I was having a bit if fun but how do you test the non physical? Doesn’t it relegate it to the theoretical? If it doesn’t bear out in the world what do you have to test?
It is relevant that we arrive at this point because, as I said in the opening post, the application of the Golden Rule all depends upon the concept of “self” that is being appealed to by the person endorsing the rule.
A big issue was raised regarding the problematic passages in the OT, in Bradski’s terms because the narratives imply a kind of “simple obedience” to God’s determinations.
Atheistic materialism is not without its own problems. Certainly one cannot be morally obedient to matter under its classic definition, so it would appear that materialism forms a perfect ground for Bradski’s notion of an autonomous human moral will that has ultimate accountability only to itself, since matter makes no moral claims on human beings.
But that would seem to be precisely the problem. If ultimate reality is only material, then it DOES make NO claims. The concept of “self” that is to be valued under the Golden Rule takes on the stature of an “epiphenomenon.” Since matter and its various configurations make no moral or value claims, no particular configuration of matter is any more inherently valuable than any other. And if “person” or self is only a causal byproduct of chemical processes, the inherent worth of a person is devalued by its “assumed” materialistic nature.
Certainly, some materialists will claim human persons are to be valued in themselves, but that becomes only THEIR claim and that claim is no more valid on materialistic grounds than another claim that says humans have no more enduring value than any other configuration of chemicals no matter how complex a human may be as a configuration. Mere complexity, on strictly materialistic grounds, is not a determiner of inherent value precisely because value is not determined by matter in any form. Yes, sentient existents are capable of bestowing value but that does not constitute value “in itself,” but rather “by the valuer” which means valuations are subject to fluctuation depending upon who is making the valuation.
If a dictatorial tyrant assumes power over a large portion of humanity, his say regarding the value of millions of people becomes the current “market value.” Sure some, even many will disagree, but that disagreement is moot precisely because their say is valueless under current “market conditions.” To claim the dictator is “wrong” about devaluing millions of people is a meaningless statement because there is no sustainable value compared to which HIS valuation can be said to be “wrong.”
A genocidal dictator then is not even susceptible to traditional standards of right and wrong precisely because as the powerful determiner of values - remember nothing has value except as it is valued - his valuation is the one that moves him to control the market that determines what has value. There is no “absolute” standard by which his valuation can be disputed since the ground of reality, if it is merely matter, makes no claims on him.
Genocide, for a tyrannical dictator is not any more “wrong” than euthanizing a pet since once an individual is killed there is “nothing” left to be concerned about or value.
A genocidal dictator might even appeal to the Golden Rule claiming that since death is nothing more than a configuration of molecules being changed and persons simply go out of existence upon death, their death, once accomplished, signals a mere cessation of value. If someone were to contend that family and friends will be left to “suffer” the death, he could simply terminate them as well. If no one is left to value the departed and anyone remaining simply agrees with the dictator then “value” has become, de facto, what they value. Who is left to say otherwise? His appeal to the Golden Rule would then be that since death is mere cessation of life, he wouldn’t mind someone else doing to him what he has done to others - just let them try, in fact.
It has always puzzled me why OT critics use a theistic value system - and not their own - to critique God’s commands. They have to invoke God’s own commandments in order to critique his actions precisely because under atheistic materialism they would have no case. If a genocidal dictator were to take over all humanity, once every opponent was silenced who would be left to declare his actions “morally wrong?” His standards would become the only standards and therefore the “
only” standards.
Atheistic materialism, in this regard is no better off than the supposed “bad god” situation under the Euthyphro dilemma. If things are good because God says they are, then things are good under atheistic materialism because the overwhelmingly powerful tyrant says they are.
The claim of classical theism is that what is ultimately real is Being itself and therefore what is good is what exists because Being itself has, as integral to Existence itself, the determination of value. Everything that exists has value because each is valued by Existence itself, AKA God.
Certainly, there is the problem of trying to reconcile God’s actions in the OT with classical theism, but those are not insurmountable. What is insurmountable is trying to critique the actions of Israel regarding the Canaanites using the moral principles of materialistic atheism, and since there are none which derive from strict materialism, that enterprise is always avoided.
