Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

I, Robot

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(Photo of Asimo, a humanoid robot created by Honda. Wikipedia photo taken by Gnsin at Expo 2005.)

Over at Why Evolution Is True, Professor Coyne has suddenly woken up to the fact that for many people (including scientists), morality is a powerful reason for believing in God. Coyne thinks this is silly, and that the whole attempt to derive morality from God is doomed. But the arguments he puts forward for his point of view are rather facile, and he fails to address the central problem with his own position.

What might that problem be? Like most atheistic scientists, Professor Jerry Coyne doesn’t believe in free will. As he puts it:

Indeed, studies of the brain are pushing back notions of free will in precisely the way that studies of evolution have pushed back the idea of a creator-god.

We simply don’t like to think that we’re molecular automatons, and so we adopt a definition of free will that makes us think we’re free. But as far as I can see, I, like everyone else, am just a molecular puppet. I don’t like that much, but that’s how it is.

And again, here:

It seems to me that in view of physical determinism (plus fine-scale physical stochasticity involving quantum events), there is no way that we can make decisions that are truly free. Some, like [Humanities professor William] Egginton, simply finesse the question by redefining “free,” but I don’t think that these redefinitions of “free will” comport with how most of us understand the term, or with how it’s been historically (not philosophically) understood.
(Emphases and square brackets mine – VJT.)

So tell me, Professor Coyne: if we are not free, then (a) how are we supposed to be good, (b) why should we bother anyway, and (c) why should we blame those who refuse to make the effort, if their decisions aren’t really free?

Another inconsistency of atheists who share Professor Coyne’s views on freedom is that they are nearly always angry at someone – be it the Pope or former President George W. Bush or global warming deniers. I have to say that makes absolutely no sense to me. Look. If I’m just an automaton, whose behavior is determined by circumstances beyond my control, as Professor Coyne claims, then I can quite understand someone attempting to re-program me, re-educate me or condition me into behaving the “right” way, if they don’t like what I’m doing. I can even understand someone deciding to liquidate me because I’m a faulty piece of machinery that cannot be re-programmed. But please, spare me your moral outrage, your sermonizing, your finger-wagging lectures and your righteous indignation. That I cannot abide. You don’t lecture the PC on your desk when it doesn’t do what you want. If I’m just a glorified version of a desktop PC, then why lecture me?

Next, Professor Coyne invokes Plato’s Euthyphro argument in order to discredit all forms of morality that are based on belief in God:

Religious people have yet to come to grips with Plato’s Euthyphro argument (originally couched in terms of piety rather than morality, but the principle is the same): we would not follow God’s “morality” if God decreed that we perform acts like taking slaves or killing the wives and children of our enemies. That’s because we don’t really think that morality is equivalent to the dictates of God. Rather, we have a prior notion of what is moral. If you respond that God is good, and would never ask people to commit immoral acts, that too shows that you have a notion of morality that’s prior to God. (It also shows that you haven’t read the Bible.)

Here’s my answer to Professor Coyne:

Regarding the Bible, see my comments below. All that the Euthyphro argument proves is that our general notion of morality is prior to any revealed religion, and hence that morality cannot be based entirely on some alleged revelation from God, or some supposed set of commands from God. Our general notion of morality is grounded in the nature of things – hence the term, “natural law ethics.” A thing’s nature defines what is good for it. But a thing’s nature is in turn grounded in the reality of the uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Being who maintains the universe in existence and who gives things their natures. This is the God of natural theology, and the reason why we invoke such a Being in order to explain the cosmos is that no other being is capable of doing so. And in the absence of such a God, there is no satisfactory way in which an atheist can answer the meta-ethical question: why should I treat other individuals in accordance with their natures? Why should I want what is good for them?

“But isn’t the standard of good still something external to God?” I hear you object. My reply: that depends on what you mean by “external.” If you mean that living things (which have a good of their own) are by nature distinct from God, then of course the answer is yes. But if you mean that they are independent of God, then my answer is no.

“But why couldn’t God be omniscient and omni-malevolent by nature, instead of omni-benevolent?” I hear some readers ask. Because it is He who gives things their ends, which define what is good for them. For Him to will the wholesale frustration of ends that He had created would be a contradiction in terms. Nor could God be morally indifferent: that would mean that God had no desire to realize ends which He created in order to be realized – which is another contradiction.

I conclude that the Euthyphro argument can be easily answered, and in no way weakens belief in God.

Next, Professor Coyne asks why theists and atheists tend to reach similar moral conclusions, if morality is ultimately based on God:

If you derive morality from God, how come atheists and religious people give similar answers to moral dilemmas (the work of Marc Hauser and colleagues)?

The short answer is that (i) atheists, like religious people, possess the use of reason; and (ii) atheists, like religious people, are capable of recognizing the nature of things – including human beings – and identifying what is good for them, up to a point. I say “up to a point,” because atheists and theists are likely to differ when it comes to ultimate human ends like religion, which includes the worship of God, as well as on our obligation not to alter our God-given natures (e.g. by having a sex change operation, or replacing part of your brain with a silicon chip).

I might add that citing Professor Marc Hauser as an authority for a scientific assertion might not be a good idea, at the present moment.

But Professor Jerry Coyne has more ammunition up his sleeve: why, he asks, if God is changeless, does morality change over time?

And if morality comes from God, why has what we view as “moral” changed so much in modern times? Most of us now feel that slavery and the subjugation of women, racial minorities and gays are immoral, but they weren’t seen that way a few centuries ago. Did God’s orders change?

First, morality isn’t based on God’s orders, but on the nature of things, which owe their being to God. Human beings possess reason and free will; hence slavery is contrary to their nature. Men and women alike possess reason and free will, and all races of human beings possess these faculties; hence there can be no grounds for subjugating one race or sex to another. And no-one, as far as I know, has ever argued that gays lack reason, so enslaving them is out of the question, regardless of how one views their behavior. The fact that many people in past ages failed to recognize these obvious conclusions doesn’t require us to assume that God has changed. It’s people who have changed, not God.

Second, the changes that Professor Coyne describes apply only to a relatively small sliver of human history. People have always favored their own tribe, but racism based on skin color is a relatively novel phenomenon; the Roman Empire, which had African Emperors (see here and here), a Senate that was one-third African at one point, and many Africans in prominent positions in society, was largely free from racism. And while the subjugation of women was pretty awful in ancient Greece, it was nowhere near as bad in ancient Sumer, let alone in prehistoric societies. My point here is that the “Whig view” of history as a long steady march towards liberty is flat-out wrong, and the notion that religion has held back morality is even more so. Atheists had little or nothing to do with most of the moral advances that have occurred in human history: the elimination of child sacrifice; the elimination of infanticide; the rule of law; habeas corpus; the adoption of international rules for warfare; the acceptance of international arbitration; the elimination of slavery; the elimination of torture; the recognition of women as men’s spiritual equals; and the elimination of racism. Atheists should stop claiming credit where credit is not due.

Third, I would invite readers to have a look at the following articles, which illustrate how religion has saved hundreds of millions of lives during the past 2,000 years:

A Global Perspective in the Epidemiology of Suicide by Associate Professor Jose Manoel Bertolote and Dr. Alexandra Fleischmann.
Bertolote and Fleischmann point out that in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait) where suicide is most strictly forbidden, the suicide rate is close to zero (0.1 per 100,000). The suicide rate is highest in atheist countries such as China, where it is 25.6 per 100,000. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were living under the atheistic regime of China, 450,000 of them would be killing themselves every year, or 45,000,000 per century. Anything that saves that many lives has got to be socially beneficial.

Live Longer, Healthier and Better: The Untold Benefits of Becoming a Christian in the ancient world by Professor Rodney Stark. In Christianity Today, Issue 57, January 1, 1998.
Reconstructing the Rise of Christianity: the Role of Women by Professor Rodney Stark. In Sociology of Religion, Vol. 56, Fall 1995.

The above articles by Professor Stark describe how the Christian teaching of the spiritual equality of men and women, coupled with its prohibition of abortion and infanticide, improved the lot of women in the Roman Empire, and how Christians saved millions of Romans’ lives by caring for the sick during plagues. In the Roman Empire, the male head of the household could order any female living in his household to have an abortion. What’s more, a married woman who gave birth had no legal right to keep her child unless the male head of the household picked it up and set it down on the family hearth. Otherwise the child had to be placed outside in the street, where it would either die of exposure or be picked up by some unscrupulous rogue and sold into slavery. Girls were exposed far more often than boys: research has shown that the ratio of men to women in the Roman Empire was at least 120:100.

“So what’s your point?” I hear you ask. Here’s my point. Population of the Roman Empire: about 60 million people. Annual number of births (assuming say, 40 births per 1000 people per year): about 2.4 million, or 1.2 million boys and 1.2 million girls, of whom 200,000 were killed. Enter Christianity: up to 200,000 girls’ lives saved per year, or 20 million per century, or 200 million over a period of a millennium. Still think religion doesn’t matter?

90 Million Missing Females, and a $45 Trillion Gap: The Fruits of Misguided Family Planning. Zenit Daily Dispatch, 24 July 2004.
Examines the social consequences of female infanticide in China and India, and of declining fertility rates around the world.

Finally, Professor Coyne argues that the Bible illustrates the utter folly and futility of basing one’s morality upon belief in God:

And what about the “morality” of scripture? Clearly God once ordered all kinds of genocide and murder, including rape and (my favorite story) inducing a bear to murder forty-two youths for simply making fun of Elisha’s bald head (2 Kings 2:23-24).

But this objection is irrelevant to the key issue. Andrew Zak Williams’s article in the New Statesman, which Jerry Coyne is commenting on, asked public figures and scientists to explain why they believe in God, not why they believe in Judaism or Christianity. Many respondents nominated morality as a reason for believing in God. The issue we need to address is therefore whether morality requires God, in order to be rationally justifiable. Arguments based on allegedly immoral commands by God in Scripture are therefore beside the point. At most, they prove that the God of the Bible is not the true God. Such arguments leave classical theism – defined as the belief in a God who is transcendent, perfect, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, immutable and incapable of being decomposed into parts – entirely intact. Logically speaking, one can accept classical theism without believing in any religion.

In any case, arguments based on allegedly immoral commands by God in Scripture are weak. The books of Scripture were written 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, in foreign tongues (mostly ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek), by people whose mindset and mental outlook was very different from our own. Using the story of Elisha and the bears, as Coyne does, to argue against revealed religion assumes that we know who the offenders were (Were they young men, teenagers or boys?), what their intentions were towards Elisha (Did they mean to harm him or merely to mock him?), what their offense was (Was it mockery, blasphemy, attempted assault or attempted murder?), and to what degree they were punished (Were they actually conscious and in pain while being mauled to pieces by the bears, or did God cause them to drop dead instantly of shock as soon as the bears appeared?) We can’t be certain of any of these things, for the story in question. There are too many unknowns.

Professor Coyne’s unfounded assertion that God orders rape in the Bible is also based on his own highly questionable interpretation of Scripture. The following articles may serve as a useful counter-balance: an article on the slaughter of the Midianites and another on Old Testament laws about rape and virginity by Christian apologist Glenn Miller; The Bible and Rape – A Response to Michael Martin by Matt and Madeleine Flanagan; and The Old Testament and Rape by Sam Shamoun.

In short: Professor Coyne appears to suffer from the naive delusion that there is such a thing as the “plain sense of Holy Scripture,” which an individual can discern for him/herself. The fact of the matter is that Scripture is never plain; it must be read in the context of the time and culture in which it was written, and the community to whom it was written.

I will conclude by asking Professor Coyne a question: how can he criticize scientists and public figures for grounding their morality in a belief in God, when his own brand of atheism offers no alternative, and even denies human freedom altogether?

Comments
#109 StephenB Just to be clear. Did you know the name of any tyrants arising from pure democracy when our little spat began? If so who were they? Roman emperors do not count. Rome did not arise from mob rule. It went from Monarchy to Combined oligarchy/democracy to Emperors.markf
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
VJT: There is a reason -- and guess which now unacknowledged key source Locke was using -- why we now have constitutional democracies, with representatives making law, and an executive accountable to it, with an independent judiciary. At least, as an ideal. All, backed up by an underlying foundational commitment to natural law based principles of justice and core morality, guided in decision-making by conscience and common good sense. Switzerland's cantons are more like having regular referendums and town hall meetings than the sort of mob-ocracy that is being highlighted as dangerously unstable and prone to the tyranny of the rage of crowds. Canetti on crowds and power is a relevant read. All of this is being undermined in our day by the rise of amoral evolutionary materialism, and by associated radical relativism. The recent decisions in the UK on so-called anti-discrimination law [which turns out to be a sly way of persecuting Bible-believing Christians, who are being targetted as unfit to be foster [thus adoptive or natural] parents, and more, are a telling case in point. I am astonished at what a High Court allowed, and what a Government agency officially set the purpose of equality and human rights, said about the Christian faith: an INFECTION, one that children have to be protected against. (And cf the poll results here, especially those who think that something is "necessary".) The mob is beginning to roar again, and it is "to the lions" as usual. But then, my opinion of the prospects for our civilisation sinks lower by the day. My bottom-line: £2/1s/6d. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
vj Thanks for your comment. To be honest I think the best form of government is a far more subtle and complex issue than my rather childish spat with Stephenb. I also am in favour of constitutional human rights. Curiously in the UK it is the right wing that is opposed to human rights legislation whether constitutional or otherwise - seeing it as "political correctness" (which for some reason is taken as a bad thing). I don't see any need for human rights to be based on any religion. Indeed this is quite dangerous as anyone who does not follow that particular religion may feel absolved from any requirement to recognise those rights. On the other hand if rights are justified by appeal to our common humanity then no one can opt out of being human.markf
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
StephenB, Markf and kairosfocus I'm sorry to barge into this political discussion a little late, but I find it surprising that no-one has mentioned the example of Switzerland as a direct democracy. I agree on the importance of having a constitution which defines human rights at the outset. Chile's constitution, for instance, defines the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception. I'm glad there are still a few sane countries left on the planet. But having done that, which form of government is better: a parliamentary democracy which lets politicians make the laws, or a direct democracy which lets the people decide? Personally I'd favor direct democracy. I know little of the history of ancient Greece and Rome, but I do know that Switzerland is much more conservative than most other European countries. Why is that? Because parliamentary committees stacked with clever social activists can usually get high-sounding laws passed through parliaments, which continually push the boundaries of what's acceptable, for the sake of some specoius "right" which over the course of time becomes codified and then impossible to eradicate. It's much harder to fool the people like that. They don't listen to ethics committees stacked with activists. So I guess I'd favor something like the Swiss model, but starting with a Chilean constitution. My two cents.vjtorley
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Also from historian Arnold Toynbee (Study of History) Discussing democracy's fragile nature: and the "use of it most cautiously; otherwise the usual collapse into hysteric mob-rule anarchy, necessary order always restored by dictatorship and Machiavelli's proven methods." Sound familiar? Again, this information is unavailable on Wikipedia.StephenB
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Speaking of ancient Rome and Greece, we find this interpretation from Dinesh D'Souza ["What's So Great About Christianity" (One of those books that provides insights that are unavailable from such places as Wikipedia, which disdains an ordered society as much as an ordered universe)] “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” While the ancients had direct democracy that was susceptible to the unjust passions of the mob and supported by large-scale slavery, we today have representative democracy, with full citizenship and the franchise extended in principle to all. Let us try to understand how this great change came about." A New Morality "In ancient Greece and Rome, individual human life had no particular value in and of itself. The Spartans left weak children to die on the hillside. Infanticide was common, as it is common even today in many parts of the world. Fathers who wanted sons had few qualms about drowning their newborn daughters. Human beings were routinely bludgeoned to death or mauled by wild animals in the Roman gladiatorial arena. Many of the great classical thinkers saw nothing wrong with these practices. Christianity, on the other hand, contributed to their demise by fostering moral outrage at the mistreatment of innocent human life." Get the picture?StephenB
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
---markf: "am going to end this discussion unless you admit you have made some errors." Does this mean that you are going to use the debate about pure democracy to escape the challenge of answering my questions to you about abortion? So it would seem. ---"You said back in #65. "pure democracy which always leads to tyranny." Right. I also asked you if you know of any exceptions. If there are no exceptions to the rule, it just might be a pretty good rule. Pure Tyranny and pure Democracy represent two theoretical extremes on a political continnuum. What we know is that these extremes, to the extent that they approach 100% "purity," do not contain the kinds of checks and balances needed to protect individual rights or minority rights, depending on which extreme is being imposed. When I say that they don't "work," I don't mean that they fail to survive for long periods of time; I mean that they must enslave people to maintain that survival. Except for intransient mobs, a 100% pure democracy has never existed as a maintained culture because some groups are always left out of the mix. In ancient Greece, for example, slaves and women were not allowed to vote. Indeed, it is instructive that even they recognized that total, pure democracy is impossible and unworkable for any length of time. What is a lynch mob except a pure democracy? What was the Reign of Terror except a pure democracy with no constraints? How much empirical evidence should I need to make that point. Ridicuous! ---"when challenged to produce an example you first referred to Rome which was anything but a pure democracy." It began as mob rule. ---"You then asked me to find an example for you from Athens between 500 and 350 BC." Sorry, but that is a false statement. I did not ask you FIND AN EXAMPLE FOR ME. I asked you to visit a website to confirm my point that there were, indeed, Greek tyrants, a point that you had contested. Since you didn't believe me, I asked you to discover the truth for yourself. If I had not known the reference about the tyrants were there, I would not have sent you there. That should be obvious. ---"When I looked and could only find Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles in that period you accused me of not following your directions." That is another false statement. I pointed out that you had not followed directions when you came back from that site without having acknowledging those three tyrants. I invite anyone to go back and check the timeline. --"When I point out that they do fall into the period you suggested [at last Mark acknowedges the point] ---"I—”As I also said in my comment they were put in place by the victorious Spartans” To which I responded, So what? A govenment weakened by pure democracy will either self destruct or be take over from the outside. In this case, it was the latter. In other cases, such as the rise of Rome, it was the former. ---"It appears you ---"* Did not know of any examples of pure democracy leading to tyranny, but evaded the issue by trying to get me to find an example." What is it about mob rule leading to Roman tyranny and direct democracy leading to Greek tyrants that you do not understand? I also provided current examples from the dynamics in my own country, which you ignored. *--" Did not realise Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles were in the period you suggested." It was because I knew that those three tyrants existed in that time period that I scolded you for coming back from that site pretending that the information was not there. You are, once again, trying to fudge the time line. --"Otherwise why would you have accused me of not following your directions when I suggested them? Had you heard of them before I found the example for you?" Because you didn't follow directions and acknowledge the existence of the tyrants in question until I sent you back a second time. ---* Ignored the fact they only lasted one year and were followed by the restoration of democracy and just seized on the one the point you that was more debatable (that they were put in place by the Spartans)" I didn't comment on what followed the tyranny because it is not related to what prompted the tyranny, which was the substance of my argument. I did comment on the fact that pure democracy can lead either to internal demoralization or external take over because you suggested that the latter point implies that the tyranny was not a result of the weakened democracy. * Persist in trying to brush over the fact that Rome was not a pure democracy. I told you at least three times that mob rule preceded the time period to which you refer. Some information can't be conveniently arrived at by Googling. That is why people write books. --"Given this kind of debating behaviour why should I bother to take seriously anything you claim about abortion?" Because you might be able to demonstrate that you have the moral courage to answer hard questions as well as to ask them, especially my questions to you about abortion. ---"And yes direct democracy has been known to work. Athens worked fine (for those citizens who were part of the democracy) for hundreds of years both before and after the Peloponnesian wars." Again, I define a "working" government in terms of the quality of freedom, not in terms of endurance. --"There are however precious few direct democracies in history – so there is really no empirical base for your claim." Part of the basis of my argument is that there is a reason so few direct democracies exist: They are not much better than tyrannies because they promote tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority. ---"I am not actually that fired up about whether pure democracy leads to tyranny." Good. Let's hear your answer to the questions I asked of you. --"I just think you need demonstrate a bit more integrity and humility to be someone worth debating with." I will leave the matter of my integrity and humility for others to decide. I have, after all, been around for a while. It seem prudent, however, to leave it with this question: Is it an act of humility to scrutize the arguments of your adversary while refusing to submit your own views to scrutiny?StephenB
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
#107 StephenB I am going to end this discussion unless you admit you have made some errors. You said back in #65.
pure democracy which always leads to tyranny.
when challenged to produce an example you first referred to Rome which was anything but a pure democracy.  You then asked me to find an example for you from Athens between 500 and 350 BC.  When I looked and could only find Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles in that period you accused me of not following your directions.  When I point out that they do fall into the period you suggested but were put in place by the Spartans, only lasted one year, and were followed by the restoration of democracy you respond thus:
Very good. You are beginning to show signs of life. Why didn’t you just take my word for it?
Because I don’t trust you – with good reason it appears.
—”As I also said in my comment they were put in place by the victorious Spartans” So what? A govenment weakened by pure democracy will either self destruct or be take over from the outside. In this case, it was the latter. In other cases, such as the rise of Rome, it was the former.
It appears you: * Did not know of any examples of pure democracy leading to tyranny, but evaded the issue by trying to get me to find an example.  * Did not realise Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles were in the period you suggested. Otherwise why would you have accused me of not following your directions when I suggested them? Had you heard of them before I found the example for you? * Ignored the fact they only lasted one year and were followed by the restoration of democracy and just seized on the one the point you that was more debatable (that they were put in place by the Spartans) * Persist in trying to brush over the fact that Rome was not a pure democracy. Given this kind of debating behaviour why should I bother to take seriously anything you claim about abortion?  And yes direct democracy has been known to work.  Athens worked fine (for those citizens who were part of the democracy) for hundreds of years both before and after the Peloponnesian wars.  All governments end eventually. There are however precious few direct democracies in history – so there is really no empirical base for your claim. I am not actually that fired up about whether pure democracy leads to tyranny.  You may well be able to find an example of one somewhere.   I just think you need demonstrate a bit more integrity and humility to be someone worth debating with. markf
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
---markf: "Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles. As I said they were leading members of the Thirty Tyrants following Athens’ defeat in the Peloponnesian War – specifically 404 to 403 BC." Very good. You are beginning to show signs of life. Why didn't you just take my word for it? ---"As I also said in my comment they were put in place by the victorious Spartans" So what? A govenment weakened by pure democracy will either self destruct or be take over from the outside. In this case, it was the latter. In other cases, such as the rise of Rome, it was the former. In some other cases, it is a combination of the two. Plato made the point over two thousand years ago, just as America's Founding Fathers made the point over two hundred years ago. Direct democracy has never been known to work. Do you know of any cases to the contrary? If not, then why do you continue to resist the point? By not answering the question you are conceding the point. Also, Does this mean that you are not going to respond to my question? You said that you would change your position on abortion if I could convince you that it causes pain for the fetus. I provided [and can provide more] evidence that abortion does, indeed, cause pain to the fetus. If pictures obtained through magnetic imaging show a fetus writing and pain during an abortion, and if medical professionals confirm that fact, and if that is not enough evidence to convince you, what would be? Or, is it the case that you have already decided that no amount of evidence could ever change your mind because your subjective brand of anti-life, moral relativism matters more to you than the evidence.StephenB
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Stephenb
I specifically told you three times to check the dates from 500 BC to 330 BC, and three times you ignore those dates and comment on what went on prior to those dates. I will not give you a fourth chance. Whatever you say on this subject from now on will be met with a reminder of your unwillingness to follow those simplest of instructions.
I did exactly what you suggested.  When you suggested in #96 to look at the history of Athens in that period I did so and found no tyrants. When you were  more specific in #100 I Googled “List of Greek Tyrants” on Wikipedia. I reproduced the entire list for Athens in my comment: #103.  I did this because the first three entries were outside the time span you mentioned but I wanted you to see why I was dismissing these entries. That left just one entry: Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles.  As I said they were leading members of the Thirty Tyrants following Athens’ defeat in the Peloponnesian War – specifically 404 to 403 BC.  As I also said in my comment they were put in place by the victorious Spartans – so nothing to do with the Athenian government at that time – and only lasted a year when they were replaced by democracy. You could wrap up this entire little spat by simply naming one tyrant that came into power as a result of a pure democracy and describing briefly how they came into power.  It does appear you are evading this challenge by setting me tasks!  However, they have proved quite educational so far.markf
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
---markf: "I am sorry but it looks very much as though you do not know of a convincing example of a tyrant arising from pure democracy." I specifically told you three times to check the dates from 500 BC to 330 BC, and three times you ignore those dates and comment on what went on prior to those dates. I will not give you a fourth chance. Whatever you say on this subject from now on will be met with a reminder of your unwillingness to follow those simplest of instructions. ---"This “objective” element of humour can only be called humour because of the universal tendency of people to laugh at it." No, the objective element in humor is the universality in human nature that causes humans to appreciate irony, just as it is the universality in human nature that causes human to know the difference between right and wrong. Naturally, you cannot understand that because you don't think there is any such thing as human nature.StephenB
May 4, 2011
May
05
May
4
04
2011
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
#99
Yes, that’s right. As is the case with art, morality has an objective component [the natural moral law] and a subjective component [extenuating circumstances for the individual that determine how the law is applied.] The former is metaphysical; the latter is existential. You acknowledge the subjective/existential component, but you disavow the metaphysical/objective component.
The sentence I put in bold was vital: This works because humans unlike animals desire these things.  You said of being funny:
It is objective in the sense that almost all humor involves the process of setting the stage and then pulling out the rug. Without that universal dynamic, there is no humor. This works because humans, unlike animals, can appreciate irony
This “objective” element of humour can only be called humour because of the universal tendency of people to laugh at it. Funny doesn’t mean “the process of setting the stage and then pulling out the rug”.  It means “liable to make us laugh”. It is an empirical fact of human nature that the rug pulling is a common element of almost all humour. If no one laughed it it then it wouldn’t be funny.  It is only objective in the sense that almost everyone reacts the same way.  Now if you want to define objective as “pretty much everyone reacts the same way” then I have no problem saying some aspects of morality are objective. But I think you mean by objective that there is some object or property – the rightness or wrongness - that exists independently of any human reaction.  In that sense being funny is clearly not objective.  And yet you can still have grounds for saying something is funny.markf
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
#100 Stephenb Google “List of Greek Tyrants” on Wikipedia and zero in on the time line I suggested, namely 500 B.C. to 300 B.C. Here are the entries for these tyrants for Athens: Pisistratus, 561 BC, 559 BC-556 BC and 546 BC-528 BC. Hipparchus (527 BC-514 BC) and Hippias (527 BC-510 BC), sons of Pisistratus; Theramenes, Critias, and Charicles leading members of the Thirty Tyrants following Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Pisistratus, Hipparchus and Hippias preceded the introduction of democracy into Athens. The thirty were introduced by the Spartans following the Peloponnesian and their reign lasted about a year after which democracy was reintroduced. I am sorry but it looks very much as though you do not know of a convincing example of a tyrant arising from pure democracy. But rather than admit it, you make me keep Googling in the hope I will turn one up or just stop pushing the issue. Why do not your own research? You are bound to come across one somewhere in the whole of human history.markf
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
--markf: "Having said all this, it is rather beside the main point of the thread." OK. Let's not speak any more of the evils of pure democracy.StephenB
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
--markf: "If you convinced me that after a certain term of pregnancy the foetus suffered then that would be a powerful reason for believing abortion at that term to be wrong." What about the evidence that I provided @95 that the fetus does, indeed, suffer as a result of abortion. How many references from doctors would it take to convince you? Have you ever watched the magnetic imagry of a fetus writhing in pain?StephenB
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
---markf: "You have yet to point out a tyrant arising from this system." Google "List of Greek Tyrants" on Wikipedia and zero in on the time line I suggested, namely 500 B.C. to 300 B.C.StephenB
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
---markf: "And this is almost exactly the situation with moral judgements." ---"And this is almost exactly the situation with moral judgements." Yes, that's right. As is the case with art, morality has an objective component [the natural moral law] and a subjective component [extenuating circumstances for the individual that determine how the law is applied.] The former is metaphysical; the latter is existential. You acknowledge the subjective/existential component, but you disavow the metaphysical/objective component.StephenB
May 3, 2011
May
05
May
3
03
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Stephenb #95
The good news is, as you stated earlier, that you would change your position on the morality of abortion if someone could convince you that it causes unborn babies to suffer. That bad news is that the good news doesn’t really apply after all because you can’t “imagine” what it would be like to suffer that way so the objective evidence doesn’t count
The two arguments are independent.  If you convinced me that after a certain term of pregnancy the foetus suffered then that would be a powerful reason for believing abortion at that term to be wrong.
I think it has both an objective and subjective component. It is objective in the sense that almost all humor involves the process of setting the stage and then pulling out the rug. Without that universal dynamic, there is no humor. This works because humans, unlike animals, can appreciate irony. On the other hand, there is a subjective component because, although we have our humanity in common, we are, as individuals are different: We don’t always laugh at the same kinds of things or to the same degree. I, for example, think that Groucho Marx is much funnier than Jerry Steinfeld. That is subjective and individualistic. Even so, they both appeal to the same psychology of humor—surprise. That is objective and universal.
And this is almost exactly the situation with moral judgements.  Almost all moral judgements involve a limited set of considerations: happiness and suffering of others, fairness, loyalty, keeping committments.  This works because humans unlike animals desire these things.  On the other hand there is a subjective component because, although we have our humanity in common, we are, as individuals are different: we don’t always find the same things unacceptable e.g. homosexual practice.  If you want to call this objective then we just disagree about the meaning of the word “objective”.  To me the key thing is that both humour and morality work because of human psychology.markf
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Stephenb #96
For reference, look at the history of Athens from 500 B.C. to 330 B.C. This is the period in which direct democracy [not representative democracy] degenerated into tyranny.
I did spend 10 minutes looking at this.  I see no record of tyranny. There were a couple of short-lived moves away from democracy following the Peloponnesian War but they didn’t last and democracy was restored.  Could you be more explicit.  Who were the tyrants?
Rome did not begin that way, nor did it end that way. 
No it began as a monarchy and ended as a tyranny – in between it was a mixed oligarchy/democracy.  If there was a time when you think it was a pure democracy – then just name the period and describe the system.
A pure democracy, as I pointed out earlier, is mob rule–direct decision making by all the members of the society with no constitution, no rule of law, nor reference to natural rights, no checks and balances, or no objective standards of justice. It is a process that is known not to work.
OK.  I understand the definition. You were more explicit than saying this system doesn’t work.  You said in #66:
pure democracy which always leads to tyranny.
The only example you have come up with that is close to your definition of a pure democracy is Athens.  You have yet to point out a tyrant arising from this system.  The Athenian system collapsed in the end – mainly because of external influences – but it did not end in tyranny and lasted for several hundred years (all systems come to an end eventually). Having said all this, it is rather beside the main point of the thread.  There are many impure democracies in the world with various checks and balances.  Very few of them rely on a natural moral law.markf
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
--markf: "By ancient Greece do you mean Athens? I don’t believe it became a tyranny (can you name any Athenian tyrants?)." For reference, look at the history of Athens from 500 B.C. to 330 B.C. This is the period in which direct democracy [not representative democracy] degenerated into tyranny. ---"I told you Rome was mixed democracy/oligarchy. Is this what you mean by a pure democracy?" Rome did not begin that way, nor did it end that way. A pure democracy, as I pointed out earlier, is mob rule--direct decision making by all the members of the society with no constitution, no rule of law, nor reference to natural rights, no checks and balances, or no objective standards of justice. It is a process that is known not to work.StephenB
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
---markf: "You are getting the idea! If you convinced me they suffered. Yes." From Dr. Steven Calvin, perinatologist at the University of Minnesota ....“neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies.” “Severe and Excruciating” Pain Have you seen the movie, "The Silent Scream," which shows how the infant moves violently in an attempt to escape the assault and avoid the pain? ---"It is an argument that works. Most, but not all, people accept it. That’s all." [The golden rule] How do you know if it works or doesn't work, given the fact that you reject all objective standards by which we could discern its workability? [If I pleaded with you to apply the golden rule to unborn babies in the womb, would you change your position on abortion?] ---"No. Because I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a foetus in the womb. But again it is an argument with some power." Well, there you go, but I thank you for am honest answer. The good news is, as you stated earlier, that you would change your position on the morality of abortion if someone could convince you that it causes unborn babies to suffer. That bad news is that the good news doesn't really apply after all because you can't "imagine" what it would be like to suffer that way so the objective evidence doesn't count. ---"You seem to be able to produce arguments against abortion without resorting to an objective standard." I am a big fan of both objective and subjective arguments, that is, the objective evil of unnecessary pain and the existential experience of those who feel it? Both matter. ---"When I say something is funny because of the comic timing, or the strong characterisation, or the choice of language – are these not grounds? Or is being funny objective?" I think it has both an objective and subjective component. It is objective in the sense that almost all humor involves the process of setting the stage and then pulling out the rug. Without that universal dynamic, there is no humor. This works because humans, unlike animals, can appreciate irony. On the other hand, there is a subjective component because, although we have our humanity in common, we are, as individuals are different: We don't always laugh at the same kinds of things or to the same degree. I, for example, think that Groucho Marx is much funnier than Jerry Steinfeld. That is subjective and individualistic. Even so, they both appeal to the same psychology of humor---surprise. That is objective and universal. ---"You really are good at these subjective arguments." I am a big fan of subjective arguments. Personal stories, for example, are dynamite. The problem is when we base our entire understanding of reality on that paradigm and ignore objective reality.StephenB
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
KF, I agree. MF, I believe by a pure democracy he might mean: a democracy minus a constitution. (a constitution being a guiding document based upon certain self evident, unalienable truths) The people voting any laws directly into existence minus a system of checks and balances. No representatives.MedsRex
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Med: Thee is a reason why there are no pure democracies . . . Gkairosfocus
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
#91 MedsRex Fair enough - but they are a lot purer than ancient Rome which was largely run by an unelected Senate. I don't know what Stephenb means by a pure democracy, but if there aren't any then it is hard to conclude they always lead to tyranny.markf
May 2, 2011
May
05
May
2
02
2011
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
pardon my butting in but . . Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not pure democracies. They are effectively republics/representational democracies with constitutional monarchy bases. They are very similar to the USA and actually have foundations that mirror the founding principals of the American Constitution. Therefore they couldn't possibly count as "pure democracies" in the sense that StephenB means it. Or the Founding Fathers for that matter. Just an FYI. . .MedsRex
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
MF: You clearly forget the fate of Athens post Peloponnesian war. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
Examples are not that hard to find. Ancient Greece and Rome both qualify as examples of pure democracies that became tyrannies. Do the words Caesar and Nero resonate with you?
By ancient Greece do you mean Athens?  I don’t believe it became a tyranny (can you name any Athenian tyrants?).  It ended when the Macedonians invaded.  I told you Rome was mixed democracy/oligarchy.  Is this what you mean by a pure democracy?
Taking it the other way, can you think of any example of a pure democracy that did not become a tyranny? If not, I would say that I have the better part of the argument.
I don’t know what you mean by a pure democracy – (but I assume it doesn't mean a mixture of democracy and something else as in Rome!).  I can name countless democracies that are not tyrannies – most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada.  Meanwhile you have produced one example of a clearly impure democracy that eventually became a dictatorship after hundreds of years. markf
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
 
Well, let’s see how well your strategy works. If I told you that aborted babies suffer, would you change your position on abortion?
You are getting the idea! If you convinced me they suffered. Yes.
Does being inconsistent violate some objective standard of justice? If not, why bring it up.
Because people like to think they have reasons for their moral position. By exploring their consistency you can sometimes show either that they have no reason or their reason is not what they think it is.
In any case, let’s put it to the test again. If I told you that unborn children do not get the same rights as born children, would you change your position on abortion?
In this case probably no – because allocating rights is a moral judgement in itself.  If you were to say something like why is it OK to kill a foetus a day before birth but not a day afterwards that would be a very challenging argument and I would agree that it is wrong.
Is the golden rule a rule or is it just Mark’s reference. Let’s give it another try.
It is an argument that works.  Most, but not all, people accept it. That’s all.
If I pleaded with you to apply the golden rule to unborn babies in the womb, would you change your position on abortion?
No.  Because I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a foetus in the womb.  But again it is an argument with some power.
Because subjectivism means not having any grounds.
You seem to be able to produce arguments against abortion without resorting to an objective standard. When I say something is funny because of the comic timing, or the strong characterisation, or the choice of language – are these not grounds?  Or is being funny objective?  
Everyone who talks that way has already been born.
Ah – now you are trying an emotional appeal!  You really are good at these subjective arguments.markf
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
---markf: "I appreciate it may be hard to find examples. But if you know of no examples how can you assert that one leads to the other so confidently?" Examples are not that hard to find. Ancient Greece and Rome both qualify as examples of pure democracies that became tyrannies. Do the words Caesar and Nero resonate with you? Also, keep in mind that sometimes the order is reversed. Sometimes, lawless tyranny gives rise to revolution, followed by pure democracy, followed by another tyranny. Where there is no moral grounding, society is vulnerable to either extreme. Usually, though, tyranny is the order of the day, which means that there is no opportunity for experimentation with pure democracy. Other times, unprincipled democracies produce soft tyrannies. That is beginning to happen in North America with hate crime laws, which is one way that selective minorities are given preference over those deemed less worthy. Equality under the law is possible only under the rule of law, which is possible only under the natural moral law. Taking it the other way, can you think of any example of a pure democracy that did not become a tyranny? If not, I would say that I have the better part of the argument.StephenB
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
--markf: "Using the same types of arguments that people have used for ethical debates all over the world for millennia. Such things as: ---"Direct appeals to emotion “just see how this woman suffers” Well, let's see how well your strategy works. If I told you that aborted babies suffer, would you change your position on abortion? --* Arguments from consistency – “you give this group certain rights but not that group for no reason” Does being inconsistent violate some objective standard of justice? If not, why bring it up. If so, you are appealing to the same objective standard that you deny. In any case, let's put it to the test again. If I told you that unborn children do not get the same rights as born children, would you change your position on abortion? --* The golden rule – “suppose someone limited your rights in this way how would you feel” Is the golden rule a rule or is it just Mark's reference. Let's give it another try. If I pleaded with you to apply the golden rule to unborn babies in the womb, would you change your position on abortion? ---Why do you guys keep on trying to equate subjectivism with not having any grounds?" Because subjectivism means not having any grounds. ---You seek some clinching universal principle for moral statements. But reality is not like that." Everyone who talks that way has already been born.StephenB
May 1, 2011
May
05
May
1
01
2011
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply