my own!
You misunderstand me. It doesn't have anything to do with where you get your morals from; it has to do with whether or not you can logically support both those views, and how you behave, morally speaking (such as, if you say that the Irish vote is "the right thing"). The issue about borrowing from Christianity is not the fact you have borrowed, but rather that Christianity has the logical foundation for supporting the view that a thing "is" right or "is" wrong because, in Christianity, morality is presumed to be absolute and objective and applies to everyone and every culture. They (and any morality presumed to be absolute/objective in nature) have the logical justification for pronouncing what a society does to be "the wrong thing"; moral subjectivism under materialism offers no such foundational principle. BTW, don't mistake this for an argument for Christianity. My point is that Theisms, whether producing a good or bad morality, have the logical justification for judging what the Irish did as "the right thing" or "the wrong thing". IOW, it's not that you make up a moral view or borrow it, but rather if that view is logically consistent with the worldview of materialism and what, under moral subjectivism, moral statements mean in a categorical sense (is it ultimately reducible to personal preferences, or does it appeal to some absolute, objective nature?). "Irish Voters Do The Right Thing" is not a statement derivable under materialism/moral subjectivism. There is no "the right thing", and if they had voted the opposite, then under logically consistent moral subjectivism, that too would have been "a right thing" for them, in their society, at this time. IOW, one moral view cannot be better than another unless there is something objective to refer to to make a comparison; otherwise, it's nothing more, categorically, than personal preference, even if very strongly felt.
I think you’ve forgotten the question that prompted this conversation;
You need to re-read the OP. That may be the question you are responding to, but it is not the challenge I issued in the OP.
... that’s why I have confidence that the moral system I propose is rational and acceptable; it’s not even mine.
What do you mean by "rational"? Do you mean that it provides a sound, logical foundation, framework, and set of inferences that are all logically consistent and match your actual behavior and moral expectations? Or do you mean "It makes sense to me."? This is what I mean when I talk about the lack of logic on the part of materialists and moral subjectivists; they don't think through the necessary, logical consequences of their beliefs. If your morality is no better than anyone else's, and if morality is subjective according to culture, you have no basis other than your personal, moral preferences to declare what is "the right choice" for the Irish; only they can decide what is right or wrong for them. And, if they had made the opposite vote, then for logically consistent materialists and moral subjectivists, that, too, would have been "the right choice".
If you prefer your own, so be it, that is your right. But the predicate claim, that “Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.” has been disproved.
You've made no case for an objective, absolute morality. Do you not understand that "moral subjectivism" is the opposite of, and cannot provide for, an absolute, objective morality? Do you not understand that materialism can only generate personal, subjective moral perspectives that happen to be shared by others which generate various cultural, moral norms - which themselves are not objective and absolute?
Please share with us the part of my description of Evil or good that you find objectionable, or even original? I know it is not an idiosyncratic view because it is not even original to me. But if you find some part defective, please share.
You're taking my question the wrong way. It's not that I find it objectionable, or original - it's that you've provided no basis for it other than that you prefer it. You don't claim it is rooted in anything absolute; you don't claim objectively binding to all people and cultures; you don't make a case that it is anything other than that which you and many others have been predisposed by nature and society to prefer, which is exactly the point I made in the OP.
Maybe, but it would still be wrong because the Irish and the rest of us already have the Golden Rule and the Second Great Commandment
This is the statement that is not logically derivable under the premise of materialism and subjective morality because, under those premises and their logically necessary implications, only the Irish can decide what is, and is not, morally good for them. You get no vote on the matter; as a logically consistent materialist/moral subjectivist, you must agree that they made the morally right decision for them regardless of how they voted, even if, under your own moral view, you would have preferred them to make the choice they made.
If I defined it that way, I’d be a fool, but I’m not defining it that way.
But you have defined it that way:
Differences in moral systems can be understood simply as the different solutions different cultures came up with to solve the moral issues that all human communities experience. Rational persons have come to expect natural processes to be characterized by a certain degree of variation. Absent any deity the process of creating moral systems is entirely natural.
That describes morality as a social norm - generated by a combination of local nature and nurture resulting in a generally common cultural view of morality. One culture has its norms; another has a different set of norms. If that is not how you have defined it, then you have defined it as you choosing from various norms which ones to use as your personal morality, which you call "debiasing" (but which, logically, cannot be anything other than alternatively biasing, since there is no "unbiased" space or resource). However, such a morality cannot be said to be objective or absolute, since you do not claim that all people should behave according to your particular morality, or that it is binding on them in any meaningful way.William J Murray_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

StevenB asked @66, “ Why is it evil (not good) to harm someone unnecessarily? You are nowhere even close to making the journey from matter to morality.” Let someone harm you without need or cause, and you will promptly realize why it is evil. The last leg of this journey is filled in by the realities of life. You can lead a horse to water ... “Either food, water, air, shelter, and security are good things or they are not. If they are misused or used to excess, then it is the misuse or excess which is bad, not the things in themselves.” I don’t think we disagree. “Why does every person have a right to liberty? Why is it a bad thing to deprive someone of it?” Again, if we take away yours, you’d suddenly realize why. If we take away anyone’s we can take away yours, so we must not take away anyones’. Even the ancients realized this. “Why are you right? Why are they [tyrants] wrong?” Because tyrants will only disagree as long as they are not the slaves. Make them the slave and suddenly they agree. It is not rocket science. There will always be people who disagree (tyrants or not). Their agreement is not relevant, their harm to others is. “Good is usually defined in terms of purpose and function.” ... and usually those purposes and functions are the alleviation or prevention of harms. And when those purposes and functions become harmful, the good becomes the bad. “all the negative formulations, such as “don’t steal” or “don’t commit adultery,” contain a corresponding positive component” And all the positive formulation contain a corresponding negative component. It is not the good that defines evil, but evil delimits the good. Evil is evil, the good is good until it goes too far or too short, then it ceases to be good. “All your statements about morality are grounded in individual or collective personal preferences.” None of my statements are grounded in individual or collective preferences, that’s why I reject your hunt for detailed accounts of the good. My statements are grounded in the objective need to avoid harms and injustice. “Are you suggesting that there is a middle ground between objective and subjective morality and that you hold to such a position, or are we supposed to guess?” For the most part, harms are objective. Even surgical intervention to save a life creates a harm (but is not evil due to necessity). What is ‘good’ and ‘in what amount it is good’ are quite often subjective. That is simply a fact, a truth. Truths are not subjective. Opinions are, but not truth. sean s.sean samis_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

editWilliam J Murray_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

William J Murray wrote @ 62 “objective morality [is] a morality where what is good or evil is not determined by human preferences be they individual or cultural.” I can work with that. Then he wrote “difference in moral systems can be understood as the natural variations from one set of biological and societal evolutionary patterns from another.” Mr. Murray, you’ve introduced the term “evolutionary” here. Please clarify what you mean in this context. Biological evolution would not be applicable here, in my opinion. Then Mr. Murray asked a number of interesting questions about my term ‘debiased’: “What do you mean by ‘debiased’? Debiased from what – natural, evolutionary, variant social moralities?” Let me be clear: thank you for these questions. Questions like these are the only reason to bother posting these comments. I feel they force me to examine my position anew. Thank you. By “debiased” I mean moral principles extracted from idiosyncratic cultural aspects. He asked, “Isn’t your methodology biased towards finding commonalities and advocating them as a standard?” Yes. He asked, “Isn’t that which produces your view (biological and social evolution & variant forms of rationality) the same thing that, in principle, would produce those who disagree with your particular means of developing a ‘rational, debiased’ morality?” Certainly, and in isolation there’s only one thing that could cause different persons or cultures to pursue the same process or arrive at the same results. That one thing is our common material natures. We are all humans with essentially the same needs and vulnerabilities. In isolation, humans and human communities will tend to find various responses to the same problems. Those who find successful responses will tend to flourish, those that don’t, won’t. When isolation breaks down, when these various communities, cultures, etc. come into contact with each other, it is possible to discover share moral and cultural norms, and choose to treat them as standards. Human cultures have been doing that for millennia. Then Murray asked, “Do you think your reasoning can “debias” you from what nature and culture produces in your brain?” No person can do this alone; neither can a culture in isolation. But in contact with others, I think that’s doable, even natural. One can see what the other does, and ask “why?” (or more importantly, “why not?”) As the ancients said, one must know their self first. We all have biases; the first step getting past them is to acknowledge them and to compare one’s own expectations with those of others. There is no perfect achievement of cultural neutrality; one certainly can move in that direction, but only in the company of others. Then Murray asked, “Was it not evolutionary nature and society that all generated all so-called god-based moral systems?” Yes. “Was it not evolutionary nature and society that produced the morality that had Spartans tossing imperfect children off of cliffs, and had Chinese mothers drowning their baby girls, and has Islamic fundies beheading or burning alive all infidels?” Yes indeed. And they all worshiped deities too. Slave masters and Klansmen and Nazi’s went to their churches too. It’s important to remember our dark past, but also to remember that we are not prisoners of it unless we choose to be. We can do better; we are doing better. Then Murray asked, “what principle other than self-reference do you have to claim that your moral views are any better than anyone else’s?” A couple of things: I don’t claim my views are better than anyone else’s. The challenge has been to justify a moral system without recourse to deities or the supernatural. That I think I have done. My views are not necessarily better, they are merely discovered and justified differently. My views are not necessarily better than others for the simple reason that I borrow heavily from others. I know my views are not “just mine” because I and many others have arrived at similar views. Do No Evil is not original to me. The Golden Rule, in one form or another appears in many cultures and times. The Second Great Commandment likewise. I know that my views are not justified by mere self-reference because my views are too unoriginal. And that is intentional. My goal is not to find a new morality, but to find a common morality in the views of others. Murray asks, “Are they better because you say so?” No, they are workable because they are already widely recognized. Pause a moment and consider how UNORIGINAL my moral rules are. There is much griping on this thread about my borrowing from Christianity (“freeloading”) but then you fret that my ideas are all my own! Can’t be both. I am the least original thinker on this thread; that’s why I have confidence that the moral system I propose is rational and acceptable; it’s not even mine. Murray asks, “If not, then according to what standard, and then, why should anyone else use that standard if they prefer their own?” I think you’ve forgotten the question that prompted this conversation; how a coherent, non-theist moral system was not possible. I have presented the outlines of one. Your response seems to be, “OK, you have one, but why adopt it?” Your adoption of my moral system is irrelevant. If you prefer your own, so be it, that is your right. But the predicate claim, that “Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.” has been disproved. The moral system I propose is as absolute and objective as any. And even for theists, I think my system provides a useful set of rules to guide moral decision making. Murray asked, “how is your long exposition about what is good, and what is evil, anything other than your personal, subjective view, generated by whatever idiosyncratic biological and societal forces happened to generate it in you?” Please share with us the part of my description of Evil or good that you find objectionable, or even original? I know it is not an idiosyncratic view because it is not even original to me. But if you find some part defective, please share. “if those natural evolutionary and societal factors had resulted in the Irish voting the other way, wouldn’t that just be one of the natural variations which be the particular moral “good” at that point in time for the Irish?” Maybe, but it would still be wrong because the Irish and the rest of us already have the Golden Rule and the Second Great Commandment. The irony here is that the religious community who gave us both of those Great Rules is leading the fight to BREAK those Great Rules. Finally, Murray asked, “If you define ‘what is moral’ as the behavioral norms of a society ..., then whatever norms that society happens to have are their valid morality, as valid as any morality generated by the same processes as any other.” If I defined it that way, I’d be a fool, but I’m not defining it that way. I know you struggle with this. It’s my experience most people don’t have that much trouble with it; you’re not the first to see it or ask me questions about it. Perhaps this is not the right forum to help you see what I’m about. sean s.sean samis_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

StephenB wrote @53: “morality (defined as a universally binding standard for right and wrong). It isn’t possible. There is nothing in the cause that could produce the effect.” Such a pathway is not needed. Moral considerations (harm, intent, necessity, responsibility, benefit, etc) do not manifest themselves until there is an actor capable of moral action. When considering things like mental states and moral actions, one need not base them on quantum physics. @ 54 StephenB asked “What moral justification did you have in mind?” This was regarding the recent vote in Ireland. These justifications: protection of equality before the law, protection of religious liberty, protection of personal dignity, obedience to the Golden Rule, obedience to the Second Great Commandment, etc. These provide ample moral justification. @ 58, Barry Arrington wrote, “if a different culture, Saudi Arabian culture for instance, were to come up with a “solution” in which homosexuals are executed for being homosexual, that would, by your definition, be moral for them. Far from rebutting WJM’s point, you have affirmed it.” LOL! Literally! Actually Literally! Your reading skills are very poor. The rational moral system I describe mines different systems for COMMONALITY. My description was quite clear about that, so you should to re-read it. To be explicit (since you appear to need that) if a culture declared a class of humans “immoral” that declaration carries no weight in the rational moral system I described unless it conforms to the three rules I mentioned. Clearly the Saudi example you fret about violates ALL THREE, so it is not moral. But thanks for the laugh. Really. Then, @60, Barry asked “It is not immoral for a lion to run down, kill and eat a gazelle. Why is it immoral for a human to run down, kill and eat another human?” Necessity. How else will the lion eat? Humans don’t need to eat each other. (You’ll find Necessity listed among the elements of Evil; this is something else hidden from Barry by his poor reading skills; it’s right there.) Then Barry wrote, “sean samis’ solution? Freeload on Christianity.” Freeload? No. Nothing I do burdens or steals from Christianity. I borrow, yes. But why reinvent the wheel? I borrow from wherever I find something of value to the effort. It’s part of being a rational person to learn from others. I don’t give much thought to what Rorty, Gray or others say (or complain about) unless it’s useful. As I said quite clearly more than once, I unabashedly borrow from whatever seems to fit into a rational moral system. But I guess I should thank Barry for the comment, it can be wielded against a later complaint by Mr. Murray who essentially criticizes my position as too original. Barry’s complaint is that it’s not original enough. He should take that up with Mr. Murray. Barry wrote, “Logically, [John Gray] points out, materialism leads to reductionism — the conclusion that humans are nothing but animals. ” Unsurprisingly, Gray’s opinion on this matter is his, there’s no logical or rational reason to buy-into it. He’s no Pope, so no one needs give his opinions much thought at all. We are animals, but not “nothing but”. We have unique capabilities that factor into our behavior. We are capable of foresight and learning from the past. Then Barry writes @ 61, “Yet Sean @ 58 seems to be literally unable to see that he is borrowing his ethics from religious (not scientific) claims just as Rorty and Gray say. Incredible.” Again, your incredibly crappy reading skills. I expressly acknowledge I am borrowing from religion. I wrote “Others focus on the things these moral systems do have in common and find the basis of a rational, debiased “natural law” system. I favor that last approach myself.” Barry, do I need to use smaller words for you? I borrow from religion. I borrow from religion. I borrow from religion. I borrow from religion. Shamelessly. What’s to feel shame for? I borrow heavily. Frequently. Why not? Why reinvent the wheel? I try to learn from others? When did that become bad? But at least I can cite your comments when Mr. Murray complains that my ideas are too original. sean s.sean samis_{May 30, 2015
May
05
May
30
30
2015
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

From the Judaeo-Christian angle, I believe perception of the moral ugliness of sexual deviancies of all kinds is at the core of the issue, and objectively, homosexuality, itself, irrespective of further associated issues, such as 'marriages' and all the other specious artifices designed to relabel elementary truths, as primitive, old-fashioned bigotry, and falsehoods as manifest truths; their support and promotion, just elementary decency. Evidently, further to Yahweh's instructions, Moses commanded the Hebrews that they should not seethe a kid in its mother' milk - surely for no other reason than that a mother and her milk are both highly emblematic of a mother's love, the 'milk of human kindness', and so on: the ultimate image of God's compassion for us, as also indicated in Jesus' Lament over Jerusalem. A rather more subtle but still powerful proscription against a coarsening of a our sensitivities toward moral beauty and moral ugliness.Axel_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Your #50, WJM Also, their wildest, zaniest flights of fancy, which they consider to be perfectly logical consequences. I mean, for instance, Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker is quite oxymoronic in its implications, yet he had the audacity to make the title of a book, which apparently captivated his loony-toon followers. But the two paragraphs below, from a link posted, I believe, by BA77 is so fatuously logically-challenged, I wondered if they were the funniest two paragraphs in the history of science or philosophy - though the latest ROFL tends to elicit that kind of exaggerated response from me: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Pauli's famously bemused remark is also quoted a little further down. Here is the link, in case you are interested and did not see it earlier: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/darwinism_not_proved_impossible_therefore_its_true_plantinga/Axel_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

sean
Having defined Evil, what is Good? Good is a category of not-evil behaviors and results which are not generally definable beyond saying that good is a non-overlapping set with evil. What is evil is never good, what is “good” for X might not be “good” for Y. Obviously there can exist a large category of behaviors and results which are not clearly good, but not evil.
You provided a subjective definition of evil, but you did not explain why it is evil. Why is it evil (not good) to “harm someone unnecessarily? You are nowhere even close to making the journey from matter to morality.
Objective definitions of “good” are a mirage because even things that seem obviously good (necessities like food, water, air, shelter, security) can become not-good by being excessive or restricting or otherwise harmful.
Bad logic: Either food, water, air, shelter, and security are good things or they are not. If they are misused or used to excess, then it is the misuse or excess which is bad, not the things in themselves. Food, air, and water do not simply “seem” to be good things, they are good things. There is no such thing as an eating, breathing, drinking human being who really thinks that food, water, and air are subjectively good things.
Which leaves us with: what makes something “good” simply has no generally applicable, objective answer; every person has a right (a liberty) to decide that for themselves. As long as they Do No Evil, they have a right to decide for themselves what is the good.
You have not yet provided any arguments. You are simply taking all your claims for granted. Why does every person have a right to liberty? Why is it a bad thing to deprive someone of it? Tyrants think that liberty for their slaves is a bad thing (for the tyrant). Why are you right? Why are they wrong?
Definitions of “good” are usually reducible to “something not bad”.
No they are not. Where did you get that idea? Good is usually defined in terms of purpose and function.
No greater definition is needed or wanted. There is a reason that the most commonly shared moral concepts are best characterized as “Thou shalt not”s. It is often clearer to simply determine what to avoid or prohibit than to try to list all the things we must or should do.
Incorrect. The Thou Shalt Not’s are negative formulations calculated to protect objective goods or values, such as life, marriage, personal property, and the social order. Further, all the negative formulations, such as "don't steal" or "don't commit adultery," contain a corresponding positive component and point to an objective standard of good behavior, such as the call to generosity or loyalty. It is always the good that defines evil, not the other way around.
Please notice that none of that nonsensical crap from Mr. Murray about morality relying on personal preferences is included, that shite is rarely found outside straw man arguments like Murray’s.
All your statements about morality are grounded in individual or collective personal preferences.
p.s.: re Barry Arrington @56. I really do believe what I say, but I’ve never said I believe in a strictly subjective morality. I don’t.
Are you suggesting that there is a middle ground between objective and subjective morality and that you hold to such a position, or are we supposed to guess?StephenB_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Morality by symbiosis. Why not?Mung_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

sean said:
Please notice that none of that nonsensical crap from Mr. Murray about morality relying on personal preferences is included, that shite is rarely found outside straw man arguments like Murray’s.
If not personal preference, what is the categorical or principled difference between your moral view and that of others? After all, nature and society can breed into you a preference for vanilla ice cream or a preference for romantic comedies; what else would a moral view be, if not a preference for certain kinds of behaviors that others, especially those in other cultures, may not share?William J Murray_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Mr. Arrington, The most obvious point is where Sean says "I believe..." and then goes on to outline his morality, which he seems quite proud of. And yet, his beliefs, as he says, are just those produced by evolutionary natural and social processes - including reason, which all have "variations". If the Irish believed it is good to lobotomize gays and lesbians, they'd believe it as the result of the same kind of natural, evolutionary, social, potentially variant processes as sean, and so their decision - for them - would be as right for them as sean's beliefs are right for him. It's a pity he can't see this very simple logical fact. If morality is the cultural norm, then whatever culture says is moral, is moral, whether it is giving gays the right to marry or lobotomizing them.William J Murray_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

sean said:
Theists frequently assert that if there were no deity, there could be no morality.
Theists often say that without a god, there can be no such thing as an objective morality - IOW, a morality where what is good or evil is not determined by human preferences be they individual or cultural.
Differences in moral systems can be understood simply as the different solutions different cultures came up with to solve the moral issues that all human communities experience.
So, the difference in moral systems can be understood as the natural variations from one set of biological and societal evolutionary patterns from another. Check.
Others focus on the things these moral systems do have in common and find the basis of a rational, debiased “natural law” system. I favor that last approach myself.
What do you mean by "debiased"? Debiased from what - natural, evolutionary, variant social moralities? Isn't your methodology biased towards finding commonalities and advocating them as a standard? Isn't that which produces your view (biological and social evolution & variant forms of rationality) the same thing that, in principle, would produce those who disagree with your particular means of developing a "rational, debiased" morality? Do you think your reasoning can "debias" you from what nature and culture produces in your brain? How can that be, if nature and society is determining what you consider to be "rational" as well? Was it not evolutionary nature and society that all generated all so-called god-based moral systems? Was it not evolutionary nature and society that produced the morality that had Spartans tossing imperfect children off of cliffs, and had Chinese mothers drowning their baby girls, and has Islamic fundies beheading or burning alive all infidels?
I believe ...
This is where your reasoning breaks down, sean. Try and follow the logic. Aren't your beliefs just what evolutionary natural and social processes have produced in you as an individual? Aren't the beliefs of others who disagree with your concept of morality generated by the same kind of variant, natural processes as those which produce yours? If so, what principle other than self-reference do you have to claim that your moral views are any better than anyone else's? Are they better because you say so? If not, then according to what standard, and then, why should anyone else use that standard if they prefer their own? IOW, how is your long exposition about what is good, and what is evil, anything other than your personal, subjective view, generated by whatever idiosyncratic biological and societal forces happened to generate it in you? And if those natural evolutionary and societal factors had resulted in the Irish voting the other way, wouldn't that just be one of the natural variations which be the particular moral "good" at that point in time for the Irish? If you define "what is moral" as the behavioral norms of a society (as a result of natural biological and social influences), then whatever norms that society happens to have are their valid morality, as valid as any morality generated by the same processes as any other.William J Murray_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

The most astounding thing about all of this is that Rorty's and Gray's observations are simple applications of basic logic to the premises of materialism. This is not rocket science. Yet Sean @ 58 seems to be literally unable to see that he is borrowing his ethics from religious (not scientific) claims just as Rorty and Gray say. Incredible.Barry Arrington_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Materialism says we are animals, no different in principle from lions and gazelles. It is not immoral for a lion to run down, kill and eat a gazelle. Why is it immoral for a human to run down, kill and eat another human? sean samis’ solution? Freeload on Christianity. He is playing exactly the game Nancy Pearcey discusses here:
A few intrepid atheists admit outright that they have to borrow the ideal of human rights from Christianity. Philosopher Richard Rorty was a committed Darwinist, and in the Darwinian struggle for existence, the strong prevail while the weak are left behind. So evolution cannot be the source of universal human rights. Instead, Rorty says, the concept came from "religious claims that human beings are made in the image of God." He cheerfully admits that he reaches over and borrows the concept of universal rights from Christianity. He even called himself a "freeloading" atheist: "This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by freeloading atheists like myself."

John Gray regularly castigates his fellow atheists and materialists for their habit of freeloading. Logically, he points out, materialism leads to reductionism -- the conclusion that humans are nothing but animals. But most materialists do not want to accept that bleak conclusion. They want to grant humanity a higher status and dignity; they want to believe that humans have "consciousness, selfhood, and free will," Gray writes. That high view of humanity he labels humanism -- and he denounces it as a prime example of freeloading. "Humanists never tire of preaching" the gospel of human freedom, Gray complains. But "Darwin has shown us that we are animals," and therefore "the idea of free will does not come from science." Instead "its origins are in religion -- not just any religion, but the Christian faith against which humanists rail so obsessively." Thus humanism "is only a secular version" of Christian principles.
Barry Arrington_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Sean @ 58:
Differences in moral systems can be understood simply as the different solutions different cultures came up with to solve the moral issues that all human communities experience.
So if a different culture, Saudi Arabian culture for instance, were to come up with a “solution” in which homosexuals are executed for being homosexual, that would, by your definition, be moral for them. Far from rebutting WJM’s point, you have affirmed it.Barry Arrington_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

A Rational Moral System First of all, I prefer the term rational moral system, not “materialistic ...” and I will refer to it that way here. The “materialistic” beginnings of a moral system are very basic: we are material, living creatures who are vulnerable to injuries, age, ignorance, and other weaknesses. Nature has made us social creatures that generally do best living in stable communities. We are capable of acquiring some knowledge and some foresight. All simple facts. Theists frequently assert that if there were no deity, there could be no morality. But it is useful to flip that over: given the moral systems we have, if there are no deities, where did these moral systems come from? Absent any deity, they are most likely the product of tens of thousands of years of experience humans have dealing with the problems of living together in families, clans, tribes, and communities. Differences in moral systems can be understood simply as the different solutions different cultures came up with to solve the moral issues that all human communities experience. Rational persons have come to expect natural processes to be characterized by a certain degree of variation. Absent any deity the process of creating moral systems is entirely natural. Many people focus on the differences between these various moral systems and determine that there’s little useful to learn from their comparisons. Others focus on the things these moral systems do have in common and find the basis of a rational, debiased “natural law” system. I favor that last approach myself. I believe there are three basic rules to any valid, rational moral system: 1. Do No Evil. (Evil is defined below). 2. Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. (that should sound familiar, an adopted idea.) 3. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. (another familiar saying. I suppose at some point I’ll need to give a definition of love, but for the time-being, the normal, English meaning suffices.) Evil is any act which 1. causes Harm, 2. is Intentional and 3. is Unnecessary. Harm: any physical injury, financial loss, or impairment of liberty; or a substantial risk of any of these against the express consent of the one harmed or placed at risk. Intentional: includes premeditation, recklessness, and unreasonable negligence. Unnecessary: not justified by mitigation or prevention of other, greater harms or injustice nor justified by the consent of the one harmed. This probably covers more than 80% of genuine evil, and is a good starting point. I do not claim it is complete. Suggestions will be considered. Having defined Evil, what is Good? Good is a category of not-evil behaviors and results which are not generally definable beyond saying that good is a non-overlapping set with evil. What is evil is never good, what is “good” for X might not be “good” for Y. Obviously there can exist a large category of behaviors and results which are not clearly good, but not evil. Objective definitions of “good” are a mirage because even things that seem obviously good (necessities like food, water, air, shelter, security) can become not-good by being excessive or restricting or otherwise harmful. Which leaves us with: what makes something “good” simply has no generally applicable, objective answer; every person has a right (a liberty) to decide that for themselves. As long as they Do No Evil, they have a right to decide for themselves what is the good. Definitions of “good” are usually reducible to “something not bad”. No greater definition is needed or wanted. There is a reason that the most commonly shared moral concepts are best characterized as “Thou shalt not”s. It is often clearer to simply determine what to avoid or prohibit than to try to list all the things we must or should do. Worse yet, seeking an “objective” definition of good is often a pretext to evil: “objective good” can be used as a weapon with which to deprive others of their liberties (a harm). Compelling others to do things because these things are “objectively good” is a key to tyranny. Forbidding evil behaviors is clearer and less prone to abuse. This is as far as I am going to go for now. If I had more time, I’d write something briefer. Most of the above is just cut and paste with a bit of editing to clean it up or fit it to the context of this thread. Basically, this is nothing new. Please notice that none of that nonsensical crap from Mr. Murray about morality relying on personal preferences is included, that shite is rarely found outside straw man arguments like Murray’s. sean s. p.s.: re Barry Arrington @56. I really do believe what I say, but I’ve never said I believe in a strictly subjective morality. I don't. sssean samis_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

I am morally outraged, therefore I am right. And you OUGHT to be as morally outraged as I am, and if you aren't there is something morally wrong with you.Mung_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 55 asks Sean:
How, then, can you say that if the Irish voted the other way, it would be the “wrong” way to vote?
Because Sean does not really believe what he says. As WJM has pointed out many times, no one actually lives their life as if moral subjectivism were true. Sean spews his subjectivism and lives his objectivism. Indeed, when it comes to enforcement of a rigid orthodoxy concerning moral views (especially moral views about homosexuality), no one is more intolerant of opposing views than “liberals.”Barry Arrington_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

sean
William J. Murry @50 — your “arguments” aren’t personal, just extraordinarily stupid and dishonest.
You are free to point out how my logic is flawed. You do realize, do you not, that subjective morality means that if a society thinks a thing is immoral, then it is immoral for that group; if they think a thing is moral, then it is moral for that group? How, then, can you say that if the Irish voted the other way, it would be the "wrong" way to vote?William J Murray_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

sean
The Irish people voted correctly and with ample moral justification.
What moral justification did you have in mind?StephenB_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

sean
StephenB @ 49 — I have before but I’ll happily do so again. But we’re coming up on FY end, so It’ll have to wait for later, or tomorrow. Patience.
If you analyze your situation carefully, you will realize that you have never provided a logical pathway from matter alone (defined as physicalism) to morality (defined as a universally binding standard for right and wrong). It isn't possible. There is nothing in the cause that could produce the effect.
William J. Murry @50 — your “arguments” aren’t personal, just extraordinarily stupid and dishonest.
That's easy to say. Not so easy to back up.StephenB_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

sean If (and only if) someone wants to describe you with the word that rhymes with Boron consider seriously that source may be correct before you move on. I was warned about atheist tactics but it takes time to fully understand it. I congratulate to philosophically inclined commenters who have patience with rude, insulting social activists like you. I recognize your current social justice doublespeak. I experienced similar in communism when I was young. I despise Bolshevik bullies like you. You and your type bullied, coerced and conditioned Irish people. Unbelievable money was spent over 13 years to reeducate them. There is nothing there to congratulate for instead I send condolences. I specially feel for Ireland, a small nation like mine. This is because similar brainwashing campaign was attempted in my original country of Croatia before referendum on marriage definition. Your Bolshevik strategy totally failed there!Eugen_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Eugen @48 — if someone here want’s to call me a moron, they need not be coy. I consider the source, shrug, and move on. The Irish people voted correctly and with ample moral justification. StephenB @ 49 — I have before but I’ll happily do so again. But we’re coming up on FY end, so It’ll have to wait for later, or tomorrow. Patience. William J. Murry @50 — your “arguments” aren’t personal, just extraordinarily stupid and dishonest. sean s.sean samis_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Logic is a commodity sorely lacking from most self-described materialists and atheists. They tend to take every argument and point personally, as if you're attacking them and not their purported worldview.William J Murray_{May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply