Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over

[Bradski]

Nope. Can’t find that either. You really do seem to be having a problem with basic comprehension when it comes to my posts. Most people disagree with what I say, but at least they grasp what I mean. Not many people twist what I say to suit their own arguments. I’m really not sure why your track record in this regard is so appalling.

In any case, I think Sol covered what I meant. Which was that the majority that you feel you are up against is not some mysterious cabal of left leaning secularists but those in your own camp. Whether they are right or whether you are , as I have said more times that I’d like to remember (although obviously not enough so that you would forget) is not open to a vote.

 

[vz71]

Careful, Peter. Some people less well-disposed than I might consider that you were calling me a liar.

Well you are trying to make the case that truth is subjective.
Given the logical conclusion of the argument, what claim is left to any truth at all?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whether they are right or whether you are , as I have said more times that I’d like to remember (although obviously not enough so that you would forget) is not open to a vote.

So, what precisely is it “open to?”

How is the determination to be made?

We wouldn’t expect that both are correct, would we? Unless, of course, the law of non-contradiction is being suspended arbitrarily by you, in this case, and just ‘cause.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What kind of “truth” are you talking about? Objective propositions about the reality? Like “this is a piece of iron”. Or “the distance between these two points is exactly one yard”, or “the temperature is precisely 75 degrees Fahrenheit”. These kinds of propositions have nothing to do with “opinion”. On the other hand, a proposition like: “Beethoven’s music is beautiful”, or “this piece of Limburger cheese stinks”, or “the Holocaust was an immoral event”, or “the temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot”… these kinds of propositions are subjective. Or the proposition: “tomorrow there will be rain”. They cannot have a truth value associated with them.

It is not a moral proposition, only a simple statement of fact. In our eyes it was an atrocity on a huge scale. But if God would commit or order such and action, then it would be virtuous to comply and sinful to resist.

An “absolute” proposition would include God, too. As soon as you exclude God, it will become a “relative” proposition. Elementary, my dear Watson.

No it would only be virtuous to comply and sinful to resist if it weren’t “an atrocity on a huge scale.”

The problem is that God did not commit nor did he order the actions that the Nazis carried out. Those who were murdered were largely innocent and we have NO reason to think God gave his approval.

In order to make your case you would have to find some “evidence” that God was involved in the planning or carrying out of the action. You can resort to OT events if you want, but the miracles preceding those events are all part of the “circumstances” of the story and were clearly done to demonstrate God’s involvement. Ergo those individuals who were killed were either NOT innocent or God had an alternative plan for them.

The Nazis acted on their own – there is no “relative” proposition to be made here unless you want to ignore all of the available “circumstances” from that received narrative.

Regarding…

By the way, there is no such thing as “absolute moral truth”. Without considering ALL the circumstances one cannot make a judgment. Sure we consider the Nazi’s actions unacceptable, but that is not an absolute condemnation.

Not sure which “circumstances” you have in mind here, but until you produce reliable “evidence” that we are missing some crucial “circumstances” with respect to what the Nazis did, we have no reason to not make an absolute judgement and condemnation.

Judgements are made by plausible evidence. Dreaming up remote “possibilities” in order to forestall reasonable judgements will simply paralyze every judicial and moral system, and put on hold every decision you are called to make regarding right judgement. This is the difference between reasonable doubt and Cartesian doubt or logical possibility – Wallace, by the way, does discuss this in the book and shows how “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the normal and acceptable standard for making legal and moral judgements.

This is why your argument fails.

Reasonable people understand the difference and act accordingly. The Nazis committed heinous moral crimes according to any reasonable standard. If you wish to toss out “reasonable” as the standard, do so, but refrain from insisting that your view on the entire matter is still a “reasonable” one to take. It isn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Careful, Peter. Some people less well-disposed than I might consider that you were calling me a liar.

According to your ethics, such a call would be meaningless, so why would you be upset even if I did?

It would appear that “liar” would need to have some objective standing in order to be disputable or offensive. If “liar” is merely subjective, then why aren’t you smiling approvingly and permitting me my subjective “preference?”

Perhaps, to me “liar” is compliment – I mean, if morality is purely subjective, then even the “less, well-disposed” should find no offence being called even much worse things. It is much like expressing a preference for ice cream, remember? You like pistachio and I like wild cherry.

You are offended by being called a “liar” but I prefer calling others “liars” with regard to anything they disagree with me about.

No need to become ill-disposed over subjective preferences. Certainly, you wouldn’t be offended because I like wild cherry ice cream, but you like pistachio, now would you be? Subjective preference.

Remember that “Sol covered what… [you] meant.” Your words.

On the other hand, a proposition like: “Beethoven’s music is beautiful”, or “this piece of Limburger cheese stinks”, or "the Holocaust was an immoral event”, or "Bradski is a liar”,] or “the temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot”… these kinds of propositions are subjective. Or the proposition: “tomorrow there will be rain”. They cannot have a truth value associated with them.

Note: Purple text = my addition to the original

Ergo, proposing that someone is a “liar” CANNOT "have a truth value associated with” it.

Sol said so. Yes?

Entirely subjective. Yes?

Not even “open to vote.” Yes?

Come on, Brad, be consistent with your moral philosophy, such as it is.

 

[Tablefor9]

…

By the way, there is no such thing as “absolute moral truth”. Without considering ALL the circumstances one cannot make a judgment.

That’d be an absolute, right? That there are no absolutes?

…
Sure we consider the Nazi’s actions unacceptable, but that is not an absolute condemnation. .

Astounding.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Very late reply, but you’re still around so I’ll do it.

I think you missed the proper inference of my point. No, “black people” didn’t stop being discriminated against as soon as the Civil Rights Movement was formed. First of all, oppression is not the same as discrimination, so you are playing a bit fast and loose with switching terms. The civil rights movement could only succeed to the extent that those in it were not oppressed. They may have spoken for the oppressed, but the oppressed had a voice to the extent that they were permitted to have one by circumstance, by support from non-oppressed groups or individuals, or by the failure of their oppressors. Real oppression, in that sense, occurred when slavery was fully operative and black Americans had no say in what happened to them.

Discrimination can be a form of oppression by the definition most people use, which just refers to cruel treatment. Many of those involved in civil rights activism were certainly oppressed. I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make here. You know what I’m talking about, this just seems like sophistry. You’re going to correct my use of language rather than actually tell me how Christians have a particularly hard time in the USA.

Interesting that you leave out the little tidbit that black Americans are far more likely to be killed by other black Americans than they are by the police and yet that never seems to be mentioned by those who want to make a point about oppression and discrimination.

I didn’t “miss it out”, there’s nothing statistically significant about it. You’re more likely to be killed by people you spend time around, and black people are more likely to spend time around other black people. White people are more likely to be killed by white people. There’s nothing abnormal about that. Police killings of black people are widely disproportionate compared to white people, however, Police are much more likely to kill unarmed black people than unarmed white people, for example (sounds like cruel treatment to me!).

This is to say nothing of the number of black Americans who abort their babies in far higher numbers than other groups.

Unintended pregnancies are more common among poor and low-income women. Black people are more likely to live in poverty. Abortion is an essential service for the poor. If you want to stop this many black babies from being aborted then you need to tackle the material conditions that lead to people having unintended pregnancies.

 

[Bradski]

So, what precisely is it “open to?”

How is the determination to be made?

Same way as you do it.

 

[Bradski]

According to your ethics, such a call would be meaningless, so why would you be upset even if I did?

There should be some system whereby I can claim back the time I wasted reading posts like this.

 

[vz71]

Well I know who won that debate.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

What kind of “truth” are you talking about? Objective propositions about the reality? Like “this is a piece of iron”. Or “the distance between these two points is exactly one yard”, or “the temperature is precisely 75 degrees Fahrenheit”. These kinds of propositions have nothing to do with “opinion”. On the other hand, a proposition like: “Beethoven’s music is beautiful”, or “this piece of Limburger cheese stinks”, or “the Holocaust was an immoral event”, or “the temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot”… these kinds of propositions are subjective. Or the proposition: “tomorrow there will be rain”. They cannot have a truth value associated with them.

It is not a moral proposition, only a simple statement of fact. In our eyes it was an atrocity on a huge scale. But if God would commit or order such and action, then it would be virtuous to comply and sinful to resist.

An “absolute” proposition would include God, too. As soon as you exclude God, it will become a “relative” proposition. Elementary, my dear Watson.

Isn’t the belief that “there is no absolute moral truth” by definition an absolute moral truth? If it is, it undoes itself from the start. If it isn’t, it can’t be taken as truth.

 

[Solmyr]

That’d be an absolute, right? That there are no absolutes?

No, this is not a “moral” statement.

Isn’t the belief that “there is no absolute moral truth” by definition an absolute moral truth? If it is, it undoes itself from the start. If it isn’t, it can’t be taken as truth.

I repeat: “this is not a moral statement”.

 

[Solmyr]

Ergo, proposing that someone is a “liar” CANNOT "have a truth value associated with” it.

Actually it can. All you have to do is establish that the other person intentionally distorted a FACT that is KNOWN to him. A lie is knowingly stating something that the person KNOWS to be incorrect. (Like the presents under the Christmas tree were delivered by Sandy Claws… that is a lie, albeit a “white lie”.)

But even if it would be subjective, it would be insulting. And there are some rules around here which forbid insulting others. Better stick with those examples I gave.

 

[Solmyr]

No it would only be virtuous to comply and sinful to resist if it weren’t “an atrocity on a huge scale.”

The “atrocity” is contingent upon God’s attitude. It is not absolute. On our scale they were atrocities.

In order to make your case you would have to find some “evidence” that God was involved in the planning or carrying out of the action.

Everything that happens carries either God’s explicit or implicit approval - according to the Catholic belief. And since God did not prevent the actions of the Nazis, he did not DISAPPROVE them. He either approved them, or did not care either way.

 

[Tablefor9]

…

Everything that happens carries either God’s explicit or implicit approval - according to the Catholic belief. And since God did not prevent the actions of the Nazis, he did not DISAPPROVE them. He either approved them, or did not care either way.

1. Allowing does not equate approving.
2. God allows for free will of humanity, only thus is there potential for great atrocity or great sanctity. Surely even the blind can tell the difference.
3. One may not like that there are absolutes. One may resolutely refuse to acknowledge them. One may fail to comprehend the depth of a love that can and does bring beauty from the ashes of humanity’s unwillingness to faithfully treat others, but it is glaring disingenuous to say that a statement denying moral absolutes is not a moral statement.

 

[Solmyr]

Allowing does not equate approving.

To allow something is IMPLICIT approval. If you don’t approve of something and have the power to prevent it, and let it happen, then you are a complicit in the act.

God allows for free will of humanity, only thus is there potential for great atrocity or great sanctity.

That is just a cop-out. If a parent allows his child to play with a loaded weapon - in the name of “FREE WILL”, then he deserves to be held responsible for any act committed by the child.

…it is glaring disingenuous to say that a statement denying moral absolutes is not a moral statement.

Obviously you don’t get it. A “moral” statement is about “ought’s” not “IS-s”.

 

[Tablefor9]

…

Obviously you don’t get it. A “moral” statement is about “ought’s” not “IS-s”.

Maybe, after being up all night at three (!) births, I am missing something. I’ll re-read after I wake. Perhaps posts offering the idea that even the holocaust is not de facto evidence of a moral absolute will seem lucid and well reasoned. After all, it is February and it could be that even Satan goes ice-skating.

 

[vz71]

To allow something is IMPLICIT approval. If you don’t approve of something and have the power to prevent it, and let it happen, then you are a complicit in the act.

Simply untrue.
Preserving the free will of an individual does not imply approval of the choice they make.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually it can. All you have to do is establish that the other person intentionally distorted a FACT that is KNOWN to him. A lie is knowingly stating something that the person KNOWS to be incorrect. (Like the presents under the Christmas tree were delivered by Sandy Claws… that is a lie, albeit a “white lie”.)

But even if it would be subjective, it would be insulting. And there are some rules around here which forbid insulting others. Better stick with those examples I gave.

Well, okay, so you have established what a lie is. What you haven’t shown is that Bradski has any reason to be “disconcerted” by being called “a liar.” I mean whether or not lying is a good or bad thing is not determined by factual analysis, is it? That would require a value judgement which you claim is completely subjective just as condemning atrocities committed by Nazis is completely a subjective matter, according to your perspective. Ergo, Bradski, as I stated, has no reason – according to the moral position to which he subscribes – to be perturbed by someone else calling him a “liar.” Whether or not that word has negative connotations depends entirely, according to both of you, upon the individual’s subjective preferences, which do not have objective grounds.

In other words, Bradski is being inconsistent when he shows moral outrage over being called a liar. He is projecting his subjective moral preferences unto others - a big :tsktsk: according to his – and your – moral view.

Consistency is the issue and neither of you are being consistent when you hold moral values to be entirely subjective and then turn around to condemn others for holding views different than your own. Absolutists are, at least, consistent when they claim morality applies to all moral agents without prejudice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To allow something is IMPLICIT approval. If you don’t approve of something and have the power to prevent it, and let it happen, then you are a complicit in the act.

Sometimes, the obvious gets missed.

You say to allow something is IMPLICIT approval.

That would imply that your claiming Nazi atrocities are merely to be subjectively determined, with NO objective means for determining their wrongness is to implicitly endorse that such atrocities were not really wrong after all, and, therefore APPROVE of them as merely subjective preferences rather than being objectively evil.

What kind of “truth” are you talking about? Objective propositions about the reality? Like “this is a piece of iron”. Or “the distance between these two points is exactly one yard”, or “the temperature is precisely 75 degrees Fahrenheit”. These kinds of propositions have nothing to do with “opinion”. On the other hand, a proposition like: “Beethoven’s music is beautiful”, or “this piece of Limburger cheese stinks”, or “the Holocaust was an immoral event”, or “the temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot”… these kinds of propositions are subjective. Or the proposition: “tomorrow there will be rain”. They cannot have a truth value associated with them.

The problem with your view is that you aren’t merely claiming that moral issues are difficult to adjudicate because they involve making evaluative claims, you are holding the position that all evaluative claims, including the commission of heinous atrocities are inconsequential because they involve subjective determinations. You are assuming that subjectivity as grounds for making moral claims is, itself, inconsequential. That is based upon the prior assumption that subjects have no standing as far as epistemological grounds for determining the truth of things.

In your view subjectivity has no standing BECAUSE subjects have no inherent value, which undermines all moral systems by fiat.

Yet, this is clearly false because ONLY subjects can subscribe to and give epistemology any standing to begin with. The value of epistemology derives from the subjects who endorse it. You are missing what is in front of your nose. The same grounds upon which epistemology has any grounds for endorsement are the grounds upon which morality itself ought to be grounded – the clear thinking of rational moral subjects.

You simply want to ignore the “moral” part by focusing on the rational part as if merely assuming human beings are only rational rather than rational and moral makes your case. It doesn’t.