Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DOES IT MATTER WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT MORALITY? (A guest-post by HeKS)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A recent post by Barry Arrington started an interesting and lively discussion about morality, whether it is objective and, if so, how it might be grounded. Barry provided the job description for a clinical ethicist and then asked how a materialist could apply for such a job in good faith, given the inability of the materialist to ground his moral and ethical views in anything more solid, objective and enduring than his own subjective opinions and the opinions of his fellow materialists.

In the ensuing discussion, it seemed that many attempts were made to divert attention away from the core issue that materialism can offer no ultimate grounding for objective moral values and duties. Instead, comments were made in which certain persons recast the original question as a claim that atheists are incapable of behaving morally, or that all atheists personally believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong.

Of course, this is not at all what was claimed. It is manifestly false that all atheists personally believe there is no such thing as right and wrong. And nobody with any sense doubts that atheists are perfectly capable of behaving morally and ethically if they so desire. The point, rather, is that the atheist who believes there really is such a thing as right and wrong, good and bad, is incapable of providing a rational basis for his belief, and the atheist who chooses to behave morally is incapable of offering any rational argument for why anybody else should feel compelled to do so if they are not similarly inclined.

After all, if Richard Dawkins is right when he says that we live in a universe that has, at bottom, “nothing but blind pitiless indifference,”[F/N 1] why should we disagree with him when he declares in the same breath that there is also “no evil and no good”? If all of reality is absolutely reducible to mindless matter and energy, why should we expect that it would have any moral aspect at all? There is nothing about a quark, an atom, or any other constituent or conglomeration of matter in any configuration than can account for the real existence of any moral law by which we humans might be bound. Why should reality contain a set of objective moral values and duties that ought to compel the behaviour of humans if they are nothing more than relatively advanced primates living “on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe” [F/N 2] and are the end result of a “meaningless and purposeless process (i.e. naturalistic evolution) that did not have [them] in mind”? [F/N 3] The very notion is absurd.

Why Does it Matter?

A casual observer presented with these facts might well ask why any of this really matters. And, indeed, why does it even matter? Does it make any difference whether morality is objective or merely subjective? And does it matter whether we believe in the objectivity of morality?

Interestingly, the atheist participants in the discussion succeeded in offering some good arguments for why a belief in the objectivity of moral values and duties really does make a difference, even if they may have done so unintentionally.

For example, in comment #34, Acartia_bogart said this:

“Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that anybody’s morality is superior than anybody else’s.”

When Barry pointed out to him that he had just “effectively demonstrated the point of the [original post]” (#36), Acartia_bogart adjusted his claim in comment #41 to say that instead of referring to “anybody” he should have said “any group”, such that his claim can be understood like this:

‘Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that any group’s (e.g. atheists or theists) morality is superior to any other group’s morality.’

Of course, on materialism, Acartia_bogart is absolutely right, but the substitution of a group in place of an individual does nothing to lessen his confirmation of Barry’s original point. In reality, not only is it not possible on materialism to objectively demonstrate (or even argue) that the morality of one group is better or worse than another, but it is impossible to objectively demonstrate that the morality of any group or person is either good or bad at all, because there is no objective standard against which their morality can be measured. Furthermore, this observation cannot be limited merely to the general groups of theists and atheists. Acartia_bogart’s comment applies equally well to any group of any size. And so, by what standard do we measure the actions of the Nazis as a group? Or the Soviet Communist Party in their promotion of Marxism-Lenninism and the rampant suffering and death that atheistic ideology caused? Or, for that matter, the hateful actions of the Westboro Baptist Church? On materialism, there is no standard by which any of these groups can be judged, much less condemned. A materialist can say he disagrees with these things, but he can’t offer any coherent reason for why his opinion should be considered normative or why anyone should feel compelled to submit to it.

Acartia_bogart’s comment was not the only telling one, however. Mark Frank also offered some interesting observations. In discussing the role of a clinical ethicist, he matter-of-factly states in comment #142:

“It is not uncommon for jobs to require people to do things they think immoral.”

To commenter StephenB, who would likely agree that he has strong a priori moral principles due to his belief in objective morality, Mark Frank says in #156:

“My inclination would be to say that someone with strong a priori moral principles such as yourself would be very uncomfortable performing a job which involved setting your own moral principles aside.”

Indeed.

In #171, Mark Frank also says this:

“A moral relativist is perfectly capable of supporting the moral purposes of an organisation – indeed he/she is better equipped to do this than a moral objectivist as this involves making moral decisions relative to the moral framework of the organisation. (In practice moral relativists do have their own views and may find their subjective opinion differs from that of the organisation – but they are likely to find it easier than an obectivist to put aside their moral views and work according to the organisation’s).”

Like Acartia_bogart, Mark’s comments are right on the money. And that’s the problem. If a moral relativist finds himself in a work situation that requires him to act in a way that he deems immoral, what of it? If some situation requires that he set aside his own moral principles and act in a way that runs contrary to them, he need not feel very uncomfortable with this. Certainly he will find it much easier to do so than would a moral objectivist. After all, in casting aside his own moral code in order to operate according to the strictures and liberties of one with which he disagrees, it’s not like the relativist believes he has contravened any objective moral truths. And it seems like a paycheque is as good an impetus as any to toss one’s own relative moral opinions to the wind. Why shouldn’t the moral relativist ignore his own moral views if he deems it to be of worthwhile benefit? It seems to me that the relative ease with which a moral relativist can cast off his own moral constraints ought to be considered a bug of relativism, not a feature.

One of the functions of a moral system is to curb the more ignoble aspects of our imperfect human nature, such as a tendency toward greed and overwhelming self-interest. And yet, how much power can a moral code have to curb such tendencies toward unbalanced self-interest if we believe it is nothing more than a useful fiction that we adhere to because we think it will benefit society at large, which is primarily of importance because that will, in turn, benefit us? Can a moral code have much of a chance to prevent us from acting against the best interests of others for our own gratification if the only rational reason we can see for following it is because it generally and ultimately serves our own interests? Who’s to say that, on any given occasion, we might not prefer to have our cake and eat it, too, choosing to temporarily disregard our moral code for our immediate benefit; especially if we have a reasonable expectation that our actions in the present won’t come back to haunt us in the future? Furthermore, if we decide to do such a thing, who, on the assumption of materialism, can say we have done anything wrong?

It should be noted that the types of comments considered here from Acartia_bogart and Mark Frank are not merely the random opinions of some internet commenters. Box, one of the participants in the discussion, offered a lengthy quote from the well-known atheist, Alex Rosenberg, who is a philosophy professor at Duke University. The quote, which expresses views not remotely unique to Rosenberg, merits duplication here in full.

Taken from Box’s comment (#174):

First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us.

Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble.

Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.)

Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. For our own self-respect, we need to show that nihilism doesn’t have the three problems just mentioned—no grounds to condemn Hitler, lots of reasons for other people to distrust us, and even reasons why no one should trust anyone else. We need to be convinced that these unacceptable outcomes are not ones that atheism and scientism are committed to. Such outcomes would be more than merely a public relations nightmare for scientism. They might prevent us from swallowing nihilism ourselves, and that would start unraveling scientism.

To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.

[A.Rosenberg, The Atheist Guide to Reality, ch.5] – emphasis mine

Scientism, which entails materialism, cannot avoid nihilism. Of course, it is not the reliance on science, per se, that necessitates nihilism. Rather, it is the insistence that science must be strictly materialistic in nature. For at least 150 years, people have been trying to find some rational way to affirm materialism without also affirming a nihilistic moral relativism. They have been trying because, unlike the many cavalier atheists who are typically involved in these discussions across the internet, they realize that it really does matter whether humans believe in the objective reality of binding moral values and duties. It matters so much, in fact, that even atheists like Rosenberg recognize that society itself would be utterly destroyed if the logically necessary implications of materialism were widely accepted. In other words, if atheistic materialism were to prosper and the atheists decided to live in a way that was logically consistent with their basic beliefs about reality, society as we know it would ultimately disappear. And so in Rosenberg we witness an interesting internal conflict in which he is determined to affirm scientism, materialism and nihilism, and yet he can’t quite get over the fact that the actions of people like Hitler seem like they must really be wrong.

Rosenberg also makes another interesting observation. He notes that if people were to recognize the necessary nihilistic implications of scientific materialism and subsequently reject the truth of those implications, materialism, and the scientism it supports, would unravel. I completely agree. People typically like to think that their worldview is in some way logically coherent, but if the premises underlying their worldview lead inevitably to conclusions that they strongly believe are false, contrary to the evidence of their experience, and in conflict with other basic beliefs they hold more strongly and believe are more warranted, then the only reasonable course of action is to accept that one or more of the premises underlying their worldview must be false.

Arguments Against Objective Morality

But is the concept of Objective Morality actually true such that it should rightly overturn Materialism? Might it be that in believing there are at least some things that are really morally wrong we are simply mistaken? For example, in spite of our overwhelming sense that it is really morally wrong to torture and murder a child for fun, could it be that such actions are merely socially unacceptable because they happen to contravene an arbitrary set of behavioural guidelines that have been agreed on by a majority of people in a particular society? Can an argument be made against the reality of any objective moral values and duties – the existence of which most people hold to be self-evident – without first assuming the truth of Materialism as a starting point? During the discussion, Acartia_bogart offered such an argument. Here is what he said:

I accept the fact that theists believe that god provided objective morality is real. But I argue that they are nothing more than a set of rules that various societies over the centuries have established because they are beneficial to an individual’s and a society’s ability to survive and thrive. . . . If morals are truly objective and given by god, why do different religions, and even different sects within the same religion, not have the same objective morals?

As anyone remotely familiar with the debate over the objectivity of morality will recognize, this is the most common argument offered against the idea that morals are truly objective. It is also ill-conceived, because it confuses the issues of moral ontology (the basic existence of moral truths) and moral epistemology (our ability to get to know those moral truths if they exist). That humans may fail to naturally grasp all moral truths perfectly does not necessitate the conclusion that the moral truths are not there to be grasped at all. That humans manage to naturally grasp many moral truths but not all is perfectly consistent with the Judeo-Christian doctrine of mankind’s fall. It is also worth noting that, absent some kind of psychological pathology, humans naturally feel a compulsion to do whatever they happen to think is morally right, whether they happen to be correct or not. Furthermore, unless they have scarred their conscience beyond repair through sustained abuse of it, they will often experience negative psychological and physiological effects when they act in a way that they truly believe is wrong.

That there happen to be differences of opinion over what really is “the good” in some cases, even among theists, only highlights why the theist can reasonably expect some form of moral direction from the Creator of material reality and the ground of moral truths if the theist is right in thinking that such a Being exists, for why would he create a material reality that includes a moral dimension and cause to exist intelligent moral agents such as our ourselves who feel the moral prodding of a conscience if he does not care that we live according to the moral values and duties that he grounds. And if he cares, why would he not aid us in understanding his desires? Christians believe that the Creator has instructed humans in regard to his moral desires and, indeed, when it comes to those individuals and organizations that profess to be Christian but have brought about pain and suffering in various forms at different points in history, including the present, the problem almost universally stems from either ignoring or going beyond the moral dictates in the Bible that Christians admit they ought to follow as their guide. [F/N 4]

And what about the fact that non-Christians and even non-theists are capable of behaving morally or developing useful moral systems that are in many ways similar to Judeo-Christian morality? Does this other common argument somehow undermine the idea that morality is objective and grounded in God? Of course not. For one thing, some such moral systems are actually modeled on the Judeo-Christian framework in the first place, even if they have afterwards excised their own foundation. That, however, is a minor point. The more important one is that this state of affairs is expected under theism because it is believed that God implanted in humanity a natural grasp of his moral laws, even if their ability to discern them (a matter of moral epistemology) has been degraded. In fact, the apostle Paul makes this very point in Romans 2: 14, 15, when he says:

For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.

It should not be expected under theism that humans would be incapable of discerning any moral truths at all without the assistance of an external guide. In fact, they should be expected to naturally grasp a good many such moral truths. However, there are points at which our ability to discern right and wrong breaks down, where issues become grey, and we can sometimes fool ourselves about whether some course of action is truly good or merely in line with our own desires. At these times, a Christian believes the Bible can reliably adjust their thinking onto a proper moral course.

