Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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, 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. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

JAD, actually the first approach is little more than dressing up amorality and soft nihilism to make such seem somehow palatable. KF PS: This has long been well-known, here is Plato (in one of the key texts certain objectors so despise):
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Let me quote myself. This is something I have said before at least a couple of different times on a couple of different threads:
I try to avoid getting involved in discussions or debates with any of our regular interlocutors because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest. The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty-- even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he starts out by arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty?
In other words, telling the truth and being honest only makes sense if there is an objective standard of truth and honesty. That’s a self-evident truth, therefore, any viable system of morality must be based on the fact that there really is moral truth.john_a_designer_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

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.
JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

JS, 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. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

I can't believe that materialistic atheists talk about morals because if they are right then morals don't exist and whatever happens, happens. As long as you and yours survive and reproduce tat is all that counts. Nothing else matters.ET_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

I can’t believe that this objective versus subjective discussion is still going on. Let me summarize the arguments on both sides. 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. For subjective morality: The ability of humans to think rationally and abstractly, and an ability to reason out likely consequences of our actions. 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. The objective side really has to pull up the socks.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

StephanB @ 40.
I am especially glad that you asked this question. I think that the so-called Is-ought dichotomy is misunderstood and overblown. When philosophers claimed that you cannot get to the ought from the is, they meant that you cannot take down-on-the-ground facts and derive morality from that information alone. I agree with that point, but its importance is greatly overestimated. Metaphysically, there is NO gap between the IS and the OUGHT. How things are (the is, our nature, our purpose, God’s existence etc.) does, indeed, determine how we ought to act. In fact, we can and we must derive the ought to from the is in that sense, and it is the only sense that matters. The whole idea of the so-called IS-OUGHT “controversy,” was to make us forget that metaphysical truth determines moral truth. In my judgment, David Hume was not a great thinker. He was a sophist of the first order.
I think there are two basic approaches to natural law: #1. Naturalistic natural law, which presupposes that human beings and human morality is a result of a long mindless and purposeless natural process. #2. Theistic natural law, which presupposes that human beings and their moral conscience were somehow created by an eternally existing transcendent mind. If you think about it there is less of a problem deriving an “ought from an is” with #2 than there is with #1. Furthermore, it is hard to see how with #1 you can have objective moral values, true social justice or universal human rights. In that regard the subjectivist is completely right.john_a_designer_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

HeKS & SB, I suggest that ethics and morals are inevitably and inextricably intertwined and entangled. Yes, one may have codes of ethics that purport to lay out good praxis but such codes can be corrupted, just as laws and courts can be corrupted. The point is moral soundness. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

SB, 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. In other words, you seemed to be indicating that you were about to talk about moral ontology and then you went on to discuss something that fell more in the realm of moral epistemology. To describe what objective morality IS is to describe the nature and source of its existence. My concern was that by trying to describe what objective morality IS by reference to the indications and purposes of human nature you're setting the stage for the kind of confusion we see in the arguments of people like Sam Harris, who claim to believe in objective morality and claim it is dictated by what we can discover about the drivers of human flourishing through science. Barry said I misunderstood you, but he said that by way of this comment:
But in the comment to which you allude SB is engaging not in ontology but in a standard Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law epistemological analysis.
But that was my point. I understood you to be making a statement about moral epistemology, but prefaced by a statement that suggested you were about to address moral ontology. It's not that I thought your comments were wrong with respect to epistemology ... it's merely that they WERE about epistemology, and GUN seemed to be asking about ontology.HeKS_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

KF, HeKS, I will address the IS-OUGHT problem sometime later, unless it comes up again in the natural course of events. I suspect that there is semantic disconnect rather than a philosophical disagreement, but maybe not. Stay tuned.StephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

HeKS, let me address what I perceive to be your most important objection:
An understanding of human nature can make it possible for us to make ethical judgments based on the agreed upon and desirable goal of human flourishing, and our nature therefore gives us a kind of natural insight into a moral standard, playing a role in moral epistemology. However, ethics cannot tell us that to act unethically is also to act immorally. We can have ethics without God, but we can’t have morality without God. Not even a little.
I agree. Let me explain, though, why the telos explanation rises above ethics. I submit that there are five things that are self-evidently *good* for humans—[a] to seek the good, including their highest good, God, [b] to survive, [c] to perpetuate the species, [d] to live in community, and [e] to use our intellect and will for making moral decisions. These are not simply *agreed upon or desirable goals,* by which we hope to make life better (ethics), they are *metaphysically justified goals,* designed by our creator to lead us to our ultimate good, God (morality). The first good, seeking our highest good, informs us, among other things, that we are morally obliged to learn about our Creator, conduct an intelligent search for which religious truth claims are credible, and pray for guidance and strength. Accordingly, we strive to place worldly pursuits in the right context and resist the worldly temptation to make little gods out of power, money, and comfort. The second good, to survive, guides us, among other things, to take care of our physical bodies and preserve our natural environment. If our survival is a natural good, it follows that our neighbor’s survival is good as well. That means that we should not kill people through wanton violence, or kill reputations with slander, or kill relationships with cruel speech. The third good, to perpetuate the species, speaks, among other things, to the morality of birth control and abortion. It is good that humans can act as co-creators with God and with this power comes a tremendous responsibility, including the obligation to honor the nuclear family and to resist the evil of homosexual behavior. The fourth good, to live in community, tells us do those things that promote the common good or the general welfare and avoid those things that militate against them. We should not take things that do not belong to us. What kind of a community could we have if everyone decided to start stealing? We should not commit adultery for the same reason. It isn’t just that we perceive the damage it would do (ethics), it is, more importantly, that God created us as social beings that operate best (have the best chance of being saved) a well-ordered society. The fifth good, the capacity to use our minds and wills to make wise decisions, informs us, among other things, that we have the power to decide our eternal fate even when we live an inferior temporal existence. We are not what we feel, nor are we even what we think. We are what our decisions have made of us. “Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.” In each case, we are really discussing the natural moral law. I could say much more about each *good,* but I am sure you get the idea. So, I will provide a concise summary: Ethics = agreed upon and desired goals Morality = metaphysically justifiable goalsStephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

KF @58 Agreed. I wanted to respond to SB on the IS-OUGHT gap issue because it seems like one area where we might actually disagree. I'll try to find some time to get to that.HeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

SB (Attn HeKS): As we are morally governed, en-conscienced creatures with intelligence and reasoning capability, we can recognise, warrant and acknowledge significant moral truths. However for such truths to find sufficient grounds in reality, we must recognise the IS-OUGHT gap in the ontological sense and that the issue of ungrounded ought can only be resolved at the world-root. This is the context in which I have argued that the only serious candidate -- consistently, proposed alternatives fail at comparative difficulties -- is the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, rational service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This postulate then finds significant epistemic warrant from the facts of our morally governed nature and the need to adequately, coherently ground such a striking feature of our nature and identity as a class of contingent beings. Onward, it points to our being creatures with a purpose that will be partly at least intelligible, thus allowing evils to be understood as frustrating or perverting out of that proper end. Evils, consequently will be ruinous, often succeeding in part only because such patterns are not universal. Attempts to twist our moral government into frames where by implication if not by open recognition, might and/or manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'rights,' 'knowledge,' 'justice' etc stand exposed as ruinously absurd. KFkairosfocus_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

What the moral subjectivist is really trying to argue is that there are no moral truths about anything. However, it is self-refuting to say there is “no ‘moral truths’ about anything,” because in doing so you’re making a universal truth claim about truth which takes the legs out from under the very argument you are trying to make. Short of being omniscient how can anyone even make such a claim? Besides that it runs contrary to our experience as human beings that there are some things that are really wrong, that civilized societies cannot exist without a standard of justice and we and society are capable of moral improvement.john_a_designer_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

BA @14
SB is engaging not in ontology but in a standard Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law epistemological analysis.
A what what? The irony. Paul wrote,
See to it that nobody enslaves you with philosophy and foolish deception, which conform to human traditions and the way the world thinks and acts rather than Christ.
He used the Greek word "philosophy" writing to a Greek audience, places it alongside "foolish deceptions," and points out the human origins of said philosophy. In other words, the scriptures are big and weighty, and all that philosophy was dust on the scales. But all the smart people were into it, so if you wanted to impress people and seem intelligent you went along. Sounds like some other modern teachings. Flash forward and you have individuals such as Thomas Aquinas who couldn't care less what Paul thought - the guy who wrote a chunk of the Bible. They love their Greek philosophy. They study it, write about it, and try to meld it with Christianity. Because the Bible just isn't good enough unless you mix it with some of that refuse that Paul warned Christians about. And what does that get you? A standard Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law epistemological analysis.
Among the mature, however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing, so that your faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
Who regards the Bible as a description of objective morality? It offers a low opinion of philosophers like Aristotle. How contemptible for someone like Thomas Aquinas, who should have known better, to be enamored with him, place his words alongside the Bible, and teach them to Christians.OldAndrew_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

steve_h @53,
And yet Christianity is founded on the idea of torturing a 30-something innocent to death on a cross to spare everyone (except people who are not his own group of followers, i.e most of us) from the “cancer” of eternal torture in hell which he helped establish.
That is sick. The triune God – Father, Son and Spirit – are an entirely happy community of love from all eternity. They had no need of humanity. It was out of sheer generosity and love that they created humanity so that the Trinity of love could share their divine life and joy with us forever. Making humanity into something other than pre-programmed robots – making us into beings in the image of God, i.e., with an intellect and free will – would cost God very much. If a human being was to be a “who” like God is, and not a robotic “what,” there would have to be the possibility of evil. If we aren't really free to deny the Truth and to do evil, then we aren't really free to respond to God's goodness and love, either. God, knowing full well that creating us would lead to Him having to redeem us, did so anyway. The price of our redemption was the humiliating, agonizing death of His Son. God created us out of sheer generosity and love. He didn't have to do that. He redeemed us out of astounding generosity and love. He didn't have to do that, either. God is good. Our true destiny is to eternally share in God's divine life and love. That is why we have immortal souls. We were made to live forever. We are free to choose to deny the Truth and to do evil, i.e., we are free to choose Hell forever. There isn't a soul in Hell who didn't choose to be there; each suffers the frustration of being forever unfulfilled, and knowing that that was their own choice. That is the primary pain of Hell. And we are also free to live according to the Truth and experience eternal joy. The choice is yours.harry_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Barry @48
Yes, and all such systems fail. All A-Mat ethical systems boil down to utilitarian consequentialism. The problem is that some tradeoffs are immoral no matter how much net happiness or health is increased.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing? Do you think I disagree with this? If so, let me redirect you to the second article I ever wrote here: Reply To An Argument Against Objective Morality: When Words Lose All Meaning In particular, start with the paragraph that reads...
That said, I’m not sure how you think we can criticize the idea of torturing an innocent child and discard it without assuming the existence of objective moral truths. You could discard it as something that doesn’t personally appeal to you, but you couldn’t discard it as something that is objectively wrong such that there would be any basis for compelling someone else not to do it.
...and continue with the five paragraphs that follow it.HeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

My answer to "Is it always evil to torture a child for pleasure?" is "Yes, always" My reasoning: Sometimes people do things which harm others, cause suffering, death etc. Sometimes they do those things to avoid greater harm, greater suffering, more deaths. Sometimes they do it for thier own personal gain, or pleasure. Even as an atheist, I can see that causing harm to others for pleasure is not conducive to living a comfortable life, free of constant fear and misery especially when I or people close to me might be the ones suffering that harm. And emotionally, the thought of death, torture and suffering are, well, kinda upsetting if you are not a psychopath. To some of us torture and death belong in a wholly different category to eating the wrong flavour ice cream -- although it can be difficult to communicate that to some people and I can't write it using the symbols of formal logic. Still it's useful to have a word that describes acts such as killing and torturing for pleasure and the people that commit such acts as they describe exactly the kinds of acts and people most of us most want to avoid; Such a word is "evil". AFAIAC, torturing babies for pleasure is always evil simply because that is what the word "evil" means; It's pretty much a tautology which is why people usually bring up that rather than one of their other dislikes (eg homosexuality) when aguing for objective morality. The same word has some other definitions based on supernatural characters that I don't believe in but still serve well to illustrate the same concepts. People from different religions featuring different supernatural characters will disagree on the details, but I think the cases where they pretty much all agree will fall under the simplistic definition used by the atheist (and offered as an alternative by many dictionaries) That we all agree that torturing babies for pleasure is evil doesn't prove that morality is objective - it only shows that we can use words to convey meanings. But the meanings are not absolute. What counts as harmful may vary from person to person in the details, and what counts as mitigating factors will vary from person to person, religion to religion, era to era. I think the word "evil" loses some meaning the way people like Barry throw it around. If Barry tells you that someone is evil what have you learned about them? Nothing really. Maybe that person tortures babies; maybe they kill people for fun; maybe they round up the people they hold responsible for a savior's death and kill them in concentration camps and then try to blame Darwin or Wallace; maybe when they see somebody in a life-threatening situation whom they could rescue, they point and laugh and then walk away ("not my job"); maybe they have disagreed with Barry on the internet about abortion; maybe they want to prevent mentally ill people from buying, hording and shooting semi-automatic weapons at other people; or raise taxes for the rich to help improve the living standards of the most vulnerable people in thier society. The only way to know for sure is to ask the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or Barry himself. Luckily, he and everyone who believes in absolute morality just happen to have opinions exactly in accordance with the objective standard of God - even when those beliefs clash with those of the other moral absolutists.
Barry:Suppose a super-being were to come to you this evening and give you a satisfactory guaranty that you could eliminate all cancer in the entire world. All you have to do to achieve that otherwise laudable goal is torture this toddler to death
And yet Christianity is founded on the idea of torturing a 30-something innocent to death on a cross to spare everyone (except people who are not his own group of followers, i.e most of us) from the "cancer" of eternal torture in hell which he helped establish. Is the toddler in question being nailed to a cross? If so, the answer is apparently whatever "forget justice" translates to in Latin.steve_h_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Tribune7, when asked what objective morality is....
That there is purpose for our existence and that there are universal rules that all must follow — and to which all will be accountable — to achieve this purpose.
Barry, is that what you think objective morality is? KF, what say ye?critical rationalist_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

@KF
CR, you have been present all along when the difference between belief, perception or opinion and knowledge was discussed: warrant. Much of the rest is simply re-statement of the already sufficiently answered. KF
Yes, KF. You presented dictionary definitions and referenced the epistemological idea that knowledge is justified, true belief. Ok, then let me reformulate again…. What is the difference between “I believe the correct response to this moral problem is X” and “Morality is objective; I believe the epistemological idea that knowledge is justified, true belief; and I believe the objectively correct response to this moral problem is X.” Still not seeing it. Again, why should any be more compelled to accept the former than the latter? What does a “reasonable doubt” mean other than a lack of reasonable criticisms? Please be specific.
We have already repeatedly discussed that our faculties and perceptions need not be infallible to reason correctly and even to warrant certain limited plumb-line truths as self-evident.
?And, I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing in that discussion conflicts with my position. For example…..
For concrete and decisive instance, it is self-evident and beyond responsible, rational doubt that: 2 + 3 = 5,
Are you claiming this somehow incompatible with 2+3=5 being an idea that we current lack good criticism of. If so, what good criticisms do we have of it? And, why did you pick that particular example as a concrete and decisive instance out of all those you considered? Did you not quickly stop and try to question which ways or reasons they might be conceivably false? Apparently, one of the ideas you think is immune to criticism is the very idea that some ideas are immune to criticism, because you still haven't addressed either of these in any significant way, other than to simply disagree for some yet to be disclosed reason.critical rationalist_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

If I were an atheist, I would suppose that morality is nothing more than the tides of the times and that it's easier to swim along than to fight them. Of course, you CAN challenge them in the same way that I might attempt to paddle against the rising tide; however, it is much less strenuous to let the currents guide you.OldArmy94_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

CR @23 How do you know they are definitely God’s morality, as opposed to your view about what God’s morality would be? It’s unclear how you can tell the difference. Mat 11:9 "Wisdom is proved to be right [vindicated] by what she does or the results"J-Mac_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

HeKS,
The point is that without God you can make up an ethical system that reflects an objective utility, but it cannot reflect an objective morality.
Yes, and all such systems fail. All A-Mat ethical systems boil down to utilitarian consequentialism. The problem is that some tradeoffs are immoral no matter how much net happiness or health is increased. Suppose a super-being were to come to you this evening and give you a satisfactory guaranty that you could eliminate all cancer in the entire world. All you have to do to achieve that otherwise laudable goal is torture this toddler to death. I suspect many A-Mats would agonize over that tradeoff. Surely one small life and the pain the toddler would endure for a short while is worth ending the suffering of millions. The objectivist is not tempted at all. The answer is easy. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." Notice that appeals to "empathy" do no good here. Empathy cuts both ways. In order to take the deal, you must suppress your empathy for the toddler. In order to refuse the deal, you must suppress your empathy for people sick with cancer. So which way does empathy cut? Both and neither? Do we try to weigh how much empathy is suppressed with each choice and choose the one that involves suppressing empathy the least? That is where we started -- it has boiled down to utilitarian consequentialism. No, murder always leads away from the telos, and that is why it is never a moral option. Another example. Sophie's choice is no choice at all. The moral person always refuses to give material cooperation with evil and that choice is exactly that. The only moral choice is to refuse to choose. But both children will die instead of one, the A-Mat says. Surely it is moral to participate in the evil if your goal is to save a life. No, it is not.Barry Arrington_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

StephenB @44
They can fashion any ethical system that they like, but it doesn’t count as objective morality if it doesn’t draw from THE objective morality. Its really subjective morality in a cheap tuxedo. Example: Atheists propose to increase human health and happiness in women by killing their babies. Its all about increasing human comfort at the expense of morality in the name of morality.
YES!!! YES!!! That's what I have been saying :DHeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Because Atheists like their sins. Of course, everyone likes (in a sense) their sins, but Atheists like their sins in a way such that they regard their sins as something not to be opposed (like a Christian would regard them), but idols to be maintained in some way. 'Cause there's no God, right? I mean, who dares tell me what I should do? Andrewasauber_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

HeKS @43 Okay, now I understand your point. I was confused by your usage of the term 'ethical'. For me ethics without a valid basis is not ethics.Origenes_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

HeKS
Do you disagree that it is possible for humans to create an ethical system geared towards applying this limited knowledge in an effort to increase human health and happiness and reduce human suffering?
They can fashion any ethical system that they like, but it doesn't count as objective morality if it doesn't draw from THE objective morality. Its really subjective morality in a cheap tuxedo. Example: Atheists propose to increase human health and happiness in women by killing their babies. Its all about increasing human comfort at the expense of morality in the name of morality.StephenB_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

origines @38
Right, not to “their flourishing”. However it could be conductive to the flourishing of the atheist. Moreover, why should an atheist care about “their flourishing”?
My point, as I've consistently been saying, is that there is no reason why they should (in the sense of ought) care about the other person's flourishing. That is precisely my point. The point is that without God you can make up an ethical system that reflects an objective utility, but it cannot reflect an objective morality. Do you understand?HeKS_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

HeKS However, no matter how true a claim it might be that science can be used to objectively determine things that contribute to human flourishing (whether completely true or only partially true), the overall claim is completely false, because the mere ability to objectively determine things that contribute to human flourishing does absolutely nothing to establish an objective basis for any moral value to human flourishing or any moral duty to behave in a way that contributes to it. For that, you need God. So all I’m doing here is addressing an argument I’ve often heard for the possibility of objective morality in the absence of God that has been used by prominent atheists. The argument is wrong. It is based on confusion and it redefines moral terms into utilitarian ones. Well, OK then. We agree. :-)tribune7_{January 12, 2018
January
01
Jan
12
12
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply