Reflecting on a few interesting answers

[MindOverMatter2]

It’s stuff like this that lead me out of atheism and helped to see how mad and pitiable it really is. I would think any honest person would see that nonsense and the discontinuity it has with real life and notice the problem.

I think that for most people, especially in the younger generation, atheism is a fashion. Its not just a lack of faith. For them its a way of life that should be respected because it represents true objective maturity. Theres nothing more powerful than the idea that you can live your life and define it according to how you will it to be. Thats the promise of atheism. You don’t have to worry about the big daddy in the sky telling you what to do and defining who you are. You define you. Some people truly think that this is essentially what moral maturity is. Sometimes atheists even push their lifestyle choice as if it is a moral requirement of being a upright human-being; its not enough for them to just disbelieve.

Belief in universal naturalism, is a reaction to a belief or a set of beliefs that do not please our wants and needs and requires us to make sacrifices that we don’t want to make. So we bury ourselves in scientific principles in order to create the illusion that we have rational justification to be skeptical until Scientific evidence is presented. But this is rarely about evidence since all healthy minded human beings believe that life is worth living, and that we shouldn’t give up on the value of life, and that raping a small child is truly wrong. None of this is justified by “scientific evidence”, along with a whole lot of other things that atheists believe in. Its more rooted in the belief that faith in God means a lack of self determination and self definition. Its a very attractive proposition to think that you can be your own God, and if you can get enough people to like you, to pleasure your wants needs and insecurities, then you can anesthetize yourself to the negative and absolute effects that the atheist ideology has to offer such as your inevitable and pointless death. Some say that Ignorance is bliss.

In reality what a lot of atheists don’t want to accept is that disbelief in God involves a lot more than a refusal of Gods existence. In reality we are also refusing the very thing that objectively defines our existence as having true moral dignity and significance. You can respond to that fact in two ways. You can either pretend that this is not such a bad thing and continue to live in a fantasy world telling yourself that every-things alright and that your life really is worth something without God. Or you can humble yourself to the fact that you are losing too much of what justifies and defines our humanity and that therefore belief in God is a matter of moral necessity. The latter response is the true definition of moral maturity.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be scientific atheists and at the same time believe in moral truth.

 

[Spock]

Oh, okay.

I am glad that we could agree on the golden rules. Sometimes even such a small agreement is out of question.

Well, I guess it depends on the way you look at it. I’ve always seen God as my Father. He cares about me so much that He doesn’t want me to do anything that would hurt myself or others, so He tells us what’s wrong, and what’s right. He won’t stop us from doing it (except in some extreme circumstances) because then He would be forcing us and He doesn’t want us to be slaves. In that way, He is sort of overseeing us, I guess. Just not in a bad way.

I understand your sentiment, but I disagree on some points. First, I do not see where God tells us precisely, specifically and exactly what are we supposed to do and what should we avoid. There is no such list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” - which were issued by God. Second, the lack of interference is not a sign of “love”. If a loving parent sees that his child is about to do something that is fatally detrimental (commit a mortal sin in Catholic parlance) to himself, then he MUST interfere - precisely in the name of love. If a loving parent sees that someone is about hurt his child (abduct, rape, torture and murder that child), then he MUST interfere in the name of love. To allow to make minor mistakes is perfectly ok - in the name of love and teaching, but to allow fatal mistakes is not.

I guess that’s the difference between the atheist and Christian view of good and evil. We believe that if something’s wrong (like substance abuse) than it’s wrong no matter who it hurts - whether it’s others or just yourself.

Oh, it is not the best, smartest behavior in my eyes either. I just consider the other (adult) person to be fully capable of making decisions for himself, and I do not assume the role of interfering. I respect the other person. If he would hurt others, then I would interfere (if I could). But if he only hurts himself, then it is his own personal affair.

Here is a cute story for you. The little boy-scout come comes home, and his father asks him: “what good deeds did you do today?”. The boy-scout answers: “I and my 5 friends helped an old, blind person to cross a busy street”. The father says: “very nice. But why did you need your 5 friends?”. The kid answers: “because he did not want to cross the street!”.

I hope you see the point. Let’s assume that other people know what they want. Let’s treat them with respect, and let us not interfere with them as long as they do not hurt others.

So, here’s another scenario for you: what if the person doesn’t care if something happens to himself or not, and so goes out and does it to someone else? Would you still consider it wrong?

Yes, of course. That is obvious. That is why I consider the “inverse” golden rule (do not do unto others…) superior to the “direct” one (do onto others…).

 

[MarysGirls]

I am glad that we could agree on the golden rules. Sometimes even such a small agreement is out of question.
I know. Sometimes it seems like all we ever do on CAF is argue; rarely does anyone come to an agreement on something. But I like it here anyways. It gives me stuff to think about, and I always end up resolving the issue in my mind even if it isn’t on here.

I understand your sentiment, but I disagree on some points. First, I do not see where God tells us precisely, specifically and exactly what are we supposed to do and what should we avoid. There is no such list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” - which were issued by God. **Well, there’s the Ten Commandments for starters. Over the years, God has revealed more of His Will for us through the Church.**Second, the lack of interference is not a sign of “love”. If a loving parent sees that his child is about to do something that is fatally detrimental (commit a mortal sin in Catholic parlance) to himself, then he MUST interfere - precisely in the name of love. If a loving parent sees that someone is about hurt his child (abduct, rape, torture and murder that child), then he MUST interfere in the name of love. To allow to make minor mistakes is perfectly ok - in the name of love and teaching, but to allow fatal mistakes is not. More than anything, God wants us to love Him. Unfortunately, love is not something that can be forced. He’s tried to get us to see that we’re only killing ourselves. He even came and died Himself for us. But we still don’t listen. If He were to keep us from committing mortal sins, we’d end up as His slaves, and knowing human nature, we’d grow to hate Him, which is itself a sin. I’m not sure that there’s any way around that.

Oh, it is not the best, smartest behavior in my eyes either. I just consider the other (adult) person to be fully capable of making decisions for himself, and I do not assume the role of interfering. I respect the other person. If he would hurt others, then I would interfere (if I could). But if he only hurts himself, then it is his own personal affair. But you don’t see it as wrong?

Here is a cute story for you. The little boy-scout come comes home, and his father asks him: “what good deeds did you do today?”. The boy-scout answers: “I and my 5 friends helped an old, blind person to cross a busy street”. The father says: “very nice. But why did you need your 5 friends?”. The kid answers: “because he did not want to cross the street!”.
Your story made me laugh. It also sounds a bit like what I’m saying about God.
I hope you see the point. Let’s assume that other people know what they want. Let’s treat them with respect, and let us not interfere with them as long as they do not hurt others.
**But if we have love, we will at the very least try to make them see that they are only hurting themselves. **

Yes, of course. That is obvious. That is why I consider the “inverse” golden rule (do not do unto others…) superior to the “direct” one (do onto others…).

The “inverse” rule says “Do not do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you.” But if the person doesn’t care if it’s done to him, what’s to stop him from doing it to others? The standard for right and wrong are lost. Is it then still wrong?

 

[Spock]

Well, there’s the Ten Commandments for starters. Over the years, God has revealed more of His Will for us through the Church.

Unfortunately one must be a Catholic first to accept this. What I said is that there is no “divine list” which obviously tells us that it was originated by God.

More than anything, God wants us to love Him. Unfortunately, love is not something that can be forced. He’s tried to get us to see that we’re only killing ourselves. He even came and died Himself for us.

That is not sufficient. A parent wants his child to love him, but that does not mean to allow the child to play with a loaded gun, and does not allow a known sexual predator to kidnap the child. We keep on interfering with other people’s “free will” all the time - precisely in the name of love and caring. We interfere with the children’s free will to keep the safe. We interfere with the criminals’ free will to keep others safe.

But you don’t see it as wrong?

I might, and depending upon the substance I probably do. But as long as the person is an adult, it is not my place to forcefully interfere. Here is a nice little prayer: “Oh Lord, please save me from those people, what want to save me from myself!”.

But if we have love, we will at the very least try to make them see that they are only hurting themselves.

That is very well. And it is expected in the name of love.

The “inverse” rule says “Do not do unto others what you would not like them to do unto you.” But if the person doesn’t care if it’s done to him, what’s to stop him from doing it to others? The standard for right and wrong are lost. Is it then still wrong?

Are there such people? I don’t know. Maybe there are some seriously deranged individuals, who actually “do not care if they are in pain or not”. I think you look for a general “panacea”, an absolute “cure-for-all” which will work in every individual case. There is no such “magical potion”.

And I would like to point out something. Maybe you think that I am not consistent when I argue that interfering in the name of love is fine in certain cases, and I also argue that in other cases allowing others to engage in self-detrimental behavior is also fine. There is a huge difference between the two cases. In the first case I talk about parent-child relationship, and in the other I am talking about adult-adult relationship. The parent, knowing which behavior is detrimental is obliged to interfere - because the child does not know better, and is not expected to know better. The other adult person is supposed to know what is best for him, and - as long as he does not hurt others - it is his own prerogative to do whatever he wants to do.

Now, let’s translate this to the God-human relationship: We shall never be “adults” in this relationship. We shall never have the necessary knowledge to decide for ourselves which action is fatally detrimental to us. We shall always be “children” in relationship to God. Therefore - in the name of love - God is obliged to interfere with our free will when he seen that we are embarking on a self-destructive behavior. There is no excuse for God here, just like there is no excuse for the parent who allows his child to play with a loaded gun, and when the gun is discharged and kills someone, the parent starts to lament: “but I told him not to play with that gun!”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi, buddy! Good summary, as usual. I agree with you completely. And I am glad to see you again.

My answer is already included in what you said. I look both at the short run and the long run. Following the two variants of the golden rule, I help others, because I might need help myself, and spreading goodwill around is beneficial both for me, and for others. I do not hurt others, because I do not wish to be hurt myself.

Generally, what goes around, comes around. Sounds obvious, but it is still true. The golden rules are fully secular, and based upon logic, reason, a minimal understanding of human nature (we all seek happiness, and try to avoid pain) and the concept of reciprocity.

But is the concept of reciprocity logically entailed? Surely I am not being strictly *irrational *if I exploit others to my own ends? Rather, I’m just being a jerk. I don’t see why my (hopefully altruistic) reasons must apply to someone else, unless they can be shown that it’s in their interest to follow them. Rationality and morality often diverge, unless there is some sort of glue (e.g., God) to hold them together.

Moreover, here’s the real issue: sometimes I can keep my actions so secret that the “conventional” moral consequences don’t apply. Suppose I know that I won’t get punished, ever, perhaps because “no one will ever know”. And suppose I will benefit from the trespass. Why shouldn’t I do the wrong thing? (Remember: we cannot smuggle in the assumption that I desire to be altruistic.)

I think you believe that there will be a perfect justice in the afterlife. Maybe there is, maybe there is not. You have no proof for it. And even if there is justice there, it does not help us here.

Maybe not much, but it does give us hope. And hope is no small thing.

Look at it this way: “John Doe does something wrong. God could slap him down to learn from it. God does not do it. John Doe does not learn from his wrongdoing. He will repeat his deed, because there is no feedback from God”.

Does the world often work that way? Usually, John Doe DOES have a consequence of his wrongdoing, if only the guilt that he feels – which can be quite considerable. If John Doe repeats his deed, it may be a sign that John Doe needs to hit “rock bottom” before he will change. Human beings are awfully obstinate.

Moreover, even if there is perfect justice “over there”, it does not “undo” the injusticies here. The past cannot be altered, and what was “evil”, will stay evil, no matter what happens later on.

I tend to agree. This is one of the deepest questions of faith.

One answer, which is worth considering at least, is that we DO deserve many of the “injustices”, and thus they are not unjust. I do not pretend that this answer resolves all potential issues, but I do think that – in most of the cases of suffering that I myself have experienced – my suffering was not out of proportion with the suffering I deserve.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I might, and depending upon the substance I probably do. But as long as the person is an adult, it is not my place to forcefully interfere. Here is a nice little prayer: “Oh Lord, please save me from those people, what want to save me from myself!”.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways here, Spock, and I think you realize that. The question is: Are self-destructive behaviors wrong? At first, you said that they were a person’s own business, but of course that wasn’t the question. I might agree that we ought not interfere with some action that is wrong, in certain circumstances.

Now you admit that such behaviors are “probably” wrong. It follows from this that a person is wrong to make *certain *decisions about their own lives. But what is the criterion here?

Many atheists believe in objective morality – I gather, to your credit, that you are one of them. But – and this is the part I don’t get – most atheists don’t believe that human beings have any purpose. If human beings don’t have any purpose, then how can we say that a human being pursuing any given goal is wrong? If a person wants to live a life of pain and early death, how can we criticize them?

Perhaps you’ll say that human beings do have a purpose? Or will you say that self-destructive behaviors aren’t wrong?

 

[Spock]

But is the concept of reciprocity logically entailed?

I don’t understand. Logically entailed in what? We are both individuals, and social beings. That is our “nature”, if you will. We all wish to maximize what is good, pleasant and pleasurable. We all want to minimize whay is bad, painful and uncomfortable. That is also our nature. We conduct a “game” in our existence, and we pursue these goals. “Game theory” is a very important branch of mathematics, and it is a useful tool to find an optimal strategy in this “game of life”. The result is that reciprocity is the optimal strategy - most of the time.

Surely I am not being strictly *irrational *if I exploit others to my own ends?

It depends on the circumstances. Usually the “selfish” behavior is a non-optimal strategy. On the short run it may be the optimal strategy. On the long run it is usually not optimal.

Moreover, here’s the real issue: sometimes I can keep my actions so secret that the “conventional” moral consequences don’t apply. Suppose I know that I won’t get punished, ever, perhaps because “no one will ever know”. And suppose I will benefit from the trespass. Why shouldn’t I do the wrong thing? (Remember: we cannot smuggle in the assumption that I desire to be altruistic.)

This is the question of how should one behave on a desert island. There is no one to witness what you do, criticize you for it. In this scenario you look at an unusal setup, something that does not happen in reality, or at least not frequently. Obviously the strategy is different in this scenario.

Maybe not much, but it does give us hope. And hope is no small thing.

True. And maybe a false hope is better than nothing. I am not sure. Personally I would prefer to see the world as it is, even if there is no hope. But that may just be me. I know that most people would prefer a false hope.

Does the world often work that way? Usually, John Doe DOES have a consequence of his wrongdoing, if only the guilt that he feels – which can be quite considerable. If John Doe repeats his deed, it may be a sign that John Doe needs to hit “rock bottom” before he will change. Human beings are awfully obstinate.

And why is that a good strategy? When we raise our children, we do not wait between the deed and the reward or punishment. We know that a swift display of consequences is a far superior strategy. Why does God not act along the best strategy?

I tend to agree. This is one of the deepest questions of faith.

One answer, which is worth considering at least, is that we DO deserve many of the “injustices”, and thus they are not unjust. I do not pretend that this answer resolves all potential issues, but I do think that – in most of the cases of suffering that I myself have experienced – my suffering was not out of proportion with the suffering I deserve.

Maybe not in your case, and maybe not in my case. But we all know about the instances when there is no way to rationalize away the “injustice”. And the extreme examples are the ones which need to be resolved.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways here, Spock, and I think you realize that. The question is: Are self-destructive behaviors wrong? At first, you said that they were a person’s own business, but of course that wasn’t the question. I might agree that we ought not interfere with some action that is wrong, in certain circumstances.

Now you admit that such behaviors are “probably” wrong. It follows from this that a person is wrong to make *certain *decisions about their own lives. But what is the criterion here?

The criterion is what they - as responsible adults - want it to be. People know that smoking is “bad for them”. Yet, they engage in smoking. They value the short-term pleasure of smoking, and they think that the risk of long-term disadvanteages (which may not even come!) is worth to take. These days there is a tendency to conduct a “war” on smoking. Prohibitive taxation, all sorts of regulations, etc. I vehemently disagree with this approach. The next “war” is already around the corner: the “war” on junk food. In Europe there is legislation on the way to tax “unhealthy food”. The goverments are turning into “nanny-states”, telling you how to conduct your life, what risks are you allowed to take. As I replied to MarysGirls: “Oh Lord, please save me from those people, what want to save me from myself!”.

Let’s be clear. I am the one who knows best what is good for me most of the time. I know that I am able to make errors and may choose a path that is not the best. But I take responsibility for my actions, and if I drive into the wall (figuratively speaking) and break my own nose, that is my business. You, as a bystander are welcome to tell me what you think. But you are not welcome to forcefully interfere.

Many atheists believe in objective morality – I gather, to your credit, that you are one of them. But – and this is the part I don’t get – most atheists don’t believe that human beings have any purpose. If human beings don’t have any purpose, then how can we say that a human being pursuing any given goal is wrong? If a person wants to live a life of pain and early death, how can we criticize them?

Yes, I believe that there is an objective (but not absolute) morality. No, I do not believe that human beings have a “purpose”, ouside of what they personally place in front of themselves. If someone wishes to embark on a self-destructive path that is their own business. Normal people do not behave that way. The exceptions will hopefully remove themselves from the gene-pool.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t understand. Logically entailed in what? We are both individuals, and social beings. That is our “nature”, if you will. We all wish to maximize what is good, pleasant and pleasurable. We all want to minimize whay is bad, painful and uncomfortable. That is also our nature. We conduct a “game” in our existence, and we pursue these goals. “Game theory” is a very important branch of mathematics, and it is a useful tool to find an optimal strategy in this “game of life”. The result is that reciprocity is the optimal strategy - most of the time.

It depends on the circumstances. **Usually **the “selfish” behavior is a non-optimal strategy. On the short run it **may be **the optimal strategy. On the long run it is **usually **not optimal.

Look at all the qualifiers you put in those two paragraphs (in bold)! It’s clear that the moral code you’re speaking of does not *always *apply.

Think about it this way: insofar as your ethical system above is convincing, it is completely egoistic. A person acts generously because it is in his benefit. But if it is not in his benefit, he might very well possess no reason to act in such a way.

This is the question of how should one behave on a desert island. There is no one to witness what you do, criticize you for it. In this scenario you look at an unusal setup, something that does not happen in reality, or at least not frequently. Obviously the strategy is different in this scenario.

But don’t we want a *universal *moral code, that could cover these situations too? If we don’t have that, then we will have to – for every moral choice – decide whether or not the moral code applies. Which means we will need a meta-moral-code, which tells us which code to follow.

True. And maybe a false hope is better than nothing. I am not sure. Personally I would prefer to see the world as it is, even if there is no hope. But that may just be me. I know that most people would prefer a false hope.

Well, of course, if a person knew it was a false hope, it wouldn’t be any hope at all! So I would never recommend false hope. But an “uncertain” hope is the only kind of hope there is. If a “hope” were certain, then it wouldn’t be a hope – it would be a calculation.

But in relationships, we hope, we trust, we love; we do not calculate. And Christians hope in a person, not an outcome.

And why is that a good strategy? When we raise our children, we do not wait between the deed and the reward or punishment. We know that a swift display of consequences is a far superior strategy. Why does God not act along the best strategy?

I don’t feel like getting bogged down in theodicy today, so I’ll just say that the worst sins do tend to have swift consequences.

And the extreme examples are the ones which need to be resolved.

Agreed. But these cases are best dealt with in concrete terms, not by simply imagining hypothetical cases of extraordinary suffering. I am not sure how I can accuse God of any extreme injustice until I am quite certain of the evidence “convicting” Him.

The criterion is what they - as responsible adults - want it to be. People know that smoking is “bad for them”. Yet, they engage in smoking. They value the short-term pleasure of smoking, and they think that the risk of long-term disadvanteages (which may not even come!) is worth to take. These days there is a tendency to conduct a “war” on smoking. Prohibitive taxation, all sorts of regulations, etc. I vehemently disagree with this approach. The next “war” is already around the corner: the “war” on junk food.

Oh, I agree. I don’t like a nanny state, even if I think that certain actions are self-destructive.

Let’s be clear. I am the one who knows best what is good for me most of the time. I know that I am able to make errors and may choose a path that is not the best. But I take responsibility for my actions, and if I drive into the wall (figuratively speaking) and break my own nose, that is my business. You, as a bystander are welcome to tell me what you think. But you are not welcome to forcefully interfere.

That’s not the question, though. The question is “Is your idea of your benefit identical to your actual benefit?” Clearly, it is not. For example, some people think that going to law school would make their lives better, and discover they are wrong.

Yes, I believe that there is an objective (but not absolute) morality. No, I do not believe that human beings have a “purpose”, ouside of what they personally place in front of themselves. If someone wishes to embark on a self-destructive path that is their own business. Normal people do not behave that way. The exceptions will hopefully remove themselves from the gene-pool.

Questions:
(1) Do you agree that objective morality implies objective reasons for action?
(2) Do you agree that objective reasons for action can only be objective if they have an object?
(3) Do you agree that objects are goals?

If you agree with 1-3, then you are forced – so far as I can tell – to say that that human beings have a purpose over and above their own subjective goals.

 

[Spock]

Look at all the qualifiers you put in those two paragraphs (in bold)! It’s clear that the moral code you’re speaking of does not *always *apply.

I never denied it. Obviously the “good” behavior in specific circumstances must take those circumstances into account. Just one example: “generally speaking we consider theft as unacceptable behavior. But to steal food to prevent starvation is a different category”. Some people will say that theft is always wrong. Others will differ. That is what I call relativistic morality.

Think about it this way: insofar as your ethical system above is convincing, it is completely egoistic. A person acts generously because it is in his benefit. But if it is not in his benefit, he might very well possess no reason to act in such a way.

That is simply not true. I have already described it, but will do it again, if you need me.

But don’t we want a *universal *moral code, that could cover these situations too? If we don’t have that, then we will have to – for every moral choice – decide whether or not the moral code applies. Which means we will need a meta-moral-code, which tells us which code to follow.

That is how life is.

I don’t feel like getting bogged down in theodicy today, so I’ll just say that the worst sins do tend to have swift consequences.

No need to get into theodicy. Unfortunately it is not true that bad behavior implies immediate bad consequences. (Why do good things happen to bad people?)

Agreed. But these cases are best dealt with in concrete terms, not by simply imagining hypothetical cases of extraordinary suffering. I am not sure how I can accuse God of any extreme injustice until I am quite certain of the evidence “convicting” Him.

We can go there, if you want to.

Oh, I agree. I don’t like a nanny state, even if I think that certain actions are self-destructive.

Ahh, unconditional agreement! That feels good.

That’s not the question, though. The question is “Is your idea of your benefit identical to your actual benefit?” Clearly, it is not.

Not necessarily. Most of the time, yes, but not always. The point is: “we are adults, who have rights, but must follow the consequences of incorrect choices. As such we should have out freedom to make our own mistakes”.

Questions:
(1) Do you agree that objective morality implies objective reasons for action?
(2) Do you agree that objective reasons for action can only be objective if they have an object?
(3) Do you agree that objects are goals?

If you agree with 1-3, then you are forced – so far as I can tell – to say that that human beings have a purpose over and above their own subjective goals.

I need you to reformat these questions. You use “object” in an ambiguous manner.

To help you: I believe that humans are purposeful beings. Humans set goals in front of themselves and strive to achieve them. They can choose to reach those goals using different methods. Not all of those paths are equally effective and desirable. But I do not believe that there is a nebulous “telos”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I never denied it. Obviously the “good” behavior in specific circumstances must take those circumstances into account. Just one example: “generally speaking we consider theft as unacceptable behavior. But to steal food to prevent starvation is a different category”. Some people will say that theft is always wrong. Others will differ. That is what I call relativistic morality.

This is relativism, in one harmless sense. If you say that “do not kill” is a moral rule, then obviously the rule must be relative to the situation of the person described; for example, if you’re killing in self-defense, the rule doesn’t apply.

But really, the ultimate rule is absolute. It says, perhaps, that “Killing/stealing/etc. is wrong by such-and-such people in such-and-such circumstances.” There is nothing relative about that.

That is simply not true. I have already described it, but will do it again, if you need me.

So far as I can tell, you’re saying that – usually – it is in my best interest to help others. Suppose this is true. There are, you admit, exceptions. And thus I say that “if it is not in his benefit [to help others], then he might possess no reason to act in this way.” I’m not sure what the problem with my claim is.

I might agree that – usually – this does not create a problem. But, to quote a friend of mine, “the extreme examples are the ones which need to be resolved.”

Ahh, unconditional agreement! That feels good.

Not necessarily. Most of the time, yes, but not always. The point is: “we are adults, who have rights, but must follow the consequences of incorrect choices. As such we should have out freedom to make our own mistakes”.

I haven’t disputed that, although I may yet. The subject of paternalism is very difficult. The problem is this: **why **are we permitted to act paternalistically toward children? The correct answer might indicate to us that, in some circumstances, we are permitted to act paternalistically toward (at least some) adults as well. Still, there’s a world of difference between *some * judicious paternalism and a nanny state.

I need you to reformat these questions. You use “object” in an ambiguous manner.

To help you: I believe that humans are purposeful beings. Humans set goals in front of themselves and strive to achieve them. They can choose to reach those goals using different methods. Not all of those paths are equally effective and desirable. But I do not believe that there is a nebulous “telos”.

My questions are based on the notion that morality is not merely procedural, a matter of “hypothetical imperatives”, i.e. acting in certain ways depending on what you happen to desire. I think some ends – for example, desiring the death of all Jews – are objectively undesirable. But why would some ends be objectively undesirable unless other ends were objectively desirable? Thus, I think that, say, happiness is objectively desirable. So is beauty, trust, peace, and so on.

If these things are desirable, then human beings have a purpose (even if it is not “to know, love and serve the Lord” or some such thing). And so, I repeat:

(1) Do you agree that objective morality implies objective reasons for action?
(2) Do you agree that objective reasons for action can only be objective if they have an object (i.e., end)?
(3) Do you agree that object are goals?

 

[Spock]

This is relativism, in one harmless sense. If you say that “do not kill” is a moral rule, then obviously the rule must be relative to the situation of the person described; for example, if you’re killing in self-defense, the rule doesn’t apply.

But really, the ultimate rule is absolute. It says, perhaps, that “Killing/stealing/etc. is wrong by such-and-such people in such-and-such circumstances.” There is nothing relative about that.

I agree completely. But usually this is not the way the dichotomy of absolute / relative is presented. In innumerable cases I read that “stealing is always wrong, no if’s, and’s and but’s”. A blanket assertion. We must be aware that our usage of absolute / relative is not exactly the same as other people use it.

So far as I can tell, you’re saying that – usually – it is in my best interest to help others. Suppose this is true. There are, you admit, exceptions. And thus I say that “if it is not in his benefit [to help others], then he might possess no reason to act in this way.” I’m not sure what the problem with my claim is.

No, that is not exactly what I am saying. Helping others may not be in your own best interest in the short run. On the other hand, spreading good deeds around is beneficial in the generic sense. If one looks both at the short run and the long run, then helping others is a good strategy, even if it is not directly beneficial to us. It is so sad that most people see only the immediate effects of their actions, and never even try to contemplate the “big picture”.

I might agree that – usually – this does not create a problem. But, to quote a friend of mine, “the extreme examples are the ones which need to be resolved.”

I am willing, any time.

I haven’t disputed that, although I may yet. The subject of paternalism is very difficult. The problem is this: **why **are we permitted to act paternalistically toward children? The correct answer might indicate to us that, in some circumstances, we are permitted to act paternalistically toward (at least some) adults as well. Still, there’s a world of difference between *some * judicious paternalism and a nanny state.

I agree with you again. (I hope it is not getting boring ). In the parent-child relationship we can usually suppose that the child does not have all the pertinent information, and thus the child will very likely make a wrong decision. If that wrong decision is “minor”, if it allows the child to learn, then it is good idea to let the child go ahead and make that minor mistake. On the other hand, if we can see that the child is about to make a fatal decision (and one cannot learn from a fatal decison) then it is our duty to interfere. By the same token, we can act paternalistically toward other adults, but we had better have an ironclad certainty that we “really know better”.

My questions are based on the notion that morality is not merely procedural, a matter of “hypothetical imperatives”, i.e. acting in certain ways depending on what you happen to desire.

Agreed.

I think some ends – for example, desiring the death of all Jews – are objectively undesirable.

You fell into the trap of “absolute / relative” here. Do you see how? I can find an example when any specific group of humanity must be sacrificed. The example is when we must choose between the survival of the human race, or only a sub-group of the humans. Of course this example is extremely farfetched.

But why would some ends be objectively undesirable unless other ends were objectively desirable? Thus, I think that, say, happiness is objectively desirable.

Well, life is a self-perpetuating phenomenon. We can say that the “goal” of life is life itself. It is true, but trivial. Happiness is a human goal in certain societies. Other societies consider “duty”, “obligation” and “honor” much more important. (I am referring to some oriental societies here.) So I doubt that we can p(name removed by moderator)oint one or a few specific aspects of life and say “these are the non-plus-ultra” goals of our existence. All I can agree to is the trivial “life’s goal is to perpetuate its existence”. That is truly universal, but does not really help about morality.

(1) Do you agree that objective morality implies objective reasons for action?
(2) Do you agree that objective reasons for action can only be objective if they have an object (i.e., end)?
(3) Do you agree that object are goals?

1. yes.
2. yes.
3. not really. Some objects can be goals.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi Spock. Three preliminary remarks: First, I have not read the rest of the thread. I am replying to your original post, and my points may or may not have been brought up already. Second, please don’t take offense if I fail again to come onto the boards for a number of months. Though I’m off school for the summer, this is indeed the busiest time of the year, and I can only allot so much time to the computer. Third, I’m going to be using the word “objectivity” a lot, so I must qualify it. This has a separate meaning from the word “absolute”. Kant was both an absolutist. For him, some actions are categorically wrong in all circumstances. Aristotle on the other hand wasn’t necessarily an absolutist; he felt that, for many (though not all!) actions which we sometimes count as wrong, given certain circumstances, they would in fact be right! Nevertheless, for him, we could make a true judgment as to whether or not the person did an objectively good thing in the situation. This is just to illustrate what I mean. So objectivity does not necessarily imply absolutism. Most importantly, I take “objectivity” to be well-defined; I think you know what I mean by “objective”.

Now, your question seems to be one of ethical motivation, i.e. why might a person start to act in such a brutish manner due to a change of belief in a deity? (Indeed, I think your question cuts both ways: Why might an atheist radically change his life from one of philistinism to another of magnanimous virtue?) Here are a couple of thoughts:

Our representative person, Adam, may think that God is necessary for objectivity in either (a) moral ontology, (b) moral semantics, (c) moral epistemology, or (d) moral motivation. Using “or” in the typical logical sense, Adam may feel that God is foundational for **one or more **of these areas. We can consider each by itself, though I’ll save (d) for last, as I think it has many facets to it. I’ll continue in the next post.

 

[awatkins69]

With regards to (a), Adam may feel that, in the absence of God, there is no way to have any real grounding for right and wrong. He would say that if, per impossibile, God did not exist, then moral values would not exist. Upon considering the various secular theories for objective right and wrong, he felt that they all failed. In fact, he may find some knock-down argument which not only eliminates the secular grounds for morality individually, but in fact positively proves that God is the only way for there to be objective right and wrong. Now, though Adam grew up believing in God, at some point Adam has an intellectual encounter with Spock, and loses this belief. Adam follows the argument to its logical conclusion, and determines that nothing is objectively right or wrong. Up until this time, Adam was motivated to do what he thought was right and wrong by the belief that it was right and wrong in the first place. Now that his belief in right and wrong is unavailable to over-ride certain passions which many people have to a greater or lesser degree, he acts on his passions and descends onto the road of debauchery. For those who answered that they would act in such a manner upon losing credence in their deity, it’s explained by the fact that they both believe the conditional that Adam does, and have a good sense of where the passions and habits of their soul lean towards.

That’s one reason why Adam might change so drastically. Another is (b), the thesis that moral statements are simply unintelligible without God. Our moral semantics are inherently tied to God, Adam says. Now, I think it is harder for one to make a case for this, so I won’t spend too much time on it. Nevertheless, Adam’s a smart kid, and he’s convinced himself at least. What happens when God no longer exists? Right and wrong turn into mere babble, says he, and a set of events similar to the one laid out before ensues.

A third possible reason Adam turns into such a vicious character is what I’ve designated as (c): Adam feels that God is the only way that he could know right and wrong, and in the absence of such knowledge, he doesn’t know what to do. As a matter of choice, he takes the route he previously called “bad”. Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that Adam felt some **religious text **or even religious authority was needed for him to know what was right and wrong (though of course this is a possibility as well). It could even be that he believes that the mechanism by which we know right and wrong is some “intuitive moral faculty”. The only problem is that now he feels there is no way to know the reliability of his moral intuitions. Just as Descartes found God necessary to defeat skepticism about the senses, Adam finds God necessary to defeat skepticism about his moral intuitions.

 

[awatkins69]

My last point is (d), moral or ethical motivation. Moral motivation is the topic we’re dealing with when we ask questions like “Why would anyone do such a thing?”; “Why should I be good?”; “Should I do this because it’s my duty, or because it benefits me?”; etc. To put it into perspective, I should note a few things about moral motivation. For one, I don’t think we act in a vacuum. We are influenced by various external contingencies, by our previous actions, and most of all by the habits called virtues and vices which these actions have inculcated. I don’t deny free will, moral responsibility, or desert. But as far as reasons why someone might act in a certain way, these play a part in an explanation. A radical libertarian notion of free will makes actions unintelligible because it gives no place to these aspects of volition.

Given these assumptions, we can see how (d) works. Adam begins to believe that, in the absence of God, he has no reason to behave well. Maybe before his de-conversion he was motivated to act well by the impending threat of punishment (either eternal or temporal). Maybe he lived solely to please God, but in the absence of this, he saw no reason to act according to virtue. Maybe he proved to himself the conditional that, if his actions have no eternal significance, then they have no significance at all. There could be various reasons why God is the sole (or in most cases sole) motivator for ethical behavior. But with no reason to do good, he inevitably does bad. To exasperate things, Adam may be quite vicious in disposition, such that these ethical motivations are all that keep him from going bad. Having vices makes things much worse.

This case should be distinguished from (a). In (a), Adam doesn’t believe moral values exist, and hence he believes there’s no reason to act well. In this case, Adam might well still believe that objective morals are out there, but he sees no reason or motivation to adhere to them.

I’d like to make a couple of final notes. First is that I mostly don’t believe that God is necessary for either (a) or (c), and I’m agnostic as regards God’s being essential to (b) and (d). In other words, I’m not “one of those people.” But I think these are four explanations of why those people feel the way they do. They’re simply honest about themselves, and I’d bet that they’d answer in one or more of the four ways if you asked them the question of “Why?”

Hope that at least some people will find this monumental rant of mine helpful.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

With regards to (a), Adam may feel that, in the absence of God, there is no way to have any real grounding for right and wrong. He would say that if, per impossibile, God did not exist, then moral values would not exist. Upon considering the various secular theories for objective right and wrong, he felt that they all failed. In fact, he may find some knock-down argument which not only eliminates the secular grounds for morality individually, but in fact positively proves that God is the only way for there to be objective right and wrong. Now, though Adam grew up believing in God, at some point Adam has an intellectual encounter with Spock, and loses this belief. Adam follows the argument to its logical conclusion, and determines that nothing is objectively right or wrong. Up until this time, Adam was motivated to do what he thought was right and wrong by the belief that it was right and wrong in the first place. Now that his belief in right and wrong is unavailable to over-ride certain passions which many people have to a greater or lesser degree, he acts on his passions and descends onto the road of debauchery. For those who answered that they would act in such a manner upon losing credence in their deity, it’s explained by the fact that they both believe the conditional that Adam does, and have a good sense of where the passions and habits of their soul lean towards.

That’s one reason why Adam might change so drastically. Another is (b), the thesis that moral statements are simply unintelligible without God. Our moral semantics are inherently tied to God, Adam says. Now, I think it is harder for one to make a case for this, so I won’t spend too much time on it. Nevertheless, Adam’s a smart kid, and he’s convinced himself at least. What happens when God no longer exists? Right and wrong turn into mere babble, says he, and a set of events similar to the one laid out before ensues.

A third possible reason Adam turns into such a vicious character is what I’ve designated as (c): Adam feels that God is the only way that he could know right and wrong, and in the absence of such knowledge, he doesn’t know what to do. As a matter of choice, he takes the route he previously called “bad”. Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that Adam felt some **religious text **or even religious authority was needed for him to know what was right and wrong (though of course this is a possibility as well). It could even be that he believes that the mechanism by which we know right and wrong is some “intuitive moral faculty”. The only problem is that now he feels there is no way to know the reliability of his moral intuitions. Just as Descartes found God necessary to defeat skepticism about the senses, Adam finds God necessary to defeat skepticism about his moral intuitions.

I very much enjoyed reading this post. Its well written. Thank-you.

 

[Spock]

Hope that at least some people will find this monumental rant of mine helpful.

Thanks for making your posts. Now some points, even though I already stated my view during these dialogs. If you wish to read my posts, you will see them in more detail.

Adam really did not understand what Spock said. There is “objective” right and wrong, though there is no “absolute” right and wrong. Just because Adam loses his belief in God, his life here and now is still valuable (actually even more so, since there is no continuation). If he still values his life, then he logically tries to make it as good as possible. From that and from realizing that we are both individuals and social beings it logically follows that we should balance these two aspects of our nature, and thus unbridled selfish behavior (which denies our social nature) is a lousy strategy conducting one’s life. This was in reply to to your point (a).

For point (b), I have no answer. Adam in that case is “dumb”. Sorry for the harsh word.

Point (c) ties back directly to point (a). No need to elaborate any further.

I mostly agree with your point (d), at least at the beginning. (The remark about the libertarian free will is not correct, but it is not really important). But my remark is the same as it was pertaining point (a).

Finally, your opening statements. Whenever you have time to come and respond, I will be glad to see your ideas.

 

[Luke_K]

Even if God didn’t exist and there was no absolute morality, it still doesn’t make sense to go full-on hedonistic and suicidal. If you so desired, then go ahead, but why would you desire that anyways? On a basic natural level, unbridled hedonism and disregard for other humans is just stupid, with or without God. It’s confusing, unsatisfying, painful, and counter-productive. You don’t need to be religious to recognize that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Even if God didn’t exist and there was no absolute morality, it still doesn’t make sense?

Thats purely a subjective relative term if there is no God. Your point of view reflects what you want from life. Whether or not you care about the consequences of your actions depends on whether you give dame about your life.

All humans commit sin knowing that it could lead to something bad, even hell. I guess all humans are stupid.

to go full-on hedonistic and suicidal. If you so desired, then go ahead, but why would you desire that anyways? On a basic natural level, unbridled hedonism and disregard for other humans is just stupid, with or without God.

Practical stupidity is objectively meaningless. You arrogantly assume that your subjective fantasy driven use of the word should apply to everyone. it serves only you and the people that choose to relate to your fantasy

It’s confusing, unsatisfying, painful, and counter-productive.

You assume this is true for every one. But its only true for those who care to share your fantasy.

You don’t need to be religious to recognize that.

You just need to lie to yourself.

 

[Spock]

Even if God didn’t exist and there was no absolute morality, it still doesn’t make sense to go full-on hedonistic and suicidal. If you so desired, then go ahead, but why would you desire that anyways? On a basic natural level, unbridled hedonism and disregard for other humans is just stupid, with or without God. It’s confusing, unsatisfying, painful, and counter-productive. You don’t need to be religious to recognize that.

Very well said, with one caveat. On the short run, selfish and hedonistic behavior does not necessarily carry a built-in punishment, which is unfortunate. If someone disregards the laws of nature (like jumping off from a high cliff), the punishment comes swiftly and immediately. If there is a God, and he allows selfish and hedonistic behavior then what is the difference from a state of affairs, where there is no God?

 

[MarysGirls]

Unfortunately one must be a Catholic first to accept this. What I said is that there is no “divine list” which obviously tells us that it was originated by God.

That is not sufficient. A parent wants his child to love him, but that does not mean to allow the child to play with a loaded gun, and does not allow a known sexual predator to kidnap the child. We keep on interfering with other people’s “free will” all the time - precisely in the name of love and caring. We interfere with the children’s free will to keep the safe. We interfere with the criminals’ free will to keep others safe.

I might, and depending upon the substance I probably do. But as long as the person is an adult, it is not my place to forcefully interfere. Here is a nice little prayer: “Oh Lord, please save me from those people, what want to save me from myself!”.

That is very well. And it is expected in the name of love.

Are there such people? I don’t know. Maybe there are some seriously deranged individuals, who actually “do not care if they are in pain or not”. I think you look for a general “panacea”, an absolute “cure-for-all” which will work in every individual case. There is no such “magical potion”.

And I would like to point out something. Maybe you think that I am not consistent when I argue that interfering in the name of love is fine in certain cases, and I also argue that in other cases allowing others to engage in self-detrimental behavior is also fine. There is a huge difference between the two cases. In the first case I talk about parent-child relationship, and in the other I am talking about adult-adult relationship. The parent, knowing which behavior is detrimental is obliged to interfere - because the child does not know better, and is not expected to know better. The other adult person is supposed to know what is best for him, and - as long as he does not hurt others - it is his own prerogative to do whatever he wants to do.

Now, let’s translate this to the God-human relationship: We shall never be “adults” in this relationship. We shall never have the necessary knowledge to decide for ourselves which action is fatally detrimental to us. We shall always be “children” in relationship to God. Therefore - in the name of love - God is obliged to interfere with our free will when he seen that we are embarking on a self-destructive behavior. There is no excuse for God here, just like there is no excuse for the parent who allows his child to play with a loaded gun, and when the gun is discharged and kills someone, the parent starts to lament: “but I told him not to play with that gun!”.

It is true that God knows infinitely more than we do. But as we grow, we learn more and more, until we are not so much “children” as we are teenagers in the God-human relationship. God holds us responsible for what we know. If we do not know that something is a mortal sin, it is not held against us to the same degree, and so, is not fatal. You say we should not interfere with an adult’s mistakes, why? Because he is an adult: he knows what he is doing and he knows the consequences of his actions. It is the same with us and God. If we know what we are doing and the consequences of our actions, God does interfere directly, though He may use circumstances or His other children.