So, in short, the most common arguments against the existence of objective morality that do no simply assume Materialism carry no logical force whatsoever. Rather, the strongest ‘argument’ against the existence of objective moral values and duties remains the mere assumption that materialism is true. That is why Materialism, as a philosophical approach to reality, is so destructive to society and even basic human rights when it is believed in earnest. While it is perfectly possible for a theist to ignore his conscience and for a Christian to disregard the moral guidelines he finds in the Bible, it is also possible to say that, in so doing, the theist has acted in a way that is inconsistent with his most basic beliefs about reality and that his actions are objectively wrong. It is also possible for one theist to rationally reason with another that he really ought to live in accord with certain moral standards; that they are indeed binding upon him. Conversely, within the framework of materialism, no moral system will ever be binding on humans. It will never be capable of rationally grounding any oughts. No matter how well constructed it may seem to be, no matter how useful, any man or woman will always have an absolute defeater near at hand in the form of two simple words: I disagree.

In light of all this, and considering the ultimate importance of this issue and the incredibly negative effects that even thoughtful and informed atheists admit would ensue if the necessary implications of Materialism were widely grasped and accepted, why do so many atheist philosophers and scientists cling to Materialism as a true picture of reality? What is the root of the obsession with naturalism in the sciences? And what evidence and arguments are marshalled in support of the truth of Materialism? Well, if I’m invited back as a guest author in the future, I would like to consider some of these questions.

HeKS

______________________________

FOOTNOTES:

1 Richard Dawkins. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995)

2 Carl Sagan. Cosmos (1980)

3 George Gaylord Simpson. The Meaning of Evolution (1967)

4 It perhaps needs to be pointed out pre-emptively that Christians are not subject to the guidelines of the Mosaic Law, which, in addition to making plain to the Jews the need for the redemptive power of the promised messiah, was intended to keep them absolutely separate from the morally vile and idolatrous nations that surrounded them so as to prevent contamination by those people, especially in terms of their worship.

Comments
F/N: Kreeft on relativism, here, will repay a careful reading, as will Koukl on the hidden -- indoctrination -- agendas of so-called values clarification "neutral view" approaches to moral education here. Koukl's look at an exchange on CNN's Larry King Live, here, should give us sobering pause. Where, the very fact that such critiques will typically sound unfamiliar [or else are typically twisted into strawman caricatures, which are boxed about then tossed aside . . . ], should set off warning bells on what is happening with our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
September 22, 2014
September
09
Sep
22
22
2014
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
PS: Plato's grim warning c 360 BC in The Laws, Bk X:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and 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. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and 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.] 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 leads to the promotion of amorality], 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], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
We are carelessly playing with fire here, and need to wake up, real fast.kairosfocus
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
WS: If we have rights, then oughtness is real not a mere power game -- what those social rules over centuries boil down to (cultural relativism and who wins the power struggle; note, many of my ancestors were slaves under established widely accepted law based on rules established for centuries . . . ). If by contrast to the power- game- disguised- as- rules talking point, ought is real, then there is a foundational IS that properly grounds it. Where, there is but one serious candidate. I am now quite sick of shell games to dodge and divert this issue. The question on the table in the name of that boy whose blood cries up from the ground, is, do we have rights. KFkairosfocus
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
K:"it is a legitimately binding moral expectation that we be respected as valuable equals and ends in ourselves, not mere toys, tool or chattels to the ends of another." I don't think that anybody is arguing with this. What is up for discussion is whether this "binding moral obligation" is the result of a supernatural mandate, or the result of rules established over centuries by intelligent, and sometimes rational, beings who live in a society. I simply do not see any evidence that the latter is not the cause.william spearshake
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
PS: In reply to the subtext of well-poisoning regarding the Judaeo-Christian tradition on morality that peeks out between the lines, I again cite in full the central summary of that teaching by its principal teacher, as a witness: ______________ >> Matthew 5-7English Standard Version (ESV) The Sermon on the Mount 5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. The Beatitudes 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Christ Came to Fulfill the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Anger 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother[c] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell[e] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.[f] Lust 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. Divorce 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g] Retaliation 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Giving to the Needy 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. The Lord's Prayer 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[j] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,[k] on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[l] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[m] 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Fasting 16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Lay Up Treasures in Heaven 19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[n] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.[o] Do Not Be Anxious 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[p] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Judging Others 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Ask, and It Will Be Given 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The Golden Rule 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[q] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. A Tree and Its Fruit 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Build Your House on the Rock 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” The Authority of Jesus 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. >> _______________ All I will add to this, is that if someone is unwilling to acknowledge this and its utter centrality -- indeed it lies directly behind Canon Hooker's words -- then that speaks utterly revealing volumes. KFkairosfocus
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
P: I could be sharp and short -- rubbish, you are trying an equivalency argument where there is no legitimate equivalency revealing the bankruptcy of evolutionary materialist scientism. Instead, I will point out what you have consistently evaded, the grounding issue for morality and a glimpse of why there is just one serious candidate to be the IS who grounds OUGHT. And, why oughtness in that context is reasonable not a manifestation of might makes right. We start with that sad real-life case: it is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child for sick so-called pleasure. This is because that child -- despite having no might to resist the murderous monster who did that to him, a monster who was obviously deaf to tears or pleas and gagged the poor child with his school socks to prevent crying out for help -- yes, despite having no might or eloquence or succor, had right to life, liberty, person and more. This, you and others who will argue like you do, dare not deny, you drag attention away from instead. So, it is time to stress it: the humblest, weakest, least able to argue among us nevertheless have rights tracing to their intrinsic worth, dignity and status as a human being. (Rights that in this case were violated horrifically by a Nero like demonic monster.) But, what is a right? On pain of absurdity, it is a legitimately binding moral expectation that we be respected as valuable equals and ends in ourselves, not mere toys, tool or chattels to the ends of another. That is, ought is real. In the words of "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker" cited by Locke in grounding modern liberty and democracy . . . a cite of material historic impact you and others have repeatedly studiously ignored -- triggering loud warning-bells:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80
This leads to a direct point that the IS-OUGHT gap is bridged. This cannot be so, save at the foundation of the world, that is, there is a world-foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. For which, after thousands of years of debate, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good, Creator God who is a maximally great and necessary being, the root of reality. Where, plainly, that which is good will show itself in the promotion of thriving of the valuable, as opposed to its privation, frustration and ruinously destructive perversion. That is, we see here a definition of good vs evil, a grounding of OUGHT in a foundational IS, and a reason to look with respect to the root of our being and to the creatures who are our valuable equals in nature. Such is the very opposite of the perverted well-poisoning equivalency rhetoric that was cited. For shame! The blood of that poor child cries up from the ground against all such tainted rhetoric. History teaches, in lessons paid for in that most costly and precious of commodities, blood. Those who refuse its hard-bought lessons would lead us to re-live its worst chapters. Enough is enough. For the sake of the blood crying up from the ground, STOP! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
KF: I have already cited standard dictionary usage on nihilism, which makes plain what is at stake. The notorious fact is, might and manipulation make ‘right’ and ‘truth’ is a characteristic nihilistic principle of thought.
And, again, I’m pointing out the very idea you are promoting, a form of justificationist morality, justifies it’s mirror twin, nihilism. From the above quote....
Indeed, infallibilism and nihilism are twins. Both fail to understand that mistakes are not only inevitable, they are correctable (fallibly). Which is why they both abhor institutions of substantive criticism and error correction, and denigrate rational thought as useless or fraudulent. They both justify the same tyrannies. They both justify each other.
That’s a false dichotomy.
KF: The consequences are written in blood across the past 100 years, with over 100 million victims. And the further fact is, that evolutionary materialist scientism had much to do with the frames of thought behind the regimes that carried out what we are talking of.
Which is a perfect illustration. If not justification, then you must have nihilism. It’s “obvious” a lack of justification is the problem, not progress in moral knowledge.
KF: Popperianism, your hobby horse, has little to contribute, save that it seems unable to face the grieving father and surviving (now adult) brothers and friends of the victim of kidnapping, torture, perverted rape and murder that I have used as yardstick case no 1.
The fact that people can and will be mistaken about what they want and that mistakes are inevitable, but that they are correctable (fallibly) can help us understand these events and give us hope about the future. We’ve already seen significant progress, even when we’re unaware about how moral knowledge grows. The question is, as the explanation becomes explicit via criticism, what will our response be? Progress is impossible or to even deny that we’ve made any in the first place? But this just justifies the very thing you argue against.Popperian
September 20, 2014
September
09
Sep
20
20
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
HeKs, I have been a wallflower here but I can affirm that Mung has been much more venomous than A_B ever has. Not that it matters any more. BA has decided to ban him. Although I am curious as to why.william spearshake
September 20, 2014
September
09
Sep
20
20
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
@A_b For the record, I'm a 'he'. And you? Also for the record, I think the envy comment was uncalled for. I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. And it's actually kind of awkward for me to even have to address it.HeKS
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
Hey Mung,
[H]eks:
@Mung #22 Not to get all preachy, but while I fully appreciate your ultimate point, should Acartia_bogart’s politeness really be met with derision? I think your point could be presented with equal power in a slightly more attractive package.
Mung:
HeKS, I’ll get back to you when Arcatia_bogart addresses the argument rather than handing out a compliment (not to be confused with a complement). A_b is somewhat of a magician. Waving with one hand to attract the attention while hiding the absence of substantive response in the other hand and hoping the audience doesn’t notice. Good luck
Got to hand to Arcatia_bogart! One wave of the hand and he’s GONE! DISAPPEARED! The ultimate in magical tricks.
I know this comment I made to you has come up again a few times, but my point was simply that if Acartia_bogart said something polite, the best response might not be to jump down his throat for it. If he says that his polite words were sincere, I don't see much value in uncharitably assuming that it's simply a diversionary tactic. If he ultimately decides not to address any of the responses I made in the OP to his points, his polite acknowledgement that I treated his position fairly doesn't need to be viewed as inextricably linked to his choice not to respond, such that the former must be viewed as a bad-faith diversionary tactic for the latter. I'm guessing that A_b is well aware that someone following the discussion will see that he (she?) didn't offer any response other than "I disagree". I know it hasn't escaped me. You'll notice my comment #36 is addressed to A_b. If you want to keep asking A_b for a response and pointing out when none is offered, you're welcome to it. I'm just of the opinion that valid points carry more weight and credibility when delivered politely. But it seems there's some background reason here why you're frustrated with A_b (I'm pretty new here), so you're the one in the best position to decide what tone you want to convey in your posts.HeKS
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Mung, I still fail to see your point. I made arguments in a previous OP. HeKs presented them objectively in this OP with a well thought out rebuttal. I complimented him on how well he did this. But for some reason, the fact that I would praise someone that I disagree with has got your knickers in a knot. Is the possibility that someone can disagree with someone else, but respect how they present the argument, such a foreign concept to you? But, given the way that I have seen you argue your points, this shouldn't surprise me. Or is it that you are envious of HeKs' ability to present his/her views in such a logical and well structured fashion? Don't worry. It is nothing to be ashamed of. I am envious as well. I wish I could write as well as HeKs.Acartia_bogart
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
A_b, By your own admission, the OP addressed your comments. Or have you forgotten already that you wrote that?Mung
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Mung, what gave you the impression that myself, or anyone, OUGHT to address every argument in every OP? Some of us have full time jobs.Acartia_bogart
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Keks:
@Mung #22 Not to get all preachy, but while I fully appreciate your ultimate point, should Acartia_bogart’s politeness really be met with derision? I think your point could be presented with equal power in a slightly more attractive package.
Mung:
HeKS, I’ll get back to you when Arcatia_bogart addresses the argument rather than handing out a compliment (not to be confused with a complement). A_b is somewhat of a magician. Waving with one hand to attract the attention while hiding the absence of substantive response in the other hand and hoping the audience doesn’t notice. Good luck
Got to hand to Arcatia_bogart! One wave of the hand and he's GONE! DISAPPEARED! The ultimate in magical tricks. Arcatia_bogart:
Damn, I didn’t know that I had these super powers.
You're entirely too modest. Any chance you'll actually address yourself to the arguments in the OP? No? None?Mung
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
I would like to comment on this...... I propose a thought experiment on objectivity versus subjectivity..... As human beings we are very set in our ways; about how the world is, should be and ought to function (natural laws); somebody sent me a clip (funny scare clip compilation) and it made me think about why everybody reacts in such a way. Sure you can put the usual evolutionary spin on the deal, you can invoke all the physiological stuff too if you wish but here is the take home; There are things that can be shown to be objective outside our subjective opinions about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLSA0gQ9z28 So when Mark Frank fuddles the lines on objective Vs. subjective, let me give him an example of something absolutely objective.Andre
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
@Mark Frank (response to your comment accidentally posted in the other thread)
I am going to be away for a couple of weeks starting tomorrow so this is probably my last comment on the subject.
Ok. Hopefully I'll be able to get some work done on taxes. :)
For example, it is logically possible that the extremely consistent ways in which we’ve observed physical reality behave throughout history are not the result of a set physical laws that constrain its behavior but are merely the result of an astronomically improbable string of chance outcomes, such that it is entirely possible that the next time you drop a hammer it will hit the ceiling instead of the floor. Does the knowledge that this is logically possible make you feel emboldened to jump off a tall building this afternoon?
There are two key differences between your belief in gravity and your belief that killing people is wrong. 1 ) At different times and different places people have had radically different views. The crusaders thought it was quite OK to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem. You could say that at one time people thought the earth was round and now we know better. But it is not comparable. There was no discovery or proof that killing other races was wrong. Attitudes just changed. Even now your beliefs on some very significant moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia probably differ from large numbers of other sincere educated adults from a similar culture. 2) Someone who does not believe in gravity will soon come up against the realities of the world in very concrete way. There is no equivalent for your moral beliefs. In the end the ultimate guide you have as to what is wrong is your personal conscience. How do you know it is working correctly?
Regarding 2), you seem to be missing my point. If you drop a hammer and it hits the ground, the only logically necessary conclusion you can draw from that is that it hit the ground. No matter how many times you drop a hammer and it hits the ground, the fact of it hitting the ground remains the only logically necessary conclusion you can draw from the result. The conclusion that there exists a law of gravity is ultimately inductive rather than deductive. No matter how well the existence of this law is supported by an inductive survey of the evidence, including its precise mathematical describability, it remains a logical possibility that we are simply observing an astronomically improbable series of chance outcomes, like rolling the number three on a fair die billions upon billions upon billions of times. And yet, we do not feel compelled to accept this logical possibility as being remotely plausible simply because it is logically possible. Pointing out that something appears to be logically possible only gets us so far. Coming back to morality, though, my guess is that if you were to ask most people whether they believed that torturing and killing little children for fun was really wrong as strongly as they believed that someone jumping off a building would fall to their death, they would probably say yes. I know that I think that. I know many other people do as well. That's rather amazing if you think about it. Regarding 1), yes, people have had radically different views on certain things, but it's pretty difficult to do historical psychoanalysis. You mention the crusaders and that they thought it was OK to massacre those in Jerusalem, but you're again employing this "everything else being equal" reasoning. Are you saying they had no inherent sense that, for example, torturing and killing little children for fun was really wrong? How would you know that? People who believe something sometimes act in a way that is inconsistent with their belief for one reason or another, often because they allow their selfish personal desires to outweigh their moral sense. For example, during the 4th Crusade, the crusaders stopped short of their goal and sacked the Christian city of Byzantium. Pretty weird, huh? Are we to conclude that these crusaders were inspired to take this action by a deeply held moral belief that the objectively right thing to do was to kill a bunch of their fellow Christians? Of course not. The Crusades had very little to do with religion or a compulsion to follow the prodding of conscience over what was the objectively right course of action. Certainly some of the crusaders were inspired by good motives, like those who joined the 1st Crusade simply out of a desire to help bring relief to the Christians who were being mistreated and killed by the Turks, but that does not appear to have been the norm. Participation in (and even initiation of) the crusades was largely motivated by the possibility of wealth, power, renown and, particularly, the chance at land ownership, not by a pressing need to do the objectively right thing. Simply observing a set of actions, like those carried out during the crusades, can do little to tell us if a person was acting in accord with their most basic moral beliefs or whether they allowed those beliefs to be overpowered by other factors. Certainly you don't think that there has never been a murder committed by a person who really believed that murder was objectively wrong, right?
As I said earlier, I consider a belief in Objective Morality to be properly basic, and I addressed in more detail what I mean by that in my second article here responding to Popperian (linked in comment #52). So I can acknowledge the mere logical possibility that I or anyone else could be mistaken in my view of the moral status of any given action, but I also recognize that I have no rational reason to believe I am mistaken in the absence of any powerful reason to think I am.
That is about your belief that that morality is objective not about your specific moral beliefs such as killing other races is wrong. But this is all a beside the main point. I am interested in the hypothetical (but by your own admission logically possible) event that you come to realise that mass murder is actually morally acceptable. At that point you would presumably find your emotional reaction to mass murder differs greatly from the objective truth about its morality. Which wins?
But it's not beside the main point from my perspective. When I say that I consider my belief in Objective Morality to be properly basic, I don't mean that I just have this properly basic idea that some bizarre abstract concept called "Objective Morality" exists out there somewhere. What I mean is that I naturally have certain beliefs about the moral domain, along with the powerful sense that they represent a deeper reality beyond my own opinion and that I am compelled to act in accord with them. I consider these beliefs, in and of themselves, to be properly basic, though they jointly make belief in the existence of a related abstraction, Objective Morality, properly basic in its own right. So what I'm saying is that I have no rational cause to believe I'm mistaken about these beliefs unless I am given some powerful reason to think I'm mistaken. The mere logical possibility that I could be mistaken does not constitute a powerful reason. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, as a theist, it doesn't really seem coherent to me. If I'm correct in what I consider to be my properly basic belief that, for example, it is really and truly wrong to do things like torturing and killing people for fun and would be even if everybody thought it was right, then Objective Morality would exist. But objective morality, if it exists, can only rationally be grounded in the nature of God (certainly nobody has found any compelling alternative), a maximally great being, and must reflect his nature. But what reason would I have for thinking that God's moral standards would make it acceptable to torture and kill for fun? If God has imparted to us any moral guidelines, as I believe he has, then it certainly doesn't offer any warrant for the idea that torturing and killing for fun is acceptable. It is just the opposite, really. And if God hasn't imparted moral guidelines to us, how would I come to know that torturing and killing for fun was acceptable when my God-given moral compass says otherwise? And if God wanted us to believe and act as though it were acceptable, why would we be instilled with an overwhelming sense not only that it isn't, but that because it isn't we shouldn't do it? Taking the theist's perspective, would a Being capable of creating and fine-tuning the universe as well as bringing about life and the human mind with all its amazing abilities be so incompetent as to make our moral compass direct us in the exact opposite direction he wanted us to feel compelled to go? Any hypothetical scenario that attempted to make sense of any of these inconsistent (and even incoherent) propositions and dilemmas would be highly unparsimonious and improbable explanations for the reality we observe and so they would not offer any remotely powerful reason to doubt our properly basic moral beliefs. Furthermore, if torturing and killing for fun were acceptable, then anything and everything must be acceptable, which means objective morality simply doesn't really exist after all, and so I would either choose to act in accord with my illusory sense that certain things are right and others are wrong, or I wouldn't, and there would be no objective moral difference between whatever I chose. But I see no reason to view this possibility as being plausible, since I've seen no powerful reason to deny what I consider to be my properly basic belief that objective morality really does exist.
While it is physically possible for you to condemn something as evil, there is no rational basis for you to do so. I return to the comments of Alex Rosenberg:
Rosenberg is wrong.
I'm afraid he isn't.
It is perfectly possible to provide a rational basis for a subjective opinion. We all do it all the time about all sorts of subjective issues – whether things are funny, awesome, disappointing, attractive etc. and morally good or evil is no exception. I cannot understand why people deny something so obviously true.
Nobody does deny something so obviously true. Of course it is possible to provide a rational basis for a subjective opinion. In other words, someone is perfectly capable of offering reasons why they like something or why they don't. The reasons might even make good sense. For example, you might be able offer some good reasons for why you didn't like a movie, which could include something beyond the vague claim that it doesn't appeal to you, like perhaps you thought the cinematography or sound editing was poorly done, or maybe the dialogue was wooden, or maybe the story was boring or its execution in the script was weak. These could all be valid and rational reasons for why you didn't like a movie or don't think people should waste their money on it. But that doesn't mean it's objectively wrong for someone else to like it, right? Maybe they disagree with your assessment of the script, the sound editing, or whatever else. Or perhaps they simply disagree with you on the importance of those issues at all because to them, watching a movie is about sitting back and turning off your brain after a long day. There's no ultimately right or wrong answers here. Opposite opinions can be equally valid and both can be rationally justified because the matter is subjective and the conclusions are being argued from different premises. The exact same dynamic can play out in less trivial circumstances, like disputes over whether personal rights should be trampled for the sake of making society safer, or whether the killing of tens of millions of undesirables and people of "inferior races" is warranted if the expected result is the evolutionary betterment of the human race, or whether 90% of humanity should be wiped off the planet for the sake of the environment. It's not like the people who would opt on the side of trampling personal rights, killing millions to improve the human race, or exterminating most of humanity to save the trees don't think there are plenty of rational arguments to back up their position. The question is, in these "non-trivial" cases, are there any ultimately right or wrong answers? If objective morality doesn't exist, the answer is no, there are no ultimately right or wrong answers about these issues. There are only non-trivial differences of opinion, each of which are likely to come along with some kind of rational argumentation in favor of the position, and there is no ultimate measure by which the competing options can or must be weighed, because they may simply reflect different priorities. Furthermore, the "non-trivial" nature of the scenario that happens to be in view only increases the relative, subjective importance with which the issue is imbued by the participants in the scenario. If a particular subjectivist believes that human life has no inherent value because they are just meat robots without free will and the product of mindless evolution, and that there is therefore nothing inherently wrong with killing large numbers of them to attain some desirable goal, what is another subjectivist to say to this person other than that he or she disagrees? The latter subjectivist can say that they really don't like the decision of the former, but they cannot say it is absolutely and utterly and unquestionably wrong in any ultimate sense, nor is there any ultimate and authoritative common ground to which they can appeal in the hopes of convincing the other person that they truly ought to change their course because there is some objective moral law that is binding upon them. Nor could they even insist that the other person accept that the issue itself is important rather than trivial. Ultimately, on relativism and subjectivism, some issue is only non-trivial to the extent that the parties involved in discussing or disputing the issue subjectively consider it to be non-trivial. Apart from the subjective opinions of the parties involved, there is no issue that is inherently or objectively non-trivial. So, again, nobody is suggesting it isn't possible to provide proximate justification for subjective opinions. That would be obviously silly and false. Rather, what we're saying it isn't possible to provide ultimate justification for subjective opinions, and so there is no reason why someone ought to feel compelled to submit to them.
This is old territory for me. Subjective issues can be of great importance, others can care deeply about your opinion, and there can be good reasons for holding them. Did you read the small document I linked to on the subject?
I did read it, and as you can probably tell from my comments above, I think it is incredibly misguided. I'm sure it is unintentional but it is quite obviously addressing a strawman version of the objectivist perspective.
But this just isn’t true. The subjective element remains in our own personal moral proddings and feelings. Our subjective experience of moral reality makes it powerful and moving for us, but the acknowledgement that it reflects a deeper reality is what makes us individually feel compelled to act morally even when we might have selfish reasons to act otherwise.
But what makes it matter for you that it is good or evil? Why would you try to do the good thing as opposed to the bad unless it is your emotional reaction (or fear of punishment)? You have made the emotion a contingent add-on to morality while I would put emotion (specifically compassion) at the heart of morality. And personally I think the former is more dangerous than the latter. The crusaders, Stalin, and Robespierre all put aside compassion for the sake of a principle.
But why should compassion be thought of as morally good? As I suspected, you seem to be advocating Emotivism, which is also known as the Boo/Hoorah theory of morality. This is what I was referring to in comment 80 when I said:
Your condemnation would amount to shouting, “Boo to genocide! That’s not how I would have handled things!”
Emotivism is, as you've basically indicated, expressive rather than descriptive. But this view of morality suffers from all the issues I (and others) have been describing. When you say, "Mass murder is wrong", what you're saying is "Boo to mass murder". You're not making a claim that there's anything actually wrong with mass murder, only informing people that you don't happen to feel positively about it. But if someone else does happen to feel positively about mass murder and accurately expresses that feeling ("Hoorah for mass murder"), this is the equivalent of saying "Mass murder is right", and their statement would be just as true as yours. You say it's wrong and that's a true statement. They say it's right and that's also an equally true statement. There is no basis for disagreement on moral issues because statements about right and wrong are only statements about how this person or that person feels about one thing or another; they are never statements about what the world is like. Now, you asked:
But what makes it matter for you that it is good or evil? Why would you try to do the good thing as opposed to the bad unless it is your emotional reaction (or fear of punishment)?
You've missed an option. Apart from any emotionalism, fear of punishment, or desire for a reward, I have a deep sense that it is a moral duty for humans to obey God's moral direction to the best of their ability, recognizing that it is only because of His grounding of moral values that we can say with absolute certainty that it is wrong to do something like torturing and murdering children for fun, and so He is worthy of our obedience and we should be willing to follow both the moral instruction He has implanted in us as well as the moral instruction He has imparted in the Bible. A strong sense of duty and gratitude to God will often motivate someone to persist in the course of goodness even more than fear of punishment, and even after emotionalism has fallen by the wayside or actually directed us to more selfish ends.HeKS
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
F/N: A first step towards understanding Herr Schiclegruber's thought processes, is here. KFkairosfocus
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
Mung: I have wider implications of a public on air political suicide to deal with, as well as other things. For error exists all we need is the point that we can define a set that collects errors and show that it is necessarily non-empty. The best case in point being the pair E: error exists, and ~ E, the denial. Do the conjunction E AND ~ E. This must necessarily be an error and so propositions that fail to refer accurately to reality must necessarily exist. The very attempt to deny is a proof once some simple implications are drawn out. But then, there are two types of ignorance, primary due to lack of acquaintance with the matter in hand, and secondary, due to adhering to a blinding ideology that can even amount to clinging to absurdities because of the commitment to an agenda that demands acceptance of the absurdity. And one absurdity is the denial of the reasonableness of a major approach to knowledge, induction. Where we reason on support not demonstration and hold that in many cases good enough support can be taken to the bank. Literally or figuratively. As in, when de march of folly is afoot, many rush in where angels fear to tread. KF PS: My thoughts on the Scotland referendum, here. Sadly, not irrelevant. I remain dedicated to the proposition that sound policy is seldom sweet politics. And, modifying a J'can folk proverb, what sweet nanny goat ears poison she mind . . . !kairosfocus
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
Popperian, You got off on the wrong foot when you denied induction. Care to start over?Mung
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I have long used “Error exists” (following Royce’s point as transmitted by Trueblood long ago now) as yardstick case no 1 on the knowable, self evident reality of self evident truth.
kf: Error exists. Mung: Error does not exist. kf: Do you say I am in error? Mung: Define "error." kf: defines error... Mung: Define "exists." kf: defines exists... Mung: Well, yeah, when you put it that way. But you are just assuming your conclusion. kf: Do you say I am in error in assuming my conclusion? Mung: Define "assume." I can see how this sort of dance could be attractive to some people.Mung
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
By the way, HeKS. I forgot to congratulate you for a very thoughtful post. I am pleased that you have been given posting priviliges.StephenB
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
@Mark Frank #83 I'll respond to it here when I get a chance. Hopefully later today or tonight. I've been trying to work on taxes for the past week and a bit, but I've gotten virtually nothing done since I started posting here :)HeKS
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
#82 HeKS Stephenb's comment is not well put. It is deeply arrogant and insulting. Read it from the point of view of a subjectivist.Mark Frank
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
#80 Heks I accidentally put my response to you in the wrong thread.Mark Frank
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Very well put, StephenB.HeKS
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
By removing the subjective element from morality you have made it sterile and heartless.
There is always an objective and a subjective component to morality. The reason we should listen to our subjectivist promptings is not to formulate a subjective moral code, which is always changing, but to apply the unchanging, objective moral code to our ever changing circumstances. It is an easy intellectual task to create our own preferred list of "oughts." Under the circumstances, none of our behavior patters will ever be scrutinized or challenged. Why should they be? The code was built around them On the other hand, it requires real intellectual exertion and legitimate moral courage to figure out what we really ought to do. Some good behaviors are better than others and the best behavior is often difficult to discern. In some cases, we might actually have to undergo the discomfort of change or endure the humiliation of correction in order to conform to the moral law. Morality always has a price tag attached to it. The subjectivist seeks to avoid paying that price. Accordingly, the objective moral code, precisely because it gives us a moral target, will always lead us in the right direction. A subjective moral code, precisely because it disdains moral targets, will always lead us nowhere.StephenB
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Hi Mark,
I am not going to try and pursue every branch of our discussion. It gets out of control. I will stick to one thing.
Fair enough. We can stick to this issue.
It doesn’t mean that moral truths don’t exist. But it is a real challenge for you and you can’t avoid it by saying it is epistemology not ontology – the ontological status has epistemological implications. You have to accept that it is possible that your most vehemently held moral beliefs might be wrong and your emotional involvement, and indeed everyone else’s emotional involvement, is utterly irrelevant. It is just a matter of logic and observation and both of these are fallible. So I ask you – are you willing to accept that you might be wrong all along and the killing of large numbers of people because they are of a different race (note I omitted the word “murder”) is actually morally acceptable? It is an objective fact and we all might just have made a mistake in our assessment. As a subjectivist I don’t have that problem because when I assert something is evil I am not describing, I am condemning. There is no fact I am reporting so it can’t be wrong.
I see better now where you're trying to go with this, but I still think your argument is highly misguided. Is it a mere logical possibility, without reference to any other background factors, that the belief of a moral objectivist about the moral status of any given act is mistaken? Sure it is. It's also logically possible that moral objectivists are wrong about the existence of any objective morality. It's also logically possible that I'm a brain in a vat, that no minds external to my own exist, than you're merely a figment of my imagination, or that I (and everyone else, if they exist) just winked into existence with memories of a past that never happened. We don't typically consider the fact that some proposition or state of affairs is merely logically possible to necessarily mean that it is remotely plausible, or reasonable to believe, or, especially, something that ought to guide our actions in important aspects of life. For example, it is logically possible that the extremely consistent ways in which we've observed physical reality behave throughout history are not the result of a set physical laws that constrain its behavior but are merely the result of an astronomically improbable string of chance outcomes, such that it is entirely possible that the next time you drop a hammer it will hit the ceiling instead of the floor. Does the knowledge that this is logically possible make you feel emboldened to jump off a tall building this afternoon? If you are not seriously considering taking a swan dive off the nearest skyscraper right now then you should realize that the mere acknowledgement of the logical possibility that one might be wrong on some highly important issue is not likely to impact their actions unless they think they have good reasons to think they're wrong. If they think all of the available evidence most reasonably indicates that they're right then they are going to continue to act in accord with their existing belief. As I said earlier, I consider a belief in Objective Morality to be properly basic, and I addressed in more detail what I mean by that in my second article here responding to Popperian (linked in comment #52). So I can acknowledge the mere logical possibility that I or anyone else could be mistaken in my view of the moral status of any given action, but I also recognize that I have no rational reason to believe I am mistaken in the absence of any powerful reason to think I am. And, of course, once we stop dealing with this issue in isolation and add to the picture the Christian's belief in God and belief that the Bible includes, among other things, God's moral guidance for humans, then the Christian would view that as an independent corroboration of many moral intuitions, and perhaps a corrective on others. Now, what I find kind of odd in your comment is that you attempt to turn an aspect of your position that is widely recognized to be a weakness, even by people on your own side, into a strength. You said:
As a subjectivist I don’t have that problem because when I assert something is evil I am not describing, I am condemning. There is no fact I am reporting so it can’t be wrong.
While it is physically possible for you to condemn something as evil, there is no rational basis for you to do so. I return to the comments of Alex Rosenberg:
[N]ihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. . . . Scientism can’t avoid nihilism.
Moral relativism is a feature of nihilism, a logically necessary outcome of scientism and materialism. You can shake your fist at Hitler if you like, but your condemnation is utterly flacid. You'd have to accept Hitler's disagreement with you as perfectly justified, and you would have no rational grounds for insisting Hitler shouldn't keep killing millions of people. Your condemnation would amount to shouting, "Boo to genocide! That's not how I would have handled things!" And while it is true on materialism that there would be no fact you are reporting on when you call something like the mass murder of Jews and other groups "evil", and so you couldn't be wrong, it is equally true that you couldn't possibly be right! If, when you call something "evil", you couldn't possibly be wrong and you couldn't possibly be right, why should anyone care what you think about moral issues? Given the opportunity, on what grounds could you tell Hitler that he should feel compelled to disregard his own goals and desires and immediately stop the evil he is perpetrating? Would you lead off with a statement about how your feelings about mass murder don't reflect any deeper reality than your own opinions, or would that be your big finish?
By removing the subjective element from morality you have made it sterile and heartless.
But this just isn't true. The subjective element remains in our own personal moral proddings and feelings. Our subjective experience of moral reality makes it powerful and moving for us, but the acknowledgement that it reflects a deeper reality is what makes us individually feel compelled to act morally even when we might have selfish reasons to act otherwise.HeKS
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
PPS: P, how do you "know" (or imply same) that when you say there is not a description of a moral state of affairs (i) it is not accurate to reality, and/or (ii) it cannot be warranted as so? Is this not also by direct implication, a claim to knowledge about a moral state of affairs, raising issues of self referential incoherence? Had you said that YOU do not know, that would not imply a bind on us all, but in 74 you stated "There is no fact I am reporting," which is a fact -- knowable, known truth -- claim. And if YOU do not know that the horrific incident I described in outline is wrong, that speaks rather to sobering moral blindness than to what a morally normally functioning person would instantly recognise and act on. As in, were you there at the UWI Aqueduct and caught a glimpse would you find yourself bound to try to save the child, or not? If not, why not? If so, does that not become a case of conscience speaking louder than words?kairosfocus
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
P: I have already cited standard dictionary usage on nihilism, which makes plain what is at stake. The notorious fact is, might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' is a characteristic nihilistic principle of thought. The consequences are written in blood across the past 100 years, with over 100 million victims. And the further fact is, that evolutionary materialist scientism had much to do with the frames of thought behind the regimes that carried out what we are talking of. Popperianism, your hobby horse, has little to contribute, save that it seems unable to face the grieving father and surviving (now adult) brothers and friends of the victim of kidnapping, torture, perverted rape and murder that I have used as yardstick case no 1. That which sounds nice in abstract discussions in a College seminar room, soon turns absurd in the face of reality. Which is the point on what a self-evident truth is. We find ourselves undeniably morally bound, and this is easily knowable beyond reasonable doubt. Even, those who come here to argue to the contrary reveal an implicit understanding that we have duties of care to the truth and the right. Or else, they stand exposed as willfully cynical manipulators and obfuscators. Which latter case itself highlights the significance of moral obligation -- and the ways nihilism can seep in under the door. Back to a transition in progress . . . KF PS: FTR, I have long used "Error exists" (following Royce's point as transmitted by Trueblood long ago now) as yardstick case no 1 on the knowable, self evident reality of self evident truth.kairosfocus
September 16, 2014
September
09
Sep
16
16
2014
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, any chance you could delete my post #75. I've already re-posted it in the appropriate thread. Done, KFHeKS
September 16, 2014
September
09
Sep
16
16
2014
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply