A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

Of course I know what I consider good and evil. I also know what that father considers good and evil who killed his daughter for having been raped (honor of the family comes first). I vehemently disagree with him, but there is no way in hell that I could convince him of the error of his ways, because his views are based on “faith” and not a rational line of thought. What I don’t know is what YOU consider good and evil.

If you consider it “evil” to make love when the possibility of conception is excluded, then all your other arguments are contaminated by this kind of irrational remark. We might agree in some cases, but this possible agreement is just lucky coincidence, since YOU are unable to separate good from evil. I already suggested to use the synonyms for “evil” in every “moral” proposition and see if your proposition still holds or not. Let’s try a few:

1. Killing your daughter for having been raped is EVIL, wicked, vicious, malevolent, vile, dishonorable, malignant, baleful, etc.
2. Contraceptive (maybe oral) sex is EVIL, wicked, vicious, malevolent, vile, dishonorable, malignant, baleful, etc.

Which one of these two extended propositions do you agree with? If you say that proposition #1 is correct, but proposition #2 is ridiculous, then we might have some common platform. If you say that both propositions are correct, then there is no reason to continue.

---

By the way, did you ever figure out the difference between “absolute vs. relative” and “objective vs. subjective”? Because last time I saw you, you were hopelessly confused about these categories, especially when you mumbled something about “relative absolutes”. I guess, the answer is still no. You don’t know the difference, according to your post directly above this. You still confuse absolute with objective.

---

You also said that not all morally significant propositions have an “absolute” answer. Which, of course means that morality is those instances are “relative”. But if there are morally relative statements in your system, then your morality is relative. One part of “truth” mixed with 99 parts of “lie” - is a lie. Just like 99 parts of “truth” mixed with 1 part of “lie” is a lie…

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I know what I consider good and evil.

And you certainly seem to suggest that others view the things you view as evil in the same way.

Interesting…

 

[PRmerger]

I also know what that father considers good and evil who killed his daughter for having been raped (honor of the family comes first). I vehemently disagree with him, but there is no way in hell that I could convince him of the error of his ways, because his views are based on “faith” and not a rational line of thought.

We’re not talking (right now) about whether you could convince him that he’s wrong.

What we are talking about is getting you to the point (and I think we’ve made progress) of understanding: regardless of what someone thinks, some things ARE wrong.

That is, you seem to have come to a reluctant acceptance that the morality of an action isn’t determined by whether a person believes he’s doing the right thing.

We now have led you to the understanding that it’s right, or wrong, regardless of his POV.

And that’s HUGE, Vera. HUGE.

 

[Bradski]

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.

You are still confused as to the meaning of the two terms.

Absolute means independent of the circumstances. That is, we do not consider the circumstances in order to declare something to be absolutely wrong. It is akin to saying ‘Stealing is wrong’ or ‘Lying is wrong’ or ‘Killing your daughter is wrong’. Those are absolute statements because they do not relate to any circumstances whatsoever, either implicitly or explicitly conveyed.

Relative means the opposite. That is, the conditions need to be addressed. The statement is relative to the conditions that apply. So the three absolute statements above become relative when the conditions are included and we have: ‘Stealing is wrong IF it is done to pay for your drug habit’ and ‘Lying is wrong IF you gain an unfair advantage over someone’ and ‘Killing your daughter is wrong IF it’s because she was raped’. Those are all, by definition, relative statements. They are NOT absolute statements. I really have lost count of the number of times I have explained this.

In comparison, an objective statement is one that can be made independent of anyone’s opinion. Such as ‘The car is red’ and ‘The chicken is frozen’. Subjective statements are those that imply personal preference, such as ‘Red cars are the best looking’ and ‘The chicken tastes great’.

Can I possibly make it any clearer…

 

[PRmerger]

You are still confused as to the meaning of the two terms.

Absolute means independent of the circumstances. That is, we do not consider the circumstances in order to declare something to be absolutely wrong. It is akin to saying ‘Stealing is wrong’ or ‘Lying is wrong’ or ‘Killing your daughter is wrong’. Those are absolute statements because they do not relate to any circumstances whatsoever, either implicitly or explicitly conveyed.

Relative means the opposite. That is, the conditions need to be addressed. The statement is relative to the conditions that apply. So the three absolute statements above become relative when the conditions are included and we have: ‘Stealing is wrong IF it is done to pay for your drug habit’ and ‘Lying is wrong IF you gain an unfair advantage over someone’ and ‘Killing your daughter is wrong IF it’s because she was raped’. Those are all, by definition, relative statements. They are NOT absolute statements. I really have lost count of the number of times I have explained this.

In comparison, an objective statement is one that can be made independent of anyone’s opinion. Such as ‘The car is red’ and ‘The chicken is frozen’. Subjective statements are those that imply personal preference, such as ‘Red cars are the best looking’ and ‘The chicken tastes great’.

Can I possibly make it any clearer…

Everything you say above is correct.

OBJECTIVELY we can see that a man who kills his daughter for being raped is wrong.

And that means, you have asserted an ABSOLUTE morality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Can I possibly make it any clearer…

No, you cannot. And she STILL does not get it. Probably never will. It is a waste of time to try and educate her.

 

[Bradski]

I give up…

 

[Mort_Alz]

They are excellent exceptions that prove the rule.

If by this you mean that they prove the rule that, ordinarily, humans experience an innate instinct that manifests in the form of a moral sense, then, yes, I agree. But that only dodges the point I was trying to make by bringing up psychopaths in the first place. That is, despite their thought processes running counter to nature, so to speak, they are, nevertheless, more rational for doing and thinking what they do in relation to morality. Their selfish moral reasoning cannot be proven to be wrong if morality comes to us exclusively from non-intelligent nature. I’d like you to try to demonstrate an argument why a psychopath’s moral reasoning is wrong.

And bear in mind that people who are not psycopaths still know that if they steal or rape then they are doing something wrong. They have just decided that either the punishment is worth the risk or that they won’t be caught. These ‘rules’ are not compulsory, obviously.

Yes, We don’t disagree here.

 

[Mort_Alz]

You might as well ask if it is rational to be concerned with jealousy or your desire for sugar or while you salivate when you smell food or why adolescents think of nothing but the opposite sex.

You are pretending like morality is not distinctly different in nature than all of the above mentioned phenomena. Even if you think morality is purely the result of a strictly material universe, you cannot class it with what you just mentioned. We argue among ourselves about what is morally best when we disagree. Unless one of us can be objectively closer to the truth, then the behavior isn’t rational. It is an exercise in futility. If we want to attach importance to our moral arguments (which we all do), then it is totally a relevant question to ask if the behavior is rational.

 

[Bradski]

If by this you mean that they prove the rule that, ordinarily, humans experience an innate instinct that manifests in the form of a moral sense, then, yes, I agree. But that only dodges the point I was trying to make by bringing up psychopaths in the first place. That is, despite their thought processes running counter to nature, so to speak, they are, nevertheless, more rational for doing and thinking what they do in relation to morality. Their selfish moral reasoning cannot be proven to be wrong if morality comes to us exclusively from non-intelligent nature. I’d like you to try to demonstrate an argument why a psychopath’s moral reasoning is wrong.

A psycopath doesn’t have the same moral sense as we do. There is no guilt. There is no sense of justice. There is no sense of sympathy. Theses are all natual feelings that we have that the psycopath doesn’t. These are all natural feelings that allow us to develop relationships. Relationships that form the basis for what we class as civilisation.

So a psychopath doesn’t have moral reasoning as we do. Out moral reasoning, via the natural instincts that we have are directed outwards to other people. They determine how we act in relation to others. Do we ignore someone who needs help? Do we share our resources? A psycopath doesn’t ignore these feelings - he doesn’t experience them.

If you class moral reasoning as the deliberation of moral responses to situations involving others, then it doesn’t exist in the mind set of a psycopath.

 

[Mort_Alz]

If you class moral reasoning as the deliberation of moral responses to situations involving others, then it doesn’t exist in the mind set of a psycopath.

And they’re not mistaken, or wrong for it, is my point. Not unless it is a first principle that we ought to consider the wants and needs of others. Otherwise, I think you would find it VERY hard to win a moral argument with a psychopath over his/her behavior. It would boil down to you trying to convince him of things that cannot be argued UNLESS they are true first principles. I.e, that we should consider others and not be wholly selfish, etc. But if they are not first principles and are only as valid as the feelings that inform us of them, then we are no more in the right than he/she is since it can always be questioned “Why should I care about the well-being of society?” You might counter “because you benefit from and need society.” To which he would reply “Very true, but society will not collapse from my actions as a single individual. I can sap society of its resources and give nothing back. I can actively harm society if it will benefit me and I will never experience the repercussions as an individual. And why should I care about future generations? I won’t be alive to enjoy their success.” Such argumentation is rock solid in its reasoning. In that sense, one can even say it is righteous. All arguments against it are irrational UNLESS it is a true first principle that we ought not to be totally selfish and that we should care about others.

 

[Mort_Alz]

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.

You’ve made a jump that has no logical reasoning for it: that the needs of others translate intro rights that should not be violated by me. That’s not true unless it’s true by itself. To illustrate my point, try to convince me that I should not take from society without ever giving back. That I should not murder if I can get away with it with no harm coming to me. If the repercussions of my harmful actions to society will never be felt by me before my death, then why should I care and operate accordingly?

 

[Bradski]

You are pretending like morality is not distinctly different in nature than all of the above mentioned phenomena. Even if you think morality is purely the result of a strictly material universe, you cannot class it with what you just mentioned. We argue among ourselves about what is morally best when we disagree. Unless one of us can be objectively closer to the truth, then the behavior isn’t rational. It is an exercise in futility. If we want to attach importance to our moral arguments (which we all do), then it is totally a relevant question to ask if the behavior is rational.

Our instincts are guides. We naturally disagree about who, for example, we should help. And if we should indeed help. And to what extent.

Should you help someone you don’t know on the other side of the planet? Or spend your time and resources closer to home? Our instincts are to concentrate on those closest to us but there are obviously reasonable arguments that we should prioritise our efforts to those in greater need. But the instincts are there to ensure we get a return on our investment.

So is it rational to sell everything and open a refuge in Delhi? Is it rational to have ten children? Is it rational to to eat a diet high in sugar? Is it rational to to act on feelings of jealousy?

Let’s not confuse our sense of morality with ethics, which is how we react to those senses. Which is naturally open to argument and disagreement.

 

[Bradski]

And they’re not mistaken, or wrong for it, is my point. Not unless it is a first principle that we ought to consider the wants and needs of others. Otherwise, I think you would find it VERY hard to win a moral argument with a psychopath over his/her behavior. It would boil down to you trying to convince him of things that cannot be argued UNLESS they are true first principles. I.e, that we should consider others and not be wholly selfish, etc. But if they are not first principles and are only as valid as the feelings that inform us of them, then we are no more in the right than he/she is since it can always be questioned “Why should I care about the well-being of society?” You might counter “because you benefit from and need society.” To which he would reply “Very true, but society will not collapse from my actions as a single individual. I can sap society of its resources and give nothing back. I can actively harm society if it will benefit me and I will never experience the repercussions as an individual. And why should I care about future generations? I won’t be alive to enjoy their success.” Such argumentation is rock solid in its reasoning. In that sense, one can even say it is righteous. All arguments against it are irrational UNLESS it is a true first principle that we ought not to be totally selfish and that we should care about others.

I agree with what you’ve just said. One doesn’t have an argument to use against a psycopath. Or rather we do, but they will be ignored. On the other hand, we would both feel the same sense of morality so we would be open to discussions on how we deal with it.

We can’t discuss ethics with a psycopath, but we can with each other. And argue about it because we will both have different opinions how we should act upon those natural instincts.

 

[o_mlly]

You’ve made a jump that has no logical reasoning for it: that the needs of others translate intro rights that should not be violated by me. That’s not true unless it’s true by itself.

To deny natural rights, a natural moral law, and natural justice leads to a corollary that only might makes right or he who has the gold makes the rules. Society either exiles, medicates, or imprisons such sociopaths. If the sociopath has political power or gold then: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

To illustrate my point, try to convince me that I should not take from society without ever giving back.

Fortune will always leave some in that predicament. However, if you had more wealth than you needed such that some had less than needed, society takes the excess to remedy the deprivation. Welcome to the tax code.

That I should not murder if I can get away with it with no harm coming to me. If the repercussions of my harmful actions to society will never be felt by me before my death, then why should I care and operate accordingly?

One cannot design a moral code for the psychopath. Do we reason with infants? No, nor does society argue with psychos rather society exiles, medicates or imprisons them.

 

[PRmerger]

I give up…

It would seem that you must…in order to cling to your worldview.

To pursue this line of thinking would, necessarily, lead to the conclusion: God exists.

You know that.

I know that.

But for some reason it is preferable for you to remain in your incoherent paradigm.

I feel as if we’re having a discussion like this:

Bradski: I won’t believe that cows are mammals!

PR: do you believe that all milk is produced by mammals?
Bradski: yes, of course!

PR: do cows produce milk?
Bradski: what a silly question! Of course we all know that cows produce milk! I just had some at the pub the other day!

PR: so then, you do believe that cows are mammals.
Bradski: No, I absolutely do not. All I’ve said is that cows produce milk. Milk is produced by mammals. But that DOES NOT mean that I’m saying that cows are mammals.

PR: Errr…yes, you are.

Bradski: I give up!

PR: Yes, yes you must give up if you, for some reason, do not wish to declare: I refuse to believe that cows are mammals.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It would seem that you must…in order to cling to your worldview.

Actually, no. The reason is that it is futile to argue with someone, who has an “impoverished understanding of basic concepts”, be they children, psychopaths, mentally incapacitated, fundamentalists or anyone who develops a special vocabulary, where words have some unknown meanings.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

To deny natural rights, a natural moral law, and natural justice leads to a corollary that only might makes right or he who has the gold makes the rules. Society either exiles, medicates, or imprisons such sociopaths.

There are no “natural” rights, moral law or justice. These are all artificial constructs. On the other hand, all societies are based upon the rule of power. The ones who are on the top - regardless how they got there! by bullet or by ballot - create the legal system, which is supported by power (namely police and military). Some legal systems are “mild”, more permissive, while others are brutal. But the principle is the same: “we, the rulers have more power, more guns so we dictate how you can behave”.

Maybe you think that such a view is cynical, or maybe you accept that it is the reality. If you doubt me, just look around in the world, and show me just system, which is NOT upheld by force.

If the sociopath has political power or gold then: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Well, there are two possibilities here. One is the road of 1984 (perpetual oppression), and the other is revolution of the people. But both of these lead to another power-based system.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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.

That there is a moral order, ultimately founded on love leads to the conclusion that God exists. Conversely, the existence of God makes moral behaviour, love an imperative.

If one does not grasp this fundamental point, seeing only rules and regulations established by people and the person being the ultimate source, it all boils down to power in the fulfillment of one’s wishes. Having shut God out, the foundation of human desire lies in our animal nature, ultimately grounded in the chaos of purposeless random events. Atheistic morality devalues what is the primacy of love, reducing it to a mere emotional reaction, ulimately having no more objective value than some itch.

A world that seeks fulfillment in the transient and illusory cannot but fall apart. And, if there were no God, it would not matter, since everything in time is consumed by oblivion anyway. But it does matter to those who care. And, caring rises up objectively above indifference and hate.

 

[edwest2]

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.

The media are trying to mold our behavior. Have hope. We have a guide to cut us away from the cancerous mess created by special interest groups convinced that turning the world into their image is the only option. It isn’t.

God bless,
Ed