A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[edwest2]

Written on a building in France - date unknown: “It is forbidden to forbid.”

“There are no moral absolutes!”

Do you really believe that?

“Absolutely!”

The Church speaks to everyone, not just the faithful. A hitman does jobs, gets paid and does whatever.

From the Practical Catholic. Pope Benedict:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

"How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

“Without common values and truths, such as in the socieites we find ourselves in, we find the fabric of society torn like Joseph’s cloak, by a great many tribes which would like to lay claim to the title of favored. Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.”

Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

Me: No one needs my permission to do anything.

Ed

Otherwise, just call 1-800EdOk and get my permission for $3.99 a minute. Note: I’m likely to say no.

 

[Bradski]

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.

Indeed it is inate. Inbuilt. Part of what has allowed us to become civilised. But that doesn’t make morality absolute. If regularly decimating the population was a requirement for the survival of the species, then we would consider it the moral thing to do.

It is not the case that there is some Platonic ideal moral code ‘out there’ from which we take our guidance. Our sense of what is correct behaviour is simply how we have evolved. If we thought that murder and rape were perfectly acceptable, then we wouldn’t be here now talking about this (the woman who kills or the man who rapes know they are doing wrong so the fact that these things happen is not an argument against the fact that we know it is wrong). As fhansen points out, these attitudes are found across all human cultures.

So it is not that we do not do these things because they are immoral, it is that we class them as immoral because we are hard wired not to do them.

At least, that covers the big ticket items like murder, rape, stealing etc. For all other matters, it is a matter, as Gorgias points out below, of determining ourselves what the best course of action should be. How else could it be done?

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).
by those concerned.

Quite correct, Gorgias.

Notwithstanding the requirement for reasonable arguments, otherwise it becomes nothing more than taking a vote. Give me a reasonable argument for not doing something and if I agree with it, I won’t do it. Tell me that it is wrong because someone has simply declared it to be immoral and I’ll ignore it.

 

[PRmerger]

Notwithstanding the requirement for reasonable arguments, otherwise it becomes nothing more than taking a vote. Give me a reasonable argument for not doing something and if I agree with it, I won’t do it. Tell me that it is wrong because someone has simply declared it to be immoral and I’ll ignore it.

But the atheist has no recourse for telling someone: it’s wrong to kill your daughter because she was raped.

All the tribal father has to say is: it’s innate in me to do this.

The atheist has to say, if he’s being consistent: well, you are right. I guess it is morally right for you to kill your daughter, then.

 

[Bradski]

But the atheist has no recourse for telling someone: it’s wrong to kill your daughter because she was raped.

All the tribal father has to say is: it’s innate in me to do this.

The atheist has to say, if he’s being consistent: well, you are right. I guess it is morally right for you to kill your daughter, then.

Matthews 7:12

 

[PRmerger]

Matthews 7:12

Yep.

So…an absolute morality.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

I think Bradski has unwittingly illustrated what I have been saying, ad nauseum, regarding atheists and morality.

They act as if objective morality exists, esp by coming here and arguing a particular position, while mouthing the words, “Objective morality doesn’t exist”.

To wit: no atheist I’ve been in discussion with ever says “It’s permissible for a man to kill his daughter for being raped”.

That’s a moral fact that they’ve embraced…

all the while rejecting the claim that moral facts exist.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

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.

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.

These problems are easy to resolve. Just add: “according to my / our opinion”, and the problems are gone. Let’s use a practical example: “Catholics say that fornication is immoral”. If they would add: “according to our opinion”, there would be no problem at all. Many non-Catholics disagree. Does the proposition: “fornication is immoral” have an objectively true or a false value? How do you resolve the issue? This is not a rhetorical question. Please propose a solution.

Now let’s examine this proposition: “Discrimination against someone based upon ethnicity is immoral”. White supremacists disagree, others don’t. How to resolve the question? Answer: we disregard the question, because it is irrelevant. Instead the ones who agree form a majority and issue a LAW against discrimination; in other words they redefine the problem from a “moral” one to a “legal” one.

When push comes to shove, the question: “is it moral…?” is irrelevant. However, the question: “is it legal…?” is important. Not that something being legal is the final word, but at least it has a precise, definitive answer to “is it…?”.

In all societies there is a hierarchy of codes or behavior. The most important ones are codified in the legal system. Violating them incurs punishment. The less important ones might carry a social stigma, ostracism or other results. The even less important ones only carry minor disapproval. But all of them are the result of the particular social environment in a particular time. Some MAY transcend the society or the timeframe, like murder, rape and a few others. But none of these transcend ALL societies and ALL times.

Just one example: "in the ancient Roman times the whole family of deposed rulers was executed (to protect the new rulers, obviously). However, to execute a VIRGIN girl was not allowed according to their peculiar “moral” code. So the executioners first raped the girls, and THEN executed them. From our perspective this practice is horrendous. From THEIR perspective, it was fine. Do we have to agree with THEIR code? Of course not. From our point of view it is unacceptable.

 

[edwest2]

I think Bradski has unwittingly illustrated what I have been saying, ad nauseum, regarding atheists and morality.

They act as if objective morality exists, esp by coming here and arguing a particular position, while mouthing the words, “Objective morality doesn’t exist”.

To wit: no atheist I’ve been in discussion with ever says “It’s permissible for a man to kill his daughter for being raped”.

That’s a moral fact that they’ve embraced…

all the while rejecting the claim that moral facts exist.

With all due respect for Bradski, but “Why did you do that?” “Uh, Bradski thought it was OK so I went with that.”

With no ill will toward Bradski, I’ve noticed one thing very clearly: people imitate other people, and many times, lose any grounds for the morality/immorality or good or bad regarding their choices. To my young, attractive niece who is wearing a skimpy outfit. “I think you’re sending the message with your clothes.” Angry reply: “But all my friends dress like this!”

So “all my friends” becomes the default ‘what I ought to do’ position. And for some, mom and dad are just old fuddy-duddies who are in my way. Actually heard by me to his parents - loud and and angry - “When I turn 18, I don’t gotta listen to you anymore!!”

While I was driving him to his Federal prison drop-off point, he asked if I could take a detour. We ended up at a strip club. A stripper he knew had his cell phone. He put in 5 years.

Ed

C’est la vie

 

[Bradski]

You might have noticed that alll the moral problems raised are the ones to which we’d all agree, being reasonable people.

But if morality is absolute, then there is a corect answer to all problems. Unless someone wants to suggest that only certain aspects of morality are absolute? In which case, how do we know which ones those are?

But when a minor problem is brought up and ones asks for a solution, then it goes in the too hatrd basket. Factory farming? Killing whales? Minimum wage?

Where are the absolute moral answers to those problems?

 

[PRmerger]

But if morality is absolute, then there is a corect answer to all problems.

How does it change things if the meme is: if some morality is absolute, then…

How do you fill in the blank?

 

[PRmerger]

You might have noticed that alll the moral problems raised are the ones to which we’d all agree, being reasonable people.

Well, yeah.

That’s to illustrate our point. Moral facts exist.

Moral facts, like geographical facts, like political facts, like historical facts, exist.

• It was wrong for Hitler to kill 6 million people.
• Washington DC is the capital of the US
• Donald Trump is president elect of the US.
• The colony of Sydney was originally named “New Albion” by Governor Phillip.

 

[edwest2]

Well, yeah.

That’s to illustrate our point. Moral facts exist.

Moral facts, like geographical facts, like political facts, like historical facts, exist.

• It was wrong for Hitler to kill 6 million people.
• Washington DC is the capital of the US
• Donald Trump is president elect of the US.
• The colony of Sydney was originally named “New Albion” by Governor Phillip.

Unless there’s a general purpose book titled “Moral Facts For All People,” this discussion will reach no conclusion. Killing people for sport? Ancient Rome.

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

Unless there’s a general purpose book titled “Moral Facts For All People,” this discussion will reach no conclusion.

Why should there be one? Is there a book called “Historical Facts for All People”? Or “Scientific Facts for All People”? Or “Political Facts for All People”?

Killing people for sport? Ancient Rome.

Ed

Is it a fact that this was wrong, Ed?

 

[edwest2]

Uh, everybody involved were consenting adults, with the occasional slave or captive thrown in to make it all more interesting.

Again, this seems like a “we’ll make it up as we go along” kind of thing. You know, like lynching black people in the US.

I know what I believe and for the record, my world is black and white. The complicated exceptions distract - that’s their purpose. On average, aside from those with certain conditions, we all live average lives, do average things and don’t “go postal.” Boredom is the greatest fear for a small group. By constantly mixing the pot and following some new, self-proclaimed smart guy, it livens up the party. “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.”

I will live as I was taught. If something is wrong, it is always wrong. Morality means something, not “maybe.”

Ed

 

[Mort_Alz]

You might have noticed that alll the moral problems raised are the ones to which we’d all agree, being reasonable people.

But if morality is absolute, then there is a corect answer to all problems. Unless someone wants to suggest that only certain aspects of morality are absolute? In which case, how do we know which ones those are?

But when a minor problem is brought up and ones asks for a solution, then it goes in the too hatrd basket. Factory farming? Killing whales? Minimum wage?

Where are the absolute moral answers to those problems?

You don’t think it’s possible for there to be absolute moral answers to the harder questions without us (currently) having the ability to discern them? An analogy happens in science all the time. It happens often on the brink of a discovery that we know there is an answer but just don’t have enough data to call it with certainty. This, in no way, invalidates or even harms the argument that there is objective morality.

 

[Bradski]

You don’t think it’s possible for there to be absolute moral answers to the harder questions without us (currently) having the ability to discern them? An analogy happens in science all the time. It happens often huon the brink of a discovery that we know there is an answer but just don’t have enough data to call it with certainty. This, in no way, invalidates or even harms the argument that there is objective morality.

Your analogy with science is a good one. Because in science there are no absolutes. None at all. What we state as facts, from a scientific point of view, are assumptions based on previous obsevations. Nothing is set in stone.

That there are facts about the world upon which we can all agree and that there are moral absolutes are two entirely different aspects of reality.

The statement ‘killing for pleasure is wrong’ is not an absolute statement no more than is ‘factory farming is wrong’.

If you consider both of them to be statements of absolute morality, then it is incumbent upon you to tell me why you should consider them both the same. Or tell me why we should treat them differently.

 

[ericc]

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?

I do not know of any culture that think it is morally right to torture babies. Yunno, like the take a pair of pliers and break its digits for sheer amusement by the loudness of its screams. Yeah, I’m sick but I like to make it so obvious that it is impossible to argue. If we can get 1 universal moral law out of the door, we can find the second one, and the third etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Your analogy with science is a good one. Because in science there are no absolutes. None at all. What we state as facts, from a scientific point of view, are assumptions based on previous obsevations. Nothing is set in stone.

Do you wish to say that “it’s not set in stone that a father who kills his daughter for being raped is an immoral act”?

The statement ‘killing for pleasure is wrong’ is not an absolute statement no more than is ‘factory farming is wrong’.

Ok. Can you give an example when it would be morally good to kill another human person for pleasure?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You might have noticed that alll the moral problems raised are the ones to which we’d all agree, being reasonable people.

Don’t forget to add: “with similar upbringing”. That is why we evaluate those behaviors the same way.

But if morality is absolute, then there is a corect answer to all problems. Unless someone wants to suggest that only certain aspects of morality are absolute? In which case, how do we know which ones those are?

But when a minor problem is brought up and ones asks for a solution, then it goes in the too hatrd basket. Factory farming? Killing whales? Minimum wage?

Where are the absolute moral answers to those problems?

You can ask these questions until you are blue in the face, and you will never get an answer. Only evasions. In certain ancient cultures violence was the norm. Ancient Greeks had no problem with killing deformed babies, after all their society was composed of warriors amid constant fighting with their neighbors. Small children are innately “vicious little brutes”, because they did not develop empathy YET. They torture animals, until they are taught that such behavior is wrong.

It might be interesting to create an isolated society and teach children that torturing animals is fine. If there would be some innate “moral code” against such behavior, they would reject this teaching. But children have no critical skills, they swallow whatever the adults teach them, and that forms their basic attitude toward the world. There is no “mysterious” moral code inscribed on our “heart”.

Actually, such isolated societies exist, even today. The clannish white supremacist groups teach their children that black, Jews, Catholics, Slavs, etc. are inferior people. And to support this teaching they like to do some quote-mining and select texts from the Bible.

And, of course there is no “innate moral code” against nudity, against contraceptive sex, against meat eating, against factory farming, and zillions of other behaviors - which some people find “morally wrong” and others find perfectly acceptable. But “other side” is unwilling to face these questions, and they constantly try to evade with “torturing baybees is wrong, is it not?”

 

[PRmerger]

You can ask these questions until you are blue in the face, and you will never get an answer.

Well, yeah. Because it’s the wrong question.

No one here should be asserting that if moral absolutes exist then there’s a correct answer for every moral question.

It’s a straw man.

But you all can’t answer the question: if moral absolutes don’t exist, then how can you tell someone that what he’s done is wrong?

That’s a question that we ask until we are blue in the face and we’ll never get an answer from you guys.