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

[Peter_Plato]

Moral relativism is the denial this. Part of it can be due to cultural or individual differences, but that is not all. Any and all circumstances, means and goals must be taken into consideration.

Well, no. This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

Note the truth of moral judgements under relativism is relative to three human and, therefore, subjective determinants: 1) traditions, 2) convictions and 3) practices.

This has nothing to do with any objective considerations which would make moral judgements “absolute or universal” – as per the definition. Ergo, judgements which are absolute or universally applicable are not relative.

Your admission that “Action X under certain circumstances is always wrong” makes those “certain circumstances” universally applicable irrespective of traditions, convictions or practices. Action X is ALWAYS WRONG when those certain conditions obtain is an absolute claim about Action X. The conditions are objectively determined and not at all dependent upon whether they are agreed upon by tradition, conviction or practice, which is how relativist ethics determine whether an act is right or wrong within a cultural tradition by conviction or practice.

If Action X, under specific defining circumstances is ALWAYS wrong, then it is wrong regardless of what certain cultures say about the act or whether the specific circumstances obtained in Nazi Germany, in Ottoman Turkey or in Imperial Japan. It is an ABSOLUTE claim. The culture would make no difference in determining the rightness or wrongness of the act since the act would be universally wrong and wrong in all three of those cultures and all others if the same specific conditions obtained in any of them.

This is Ethics 101, by the way. Your position is indefensible.

Frankly, I find it bizarre that you are arguing it since you previously claimed moral determinations were entirely subjective as matters of taste or preference. Then you changed your tune. Time to change it again.

 

[Solmyr]

Well, no.

Well, yes. The circumstances INCLUDE but not LIMITED to the social customs. It is simple linguistics. Absolute: “applicable is any and all circumstances”. Relative: “NOT absolute”. If you can’t see that, it is a waste of time to talk to you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My, oh my… we left the original topic far behind.

Well, then let’s bring it back to the topic, shall we?

The reason being a Christian is socially unacceptable today is because Christianity proposes an objective moral ground to which we are obligated and which is, therefore, deemed unacceptable to many in our culture who want the right to draft their own moral constitutions – which is why subjective moral relativism takes pride of place in their world view.

These individuals – a growing majority – are intolerant of any ethical position which challenges their “right” to self-determine and decide what is right or wrong for themselves. They have chosen to be the ultimate moral determiners for their actions and become piqued or incensed when any other possibilities are proposed which challenge their self-designated authority to make the rules.

Your attempt to distinguish between what you think and the strawman “absolutist” view you have uniquely characterized is a ploy to keep yourself on the socially acceptable “relativist” side, showing that you are merely a metaethical moral relativist trying to legitimize your relativism as a robust morality, when, in fact, it will likely fall apart on closer analysis – i.e., when you are called upon to define that “precise set of circumstances” which make Action X “always wrong.”

Wait for the excuses and the stampede out the door when push comes to shove and the hard work of “defining” that “precise set circumstances” becomes necessary. It ain’t gonna happen. Ergo, Action X will never be determined to be “always wrong” despite the frantic gesturing that such circumstances do, in fact, exist.

 

[Bradski]

Apparently, you missed the point. If it is the “right thing to do” in the case you proposed, then, logically speaking, it would be right to do it in ALL SUCH CASES where the circumstances are relevantly similar. Otherwise, ‘right’ is a meaningless determination, morally speaking…

Of course it would be the right think to do in all identical cases. If you have already decided that killing the girl is wrong in one case, then if the circumstances are identical in all cases, then it would always be wrong. If the circumstances are different, then it may lead to a different decision. I’m puzzled why you feel the need to make this point.

Unless, that is, you want to claim that said decisions form an absolute position and is therefore not relative. But that’s simply expressing astonishment that Bradski can claim that something is wrong as you did earlier.

Maybe I should restate my case to clear the air:

I reject the position that some things are wrong in themselves. That X is wrong in all conditions and under all circumstances. And here I am talking of statements that are not qualified and are not stated relation to any position. Examples would be: ‘sex outside of marriage is wrong’ or ‘contraception is wrong’ or ‘stealing is wrong’.

That said, there are situations, where the circumstances dictate, that are relative to the conditions, where something will always be wrong. As per the example above. If a father is going to kill his daughter because he believes she has brought shame on his family, then in every single case where these circumstances apply, then it will be wrong.

There is no need for faux surprise that someone who does not hold to an absolute view of morality can say that something is definitely wrong. And to suggest that someone who does say that something is wrong can have no basis for that view is bizarre.

Yes, there are in ALL such cases regardless of your religious beliefs or your atheism. Morally wrong acts would be morally wrong for anyone, whether religious or not. So correct morality can be imposed, whether by theists or atheists upon everyone because morally wrong acts are wrong in ALL such cases, irrespective of who (theist or atheist) commits the act…

Well, yes. As I explained above. The father would be wrong all the time. From whatever culture he came. In whatever time he lived. Let’s be clear, I am not supporting the view that things can be right for one culture or in one era and not in another. If that’s your definition of moral relativism, then I don’t agree with it either.

That said, we should always take into account the situation when apportioning blame for an immoral act. That is, the culture, the era etc.

Yes, and the moral thinking, principles or “universal methods” which would determinably make the example you gave the “right thing to do” could be used to determine other acts as right or not, which is why I asked you to provide those principles or “universal methods” by which any such determination could be made by the subject…

You know the answer. Harm. If there is no harm then there cannot even be any discussion of whether the act is immoral. It simply doesn’t enter into the equation. But I will grant you the need for discussion as to whether harm IS actually caused. With the rider that I will automatically reject any arguments based solely on religious beliefs. It will be a secular discussion, thanks for asking.

Scripture can provide rich and nuanced examples of situations, motives and acts which help us to understand morality at a deeper level than you might be willing to go.

I’m sure that there are many things we can learn from scripture. But I wouldn’t want to think you’d restrict yourself to just one book.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You know the answer. Harm. If there is no harm then there cannot even be any discussion of whether the act is immoral. It simply doesn’t enter into the equation. But I will grant you the need for discussion as to whether harm IS actually caused. With the rider that I will automatically reject any arguments based solely on religious beliefs. It will be a secular discussion, thanks for asking.

How is harm determined in a consistent and relevant way with regards to determining the wrongness of an act?

Keep it secular. Thank for answering.

This is the issue, by the way, with your position. You rely on a facade of terms to do the work for you but never seem to get past the verbiage to the nitty gritty of moral decisions.

Would dismembering innocent human beings for the sake of keeping one’s social or economic status be regarded as doing “harm?” What about dismembering them and selling their parts for fun and profit? What “specific circumstances” could ever justify that?

Wouldn’t such examples be relevantly similar to your case of a father killing his daughter for bringing shame onto the family? View it as a mother killing her son or daughter for interfering with her future social life, then. Relevantly similar, I would think, but you’d disagree would you not? Harm to those humans waiting to be born doesn’t count according to your moral calculus, despite your claim that “harm” is the determining principle in it.

Harm, then is not the foundational principle, is it? Determining what harm is and when it occurs would depend upon some other criteria which would filter out morally relevant harm from morally irrelevant harm. And that principle or criteria would be?

Might I suggest that any definition of “harm” depends entirely upon a corresponding definition of the end “good” for the moral being in a situation that could jeopardize that good – and the “good” which is removed or harmed by the “wrong” act, THAT would constitute the basis for determining harm. What would you suggest is that end “good” that is being removed and thus harming the person in the example of the father you gave?

Bradski, you should know better by now that I will not be happy with terms lobbed at me as if the one doing the throwing has successfully explained anything merely by tossing a few well-placed words at the issue as if that is all that is required to resolve it.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Roman Catholic christian Kenneth R. Miller (1) is morally right since he is “pro-science” whereas unchristian Roman Catholic Michael Behe is morally wrong since he and his ilk (3) are still attempting to teach “pseudoscience” ( Intelligent Design) in public schools but have failed due to the National Center for Science Education (4) who loves Kenneth R. Miller as much I love him and his family and the NCSE (5) who still to this day continues to fight against pseudoscience in the United States. It’s very sad to learn that Michael Behe’s son Leo became an atheist because of his father.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
2. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
3. urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ilk
4. rationalwiki.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Science_Education
5. ncse.com/about

 

[Bradski]

How is harm determined in a consistent and relevant way with regards to determining the wrongness of an act?

I don’t like answering a question with a question, but how would you do it?

It seems you want some fixed procedure to follow that will apply in all cases. And it seems that ‘Is harm being done’ is too…what? Simplistic? What do you want? Something a little deeper? A little more meaningful? How on earth can you break that down any further?

This is not rocket science. This is an exceptionally simple concept. But that doesn’t mean that the answers are always simple. Sometimes the answers exceptionally hard. Sometimes it could be said that there are no right answers. But I can accept that. Maybe you can’t.

In the example above, we would both reach the same conclusions about the matter in EXACTLY the same way. After you had stopped the guy, people would ask why you did it and you would say: ‘Well, he was obviously going to hurt her. Maybe kill her. Just because he believed she had shamed his family’.

You wouldn’t have had to reach scripture to check if it was OK. There would have been no need to check Catholic teaching on the matter. Every reasonable person, of whatever faith, or no faith at all, would act in the same way. And they would reach the same conclusion because it is not a difficult matter to discern.

Now if you have something that you might use that is any way different to the way the rest of us come to these conclusions, then please let me know. But I don’t think that you will because you do have nothing different.

Even Catholic teachings are based on the fact that if they are not followed, harm will be done. So why should we follow them? Well, to prevent harm. So what is the criteria for these teachings? What is the basis for exhorting us not to do various things? Why, because if we do, harm will ensue.

As I said, getting all reasonable people to agree on what constitutes harm is another matter. Which is why we need as many facts as possible on which we can base our decisions. Harris believes we can often use science to determine this. I tend to agree.

Oh, and what ‘good’ is being taken from the daughter? Seriously? Being beaten to death for having sex (or maybe even having been raped) is not obvious enough? I would have thought that it was a given that in any civilised state a girl might have the right to have sex without the fear of being killed for it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, and what ‘good’ is being taken from the daughter? Seriously? Being beaten to death for having sex (or maybe even having been raped) is not obvious enough? I would have thought that it was a given that in any civilised state a girl might have the right to have sex without the fear of being killed for it.

Leaving aside your other points – which could spawn a book length reply – let’s focus on this one.

You are saying, then, that the harm done to the girl by her father is that her life is being taken from her. This is implied by your phrase “beaten to death.” The other side of this point is that the father can only cite the good of the family’s reputation among their neighbors with reference to the good that he and the rest of the family is losing. Therefore, I suppose your argument would go, the girl’s right to life exceeds her family’s right to a good reputation among the neighbors. Correct?

So weighing the relative value of goods is the proper way to decide when and how much harm is done to an individual because we would insist that harm chiefly amounts to the removal of goods from the person harmed, correct?

I noticed you sidestepped the question of abortion. It would seem a relevantly similar situation where a mother-to-be decides to kill her waiting-to-be-born child simply for the sake of convenience. The mother is irrevocably harming the child by taking away his/her life for the sake of a lesser good – having a social life, her good reputation, convenience, etc. Why then are you not arguing that abortion is wrong in all cases where the life of a child is being taken for the sake of some lesser good accruing to the mother?

By the way, I tend to agree with Harris that science can be helpful with regard to morality, but this is nothing new. Both Aristotle and Aquinas were realists in that respect. The problem is that Harris assumes science gets us all the way there rather than merely scaffolding moral determinations. Ultimately, science doesn’t get us all the way there because goods are determined with reference to ends and science has pulled up it stakes and left the domain of teleology and end goods.

Second, science cannot tell us anything about the proper valuation of things – for example, that life itself is more valuable than some other good. That requires metaphysics and logic. In effect, everything important that science has to tell us requires metaphysics and logic, so this is nothing new – it just gets buried behind the scientific method as if metaphysics and logic only work within the context of that method and nowhere else. Which is clearly false, because metaphysics and logic are what justify using science to begin with.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, yes. The circumstances INCLUDE but not LIMITED to the social customs. It is simple linguistics. Absolute: “applicable is any and all circumstances”. Relative: “NOT absolute”. If you can’t see that, it is a waste of time to talk to you.

What you need to do, then, is demonstrate when and where “social customs” would make a morally relevant difference and should, therefore, be counted among those “specific circumstances” which would determine Action X to always be morally wrong.

How can changing social customs make something ALWAYS wrong unless those customs ALWAYS exist in every culture? I have this foreboding sense that you are about to undermine your entire argument by taking this step, but I am game to follow you some distance down this rabbit hole if only to show you that it is a rabbit hole, after all.

What you need to do, then, is give an example of a social custom which would function to make Action X always and everywhere – universally – wrong. That appears to be your claim, since the point you originally made was that some specific circumstances make some actions (Action X) always wrong.

Or are you intentionally trying to undermine your own argument?

 

[Bradski]

So weighing the relative value of goods is the proper way to decide when and how much harm is done to an individual because we would insist that harm chiefly amounts to the removal of goods from the person harmed, correct?

Pretty much correct. And I assume that you knew this from the outset in any case. It’s how we all operate. You and I do exactly the same. Except that in some scenarios you might say that something is wrong even if there is shown to be no harm involve. This is the absolute position to which I object.

And in passing, in the case of abortion (and if you want to discuss it further, then start a thread), people put different values on the various stages of pregnancy. People like myself have zero problem with stopping a pregnancy in the hours after conception and a whole lot of problems stopping it nine months after.

But there is no point where we move from ‘no problem’ to ‘problem’. It doesn’t work like that.

Maybe we should start a movement to ensure that as many people as possible who have sex and don’t want kids don’t actually have them. And that those who do, have the option to terminate the pregnancy immediately. Maybe that will come at some point. I hope so. But you won’t be supporting it. Which is a shame, as there are so many Catholics having abortions. A Catholic movement to help prevent unwanted pregnancies would go a long way to solving the problem.

The problem is that Harris assumes science gets us all the way there rather than merely scaffolding moral determinations.

I doubt if he would agree with that. And if he did, I would disagree with him.

Second, science cannot tell us anything about the proper valuation of things…

True. Science deals with objective facts. Values are relative.

 

[Sarcelle]

Do you have support for your blanket statements? How did slavery and then Jim Crow survive without the support of the Christian churches? The answer is that it did not, American Christians believed that the bible supported treating blacks as inferiors.

A lot of abolitionists were also Christians.

 

[TMC]

A lot of abolitionists were also Christians.

Absolutely true, of course. Christianity has generally moved toward greater justice and greater truth. The justice and truth of racial equality eventually won over the hearts of Christians. I believe that is also happening now with other issues.

 

[Peter_Plato]

True. Science deals with objective facts. Values are relative.

If you want to argue values are relative you will need to do so, because at the moment it is merely an assertion on your part that you squirrel in – in contrast to “objective facts,” which in the end are also determined purely in relation to a human perspective on the “objective” world. We, as humans, “agree” on standard units to measure duration, distance, volume, etc, but these are only significant and “objective” within the perspective humans have on the world. Ultimately, these reduce to being just as “subjective” as the values you assume are merely subjective.

If, for example, mind/meaning/form/logos have greater significance to the ground of Being itself – that which is ultimately foundational to reality – then these may, in fact, be more objective and significant than the “objective facts” to which you subscribe.

The pure fact that these quantifiable characteristics of the universe can be easily determined or are easily seen to be consistent by us as sentient beings does not imply they are more significant in reality. That is a non sequitur and blatant question begging. Objective facts are more significant BECAUSE they are easily or consistently determined is not, in itself, an argument.

The fact that values are difficult to comprehend or grasp does not mean they are merely subject dependent. They may be both of those for a purpose – a purpose which may be integral to our existence, itself.

You are trying to make the case that “harm” can be determined and agreed upon by “reasonable” human beings. I would argue that moral values can be determined consistently and objectively by good and conscientious moral beings.

The fact that there exist immoral beings is not an argument against moral values nor does it make the case that moral values are indeterminate just as the fact that there exist irrational human beings is not an argument against the efficacy of reason to arrive at reasonable or logical conclusions, nor that reasonable conclusions are indeterminate merely because human beings disagree on what makes a “reasonable” conclusion. Again, a non sequitur.

We trust those who properly use the faculty of reason well to arrive at reasonable “conclusions.” I would suppose that good moral agents should be trusted to provide an accounting of what makes a good moral “decision.” Again, the fact that humans exist who flout or disregard sound moral principles is not an argument that moral values are purely subjective or relative, just as the fact that irrational or even insane individuals exist is not an argument against the value of logic or the proper use of reason.

 

[Bradski]

If you want to argue values are relative you will need to do so…

I’ve got a small gold ring on my little finger. It was my mother’s wedding ring. How much value would you put on it? It’s only a ring, after all. Hardly a few grams of gold. Can’t be worth much.

There’s a book upstairs that some day we’ll pass on to our grandson. He can put his signature alongside that of his great great great grandmother and all her siblings. How much value would you put on it? It’s only an old bible, after all. Can’t be worth much.

My mug is sitting on a small placemat as I type this. It’s literally a few lolly sticks that have been stuck together and painted. My son did it when he was in kindy. How much value would you put on it? It isn’t worth anything at all.

Now I don’t know what you do to earn a living. But if you’re not a charity worker, then whatever you do as acts of charity, spending time or money, is limited by the fact that you have to earn a living yourself and there are costs involved in having a family and having a reasonable standard of living.

But if, heaven forbid, your kid was sick, then you would spend every waking moment and every cent that you had to try to ensure that she got better. But only for your kid. You don’t, and wouldn’t do it for anyone else. Because those other kids are not as valuable to you, are they…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve got a small gold ring on my little finger. It was my mother’s wedding ring. How much value would you put on it? It’s only a ring, after all. Hardly a few grams of gold. Can’t be worth much.

There’s a book upstairs that some day we’ll pass on to our grandson. He can put his signature alongside that of his great great great grandmother and all her siblings. How much value would you put on it? It’s only an old bible, after all. Can’t be worth much.

My mug is sitting on a small placemat as I type this. It’s literally a few lolly sticks that have been stuck together and painted. My son did it when he was in kindy. How much value would you put on it? It isn’t worth anything at all.

Now I don’t know what you do to earn a living. But if you’re not a charity worker, then whatever you do as acts of charity, spending time or money, is limited by the fact that you have to earn a living yourself and there are costs involved in having a family and having a reasonable standard of living.

But if, heaven forbid, your kid was sick, then you would spend every waking moment and every cent that you had to try to ensure that she got better. But only for your kid. You don’t, and wouldn’t do it for anyone else. Because those other kids are not as valuable to you, are they…

Their value and your responsibility to them are two different considerations. You take responsibility for a child because you have a unique responsibility for him/her. If by some freak of circumstance a different child ends up in your charge, you would have responsibility for that child – temporarily until the situation was resolved – but you would have a responsibility not based upon whether or not you feel some sense of “valuing” them. You pretty much admitted this with your example of stopping a father killing his daughter for shaming the family. How does the girl suddenly become “valuable” to you because the father was going to kill her? She doesn’t and some would stay out of the entire moral problem by claiming it is none of their business – thereby making a false equivalence between their feelings or “valuing” something or someone and the value intrinsic to that object or person. Gold has functional value but people ought not be valued as means to ends, which implies human beings have intrinsic value even if not felt or recognized. That does not stop us from having certain obligations to other humans even if we don’t particularly “value” or “love” them. Moral rules of thumb such as “Love you neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” are attempts to put us beyond the idea that we must feel a sense of valuing others before we have any responsibility for them, which us why Jesus said “Love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you.” We still have a moral obligation to act morally towards all other human beings BECAUSE they are human, not because we “value” them.

 

[Bradski]

What you value and that for which you feel responsible are indeed two different things. But you are saying that you do not value your child any more than any other child. That you would spend all to save her simply because of your ‘responsibility’ to her.

Tell her that you’ll be seeing a lot less of her in the future. You have just realised that you have a greater responsibility to people in sub Saharan Africa. I mean, what’s time spent with her or money spent on new clothes or an iPhone or braces when there is so much you need to do. Having all that responsibility…

 

[clem456]

Do you have support for your blanket statements? How did slavery and then Jim Crow survive without the support of the Christian churches? The answer is that it did not, (some) American Christians believed that the bible supported treating blacks as inferiors.

Are you positing that Christianity is opposed to justice and truth and human dignity?
As with any belief, the believer practices the belief with varying degrees of virtue. The relative practice of the belief alone does not affect the value of the belief itself.
The belief itself is either true, or it is not.

For example, we shouldn’t judge the beliefs of atheism by the actions of one man alone, like Josef Stalin. That would be prejudice.

 

[TMC]

Are you positing that Christianity is opposed to justice and truth and human dignity?
As with any belief, the believer practices the belief with varying degrees of virtue. The relative practice of the belief alone does not affect the value of the belief itself.
The belief itself is either true, or it is not.

For example, we shouldn’t judge the beliefs of atheism by the actions of one man alone, like Josef Stalin. That would be prejudice.

I don’t know how anyone could read my posts and reach that conclusion. I am positing that Christianity is for justice and dignity, but that many Christians have used their faith, including citations to scripture, to justify the opposite. Thankfully, Christians continue to generally move in the direction of justice, albeit with some fits and starts.

I said nothing about atheism or Stalin, so not sure what you are going on about there.

 

[Bradski]

You mean secularism not atheism. There aren’t any beliefs associated with atheism.

 

[clem456]

You mean secularism not atheism. There aren’t any beliefs associated with atheism.

We are probably not using “belief” in the same way. You might credibly claim that atheism doesn’t believe “this or that”, or that it doesn’t accept certain sets of popular religious beliefs.

But you can’t get out of bed in the morning without believing something.

People are hard-wired to believe, to give their assent to some truth. Proof being we are here discussing it.