Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Self Evident Moral Truth [Updated]

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some years ago I posted an excerpt from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov brings his indictment against God to his brother Alyosha.  In it he describes a number of atrocities based on real life stories.  (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 asked our materialist friends whether it is self-evidently true that torturing young children for fun is morally evil in all places at all times even if everyone believes otherwise for whatever reason.  I got a lot of hand waving and attempts to change the subject.  I did not get any unequivocal answers from our materialist interlocutors.   

Let’s try again.  I say two things:  (1) Torturing young children for fun is self-evidently morally evil; and (2) this is true at all times and in all places and in all cultures and under all circumstances even if everyone in a particular place and time were to disagree with me. 

I challenge materialists everywhere.  Come onto this website and start your answer with the following:   

Response to proposition one:  True or False

Response to proposition two:  True or False 

Then defend your position. 

All attempts to evade the question or change the subject (such as bringing up specious discussions of obscure Old Testament texts) will be ruthlessly deleted, so don’t waste our time trying to put them in the combox.   

Do you have the courage to face the questions head on?  In my experience, some materialists do but most do not.  We’ll see.

UPDATE: This post has been up three days now.  Only two materialists have had the courage to answer the questions.  There have been several attempts to obfuscate, confuse and change the subject, all of which, as promised, have been ruthlessly deleted.  Come on materialists.  You’re letting your side down.  Have the courage to come in here and defend your views. 

Comments
Hi Chesterton: I am a living proof that we share a common humanity, being of tri-continental ancestry. Then, having been raised by my Mom and Dad, the notion that women are inferiors is laughably absurd. As for academic achievement, You may want to take a glance at this, on the education justice implications of what grades are too often really measuring, structural biases and agendas. As for the notion that difference on IQ scores or the like implies differences of intrinsic worth, that too is patently absurd. What happens is that the evo mat agenda is inherently about inequality and so adherents are again and again willing to swallow absurdities. And slavery in the relevant sense -- chattel slavery (not indenture, though that can too often be abusive too) -- does pivot on the absurdity of how some are superior and others are inferior and deserve to be enslaved. The results across time speak for themselves. That is why such slavery is now acknowledged as a crime against humanity. However what the decades long struggle Wilberforce encountered shows is just how those who cling to an absurdity will fight to the last ditch in defence of manifest evil. And the very way those who inflict abuses on others react if they or those they care about who share the same common humanity are the victims, glaringly highlights the absurdity. I didn't say that there are no people willing to live on the advantages of absurdity, I just said that it is absurd. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
"The key matter on morals is of course our essential equality as persons." But the equality of people also as persons it is not self evident then the following isnt true: "The astonishing absurdity in being willing to inflict on others over whom we hold power what would be intolerable in ourselves is what is so revealing of absurdity." Because as I am different what the "others" deserve I not necessary desserve. "The ways Wilberforce’s parliamentary campaign against the slave trade was ducked, diverted, blown off and postponed after just his first speech provide sadly apt illustration." Slavery was normal not absurd for most of the human history, and still is in some cultures.Chesterton
August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus posted this:
F/N: The key matter on morals is of course our essential equality as persons.
and then posted this:
The astonishing absurdity in being willing to inflict on others over whom we hold power what would be intolerable in ourselves is what is so revealing of absurdity. but, if one is determined to support a self serving absurdity, one will say and do just about anything. The ways Wilberforce’s parliamentary campaign against the slave trade was ducked, diverted, blown off and postponed after just his first speech provide sadly apt illustration.
I agree with the first proposition (though I would point out that we may have moral obligations to organisms that are not persons). The second collection of words is difficult to comprehend. What if I am not willing to inflict on others over whom I hold power what I would be intolerable in myself? This pretty much describes my reality if I understand what you are saying. The reason is that I hold no power over anyone, so consequently, in my reality, your proposed absurdity does not exist for me. Since it doesn't exist (at least for me), I am not determined to support a self serving absurdity. What is your point?timothya
August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
for math base of 10, 9x9=81 (eight of 10 + 1). for math base of 39, 9x9=23 (two of 39 + 3). necessary understand of math base choosen for operating. sergiosergiomendes
August 30, 2012
August
08
Aug
30
30
2012
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
Gene, Blas, After you pay your rent, your landlord gives you a receipt. A week later, he demands payment again. You remind him that you have already paid your debt. He responds as follows: "Yes, its true that you paid your debt, but it is also true that you did not pay your debt, so you still owe me." What do you say?StephenB
August 29, 2012
August
08
Aug
29
29
2012
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
F/N: The key matter on morals is of course our essential equality as persons. The astonishing absurdity in being willing to inflict on others over whom we hold power what would be intolerable in ourselves is what is so revealing of absurdity. but, if one is determined to support a self serving absurdity, one will say and do just about anything. The ways Wilberforce's parliamentary campaign against the slave trade was ducked, diverted, blown off and postponed after just his first speech provide sadly apt illustration.kairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
AG: Actually, we learn multiplication tables as a convenience, for speed and accuracy. (I am thinking here, out to 10 x 10 or 12 x 12. Some go on to 25 x 25. And Gen Rommel memorised log tables allowing astonishing mental calculations, I don't know if that was mandatory in Imperial German Army academies in the pre WWI era. I never heard whether it was to three, four or seven figures.) The crucial thing is to understand that multiplication is repeated addition, which then leads to precisely one coherent answer. That answer is not only true but must be so, on pain of direct and obvious absurdity. Of course, there comes a point where the reductio is no longer obvious, which is where the self-evidence will break down. Notice, I am not PROVING that 9 x 9 = 81, but showing why any other answer implies an absurdity. To make this immediately apparent, I would lay out nine nines on one side vs eight tens. Then, one may rearrange the other side into nines. The deficit will be immediately apparent -- on symmetry -- to a child of age to understand conservation of quantities on rearrangement; or you can sweep away rows of nine until one side has zero and the other a deficit of one. Piaget suggests, what, a 7 year old or so? The practical threshold for the test of self evidence is whether the process of reduction to absurdity requires abstract operations. Only about 1/3 of adults in even advanced countries reach that level. Hence the classic test in English law of how something communicates and convinces the man in the Clapham bus stop. KF PS: Oops on 80 - 9 = 71kairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
A Gene @ 100. You can't give reasons that 9x9=81. You can only say the same thing in different words as KF did above.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Barry, we can give reasons for why 9x9=81. It's also not self-evident (we have to learn our multiplication tables). So the two aren't comparable. BTW, I trust you know that 9x9=23 is correct, even if for a slightly odd reason.A Gene
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Gene, if someone says 9 x 9 is 23 would it be arrogant to say, "no, it's not 23 it's 81"?Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Barry A (presently @86) -
Gene, you seem to be saying that while you personally do not prefer to torture children for fun or slaughter millions of innocents, you cannot give any reason why someone else might not have a different preference.
No, you're not understanding me, I'm happy to give reasons why I belive torturing children for fun is wrong. But I'm not arrogant enough to say that everyone thinks this, or give their reasons.
As I said to Blas, you either accept these propositions as self-evidently true or you do not. By definition one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions.
Really? I would have thought that the truth of anything self-evident should be obvious. Sometimes things are too obvious, so you have to stop to think it through (been there, done that). But if something is self-evidently true the explanation for why it's true should be clear. If it's not clear, how can be self-evident?A Gene
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
“Had one of those Turks in the novel based on real incidents had his baby treated that way he would have been incensed and would have felt justified to kill the one who did that.” “Similarly, had a girl of the majority in Pakistan or a boy been treated like that, there would have been not a protest march but a major riot.” This facts do not make absurd consider not moral evil torture kids for fun, maybe you have to add “be sure do not put yourself in the position that somebody take revenge”. “That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none” This neither make absurde denying the self evidence of the first statement. Because I can put me in the position of do not take harm while I doing so. The moral question it is not so easy to answer as there are self evident moral truths. People do what many of us think is moral evil and get away with that living better life than us.Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
PPS: This can be done with physical counters, i.e. it is easily apparent to an ordinary person, even a child.kairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
F/N: 9 x 9 = 80 => 9 +9 + . . . +9 [8 times] = 80 or, 9 + 9 + . . . + 9 - 9 = 80 - 9 = 72 . . . => 0 = - 1 Absurd. KF PS: The examples of where denial of the moral principle leads to absurdity are above and elsewhere. Cf my remark at 10 above, and other cases all above.kairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
The fish example? How that relates with denying that torture kids for fun is moral evil?Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
look above.kairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
"one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself." This proposition it is not mine. "Similarly, the case of torturing babies for fun, as has unfortunately happened, is a case in point too. Notice, no-one can successfully deny it and escape absurdities." I would like to see examples of that absurdities.Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Blas: This caught my eye:
one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself.
Actually, no. One property of that which MUST be true, i.e. is necessarily not just contingently true, is that its denial lands one in absurdity. For some things that is hard to see, which makes them not self evident, but int eh case of self-evident truths, the reductio is immediate and patent, concrete enough that he ordinary concrete-minded person can see it. (That is not hard to spot as to why: if it is not like that, then the matter is not self evident!) My Truth no 1 is a good case in point. "Error exists." Try deny it and watch the absurdity jump out and say boo! Similarly, the case of torturing babies for fun, as has unfortunately happened, is a case in point too. Notice, no-one can successfully deny it and escape absurdities. But if you willfully swallow an advantageous absurdity, then many will willingly cling to wrong to gain what they think is an advantage. Sort of reminds me of the fish who fools around with a baited hook as he sees an advantage in the bait. KFkairosfocus
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
"Shouting that 9 x 9 = 80 does not make the proposition 9 x 9 = 80 self evident. You see?" And how do you know that your proposition is 9 x 9 = 81? They are sure they are saying 9 x 9 = 81 and you 9 x 9 = 80.Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Blas, here’s the difference between your “corrections” and mine: Shouting that 9 x 9 = 80 does not make the proposition 9 x 9 = 80 self evident. You see? The fact that someone can assert that a non-self evident (or even false) proposition is in fact self evident simply shows that people can be wrong and even evil. It is not an argument against the existence of self evident propositions.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
"Moral nihilism like you have just displayed is what makes holocausts possible." “By definition one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself. If you refuse to acknowledge self evident truths, as you just have, you don’t need an argument; you need simple correction. I will now correct you: Not beleive in Alá is evil and not killing blasfemers is evil. It does not matter how many people disagree.” “By definition one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself. If you refuse to acknowledge self evident truths, as you just have, you don’t need an argument; you need simple correction. I will now correct you: Exploitin the superior arian race is evil and not killing millions of guilty jews is evil. It does not matter how many people disagree.”Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Blas, your comments have devolved into third grade level Why? Why? Why? to every proposition that is asserted. Continuing to dialogue with you is pointless.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Gene, you seem to be saying that while you personally do not prefer to torture children for fun or slaughter millions of innocents, you cannot give any reason why someone else might not have a different preference. Moral nihilism like you have just displayed is what makes holocausts possible. As I said to Blas, you either accept these propositions as self-evidently true or you do not. By definition one cannot argue for the truth of self evident propositions. The fact that it is self evident means that there is no argument more basic than the proposition itself. If you refuse to acknowledge self evident truths, as you just have, you don’t need an argument; you need simple correction. I will now correct you: Torturing children for fun is evil and killing millions of innocents is evil. It does not matter how many people disagree. Indeed, if everyone in the world were to disagree with me, everyone else would be wrong and I would be right.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Barry A at (currently) 80 -
A Gene: “Whilst I think torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible, I wouldn’t want to be arrogant enough to claim to speak for everyone.” Would you be arrogant enough to tell Hitler that killing millions of innocent men, women and children is wrong? Or is your only response to the holocaust, “Well, I do not personally prefer holocausts, but who am I to tell the Nazis they are wrong”?
Huh? A false equivalence. I could certainly say that I think that killing millions of innocent men, women and children is wrong, but I wouldn't want to speak for anyone else (well, unless I was appointed as a spokesgene). To give another moral example - would you be prepared to say that it is self-evident that universal healthcare is good?A Gene
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
It would not be arrogance on your part to correct me. In the same way, if someone were to suggest that there might be some instance where torturing a small child for fun is good, it would not be arrogant to correct him.
Just make sure that the person you are trying to correct isn't armed because anyone who would suggest such a thing wouldn't have any problem "correcting" you. Just sayin'...Joe
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Blas said: "No, it is just the alternative hypothesis." Because something is an alternative hypothesis doesn't remove it from being useless sophistry. The "alternative hypothesis" to "A=A" is useless sophistry. But then, that requires accepting necessary assumptions that form the basis of our debate, which you don't seem compelled to accept (even though everything you post is predicated on accepting those necessary assumptions). Until you accept those premises that are required to elevate your contribution here above that of solipsism and sophistry, there is no sense in my continuing to interact with you.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Blas asks: "Why “must” be accepted?" Okay, I won't accept the necessary assumptions (that I've outlined above) that form the foundation of our debate. I have no reason to continue the debate. If you exist outside of my mind, have a "good" day - whatever that means to you.William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
"Do you understand what a self-evident truth is? You cannot demonstrate it is true – that is why it must be accepted as a self-evident truth." Why “must” be accepted? “In addition to the concept of self-evident truths, there are also necessary assumptions (some of which are both). It is a necessary assumption I must make that you are a free will individual with a mind; it is a necessary assumption I must make that the principles of logic ar sound, it is a necessary assumption I must make that I am not having a profound delusion.” Why “necessary” assumptions? Your argument is like evolutionist that says you “must” assume materialism to make science. “Even if we bypass the idea that the moral statement in question is self-evidently true, in order to rationally debate morality outside of solipsistic sophistry we must assume that it is true that there is an objective standard of some sort that defines the basics of what is good. Also, unless we are sociopaths, we must act in this world as if there is an objective standard of what is good – it is what allows us to judge, condemn, argue, and debate against any arbitrary authority – social consensus, personal desire, religious institutions, scripture, cultural mores, etc.” Act like if there is an objective standard do not means that the objective standar exists. “We all behave as if there is a standard of morality that is superior to and beyond all so-called material authorities and standards, because we can challenge and question them all, and we all think and talk and argue as if there is such a standard beyond our personal whim and any other supposed authority.” Not all. Do you think that Madoff acted as if there is a standard of morality? “Yes, it might be true that all morality is subjective; it might also be true that logical principles are invalid, and it might also be true that all of this is my delusion and I’m just a Boltzmann Brain floating free in the cosmos, and it might be true that none of us have free will and are nothing more than biological automatons flinging feces at each other and thinking we’re having a rational debate. But there’s no use in arguing from such assumptions, because they destroy the validity, hope and need for any such argument.” Agree. “To make such a case is nothing but useless sophistry.” No, it is just the alternative hypothesis. “Materialist atheists only make those arguments to avoid that which they do not want to believe.” Probably, I found worst that they live as moral is not subjective, but your argument seems the same to me. “If you really believe that morality is entirely subjective, why argue about it other than pure, self-serving sophistry?” Between the self-evidence of moral truths and subjectivity of morality there are other options.Blas
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
A Gene: “Whilst I think torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible, I wouldn’t want to be arrogant enough to claim to speak for everyone.” Would you be arrogant enough to tell Hitler that killing millions of innocent men, women and children is wrong? Or is your only response to the holocaust, “Well, I do not personally prefer holocausts, but who am I to tell the Nazis they are wrong”? Say I made a math error and wrote down that 9 x 9 = 80. It would not be arrogance on your part to correct me. In the same way, if someone were to suggest that there might be some instance where torturing a small child for fun is good, it would not be arrogant to correct him.Barry Arrington
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Blas said: "you have to demostrate that your proposition is a self evident truth." Do you understand what a self-evident truth is? You cannot demonstrate it is true - that is why it must be accepted as a self-evident truth. I think you are mistaking the "self-" part of "self-evidently true" for a person. That is not what it refers to. It means that the statement/principle is itself obviously true. Surely you know people deny and miss the obvious all the time; that doesn't make what they are denying or missing less obvious - it means there is something wrong with the person who denies it. Whether or not everyone agrees with or sees a self-evident truth has no bearing on whether or not it is self-evidently true. I can say there is not self.evident moral truth a mantain a logical argument. Blas said: "Of course The end of that argument is that moral is a subjective concept and I have to accept the consecuences of that, but that can be a truth." In addition to the concept of self-evident truths, there are also necessary assumptions (some of which are both). It is a necessary assumption I must make that you are a free will individual with a mind; it is a necessary assumption I must make that the principles of logic ar sound, it is a necessary assumption I must make that I am not having a profound delusion. Even if we bypass the idea that the moral statement in question is self-evidently true, in order to rationally debate morality outside of solipsistic sophistry we must assume that it is true that there is an objective standard of some sort that defines the basics of what is good. Also, unless we are sociopaths, we must act in this world as if there is an objective standard of what is good - it is what allows us to judge, condemn, argue, and debate against any arbitrary authority - social consensus, personal desire, religious institutions, scripture, cultural mores, etc. We all behave as if there is a standard of morality that is superior to and beyond all so-called material authorities and standards, because we can challenge and question them all, and we all think and talk and argue as if there is such a standard beyond our personal whim and any other supposed authority. Yes, it might be true that all morality is subjective; it might also be true that logical principles are invalid, and it might also be true that all of this is my delusion and I'm just a Boltzmann Brain floating free in the cosmos, and it might be true that none of us have free will and are nothing more than biological automatons flinging feces at each other and thinking we're having a rational debate. But there's no use in arguing from such assumptions, because they destroy the validity, hope and need for any such argument. To make such a case is nothing but useless sophistry. Materialist atheists only make those arguments to avoid that which they do not want to believe. If you really believe that morality is entirely subjective, why argue about it other than pure, self-serving sophistry?William J Murray
August 28, 2012
August
08
Aug
28
28
2012
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply