WJM States the Obvious

_{Barry Arrington

August 28, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to my last post WJM states:

if morality is subjective and there are no necessary consequences, why should I care about it? Why shouldn’t I just consider it an inhibiting evolutionary, emotional artifact (like any other emotion or feeling) and overcome its inhibiting interference with my capacity to act in this world for my own benefit?

I made similar arguments in:

Psychopath as Übermensch or Nietzsche at Columbine

Follow Up on Psychopath as Übermensch

The materialist response was large on howling outrage; small (as in “non-existent”) in logical rebuttal. Your statement is obviously true. Materialists deny it anyway. Add that to the list of truths you have to deny to be a materialist.

Comments

Then you are wrong.
kgoodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

bfast @5
Alas there are a lot of social consequences to not going with the moral code of the day. It just doesn’t fly within our society to say that Hitler had the right to exterminate Jews, for instance.
Yes, there are social consequences to not going with the moral code of the day, but the "moral code of the day" is not an objective code. It changes over time. If morality is objective, then real right and wrong does not change even if perceived right and wrong does. Most people agree that what Hitler did was wrong. It is not the extreme issues of morality that are usually in question - unless we're dealing with ISIS. Let's take every day down to earth issues like premarital sex, some divorce, cheating on income tax, gossip, not loving our neighbor, etc. These are things that are a part of God's moral code. I doubt there would be too many social consequences for doing any of these, but that does not mean they are not wrong in God's eyes. It also shows the difficulty of determining what is right and wrong from a Materialist point of view. In the Bible, there was a time in history recorded in the Book of Judges where it says "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." This would be the Materialist idea. We determine morality with our own wisdom and opinion. Read the book to see how that worked out. I'll save you the trouble. It was a disaster. It is so easy to justify sin if we want to do it. And, like the OP suggests, even if society were to frown on some of this stuff, why bother to pay any attention? Even today there is mixed opinion over the morality of so many things. That must put the Materialist in a real moral quandary if he cares about right and wrong. But I don't think he sweats the small stuff because he knows it really doesn't matter if he keeps some arbitrary man made moral code or not. That is exactly why we need laws and consequences for breaking those laws! If humans could really be trusted to do what is right without threat of punishment, then we would need no laws, no keys, no police, no jails, etc. But, if there is a chance for us to do something wrong and we know we will not be caught, what will we do? What we do in secret when no one else is looking shows us the real moral condition of our heart. So, what does the Materialist do when it comes to tax time? Should he report the unreported income he has or keep it hidden? Should he tell the truth about his children's ages when entering an amusement park, or lie to get a cheaper price? Should he turn in the money he finds in the park to the authorities or keep it for himself? Should he pass on rumors about his co-workers or not? Should he watch porn secretly or not Should he give money to the poor or not? And why does it really matter one way or the other if we are not caught? We all struggle with these things. I'm not trying to say I am better than they are. My heart is just as sinful as theirs, but for me, I would really struggle with some of these things if I didn't have a clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong. For me, a clear moral standard is very helpful.tjguy_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

GUN
I think such people are very rare.
Then you are wrong.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

au contraire, it is very convenient for those who want to ignore the moral code.
I think such people are very rare. I think most everyone else would love to have a better way to detect morality. I would have thought that the convenience of such a machine would be something we could agree on.goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

GUN
Well, that’s inconvenient.
au contraire, it is very convenient for those who want to ignore the moral code.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Because it is objective, external and immaterial.
Well, that's inconvenient.goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

GUN
why don’t we build a machine
Because it is objective, external and immaterial.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Ah, true, he does only describe it as a feeling if morality is subjective. But if objective than the conscience is a sense detecting an "objective, external world like any other sensory organ". If that's the case then why don't we build a machine that can detect morality much better than we can, just as we have with "any other sensory organ" in order to better discern what or moral? Morality debates could all be settled (or we'd at least have much better data to work with).goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

goodusername You say you read WJM's argument, but then you turn right around knock down a straw man.
IMO the feelings . . .
Buzz. WJM did not base his conclusion on feelings. He based it on logic and reasoning. GUN, we can't help you if you refuse to open your mind to our ideas.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

To clarify my post at #6, WJM does believe that the feelings of mysterious harm do come from the conscience whether morality is subjective or objective, but if they are subjective such feelings can (apparently) be ignored, but we shouldn't ignore them (for some reason) if they are objective. (Not sure what here is supposed to be obvious.)goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Seversky, your argument at 7 is devastating. That sound you hear is the entire theistic project collapsing at its very foundation. Oh well, I guess we all have to convert to atheism now. Dang. (sarcasm)Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

You're right. As an a/mat 2.0 I deny that it is either obvious or true.Seversky_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

The question you pose is like asking if a circle were square how many sides would it have? It is literally meaningless. WJM addresses the issue you raise in depth in the comment linked in the OP.
Ok, I read it. He seems to be saying that we can tell that morality is objective because we sense mysterious, apparently indescribable, consequences and harm to ourselves if we do immoral things - something that can't be brushed aside such as the feelings we have from empathy and our conscience. IMO the feelings of harmful consequences he's talking are from empathy and our conscience.goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Barry, I think that the key to the materialist's moral code is right here: "if there are no necessary consequences, why should I care about it?" Alas there are a lot of social consequences to not going with the moral code of the day. It just doesn't fly within our society to say that Hitler had the right to exterminate Jews, for instance. On the flip side, the "moral code" that is in vogue right now says that a woman has the right to murder her child, as long as it hasn't been born yet (or reached some arbitrary state of development.) Hence we find a gazillion materialists, biologists who know that there is very little difference between a born human and a pre-born human, who side with the vogue "moral code". Our challenge, as theists who have a real moral code, is to show this vogue code to be reprehensible. Suddenly, poof, the materialists will be pro-life. It happened with slavery, it happened with racism, it happened with eugenics, and it has happened with divorce, extramarital sex and . homosexual activity (though it shouldn't have.) Materialists are crowd followers when it comes to morality. When they do try to take the lead, like they did with eugenics, they get it all wrong because their foundation is all wrong.bFast_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Mike, I address the issue you raise in the linked articles.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

goodusername:
if morality is objective and there are no necessary consequences, why should I care about it?
The question you pose is like asking if a circle were square how many sides would it have? It is literally meaningless. WJM addresses the issue you raise in depth in the comment linked in the OP.Barry Arrington_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Is the first part of the question relevant? What if the question is changed to:
if morality is objective and there are no necessary consequences, why should I care about it?
Or how about just:
if there are no necessary consequences, why should I care about it?
goodusername_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

As a mostly silent bystander, who is essentially in the same camp as Barry and WJM, let me take a stab at a rejoinder from the other side, as if I were one of them, being as generous as possible, before they comment... Yes, Barry, you and WJM correctly assess our view in its essence, however, our subjective views and/or feelings compel us to act as if our subjective morality has the weight on an objective morality. Yes, our views may not have a rational basis, but we cannot help believing our views our subjective, and acting at the same time like they are not. We're pedaling as fast as we can.mike1962_{August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply