Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)

Posted on by

This post is long overdue.

One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.

Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.

Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?

As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?

Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?

If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.

After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.

1,378 thoughts on “Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)”

  1. phoodoo: Lizzie, this is not a discussion about HOW to deicde what is moral and what isn’t. If that is your argument, have it with someone other than me. This is a philosophical discussion about the existence of a sense of morality.

    OK, glad to have that clarified finally.

    I have told you very explicitly that I believe all people have morals built into them, that has been given divinely. THAT is my logic. You may not believe it, but it is a valid explanation for how people came to have morality, and why moral imperatives exists.

    Fine. I believe that all people have morals (in the sense of thinking that some things are right and some things are wrong, but not a foolproof sense of which is which, which is, as you specify, not what we are apparently talking about) built into them but that they don’t have divine origin.

    Why does it matter what each of us believes about the origin of that sense that there is such a thing as right or wrong?

    You have nothing, other than saying you believe your way of deciding how to rule society is a good one. So what, I am not asking or debating this. Where did your morals come from?? If they are not an accident of DNA in a Godless world, then what? What is left? No more BS about emergence please.

    I our capacity to think that some things are right and some wrong evolved.

  2. Allan Miller: it is neither more nor less ‘logical’ to say that we are possessed of a moral sense because God talks to us through it, than to argue it has a genetic basis in sociality and a cultural basis in learned norms.

    Agreed,

    What is logical is to say that if it was God who gave us the moral sense then our moral sense is actually a good thing but if our morals result from causes that are not God then they are not really moral at all

    peace

  3. fifthmonarchyman,

    What “bugs” us is the inconsistency of moral outrage in a world supposedly without objective morality.

    There is nothing inconsistent about it. It is ludicrous to argue that a sense of outrage (a subjective thing if ever there was one) is only ‘consistent’ if we are pissed off on God’s behalf.

    No one is outraged that I prefer pumpkin to pecan pie. I can’t see how subjective morality is any different.

    Thing A attracts a sense of annoyance/outrage. Thing B does not. Thing A and thing B are 2 different things. That you don’t see them as different argues for you clinging to your religion for dear life, for everyone’s sake. You are not to be trusted with personal responsibility.

  5. What’s bugging theists is pretty much what bugs us all at one time or another.

    Death.

  6. Reciprocating Bill: Do we “know” that others are conscious agents – is there response to “philosopher’s doubt” about same? Doesn’t matter.

    So you don’t know. I would disagree and say it does matter.
    It’s not murder to ice zombies

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman,

    What is logical is to say that if it was God who gave us the moral sense then our moral sense is actually a good thing but if our morals result from causes that are not God then they are not really moral at all

    That does not strike me as a logical argument in the sense in which I understand the term. You appear to define ‘moral’ as ‘that which can only flow from God’. Victoria per definitionum, as no Latin speaker ever said.

  9. Allan Miller: Thing A attracts a sense of annoyance/outrage. Thing B does not. Thing A and thing B are 2 different things.

    different for you does not equal objectively different

    peace

  10. Allan Miller: You appear to define ‘moral’ as ‘that which can only flow from God’.

    If you disagree please present your case. I’m all ears

    peace

  11. The moral sense helps societies to function at numerous scales, from the family outwards. Is that a ‘good thing’?

  13. Elizabeth: Why does it matter what each of us believes about the origin of that sense that there is such a thing as right or wrong?

    And because in your worldview, one should have no problem convincing themselves that the existence of these morals is an accident, an illusion of reality.

    If everyone believed that morals were accidents, then its not a big step to ignore them.

  14. fifthmonarchyman,

    If you disagree please present your case. I’m all ears

    My ‘case’ is simply not to define morality as ‘that which can only flow from God’. You could surely have worked that out yourself.

  16. Reciprocating Bill,

    Participation at this site entails obligations similar to those that attend playing a game. While there is no objective moral obligation to answer questions, the site has aims, rules and informal stakeholders, just as football has same. When violations of those aims and rules are perceived and/or the enforcement of same is seen as arbitrary or inconsistent, differences and conflicts arise. No resort to objective morality, yet perfectly comprehensible and appropriate opprobrium.

    If I’d known you were going to write my response better than me, I wouldn’t have bothered.

    This paragraph should be part of the site rules.

  18. phoodoo,

    If everyone believed that morals were accidents, then its not a big step to ignore them.

    I don’t think morals are ‘accidents’, but the logic does not flow anyway. I feel no compulsion to ignore my moral sensations, any more than I ignore the urge to pee. Why would their having a basis in genetics or upbringing render them any less real or worth listening to?

  19. Patrick: Reciprocating Bill,

    If I’d known you were going to write my response better than me, I wouldn’t have bothered.

    This paragraph should be part of the site rules.

    But not binding on zombies.

  21. Patrick:
    Reciprocating Bill,

    If I’d known you were going to write my response better than me, I wouldn’t have bothered.

    This paragraph should be part of the site rules.

    Seconded

  26. phoodoo: And because in your worldview, one should have no problem convincing themselves that the existence of these morals is an accident, an illusion of reality.

    If everyone believed that morals were accidents, then its not a big step to ignore them.

    I don’t think they are accidents.

  28. Richardthughes,

    We could just ban everyone except RB and he could write everyone’s posts.

    Volume way down, quality way up.

    And Elizabeth gets a paper on how long it takes Reciprocating Bill to develop dissociative identity disorder.

  29. phoodoo,

    Allan there is a huge fundamental difference. I can say unequivocally that I believe Sharia law is immoral, and I was given this knowledge that it is immoral from a higher being when I was created.

    There is an equal certainty in the heart of the devout Muslim proponent of Sharia Law. So I don’t know how trumpeting ‘objectivity’ helps you here.

    You can not say anything definitely about why you think aspects of Sharia Law might be immoral. As OMagain said, morality equals law. That’s about all you got.

    He didn’t say that, and I certainly don’t think it. Like I say, give me an example and I’ll give you an opinion. (Shock! Horror! Opinions!).

    Oh, plus that nagging feeling inside you (that you can’t say where it came from) that it is immoral. Its just how you feel, but you don’t know why.

    But I do know why.

    So do I. We have evolved to conform to the norms of the social group in which we grew up. The sense – fairly uniquely – feels like a kind of external restraint. But it is unlikely to be a real external restraint, given that it maps very closely upon cultural norms (which include those of your local religion). And one can depart from the local norms – you aren’t obliged to follow them. You can find homosexuality acceptable when your society as a whole does not, for example.

    What is your explanation for the fact that your sense of moral outrage differs from that felt by (say) a jihadist? Pictures of Mohammed get them very worked up. Are they right or wrong in God’s eyes? How does objectivity help decide?

  30. Allan Miller:

    phoodoo,

    Allan there is a huge fundamental difference. I can say unequivocally that I believe Sharia law is immoral, and I was given this knowledge that it is immoral from a higher being when I was created.

    There is an equal certainty in the heart of the devout Muslim proponent of Sharia Law. So I don’t know how trumpeting ‘objectivity’ helps you here.

    Exactly. The (christian) theist’s lack of objectivity or even decent human empathy is just stunning.

    I know they’re like that, then they state it as if they’re proud of themselves for being religiously-intolerant bigots, and I’m just stunned again.

    Don’t get me wrong — I hate Sharia as much as I hate murderous christianity — but I’m not horrible enough to believe that only one branch of Abrahamic monotheism is “immoral” according to that “higher being” whom they both kowtow to.

    God, do they ever listen to themselves?

  31. Allan Miller: The moral sense helps societies to function at numerous scales, from the family outwards. Is that a ‘good thing’?

    From a evolutionary or ecological perspective I would say no. Functioning society usually means more people which means degraded environment and eventual plague/extinction

    From the perspective of the universe I would say no. The universe doesn’t much care one way or the other AFAIK.

    From the perspective of those on the out’s of society I would say no a functioning society means more resources for persecution.

    It seems that a functioning society is only a good thing for the “society” in question.

    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: What are they then? Without teleology everything is an accident.

    Is it an “accident” that water flows from the mountains into the sea?
    Is it an “accident” that snow crystals are six-pointed, not five or seven?
    Is it an “accident” that the rings of Saturn form a perfect disc?

  41. fifthmonarchyman: According to hotshoe and OMagain it is definitely murder to even consider unplugging a bot

    It was in fact a bit more complicated. You can’t tell bots from people, but are happy to unplug things you think are bots. In that situation, I would not be so quick to pull the plug. That’s all.

    When AI comes, what do you think it’ll think of people like you who want to deny it the right to life? Can you think of any parallels here?

  42. fifthmonarchyman: Without teleology everything is an accident.

    And here we are again, back to sunday school. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Suffering abounds, and is endless and is the fuel for the fire of life. Children get cancer. Good things happen to bad people. People live entire lives in slavery.

    And the bog roll has just run out too! Could you ask the man upstairs to pass a roll? I know it’s within his power to do so! Why does he punish me so???

  43. fifthmonarchyman: Are you assuming my worldview?

    No, I simply want to understand your question. I said I did not think our capacity to think that some actions are wrong and others right is an “accident”. You asked:

    fifthmonarchyman: What are they then? Without teleology everything is an accident.

    I don’t know how to respond. According to you everything is teleological, but nonetheless you have an apparently empty category of thing called “accidents”.

    According to me, however, I think that some things are “teleological” i.e. result from intentional decisions by some intentional agent; some things are “accidents” in the sanes that we don’t have a general rule that covers them, and some things are the result of systematic processes that we can understand.

    I think the evolution of the capacity to think that some actions are right and some are wrong falls into that third category, but also partly into the first, in that we intentionally inculcate into our children the idea that some actions are right and some are wrong.

    I don’t think we do this “accidentally”, nor do I think our capacity to do this was “accidental”. I think it was a direct outcome of our evolution as intelligent social animals.

  44. fifthmonarchyman: According to hotshoe and OMagain it is definitely murder to even consider unplugging a bot

    And no, the specific case was “is the ‘bot’ exhibiting self-awareness”? In that case there would necessarily be ethical considerations. You said you could code something up, and I asked you to do so. I can go back and revisit that exchange if you like. But you are not going to be able to do that, we both know that.

    But the point is you can’t conceive of what it would take to “code something up” that exhibited self-awareness but you would nonetheless be happy to “pull the plug” on such an entity despite anything it might do or say because some book written before there were computers said that only people can be ‘people’.

    And I then spent some time expressing my dismay at the fact that there are actually people would would act in such a way for such reasons.

  45. Elizabeth: I think the evolution of the capacity to think that some actions are right and some are wrong falls into that third category

    so you are saying morals are the result of “systematic processes that we can understand”?

    Is that anything like natural law?

    peace

  46. fifthmonarchyman: so you are saying morals are the result of “systematic processes that we can understand”?

    Yes.

    Is that anything like natural law?

    Well, I think it’s a result of the workings out of the laws of nature, yes.

  47. fifthmonarchyman: so you are saying morals are the result of “systematic processes that we can understand”?

    There’s something of a gap between “physics” and “morals” which we’re still attempting to bridge. Can you bear with us for a little while?

  48. I apologize if this has been discussed, but I only have 7% left on my iPhone so I can’t read all the comments.

    Do all humans have a “moral sense”? Yes. Except for a very small minority.

    Are there objective moral standards? Given the vast differences in what is considered morally right and wrong from one culture to another, and over time within a single culture (not to mention within a single individual), I can only conclude that it is not objective.

    On a side note, anyone who uses the IS/OUGHT argument to argue for objective morality is completely ignoring the evidence before their eyes. I’m speaking to you Mr. Mullings.

  49. OMagain: But the point is you can’t conceive of what it would take to “code something up” that exhibited self-awareness

    No the point is you can’t code something up that exhibits self-awareness but you can code something up that feigns self awareness.

    check it out

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Goostman

    Is it murder to unplug Eugene Goostman? If not why not?

    peace

  50. fifthmonarchyman: No the point is you can’t code something up that exhibits self-awareness but you can code something up that feigns self awareness.

    How do you tell the difference?

Leave a Reply