Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is There At Least One Self-Evident Moral Truth?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many scholars believe Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is 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.  So I was intrigued when SteveB referred to a passage from the novel in a comment to my earlier post.  In this passage Ivan is exploring man’s capacity for cruelty, and he says to his brother Alyosha (warning, not for the faint of heart):

People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel.  The tiger only tears and gnaws, that’s all he can do.  He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it.  These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, too; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mother’s eyes.  Doing it before the mother’s eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion; they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say.

I have read that Dostoevsky did not make this up.  This actually happened and he adopted the story for his novel.

SteveB asked Jack Krebs whether he believed the soldiers were wrong.  Jack said they were, and then he said something very interesting.  He said, “I choose my moral standards.”

I replied:  “Jack, this is an interesting statement.  Are you suggesting that it is possible for you to choose moral standards in which it is good for the soldier to kill the baby?”

Jack responded:  “And no to Barry’s question – I could not choose moral standards that would make it ‘good’ for the soldier to kill the baby.”

I probed further:  “You say ‘I could not choose . . .’  OK.  But what about our soldier?  Is he free to choose moral standards just like you, including moral standards in which baby killing is good?”

To which Jack responded:  “He is free to choose, and he may think what he does is ‘good,’ but I will . . . strenuously disagree”

This is, of course, nonsense.  There are certain things that, as Dr. J. Budziszewski says, “you can’t not know.”  You can’t not know that ripping babies from their mother’s arms, throwing them in the air and catching them on a bayonet is evil.  Everyone reading this post knows this to be true without the slightest doubt or reservation.  Jack is simply and obviously wrong when he says a soldier is free to choose moral standards in which such an act is good.  There is no such freedom. 

Anyone who says that it is not self-evident that the soldier’s act was evil is lying.  It is quite literally unthinkable to imagine a moral system in which such an act is good.

Just as the statement “two plus two equals eight” is wrong in an absolute sense, the soldier’s act was evil in an absolute sense.  The fact that the soldier’s act was evil transcends time, place, circumstances, opinion, and every other variable one might imagine.  From this I conclude the act violated a transcendent moral standard, and from this I further conclude that a transcendent moral standard exists.

ADDENDUM:

Most of the first 62 comments completely missed the point of this post, so I will try to focus the discussion onto the point of the post by posing the question in a debate format:

A soldier amuses himself by ripping a baby from his mother’s arms and tossing it in the air and catching it on a bayonet.

Resolved, it is self-evident that the soldier’s action is wrong in all places and at all times.

Commenters are free to argue the affirmative or the negative.  They are not free to change the subject by, for example, dragging us into a discusion of the Old Testament or changing the facts and asking “what about this?”  Comments after comment 62 that do not argue either the affirmative or the negative will be deleted.

Comments
Rude: Good points. But there is one thing in the creation account that has always amused me. One thing God said was "not good" - i.e. "for man to be alone" So he took the DNA closest to Adams heart and made the most beautiful creature in the world - woman!! And she with her charms has been causing man trouble ever since. Ha! ;-)Borne
May 10, 2008
May
05
May
10
10
2008
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
SBK, Borne and Rude: Well said. BarryA is right. Dave, please take a pause and re-examine. Ah gone . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 10, 2008
May
05
May
10
10
2008
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Before this thread is wrapped up I've a thought that hopefully pertains. You have to think about this, but I believe what Barry A is saying is that it is legitimate to separate morality from the Deity. The two really are separate. It is possible, for example, to imagine that God is evil (perish the thought!!! but we can imagine it). We can imagine—maybe this is how some negative folks actually do imagine things—that God delights in our pain, that he wants us to fail, that he will rejoice in our extinction (or worse yet eternal writhing in hell). God is supreme Agent—unless, of course, “god” is another name for the Platonic realm of eternal verities (a view I suspect that some atheist physicists might hold). An agent chooses between good and evil. Seven times in Genesis God sees that what he has created is “good”—as it says (Gen 1:31), “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Interesting too that it does not say that what happened on the Seventh Day was “good”. The work God did was good, the day he ceased he blessed and sanctified. God’s activity is what is judged. So when it says that God sees that what he has done is good, this suggests that he is evaluating his work over against some objective standard. So even if God had not done good, that standard would still have existed. Even if God ordered 2 plus 2 to be 5 it would not be so. At the end of the day all theodicies are based herein: God is constrained by a transcendent standard of logic and ethics. God cannot have his cake and eat it too. God comes to us and says (Isaiah 1:18), “Come now, and let us reason together …” How is that? Is it that we have access to the same transcendent laws of reason (limited though we are) as God has? Faith, let us say, is conviction of two things—that God exists and that he is good—as it says (Heb 11:6), “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” As much as has been written on the transcendency of ethics (and logic and esthetics) one suspects we have only scratched the surface of this subject.Rude
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
greyman : StephenB answers you quite correctly. I think that, like Dave, your own ignorance of scripture is your downfall in this. I know OT Hebrew well enough to be able to make my own translations (with a lot of work!) and the correct interpretation of the 5th rule is "do no murder". You completely miss the whole point of the 10 commandments. In fact I would challenge you or Dave or any other living being to invent a better moral code than the 10. You miss the aspect of the spirit of the law or it's raison d'être. There is a deep misunderstanding of law itself all through this thread on the part of relativists and other deniers of moral absolutes. The purpose or spirit of the law is the most important thing, not the letter. Take your view of the Sabbath; missing the spirit of that rule is where you go astray. All law must be founded in the purpose of serving and protecting the ultimate good - for it's own sake. As Christ said (of which you are quite obviously unaware) "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" The spirit of that law is that men ought rest at least one day in seven. But this is not an absolute rule as Christ again stated,
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? ... For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. Mat 12
And again,
He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Mat 12:12
Quite obviously your surgeon example is exactly what Christ spoke of! As for slavery you err again not being aware of the cultural contexts in which the verses on slaves and masters (usually better translated as employees and employers or surfs and lords) were given. For one thing in OT times it was even common for people in need to "sell themselves" as "slaves" or servants to a land owner to receive "room and board". That's only the beginning of the subject! But your worst mistake is in claiming "there are manifestly no absolutes". Really? Are you absolutely sure? Anyone claiming there are no absolutes has not thought the issues through clearly. Worse, in my experience, they are always absolutely sure! Relativism is inherently self-contradicting. Nothing is more obvious. And as I keep stating, if there were no absolutes no sane discussion could ever exist. Math could not exist. 1+1 = 2 would not be reliable and no equations, either moral, logical or mathematical could carry any level of confidence. The existence of logical absolutes is inexplicable under materialism (atheism). As there are logical absolutes, so there are moral absolutes - that is a given and intrinsically implied with logical absolutes. You also make the mistake of pointing out differences in moral practice in different cultures as though differences annulled the whole root system! As all who do so, you miss the demonstrable fact that throughout history all men have held to same basic principles. Do unto others, do not lie, do no murder, do not steal etc. The differences were almost always in form not in substance. You will not find a single civilization in history wherein cowardice or child rape is considered good. The exceptions to this were always materialist or devil worship culturesBorne
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Once again (ad infinitum ad nauseum) Dave assumes a transcendent law in his answer - which denies an absolute moral Law - to Barry. Either Dave is actually "pulling our leg" to have some fun or he answers this way to have save his pride in not having to admit he is wrong. Or maybe he's playing the devil's advocate. It is impossible to sanely argue any point w/o the existence of logical absolutes. Same for moral arguments. There has to be a transcendent rule of Right.Borne
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Uh, DaveScot, your trust or opinion on your opinion doesn't make the opinion true. It only verifies that you truly trust your opinion. Any hypothetical scenarios you come up with are derivatives of the two BarryA mentioned. You have chosen the second: "I am in possession of the absolute truth". That's great DaveScot. Your opinion is in alignment with the absolute truth... not the other way around. But, I don't expect you to agree (or show understanding) - since I think you just want to be argumentative. BarryA, at this point is it worth your time/effort to keep arguing with DaveScot?sbk
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Barry You miss a third option which in this case happens to be the correct option:
DaveScot is, of course, correct, and one of two things must therefore be true: 1. DaveScot’s subjective opinion should be preferred even if it is contrary to the opinion of every other person on the planet. OR 2. DaveScot has appealed to a standard that transcends both his opinion and the opinion of every other person on the planet.
OR 3. DaveScot trusts his own opinion in this matter above all others, including any God or gods or any number of others in disagreement. You see, Barry, I am in possession of the absolute truth in this. If you agree then you also know the absolute truth. If you disagree then you are wrong. It's really just that simple. Am I arrogant? You bet. It's well deserved arrogance too and if you disagree well then that's just another instance where you're wrong. :-)DaveScot
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Now we are getting somewhere. DaveScot says that even if everyone in the world believed, "under circumstance X bayoneting babies for fun in front of their mother is a good thing," it would still be wrong. DaveScot is, of course, correct, and one of two things must therefore be true: 1. DaveScot's subjective opinion should be preferred even if it is contrary to the opinion of every other person on the planet. OR 2. DaveScot has appealed to a standard that transcends both his opinion and the opinion of every other person on the planet. Since we can know with certainty that DaveScot's opinion is not more valuable than the collective opinion of 6 billion other people, we must conclude that DaveScot has appealed to a transcendent moral order, the Tao. And quite properly I might add. What does this mean? It means that when it comes to self-evident moral truth, opinion does not matter. Everyone knows the Tao exists (even if they deny it to others or even themselves).BarryA
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
DaveScot, If the soldier was tossing a puppy in the air and catching it on its bayonet for amusement, that would be gravely immoral too. It would not be as immoral as killing the baby this way. That's why our law would rightly punish the former as "cruelty to animals" and the latter as "murder." Both acts are wrong. Both acts are even criminal. The punishment for the former is properly less than the punishment for the latter.BarryA
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Barry re; 69 Let’s say for the sake of the argument everyone in the world except you and I believed the following proposition: “Under circumstance X bayoneting babies for fun in front of their mother is a good thing.” Is it always wrong nevertheless? I would always consider it to be wrong. But then again I'd always consider pulling the wings off of flys for entertainment to be wrong too. Your turn.DaveScot
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
BTW, both answers are easy.BarryA
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
DaveScot, you answer mine in 69 and I'll answer yours in 103.BarryA
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Barry is asking if there is intrinsic evil that we instinctively know not to do and, yes of course there is. Now there is a certain holy book -- indulge me Barry -- that have divine commands directed at specific people at specific times that require refraining from acts that are not intrinsically evil such as working on a particular day or having certain parts of your body removed at a certain time after your birth. Now, these commands are, sometimes counter-intuitively even, of benefit to those to whom they are given -- who wants to work seven days a week? who wants to grant stone images as having supernatural powers? -- but they certainly don't address the intrinsic evil that Barry describes. One of those commands is a requirement not to take innocent life with premeditation. Those who dismiss the concept of intrinsic evil point to circumstances in which we justify this taking -- bombing a city in war, strangling a crying child to save a group -- to make their case. What i think they miss is that the intrinsic evil is not in the taking of a life but in the dismissal of God. If you bomb that city and kill the children out of love-- namely love for your children and your neighbors, in other words to keep the enemy rulers from killing your children or turning them into slaves, or working the old lady down the street to death -- you are not dismissing God. If you bomb that city and kill their children to steal their gold, you are. Cruelty -- inflicting suffering for your pleasure -- is always dismissing God. Intrinsic evil is the attempt to destroy faith, hope and love.tribune7
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
BarryA: The problem is not so much whether there are self-evident moral truths, as we reveal that we expect other human beings to understand and accept such truths so soon as we quarrel or wish to retaliate for real or imagined injury. But, instead, the real problem is whether we are willing to accept them when they cut against our agendas. I again cite as an example in point, Locke's foundational citation of Hooker from his Ecclesiastical Polity, in making his argument to ground liberty in Ch 2 section 5 of his 2nd essay on civil gov't:
. . . 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.
Locke, in introducing his essay on human understanding, section 5, also speaks very well to the underlying problem of selective, often self-serving hyper-skepticism and associated objectionism:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
GEM of TKI PS: On the slavery issue, we should first note that it was Evangelical, Bible-believing Christians such as Wilberforce, Knibb and Buxton who led the world in the reformation movement that shifted the moral consensus on slavery -- indeed, this was the world's first democratic civil rights movement. [That should tell us something!] Further to this, quite recently in discussions in the blog, I highlighted the biblical principle that the OT civil law sometimes regulates what is reflective of hardness of hearts [in a context of lesser of evils in a situation], with provision for onward reformation. Absence of serious grappling with this principle while trotting out instances out of proper context, sadly, tends to suggest rhetorical points scoring games based on red herrings leading out to convenient strawmen burned to cloud and poison the atmosphere, rather than serious dealing with issues. But since such tactics are all too often rhetorically effective, we need to expose the tactic, and deal with the main issue. [The underlying tendentious attack on Judaeo-Christian morality -- to often by those whose worldview and agendas would overturn all public morality by turning it into in effect "might makes 'right' . . . " in light of demonstrably morally absurd evolutionary materialist and similarly incoherent radical positivist and/or relativist thinking -- also needs to be answered.Cf here for a general 101-level discussion on the "the God of the Bible is a moral monster" thesis beloved of the New Atheists; one that specifically addresses the slavery question.]kairosfocus
May 9, 2008
May
05
May
9
09
2008
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
-----"Oh and just to belabor the fifth commandment a little more: if I shoot an unarmed trespasser in the head in Louisiana, I have not committed murder. If I do it in Canada or the UK, I have. Which of these acts is murder absolutely prohibited under the fifth? Are the Ten Commandments jurisdictional in nature? Do we need a little write-in that says ‘thou shalt not murder according to the definition of murder by your local tribe, village, state or nation’?" You are confusing civil law with the natural moral law on which it is supposed to be based. The state, which establishes civil law, must speculate about the intentions of the murderer and any possible extenuating circumstances. That means that civil laws will vary and will always reflect the natural moral law in an imperfect way. The natural moral law, on the other hand, has an objective component, absolute moral truth, and a subjective component, the individual conscience. Thus, the individual can violate the natural moral law and not violate the civil law or vice versa.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
BarryA I'm getting a little weary of the easy questions. Here's a harder question for you. Let's say the soldiers were spearing puppies instead of babies. Is that any more or less morally acceptable than killing babies? Why or why not? No falling back on arbitrary scriptural revelations either. Those are a dime a dozen and carry no water.DaveScot
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
-----greyman: " but I note with amusement that you carefully avoided commenting the very real issue of sabbath work!" I am beginning to understand why Barry A has forbidden Old Testament theology, and I am beginning to understand why you cling to it. What is the problem with recognizing that the Sabbath is to be set aside as a special day of worship except when there is an opportunity for performing acts of mercy. Don't you remember the conflict with Jesus Christ and the pharisees. Please, lets get back to the subject about self-evident morality.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
-----"Right Stephen. Yet the Bible never condemns slavery as an evil and in fact provides useful rules on the correct handling of slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11). And let’s not forget the sixth chapter of Ephesians: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear”. So in your view the Bible condones an absolute evil?" I see that you have decided to violate Barry A's injunction that the Old Testament not be used. I am surprised that your comment survived. There is a very simple explanation for the Old Testament passages on this matter, but I am not going to invest my time explaining it to you. Once again, you have evaded the point about the natural moral law. “The fifth commandment forbids murder, not killing. The Ten Commandments constitute absolute morality in every sense of the word.” -----"I’ll accept your questionable point on the fifth commandment (and you surely know that not all Hebrew scholars agree with you), but I note with amusement that you carefully avoided commenting the very real issue of sabbath work!" It doesn't matter whether Hebrew scholars disagree with the point of not, because it is not my only way of making the distinction between justified and unjustified killing.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
[BarryA] All future Old Testament comments will be deleted. There is one point that can be gleaned from those comments, a highly ironic one. The Bible-believers in this thread seem to have no trouble denying propositions A and B, while the atheists (or whatever they are) agonize over A and B in various creatively distracting ways, even invoking the Bible to do so.Vladimir Krondan
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
I posted post #96 here and at the other thread because Barry A wanted that thread to continue here. I apologize for any confusion. Evidently any future correspondence with Jack will have to take place on the other thread. Vividvividblue
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
The reason is that the subject of this thread is not whether a particular action is good or not, but rather the claim that one can only know what is good if one believes in transcendent moral standards. That is the proposition that I am arguing against. I don’t think that is the main thrust of this thread but that’s just me. I see three main themes. 1) Objective moral standards do exist. 2) We know this because it is self evident. 3) That those who deny the existence of objective moral standards act as if they do indeed exist. Krebs: “I’m not claiming that I have some special insight into the Truth, or that I have some special right to claim what “ought” to be the case.” Ok Jack lets examine this statement in light of the current Iraqi war. In a previous thread you said the only war you would have supported was WW2. For arguments sake I will assume you are against the Iraqi war. Now if you do not have any special insight into the truth that we should not be engaging in this war what possible argument could you put forth against it? Furthermore if you do not have any special right to claim that we “ought” not be there how can you argue that we “ought” not be there? Krebs: “ You can’t know whether transcendent moral standards exist. The argument that they are self-evident and are just “known in the heart” doesn’t work.” How do you know one cant know whether transcendent moral standards exist? Furthermore what differentiates the knowable from the unknowable? Krebs: “The argument that they are self-evident and are just “known in the heart” doesn’t work.” Why is the argument that they are self evident not work? Krebs: “I suggest you stick with discussion of the issues and leave your personal prejudices about me out of it.” Excellent advise, I was out of line and I apologize. Vividvividblue
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Should read "If I do it in Canada or the UK, I have not." Sorry!greyman
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Oh and just to belabor the fifth commandment a little more: if I shoot an unarmed trespasser in the head in Louisiana, I have not committed murder. If I do it in Canada or the UK, I have. Which of these acts is murder absolutely prohibited under the fifth? Are the Ten Commandments jurisdictional in nature? Do we need a little write-in that says ‘thou shalt not murder according to the definition of murder by your local tribe, village, state or nation’?greyman
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
"Slavery is and always has been an absolute evil because it violates the inherent dignity of the human person." Right Stephen. Yet the Bible never condemns slavery as an evil and in fact provides useful rules on the correct handling of slaves (see Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11). And let's not forget the sixth chapter of Ephesians: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear". So in your view the Bible condones an absolute evil? "The fifth commandment forbids murder, not killing. The Ten Commandments constitute absolute morality in every sense of the word." I'll accept your questionable point on the fifth commandment (and you surely know that not all Hebrew scholars agree with you), but I note with amusement that you carefully avoided commenting the very real issue of sabbath work!greyman
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
[leo] 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. Despite that, all of us conclude that his moral standard is wrong. Which brings us to the following principle:
Proposition A: 'Bayonetting babies for amusement is morally right.' Proposition B: , 'we cannot conclude that an A-holder is wrong or crazy.' Anyone who hesitates, or is unwilling to deny A and B, or is argumentative about it, or posits hypothetical distractions about it, either has a broken moral compass, or is plain crazy.
Vladimir Krondan
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
@91 is too confusing because I failed to separate the original comments from my responses. Here is the revision. —–greyman: “In your Turkish soldier’s eyes it is not, as his enemy is less than human and killing the enemy (at whatever age) for sport is no more evil for him than Dick Cheney shooting a pen-raised quail for sport is evil for the Dark Lord. In your eyes the nuclear incineration babies “may be a relative good” and thus somehow acceptable, but in the eyes of another reasonable person it is self evident that is always an evil act given the innocence of the victim." An absolute evil does not cease to be evil simply because a misguided Turkish soldier’s perception of evil is malformed. Also, taking an innocent human life as a matter of convenience is always wrong. The morality of war is different than personal morality, and its standards are not always self evident. Barry A didn’t say that all moral absolutes are self-evident. The standards for a “just war” are far from self-evident. He did say that the most basic moral norms are indeed self evident, and he is correct in saying that. Why do you take up three themes in one paragraph? —–”The whole problem with the question of evil for theists is that there are manifestly no absolutes. An act that we ‘all’ find obviously abhorrent today (slavery) was a social norm for some of the men we still honor with holidays and pictures on our money. That’s why the Ten Commandments are never treated as absolute values even by those who profess to believe in them. They cannot be read rationally without a set of post facto qualifiers: thou shalt not kill (except when the state tells you to do so); For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work (unless you are, say, a surgeon who must perform life saving surgery on an accident victim). Pretty quickly any notion of self-evident absolutes are drowning in a sea of socially constructed relativism.” I continue to marvel at this kind of thinking. Slavery is and always has been an absolute evil because it violates the inherent dignity of the human person. The fifth commandment forbids murder, not killing. The Ten Commandments constitute absolute morality in every sense of the word. The only social constructivism going on here is in your mind.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
-----greyman: "In your Turkish soldier’s eyes it is not, as his enemy is less than human and killing the enemy (at whatever age) for sport is no more evil for him than Dick Cheney shooting a pen-raised quail for sport is evil for the Dark Lord. In your eyes the nuclear incineration babies “may be a relative good” and thus somehow acceptable, but in the eyes of another reasonable person it is self evident that is always an evil act given the innocence of the victim. An absolute evil does not cease to be evil simply because a misguided Turkish soldier’s perception of evil is malformed. Also, taking an innocent human life as a matter of convenience is always wrong. The morality of war is different than personal morality, and its standards are not always self evident. Barry A didn’t say that all moral absolutes are self-evident. The standards for a “just war” are far from self-evident. He did say that the most basic moral norms are indeed self evident, and he is correct in saying that. Why do you take up three themes in one paragraph? -----"The whole problem with the question of evil for theists is that there are manifestly no absolutes. An act that we ‘all’ find obviously abhorrent today (slavery) was a social norm for some of the men we still honor with holidays and pictures on our money. That’s why the Ten Commandments are never treated as absolute values even by those who profess to believe in them. They cannot be read rationally without a set of post facto qualifiers: thou shalt not kill (except when the state tells you to do so); For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work (unless you are, say, a surgeon who must perform life saving surgery on an accident victim). Pretty quickly any notion of self-evident absolutes are drowning in a sea of socially constructed relativism." I continue to marvel at this kind of thinking. Slavery is and always has been an absolute evil because it violates the inherent dignity of the human person. The fifth commandment forbids murder, not killing. The Ten Commandments constitute absolute morality in every sense of the word. The only social constructivism going on here is in your mind.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
There are two (realistic) possibilities: Either a Designer has inscribed on our hearts the conviction that the soldier's behavior is absolutely wrong, or the conviction is the product of our evolutionary history. If it is the latter then the conviction of absolute wrongness is a mere illusion, like our conviction that our lives are meaningful. If we are solely the products of materialistic evolutionary forces then it's not wrong to impale babies because might makes right and nothing the strong do is "wrong." Only if the conviction that it is wrong is a result of the work of an omniscient, perfectly good Being can it have any moral reality at all. Thus, whether it is absolutely wrong, or wrong at all, to do what the soldier did depends upon where our sense of right and wrong come from in the first place.Dick
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
In your eyes (and mine) bayoneting babies for fun is always wrong. In your Turkish soldier’s eyes it is not, Imagine there is no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us, only sky.tribune7
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Amendment on @84. It is conceivable that someone might be a metaphysical idealist, but that doesn't seem very likely for a Darwinst.StephenB
May 8, 2008
May
05
May
8
08
2008
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply