Is There At Least One Self-Evident Moral Truth?

I agree whole heartedly. Good post Barry.

Agreed, however I think you underestimate the level of depravity we can all sink and convince ourselves its good.

All people of all stripes commit terrible atrocities in war, and feel its justified

Forget wars and babies on bayonets though, how about legisalating for babies to be scrapped and sucked out of mother’s wombs!

I think what truly holds people back from admitting that a transcendant moral standard exists is not that it’s self evident (as this example shows) but the next logical step, that we’ll be held accountable for breaking it.

Despite his Catholic-bashing, I agree with you about Dostoyevsky and his novels. One interesting thing about Karamazov is that Ivan loves abstract people theoretically, but not real people. This is the key to understanding intellectuals and the damage they can do to society.

If you haven’t read his stories A Gentle Creature and Dream of a Ridiculous Man, check them out.

On a slightly different note, there’s an interesting and somewhat out-of-the blue message in Knut Hamsun’s Growth of the Soil. It has to do with abortion and moral relativism of intellectuals.

“It is quite literally unthinkable to imagine a moral system in which such an act is good.”

It is actually quite straightforward to imagine such a system Barry. The Bible reports such a system as history. For in the Old Testament’s history, God ordered the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites, men, women, and *drum roll* even babies.

There are therefore circumstances in which even killing babies becomes morally right, namely when God commands it.

This reminds me of another action that we think is morally abhorrent: killing one’s own child seems to be wrong according to the Transcendent Moral Standard, doesn’t it? Snd yet in all three of the major monotheisms, Abraham is praised for being willing to perform just such an action, at the command of God.

The Transcendent Moral Standard exists, but it is determined by whatever it is that God commands at a given time. It is not always knowable merely through moral intuition.

“Snd yet in all three of the major monotheisms, Abraham is praised for being willing to perform just such an action, at the command of God.”

Enter (possibly) the number one most misunderstood event in the Bible: the Akedah, or Abraham’s offering of Isaac (not Ishmael).

First of all, the offering didn’t actually take place — so scratch using it as an example of child sacrifice. This might be the #1 most sited instance of child sacrifice that didn’t actually occur. Every time I’ve seen this brought up, the fact that no child sacrifice actually took place is never mentioned.

Furthermore, Abraham and Isaac were participating in a prophetic play (Gen 22) that acted out the events of the crucifixion, some 2000 years before the events at Calvary.

God used this event to spell out for Abraham how faith would result in forgiveness of sin.

On that very spot, where Abraham would offer Isaac, another father offered his own son, 2000 years later, on a Roman cross.

Let’s take a look at some of the parallels. 1) Isaac’s offering took place on Mt. Moriah, the very place that Christ was offered. 2) Abraham travelled for 3 days, knowing that Isaac was “dead” to him (Heb 11:17-19) [Christ was in the tomb 3 days] 3) Isaac carried the wood for his own offering up the hill (as Christ carried his own cross).

The Akedah is not an example of literal child sacrifice, but Calvary is. One was sacrificed for the many. If you’re going to impeach Abraham for child sacrifice, you’d better impeach God Himself instead. Isaac wasn’t offered, Jesus Christ was.

Apollos,

The mere willingness to engage in an act of child sacrifice is all that is needed for my argument to work.

But this is a secondary, supporting consideration for me: my main point rested on the massacre of the Amalekites. I think that provides a clear answer to the question in the title of this blog post: “Is Murdering Babies Ever Good?”

My answer, based on the Bible, is: yes, if God commands it. *Leo ducks and waits for flaming to begin*

Why can’t you not know these things? Granted, our modern society dictates that they are wrong (and yet most of us simultaneously ‘know’ that abortion is ok.) And sure, many people would find it repellent at a biological level. But some people are different. Some people enjoy stepping on insects, kicking dogs, and causing pain. Now you can attribute alot of this to psychological problems. But I think some people are just naturally that like that. And when such people are bought up in societies where it is not taboo to cause such pain to certain people (ethnic minorities etc), then you can usually find plenty of socially respectable people eager to do so. It’s sad, but that’s human nature.
Moral standards are based 1) on what we learn from our society & 2) on our personal reactions to different moral dilemas. I see no need to appeal to an outside force.

Leo Hales @4 & 6:

I was going to type a proper reply to the points raised, but since this is not a religious blog, I’ll just link some refutations/excuses for each of the points, which I think if not justifying absolutely, at least give some ground to the other side of the argument.

‘Murdering’ Amakelite babies: http://www.carm.org/diff/1Sam15_2-3.htm

Why God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son: http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen22_1-2.htm
(And there is also the point that Abraham was praised not for being willing to sacrifice his child, but because of his limitless obedience to God).

What is more relevant is this (Leo Hales @6, and also linking into Davescot @7):

“I think that provides a clear answer to the question in the title of this blog post: ‘Is Murdering Babies Ever Good?’
My answer, based on the Bible, is: yes, if God commands it.”

I don’t think God ever proclaimed wiping out the Amakelites and their babies as a ‘good’ thing. Similarly, with the instances of choosing to suffocate a baby rather than reveal the entire hiding group, I don’t think anyone would proclaim that as a ‘good’ thing.

A question this discussion has got me thinking about: for the mother that kills/euthanize their child, will she ever remember that as a happy and good thing? Would anyone remember such an instance and be glad to have made that choice? I am not saying the answer is “no, I would rather all 50 of us perish instead of just 1″. But if there is regret, hesitation, unwillingness or revulsion to make such a decision, doesn’t that hint there is some ‘absolute moral standard’ that runs deeper within us that circumstances and survival rates?

The point of the Dostoevsky passage cited above was the cruelty, not the death. Tigers do kill children but they don’t gleefully torture them to death.

DaveScot, your strenuous efforts to point out the exceptions just underscores the rule. We can all come up with marginal examples or anecdotes in which the general principle gets applied in a way that seems, at first blush, contradictory.

Maybe this would help you understand: Put a qualifier on it. Something like: “Except in the most unusual and extreme circumstances, it is wrong to kill babies.” Do you have an issue with that as an objective truth?

The observation that one moral truth occasionally gives way to another moral truth in a particular circumstance does not mean that the moral truths don’t exist. Indeed, it may be that one of the very challenges (and purposes?) of our existence is to learn to weigh and balance objective truths.

The marginal exceptions to the rule you cite just serve to underscore the near-universality of the rule.

BarryA:

First, we see very directly the point that the previous thread underscores:

++++++++

. . . the price one pays for rejecting self-evident truth is that one descends into a morass of absurdity and confusion, to the point where one cannot accept the obvious.

One may indeed choose to be absurd, but that absurdity itself is the strongest evidence that the Tao is as advertised; self-evidently true.

+++++++++

On the second point, the distraction again raised in this thread, we are of course seeing the now almost routine claim that “B^iblical morality and/or the God of the B^ible is monstrous.”

That tactic is not an accident, it is a stratagem of the New Atheists [following the good old fashioned “Village Atheist” of yore] to try to mock and discredit what they cannot directly address on the merits of the main point. Namely, that the core moral teachings of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are an apt expression of what C S Lewis called the Tao, the way of virtue based on key self evident moral truths. A way that has massively and sacrificially contributed to the rise of modern liberty and democracy, and a way that is also commited to the proper difference between liberty and libertinism or license or amorality.

A way that, therefore, all too many in our day would subvert and discard, the better to forward their own agendas — never mind the resulting moral incoherence and chaos. And, never mind the underlying moral principle in evolutionary materialist thought: “might makes ‘right’ . . .” — a moral absurdity if ever there was one.

So, let us first set the record straight by setting forth the core of Biblical morality in the community, using the words of Paul in an epistle recently dismissed by a certain US presidential candidate as “obscure” when it cut across his agenda [the same bbook and passage, BTW, that grounds the principle that government and citizenship are based on justice and good community order — thus was the theological foundation of the Dutch [1581], Scottish [C16 - 17], Glorioius English [1688] and American [1764 - 88] Revolutions, cf. vv 1 - 7]:

8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

a] –> The core principle of good citizenship is plain: love does no harm to its neighbour, so love fulfills the Tao.

b] Hooker, in the justly classic Ecclesiastical Polity, set forth just how this principle is self-evidently true, in a passage cited and used by Locke in Ch 2 sect 5 of his 2nd essay on govt, to ground his own discussion of principles of law, liberty and citizenship:

. . . 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.

c –> So, self-evidently, we share a common human nature: we are of one blood, as the same Paul observed in Ac 17, in speaking to the guardians of the West’s classical intellectual tradition up on Mars Hill in Athens, in 50 AD. Consequently, just as we wish for others to treat us with dignity, respect, etc, we have a duty to do the same to our equals in nature. Anything not consistent with that is morally incoherent and absurd.

d –> Thence also - on the underlying issues tracing to the arguments in and debates over Expelled — the follies of Nazi racialism and associated agendas. Notice, the concept of the Aryan man was that he was superior to the untermensch so had no obligation to treat them with respect, and certainly was not to let such racial inferiors breed up and overwhelm the master race! We all know where this led, and how it was rationalised.

e –> Now also, the passage cited above speaks not just to the duties of the citizen, but the ruler[s]. Accor to vv 1 - 4: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities . . . [the civil authority] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

f –> So, there is a sword of justice that is a duty of the ruler, in a world in which there are evildoers who can only be held in check by force. So, rulers hold a further commission as God’s agents of judgement against determined wrongdoers who have to be so restrained.

g –> Unfortunately, the class of determined wrongdoers can also include the ruler himself. Rulers can turn tyrant.

h –> So, based on a multitude of biblical examples and statements that the New Atheists — tellingly — never cite, the reformers worked out the principle of interposition to restrain or remove an unjust ruler, thence of godly revolution and establishment of a new government with justice under God. This was foundational to the rise of modern liberty as the linked note on that history and associated key documents will bring out.

i –> So we see a due balance: citizenship is to be based on neighbour love, and government is established as God’s agency to do us justice and good, holding the forces of evil and resulting chaos in check. That means as well that rulers hold special duties and must have access tot he means of those duties, financial [v 7 — just power of taxation] and forceful [v 4 — just power of the sword].

j –> But note, the ruler acts as God’s agent, God being the supreme authority and judge, and the one who holds the original power of the sword as creator and governor of the cosmos and as the supremely Just.

k –> So, we must immediately recognise that God acting in just government against evil doers holds special duties and just powers. It is in that context that cultures that become a sufficiently destructive contagion and plague of evil in the world are destroyed by him: first by the self-destrucive implicatiosn of such a way of life and society; second by their stubborn disobedience to the Tao and to those who stand up to warn them, thus proving that they must be held in check by force; and, thirdly by destructive force — the just power of the sword. (I tremble for our civilisation, as Jefferson once trembled for the United States . . .)

l –> Usually, that targets ruling elites and their key institutions. [Indeed, if one reads here, one will see, say, that the degree of destruction of Canaanite cultures was different than one might infer from a superficial, out of context reading of isolated texts. More generally, the Moral Monster thesis needs to also be re-assessed in light of considerations here.]

m –> But also, in the end, biblically, it is appointed to us sinful men once to die and thereafter to face just eternal judgement.

n –> That judgement of course — per Rm 2 vv 6 - 9 and 12 - 16 etc — respects the degree of light one may have had [and innocent babies are not in the position of willful men who refuse to live by the truth they know or should know], and respects penitent persistence in the path of the good and the truth that one knows, even where there is much error. But, it is the judgement of our Creator, and Lord — our ultimate ruler, not a fellow citizen on the same level.

o –> From that balanced biblical perspective, a lot of otherwise inexplicably troubling things take on a more balanced proportion.

p –> This includes the case with Abraham and Isaac. For, A doubtless was quite familiar with child sacrifice from his Canaanite cultural matrix. So, to him, the demand for such sacrifice would have fit into that context.

q –> But through a prophetic drama, Jehovah led him to see that the sacrifice of innocent children was needless, with a ram standing in as acceptable. And, as Hebrews reminds us, the rams [which BTW usually ended up as food for the priestly class, who in that culture carried out much of the processes of governance now carried out by secular governments] looked forward to the day when God himself would willingly offer himself up as the true sacrifice for all our sins, doing away with blood sacrifice in toto.

r –> Thus, too, we see the principle of long term moral and spiritual progress in light of what is understandable and acceptable to men at given times and places: accommodation to the situation we face and the hardness of our hearts, but with the principle and pointer to progress in it, opening the way for later upliftment.

s –> So, the real issue in our time is to go back to the principles of the Tao, and then look into our own sinful and self-deceptive hearts, asking ourselves hard questions on what is now simply allowed for the hardness of our own hearts today.

t –> While we are at it, we will need to ask: is this light or darkness, liberty or libertinism? And, for that the two halves of the core Tao are a sure guide: Love God our loving and good Creator, love our fellow human beings, made in God’s image.

I trust this helps put things in balance.

GEM of TKI

[Leo Hales] There are therefore circumstances in which even killing babies becomes morally right.

Of course you can just say that the Turks probably thought it was ok - and presto - there’s no moral standard.

But, from what perspective would you say that the acts descibed by Dostoyevsky are not immoral? I’m not talking about other people, but you. If you cannot find any way to say that the specific acts described by Dostoyevsky morally right, then you have discovered an absolute moral standard. For if anyone comes along and tells you that bayonetting babies for fun is quite moral in their culture, you will tell them to go pound sand, no? It’s not likely that they will ever convince you that their morality is just as valid as yours, no?

Perhaps we can simplify this. Barry said “Anyone who says that it is not self-evident that the soldier’s act was evil is lying.” Well not so fast.

Is it always wrong for soldiers to kill babies? Colonel Paul Tibbets incinerated roughly 2,300 babies on August 6, 1945 (give or take a couple of hundred). Was this self-evidently evil? If not, why not? Both soldiers knew they were killing babies in a pretty horrible way. Both, I’m sure we can agree, were convinced they were acting in the interest and according to the wishes of their sovereigns (the people of the USA in Tibbets’ case and the ruler of the Ottoman Empire in the case of the Turkish soldier). If you believe the acts are equally evil, then I applaud your very liberal pacifist sentiments and will believe that you mean what you say about self-evidence.

If not, then please tell me what makes one act self-evidently evil from your point of view? The fact that one soldier did it up close and one from a distance with a button? Or is your ‘self-evident evil’ just an aesthetic judgment on your part based on the pleasure the Turk took in the act – an act which disgusts - while the other act seems reasonable to you? Either way Barry, you’ve got dead babies and precious little self-evidence from where I’m sitting.

GM:

Did Tibbets TARGET the babies who may have perished in the bombing as his intended and principal targets?

And, that is independent of the issue on whether the bombing was a lesser of evils.

A lesser of evils is still an evil [so you have not broken out of the self-evidence claim]; but may be a relative good, i.e. a “better than the most credible alternative” outcome in a bad situation.

So, back over to you: to just what was the incident of shooting the head off a baby in arms “a better alternative” to? [Or was it not obviously a case of cruelty without even the relative warrant of being better than the alternative.]

In short, we should not fall into the fallacy of [im-]moral equivalence between unmitigated evils and the lesser of two evils in a bad situation.

GEM of TKI

Leo –This reminds me of another action that we think is morally abhorrent: killing one’s own child seems to be wrong according to the Transcendent Moral Standard, doesn’t it?

Actually, that sort of thing was rather common in Abraham’s day.

You can make the argument that the incident involving Abraham and Isaac was God’s way of driving it home that one should not do it.

Leo –This reminds me of another action that we think is morally abhorrent: killing one’s own child seems to be wrong according to the Transcendent Moral Standard, doesn’t it?

Actually, that sort of thing is rather common today.

All of the responses so far have been examples of the debate tactic of “if you have nothing to say, change the subject.”

The issue posed in this post is very narrow.

So, if I acknowledge that the example you describe is self-evident, can we move on to other examples and see how self-evident they are? After all, a transcendent moral code that is only self-evident in very narrowly drawn scenarios isn’t of much value. So, lets push the boundaries and see how much self-evidency there really is.
I think this makes sense as, otherwise, you stand to be accused of narrowing the discussion to a hyper-technical point in order to avoid broader questions that you are not prepared to answer.

Specs

Kindly look at 15 above.

There is a world of difference between

[a] an unmitigated evil: calculated deliberate killing of innocent humans as a principal goal of an action [in the case in view multiplied by intent to thereby torture the mothers of the victims],

and

[b]which of ACKNOWLEDGED evils is lesser in a bad situation.

One may dispute the pros and cons of a situation of lesser of evils and sit in comfortable armchair judgement on those who had to make decisions we had better thank God we do not have to face, but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not murder is self-evidently evil.

(And the case in point is simply a case of that general rule: thou shalt do no murder.]

Let us therefore call attention again to Hooker as cited by Locke to set up the principles of liberty and justice in civil society:

. . . 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.

If you cannot accept that murder is self-evidently evil, then you have told us all we need to know.

GEM of TKI

Mike

Kindly cf 12 above, and show us that you have interacted seriously and soberly with the issues therein ands in the onward linked discussions.

Otherwise you are simply resorting to points scoring, agenda serving rhetoric.

GEM of TKI

KF:

One may dispute the pros and cons of a situation of lesser of evils and sit in comfortable armchair judgement on those who had to make decisions we had better thank God we do not have to face, but that has NOTHING to do with whether or not murder is self-evidently evil.

Ah, so murder is self-evidently evil until it isn’t? And only you (and Barry) are allowed to decide which is which in this discussion? I can’t decide whether you are a closet post-modernist or just trying to avoid questions you don’t want to answer.

if one comes at this thing from a Biblical worldview (which I assume Barry is coming from), where subjective feelings take a clear backseat to Yahweh’s stated will.

The stated will of God is “thou shalt not murder” and “love your enemy.” What’s so hard to understand about that?

The point is, if there are exceptions from Yahweh’s own mouth, then the idea of a “transcendent rule” is false, despite the general rule, and despite our feelings.

The point is what does God want you to do. Does he want you to love your enemy or slaughter your neighbor?

mike1962 @ 24:

But to use a subjective feeling as a basis of what is “transcendently moral” is wrongheaded, if one comes at this thing from a Biblical worldview (which I assume Barry is coming from),

The basis is not purely a subjective feeling. It is also an intellectual awareness of knowing the act is evil and what alternative act or outcome is preferred.

where subjective feelings take a clear backseat to Yahweh’s stated will.

You conflate obedience to God’s decree of judgement with a human determination of guilt under a transcendant moral standard.

Further had God said all babies must be murdered all the time you’d have a point, but God decree’d only those particular children. And the fact that we all find even that objectionable (and comply only out of obedience and trust in God’s omniscience, and not out of ‘knowing it is per se good or righteous’) underscores the transcendant moral standard that murdering babies is not ever good.

And since we all find even that OT act of obedience morally objectionable, there is no genuine reason to delve further into that ‘gavelled’ discussion, as it is not an exemplar of the point you wish to illustrate. If it did support your argument, we’d all agree whenever God commands babies to be murdered is a good thing, but no one (who also reveres God and scripture) so agrees.

DaveScot @ 28:

What if the baby was Adolf Hitler and you knew what he would grow up and do. Would you strangle him in his crib?

No, I’d just kidnap and quarantine him from access to Darwin’s theories.

But now we’re talking ‘lesser of two evils’ arguments. Even if I’d opt to kill the infant Hitler, I’d could not deny my acknowledgement of the evil of that choice.

Being free to act in opposition to a transcendent moral standard does not negate the standard. The fact you know murdering an infant Hitler to be objectionable proves the standard exists and transcends even the preferable of two evil outcomes.

There is another reason for gaveling the Old Testament discussion. We are each individually responsible for our actions in light of the transcendent code. What matters is the transcendent code and our adherence to it in our lives today.

Now, every Israelite and Amalekite (no doubt they were not all killed) that is reading this and was alive three thousand years ago, please respond immediately. What, silence? Why are we arguing about a directive that has nothing to do with us?

The directive (transcendent moral guidance) to Christians is contained within the New Testament, as provided by Jesus and the Apostles. Newsflash, Jesus clearly condemned murder and violence, even when presumably justified, when he rebuked Peter for slicing the slave’s ear. Along with his directives to love your enemies, etc.

52″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Matthew 26

Now, Materialists, for you Jesus was a mere mortal, was he not? Good, now please provide one or more names of fellow Materialists that can compete with Jesus in terms of moral guidance and a moral life.

We will convene a panel to judge between Jesus and their champion Materialist. This should be more fun than American Idol!!

‘Bayonetting babies for amusement is morally right.’

Let’s call that proposition A. If any of us met someone who holds A, we would say he is simply wrong or crazy. We would not conclude that morality is relative, we’d conclude that he is just plain wrong.

All of us would conclude so, and furthermore we would conclude, about anyone who holds proposition B, “we cannot conclude that an A-holder is wrong or crazy” that he is also wrong or crazy.

There is no circumstance where any of us would entertain an A-holder as being anything but wrong or crazy.

I agree with Aquinas who said the mind of man is “inclined but not compelled.”

This begs the question of duty and challenge to do what is right - but it also stipulates that we have the power and the natural inclination to distinguish between the two. We know when we are doing evil for the most part just like we know when we are in pain. The programming is, for the healthy individual, all ready there, but “the choice” to do good still remains.

Whatever forces bring about cruel behavior I think for the most part are working against man’s natural inclinations. As in the case of killing babies, people I think don’t naturally want to act that way.

Since I think that there are forces that incline man to do evil, I am therefore a believer in freedom as the key to liberating the human spirit. Free market societies and democracies, I beleive promote freedom. Like Regan I think that the soul of man is mostly good if you allow it to act on it’s own merits and accord. Man becomes perverted for the most part when he is being influenced and controlled by other agents. As Reagan said “people don’t start wars, governments do.”

Obviously my view is a general one that does have exceptions but the bottom line is that on the norm the heart of man is pure. I figure no one said it better than Shakespeare

“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, howinfinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how likem a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? .”

Though taking nothing away from the great Russian novelist- I have read Notes From Underground but The Brothers Karamazov is still stilling on the shelf waiting to be read.

There is also a scientific reason and place for religion in any culture. Kurt godel said “that for the most part eligions are bad but, religion is good.” As Regan also put it,

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

When people are behaving like vicious animals there usually is a reason for it that exists either in the culture or the circumstances that the people have found themselves in. Let us not forget about the relatively good people we are surrounded by day to day in this modern life, especially in comparison to darker times.

People have a free will I think because I have experienced the dialectics of life so many times for my self. To steal or not to steal, to fight or not to fight, to work or not to work ,to eat or not to eat, to help or not to help, to be or not to be etc..

This high power to choose is what actually separates us from the animals. Choice by itself is just a mechanism and is neither good nor bad. It is the choices that we make that warrant the final judgment.

Man’s capacity to do evil is no doubt greater than the animals because he has a greater capacity than the animals. His power to do good is in the same position. The question that is being asked is “is man mostly good or mostly evil or is he just “man” somewhere in the middle?” I have come to the conclusion that man has purpose - things to live and to die for- and for the most part he takes up his predestined duties with a degree of altruistic vigor; duties that are for the most part noble. Man (at the level of the individual) has the power to choose and is naturally inclined (if ever so slightly) to chose what is right.

Murdering babies is NEVER good and I can’t imagine ever right. There is however a supreme difference between “killing” and “murdering.” There are however, unfortunately, sometimes what we call “necessary evils” - but keep in mind that they still remain “evils” nonetheless. Our job as beings with a soul is to prevent evil from becoming necessary in the first place. Let us hope we have the grace and guidance in our capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and the courage to choose wisely.

At the risk of being accused of changing the subject;

Isn’t there something morally incoherent about a members of a political party that hyperventilate over the “murder” of a few murderous thugs on death row and yet insist on the right to abort?

I realize you were trying to pick a scenario that you think would be an example of obvious evil according to any standard. But it was not in fact a very good example at all, as the spectre of war always completely clouds the moral picture. Its instructive that the Brother Karamazov didn’t pick an example of Russian atrocities as I am sure there were many inflicted on the Turks. But its always the other guy that started it, and the atrocities you commit are always justified retaliation. Every student of World War II should be aware of what Soviet soldiers did to German civilians at the end of World War II, rape, intanticide by the hundreds of thousands. Of course, they had in their memories the equally horrific siege of Leningrad and Stalingrad and the untold atrocities inflicted on their own country by the Germans. As well, they had the always used excuse of following orders from their commanders.

It is always the commander that issue orders from a safe distance, and carefully calculate a rationale for such atrocities while sittng comfortably in their studies with their cigars and brandy and in front of a roaring fire. Then they reach down and pat their faithful dog on the head and say to themselves, “Well it has to be done.” Then after the war they are honored as statesmen and heros.

I just got finished reading about the bombing of Dresden at the very end of World War II. Dresden had no military value at all, and in fact the Germans had withdrew all defenses for it. The bombing was designed solely to kill civilians, and hundreds of thousands were burned alive at the order of Winston Churchill. The rationale had something to do with Churchill making a statement to Stalin that would expedite negotiations at the upcoming Yalta conference (Don’t really understand what was going on there - the decisions of Great Men are inscrutable.)

The observations above are somewhat hackneyed - but it just illustrates that you should have certainly been aware of them yourself. Its also instructive that you did not pick an example of American wartime atrocities.

(Psa 137:8-9) O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

(Luke 23:33-34) When they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing…

mike1962 @ 33:

The point I wish to make, which is simply true given the statements of the text itself, is that Yahweh makes general rules, and Yahweh makes specific exceptions. You can’t get any more foundational that that.

Actually, you can if you didn’t conveniently ignore (twice now) your conflating God’s specific judgement with a transcendent and general ‘murder is evil’ moral code.

If the transcendental morality you speak of is written clearly into everyone, then we’d all agree, it would be a tautology to all, and this thread wouldn’t exist.

You again conflate. A tautology can be both true, and yet useless in proving anything. Even so, self-evident does not equate to a tautology. The sky is blue is self-evident. The sky is blue because blue is the color of the sky is a tautology.

This thread can also exist for a variety of other reasons. One can for example acknowledge that murdering babies is always evil, and yet lie about it. We have free will: we can murder, knowing it is evil and we can lie about knowing it was evil, to further our own self-defense when caught, knowing that lying is also evil.

I revere Yahweh and scripture, yet I disagree with you. Now what?

You’ve demonstrated only that you disagree.

DaveScot @ 37:

Ghandi advocated civil disobedience whereas Jesus advocated civil obedience both in word (render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s) and deed (He allowed the religious and civil authorities to murder Him under their jurisprudence). Jesus physically whipped the money changers out of the Temple, whereas Ghandi advocated passive resistence.

There is no comparison.

Dave at 28 wrote,

“What if the baby was Adolf Hitler and you knew what he would grow up and do. Would you strangle him in his crib?”

That would not be murder, that would be a justified act of preemption. You are however not allowing in your hypothetical, for the baby Hitler to be brought up right and changed or saved. Since I think people can be chanced and chose right vs. wrong I think your hypothetical is unrealistic. But if we knew that millions of deaths were going to come because of one kid we would obviously be in the right to prevent that child from existing. Just like when one has sex with their spouse it isn’t considered prostitution even if one is benefiting financially from the relationship.

So it is with killing and murdering. This is about self defense in the most extreme of cases. Justice and reasoning separates the naturally indistinguishable into legitimate categories. Even though a lot of times reasoning can be poor or flat out wrong, it is still all that we‘ve got.

What would be more interesting would be to ask the question “what if you somehow knew that the baby had a 50% chance of leading to the holocaust? Would you kill it then? How out a 40% or a 10% or 3% chance?”

This would lead to a moral dilemma. Luckily we don’t have to deal with such probabilities very often in the real world. When we do the decisions are always difficult and almost always costly.

In my view Iraq is a moral dilemma of sorts. It’s costs are great but I also think leaving the middle east to the dictatorial and religious fanaticism that permeats thoughout it is equally or more of a gamble of life and death. The costs are great but success would be priceless.

Bayonetting babies for amusement is morally right.’

Let’s call that proposition A. If any of us met someone who holds A, we would say he is simply wrong or crazy. We would not conclude that morality is relative, we’d conclude that he is just plain wrong.

But the point is that the person who held A does not believe he is wrong or crazy, he believe he is right. And if he believe he is right, he obviously has a different moral standard than you or I, self-evidently.

Jesus physically whipped the money changers out of the Temple, whereas Ghandi advocated passive resistence.

So Ghandi goals were gained without resorting to physical abuse of ones enemies, something Jesus could not do?

mike1962 @ 42:

By tautology, I mean something clearly obvious to all without further discussion.

Then you would be mistaken in your use of the term.

Are you making accusations?

Again you seem mistaken, this time in your understanding of what it means to revere God and scripture. Like your use of the word “tautology” you may think your meaning is correct when in fact it isn’t.

What if the baby was Adolf Hitler and you knew what he would grow up and do.

If you killed a baby because of what you thought he might do you would be criminally insane.

mike1962 @ 47:

C.S. Lewis used in the sense I did:

No, he didn’t.

Looks like we’ve come to the end of rational discourse.

That is self-evident.

May I make an ecumenical suggestion? Notwithstanding the difficulties that have been raised with regard to killing babies in extreme circumstances, there is a universal formulation which I think we can all agree to:

The intentional killing of a baby is wrong, unless one KNOWS that by doing so, one is saving the baby from a fate worse than death itself.

The key word above is “knows.” On a very narrow reading, “knows” might be construed to mean “knows with absolute certitude”; on a broader reading, it might mean “is certain beyond reasonable doubt.” I shall return to these readings below. However, my point here is that on EITHER reading, what the soldiers did in Dostoevsky’s novel was an unmitigated evil. Far from attempting to save the babies from a fate worse than death, the soldiers strove to make the babies’ deaths as hideous and hellish as possible, and they delighted in the suffering they caused.

As to how we know that the universal formulation I proposed above is true, I would AGREE with those who say that this knowledge is properly basic (to use an expression that Alvin Plantinga likes to invoke), but DISAGREE with anyone who suggested that this knowledge is a purely subjective feeling. I would AGREE with those who say it can be known RATIONALLY, either as an instance of the Golden Rule (which again may be regarded as a properly basic moral truth, psychopaths notwithstanding), or as part of the natural moral law, starting from a consideration of ends (such as the good of life), whose goodness is self-evident, and which it makes no sense to question. I would also AGREE with those who regarded such a truth as a basic moral intuition. I would DISAGREE with those who said that because its truth is intuitively obvious, it is therefore not rationally defensible. I would AGREE with those who described such the universal formulation proposed above as OBJECTIVELY TRUE. I would also agree that the existence of objective moral truths ultimately makes no sense unless we posit a TRANSCENDENT source of moral value, who is BY NATURE good (and hence unable to do or command anything wrong). Unless such a being exists, there would be no reason for us to trust our faculty of moral reasoning. For if our moral faculty arose through some purely natural process, there would be no particular reason to assume that it functions reliably, or that it is capable of addressing moral questions on any and every subject. (One might still trust one’s moral reasoning, simply because one had nothing better to go on, but one would have no warrant for doing so.) However, I would DISAGREE with those who maintain that we have to explicitly posit God’s existence BEFORE we can debate any moral issue. That would make moral debate impossible, outside the circle of people who happened to believe in the same God. And yet, theists and atheists can often have fruitful moral discussions.

By the way, for anyone who is hung up on the Euthyphro question, I would recommend the following article: “C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma” by Steve Lovell, at http://www.theism.net/article/29 .

Let me return to the two readings of the universal formulation I proposed above, namely that the intentional killing of a baby is wrong, unless one KNOWS that by doing so, one is saving the baby from a fate worse than death itself. On the broad reading, where “knows” means “is certain beyond reasonable doubt,” one could justify the hard cases raised by Dave Scot, such as killing babies to prevent them from suffering a slow, painful death. The deaths of babies as a result of aerial bombing would be another matter: if the destruction of human life were part of the bomber’s intention (e.g. if the bomber intended to wreak destruction in order to demoralize the enemy, and thereby force the enemy to capitulate) then it would be EVIL on the formulation proposed; if, however, the deaths were an unintended side-effect, then the act MIGHT NOT be evil. (I am no military historian, but I would say that in the case of the Hiroshima bombing, the destruction of human life through aerial bombing seems to have been intentional; in most of the wars fought by America since then, I would say that it was not, with the possible exception of Vietnam.)

Now let’s consider the narrow reading, where “knows” means “is certain beyond reasonable doubt.” In that case, it would follow that since God alone can know future events with absolute certitude, God alone could command the killing of innocent babies. ADDITIONALLY, the person obeying God’s command would have to know with a certitude that left no room for doubt that it was indeed God (and not some malevolent being) commanding such an act. To warrant such trust, the Being issuing such a command would have to demonstrate both its transcendence and its goodness through a series of PUBLIC signs (i.e. miracles), at least. “Inner voices,” no matter how insistent, could never warrant such unconditional trust.

I have written more on the subject of the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites. Those who wish to do so may like to look at my Web page at http://www.angelfire.com/linux.....ieve6.html and scroll down to section 6.7 (Biblical atrocities). I should also like to add that we do not know the limits of God’s providence. If we grant the possibility of miracles - as anyone who believes in a Creator God is logically compelled to do - then it is quite possible that God in His mercy miraculously intervened in such a way as to ensure that the innocent victims of these massacres experienced neither pain nor dread while they were being put to the sword by the Israelites. They may have been miraculously stunned by God, before being put to the sword by the Israelites. Indeed, I would argue that the goodness of God requires that He did indeed do such a thing: if He is God, then it is His duty to kill quickly and painlessly, if and when He ever has to kill an innocent human being.

Spec, re 24:

Show me where I have said or entailed that murder, per the principles expounded by Hooker etc, is not self evidently evil.

Have you paused to even observe the careful distinction of circumstances I made above? Do you appreciate that while killing another human being is an evil, not all such killing is murder? [What part of “the lesser of evils is still an evil” do you fail to understand? What part of murder as “the shedding of innocent blood, with malice aforethought” do you not understand?]

Much less, do you actually address the issue on the merits?

Finally: what is that telling us? [Hint, sadly, it is not to your credit.]

GEM of TKI

PS: Mike, re 25: please re-read the point Hooker made, as I have cited. it is not a matter of subjective distaste but that once we see that we are objectively equals in nature, and are intrinsically valuable, we have a mutual duty of benevolence. Or in Paul’s language, neighbour-love does no harm. (Contrast the shocking and destructive implications of evolutionary materialism for ethics, here. Of course, as the just linked begins by showing, such evo mat thinking is itself inherently self-referentially absurd.)

PPS: 24 is now 22, and M’s at 25 has vanished.

Remember, murder and killing are two different things. I see people here blurring the distinctions.

DaveScot,

Gandhi was certainly not a Materialist. In fact I can think of practically no one who was more spiritually focused and motivated. He was the very polar opposite of a Materialist, for that matter.

For starters, he was commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi — meaning “Great Soul”. He was a devout Hindu, he fasted and prayed for purification,and he devoted himself to Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian literature. His final words after being shot were reputed to be “Oh God”.

Here is but one of his quotes:

“The fleeting glimpses that I have been able to have of Truth can hardly convey an idea of the indescribable luster of Truth, a million times more intense than that of the Sun, we daily see with our eyes. In fact, what I have caught is only the faintest glimmer of that mighty effulgence. I feel the warmth and sun-shine of His presence.” Mahatma Gahdhi

Having said this, let us remember that Gandhi was primarily a political figure, while Jesus was focused on personal transformation. Over a billion people on the planet are experiencing, or so claim, transformation by the power of Jesus. The same cannot be claimed by anyone else (the Prophet Mohammed claimed to only be a messenger, I believe).

Jesus went to a horrible death intentionally, as a sacrifice for humanity. Gandhi gave his life, but did not go looking for it.

Also, regarding Jesus clearing the temple, I do not see any statements that he actually whipped humans.

“14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” John 2

The cross stands alone, with no peers.

Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is, according to many scholars, the greatest novel ever written. I don’t know if that is true. I am not qualified to judge, but I do know the novel moved me as no other ever has.

I personally got only 130 pages into it before deciding “This is going nowhere.” I don’t know, to me, people sitting around talking for 1000 pages isn’t a novel - its self-indulgence. Its show the writer thinks his thoughts are so profound that people should devote weeks to them.

I personally always admired the ethos of Hemingway, trying to say something in as few words as possible and how he could write an epic in 85 pages about and old guy in a boat. (Although the fact I have to go back 70 years to find a novelist worth mentioning shows I’m not much of a fiction reader.)

However, that quote you gave is only in Chapter 4, so I must have read it and forgot about it. You did not include the continuing remarks of Ivan regarding the Turks which are instructive:

You see, I am fond of collecting certain facts, and, would you believe, I even copy anecdotes of a certain sort from newspapers and books, and I’ve already got a fine collection. The Turks, of course, have gone into it, but they are foreigners. I have specimens from home that are even better than the Turks. You know we prefer beating- rods and scourges- that’s our national institution. Nailing ears is unthinkable for us, for we are, after all, Europeans. But the rod and the scourge we have always with us and they cannot be taken from us.
Abroad now they scarcely do any beating. Manners are more humane, or laws have been passed, so that they don’t dare to flog men now. But they make up for it in another way just as national as ours.

Well DaveScot, it appears you’re going off to Dawkins land here. I guess we all saw it coming over these last few days.

“If I could gavel it and every memory of it out of existence I’d surely do so.”
Your hatred of the bible (which you obviously do not understand in the least) is getting more and more obvious.

“I’m sure the original authors of the Christian religion would have preferred to do that too. ”
Certainly you’ve never read either the words of Christ or the apostles!
Virtually everything they said is based on the OT.
Sheesh Dave!

“…In any objective reading you just know the connection between the old and new testaments is contrived for the sake of expediency. The new testament fixed glaring moral mistakes in the old testament.”
See above.

“The difference in message is like night and day.”
Same again. I suggest you actually read the book with some decent study guides. Everything Christ taught was based on OT law and principle.
You truly and greatly confuse Jewish civil law with the natural moral law in the book.

“The difference in godheads is like night and day.”
Amazingly wrong. In both OT and NT Christ is God and claims to be the same God of Abraham.
He came specifically to show what the God is like. That is written all over the NT and OT prophecies as well!

“Personally I think you have to toss rationality out the window …”
I’m sorry to say it but I think you just did.

Get an education in biblical doctrine, history and a course on exegesis and the difference between civil law, ceremonial law and moral law in the OT. Also suggest you learn something about the OT cultures and their practices which might help you understand the “why” of so many things in the OT.

You’re talking more and more like Dick Dawkins, maybe you ought to consult him to get to the real truth? Jeepers Dave I’m very disappointed.

Show me where I have said or entailed that murder, per the principles expounded by Hooker etc, is not self evidently evil.

When you excused the dropping of the atom bomb when you suggested that the babies killed were not the target, but rather just collateral damage.

Have you paused to even observe the careful distinction of circumstances I made above? Do you appreciate that while killing another human being is an evil, not all such killing is murder?

Yers, I have. And what I see is you, in true post-modern fashion, equivocating on what is murder and what isn’t. As near as I can tell the definition of what constitutes murder is what you say it is. How very not Scottish.

mike1962 @ 47:

or those who believe in the transcendent morality think the deniers are liars.

I gave a generic example of how this thread could exist as a result of lying, I did not accuse you personally of lying. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on.

I did accuse you of being mistaken. I accused you of not understanding the meaning of revering God and scripture. I did not accuse you of lying about God and scripture. By analogy, if you posit that 2+2=5, does the evidence support an accusation of lying, being mistaken, or fat-fingered?

IMO, the facts in evidence demontrated only our disagreement. In further rebutal I specifically said your responses indicated that you were mistaken, again a conclusion supported by the facts in evidence in your posts.

One can be honestly mistaken without lying.

The new and old testaments are perfectly harmonized in their reverence for the law, which, we are told, is summed up in the command to love one another, and which includes the injunction “thou shalt not kill.” It appears to have been necessary for this injunction to be revealed, however, which suggests that it was not self-evident, as the post indicates. Jeremiah’s famous description of the human heart may be relevant here; it is certainly reflected in Dostoyevsky. The passage quoted reflects his belief that the heart is desperately wicked, and that grace is therefore the only possible means of obtaining happiness or breaking out of the desperation caused by the collapse of philosophy and the pursuit of the good at the end of the dark century. Speaking for ourselves, we tend to agree with him.

Sorry to bounce around, but check this out on Gandhi:

“Early that very morning, foreseeing the manner of his death, Gandhi had said to Manu, “If someone fires bullets at me and I die without a groan and with God’s name on my lips, then you should tell the world that here was a real Mahatma [Great Soul]…” …..He had journeyed “from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, from death to immortality.

Gandhi, the soldier of Truth, lay on the soft, moist earth, his body sacrificed. But Gandhi had never fought with the body but with the spirit, and that remained untouched.”

Yep, far from the fog of Materialist thinking, was the great man!!!

edit:
The Old Man and the Sea is a novella (just over 100 pages in length) by Ernest Hemingway written in Cuba in 1951 and published in 1952