Does Mere Christianity ultimately fail?

[inocente]

Just so, the question about morality is this: Are our experiences better explained by objective morality, or no morality? (For I am quite sure that “subjective morality” is nonsense).

Hold your horses there, I have a bizarre hypothesis. For example, are the rules of war or the youngest age at which people can marry arrived at objectively or by consensus?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s not easy at all! Can you prove objective beauty, or objective reality, or objective materiality, in such a way? Not at all.

No, I didn’t mean easy as in easy to find an example, I meant easy as in that’s all yo would have to do…and it seems as if we’re having trouble doing it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Have you read the Abolition of Man? Mere Christianity is a starting point for which study to commence from (this is what it was for me) and for this, I feel that succeeds phenomenally.

-Prophecy

No, thanks. I’ll have to find a cop y of “Abolition of Man”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hold your horses there, I have a bizarre hypothesis. For example, are the rules of war or the youngest age at which people can marry arrived at objectively or by consensus?

By consensus. But how is that morality? That’s just law.

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

I think the poster missed the first 8 chapters in the book. But Mere Christianity is more of an overview of the topics he talks about. The book was originally a series of radio talks during WW2, so they aren’t exactly in depth. In regards to Lewis’ apologetics though, his other books are a bit more in depth and more exact than Mere Christianity. I find Lewis to be an excellent apologist and Mere Christianity has brought multitudes into the Church.

 

[Prophesy]

No, thanks. I’ll have to find a cop y of “Abolition of Man”.

It’s been a while since I have read it, so you may encounter the same problem. But it is mentioned in Mere Christianity so it will likely supplement it in some regard.

-Prophecy

 

[inocente]

By consensus. But how is that morality? That’s just law.

The laws of war are all about morality: fight only enemy combatants, do not kill or torture detainees, collect and care for the wounded, treat all civilians humanely, do not steal, do not use weapons that cause undue suffering, etc.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The mere fact that there is even “subjective morality” implies there is an item called morality, and that humans are concerned about it.

The mere fact that most of our decisions are based on “subjective morality” implies we recognise that morality exists. For example in a case of murder, the judge may give a sentence based on subjective evidence - the background of the murderer’s upbringing; the circumstances in which the murder took place; whether it was premeditated or not; whether the victim had in some sense baited the assailant; if it was self defence.

Whait is not in question is that killing another person is murder. That much is objective.

And generally speaking, all societies have prohibitions on murder. Even in evil societies, such as Nazi Germany, murder was punished if they thought it was justfied. In other words, even in an evil society, there was still the gut recognition that murder was objectively wrong. When Heydrich was assassinated ie. murdered, the village of Lidice was punished as retribution.

In that case the Nazis claimed murder was wrong.

And the next time you hear a subjecive moralist argue all morality is subjective, knock his teeth down his throat and wait for his subjective response.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The laws of war are all about morality: fight only enemy combatants, do not kill or torture detainees, collect and care for the wounded, treat all civilians humanely, do not steal, do not use weapons that cause undue suffering, etc.

Yes, of course they are *about *morality. But they are human laws.

 

[dskysmine]

I know Lewis was presenting an argument, not a proof. But I think the argument failed. He never addresses:

1. Something which cannot be explained in a subjectively moral universe.
2. He does not prove the existence of the source of this objective morality.

…And for this reason I’m less than impressed.

1. Guilt. (And Lewis mentions it, just like MindOverMatter2 talks about)
2. If Lewis (or anyone else) could provide “proof” of God’s existence then there would be no atheists…

I say “proof” because I am talking about scientific proof. With Philosophy we can achieve a conclusion without scientific proofs, which is why I believe in God. Science only deals with a particular set of attributes.

 

[inocente]

Yes, of course they are *about *morality. But they are human laws.

Are you saying that the rules of war are not a set of moral imperatives, or …

 

[inocente]

And the next time you hear a subjecive moralist argue all morality is subjective, knock his teeth down his throat and wait for his subjective response.

I don’t think anyone is saying subjective = anarchy or law of the jungle.

Murder can be deemed wrong purely out of self interest - we don’t like being murdered. For you and I there is also a commandment handed down from God, but not for an atheist or someone of another religion. Even if we take it as written on stone we have to agree exclusions, e.g. morality of a cop taking out a would-be assassin. We can reach all moral conclusions by consensus, whereas it’s really hard to prove any objectively, or at least none come to mind.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you saying that the rules of war are not a set of moral imperatives, or …

Well, what is a *moral *imperative? It is something that you *ought *to do, no matter what.

A rule of war is something that you ought to do, or else. (Or else you will get in trouble, or else you will endanger people’s lives, etc.) Thus, it is a law.

We must separate law and morality, if we want to understand morality. Of course, some Christians might claim that there is no such thing as morality (only God’s law), and that is an interesting claim.

 

[inocente]

We must separate law and morality, if we want to understand morality.

Oh right, got you. What I’m trying to do is see this from Christian, atheist, Buddhist and WhatNot points of view. There are no philosophies, including natural law, that give a bang-up case for unchanging imperatives, which is frustrating when God never changes. The only constants I can find are to start from an agreed consensus position and then act in love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh right, got you. What I’m trying to do is see this from Christian, atheist, Buddhist and WhatNot points of view. There are no philosophies, including natural law, that give a bang-up case for unchanging imperatives, which is frustrating when God never changes. The only constants I can find are to start from an agreed consensus position and then act in love.

Why should the fact that there are no conclusive arguments for something lead you to the conclusion that it is untrue? There are no conclusive arguments for there being material objects, or other human minds, and yet we believe in those things. The existence of true moral transcendental truths would explain our moral ideas and experiences better than any competing explanation. Isn’t that good enough?

 

[inocente]

Isn’t that good enough?

Yes in your other examples but morality tends to be political - stating imperatives as objectively derived leads to a fundamentalist my-god-is-bigger-than-your-god. If we try to avoid that by confining the truths to bland abstractions then the exercise loses meaning. I’d like there to be an objective morality but suspect that it only states “There is no objective morality”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes in your other examples but morality tends to be political - stating imperatives as objectively derived leads to a fundamentalist my-god-is-bigger-than-your-god. If we try to avoid that by confining the truths to bland abstractions then the exercise loses meaning. I’d like there to be an objective morality but suspect that it only states “There is no objective morality”.

Why can’t our (necessarily political) arguments all be aimed at the same thing: actual truth?

If you don’t believe in objective morality, then please explain to me how the following statement manages to be true:

Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews.

What if Hitler thought killing Jews was a good thing? Did that make it acceptable? Do you use your philosophy to justify Hitler?

 

[inocente]

Do you use your philosophy to justify Hitler?

No I’m talking about consensus, and this case there’s an overwhelming consensus. Morality isn’t static but evolves in cultures by experience and argument. In that context what is 1 Samuel 15:1-3 on about?

But pick a more contentious example such as abortion or the homosexual act. How do we derive an objective imperative? (If based in scripture then how is it objective to a Hindu, or if the Aquinas version of natural law then why that rather than another system?)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No I’m talking about consensus, and this case there’s an overwhelming consensus.

There was an overwhelming consensus in Germany at the time that Hitler was right. Thus, the morality that Hitler felt judged by vindicated his action!

Morality isn’t static but evolves in cultures by experience and argument. In that context what is 1 Samuel 15:1-3 on about?

I actually agree that morality might *sometimes *be measured against culture. However, I believe there are underlying principles (against deception, against greed) that apply cross-culturally.

As far as 1 Samuel goes, this is largely a question of how we interpret the Bible, and how we think about what moral rules God might be governed by.

But pick a more contentious example such as abortion or the homosexual act. How do we derive an objective imperative? (If based in scripture then how is it objective to a Hindu, or if the Aquinas version of natural law then why that rather than another system?)

Once again, you’re confusing an epistemic problem with an ontological problem. You would never do this with the physical world. The fact that it’s hard to tell if life exists on other planets doesn’t make you question *whether *there is an answer to the question! There obviously IS an answer, however hard to access.

As for abortion, we derive an objective imperative by being logical, and working from moral beliefs that we are more confident in. Most people believe, rightly, that killing a 1-month-old infant is morally wrong. But there is no morally relevant difference between a 1-month-old and a 3-month gestational age fetus. Thus, if killing the one is wrong, killing the other is wrong too. It’s simply logical.

 

[wanstronian]

The mere fact that there is even “subjective morality” implies there is an item called morality, and that humans are concerned about it.

The mere fact that most of our decisions are based on “subjective morality” implies we recognise that morality exists. For example in a case of murder, the judge may give a sentence based on subjective evidence - the background of the murderer’s upbringing; the circumstances in which the murder took place; whether it was premeditated or not; whether the victim had in some sense baited the assailant; if it was self defence.

Whait is not in question is that killing another person is murder. That much is objective.

Not at all. Firstly, killing another person is not always murder. Secondly, the word ‘murder’ is just a label to describe certain aspects of the killing. Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever that murder is objectively wrong (which is, I think, the point of your comment) - other than by the type of objectivity that comes from an overwhelming concensus, which itself is invariably a product of societal culture.

And generally speaking, all societies have prohibitions on murder. Even in evil societies, such as Nazi Germany, murder was punished if they thought it was justfied. In other words, even in an evil society, there was still the gut recognition that murder was objectively wrong. When Heydrich was assassinated ie. murdered, the village of Lidice was punished as retribution.

In that case the Nazis claimed murder was wrong.

There’s this common fallacy that because of the atrocities committed by, and/or on behalf of, the Nazi Government, that all of German society under Nazism was evil. Think about that for a moment, do you really believe it? That every aspect of Nazi society was evil? Society is a product of its people. Do you think everybody living under Nazi rule was evil?

Why wouldn’t a Nazi society condemn murder as wrong?

And the next time you hear a subjecive moralist argue all morality is subjective, knock his teeth down his throat and wait for his subjective response.

This comment is just plain stupid, and doesn’t exactly do your faith much favours either. Or are you just a bad Christian?