Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[Bradski]

All good. Let’s start a thread on sex outside marriage on that basis. See where it takes us. Or maybe contraception.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incidentally, I don’t think that the question: ‘On what grounds do you base your morality if there is no God’ would mean anything to Harris at all. It’s certainly meaningless to me. If one says ‘Love your neighbour’, then iI’m pretty certain that we can all come up with sound reasons why that is a good thing.

And I am certain that we can all come up with equally “sound” reasons why “love your neighbour,” at times, would not be such a “good” thing, rationally speaking. This aside from the fact that the word “love” in the statement is open to all kinds of attenuation once it is unmoored from sound ethical grounds and merely depends upon personal “reasons” we might concoct for “loving” or "not loving” our neighbors.

Absent an objective and absolute ground for what “love” means regarding one’s neighbour, any claim that it is an obviously “good” thing would seem to evaporate with whatever challenges the demands of “loving” neighbours would present. Your insistence that it is a “good thing” hangs entirely upon a vague lack of commitment to your neighbour that you would also insist is integral to secular morality. In other words, “loving your neighbour” being a “good” thing means simply when it is decided – by whatever vague motive or inclination – that it is a “good” thing and an equally “good” thing when the decision is made not to bother showing any “love,” whatsoever. It is all quite arbitrary, in fact, when deciding on what makes any alternative “good” or not is such a vacuous and capricious exercise.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All good. Let’s start a thread on sex outside marriage on that basis. See where it takes us. Or maybe contraception.

Well, it may not take you anywhere, but that only implies that those serious about determining what is morally good or not will need to demonstrate a commitment to actually living up to what is determined to objectively be good, or there will be no point to the exercise to begin with.

This is, after all, what morality and being moral agents is all about.

Clearly, some have very little interest in being good moral agents if they decide the price is too high. That has always been the case as far as human beings are concerned. Admittedly, rationalizing away one’s lack of moral commitment and making morality identical, in principle, to whatever it is that one merely chooses is a relatively recent phenomenon – i.e., since moral relativism has become the pretext du jour.

 

[Bradski]

And I am certain that we can all come up with equally “sound” reasons why “love your neighbour,” at times, would not be such a “good” thing, rationally speaking. This aside from the fact that the word “love” in the statement is open to all kinds of attenuation once it is unmoored from sound ethical grounds and merely depends upon personal “reasons” we might concoct for “loving” or "not loving” our neighbors.

Indeed. It is a rather simplistic command. Open to interpretation. Depending on the circumstances. Relative to the situation. Almost as fatuous as ‘Be good’. But taken as a starting point for further investigation, it’s reasonably acceptable as an invocation to treat your fellow travellers as well as circumstances might dictate. Which, funnily enough, My mate Sam was suggesting.

Well, it may not take you anywhere, but that only implies that those serious about determining what is morally good or not will need to demonstrate a commitment to actually living up to what is determined to objectively be good, or there will be no point to the exercise to begin with.

Now far be it for me to suggest that you are trying to have your cake and eat it, but it seems that you are quite willing to accept that, for example, using contraception is open for discussion, just as long as what we eventually agree complies with your (Catholic) idea of morality. ‘Of course I’m open to talk about it. As long as you agree with me, there’s no problem in having open and frank discussions’.

I’ll reiterate what I said before: There are aspects of Catholic morality which are not open for discussion, whatever the circumstances. Exactly what Harris was arguing against. Heaven knows why some think he’s making a step in the right direction: ‘Look, he’s proposing absolute solutions…he’s so close to realising that there are Absolute Truths’. That is exactly what he is arguing against.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed. It is a rather simplistic command. Open to interpretation. Depending on the circumstances. Relative to the situation. Almost as fatuous as ‘Be good’. But taken as a starting point for further investigation, it’s reasonably acceptable as an invocation to treat your fellow travellers as well as circumstances might dictate. Which, funnily enough, My mate Sam was suggesting.

I’m sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t simplistic nor the example of the greatest love we can have for another person…

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve asked for this any number of times in a number of threads recently. Not really expecting an answer because I know there isn’t one.

Incidentally, I don’t think that the question: ‘On what grounds do you base your morality if there is no God’ would mean anything to Harris at all. It’s certainly meaningless to me. If one says ‘Love your neighbour’, then iI’m pretty certain that we can all come up with sound reasons why that is a good thing.

They usually amount to expediency, i.e backscratching.

Which is what Harris is saying. That all the God given commandments (excluding the more self serving ones such as ‘no other gods’) can be supported by anyone of any faith or no faith at all all, simply by using reasonable arguments. He is, in effect, saying - there is no need for us to do these things simply because ithey are written. We should know these things anyway. No one religion ‘owns’ these relatively simple and universal concepts.

What is the reasonable argument for the precept that we should regard everyone as our neighbour?

And the religious type of dogmatic objective morality is nonsensical. It is blind to different situations and different conditions. Which Harris surges us to consider.The problem is solved by the universal, objective and absolute principle of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They usually amount to expediency, i.e backscratching.

And this commandment goes considerably beyond backscratching!

Matthew 5:44
…43"You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…

 

[Bradski]

I’m sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t simplistic nor the example of the greatest love we can have for another person…

As you said, it’s a parable. It’s not an invocation. It’s not an absolute truth. It’s a short story meant to indicate to those who think that ‘Love thy neighbour’ is a little too complex to follow that, should the circumstances allow, we should help those in need. It’s not as if we all go: ‘Gosh – who would have thought!’ when we are told the story. In fact, even a small child would be puzzled if the Samaritan simply walked on by as did the others before him.

Again (and I can see me repeating this all too often in this thread), it’s what Harris was discussing in the lecture and what his entire book is about. That surely it is not necessary to be told that we should help someone in need. That there is no need to point to scripture to show someone what they should do. That these morally acceptable actions are available to us all whether we are religious or not. And we reach decisions on how we should act by means of reasonable argument. Not by appeals to dogmatic authority.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… there is no need to point to scripture to show someone what they should do. That these morally acceptable actions are available to us all whether we are religious or not. And we reach decisions on how we should act by means of reasonable argument. Not by appeals to dogmatic authority.

Well, people who believe in God feel this need to point to scripture because they know they are relying not on human (and therefore fallible judgment) but on divine guidance. You scoff at religious authority, but then there is irreligious authority that is very possibly false.

Not all people reason well (that includes atheists), and some reason hardly at all (that too includes atheists). What are you going to do with them when they are looking for moral guidance?

Send them to the nearest atheist?

 

[Bradski]

Well, people who believe in God feel this need to point to scripture because they know they are relying not on human (and therefore fallible judgment) but on divine guidance. You scoff at religious authority, but then there is irreligious authority that is very possibly false.

Excuse me, Charles, but I am not the only one that has a good scoff at religious authority.

If you had 999 people who discussed a matter and with reasonable arguments and using all available information came to a conclusion that was in direct contrast to one person who relied on religious authority, then who would you choose to have the best answer?

Incidentally, note that I am not specifying which religious authority is being relied upon. If you assume it’s one other than that which you defer, then why do you scoff at this one person’s right to have his view held?

I’ll answer for you to save time.

It’s because you demand that we ALL defer to YOUR religious authority. That is, whatever reasonable arguments are put up, your answer will be: ‘The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it’.

Just imagine the sound of a rather loud ‘Paaarp’ at this point. You know, the sound that they use in TV games when a contestant gets the answer wrong.

 

[davidv]

Excuse me, Charles, but I am not the only one that has a good scoff at religious authority.

How is scoffing a rational response?

If you had 999 people who discussed a matter and with reasonable arguments and using all available information came to a conclusion that was in direct contrast to one person who relied on religious authority, then who would you choose to have the best answer?

Incidentally, note that I am not specifying which religious authority is being relied upon. If you assume it’s one other than that which you defer, then why do you scoff at this one person’s right to have his view held?

I’ll answer for you to save time.

It’s because you demand that we ALL defer to YOUR religious authority. That is, whatever reasonable arguments are put up, your answer will be: ‘The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it’.

Just imagine the sound of a rather loud ‘Paaarp’ at this point. You know, the sound that they use in TV games when a contestant gets the answer wrong.

So, you are equating religion to a game show? Really? Could you be more condescending?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And we reach decisions on how we should act by means of reasonable argument. Not by appeals to dogmatic authority.

Does ”reasonable argument” ever morally obligate us to act or refrain from acting?

If so, by what principle or warrant is obligation an aspect of morality that arises purely from reasonable argument?

In other words, does reason ever obligate or oblige us?

I think this is where we can begin to distinguish between “dogmatic authority” and moral obligation. You seem quite happy to conflate the two as if they are one and the same. I wouldn’t suppose you could make the case for conflating the two, other than assuming they are the same. Which is why I am asking whether reasonable argument can ever arrive at moral obligation. Obviously, you assume “dogmatic authority” can never be based upon reasonable argument, but can moral obligation?

And if reasonable argument can arrive at moral obligation, then would you care to explain the method by which reason could arrive at moral imperatives?

I am not claiming it can’t, I just don’t think you see the difference between “dogmatic authority" and moral obligation.

In fact, I suspect you would be quite content to bury the difference behind moral terms as if adept use of moral language is sufficient to qualify someone as a good moral agent.

 

[Bradski]

So, you are equating religion to a game show? Really? Could you be more condescending?

I’ll make this as simple as possible:

Charles: ‘The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it’.

Bradski: ‘Just imagine the sound of a rather loud ‘Paaarp’ at this point’.

Now that shouldn’t have been too hard to follow…

And yes, on occasion I can be condescending. I try to avoid it, and generally do, because there are better ways to make a point. In your case I made an exception.

 

[davidv]

I’ll make this as simple as possible:

Charles: ‘The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it’.

Bradski: ‘Just imagine the sound of a rather loud ‘Paaarp’ at this point’.

If this is what Charles said, you might have a point. As it stand it just a poor straw man.

Now that shouldn’t have been too hard to follow…

Follow? Yes. Logical? Not much.

And yes, on occasion I can be condescending. I try to avoid it, and generally do, because there are better ways to make a point. In your case I made an exception.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Excuse me, Charles, but I am not the only one that has a good scoff at religious authority.

If you had 999 people who discussed a matter and with reasonable arguments and using all available information came to a conclusion that was in direct contrast to one person who relied on religious authority, then who would you choose to have the best answer?

Incidentally, note that I am not specifying which religious authority is being relied upon. If you assume it’s one other than that which you defer, then why do you scoff at this one person’s right to have his view held?

I’ll answer for you to save time.

It’s because you demand that we ALL defer to YOUR religious authority. That is, whatever reasonable arguments are put up, your answer will be: ‘The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it’.

Just imagine the sound of a rather loud ‘Paaarp’ at this point. You know, the sound that they use in TV games when a contestant gets the answer wrong.

You seem to be arguing that the atheist’s reasoned response to a moral question will be well and good. But we all know that atheists (some of them) can be as confounded by lack of moral guidance as Christians. Whom does the Christian turn to? His God, of course, and other Christians join him in that recourse. Whom does the atheist turn to for moral guidance and confirmation of his moral insight? Why of course another atheist who, given a lack of moral instruction because he is a maverick moralist, may be as confused as he.

The dog chasing its own tail is a comical sight.

But in the case of humans, not so comical.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

There is an atheist philosopher named Sam Harris who claims that morality is objectively external to us and is about well-being. He argues that well-being can be determined objectively, and therefore science should organize morality to maximize well-being.

Personally, I’d say that although science can inform morality, it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to hand a defining aspect of human nature, moral agency, to a technical process. The issue is whether well-being is really objective, seems to me it has subjective elements which cannot be measured scientifically.

Hello inocente

I really like James Randi’s site! It is extremely informative. A warm “thank you” to Mr. Randi!

Here is an excerpt from MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION by Jonathan Haidt [9.21.07]

I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

Don’t dismiss religion on the basis of a superficial reading of the Bible and the newspaper. Might religious communities offer us insights into human flourishing? Can they teach us lessons that would improve wellbeing even in a primarily contractualist society. You can’t use the New Atheists as your guide to these lessons. The new atheists conduct biased reviews of the literature and conclude that there is no good evidence on any benefits except the health benefits of religion.

edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It’s because you demand that we ALL defer to YOUR religious authority. That is, whatever reasonable arguments are put up, your answer will be: 'The argument is sound - as long as I agree with it . . .

There exists a moral law which boils down to two commandments that speak of love, primarily for God and secondarily for one another. It is not created by mankind but given by God, our loving Creator, reflecting His nature and the state of being in right relation to Him. This makes it an imperative. We must, to be truly ourselves, truly fulfilled, follow that path.

If one do not have a relationship with God, all the person will observe are human beings spouting their versions of reality. One will not see the soundness of an argument based on revealed truth but rather a belief system with only circular arguments to support itself. There is no moral imperative within a relativistic moral system, leaving us with the Ten Suggestions. I understand you are fine with that concept. It is where atheism takes its followers.

 

[Bradski]

You seem to be arguing that the atheist’s reasoned response to a moral question will be well and good. But we all know that atheists (some of them) can be as confounded by lack of moral guidance as Christians.

Why would I limit myself to the reasons arguments of atheists?

 

[inocente]

Who is Craig? I did not try listening to her/him because I got an e-mail with possible help. I am in the midst of dealing with a problem website --you really do not want to know the trouble I am in. And I am now totally lost on this thread.

It is precisely our capability that we can reflect on our actions which gives us another tool to be moral agents, though I am not totally sure what a moral agent is.

Does Craig know anything about the spiritual rational soul?

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher, theologian, does a lot of debates, owns www.reasonablefaith.org, sharp dresser, looks like an itinerant faith healer, matter of opinion whether he’s a sharp thinker.

 

[inocente]

Incidentally, I don’t think that the question: ‘On what grounds do you base your morality if there is no God’ would mean anything to Harris at all. It’s certainly meaningless to me. If one says ‘Love your neighbour’, then iI’m pretty certain that we can all come up with sound reasons why that is a good thing.

Which is what Harris is saying. That all the God given commandments (excluding the more self serving ones such as ‘no other gods’) can be supported by anyone of any faith or no faith at all all, simply by using reasonable arguments. He is, in effect, saying - there is no need for us to do these things simply because ithey are written. We should know these things anyway. No one religion ‘owns’ these relatively simple and universal concepts.

And the religious type of dogmatic objective morality is nonsensical. It is blind to different situations and different conditions. Which Harris surges us to consider.

I think Harris does know that he has to answer the question. In his TED talk, he argues that all systems of morality are ultimately about concerns for conscious beings (we care more about chimps than ants, and more about ants than rocks), and he explicitly places religion within that analysis.

He actually says that often the only people who agree with him that there is objective morality are “religious demagogues”, but in his talk he spends more time on cultural practices such as burqa, honor killings and pornography than on religion. Moderates everywhere can and do rationally analyze traditions and discard those which are irrational. Only fanatics deny freedom of conscience, and fanatics come in all shapes.

I’d say that “love your neighbor” raises three arguable points: what is love, who is my neighbor, and why should I limit my behavior with such a directive anyway. It’s the very fact that it isn’t prescriptive and has to be reinterpreted for every situation which gives it moral force.