Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[tonyrey]

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…

You have been brought up in a society with a Christian heritage. In nations like India people do walk by an untouchable in need of help. It also happens in so-called Christian countries. It is an absolute truth according to the UNDHR and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Do you reject them? If so why?

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.

You haven’t given any reasonable argument why we should help someone in need. How would you prove a criminal is mistaken?

 

[inocente]

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.

Hiya . That’s a very interesting article, thanks for linking it.

Being skeptical, I’d want more data before deciding whether religion and well-being is causative, or only a correlation. For instance, it wouldn’t be surprising in any society where atheists are despised by the majority, and treated like a modern equivalent of the biblical Samaritans.

Kind of like bullying homosexuals all their lives and then concluding they have a higher suicide rate because they’re homosexual rather than because they’re being bullied.

I’d not heard of Jonathon Haidt, looked him up and apparently he and Sam Harris don’t get on. People might agree with Harris on some points and Haidt on others. Imho Haidt shows that measuring well-being is a lot more complicated, and (properly) contains far more subjective aspects, than Harris seems willing to admit.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Only fanatics deny freedom of conscience, and fanatics come in all shapes…

Consciences come in all shapes too. You and I have been debating this for some time.

You believe the conscience is the absolute arbiter of moral choices?

The Catholic Church goes farther. The well informed conscience is the absolute arbiter of moral choices.

The Muslim terrorist who believe he will get his seventy virgins by strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up himself and as many others as possible has a poorly informed conscience, you might say a fanatical conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Well yes, you certainly should consider the arguments of theists!

latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gods-punishment-society-spread-20160210-story.html

 

[inocente]

Consciences come in all shapes too. You and I have been debating this for some time.

You believe the conscience is the absolute arbiter of moral choices?

The Catholic Church goes farther. The well informed conscience is the absolute arbiter of moral choices.

The Muslim terrorist who believe he will get his seventy virgins by strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up himself and as many others as possible has a poorly informed conscience, you might say a fanatical conscience.

Yes, radicalization, brainwashing, indoctrination, coercion, fanaticism, dictatorship are all evil precisely because they try to warp or undermine the conscience. And yes, bigotry, unjust discrimination, racism, sexism, sectarianism and more all indicate an unhealthy conscience.

Does the CCC say well informed? I thought it said well-formed. But surely that’s obvious. Don’t make your child believe your love is conditional on her good behavior, try hard not to pass your prejudices on to her, etc. It was people with well-formed consciences who fought for the vote and equal opportunities for women. It was people with freedom of conscience who fifty years ago rose up against segregation and racial bigotry in America, and marched on Washington, and listened to a Baptist minister with a well-formed conscience speak about valuing content of character rather than outward appearances or labels:

*I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification” – one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!*

Martin Luther King Jnr.
RIP bro.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does the CCC say well informed? I thought it said well-formed. But surely that’s obvious. Don’t make your child believe your love is conditional on her good behavior, try hard not to pass your prejudices on to her, etc. It was people with well-formed consciences who fought for the vote and equal opportunities for women. It was people with freedom of conscience who fifty years ago rose up against segregation and racial bigotry in America, and marched on Washington, and listened to a Baptist minister with a well-formed conscience speak about valuing content of character rather than outward appearances or labels:

I would suppose, then, that the State ought to model this idea that the way it values its citizens and their deepest, most consistent, movements of their consciences should not be “conditional” upon “good behaviour.” Yet, the State, apparently does not allow the conscientious objections of sincere citizens but penalizes them to the tune of taking away their business and fining them hundreds of thousands of dollars for declining to bake a cake – I suppose the State is, in fact, trying very hard to “pass on its prejudices” onto these citizens.

This is also apparent where those who sincerely attempt to reveal extreme cases of injustice and barbarity are facing 20 years in prison by grand jury indictment. Another instance of the State making its concern conditional upon what it whimsically decides is “good behaviour.”

Perhaps we can dream a little harder or in more vivid colours.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does the CCC say well informed? I thought it said well-formed.

Are you nit-picking here?

Surely a well formed conscience is well formed because it has been well informed?

That’s what the Catechism is supposed to do, transmit information to help us know what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Bradski]

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.

I see it the other way. Because it needs to interpreted differently in every situation, it loses any meaning in itself. You can hardly call it an Objective truth that you are to love your neighbour. As I keep saying, literally every simplistic command that we can find in scripture has to be interpreted in light of whatever conditions are current at that time and is relative to the situation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I see it the other way. Because it needs to interpreted differently in every situation, it loses any meaning in itself. You can hardly call it an Objective truth that you are to love your neighbour. As I keep saying, literally every simplistic command that we can find in scripture has to be interpreted in light of whatever conditions are current at that time and is relative to the situation.

When you say this you say it from the point of view of an atheist who is blind to the moral imperative of our Lord to love one another. You cannot be expected to agree with this imperative, but you surely see that no Christian can disagree with it without disagreeing with Christ.

Christ does not say we Christians must love one another under certain conditions, but not under other conditions. It is an objective universal imperative to love everyone all the time because we are all members of the Body of Christ.

It is the devil who tells us to hate one another, and that is because he hates us all even more than we could possibly hate each other.

 

[Bradski]

When you say this you say it from the point of view of an atheist who is blind to the moral imperative of our Lord to love one another. You cannot be expected to agree with this imperative, but you surely see that no Christian can disagree with it without disagreeing with Christ.

What IS the matter with people not understanding what I write? I have never said that I disagree with such an imperative. As I ALREADY SAID, It’s a good point from which to start.

Please read what I write not what you think I might mean.

 

[inocente]

I would suppose, then, that the State ought to model this idea that the way it values its citizens and their deepest, most consistent, movements of their consciences should not be “conditional” upon “good behaviour.” Yet, the State, apparently does not allow the conscientious objections of sincere citizens but penalizes them to the tune of taking away their business and fining them hundreds of thousands of dollars for declining to bake a cake – I suppose the State is, in fact, trying very hard to “pass on its prejudices” onto these citizens.

This is also apparent where those who sincerely attempt to reveal extreme cases of injustice and barbarity are facing 20 years in prison by grand jury indictment. Another instance of the State making its concern conditional upon what it whimsically decides is “good behaviour.”

Perhaps we can dream a little harder or in more vivid colours.

It’s never been the job of the State to love citizens unconditionally, if such a thing was even possible.

Whereas a good parent does love her child unconditionally. Just as God does not withdraw his love when you fail.

 

[inocente]

Are you nit-picking here?

Surely a well formed conscience is well formed because it has been well informed?

No, because for instance if you look up what makes a sociopath, possible factors include genetics through to high levels of testosterone through to low family income or large family size. The form of the sociopath is damaged, and no amount of informing will fix the damage.

 

[inocente]

inocente;13657690:

Bradski;13656165:

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’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.I see it the other way. Because it needs to interpreted differently in every situation, it loses any meaning in itself. You can hardly call it an Objective truth that you are to love your neighbour. As I keep saying, literally every simplistic command that we can find in scripture has to be interpreted in light of whatever conditions are current at that time and is relative to the situation.

Not sure how you’re not contradicting yourself, since first you say it’s blind then you say it’s not.

But sure, if you want to turn morality into thousands of predetermined rules for every situation under the sun, with an app to decide which rules we ought to follow in any particular situation, then fine, go for it, but don’t be surprised if most people prefer to carry on using their noggin and the small number of principles we can sign up to and remember.

 

[Bradski]

Not sure how you’re not contradicting yourself, since first you say it’s blind then you say it’s not.

But sure, if you want to turn morality into thousands of predetermined rules for every situation under the sun, with an app to decide which rules we ought to follow in any particular situation, then fine, go for it, but don’t be surprised if most people prefer to carry on using their noggin.

There is only one app. It’s you.

 

[inocente]

There is only one app. It’s you.

Exactly. How many rules of morality can you remember? Do you, like the rest of us, rely on the small number of principles which you can sign up to and remember?

 

[Bradski]

Exactly. How many rules of morality can you remember? Do you, like the rest of us, rely on the small number of principles which you can sign up to and remember?

There aren’t any rules. Such as ‘this you must obey’. There are simply guidelines.

 

[inocente]

There aren’t any rules. Such as ‘this you must obey’. There are simply guidelines.

Sure, in ethics guidelines are called principles. I think we’re on the same page. Rules are for games, as soon as we make rules, we’re playing a game.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

There aren’t any rules. Such as ‘this you must obey’. There are simply guidelines.

We might try and justify self defence, but I don’t think you should treat the command (law) not to kill, as a guideline.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s never been the job of the State to love citizens unconditionally, if such a thing was even possible.

Whereas a good parent does love her child unconditionally. Just as God does not withdraw his love when you fail.

A good parent is concerned for the welfare of their child unconditionally. The State ought to be concerned, ultimately, for the welfare of all citizens without compromise.

The State, in modern western countries, is quite willing to strike Faustian bargains - euphemistically called ‘social contracts.’ It no longer concerns itself with the welfare of citizens that it determines have no political influence. Ergo, the wealthy, the loud, the socially influential, the powerful, the esteemed all have influence and the State binds itself, contractually, to them and to them alone. The weak, the voiceless, the forgotten, are of no concern to the State. This is why abortion and ‘assisted death’ are big on the political agenda in modern western countries. Those in jeopardy of forfeiting their lives do not count as far as the State is concerned – they don’t exist. They aren’t even loved conditionally. Their welfare is of NO concern to the State.

Jesus was clear that these ‘little ones’ are the ones who do count as far as God is concerned. He has shared their suffering with them and they will share his glory with him. In the Kingdom of Heaven they will find unconditional love. In the meantime, those who eke out, through their power and influence, their ‘reward’ on Earth have received all that they will be owed. In Jesus’ words, “They have received their reward.”

You say, “It has never been the job of the State to love citizens unconditionally.” Actually, it has been the duty of States to do so, but they have almost universally failed. You can excuse that failure if you wish and, by doing so, render to Caesar his duly owed apologia, but let’s not confuse failure with responsibility as if the State shouldn’t be held accountable for its abominations.

Just out of interest, do you suppose that the ‘unconditional love’ owed by a parent to her child is owed while that child is still in the womb, or is her unconditional love conditional on location of her child outside her body? Purely out of interest, you understand.

My sense from this comment…

Sure, in ethics guidelines are called principles. I think we’re on the same page. Rules are for games, as soon as we make rules, we’re playing a game.

…is that you view ‘unconditional love’ as a mere ‘guideline’ in a ‘game’ we are playing – a game where we shouldn’t take the rules too seriously, even when we proclaim some of those rules or guidelines to be “unconditional.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

There aren’t any rules. Such as ‘this you must obey’. There are simply guidelines.

“There aren’t any rules.”

Now, is that merely a “guideline” with reference to ethics?

If so, there might be rules such as “this you must obey,” in which case “There aren’t any rules,” IS merely a guideline.

If not, then the rule that “There aren’t any rules,” becomes the one that “this you must obey.”