A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Mort_Alz]

When proposing the argument from morality to an atheist, the most common objection I have encountered is that morality, in fact, is not objective. It is not something that exists independent of human thought because humans have invented it. Morality has to be a human invention because there are different moral systems which exist in humanity that contradict one another. There cannot be an overarching moral law to which all men are bound because not all men agree on the moral law.

One can counter this by proposing that the moral differences which exist in humanity never amount to a total difference of thought on the matter. For example, you will never find a society that sincerely believes it is admirable to murder innocent people for sport, double-cross your closest friends, and run away in battle while your comrades bravely fight. But these things can always be contested and you will find yourself arguing with this objection until you are blue in the face if it is a sincere and competent atheist you are arguing with.

So, anymore, I usually just drop the wider metaphysical argument and skip to a physically smaller version of the argument. Namely, the thesis that it is internally inconsistent and irrational to ever be morally outraged by anything while also maintaining that right and wrong are not concrete realities.

It is irrational to be upset that gay people are mistreated by religious people on the basis that it is unjust. Saying “the mistreatment of gay people by the religious right is unjust” is a meaningless statement because justice isn’t real. Saying “racism is wrong” can never be true because right and wrong aren’t real. Moral statements aren’t rational at all if morality is just a human invention.

Thoughts?

 

[fhansen]

When proposing the argument from morality to an atheist, the most common objection I have encountered is that morality, in fact, is not objective. It is not something that exists independent of human thought because humans have invented it. Morality has to be a human invention because there are different moral systems which exist in humanity that contradict one another. There cannot be an overarching moral law to which all men are bound because not all men agree on the moral law.

One can counter this by proposing that the moral differences which exist in humanity never amount to a total difference of thought on the matter. For example, you will never find a society that sincerely believes it is admirable to murder innocent people for sport, double-cross your closest friends, and run away in battle while your comrades bravely fight. But these things can always be contested and you will find yourself arguing with this objection until you are blue in the face if it is a sincere and competent atheist you are arguing with.

So, anymore, I usually just drop the wider metaphysical argument and skip to a physically smaller version of the argument. Namely, the thesis that it is internally inconsistent and irrational to ever be morally outraged by anything while also maintaining that right and wrong are not concrete realities.

It is irrational to be upset that gay people are mistreated by religious people on the basis that it is unjust. Saying “the mistreatment of gay people by the religious right is unjust” is a meaningless statement because justice isn’t real. Saying “racism is wrong” can never be true because right and wrong aren’t real. Moral statements aren’t rational at all if morality is just a human invention.

Thoughts?

Yes, moral outrage or righteous indignation would be impossible unless for an innate sense of justice in us, which is repulsed by* in*justice.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, moral outrage or righteous indignation would be impossible unless for an innate sense of justice in us, which is repulsed by* in*justice.

And where does this sense of “justice” come from? It comes from our upbringing. Just look at people who are brought up in diametrically different communities. A good example is the white supremacist people. They see nothing wrong with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, communists, gypsies, etc. People develop their sense of “right” and “wrong” in their formative years, when they do not have any critical skills, when they “mindlessly” accept anything and everything that their “authority figures” tell them.

Just imagine a society composed of intelligent felines, self-sufficient, individualistic hunters. What kind of “moral” system would they develop?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes to both posts above (first 2)…

I would add that if the atheist really doesn’t believe in objective morality, then what’s he doing arguing that his position is right?

That’s as otiose as arguing with someone that turnips are better mashed than fried.

Either morality is a preference, or a taste, like, “I don’t like mashed turnips. And I don’t like it when a man takes another man’s wife for himself”.

Or…

Morality is objective and we can argue and discuss whether it’s right or wrong to kill your daughter for being raped, because she dishonored her family.

Now, to be sure, there are some things in the moral universe which may not be objectively right or wrong (Lila Rose’s method of stealth, going in to Planned Parenthood clinics, pretending to be pregnant, and surreptitiously videotaping their practices, for example)…but that doesn’t mean that all things in the moral universe and morally relative.

 

[PRmerger]

And where does this sense of “justice” come from? It comes from our upbringing. Just look at people who are brought up in diametrically different communities. A good example is the white supremacist people. They see nothing wrong with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, communists, gypsies, etc. People develop their sense of “right” and “wrong” in their formative years, when they do not have any critical skills, when they “mindlessly” accept anything and everything that their “authority figures” tell them.

Just imagine a society composed of intelligent felines, self-sufficient, individualistic hunters. What kind of “moral” system would they develop?

And if that’s where they get their upbringing, does that make white supremacy correct?

Or, is it, as you seem to imply, morally wrong to embrace the white supremacist ideology, REGARDLESS of one’s upbringing?

 

[fhansen]

And where does this sense of “justice” come from? It comes from our upbringing. Just look at people who are brought up in diametrically different communities. A good example is the white supremacist people. They see nothing wrong with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, communists, gypsies, etc. People develop their sense of “right” and “wrong” in their formative years, when they do not have any critical skills, when they “mindlessly” accept anything and everything that their “authority figures” tell them.

Just imagine a society composed of intelligent felines, self-sufficient, individualistic hunters. What kind of “moral” system would they develop?

If there wasn’t an innate knowledge/sense of right and wrong then it would be absurd for the vast majority of people to otherwise randomly become outraged at, for example, instances of rape, torture, murder, genocide, pedophilia, etc, but, instead, those patterns of morality that oppose those acts are consistent throughout the world. Our consciences can be hardened or deadened or twisted but we know…

 

[fhansen]

And where does this sense of “justice” come from? It comes from our upbringing. Just look at people who are brought up in diametrically different communities. A good example is the white supremacist people. They see nothing wrong with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, communists, gypsies, etc. People develop their sense of “right” and “wrong” in their formative years, when they do not have any critical skills, when they “mindlessly” accept anything and everything that their “authority figures” tell them.

Just imagine a society composed of intelligent felines, self-sufficient, individualistic hunters. What kind of “moral” system would they develop?

Is your moral judgement about the supremacist’s views an absolute one, or just an irrelevant fleeting thought/opinion?

 

[Gorgias]

When proposing the argument from morality to an atheist, the most common objection I have encountered is that morality, in fact, is not objective. … There cannot be an overarching moral law to which all men are bound because not all men agree on the moral law.

So, anymore, I usually just drop the wider metaphysical argument and skip to a physically smaller version of the argument. Namely, the thesis that it is internally inconsistent and irrational to ever be morally outraged by anything while also maintaining that right and wrong are not concrete realities.

No, I don’t think this holds. Playing the devil’s advocate here, I think I would expect them to reply that there’s no single, objective morality that binds all humans – but that doesn’t imply that we cannot agree to a consensus on certain moral assertions (and thus, willingly bind ourselves to these norms).

(In a sense, it’s a “have your cake and eat it too” argument: it says “you can’t tell me what to believe”, but it still maintains that reasonable people can agree on a (small?) set of norms to be held by all. Of course, it’s really a slippery argument, since the likely objection is that “reasonable people” should agree on certain stances, and if you claim “I don’t have to believe in X since there’s no objective morality that requires X”, they will likely respond, “but if it’s reasonable to hold X as true, then one should hold X willingly.” (And then, of course, you descend into an argument over what’s ‘reasonable’ and what’s ‘not’.) )

Saying “the mistreatment of gay people by the religious right is unjust” is a meaningless statement because justice isn’t real. Saying “racism is wrong” can never be true because right and wrong aren’t real. Moral statements aren’t rational at all if morality is just a human invention.

Like I said, I think that they’d argue for ‘justice’, ‘right and wrong’, and ‘rational moral statements’ – as long as they’re agreed upon by those concerned.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Is your moral judgement about the supremacist’s views an absolute one, or just an irrelevant fleeting thought/opinion?

Incorrect dichotomy. Just because something is not absolute it is not irrelevant either. It is not a good idea to consider everything to be either black or white. Reality is much more complicated than that.

 

[fhansen]

Incorrect dichotomy. Just because something is not absolute it is not irrelevant either. It is not a good idea to consider everything to be either black or white. Reality is much more complicated than that.

Ok, good to know then that racism and bigotry are not absolutely wrong. My main question involves where you got your values. Are they simply from objective reasoning, are they the result of conditioning, etc?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok, good to know then that racism and bigotry are not absolutely wrong.

I only present my opinion. Ask a member of the KKK to see a differing opinion. Let’s take another issue, which might be less divisive. It is (probably) your opinion that sex between unmarried adults (fornication) is “wrong” (or “evil”). My opinion is different. Is there a litmus test, which can decide which opinion is correct?

My main question involves where you got your values. Are they simply from objective reasoning, are they the result of conditioning, etc?

You are still stuck in your false dichotomies. We all start with our “original” programming, in our very young, impressionable, formative years. That does not mean that we shall follow that original programming unquestioningly. Some people are willing to consider different points of view and maybe override the original programming. Just look at those millions of Catholics, who changed their minds and now consider abortion or same-sex marriage acceptable.

Let me repeat: “it is a good idea to think outside the box, to consider reality more complicated than a black-and-white papier-mâché cardboard cut-out”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When confronted with this question of differing moral values as proof that there is no objective morality, I like to counter with the notion that there can be no objective scientific truths just because there are opposing scientific theories. Nobody really believes that, and scientists always look for the elusive butterfly of truth even when they can’t catch it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

When confronted with this question of differing moral values as proof that there is no objective morality, I like to counter with the notion that there can be no objective scientific truths just because there are opposing scientific theories. Nobody really believes that, and scientists always look for the elusive butterfly of truth even when they can’t catch it.

Except in science no one thinks of “absolutes”. As long as the theory allows one to make good predictions, it is “good enough” to accept it - provisionally, of course. Moreover, in science one talks about reality “IS-s”, while in morality they talk about “OUGHT-s”. Incommensurable disciplines.

 

[PRmerger]

Except in science no one thinks of “absolutes”. As long as the theory allows one to make good predictions, it is “good enough” to accept it - provisionally, of course. Moreover, in science one talks about reality “IS-s”, while in morality they talk about “OUGHT-s”. Incommensurable disciplines.

Again a false dichotomy.

Morality also talks about what is. As in: it IS wrong to kill your daughter for being raped.

That’s a moral fact.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And where does this sense of “justice” come from? It comes from our upbringing. Just look at people who are brought up in diametrically different communities. A good example is the white supremacist people. They see nothing wrong with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Catholics, communists, gypsies, etc. People develop their sense of “right” and “wrong” in their formative years, when they do not have any critical skills, when they “mindlessly” accept anything and everything that their “authority figures” tell them.

Just imagine a society composed of intelligent felines, self-sufficient, individualistic hunters. What kind of “moral” system would they develop?

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter WHERE an individual’s morality comes from as long as morality is not real or objective. If morality is not a real thing, then the statement “It is wrong to murder Johnny because he’s gay.” actually isn’t a true statement. It can’t be because there’s no such thing as “wrong” in a moral sense.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Except in science no one thinks of “absolutes”. As long as the theory allows one to make good predictions, it is “good enough” to accept it - provisionally, of course. Moreover, in science one talks about reality “IS-s”, while in morality they talk about “OUGHT-s”. Incommensurable disciplines.

You’re actually highlighting my proposed problem beautifully. BECAUSE morality deals in “OUGHT-s” and “SHOULD-s,” it is reducible to ridicule if it is not a real thing. If morality is just something I made up, then it is effectively meaningless to tell ANYONE that they OUGHT to do anything! There is no such thing as “ought” or “should.” A person can’t “ought” to do anything because there are no true “ought to” statements.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I only present my opinion. Ask a member of the KKK to see a differing opinion.

That’s actually a great idea. Let’s ask a klansman about moral issues over race. If it is not objectively true that denying black people rights which I have as a white person is wrong, then there is nothing to be outraged about when he tells me he thinks a black man should not be legally allowed to marry a white woman. It is literally only my opinion that black people should have equal rights as white people. Pointless to have a debate with the guy. It’s not true that black people should be treated the same as white people.

 

[fhansen]

I only present my opinion. Ask a member of the KKK to see a differing opinion. Let’s take another issue, which might be less divisive. It is (probably) your opinion that sex between unmarried adults (fornication) is “wrong” (or “evil”). My opinion is different. Is there a litmus test, which can decide which opinion is correct?

Well, for one, that value often causes harm to neighbor as it tends towards promiscuity. STDs have been sharply on the rise again. Life is devalued as more unplanned/unwanted pregnancies result in small humans being unnaturally aborted from their mother’s wombs. The value spreads; people commit more adultery these days with broken homes resulting. We lose personal moral integrity (my experience). Even if we apparently escape these problems we contribute to their existence by sharing the values.

You are still stuck in your false dichotomies. We all start with our “original” programming, in our very young, impressionable, formative years. That does not mean that we shall follow that original programming unquestioningly. Some people are willing to consider different points of view and maybe override the original programming. Just look at those millions of Catholics, who changed their minds and now consider abortion or same-sex marriage acceptable.

Yes, I was one of them. Thinking outside the box-and the crowd-is how I came to a prolife stance. I’d prefer to believe otherwise; it would be much easier. And I didn’t even have an opinion on it by being raised Catholic-the topic didn’t come up in those days. Later, still young, I easily went pro-choice.

Let me repeat: “it is a good idea to think outside the box, to consider reality more complicated than a black-and-white papier-mâché cardboard cut-out”.

Ok, it’s all good-let’s not be morally outraged by racism and bigotry anymore. There’s no such thing as a higher moral road to take-because it’s all opinion anyway.

That even goes against what we experience, against intuition. Generally speaking we all have eyes and ears and noses and we all have mood swings and fall in love and get mad and work and have hobbies-we’re not so different in many ways; humans follow patterns regardless of time and place. It’s the same for morality, except that, in that case, we can easily control or override our values; we can “determine” truth for ourselves if we perceive it to be beneficial to do so, or if we’re afraid of going against the crowd, not fitting in, etc.

 

[fhansen]

Except in science no one thinks of “absolutes”. As long as the theory allows one to make good predictions, it is “good enough” to accept it - provisionally, of course. Moreover, in science one talks about reality “IS-s”, while in morality they talk about “OUGHT-s”. Incommensurable disciplines.

And yet the absolutes are what determine whether or not our theories turn out to be “good enough”. If they’re not at least close, they’ll end up having no practical value or use.

 

[PRmerger]

Again a false dichotomy.

Morality also talks about what is. As in: it IS wrong to kill your daughter for being raped.

That’s a moral fact.

Another moral fact: what the Nazis did to 6 million Jews (and others) was absolutely heinous. And wrong.