Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington
January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

JS, indeed your record speaks, of your failure. The thing about a worldview level error is that it is normally self-reinforcing. Especially if you have made a crooked yardstick your standard for the straight, accurate and upright. What is genuinely such will NEVER match crookedness. Your only hope is to seek out plumb-line truths that are naturally straight and upright. But, when you were confronted with self-evident truths in general, you played evasive games until a grudging half-concession was wrenched out of you. But that was cleverly worded not to acknowledge that such exist and that you had cases in front of you. Cases that included: || + ||| --> |||||, and we already know that you want to use another advantageously but not for yourself: error exists. Yes it exists but our fallibility does not imply that every argument can be pushed in the suspect category and discarded when the conclusion is inconvenient. That trick is likely how the game is being played. As for moral SET's you remain adamant. Ironically, above you yet again imply that moral government is binding on us through duties of care to truth, sound reasoning etc. But you imply a self-serving exception that reveals the critical incoherence and absurdity. In effect, you imply that you are superior to such a law, you are strong enough to manipulate and impose such on others. All you have ended up doing is convincing us that you are a soft nihilist, willing to manipulate to impose will to power. Game over. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

KF
WE WERE THERE, WE SAW YOU IN ACTION OVER WEEKS. Description backed up by case after case is not false accusation, it is a final call to you to wake up and do better. One you obviously have no intent to heed. Sad. KF
I will stand on my record. I supported every one of my claims with evidence. Have you countered them with equally compelling evidence?JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

T7
Further you willfully ignore our point that moral values have not changed but that human beings act in violation of eternal designed morality.
Disagreeing is not willfully ignoring. You and KF and fellow travellers of your ilk see a highly variable moral system (over time and amongst current society) and attribute it to some societies acting in violation of objective and eternal moral values. Willfully ignoring the more likely explanation. That there are no objective and eternal moral values.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

T7
You are citing “thousands of years of human history and the unbiased use of our five senses” as proof that humans act rationality and in consideration of consequences. It is extremely flawed logic.
If misreprenting my comments make it easier to support your opinion, don’t let me stop you. Where did I say that we always act rationally and in consideration of possible consequences?JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

HeKS
I guess where my confusion lies with respect to my first comment is that you said you were describing what objective morality IS but then you seemed to go on to actually describe a way by which we might get to KNOW and EXPRESS (through our behavior) its particular dictates.
Perhaps this is the passage that you had in mind: “Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him.” Notice that I didn’t say anything about *how* humans know what is good (epistemology), only that they have the capacity for it. It is their nature (ontology) to know the good. All I was trying to say, or at least imply, is that the moral code is accessible to humans so they don’t have to rely on their imagination, fall back on subjective ethics, or rely on the truths of revelation to know it. Since subjectivists on this site continually say that we cannot know objective morality, we need to remind them from time to time that such is not the case. Objective morality is, of course, inextricably tied to the purpose and the intent of the law-giver, in the same way that the purpose of a pen is tied to the intent of its designer. I don’t always mention God, but it seems evident that anything made with a purpose requires the existence of an intelligent agent. However, the *what is* of the moral law exists as a code, but there is something else we must say about it. It *is* not only a code; it is decidedly a knowable code. With respect to Sam Harris and others, I don’t think there is any way we can prevent them from cleaving to half truths and treating them as whole truths. As I mentioned earlier, objectively good moral habits can be formed for objectively bad reasons. One can learn the virtue of patience by planning sweet revenge against his enemy. An atheist could twist that comment and make it appear that I think revenge is a good thing. And so it goes.StephenB_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

KF The reason why the ancients like Cicero and Plato ring true today -- for those that actually read them -- is that human nature has not changed a whit. JS has trouble comprehended what was vile then is vile today.tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Trib, recall how studiously JS and CR tried to game their way around the self-evident truth that error exists? They seem to refuse to acknowledge that people can err on truths, and that in many cases people do what is wrong in hope of an advantage. Some, find themselves addicted to evil (try drug addiction). Beyond, there is the matter of acting under false colour of law like Nazi defenders who said they followed legal authorities and laws. How we forget the significance of recognising that a higher law, the law of our morally governed nature told the same people that mass murder is wrong. And so forth. KF PS: another reminder of the "nonsense" JS would dismiss, here from Cicero:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
kairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

JS So, the fact that moral values have changed dramatically over time is proof of objective morality? And you are calling my logic flawed? You are citing "thousands of years of human history and the unbiased use of our five senses" as proof that humans act rationality and in consideration of consequences. It is extremely flawed logic. Further you willfully ignore our point that moral values have not changed but that human beings act in violation of eternal designed morality.tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Seversky, clever but inaccurate definition. Objective truth is a degree of truthfulness where per warrant we are confident that a claimed truth is not merely a perception under serious suspicion of delusion. For instance || + ||| --> |||||. Which also happens to be self-evident, a higher degree. Likewise, on historical record and traces we are confident that there was a ruler of Rome, Julius Caesar. And another of Greece, Alexander the Great. When it comes to moral truths, we can start with the fact that you expect us to respond to the moral government of duties to truth, sound logic etc. You do not dismiss that as delusion and say let's have a contest as to who is the cleverest manipulator. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

JS, do you really think that preening yourself on clever twists of rhetoric and turnabout tactics can save you at this stage? WE WERE THERE, WE SAW YOU IN ACTION OVER WEEKS. Description backed up by case after case is not false accusation, it is a final call to you to wake up and do better. One you obviously have no intent to heed. Sad. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

ET, SB repeatedly, patiently explained and addressed reasonable concerns, to no avail. JS proves just how unreasonable and unresponsive he is in the face of holocaust. Speaking of, c 1945, the Allies faced a nation that had been involved in war crimes of unprecedented degree. I have to acknowledge precedents in Belgium and Namibia. Should they try a sizable proportion of the nation as war criminals or direct aiders and abetters? What if they had set out to summarily try then shoot upwards of a million men? The only reasonable conclusion was to try the leaders and the most outrageous cases as major war criminals -- and I took time to borrow and read volumes of that gut-churning multi-volume work from my Uni Library. I still recall the hideous blue covers, or is it that I now associate that shade with the horrors within. BTW, after 40 years I was the sole borrower. Then, the Allies recognised diminished responsibility of those involved at lesser and lesser degree, then seek to reform a nation. It has worked to significant degree. With the vcurrent global holocaust proceeding at a million more victims per year on a total far exceeding 800 million since the early 70's, we see that even JS did not know that by the time awareness of pregnancy has set in, we are past the fig leaf of an alleged undifferentiated mass of cells. Shades of Haeckel and his fraudulent recapitulationism -- which I remember being used in a documentary I saw in the '70's. The dehumanisation of targets game, as you rightly point out, fails. But we need to deal with diminished responsibility and structured deception pivoting on oh, they don't look enough like us, they cannot have rights like us. For shame. Instead, let us acknowledge our global guilt, let the history books teach the truth, and move on to do better. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?
Speaking personally, because I don't think there is any such thing. That doesn't mean I don't think there is any morality worth having. I do. But I think it's something we have to work out for ourselves, something we can work out for ourselves. What do I mean by 'objective'? I mean that which is held to exist regardless of whether it is being conceived or perceived by conscious beings such as ourselves. Suppose our planet were hit by a huge asteroid - a "planet-killer". All life on Earth - not just humanity - would be obliterated, wiped out as if it had never existed. Do you really think that rules about human beings not coveting their neighbor's wife or making graven images are still somehow imprinted in the fabric of the universe, that they were for billions of years before we existed and will be for billions of years after we've gone? Or would our beliefs have gone with us? Isn't it just hubris or wishful thinking to believe that this vast Universe cares one jot about us or how we behave? But we care about how we behave towards one another because it affects us all. I don't see why I have to keep belaboring this point but the reason why we try to put a stop to psychopaths who want to rape and murder for their own perverted pleasure is because none of us want either ourselves or our loved ones to be a victim of such vile person and that's more than sufficient justification for deciding it's "wrong".Seversky_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

JS
....I provided an observation that the arguments against subjective morality are largely lame philosophical arguments peppered with more than a few character attacks on those who disagree with you....
KF responds
JS, doubling down and projection. Prudence dictates that we hold you and those like you to be manipulative soft nihilists and recognise that power unwisely ceded to such hands will be ruinous....
I couldn’t ask for better responses to prove my point.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

T7
We repeatedly point out examples via the ancients and the moderns were humans don’t, individually or en mass, think rationally albeit perhaps abstractly and the consequences of their actions lead to disaster.
So, the fact that moral values have changed dramatically over time is proof of objective morality? And you are calling my logic flawed?JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

JAD, beyond a certain point, having given evidence, argument, reason, explanation, correction and remonstrance, such must be named for what they have shown themselves to be and confronted with the manipulator's dilemma: gaming the system only works where there can be a community of trust to parasite off. But if the manipulative soft nihilism spreads far enough, the system collapses. They have locked themselves out of the community of reasonable, responsible discussion and will be treated as such. Right now JS is desperately trying to recirculate arguments that have been patiently corrected over and over, and is multiplying that with an avalanche of accusations. His failed track record is what condemns his views. Yet again, it seems. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Forgive me if this has been asked before, but are both sides of this debate using the same definition of objective with respect to morality? The only reason I as is because, from what I have read here, both sides appear to be arguing about different things.Martha K_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

I disagree with you calling abortions a holocaust because I don’t believe that an early stage fetus has the same right to life as you and I.
And yet without those early stages there isn't any you and I. Being a human is a process with a beginning and an end. To say the beginning is meaningless and can be done away with is moral cowardice. The beginning is when humans are the most vulnerable and in need of care, not threat of death just because.
And when I point out the inconsistency in your reluctance to charge a woman with murder, you simply deny the inconsistency but do not provide a rational reason.
Not every case would be the same. The charge would depend on the evidence, of course.ET_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

JS, doubling down and projection. Prudence dictates that we hold you and those like you to be manipulative soft nihilists and recognise that power unwisely ceded to such hands will be ruinous. Mutinous ship of state ruinous -- and BTW, that is not mere philosophical "nonsense," it is grounded in the history of Athens' collapse through the Peloponnesian war. You seem to think that you can gain advantage be expecting us to implicitly acknowledge duty to truth and sound logic etc while you can evade recognition of the inescapable moral government implied by actually having such duties. In short, you are caught out clinging to self-serving absurdity. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

JS I provided an observation that the arguments against subjective morality are largely lame philosophical arguments Your premise was For subjective morality: The ability of humans to think rationally and abstractly, and an ability to reason out likely consequences of our actions. Your evidence was The well understood impact of early teaching, repetition, reinforcement and feedback on our deeply held beliefs. This, supported by thousands of years of human history and the unbiased use of our five senses. We repeatedly point out examples via the ancients and the moderns were humans don't, individually or en mass, think rationally albeit perhaps abstractly and the consequences of their actions lead to disaster. Your premise is beyond flawed and no amount of reason, logic, evidence or example is able to make you see that. It is like throwing pebbles at a brick wall. Ponder that.tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

kf, I was being somewhat facetious and ironic. I mean if JS were truly a subjectivist we shouldn’t be hearing from him at all because what he believes applies only to him. IOW I don’t bother people who bother me… so why is JS bothering us? Obviously he and the other so-called moral subjectivists who keep showing up here are being disingenuous. An “honest” to moral subjectivist would be a nihilist. Someone who has an agenda has not come to terms with his nihilism; he is an anarchist. Unchecked those people do pose a threat to society because they have nothing constructive to offer. The problem is how do you reason with those kind of people when their “reasoning” it so self-referential?john_a_designer_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

KF
JS, you just added brazenly setting up and knocking over a strawman. KF
And what strawman are you referring to? I provided an observation that the arguments against subjective morality are largely lame philosophical arguments peppered with more than a few character attacks on those who disagree with you. You respond to this with a character attack and double downing on lame phylisophical arguments. I have yet to see anyone present concrete, observable evidence that supports your objective morality world. I disagree with you about how to reduce abortions. But you have not presented an alternative that has been shown to reduce abortions. I disagree with you calling abortions a holocaust because I don’t believe that an early stage fetus has the same right to life as you and I. And when I point out the inconsistency in your reluctance to charge a woman with murder, you simply deny the inconsistency but do not provide a rational reason. Your IS-OUGHT argument is circular. I think that you OUGHT to pay your taxes, and I don’t have to resort to some god to ground that OUGHT. The same can be said for all other OUGHTS you can present. You argue about the existence of self-evident truths as if that is proof of self-evident moral truths. The one does not necessitate the other. Nobody is arguing that there are no self-evident truths. And I have done all this without resorting to an attack on someone’s character. Can you say the same?JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

PS: How to go over the cliff, with special reference to the Peloponnesian war:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

JAD, my problem is increasing disconnect from duty to truth, sound logic etc, leading to benumbed conscience and mind out of connect with reality. BTW, did I mention that we are dealing with folks who object to seeing truth as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not? Then bring in media and education system narrative dominance, multiplied by critical mass in key decision-making or influencing institutions and spiral of silencing on the streets etc. Lemmings headed for the cliff. And in my book, that is serious reason to take a stand. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

I have no problem with JSmith or any other naturalist materialist believing in moral subjectivism. According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The U.S. State Dept. (and I assume many other countries as well) affirms the U.N. declaration right. Most legal scholars I think would agree that “freedom of thought, conscience and religion (belief)” also affirms the rights of atheists and secularists to not believe. However, I don’t see how the moral subjectivist is in a position to tell anyone else what to think and believe. It’s irrational to think that your subjective opinions are morally binding on anyone else. It's silly and foolish to argue that they are. If they’re subjective then your opinions apply only to you. No one else is obligated to even consider them. Furthermore, to argue that moral subjectivism is true is self-refuting. (See my earlier comment @ #57.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-deny-objective-morality/#comment-648486john_a_designer_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Molson Bleu- please buy a vowel. It is NOT OK for JSmith or anyone to change what people say. That is morally bankrupt. And it is also true that morals, with respect to materialistic atheists, are total nonsense and unwarranted baggage. As for what JSmith posts, well, it doesn't read very well and it sure doesn't seem to be able to comprehend what it does read.ET_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

JS, you just added brazenly setting up and knocking over a strawman. KF PS: Just to remind on my actual caution a little earlier today -- which you just further substantiated:
per fair comment, you have for some time now clearly shown that you are a committed subjectivist and radical relativist who comes to the table with considerable animus against the Christian faith and ethical tradition. You have clearly sought to tax that faith and tradition with major responsibility for the Nazi holocaust, and seem to fear that any discussion of objective moral truth is an effort to impose totalitarian domination prone to repeat something like the holocaust. You have expressed deep irritation at the pointing out of the holocaust of unborn, living posterity in the womb, now growing at about 1 million further victims per year on a base of 800+ millions since the early 1970’s. You have expressed similar irritation regarding the citation of actual cases that show self-evident moral truth, especially that of the self-evidently evil nature of an act of kidnapping, binding, sexual assault and murder of a young child for pleasure. You insist on conflating how we learn some moral principles in family or community with the issue of objective warrant for same, as well as the further question of truth. You dismiss the warning passed on to us by Plato in his parable of the cave and thousands of years of serious discussion of the IS-OUGHT gap as “nonsense.” We therefore have every right to regard you as not a serious participant in discussion, and though we may have and do continue to express reservations on harsh language used, in fact as at now, you have made yourself a poster-child of irresponsible commentary on a soberingly serious matter. You would be well advised to reconsider how you have intervened above, and in recent weeks. Meanwhile, if you do not find this topic to your taste, the solution is quite simple: no-one forces you to read or comment. However, the obsessiveness with which you have intervened suggests that you realise deep down that we are morally governed, that it is important, that duties of care to truth, sound logic etc are vital to reasoning and more. All of this has been highlighted previously in your presence but brushed aside. It seems you need to reconsider your views.
In response to an attempt to snidely dismiss, I further cautioned:
we were there, we saw your repeated insinuations, innuendoes and invidious associations. We noticed your unresponsiveness to actual citation of the core Christian ethics teaching. We saw how you resorted to the hermeneutic of suspicion against Christianity and Christians in general. We saw your evasiveness in the face of demonstrations of self-evident truth and particularly moral ones. We saw the obvious animus and irritation that are present again in this thread. And, to crown all, having repudiated self-evident or objective duties to truth etc you are now resorting to trying to bind such on us in a context where you have repudiated such against yourself. We take due note and draw our conclusions on how we have to act with prudence in the face of what you have come to represent.
There is more serious substance to this discussion and your derailing effort will fail.kairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

I was a moderately conservative kid, aged 18~19, not religious, but believing in God. And with a certain uncomfortable fascination with young girls who would "do it". I knew I would never date one even though the "sexual revolution" so-called, was stirring, mostly about the naked women magazines at the time. But of course it was OK for guys to be sexually loose at that time. Well guess what, the revolution, so-called, was right about to explode into the south as it did in the rest of the country, and I found myself in the increasingly leftist milieu at Vanderbilt. And what a treat for a young guy, you could go out with girls who were increasingly willing to "do it" on a wide scale, and the whole thing was OK according to the Left, and to be celebrated. In fact, us young uns were, without realizing it, forming a pact, and the deal was sealed so to speak, with something we loved, sex. Or more accurately pleasure provided by sexual license. All we felt any obligation about was not towards the opposite sex, but towards those who gave us the OK, the leftists, and so we became very comfortable with their deal. It was so easy. Easy sex. Pretty soon I became an atheist as were most of my friends. So as the years went by yours truly went from one broken relationship to the next although pretty successful in sexual "conquests" as the term is used. But a failure at relationships, and eventually developed a phobia around sex and women. And so I came back to spirituality and embarked on some powerful therapeutic endeavors, where it became apparent that the phobias were related to deep existential issues that have been described over the ages in the world's scriptures. Observing the convulsions in our society at the present moment makes me feel like the same thing is happening to our culture as has happened with me, and some of the acting out being defended on this forum is just further evidence of what is going on. The materialists are behaving as if their best hope for their life is for oblivion at the end. It is in a word, nuts.groovamos_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

ET “JS the hypocrite is putting words into other people’s mouths.” You are free to behave as you like but your last few comments are not appreciated by those of us who are theists and believe in objective morality. And, if I may point out, only lends credence to JSmith’s comment about the objective morality arguments that are presented here (see @65).Molson Bleu_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

JS the hypocrite is putting words into other people's mouths. Thank you, William Spearshake, for proving materialists and morals don't mix.ET_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

JS
JS For objective morality: Self-evident truths, Plato’s cave, IS-OUGHT, and other philosophical nonsense. Supported by self-righteous hissy fits and labelling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi, scoffing, Orwellian, disgusting, hypocritical, Simpering coward.
KF in response
JS, per fair comment, you have for some time now clearly shown that you are a committed subjectivist and radical relativist...[and so on]
Thank you for demonstrating that my summary of the arguments used to support objective morality was accurate. Your comment couldn’t have been a clearer demonstration of this even if I had written it myself.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply