If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[PRmerger]

All I am claiming is that if such a world were to exist - and you agree that it would be logically possible - that slavery would still be wrong in that world.

sigh.

No, Eleve. I have never said that this was possible, (egads! one has to wonder if you actually are reading my responses!) but I entertained the notion of this absurdity just for the sake of this discussion.

For the record: I do not believe that it is logically possible for any world to examine the morality of slavery and conclude: slavery is moral.

You have agreed with this claim, because you’ve agreed with me when I said:…

You’ve also disagreed with the claim, because you’ve said:

Did you read the part where I addressed this with the “Men cannot get pregnant” but “Men could get pregnant” (in a universe where a man had a uterus)–2 statements which appear contradictory on their face…but only if you ignore the parenthetical remark.

*You keep leaving out the part about “in a universe where this existed” disclaimer. It wasn’t put there to look pretty.

All I’m trying to figure out is which one of these things you actually believe. I am not trying to make an argument. I am just trying to understand the definition of objectivity which you’ve given. But I can’t do that if you make claims about objectivity which are the exact opposite of each other.

My definition of objective: independent of the knower and of his consciousness.
My definition of truth: that which correlates to reality.

Therefore: an objective truth is a conclusion that correlates to how things actually are that can be extracted by all (thinking) individuals independent of any outside influences.

Or, if you don’t think that these quoted claims are contradictory, can you at least see why I think they are?

Yes–because you keep ignoring a portion of my argument. See the asterisk.

 

[EricFilmer]

Eric, I think you’re wrong to equate universal morality, in the sense of a moral standard which applies to all times and places, with an objective morality, in the sense of a moral standard which is independent of people’s opinions…

Eleve, I’m sorry for the big delay in responding to your posts. My basic point throughout this thread is that belief in a subjective-only system of morality does not realistically support claims which appeal to objective morality (such as “slavery is always immoral” or “the atrocities committed by Nazis in WWII are always immoral”). I see Kreeft’s video as something pointing out the old saying, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” Someone has to either reject belief in a subjective-only system of morality or reject believe that some actions are objectively immoral. This is simply a matter of ones various beliefs being consistent with the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Moreover, in this thread I have stated that a person can observe Kreeft’s video, conclude that a subjective-only system of morality is feasible, and agree to accept the consequences (such as refraining from saying that some things are always immoral). This person’s innate sense of right and wrong may tell him that this is not really the truth, but he could still conclude that this innate sense (which suggests the existence of an objective morality) is only an illusion resulting in some sort of natural (as opposed to supernatural) conditioning.

Personally, I think the argument for objective morality can be expanded upon (which is why I made some references to C.S. Lewis earlier in this thread) but on the basis of Kreeft’s video alone it is not illogical to believe in a subjective-only system of morality, provided that someone is content to refrain from appealing to objective morality. As I said earlier in this thread, this is why I do not think Kreeft’s video is flawless, but seeing as it was designed to be less that six minutes long (probably to serve as a “food for thought” reflection for those not inclined to examine a longer treatment of the subject) I understand why he limited his material in the way that he did.

If I understood your comments to me correctly, you were proposing another subjective-only theory of morality. You made a distinction between “universal” morality and “objective” morality. I would say that this is a theory concerning a subjective-only system of morality which creates an illusion of objectivity. But you didn’t actual disprove the existence of objective morality, so I’m not sure why you said that I was “wrong” to accept belief in objective morality over the concepts of universal morality that you proposed. If you said that I was “wrong” because you watched the video and came to a different conclusion than I did, one that you personally deem to be more feasible (according to your own world view) then that is one thing. However, if by “wrong” you mean that one or more of the conclusions I came to in this thread stemmed from fallacious reasoning then that is another, and we should examine that more closely.

Also, I do not think your idea concerning universal morality accurately reflects what most people mean when they say things like, “Slavery is never acceptable”. It is not simply a matter of current moral preference (such as music appreciation), but includes condemning the slavery practices of past societies, and imposing a moral standard on future societies. Utilitarianism, or any of the other subjective-only systems of morality that Kreeft mentioned, does not allow for such a stance.

Unfortunately, I don’t have as much time to commit to this thread as I did last month, but I think my statements here have sufficiently addressed the points you directed to me. If there was something else that you specifically wanted me to comment on (either from one of your past posts or something new that has come up) then please bring that up and I will be happy to respond to it.

 

[EricFilmer]

How so?

If a culture as a whole determines that something is good or bad, and those teachings are passed down through the generations, how on Earth does that warrant the existence of a higher power? What kind of bizarre assertion is that? Why is it impossible that we are, in fact, the ones setting the “minimum standard”?

The human-created, minimum standard you propose does not allow someone to make appeals to objective morality, such as stating that slavery and Nazi war crimes are never acceptable. So what compels people to make such appeals? Either an innate sense of objective morality is an illusion or there is a force at work transcending human thought and action. Personally, I think a rational argument can be made either way, but that a conclusion supporting a subjective-only system of morality does not really reflect what humans tend to feel is the basis for morality. After all, it seems strange for human reason to create a subjective-only system of morality and then fabricate an objective standard (one that does not truly exist) to judge behavior by. People do not tend to say, “Slavery was ok in the past, and it may be ok in the future, but it is not ok in today’s world.” Rather, people tend to say, “Slavery is never acceptable.” Moreover, people do not tend to say, “The Nazis in WWII did what they thought was permissible, so we should not condemn their actions based upon our understanding of morality.” Rather, people tend to say that the crimes of the Nazis “are never acceptable.”

 

[Eleve]

If I understood your comments to me correctly, you were proposing another subjective-only theory of morality.

Sort-of. I’m not proposing it per se because I don’t think it’s correct. But I am saying that, because there are such theories, there’s a difference in meaning between “objective” and “universal.”

And I think a Humean could say that slavery was wrong in the past and would be at all times in the future, in spite of the subjectivity of their theory.

 

[PRmerger]

And I think a Humean could say that slavery was wrong in the past and would be at all times in the future, in spite of the subjectivity of their theory.

But here’s the rub. It’s an untenable position to state that there is no such thing as objective morality while claiming slavery is wrong “in the past and would be at all times in the future.”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The human-created, minimum standard you propose does not allow someone to make appeals to objective morality, such as stating that slavery and Nazi war crimes are never acceptable. So what compels people to make such appeals? Either an innate sense of objective morality is an illusion or there is a force at work transcending human thought and action. Personally, I think a rational argument can be made either way, but that a conclusion supporting a subjective-only system of morality does not really reflect what humans tend to feel is the basis for morality. After all, it seems strange for human reason to create a subjective-only system of morality and then fabricate an objective standard (one that does not truly exist) to judge behavior by. People do not tend to say, “Slavery was ok in the past, and it may be ok in the future, but it is not ok in today’s world.” Rather, people tend to say, “Slavery is never acceptable.” Moreover, people do not tend to say, “The Nazis in WWII did what they thought was permissible, so we should not condemn their actions based upon our understanding of morality.” Rather, people tend to say that the crimes of the Nazis “are never acceptable.”

Oh, well, I don’t believe in objective morality. Sure, I’d say that the crimes committed by the Nazis were never acceptable, but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy. I don’t really see why you feel that’s odd.

You’re also wrong about people having a consistent standard, or people always judging those in the past by our own standard. Our concept of morality has changed numerous times throughout history. It seems to change over time. When historians consider whether a monarch was a tyrant, for example, they may judge the amount of deaths said person caused against those of another ruler at the time, not by our own standards. People are well aware that there is not any consistent standard of what is right or wrong, and yet they still pretend that there is somehow some kind of morality that is objective and undeniably true. That is their own opinion - nothing more.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, well, I don’t believe in objective morality. Sure, I’d say that the crimes committed by the Nazis were never acceptable, but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy. I don’t really see why you feel that’s odd.

Why it’s odd is because your position has as much leverage as saying, “I believe brides should wear white. But in China the brides wear red. Why should we tell the Chinese that their brides have to wear white?”

That’s an impotent morality you’re proposing.

 

[EricFilmer]

Sort-of. I’m not proposing it per se because I don’t think it’s correct. But I am saying that, because there are such theories, there’s a difference in meaning between “objective” and “universal.”

And I think a Humean could say that slavery was wrong in the past and would be at all times in the future, in spite of the subjectivity of their theory.

But what standard are they appealing to, if not an objective one?

 

[EricFilmer]

Oh, well, I don’t believe in objective morality. Sure, I’d say that the crimes committed by the Nazis were never acceptable, but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy. I don’t really see why you feel that’s odd.

I find it odd because you made a moral statement that does not allow for exceptions (i.e., “Nazi crimes were never acceptable”) and then you immediately allowed for exceptions (i.e., “…but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy”). So if morality is simply a matter of personal standards, why do you say that the crimes of the Nazis were never acceptable when clearly the Nazi’s thought they were?

You’re also wrong about people having a consistent standard, or people always judging those in the past by our own standard.

It is not a question of whether or not there is a consistent standard, but whether or not a person appeals to an objective standard when judging the morality of something. As soon as people say that a certain type of human behavior is “never” morally acceptable, they are consequently not allowing for any exceptions. If a person says that slavery is “never” acceptable then that includes past, present and future. Furthermore, such a statement declares that slavery is not acceptable in a person’s own country nor anywhere else on the planet.

Our concept of morality has changed numerous times throughout history. It seems to change over time. When historians consider whether a monarch was a tyrant, for example, they may judge the amount of deaths said person caused against those of another ruler at the time, not by our own standards. People are well aware that there is not any consistent standard of what is right or wrong, and yet they still pretend that there is somehow some kind of morality that is objective and undeniably true. That is their own opinion - nothing more.

So during the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi’s were declared guilty of war crimes based upon “personal opinion - nothing more”?

And in the U.S. prior to the Civil War there were plenty of people whose personal opinion was that slavery was immoral, and plenty of others whose personal opinion was that slavery was moral. So is the question of the morality of slavery simply an issue of who won the war and got to impose their personal opinion?

Also, although there is a difference in the understanding of morality from culture to culture and from generation to generation, there is not a large difference. Consider the exchange between me and Trurl in this thread, beginning with Post #3 and culminating in Post #38.

Finally, let’s take a more detailed look at your statement, “People are well aware that there is not any consistent standard of what is right or wrong, and yet they still pretend that there is somehow some kind of morality that is objective and undeniably true.” When you use terms such as “well aware” and “pretend”, you are describing the process of human reason. If morality is simply the product of human reason and is entirely subjective, why does human reason also compel so many people to fabricate an objective explanation of morality?

 

[wittgenstein]

Does the good originate from God? Without God is it impossible to determine what is right or wrong?
If God is the ONLY factor in deciding what is good, if God decided that torturing babies was righteous, torturing babies would be righteous. However, if torturing babies is intrinsically wrong, then God has nothing to do with it being wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Does the good originate from God? Without God is it impossible to determine what is right or wrong?

No one is saying that it’s impossible to determine (or discern) what is right or wrong without God.

Atheists are quite capable of being moral agents, even without acknowledging the existence of God.

The point is, though, that when atheists attempt to provide a rationale for why they believe that, say, killing babies is wrong, they will, in the end, come to the conclusion that an objective morality exists. If they are intellectually honest.

 

[Eleve]

But what standard are they appealing to, if not an objective one?

A subjective one, of course!

I find it odd because you made a moral statement that does not allow for exceptions (i.e., “Nazi crimes were never acceptable”) and then you immediately allowed for exceptions (i.e., “…but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy”). So if morality is simply a matter of personal standards, why do you say that the crimes of the Nazis were never acceptable when clearly the Nazi’s thought they were?

Doesn’t this just ignore what I said in my first post here? On matters of taste, it’s perfectly coherent to say universal things like “I think all Englishmen are ugly” even while recognizing that there is no fact-of-the-matter, no objective commitment for anyone else to think that Englishmen are ugly.

And a Humean (and Regular Atheist is taking a basically Humean tack) just thinks that morality is a special kind of taste.

I think the position is wrong, but I don’t think it’s trivially contradictory like you’re trying to make it out to be.

 

[EricFilmer]

A subjective one, of course!

Doesn’t this just ignore what I said in my first post here? On matters of taste, it’s perfectly coherent to say universal things like “I think all Englishmen are ugly” even while recognizing that there is no fact-of-the-matter, no objective commitment for anyone else to think that Englishmen are ugly.

Yes, it is perfectly coherent for someone to have a personal opinion, but that is not actually what is being examined here. When people say things like, “slavery is never acceptable”, they are going beyond personal opinion and making an objective commitment for others. It is a moral standard which judges the actions of others and allows for no exceptions. If I say that slavery and Nazi war crimes are never morally acceptable then it does not simply mean that it is unacceptable for me, but for all people of all time. Those who disagree with my position and commit slavery or the atrocities of the Nazis are deemed to be immoral (regardless of their own personal opinions) because they have violated a moral norm (rather than simply acted in a manner contrary to my moral opinion).

To use your example, there is a difference between saying, “I think all Englishmen are ugly” (a subjective assessment which obviously the wives of Englishmen disagree with) and “Englishmen are never attractive” (an objective declaration which attempts to impose a standard even upon the wives of Englishmen).

Also consider this: a person can say, “I think the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis is never morally acceptable” while a Nazi could respond with, “Well, I think that it is.” So how far does this get us in the question of morality, if there is no standard to use beyond personal opinion? During the Nuremberg Trails, was the question of whether or not the Nazis were guilty of war crimes simply a matter of the personal opinion of the one sitting on the judge’s bench?

And a Humean (and Regular Atheist is taking a basically Humean tack) just thinks that morality is a special kind of taste.

All taste is, by its very nature, subjective. Something that is subjective has to allow for exceptions. As I have stated before, declaring that something is “never” morally acceptable does not allow for exceptions.

If memory serves, you brought up math earlier in this thread. I think that we would all agree that math is objective and not just a special kind of taste. Making a statement like, “2 + 1 never equals 7” makes an appeal to an objective standard just as saying that “slavery is never morally acceptable.”

I think the position is wrong, but I don’t think it’s trivially contradictory like you’re trying to make it out to be.

Something that is subjective, by nature, has to allow for variation. Personal taste is a subjective experience. By its very definition, subjectivity is dependent upon the one engaged in the act of reflection. On the other hand, something that is objective represents a standard independent of personal reflection, and therefore not a matter of personal taste. Because a statement such as “slavery and Nazi war crimes are never morally acceptable” do not allow for variation or exception, it appeals to an objective rather than a subjective standard. It is a contradiction to believe in a subjective-only system of morality and then make appeals to an objective standard of morality.

Examining further the notion of morality being derived simply from a matter of taste, consider the following. Throughout human history there have been plenty of people who felt that slavery was morally acceptable (i.e., it was not “distasteful”). At the same time, there were plenty of people who felt that slavery was immoral (i.e., it was “distasteful”). After all, if we were able to go back in time and take a poll of both slave-owners and slaves, I think it is reasonable to expect such a discrepancy in the results. Therefore, if morality is simply a matter of taste, then the perception of the slave-owners is just as morally valid as that of the slaves. How then does this system of morality allow for someone to say, “slavery is never acceptable” when there are many people who find it to be so? Why do the tastes of anti-slavery people win out over the tastes of pro-slavery people when answering the question of the morality of slavery?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Why it’s odd is because your position has as much leverage as saying, “I believe brides should wear white. But in China the brides wear red. Why should we tell the Chinese that their brides have to wear white?”

That’s an impotent morality you’re proposing.

Possibly, but most people who have a secular morality follow the same thought process as me, so we can always discuss and debate rights and wrongs. I can still try to convince others that I am right. I don’t believe what I believe for no good reason.

I find it odd because you made a moral statement that does not allow for exceptions (i.e., “Nazi crimes were never acceptable”) and then you immediately allowed for exceptions (i.e., “…but only by my own standards. I’m sure the Nazis thought they were fine and dandy”). So if morality is simply a matter of personal standards, why do you say that the crimes of the Nazis were never acceptable when clearly the Nazi’s thought they were?

What I meant was that I would never find them acceptable - I never once even implied that they were never acceptable through some kind of universal truth.

It is not a question of whether or not there is a consistent standard, but whether or not a person appeals to an objective standard when judging the morality of something. As soon as people say that a certain type of human behavior is “never” morally acceptable, they are consequently not allowing for any exceptions. If a person says that slavery is “never” acceptable then that includes past, present and future. Furthermore, such a statement declares that slavery is not acceptable in a person’s own country nor anywhere else on the planet.

I suppose I’d be appealing to my own standard of what is right or wrong, but I am well aware that other people have different views on the world. However, I would never consider it to be morally correct, no exceptions. As I already said, I would not be arguing that by some kind of universal standard it would be immoral.

So during the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi’s were declared guilty of war crimes based upon “personal opinion - nothing more”?

Well, yeah. Likewise, Sir Arthur Harris was not guilty of war crimes as the Allies believed that the actions the RAF took were acceptable.

And in the U.S. prior to the Civil War there were plenty of people whose personal opinion was that slavery was immoral, and plenty of others whose personal opinion was that slavery was moral. So is the question of the morality of slavery simply an issue of who won the war and got to impose their personal opinion?

Not at all. That doesn’t make it moral or immoral. If murder became legal, I’d still say it was immoral.

Also, although there is a difference in the understanding of morality from culture to culture and from generation to generation, there is not a large difference. Consider the exchange between me and Trurl in this thread, beginning with Post #3 and culminating in Post #38.

I wouldn’t quite agree there. Fine, I’d agree that most cultures would agree that murder is wrong, for example, but only because there needs to be a certain standard that is set for societies to function properly. It’s not that murder is universally immoral, but that having murder be legal is extremely impractical. It’s also somewhat important for our survival for us to live together. Most people have the ability to feel empathy for other humans, for example. We may be drawn to behave in a way that we would consider ‘moral’ to a certain degree, but there is certainly no universal or objective standard.

Finally, let’s take a more detailed look at your statement, “People are well aware that there is not any consistent standard of what is right or wrong, and yet they still pretend that there is somehow some kind of morality that is objective and undeniably true.” When you use terms such as “well aware” and “pretend”, you are describing the process of human reason. If morality is simply the product of human reason and is entirely subjective, why does human reason also compel so many people to fabricate an objective explanation of morality?

I have no idea. So they have a better way to further their own morality? Because people would like to believe there is an objective standard? So the world looks less scary?

That’s a very loaded question you’ve got there. I don’t think anyone could properly answer it. Whatever the answer, I’d imagine different people would have different motives for wanting there to be an objective standard.

 

[PRmerger]

Possibly, but most people who have a secular morality follow the same thought process as me, so we can always discuss and debate rights and wrongs. I can still try to convince others that I am right. I don’t believe what I believe for no good reason.

Do you see what you are saying, RA? You are saying essentially the equivalent of, “I can still try to convince the Chinese that brides should wear white. We can discuss and debate how wrong it is for them to think wearing red is a good idea!”

Is that not absurd?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Do you see what you are saying, RA? You are saying essentially the equivalent of, “I can still try to convince the Chinese that brides should wear white. We can discuss and debate how wrong it is for them to think wearing red is a good idea!”

Is that not absurd?

No. No more absurd than to pretend that wearing white is unquestionably correct by some kind of universal standard.

 

[PRmerger]

No. No more absurd than to pretend that wearing white is unquestionably correct by some kind of universal standard.

EXACTLY!!!

So if it’s simply a preference, as you are saying, it’s ABSURD for anyone who espouses your paradigm to be able to argue that the Nazis were wrong.

As I said, it is an impotent type of rationale. Anyone espousing your paradigm will never be able to argue against the Nazi atrocities, for the other will simply say, “You believe brides should wear white. I believe brides should wear red. We need to just tolerate each other’s opinions.”

 

[zro_x]

Sorry for taking so long to reply; I’ve been on vacation for the past week. From here on out, my replies should be more prompt.

Well, now you’re changing your definition. In the above def a utilitarian would absolutely advocate for slavery, if 90% benefited from enslaving 10%.

No, by my definition, a utilitarian would absolutely advocate for slavery if slavery increased the general welfare. Two different factors have to be considered in “general welfare.” One is how many people are affected. The other is how much those people are affected. So if each 90% of the population each increase their happiness by 9% because of slavery, and each of the 10% of the population decreases in happiness by 91%, slavery would still be immoral by the definition of utilitarianism I provided.

 

[zro_x]

So you are proposing that it’s possible for a moral atheist to say, “There may be some point in our society in which racial slavery may be moral”?

I’m saying that utilitarianism and the evolved conscience are possible sources for morality, and that the implications of either or both of these being the source of morality is that, yes, there may be some point in our society in which racial slavery may be moral. Again, I would like to emphasize that this situation is difficult to imagine, would be extremely improbable, and, if it ever does happen, will likely occur tens of thousands of years from now, when humanity has had a chance to evolve a new conscience. The moral atheist, appealing strictly to the evolved conscience would probably come to the conclusion that slavery has never been moral over the last 6,000 years of human history. That is to say, slavery has never increased the general welfare and has neverbeen in accordance with our conscience. So the atheist would say that though such things may become moral in the future, they have never been moral to date.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry for taking so long to reply; I’ve been on vacation for the past week. From here on out, my replies should be more prompt.

No, by my definition, a utilitarian would absolutely advocate for slavery if slavery increased the general welfare. Two different factors have to be considered in “general welfare.” One is how many people are affected. The other is how much those people are affected. So if each 90% of the population each increase their happiness by 9% because of slavery, and each of the 10% of the population decreases in happiness by 91%, slavery would still be immoral by the definition of utilitarianism I provided.

But what if 90% of the people who benefit from slavery increase their happiness by 90% and the 10% who are enslaved decrease their happiness by 90%, then, by utilitarian standards slavery would be moral, yes?