The following is a question from an apologist arguing that morality is objective and that moral truths can only come from God: “Do we have a moral obligation to be fair, or to act in our best interest, or to refrain from killing, stealing, etc.?”Our moral obligation is not to a higher power, it is an obligation to our own happiness, and in some cases, our survival.
Imagine a grouping a strange humans before modern civilization. Let’s say that they start off on the wrong foot and engage in a fight to the death. The surviving alpha male has a few kids with the women he’s won. After all the pain and bloodshed, do you think he’d show his offspring to avoid the similar fights to the death in the future? Maybe, maybe not. But if he doesn’t this will repeat until some surviving family unit finally notices that more can be accomplished by teaming up with other family units--even if the only goal is to kill a larger rival tribe. Eventually other tribes unite until they have no reason to kill others. With their needs net, and considering that engaging in combat is costly to all parties involved, this pointless killing will become more and more rare.
Enough of these interactions lead to the smartest (those who know that combat should be avoided unless necessary) survive while others don’t. The genes that lend themselves to this personality trait get passed down while most of the others die out. These genes govern our empathy, instinct, intuition and other matters of thought that are not analytical. This is how we know right from wrong without sitting down and thinking about each moral choice. However, if we did sit to think about it, we can always come to a reason why the right choice is the right choice.
The apologist admits that this could explain how a "sense of morality" would emerge spontaneously within a civilization, but it doesn't explain the existence of moral values themselves. He asks, "Do moral values exist whether we believe in them or not?"I agree with the traditional view of social scientists that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative. Our current moral values would not exist if we didn't believe in them, but if that was the case we would believe in other moral values. Some moral values are unlikely to change, not because they are intrinsically right as set by God or some law of the universe, rather because any other value would negatively affect the group that holds the moral value--the group in question could be a certain culture, a country, humanity as a whole, a pod of dolphins, whatever. Valuing human life, or if you prefer the Biblical "thou shalt not kill," is an example of a moral value that is unlikely to ever change, making it seem objective.
I don't even know where to begin on this. There are so many issues with your thinking here. Let me try to condense them into a sort-of list.
ReplyDelete1) You're equivocating moral goodness with what is beneficial, when that's not really the truth. You say it's right not to kill in your "prehistoric" scenario because it means you have a better chance of survival if you're not engaging someone else. But in the initial scenario, killing someone did, in fact, produce the best benefit for the winner, so in one sense killing was the right thing to do and then later it was the wrong thing to do. If the same act can be both right and wrong, then there is no way to make a moral judgment on it and there really is no moral value system at that point, because we don't know which side of the scale it falls on.
2) You're defining of moral goodness is arbitrary. Why must something that is called "good" be good? There is no basis on your view for saying why something is good rather than bad. For instance, the genital mutilation of women in Africa is generally considered evil. But why? On what basis do we call it evil, on your worldview? Surely it benefits those doing the mutilating (i.e. more control, more power), so we have reason to believe the act is more right than wrong based on the prehistoric view. There is no moral ontology on such a worldview.
3) Cultural relativity creates more than blurred lines; it wipes the line away altogether. Back to genital mutilation, we have no possible way to judge the perpetrators on culturally-relative morality, because we're not a part of that culture and so it may be perfectly acceptable behavior. Also, I could say that my culture says it's OK to kill you and so you and your culture should have no problem with me committing murder. On your worldview, this is all perfectly acceptable. In fact, though murder may be wrong on your worldview, my murder of you would actually have to be deemed right by your culture, because you believe in cultural relativity. So murder is wrong, but murder is right. See the problem?
These are three very simple but fundamental flaws in such a worldview. There is no basis for morality, no standard for morality, and no reasonable judgment of moral actions on this worldview. It is extremely incoherent and unsatisfactory as a worldview.
Oh great, another debate. :-) I'll address some of this later in Morality Week, stay tuned.
DeleteTo answer your objection with this post in particular, I started the prehistoric scene as a worst case scenario, barbarians who immediately kill each other for resources (women, food, whatever.) It provided some benefit to the winner, but at great risk. Reasoning determines that the risk isn't worth the reward if there a better way. The better way is cooperation which means not killing indiscriminately. So eventually morality evolves (like that word, evolves?)
My view of morality is anything but arbitrary. I have a reason for every moral choice. You posed the mutilating of women in Africa. I know that is immoral because I can empathize with the women. Meaning I can put myself in their shoes (assuming they wear shoes) and know that I would not want to be mutilated. Allowing this to happen to someone else sets a standard that risks it happening to me. Reasoning, learning from the past, and projecting into the future add up to my morality and since all humans are capable of this reasoning, morality is largely shared--especially among those with similar backgrounds.
Where do you get your morality if not from similar, human reasons?
"Allowing this to happen to someone else sets a standard that risks it happening to me."
DeleteThat seems a poor justification for a moral stance relating of a woman 3000 miles away. Having the ability to rationalize, however, that such an occurrance would never happen to myself in this country does not exclude me from calling it evil or wanting to intervene. It seems that compassion would be the motivating emotion, not rationalization or empathy... and certainly not self-preservation. Compassion, itself as an emotion, does not seem to fit into your scenario as evolutionarily beneficial. It leads people to make great sacrifices and take great risks with little to gain. Haven't you ever shown such compassion against rational thought and best judgement?
No. I have shown compassion in addition to rational thought and best judgment. Give me an example of a time you've shown compassion when it runs contrary to reason and best judgment.
Delete"Compassion, itself as an emotion, does not seem to fit into your scenario as evolutionarily beneficial."
DeleteI disagree with this. If you have a group who are compassionate and will take risks for each other, then the group as a whole is stronger. As long as the social environment is set up so that everyone is compassionate towards each other it is to each person's benefit to be compassionate.
It provided some benefit to the winner, but at great risk.
DeleteAnd how do you decide which risk is greater? It seems to me like letting others live puts me at more risk because they might change their minds and annihilate me in my sleep. But if I were to kill them all first, my life as a whole will be more risk-free because I'm not in any danger of getting ambushed and will fight only when I am prepared. That seems not only reasonable, but also more logical and rational to me. So why is your opinion of risk better than mine?
My view of morality is anything but arbitrary. I have a reason for every moral choice. You posed the mutilating of women in Africa. I know that is immoral because I can empathize with the women. Meaning I can put myself in their shoes (assuming they wear shoes) and know that I would not want to be mutilated.
So empathy is the basis of your morality? Does that mean that hitting a home run is immoral because you can empathize with the grief of the pitcher that gave it up and is getting booed? Or that a woman killing a mugger in self-defense is immoral because you can empathize with the suffering of the mugger as he dies? Or that same-sex marriage is wrong because you can empathize with the awkwardness a Catholic priest would feel if asked to officiate such a ceremony? Empathy is an extremely poor standard of moral judgment.
Reasoning, learning from the past, and projecting into the future add up to my morality and since all humans are capable of this reasoning, morality is largely shared--especially among those with similar backgrounds.
And where do you think you got such reasoning? Nothing in the above statement is inconsistent with a theistic moral framework either. The only difference is that the theist has an ontological basis for his/her framework that is consistent. Empathy is often not even internally consistent, let alone consistent across families or cultures in how they feel toward the same act.
Give me an example of a time you've shown compassion when it runs contrary to reason and best judgment.
What about turning off life support to someone who is suffering? Reason and best judgment says let them have a shot at life, because on atheism living a full life is the only thing there is. But to let them suffer would be less compassionate than putting them out of their misery.
Self-sacrifice would be another example. Consider a man who leaps into a river to save a drowning girl. Reason and judgment say to save yourself, but compassion would cause you to jump.
It's quite possible for the two to be at odds, and in both cases reason and judgment would seem to render an immoral result even though it is evolutionary beneficial. Which, again, is why empathy fails as a reasonable standard.
If early man had the option to kill every potential threat in the world, he may have taken that option, but that was never available. A tribe would always come across another group they didn't previously know. I was being realistic in my scenario.
DeleteMorality is two fold. Reasoning usually leads to good behavior and instinct usually leads to good behavior. Your arguments only work taking into account one and not the other.
Empathy is not the basis of my morality, it merely contributes to it. I'll assume hyperbole on your part comparing awkwardness, self defense, and baseball to senseless mutilation and murder. Surely you know there's a difference.
So now you are saying morality AND reasoning comes from God. Okay, prove it.
The life-support example is covered in the next post. Self-sacrifice is a good one. A split second decision to save someone at the cost of your own life probably isn't an analytical decision--meaning there is no time for reasoning. It also goes against natural selection unless the person you save is a family member. However, I believe the human instinct when faced with the chance to jump into certain death is to freeze...unless you are other wised trained like the secret service. If split second reaction scenarios where someone knowingly gives their life for a stranger happen at all, it's very rare. I've only seen it in movies.
"It also goes against natural selection unless the person you save is a family member."
Deletevery minor point to add here, in the situation we evolved through, pretty much everyone that is part of our social group shares some of our genes. So if our genes simply code to save anyone in such a situation, it will be "correct" most of the time as chances are the person you are saving shares your genes. This isn't true in the modern world, but that doesn't really matter as we didn't evolve in this environment.
If early man had the option to kill every potential threat in the world, he may have taken that option, but that was never available. A tribe would always come across another group they didn't previously know. I was being realistic in my scenario.
DeleteOk, so we should consider this argument of yours useless then. Thanks for clarifying.
Empathy is not the basis of my morality, it merely contributes to it. I'll assume hyperbole on your part comparing awkwardness, self defense, and baseball to senseless mutilation and murder. Surely you know there's a difference.
So what is the basis of your morality, if not empathy? How do you determine if something is right or wrong?
Self-sacrifice is a good one. A split second decision to save someone at the cost of your own life probably isn't an analytical decision--meaning there is no time for reasoning.
Consider this example proffered by William Lane Craig:
"For example, a few years ago there was a terrible mid-winter air disaster in Washington, DC, as a plane crashed into a bridge spanning the Potomac River, spilling its passengers into the icy waters. And as the helicopters came to rescue these people, attention focused on one man who again and again passed by the rope ladder rather than be pulled to safety himself. Seven times he did this, and when they came again, he was gone. The whole nation turned its eyes to this man in respect and admiration for the noble act of self-sacrifice that he did. And yet on the atheistic view, that man wasn’t noble. He did the stupidest thing possible. He should have gone for the rope ladder first, pushed others away, if necessary, in order to survive! But to give up all the brief existence he will ever have for others he didn’t even know? Why?"
Clearly this man was acting rationally and reasonably, yet compassionately. And to top it all off, it wasn't done in a split second. I think this refutes your opinion on reason and compassion, which puts your moral framework on unstable ground. If it's not empathy, and it's not reason, what is the foundation for your morality? This is what I meant by moral ontology on the other post. Time to man up and take a stand, or stand down.
Good point, Hausdorff.
Deletesabepashubbo...
"Ok, so we should consider this argument of yours useless then. Thanks for clarifying." huh? why?
"So what is the basis of your morality, if not empathy? How do you determine if something is right or wrong?" For each "something" I have an explanation for why it is right or wrong. Although "right" and "wrong" can be subjective. Right for me means just, helpful, appropriate...stuff like that depending on the case. Wrong obviously means the opposite.
"Self-sacrifice is a good one. A split second decision to save someone at the cost of your own life probably isn't an analytical decision--meaning there is no time for reasoning."
I'm not sure why you have a rebuttal for this. I was saying that you had an interesting point. Out of curiosity, who was that man. Can you give me a little more information?
"Clearly this man was acting rationally and reasonably, yet compassionately." if he was indeed action rationally and reasonably, it actually makes my point more than yours. I'm not sure we are reading the same posts or comments...
"Time to man up and take a stand, or stand down." Seriously? Calm down, we're not in the military. I've made my stand. If you need more clarity, I'm writing about this all week.
"Ok, so we should consider this argument of yours useless then. Thanks for clarifying." huh? why?
DeleteBecause you're stating that a moral choice in one instance is better than another moral choice in another instance, but that the second instance is unavailable. Therefore you have no basis for saying that the first moral choice (not killing everyone) has any framework by which to be judged. This renders it moot as an application.
For each "something" I have an explanation for why it is right or wrong.
But no foundation for your explanation. I think I've made that abundantly clear.
Out of curiosity, who was that man. Can you give me a little more information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90
if he was indeed action rationally and reasonably, it actually makes my point more than yours.
Actually it doesn't, because it shows that a man can be acting reasonably, rationally and compassionately going against natural selection, and yet still be praised for it. This is completely counter-intuitive on atheism.
I've made my stand.
If by "made my stand" you mean offering up nothing for us to stake a claim on, then I suppose I would have to agree. Perhaps it would do you well to think about why you think the way you think instead of simply thinking and writing. That's what you're missing.
...but the argument that killing everyone should be considered was your argument not mine. Did you mean to say "we should consider this argument of mine useless then?"
Delete"But no foundation for your explanation. I think I've made that abundantly clear." You have not. My foundation for my moral choices IS my explanations for moral choice. You either have no explanation for your choices other than God, which explains nothing, or you claim God in addition to explanations--which is unneeded.
Did you mean to say "we should consider this argument of mine useless then?"
DeleteYou're twisting both of our words. When you said that not killing everyone was the most beneficial choice and I rejected that, you said my rejection didn't matter because my position was "unavailable." You can't make a moral judgment on one act over another if only one is possible. It's a horrible argument, and I wish you wouldn't twist it around to try to skirt around the fact that you've presented a baseless hypothesis.
My foundation for my moral choices IS my explanations for moral choice.
And on what basis does your explanation confirm that what you believe is right is actually right? That's what a foundation is. Seriously, look this stuff up.
You either have no explanation for your choices other than God, which explains nothing, or you claim God in addition to explanations--which is unneeded.
The goodness of God is a solid ontological foundation for morality. When you ask the question, "Why is right?", "because it is consistent with God's nature" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There is no infinite regress and God's nature that is revealed to us gives us an objective measuring stick by which to measure morality.
Your own opinion is NOT an acceptable ontological foundation for several reasons: 1) your opinion can change, meaning morality is based on your whims, 2) you are not perfect, therefore you have the capacity to violate your own moral code, 3) you have no basis for imparting your moral code on anyone else. These three points are devastating to your case for morality, because you have no basis on which to assign moral values or duties, and you have no basis for judging my morality.
I could kill you and if my morality says it's OK and your morality says it's not, then we have no way of determining who's right, and the moral system fails completely. Do you see why your position utterly fails? I don't know how I can make it any clearer to you.
If you believe what you just commented, then you either haven't read or understood what I've said so far. I am always willing to explain, but not willing to repeat myself. I'm sorry I haven't convinced you, but I believe people reading these posts and comments can come to their own conclusions.
DeleteJust ask yourself why God's Nature is the way you believe it to be. If you can answer that, then apply the answer to your own nature and leave God out of it. If you can't, then your foundation is magic. My foundation isn't opinion, it's reason.
Ok and if your foundation is reason, then if I deem it reasonable to kill you, it's a morally right act, correct?
DeleteIf you can deem it reasonable, I guess it's right for you. Good thing we live in a society that will do it's best to keep that from happening.
DeleteBut why would society do its best to keep that from happening? It's a morally right act on the basis of reason. Society should be encouraging it on your worldview. How do you reconcile society trying to stifle a morally right act?
DeleteHow is it "a morally right act on the basis of reason"?
DeleteIf Sabe's reason determines that it is morally right to kill Grundy, and Grundy's reason determines that it is not morally right, then there is a conflict. That is when society comes in and determines who they want to let win the conflict.
DeleteWe can decide on the whole that we don't think it is moral to let people kill each other. That doesn't mean that you can't justify it and decide it is moral for you
@Grundy: Because I say so, and I'm reasonable. Now it's your turn to answer my question. How do you reconcile society trying to stifle a morally right act?
Delete@Hausdorff: And what if my society says it's OK and Grundy's society says it's not? Who gets to decide then? Do you see how such logic provides no conclusions on morality?
Then I guess we either engage in diplomacy or we go to war.
DeleteI'm curious how you would answer your question. If your society says something is okay and Grundy's says it is not, what do you do? Further, what if both societies are using what they think is God's morality as a measuring stick and yet they still come to different conclusions? What then? Aren't we all pretty much in the same boat?
You're reasonable in your desire to kill me? To what, prove a point? Win an argument? I think we have wildly different definitions of the word reasonable. How could killing me right now possibly be a morally right act? Can you honestly find no problem with murder in a completely natural universe?
DeleteTo give my two cents on your question to the Haus...if I travel to your hypothetical society which thinks murder is fine, then I better be prepared to defend myself or die. If you come to my society (the USA) to kill me, then you will either no succeed or face a life sentence. I don't see any problem here.
@Hausdorff: But how do we know which choice (diplomacy or war) is the right choice? Do you see what I mean? You're just pushing the burden one step back each time.
DeleteI'm of the opinion that God's morality has been revealed to us through His Word, which is the Bible. It gives us the instruction manual on morality, so if both societies were using the same measuring stick (note that it's not the same perceived measuring stick, but actual measuring stick), then both societies would arrive at the same conclusion. It is only when we insert our perceptions in place of the written Word that we have a disconnect.
@Grundy: On what basis do you assert that killing you would be unreasonable?
On my question to Haus, how do we know that your society (the USA) is correct in its assertion that murder is wrong?
Mostly because I can't think of any reason why killing me would be worth the trouble. :-)
DeleteBecause it allows for the best results for it's citizenship. Because it provides safety and freedom.
Two questions to your second point:
Delete1) How do we know it's the best result for the citizenship? Maybe 20 years from now you lose some mental faculties and go on a shooting spree, killing dozens of innocents. Wouldn't my killing you now prevent that from happening, and ultimately be the best result for the citizenship? Seems to me in order to make this point you need unlimited knowledge.
2) If society defines right and wrong, then who are you to challenge it? If right and wrong are cultural inventions, then it would always be wrong for someone within that culture to speak out against them. For example, to speak out against slavery in Great Britain in the seventeenth century would have been morally wrong, for it was culturally acceptable. But surely it was a morally good thing for William Wilberforce and others to strive against the prevailing currents of their time and place to abolish the slave trade. For the cultural moral relativist, all moral reformers—Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Jr., even Jesus and Gandhi, to name a few—would be in the wrong. How do you reconcile this on your view?
1) It's the best result for the present and the past. (by past I mean that you can take into account the fact that I've never killed anyone before.) No individual or society can make decisions with knowledge of the future. If precogs existed and were reliable, my future actions could be taken into consideration. But they're not so they aren't.
Delete2) I live in a society that is democratic, so it enforces the morals of the majority of its citizenship. I can challenge it in hopes it will change (as I do with gay rights currently) If the morals of America varied enough with my morals, I would move to a society that was more in line with my views.
Sabe, if you get your morals entirely from the Bible, how do you determine what is right and wrong in cases that aren't covered in the Bible? I'm pretty sure that racism isn't covered in the Bible. I don't think rape or child abuse is either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even slavery seems okay unless you are a slave lead by Moses.
@Sabepashubbo: you said if both societies used the same measuring stick they'd come to the same conclusion. That's just not a reality that I see, for pretty much any issue, you can find someone on either side of the issue who supposedly uses the bible as the basis of their morality.
DeleteIf the reason that they are coming to different conclusions is that they use their own perceptions in place of the word of God, then they aren't really using the bible are they? So we are all on the same footing. I'm using my own perceptions, Christians are using their own perceptions and saying it is the bible.
As to your question of how do we know murder is wrong, I guess I don't know. We can think about why we think it is wrong, talk about it, and try to come to a conclusion. We can debate and use logic and consult out conscience and just do our best. Questions of morality are hard, it's not something that is easy that you can just write down some rules, there will always be border line cases that will be difficult and we have to just do our best.
@Grundy: 1) So how can you really say it's the best result if you don't know the future? That's really just your subjective opinion, isn't it?
Delete2) But if morality is a cultural invention, then you have no basis for bucking the trend, because to do so would be immoral.
The Bible gives us to basic commandments by which to judge all things: love God with everything you have, and love your neighbor as yourself. If a moral act violates either of these commandments it is immoral. Would you like to be discriminated against? No; so you shouldn't discriminate either. Would you like to be raped or have your children abused? No, so don't do those either. Would you like to be made a "slave?" No, so don't enslave others. Would you like to make money or acquire assets by working, as many "slaves" in the Bible did? Yes, so it is completely within the realm of morality to submit yourself as a "slave" in this sense.
There is nothing that doesn't make sense if you follow these commandments. Why? Because these come from the very essence of God. So we have a firm foundation that doesn't change (God) that we can provide an ontological basis for morality, and we have a value system by which we can render reasonable judgments.
So now that I've made my case, what are your ontological foundation for morality, and what is the value system that you use to make judgments? Without these, all we have is your opinion, and your opinion and 50 cents is worth half a dollar when it comes to morality.
@Hausdorff: Just because people on both sides use the Bible doesn't mean they're using the same morality. What you are referencing is most likely an interpretation of the Bible that is twisted to fit an already-conceived moral position (i.e. Fred Phelps and the "God hates fags" movement). But if we take the words of Jesus, the two commandments I listed above encompass all the rest, so if we use these as the basis, we shouldn't go wrong.
DeleteSo it's using the Bible properly and objectively that renders a reasonable foundation for objective morality. There's no issue here.
I, of course, believe you can write down rules to define whether certain things are wrong or not. So let's use murder. Can you give me an example where murder (and we're talking murder in the sense of pre-meditation and not in self-defense, as the word connotes) is justifiable? If not, then we would have to agree that murder is objectively wrong. What do you think?
1. If 2 people are both using the bible as a basis for their morality and they come to contradictory things, how do you determine who is correct? I assume you use some sort of logic yes? Why not just use logic and dispense with the bible.
Delete2. It seems like you are basing everything on the golden rule, this is not unique to the bible and the bible wasn't the first, so if this is really all that you get out of the bible you are hardly talking about "biblical morality".
3. The golden rule itself is too simplistic. What happens when there is conflict of choices? What if there are 2 mutually exclusive things that 2 different people would want me to do? How do you decide which is more moral? You need more information and then you decide based on the situation.
4. Can I think of an example where I would consider murder moral? Sure, what if I could murder one person to save another? What if I could murder one person to save 5 others? If that person is going to hold a grenade at a group of people you would probably say it is moral to kill him before he can do it. If I am harvesting his organs to save those people's lives you would probably say it is not. What if you could kill someone who was going to commit some atrocity? What if you were sitting next to one of the 9/11 hijackers and you realized what they were about to do? If you could do something about that you should right? What if your only option was to kill them?
"killing is wrong" is too simple for all situations. Even "murder is wrong" is too simple.
1. You use the written Word as I laid it out above. If they contradict, which of them isn't adhering to either love God with all your heart or love your neighbor as yourself? That person is in the wrong.
Delete2. I don't recall the golden rule including loving God, which is the greatest commandment. Sorry.
3. Why would there be a conflict of 2 choices? Can you give me an example?
4. Each of the instances you've mentioned falls under self-defense, which I specifically stated is not part of the murder discussed in the Bible. Murder is based on the intent of the heart. Read Matthew 5:21-22 to see what I mean. It gives us a clear picture of the standard for murder.
So can you tell me an instance where someone is angry with another, murders them, and yet it is a moral act? That's what we're discussing.
Answers: 1) We can tell what is the best result in the present. I'm basing my explanation of morality in reality. Yours is based on fantasy until you can prove that God exists and can see the future. 2) I never said it was a cultural invention.
Delete"Would you like to be discriminated against? No; so you shouldn't discriminate either. Would you like to be raped or have your children abused? No, so don't do those either. Would you like to be made a "slave?" No, so don't enslave others." <--YES! We agree! That's the heart of morality! Why the hell would anyone need God to figure this out!?!
"Love thy neighbor as yourself" is basically the Golden Rule. "Love God with everything you have" doesn't play into my morality.
Grundy, there is still no foundation for your moral views. If morality is subjective, then even if our moral views line up, you have no basis by which to judge anyone else's. So morality is up to each person to decide for themselves, and it then becomes meaningless as a value system.
DeleteYou still need to provide a foundation by which you make moral judgments. Please just do a Google search on "moral ontology" and see what this actually means. It's answering the "why do we know" instead of the "how do we know".
Let me see if I can get you to understand in practice. Is rape morally wrong?
You say that the only foundation for morality is the word of God as told in the Bible. I don't believe the Bible, yet I am moral. How do you explain that in your worldview?
DeleteI'm saying morality is based on reason. What you said before: "Would you like to be discriminated against? No; so you shouldn't discriminate either. Would you like to be raped or have your children abused? No, so don't do those either. Would you like to be made a "slave?" No, so don't enslave others." is great reasoning for morality. Reason is the foundation, using your terminology, for morality.
Yes, rape is morally wrong. Would I want to be raped? No, so don't rape. Works perfectly according to my foundation.
To your first point, you're again confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. I'm not saying it's impossible for someone to be moral without a belief in God. I'm saying there's no real basis for doing so. Let's dig into that.
DeleteSo rape is morally wrong. Why?
I answered that literally one post ago.
DeleteSo rape is morally wrong because you don't want to be raped. Why is something you don't want wrong?
DeleteWrong: a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort
Delete2 : something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
~Merriam-Webster
I'm really wondering what your definition of wrong is, because it may be wrong.
How is loving God the greatest commandment? The most important rule to follow is to love God? That sounds like the rules of a tyrant to me. I also don't see what it has to do with morality. How does loving God have anything to do with whether or not you are moral? I think we have very different definitions of the word moral.
Delete@Hausdorff: Why does it sound the rule of a tyrant? Surely if God exists and created you the appropriate response is to give thanks to Him for giving you every single breath you breathe, right?
DeleteDon't you think if you're focusing energy on loving a perfectly good God there is a pretty good chance you won't be committing murder, or stealing, or lying to a friend? Seems like pretty basic stuff.
@Grundy: I'm not asking for a definition. I'm asking for WHY you think rape is wrong. And if you say it's because you don't want it to happen to you, then why is something you don't want done to you wrong? Not how; why.
DeleteA creator whose primary concern is that I worship him sounds like a tyrant to me. A good being would just be good and make me want to worship him, a tyrant would demand that I worship him.
DeleteSabe, I thought you could figure out my answer from the definition, sorry. Rape is wrong because it is injurious. It is wrong because it inflicts harm without due provocation or just cause.
DeleteAm I wrong here? Is that not enough somehow? If so, why?
@Hausdorff: I don't feel like God is demanding that I worship Him. Do you feel demanded to do that? If so, why are you not complying? My guess is that you don't feel that way, so to imply that is dishonest I think. Seeing what God has done for me makes me want to worship Him, which is right in line with what you think ought to be the expectation.
DeleteGod doesn't demand it, but He does expect it based on who He is. I don't think that's unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. Why do we expect our kids to love and respect us? Probably because we created them, love them, nurture them and provide for them, but we're also in charge of the household. So why do we expect God to be any different with us? Seems rather unfair of you to suggest that.
@Grundy: Ok. Why is something that is injurious wrong?
DeleteIt causes harm without consent...do we have to go through this again?
DeleteIt's wrong because it's what the word wrong means. You and everyone who claims right and wrong come from God have your own definitions of the words, but that isn't okay. You can't hijack words that already have meaning. Arbitrary redefinition, now that's a fallacy.
Why is causing harm without consent wrong?
DeleteAnd why is that definition of wrong the correct definition?
"I don't feel like God is demanding that I worship Him. Do you feel demanded to do that? If so, why are you not complying?"
DeleteNo, I don't think he is demanding that, I don't think he is real. I thought you were saying that. If loving God is the greatest commandment then it is the most important one, so God wants that more than anything else. This is what I thought you were saying. Apparently I misunderstood. So when you say that Loving God is the greatest commandment, what do you mean?
"God doesn't demand it, but He does expect it based on who He is."
So he doesn't demand it, but he does expect it. What is the punishment if you fail this expectation? Torture forever right? Sounds like a demand to me.
I'm going to cite the English language here and call it a day.
Delete@Hausdorff: I think your approach is a little bit off. It's not "failing" an expectation. It's a flat-out rejection. So if God says, "I love you, I created you, I want a relationship with you," and you respond with "Get lost, I want no part of that," then you are making a choice against God. And there are only two eternal realms you can be a part of--one with God and one without. So if you're telling God to get lost, you're choosing to be in the place that is apart from God, and He is simply granting your request.
DeleteSo He's not demanding it. If He was, He would have programmed us like robots where we had no choice but to do it. He expects it because of what He's done, but He gives us the choice (instead of demand) to do it or not. Which is why I would encourage you to think about the implications of God's existence. Not Pascal's Wager, but if God exists, what does that mean He is? And seriously think on that for yourself, not the canned responses of Richard Dawkins about the Old Testament Yahweh. Process it and see what that would mean before you choose to reject it once and for all.
@Grundy: So you have no good answer for why causing harm without consent is wrong? 'Bout what I figured. Thanks for proving my point.
Wow.
DeleteYou seem to be downplaying hell a bit here. It's the realm that doesn't have God in it. What about the torture part of it. Even if you don't go with Dante, even from the bible you have "burning and gnashing of teeth".
DeleteAlso, it's not like God has told me that he wants a relationship with me and I told him to fuck off. Other people told me that God wants to have a relationship with me. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to believe that God exists. If God exists, I'd love to talk to him, but as far as I can tell, when I prayed I was just talking to myself.
BTW, I don't much care for the implication that all I do is regurgitate arguments from others. I like Dawkins a lot, and I agree with quite a lot of what he says, but not all of it. And I do think for myself. In fact I grew up Christian and I started assuming God was real. But the more I looked into it the more I came to the conclusion that this was incorrect. Nobody convinced me of any of this stuff, in fact I never read any atheist literature until years after I became an atheist, I left the church an stopped believing in God 100% on my own.
I must admit, I found this a bit confusing. In your first part, you seem to be providing a plausible source of our morality other than God. People who don't kill each other and are able to live side by side are more successful in society and therefore morality can emerge through evolution. Is that what you were getting at?
ReplyDeleteIt was a little confusing because you made it sound like violence would naturally die out over time. But as sabe pointed out, there are times when killing others does have an advantage so both behaviors, killing and getting along, will survive.
It also sounded a little to me like you were equating morality with evolutionary advantage. I'm not sure if that is what you were intending, but that is the sense I got reading it.
My reply went up 12 minutes after you answered sabo? How long did I have this browser window open? :)
DeleteI will say that I'm coming at the issue of morality fresh. I've never read Sam Harris or any other atheist's take on morality. So if something I say appears inconsistent, it may be so.
DeleteAll I know is that I disagree with the apologetic view of morality and am trying to commit my position to words. I hope to have a complete Grundy manifesto by Friday. :-)
The tendency towards violence will continue, of course since it is still around, but it is less now then it used to be. I'm saying not killing is more advantageous in the long run then killing.
I'm equating moral behavior with evolutionary advantage as an explanation for our instinct to be moral, but not our reasoning to be moral. Hope that makes sense.
"I'm equating moral behavior with evolutionary advantage as an explanation for our instinct to be moral, but not our reasoning to be moral"
Deleteyes, that does make sense, and I figured that was probably what you meant but just wanted to clarify.
It actually reminds me a bit of something from Dawkins (probably the selfish gene but maybe the god delusion). It was something along the lines of: evolution explains how our morality got here but we don't have to be a slave to evolution.
Well, I have read The Selfish Gene. Dawkins gets into "survival of the altruistic" a little bit. Behavior favoring the group over the individual in a game theory like experiment is more beneficial to the organism over the generations.
DeleteInstinct is kind of like our default behavior, but analytical thought can always trump it with another behavior.
"I agree with the traditional view of social scientists that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative."
ReplyDeleteDo you mean by this that morality develops within cultures like how traditions and customs do, or do actually mean that what is right and wrong is culturally relative, like for example, genital mutilation is relative?
Both, but just because something is moral within a culture, doesn't mean it's still moral to an outsider.
Delete