A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Gorgias]

Do that and you have answered the whole question.

Sorry – let me re-phrase: Not “can we distinguish”, as in, “are we able to enumerate all the cases?”. Rather, I mean “might we posit a distinction between the two?”

Tell me what you think the difference is between a matter that you consider to be an absolute truth and one that is just a matter of personal opinion based on available facts.

The distinction that I’m trying to draw is between an objective morality and a person’s subjective perception (and agreement or lack thereof) of that objective moral code. In other words, I’m not trying to suggest an approach that collects a number of anecdotal examples, and then classify each as “subject to absolute truth” or “subject to personal opinion.” Rather, I’m trying to suggest that, perhaps, we can agree that “reasonable people” disagree for a wide variety of reasons. (And, I’d assert, that these disagreements do not disprove the presence of an objective morality, but rather, just point to the fact that not all perceive it and not all agree with it on all points.)

Socrates would seem to agree with this general structure: after all, he believed that all seek what is good. Therefore, there must be a reason that some seek things that aren’t, in fact, objectively good. Augustine, too, worked through this line of thought, noting that all attempt to do what they consider good, but that some may be mistaken in their analysis.

So, it seems to me that we might appropriate this line of though to resolve our disagreement in this thread. We seem to be stuck on the issue of “hard questions” that people disagree on, and the best solution we’ve come up with is that “reasonable people” ‘should’ agree. That hasn’t helped us much, and the recourse to questions which are either perceived as ‘obvious’ or ‘difficult’ hasn’t led to an answer, either. So, if we can dispense of the notion that the presence of ‘difficult’ questions (or contradictory ‘obvious’ cultural questions) disproves the idea of an objective morality, maybe we’ll be able to surmount this particular roadblock.

But you do need to admit that there could be a method whereby we could access absolute truths AND know that we are correct when we think we have found them.

There could be. However, if one of the potential outcomes of the notion of a subjective perception of morality is that reasonable people can disagree, then this seems to say that people can disagree on the validity and/or viability of any given method. I think this means that, even if someone says “I have a method!”, it’s fair game for someone else to say “I disagree” – and that doesn’t speak to the objective value of the method, but of a person’s ability to (subjectively) decide for himself whether or not he agrees with any given assertion about morality.

I am constantly being told, for example, that honour killings are an example of an absolute truth. If anyone claims that, they are explicitly saying that they have discovered how to access it.

No, that’s not how I read it. Those claims are usually made in this way: “no one could really suggest that honor killings are morally just.” Whether or not the person believes in an absolute moral code, this kind of plea is really one to your “reasonable person” threshold, it seems.

But the access seems to be nothing more than: ‘well, it’s obvious, isn’t it - how could you possibly disagree?’ Or the way that PR states it, if we can’t claim that something is acceptable under any circumstance, then it must be unacceptable under all conditions and we have arrived at where we need to go.

“Reasonable person” logic.

But I will guarantee one thing. Aspects of morality which someone would describe as being absolute, will always, and I mean will ALWAYS, align with that person’s viewpoint. Even if it doesn’t comply with the rule we just arrived at.

That’s why I’m offering the distinction I propose.

That is, if someone offers a reasonable argument against the position, it is ignored. ‘Sorry, bud. I have access to absolute truth and you don’t’. So how did we get there? Well, personal opinion. Nothing more than ‘I consider it to be an absolute truth so therefore it is’.

If you’re right, then the arguments we’ve seen here are “reasonable person” arguments, and not “absolute truth” arguments. I’m ok with that. However, that doesn’t imply that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For example. Or oral sex, contraception, homosexual encounters… any kind of love expressed in a non-procreative fashion. If two people love each other, but they do NOT want to procreate or cannot procreate, you call the physical act “evil”. The synonyms of “evil” are: malevolent, intentionally harmful, vicious, malicious etc…

Love does not require sex to express itself. You are conflating love and sex. Love is never evil. But acts that are unnatural are evil, such as sodomy, rape, bondage sex, prostitution, pedophilia, promiscuity, etc

Natural sex is a natural expression of natural love. Unnatural sex, such as sodomy, is an expression of unnatural love. By this is meant the use of sex organs in a way they were not designed to be used. Oral sex is such a way. Oral sex between members of the same sex is doubly unnatural.

You obviously won’t agree to any of this, so why do I bother to make the point? Because your insistence that sodomy is a natural expression of love cannot go without being pointed out as absurd.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But acts that are unnatural are evil, such as sodomy, rape, bondage sex, prostitution, pedophilia, promiscuity, etc

The fact that you do not separate rape and pedophilia from the rest makes your post beyond irrational. The sad thing is that your brethren do not distance themselves from such nonsense. :tsktsk:

 

[Gorgias]

The fact that you do not separate rape and pedophilia from the rest makes your post beyond irrational. The sad thing is that your brethren do not distance themselves from such nonsense. :tsktsk:

This is probably a tangent that deserves its own thread. If the list is one that merely separates “good” and “evil”, why must there be tsk-tsk’ing if the “evil” list contains all evil things without distinction?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The fact that you do not separate rape and pedophilia from the rest makes your post beyond irrational. The sad thing is that your brethren do not distance themselves from such nonsense. :tsktsk:

I see, so now your best hope for an argument is to divide and conquer?

How did I not see that coming? :doh2:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If the list is one that merely separates “good” and “evil”, why must there be tsk-tsk’ing if the “evil” list contains all evil things without distinction?

Are those activities ALL “evil”? That is my point. Your concept of “evil” is irrational. What is “evil” about games in the bedroom, like bondage games? What is “evil” about stimulating the pleasure centers even if one is not interested in procreation? That is one of the reasons that the Catholic message does not resonate with rational people. And that a growing number of Catholics disagree with the hard-liners.

 

[o_mlly]

…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. …

Thoughts?

With a rational atheist, an agreement on an argument from reason could be the basis for determining an objective morality:

• All human beings have the same specifically human needs.
• We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something.
• The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
• The good life, the pursuit of happiness, can only be lived if one’s needs are met.
• One’s pursuit of happiness can be seriously impaired if one is enslaved, if one’s health is maimed, if one is deprived of sufficient wealth, if one is kept in ignorance, if one is isolated from other human beings.
• Therefore, in order to live a good life a human needs are life, liberty, knowledge, friends, health and a modicum of wealth.
• Human needs translate into human rights.
• An obligation to respect those rights exists in oneself, in others or in the community.

 

[goout]

Are those activities ALL “evil”? That is my point. Your concept of “evil” is irrational. What is “evil” about games in the bedroom, like bondage games? What is “evil” about stimulating the pleasure centers even if one is not interested in procreation? That is one of the reasons that the Catholic message does not resonate with rational people. And that a growing number of Catholics disagree with the hard-liners.

Morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good.

If you don’t know what the good is, you have no basis for moral evaluation, you merely quibble about prohibitions.

 

[edwest2]

Before Supreme Courts, human beings established laws which prohibited certain things. So, where/who did those laws come from? I ask because some are primarily interested in overturning laws they don’t like.

Morality, for some, involves radical individualism, which leads to tribalism. Birds of a feather flock together. Catholics who are grounded in truth and morality have a measuring stick by which to judge. Others choose to go their own way.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

With a rational atheist, an agreement on an argument from reason could be the basis for determining an objective morality:

• All human beings have the same specifically human needs.
• We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something.
• The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
• The good life, the pursuit of happiness, can only be lived if one’s needs are met.
• One’s pursuit of happiness can be seriously impaired if one is enslaved, if one’s health is maimed, if one is deprived of sufficient wealth, if one is kept in ignorance, if one is isolated from other human beings.
• Therefore, in order to live a good life a human needs are life, liberty, knowledge, friends, health and a modicum of wealth.
• Human needs translate into human rights.
• An obligation to respect those rights exists in oneself, in others or in the community.

I can’t see much with which to disagree here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are those activities ALL “evil”? That is my point. Your concept of “evil” is irrational. What is “evil” about games in the bedroom, like bondage games? What is “evil” about stimulating the pleasure centers even if one is not interested in procreation? That is one of the reasons that the Catholic message does not resonate with rational people. And that a growing number of Catholics disagree with the hard-liners.

Looks like you are stuck on “divide and conquer.”

That only works if you are at war.

It has nothing to do with what you are at war about.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I can’t see much with which to disagree here.

I see some problems. Needs cannot turn into rights automatically. Needs are biological. Rights are artificial. Just because someone is in need of a kidney transplant, and someone else is a compatible donor-to-be, the person in need cannot insist to cut up the other and take the available kidney (we can live just fine with one kidney). Strangely enough, our ownership of our body is so strong, that no one can force us to donate even blood or plasma against our will - even if such a donation would save someone else’s life. And even more astonishing, our proprietorship extends beyond our life: unless we agree to become an organ donor, our body parts cannot be harvested against our will.

Now we could argue whether this arrangement is rational or not. Personally I would not mind to be harvested after I pass away (even if I did not carry an organ donor card). But that is not the point here. This just another “gray area” of this so-called “morality”.

And of course, nature (and God) does not care about our needs and our alleged “rights”. Manna will not fall from the sky, no matter how many people would be saved from starvation. A charging lion will not stop the attack no matter how loudly proclaim your “right” to life.

To put it into the form of a question: “Should our alleged obligation supersede our bodily integrity?” Or, “is it immoral to resist if someone (the government) wishes to harvest your body parts?”

 

[Aloysium]

With a rational atheist, an agreement on an argument from reason could be the basis for determining an objective morality:

• All human beings have the same specifically human needs.
• We cannot ever say that we ought or ought not to need something.
• The words “ought” and “ought not” apply only to wants, never to needs.
• The good life, the pursuit of happiness, can only be lived if one’s needs are met.
• One’s pursuit of happiness can be seriously impaired if one is enslaved, if one’s health is maimed, if one is deprived of sufficient wealth, if one is kept in ignorance, if one is isolated from other human beings.
• Therefore, in order to live a good life a human needs are life, liberty, knowledge, friends, health and a modicum of wealth.
• Human needs translate into human rights.
• An obligation to respect those rights exists in oneself, in others or in the community.

This doesn’t express the fullness of the Christian view of morality.

:twocents: - not specifically meant for the poster, but for anyone interested.

There appear to be three types of morality. The first, pretty much everyone is able to understand and has to do with how we treat one another. The second has to do with how we treat ourselves. The third is about our doing what we are meant to do. It includes the first two value systems because they are the major part of what we do. It addresses our relationship with God.

I step on your toe. It feels bad and you will probably get angry in addition to feeling hurt. I likewise will feel bad because I know the sensation and the emotional reactions you are likely experiencing. I may feel sorry and/or scared of retaliation. I apologize, explaining that it was an accident. We are aware that we do things intentionally and that some actions demand some sort of justice. It is important to let you know I did not mean to step on your toe and that I am aware of the pain my action caused. I am not totally negligent. I might, on the other hand get angry that you put your foot where it should not have been, that your negligence has set me up to feel bad about myself and possibly to fight you.

We understand human interactions to be complex and we establish rules about how we are to conduct ourselves with others. Civility is taught to and expected of the members of society. Criminal justice systems are established to govern us. They provide us with specific rules, the means to enforce them and consequences for our trespasses. The ultimate aim would be to maintain harmony within the established social hierarchy. Although we generally and for the most part agree on what is good in this first aspect of morality, there is still disagreement between and within different cultures.

With the second view of morality, that which deals with how we treat ourselves, we find greater disagreement. Some disagree that such a value system even exists. In these arguments we see a line being drawn between what affects us and what impacts on society. Even if we were to agree on what constitutes that interface of person and society, we place different values on the individual vs the common good. Those who believe that morality is a human invention will use the lack of agreement as some sort of proof that values are merely subjective constructs. Of course the argument is circular; the assumption is the conclusion.

It is clear that there are consequences to how we treat ourselves, but we can disagree as to what these are. We can understand shame as damage done to one’s sense of self in response to a negative reflection of our behaviour from external agency. Some people understand the moral or immoral value of an act as relating solely to the person’s participation in society. If they agree with the cultural norm, let’s say in the case of child pornography, such behaviour would be deemed immoral and prohibited. If they disagree, perhaps with regards to adult pornography, shame is understood as damage imposed by a societal structure on the individual. The person is doing their own thing, not harming anyone and therefore their behaviour would be considered as having no moral aspect.

I would say that all religions and vibrant cultures assert that one’s actions, even if they affect only the person, result in consequences for the individual and thereby have a moral value. That is one of the reasons why eastern religions such as Buddhism are popular for the mental health benefits that come with meditation and yoga. Most people know of the existence of virtues; it is better to work hard and be successful, to be courageous and disciplined.

Where Christianity reveals the highest moral truth is in the reality of Jesus Christ. The universe is brought into existence through an act of Divine love. In this fallen world, it may seem anything but that. However, Love the reality that lies at the heart of our being in the world. In loving God and each other, in prayer, and partaking of the Eucharist, we are with Jesus, through the Holy Spirit communing with the Father. Morality is ultimately doing what we are meant to do, created as we were originally in the image of God. It is only in Him that we find the possibility of becoming true goodness.

 

[PRmerger]

“MUST”? What kind of nonsense is that?

Well, “must” in the sense of “if you want to be a moral person”.

All we can tell others, that it is a good idea to follow the golden rule, because it is to their own best advantage. “MUST”? You cannot tell even to your brethren that they “MUST” follow the commands of the church. Well, you CAN, but many of them will not listen to you.

Yes. This is a great testament to Free Will.

Now, which one of these do you prefer saying: “I don’t like it when a father kills his daughter for being raped”

OR

“It is WRONG for a father to kill his daughter for being raped”.

The first is as otiose as saying, “I don’t like it when you mash turnips instead of frying them.”

So if you really want justice in the world, you have to (er…MUST) decide that some things are wrong for you. And they’re wrong for someone else.

Otherwise, the atheist world view is the most useless world view.

There should be no atheists marching in the streets.

So…

 

[edwest2]

“What is good for you might be bad for me.” I wonder how many freethinkers/rationalists are just rationalizers. The most extreme recent example of non-human thinking was “I no longer want to feel guilty, ashamed or sinful ever again.”

From the Hippies: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” Hard work, discipline, commitment and anything difficult are to be avoided except in extreme cases.

Too many TV heroes are either morally indifferent or the ends justifies the means. Strangely, that falls in line with the ongoing degradation of what used to be “entertainment” over the last 40 odd years.

Rules? What rules? Uh huh. That’s the goal.

Ed

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that you do not separate rape and pedophilia from the rest makes your post beyond irrational. The sad thing is that your brethren do not distance themselves from such nonsense. :tsktsk:

Annnnd here it is (again), folks: another example of knowledge of good and evil.

Despite your protests that you don’t know what’s good and evil, you certainly do make a lot of statements offering examples of what you think are good and evil.

 

[Bradski]

I see some problems. Needs cannot turn into rights automatically. Needs are biological. Rights are artificial.

Actually, items 2 and 3 need to be transposed. That is, in regard to needs it is valid to say ‘I ought to eat to stay alive’ but in regard to wants it is not valid to say ‘I ought to have a beer’. Otherwise there are reasonable arguments to for determining an objective morality. Which everyone seems to confuse with an absolute one.

Incidentally (and I swear I came across this after I posted my comments on mothers eating their young), there is an interesting discussion between Sam Harris (presumably needs no introduction) and Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale. Check out his comments from around the 12 minute mark for about 5 or 6 minutes (although the whole discussion is worth listening to – albeit 90 minutes long). youtube.com/watch?v=sIK2vlE6UIk

 

[Bradski]

Sorry – let me re-phrase: Not “can we distinguish”, as in, “are we able to enumerate all the cases?”. Rather, I mean “might we posit a distinction between the two?”

Well, I don’t think that one of them exists, so I have obviously have no solution. But I need to know how someone who does believe that there are two types of morality can distinguish between them. As I keep saying, the only guarantee that you can give is that someone who declares something to be an absolute truth will also agree with it. Never has there ever been a case where someone has said ‘ X appears to be an absolute truth but I disagree with it’. Which leads to the only conclusion that what they actually are saying is that if they cannot find any argument against it, it must therefore be absolute. Go figure…

Rather, I’m trying to suggest that, perhaps, we can agree that “reasonable people” disagree for a wide variety of reasons. (And, I’d assert, that these disagreements do not disprove the presence of an objective morality, but rather, just point to the fact that not all perceive it and not all agree with it on all points.)

I note that you have slipped between calling morality absolute to calling it objective. You’re not the only one either:

And if that’s the case that morality is not objective, then…

And gout (albeit with sarcasm mode switched on):

It’s all relative, depending on which system is popular, and whose system it is.

And Mort. Although to be fair he might have been suggesting that all moral problems are based on an objective truth which can then make them absolute:

…we must admit that our moral positions are rooted in some kind of objective truth.

But that’s a non sequitur. All moral problems are based on facts. At least, on facts about which we are aware. And, as Sam Harris has proposed, we can, using science and reasonable arguments, determine the best outcome from any given set of circumstances. But that is not the definition of absolute morality, which, by definition, brooks no argument. And as you pointed out, Socrates would probably have agreed with Sam:

Socrates would seem to agree with this general structure: after all, he believed that all seek what is good.

The bone of contention obviously being what each of them would determine to be ‘good’. Which makes all morality subjective. We have to personally determine what is good. And the fact that we can all agree on certain scenarios as being good or bad doesn’t change that in the slightest. One still has to ask the question: ‘Don’t you agree that X is good?’ of ‘Don’t you agree that X is bad?’. As you say:

Those claims are usually made in this way: “no one could really suggest that honor killings are morally just.” Whether or not the person believes in an absolute moral code, this kind of plea is really one to your “reasonable person” threshold, it seems.

It certainly seems like that to me. That there are objective reasons that one can give to show that honour killings are a bad thing doesn’t imply an absolute morality.

If you’re right, then the arguments we’ve seen here are “reasonable person” arguments, and not “absolute truth” arguments. I’m ok with that. However, that doesn’t imply that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

True. But if the arguments that people are putting forward are shown to be invalid, then we are heading in only one direction.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Before Supreme Courts, human beings established laws which prohibited certain things. So, where/who did those laws come from? I ask because some are primarily interested in overturning laws they don’t like.

A salient point.

These laws came from God, and that is why they were objective laws as opposed to laws made up by whim of the fellow with the biggest club.

This is why it is useless to discuss objective morality with atheists.

For them there is no God and therefore every man is entitled to shape his own morality.

A recipe for madness, of course, as the Marquis de Sade found out; and for dissolution of the moral fabric of society at large until the inmates decide to rule the asylum.

As it appears they are presently doing.

 

[PRmerger]

That there are objective reasons that one can give to show that honour killings are a bad thing doesn’t imply an absolute morality.

LOL!

Of course it does.

It means that despite what an individual believes, it is OBJECTIVELY wrong to kill your daughter for being raped.

You believe that.

And that means, you believe in… ABSOLUTE MORALITY.

Similarly, despite an individual’s personal belief that “5 is greater than 14”, he is OBJECTIVELY wrong.