A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

So this is how it works then:

Hostage Taker: Give into my demands or things are going to get messy!
Negotiator Bill: Don’t do it! It’s wrong! Think of the impact it will have on your family!
Hostage Taker: Do you believe in God an absolute truth?
Negotiator Bill: What are you talking about? No?
Hostage Taker: Then you have no basis for telling me that I’m wrong! You have no logical basis for evaluating my actions.
Negotiator Jerry: I believe in God, and absolute TRUTH exists. You’re actions are wrong.
Hostage Taker: Oh, well I guess you are right. I’m freeing the hostages. Thanks for that persuasive statement. I see the TRUTH now!

Logically, this, actually is how it works if there is no absolute truth:

Hostage Taker: Give into my demands or things are going to get messy!
Negotiator Bill: Don’t do it! It’s wrong! Think of the impact it will have on your family!
Hostage Taker: I don’t believe it’s wrong. And didn’t I once hear you proclaim that there’s no such thing as absolute right or wrong.
Negotiator Bill: Well, yes. That is quite true. All morality is subjective.
Hostage Taker: Then you have no basis for telling me that I’m wrong! You have no logical basis for evaluating my actions.
Negotiator Bill: Er…yes. That is true.
Hostage Taker: Oh, well I guess you can’t tell me to release the hostages. Thank goodness there isn’t an absolute right or wrong here!

 

[Bradski]

That sounds suspiciously like an absolute truth you are declaring. And what if someone declares that his moral code is NOT: do not harm.

That we use harm as a determinant is an absolute truth? No, of course not, because what constitutes harm is relative to each person. Some things are irrelevant (your infatuation with turnips for example), there are some things where I would find it difficult to believe that you wouldn’t get universal agreement (but what, in themselves, do not make something absolute) and some things that are open to the individual to decide.

In regard to the last, if you think they are wrong, then you’ll need reasonable arguments: Bradski, you mustn’t do that because…x, y and z. Any argument that uses God I will ignore.

Incidentally, I don’t believe that there is a rapist or a murderer on the planet who, unless he is a psychopath, doesn’t realize that he is doing wrong and causing harm. They do it because they think they will get away with it.

You avoid that by stating a negative case (avoid harm) and hope to garner agreement by not bringing up any need to explain or justify which “goods” are actually infringed upon. Naming gross harms makes it appear that you have a consistent and systematic set of ethical beliefs, but your refusal to be explicit by making a positive case makes me question that you do.

You were talking about a woman’s physical and psychological well-being earlier as being ‘the good’. But that is precisely what is being harmed if she is assaulted. I can’t use ‘the good’ in any other way other than to say that it is wrong for that ‘good’ to be harmed. I’ve no idea where you’re going with this…

If all morality is subjective, then without God/Absolute Truth, you have no logical reason for telling another person: it is wrong for you to kill your daughter because she wants a divorce.

You mean you couldn’t think of one? You couldn’t reason with a man who wanted to kill his daughter? You are saying that there is no logical reason why he shouldn’t do it? Let’s say that he has the gun in his hand and he’s up to the back teeth with religion and Muslims and Christians – to hell with the lot of you. If you mention your God once or Natural Law or anything at all to do with absolutes, the Moral Lawgiver, or The Divine Truth, then so help him he’s pulling the trigger and sending all present to an early grave. What do you do? Shrug your shoulders and say: ‘Well, I’ve got nothing I can use as a logical argument to persuade him that he’s wrong. It can’t be done. It’s a lost cause’.

You aren’t allowing subjective choices to determine the outcome, you are arbitrarily biased towards YOUR subjective preferences.

Mmm. Not exactly the most profound statement you have come up with, is it…

On what grounds do you decide? It cannot be merely on subjective grounds because those don’t provide an account for why you would choose to side with the daughter against the father other than that is YOUR preferred option, which isn’t in the least helpful BECAUSE someone else’s preference could be for the father against the daughter. Why is your preference the determinably correct one? You don’t say – you insist that it is for YOU, but so what? How does that justify your choice on non-arbitrary grounds?

Reasonable arguments. That’s what decides outcomes.

If I’m shown into a room where a man has a gun pointing at a girl and he says he’s going to kill her, then the very first thing I’ll want to know is: why. If he says it’s because she wants a divorce, then I’ll tell him he’s wrong to do it and I’ll use all the reasons why it’s wrong to try to persuade him not to kill her. If he says that in 15 seconds she will press a button that will destroy a city, then I’d say he’s making the right call (go for the head shot, buddy).

By the same token, who, then, says HE cannot impose HIS moral preferences on you when there is direct conflict?

Nothing. Crusades of one sort or another, planes into buildings, honour killings. There’s a lot of it about, Peter.

Subjects should behave in certain ways because they are subjects capable of moral agency. That is how the case SHOULD be made – not upon the claim that subjects are islands of autonomy that have absolute rights to determine for themselves the rightness or wrongness of acts. That claim inevitably brings about moral chaos.

Well, I wouldn’t say chaos. I’d certainly agree with messy. Definitely messy. But then, what is the alternative? All of us subjects to a moral agency? That would be…a theocracy? Which would be Catholic, I assume?

Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll stick with messy.

 

[PRmerger]

That we use harm as a determinant is an absolute truth? No, of course not, because what constitutes harm is relative to each person.

Is this statement true, all the time, or just some of the time?

Things are immoral if they cause harm to someone.

If you believe that all people should proclaim the above, independent of who they are (provided they are capable of using their reason), independent of their situation, in all places and at all times, then you are professing an…

absolute truth.

If you believe that there are exceptions to the above, then could you please list what these exceptions are? When is it true to state that things are MORAL if they cause harm to someone?

 

[Bradski]

Is this statement true, all the time, or just some of the time?

Things are immoral if they cause harm to someone.

Some of the time. It depends on the circumstances (one could say that it’s relative to the circumstances).

If you believe that there are exceptions to the above, then could you please list what these exceptions are?

See the guy with the gun and the girl in the earlier post.

 

[PRmerger]

See the guy with the gun and the girl in the earlier post.

Just to clarify: this is an example when the moral thing to do is cause harm? Yes?

 

[Bradski]

Just to clarify: this is an example when the moral thing to do is cause harm? Yes?

Yes. He has better arguments for killing her than I do for not killing her.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

By the same token, who, then, says HE cannot impose HIS moral preferences on you when there is direct conflict?

Nothing/nobody. There’s no objective value to any moral proposition.

Moral debate, then devolves into a mere power struggle precisely because you have removed the possibility that any morally binding determinations can exist for resolving disputes by the fact that you ground morality on purely autonomous subjective preference.

I wouldn’t put it quite like that- the winner of a power struggle has not won a debate, they have enforced their view. The civil war did not establish that slavery is wrong, it established that slavery would not be practiced. The issue of rightness/wrongness remains subjective.

You can still have moral debate when there’s agreement on principles but disagreements on implementation.

Note that this issue is resolved if subjectivity itself becomes a morally valid ground for ethical determinations based upon the existence of an absolute subjective ground for morality (God) in reality itself. This means that there would, then, exist a subjective standard for determining how subjects should comport themselves based upon the nature of what it means to be a subject rather than an object.

We don’t treat subjects as objects precisely because there is a qualitative difference between subjects and objects. That difference – the nature of subjective existence – becomes the ground for determining the rightness or wrongness of acts. Subjects should behave in certain ways because they are subjects capable of moral agency. That is how the case SHOULD be made – not upon the claim that subjects are islands of autonomy that have absolute rights to determine for themselves the rightness or wrongness of acts. That claim inevitably brings about moral chaos.

We already have moral chaos and have for quite some time, it’s just that the different sides are running about claiming that their particular perspective is objectively true. In my personal view what we see as morality has easily explainable roots in evolution and self interest- there’s really nothing special about it, and it holds no more objective weight than any of the other instincts we’re born with.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Ok, I’m thinking saying “objective morality” in my replies is like saying “Niagara Falls” in the old Vaudeville sketch. So, Imma gonna go with “enlightened”.

Now, enlightened has to do with bringing light, seeing things in a better light, getting closer to the truth.

Is it possible that enlightenment involves awareness that the ultimate truth is Love, that we were created by a loving God and that we were meant to love one another?

Clearly something has gone awry. What is just as true, is that we are wicked. To find our way back Home, we need to transcend that wickedness. Each religion has its way to overcoming our plight.

The Christian symbol of transcendence is the Cross. God has made the Way easy for us to regain our place in creation.

When I said “enlightened” I wasn’t appealing to a higher power or objective truth, but rather to enlightened self interest (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest), as opposed to narrow self interest.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Both, to use your words (verbatim): “apply specifically to what I do.”

There is no fundamental difference, at all, if we embrace your paradigm, between someone preferring to eat turnips and preferring to kill his daughter. Both, as you say “apply specifically to what” you do.

Including the decision to intervene or not when someone tries to kill someone else. Imagine I had a subjective preference that a tree not be cut down (I think it’s pretty). It’s not sufficient that I not cut down the tree- anyone cutting down the tree will make me unhappy. If it’s a slight preference, I might just say “please don’t cut down that tree.” If it’s a strong preference (say, if I cared about the tree as much as I do about the daughter’s life), I might be willing to do everything in power to prevent the tree from being cut down.

Look, Animal. We are agreed that liking turnips vs liking potatoes is a subjective thing.

And we are agreed that it would be absurd to tell someone that his liking turnips is wrong. It is what it is. Some people like turnips. Some hate turnips. Who’s to say, eh?

Now, let’s apply your paradigm. If morality is also subjective, like how one views turnips, it would be equally absurd to tell someone: killing your daughter is wrong. It is what it is. Some people think killing your daughter is wrong. Some people think killing your daughter is right. Who’s to say, eh?

Do you see the logical application of subjective morality here?

If I dislike eating turnips, it’s probably because I don’t like the taste. From that alone there’s no reason for me to care what anyone else does with their turnips. But not all preferences are like that. Imagine someone trying to kill me- I’d probably seek to defend myself. Why? Because I don’t want to die- it’s not just that I don’t want to kill myself, it’s that I actively want to stay alive, no matter who or what is doing the killing. So to with the daughter in your example- I don’t want her to die. As a result of that, I would not want to kill her. But going further than that, I don’t want anything to kill her.

There’s no objectively right answer, but that doesn’t mean people can’t feel strongly attached to their particular view.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nothing/nobody. There’s no objective value to any moral proposition.

And you would know or have determined this, how?

By subjective fiat, I suppose?

You do realize you have just made a self-defeating statement?

You have objectively claimed there is no objective value to any moral proposition – which is, itself, an objective claim that purports to place “no objective value” on any moral propositions, thereby assigning an objective value (none) on moral propositions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When I said “enlightened” I wasn’t appealing to a higher power or objective truth, but rather to enlightened self interest (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest), as opposed to narrow self interest.

Actually, you WERE tacitly appealing to a “higher power” by declaring your “self” (AKA enlightened self-interest) to be that "highest power,” the one with the authority to make that determination.

You were claiming your self (or enlightened self-interest) is ultimately the highest power that does determine the objective truth with regard to questions of morality. You have made yourself the ultimate arbiter regarding moral questions by making the determination – unilaterally, I might add – that moral propositions have no objective value based merely on you making the claim that they have no value.

Again…
…you would know or be in any position to have determined that with certainty, how?

The only “argument" you have given is that you as a subject have unilaterally taken it upon yourself to declare absolutely that moral propositions have no objective value – which begs the question entirely.

You claim to know it to be true merely because you have subjectively determined it to be so.

You haven’t, however, given any compelling reason or convincing argument why anyone would think moral propositions have no objective value except that you unilaterally declare that they have none.

That is about as tenuous as any claim can possibly be.

You think it is true BECAUSE you think it is true.

Congratulations for scraping the bottom of the epistemological barrel! :clapping:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And you would know or have determined this, how?

By subjective fiat, I suppose?

You do realize you have just made a self-defeating statement?

You have objectively claimed there is no objective value to any moral proposition – which is, itself, an objective claim that purports to place “no objective value” on any moral propositions, thereby assigning an objective value (none) on moral propositions.

Hardly. There’s a difference between a value of zero and “no value.” The difference between 1/0 and 0/1- I don’t think there’s an objective standard that assigns all moral statements a value of zero, I think that no such standard exists period. Moreover I’d identify this as an objective claim- either objective morality exists and I’m wrong or it doesn’t and I’m right.

I view that as a natural consequence of what I’ve been saying all along- if morality is solely subjective, then it follows that there’s no objective value to moral claims. Otherwise, that standard would be an objective moral standard.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hardly. There’s a difference between a value of zero and “no value.” The difference between 1/0 and 0/1- I don’t think there’s an objective standard that assigns all moral statements a value of zero, I think that no such standard exists period.

And you **thinking **it makes it so?

Moreover I’d identify this as an objective claim- either objective morality exists and I’m wrong or it doesn’t and I’m right.

Well, your claim amounts to…

It isn’t objective BECAUSE **I think **it is subjective. Hardly convincing at any level.

I view that as a natural consequence of what I’ve been saying all along- if morality is solely subjective, then it follows that there’s no objective value to moral claims. Otherwise, that standard would be an objective moral standard.

Well, actually, this isn’t logically true. It may be a false dichotomy. In fact, it profits from an ambiguity of terms.

If subjectivity is or can be a quality or feature of the objective (as in, real) world, (rather than merely the “objective” world of physical objects,) then subjectivity could be as objectively real, in fact more so, than the merely physical world of material objects.

What you are doing is begging the question, once again, by declaring that the “objective” world is the only one permitted (under the assumption that metaphysical naturalism is true) and, therefore, subjects don’t “really” exist as true or real objects.

Subjects may, in fact, be a subsistent class of entities distinct from all inorganic non-living things, vegetative things and sentient things with a distinct set of “laws” – different from the laws of physics or laws of genetics that determine the natures of matter and living organisms, respectively. Perhaps moral laws are those which hold for subjective entities in a manner quite different from causation (inorganic things) or genetics (living things,) but are laws of a different order and just as objective but pertain to subjective entities in quite a different way than laws of physics or genetics.

Basically, you have drawn a conclusion (subjective morality is not objective or real because subjects don’t “really" exist) from an assumption (metaphysical naturalism is true and, therefore, only material things are real.)

The irony is that it is YOU (**a subject with no “real” existence under your own world view **) that is doing all this declaring, proclaiming and dogmatizing about the ostensibly “real” world as if you have any clue at all about the reality of things.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Moreover I’d identify this as an objective claim- either objective morality exists and I’m wrong or it doesn’t and I’m right.

You speak of “objective morality” as if the idea is a coherent one that we can refer to and talk about, objectively. Ergo, it exists.

The most you can claim is that you don’t wish to follow any objectively derived moral tenets because, well, you don’t WANT to.

Merely because you are in denial about objective morality does not count against it being true. You certainly haven’t made any case for it not being true. In fact, you talk about it as if you assume it IS true, with your sole point against it being true is that you deny it is, based purely upon a subjective and not any objective determination on your part.

Hence your argument is that morality cannot be objective BECAUSE it is merely subjective, but it is by a merely subjective determination that you claim morality CANNOT be objective.

Ergo we have no reason to believe morality cannot be objective because the very reason you deny that it is, is a merely subjective claim that morality is merely subjective.

We have no reason, according to you, to trust “merely subjective” claims, therefore by your very same reasoning we have no reason to trust your merely subjective claim that morality is merely subjective.

You have undermined your own argument without even being aware of doing so.

Again, congratulations!

 

[jbp]

youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5QG3MUTtg

Richard Dawkins in this 9 minute interview says a world without religion would have as a high a moral ground and be better than a world with religion.

Agree or disagree? Your thoughts?

communist china, ussr, nazi germany, the warsaw nations, north korea, cambodia under the khmer rouge

richard dawkins would never survive in any those godless societies. …‘calling north korea, calling north korea’

 

[Bradski]

communist china, ussr, nazi germany, the warsaw nations, north korea, cambodia under the khmer rouge

richard dawkins would never survive in any those godless societies. …‘calling north korea, calling north korea’

Nice List!

But what would be more applicable are not countries like Germany which were very religious when the Nazis were in power (and whether their Chancellor at the time was or was not a Christian is completely irrelevant) or countries where people are told that they have no religion. That is, when it is forced upon them by totalitarian regimes.

You might be better to pick societies where people have chosen the road less travelled. Could you give us a list of those? We can see how they manage without religion.

 

[Bradski]

You speak of “objective morality” as if the idea is a coherent one that we can refer to and talk about, objectively. Ergo, it exists.

Darn, so that must mean God exists as well.

 

[tonyrey]

In which case, if what you say is true, you would be free to do whatever you pleased. There would be nothing to stop you. So here’s your chance to add meat to your argument:
If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you? Your supposition doesn’t make sense because nothing would make sense. There would no rational basis for agreement or disagreement because** there would be no common ground for understanding if everything is subjective and relative. **Every single belief, opinion, statement, argument, question, suggestion and proposition would be nonsense. Everyone would live in a world of their own and communication would be impossible without any objective meaning to the words or symbols they use. On the slippery slope to absurdity there is no logical stopping place unless truth and goodness exist independently of individual opinions.

Back to basics, Brad! Objective truth has to be smuggled in somehow and somewhere; otherwise we are the ones who “determine” what is true - as well as what is right. Unfortunately, our “determination” isn’t enough to guarantee success - either moral or practical. It isn’t an accident that “right” applies to both points of view. Only fools or criminals think it is better to do what is “wrong”.

 

[Bradski]

Back to basics, Brad! Objective truth has to be smuggled in somehow and somewhere; otherwise we are the ones who “determine” what is true - as well as what is right. Unfortunately, our “determination” isn’t enough to guarantee success - either moral or practical. It isn’t an accident that “right” applies to both points of view. Only fools or criminals think it is better to do what is “wrong”.

How about you answer the question?

 

[inocente]

In which case, if what you say is true, you would be free to do whatever you pleased. There would be nothing to stop you. So here’s your chance to add meat to your argument:

If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?

I’ve not looked at the thread for several days so apologies if this has been said before, but this sounds like a version of the Euthyphro dilemma - is an act morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?

*"as Plato emphasized in Euthyphro, one is also left with the difficulty of explaining why God’s commands are authoritative.

One plausible answer might be that God’s perfect knowledge of right and wrong, or God’s own moral perfection, explains why his commands serve legitimately as standards for us. But that answer assumes that standards of morality exist independently of God’s will (either as objects of his knowledge or as standards in light of which He counts as morally perfect), in which case speaking of morality as consisting of God’s commands will not explain the origin or nature of these independently existing standards.

Alternatively, one might eschew an appeal to God’s knowledge or goodness and claim that there is no independent standard for God’s will and nature. But that leaves in place the puzzle concerning the authority of moral principles. If we reject the idea that God’s commands reflect His knowledge of right and wrong, and reject as well the idea that God is all good, it seems reasonable to wonder why his commands have any special authority." - plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro*

I think Aquinas rejected the dilemma but don’t know his argument.