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.
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He asked the man about his choices in life, and what would happen in the universe if we was to help him or leave him on the ground to die. As such perfect knowledge was not imparted at that time the man had to walk on as he had insufficient knowledge to make a decision.”
not at all
absolutely not
quote:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
(Jer 17:9)
and
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
(Mar 7:21-23)
end quote:
peace
Another excuse. So, it’s your position that in such a situation that knowledge of how the universe will be affected is imparted so you can make the right decision?
Some weird world you live in.
I’m not unwilling, I’m unable. You won’t tell me what else you need to know to decide. Do that and I’ll tell you.
He did not make the decision based on his own knowledge, The correct decision was reveled to him and he obeyed.
peace
Yes you are given whatever is necessary to make the correct moral decision at any point. If you weren’t your actions would not be moral.
Third time I need the worthiness/guilt of the individuals involved and the effect my action will have on all people in the universe for all time.
peace
morphology and behavior
yes it is different than both the coyote and the wolf
this is not difficult
peace
I find it odd and somewhat amusing that the positions under contestation here seem to be the following:
Theism: “morality is objective, and everyone acts as if morality is objective, so it is inconsistent for anyone to say that it is subjective.”
Atheism: “”morality is subjective, and everyone acts as if morality is subjective, so it is inconsistent for anyone to say that it is objective.”
It seems not to have occurred to anyone that morality might be neither subjective nor objective.
Nevertheless, here’s an argument that strikes me as compelling.
Usually, when we use the terms “subjective” and “objective,” we are talking about whether or not the truth-value of a claim depends on any psychological states of the person making the claim. “The sun looks orange to me” is a subjective claim, because it is claim about the visual appearance of the sun to the person making that claim. The claim is true (or false) depending on the visual awareness of the person making that claim.
By contrast, “the sun is orange” is objective just because the truth or falsity of that claim doesn’t depend on any phenomenological facts about the person making the claim. Rather, the person who says, “the sun is orange” is presenting that claim as one that anyone could endorse or challenge.
However, both subjective and objective claims are claims within a descriptive discourse. They are claims about what is the case. By contrast, moral norms are not descriptions, but rather prescriptions, or claims about what should be the case. Hence treating moral norms as either subjective or objective is a mistake, because doing so neglects the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive language.
I actually fully and completely agree with everything you said here.
So why DO theists bother with blathering about objective morality? You can never objectively determine what it is. So the whole concept is vacuous right out the gate.
No they are claims about what actually is in the mind of God and will then necessarily actually be the case on earth as well.
quote:
Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
(Mat 6:10)
end quote:
peace
It can however be revealed to you. Do you disagree?
peace
Rumraket said:
Then we are in agreement that, as I have outlined it, it is the necessary position from the proxy-atheist perspective.
However, theism allows for some aspects of the human mind to not be subjective at all, but actually objective – meaning, absolute. Infallible, in some cases. Recognizably, necessarily infallible. Such as, “error exists”. That is an infallibly, objectively true statement. One can only disagree with that statement via elective denial (or by being a biological automaton).
This is called a self-evident truth.
(1) It’s a concept necessary to logically reconcile worldview with the way humans actually behave (as if they are objective in nature), and
(2) It’s necessary for a morality that doesn’t logically boil down to “because I feel like it, because I can”.
No, it’s necessary that morality be generally agreed upon. That’s why, in the last century or two, morality has been taken away from priests and clergy and now rests in secular governments.
Then it seems to me that you can be posed a situation and given the information at hand respond how you would act, as you would be provided with the necessary guidance at that point. Or is there some limit at which guidance is available? If I asked you “should you shoot a man for stealing bread?” would you need to know the fate of the universe before you answered? What’s the threshold?
At least, that’s how I’ve understood what you’ve said.
No doubt you will now say that it does not work in these hypothetical situations, like the one I have proposed. So is objective morality a bit like method acting then? You have to live it to have access to it? So I guess you can’t sit there and imagine a situation and predict how you’d react to it, because it’s not “real” and so the objective morality is not accessible?
If that sounds silly, well, that’s how it must be if you indeed can’t answer the question as posed. If you do indeed need the worthiness/guilt of the individuals involved and the effect my action will have on all people in the universe for all time to make a decision then I guess you can’t even ponder in your mind such things.
So I guess that you live in a reality where situations happen and responses to them appear whole in your mind, without reference to what came before. You stand at the bridge and see a fat man, sinner. You push the man onto the tracks and save the five bible students, all innocent virgins with blessed futures ahead of them. You create a better universe!
Show your working? What behaviors are different? What do you mean “morphology”, specifically?
You’d get a failing grade for submitting this as homework at grade school. How old are you?
How are the behaviors different? What is the level of difference in behaviour required to move onto the next step in your “grid” of species, is the point I’m really trying to get at.
You know, what are the actual details that make your idea useful? Is only different behavior enough to define a new species and move over a square? Morphology alone sufficient?
Where is the book that people will need in order to understand your process? Are you writing it? Or do you expect people to seek you out and ask you these questions one at a time? Do you really believe, truly, that you have a solution to the “species problem”? If so, what does it tell you that you are also unwilling to commit to the work required to allow others to learn about that solution? Or can’t answer the simplest question with any level of detail, despite wanting to replace an entire field of study with your vague ideas?
Mung:
I notice you removed the following question from your OP:
Why did you remove it? When did you remove it? What other changes did you make? Note that these questions concern a post in which you cite “intellectual honesty” as a value. (RB checks to ensure that statement is still there).
Also, I hoped you would address my response to your question:
Which God is that, the one you presuppose with your fallible human subjective mind? From that presupposition flows the nature of your version of God and His revelation. From the opinions of that version of God flow morality. The human fallible mind is the start of that chain of causation,if the nature of God is a presupposition which I believe you stated it was.
Which is justification for anything depending on the presupposition of the nature of God, since morality ,by your definition, is the opinion of God. That is the problem with revelation. Subjectivity of the fallible human mind.
Just curious, how are things revealed specifically? Could you give an example from your experience of revelation? Thanks
Then only the person committing the action could know if it was moral?
Reciprocating Bill,
*sigh*. Same old Mung. Live up to your privellages, please.
Mung is the shining example of Christian morality and virtues here at TSZ. He demonstrates it every chance he gets.
OMagain,
Sometimes I wish this site had an Upvote button. Then I remember I hate Facebook.
How would you know when that has happened? How would you know you weren’t halluscinating, or delusional, or insane?
It’s an of-hand remark on an obscure internet site so no there is no book planed at present. I have much more pressing and interesting things to do.
Yes
It tells me that I am certain that my idea will be rejected out of hand by most because it assumes and requires that the Christian God exist.
Since this is the case it is a much better use of my time to focus on something (like my game/tool) that does not require such a commitment in order to be useful.
Peace
quote:
We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
(1Jn 4:6)
end quote:
peace
The threshold is omniscience. We need to know everything before we are qualified to make an objective moral judgement.
That is why it is such a gift that God reveals stuff us
No, The things that came before are part of the way God reveals stuff to us.
What you want to do is create an stand alone moral dilemma that has limited context. Such a thing does not exist, indeed can not exist
peace
ultimately only him and God.
The rest of us can make educated guesses based on what we know about the situation the more we know the better our judgement.
quote:
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
(Pro 18:17)
end quote:
peace
No, the Christin God who has revealed himself to all of us so that we are without excuse.
Cogito, ergo sum,
hope that helps
peace
And you know that with your fallible human mind by revelation or presupposition?
If you think it, it is God’s revelation? Scary
The more we know what about the situation?
The Ten Commandments seems to be an effort to preload moral guidelines.
Whoa! I see that the question to which I referred above appeared in Mung’s first comment on this thread, not in the OP. It’s still there.
I was wrong then, to say that Mung changed his OP.
I apologize to Mung for having done so, as well as to anyone else who drew unfair conclusions due to my mistake.
No problem. Mung, I withdraw my questions.
fifthmonarchyman,
Therefore you can’t really say ‘he has wired me thusly, and it is objectively the right thing to do’, then. If you allow that at least part of your sense of moral outrage may not coincide with True Objective Morality, we are simply quibbling over percentages. Your certainty that God has revealed The Truth to you on any given matter must be provisional at best. Another way to look at it: do you think you would be morally outraged at different things if you had been brought up a Muslim? How come Revelation has a geographic/cultural component?
fifthmonarchyman,
So it’s possible that genocide is ‘right’, if there is a sufficient balance in these competing factors?
Kantian Naturalist,
I don’t think you are correctly placing my position, at least. Whatever label you may put on it, I simply contend that morality does not exist outside of human heads, but still exists. There are behaviours I personally prefer, and those I applaud in others, likewise things I abhor. A collection of human heads may agree or disagree on ‘the best’ and ‘the worst’ such behaviours. I certainly don’t contend that everyone acts as if this is the case, though when one probes ‘objectivism’, so-called, one finds little but ‘subjectivism’ rebranded.
The invocation of ‘logic’ by the theists is particularly rich. It is no more logical to invoke a human-external source for this common sensation than a human-internal one. Pretty girls are only beautiful to human males (and a proportion of females). We don’t feel inclined to invoke human-external standards for this, but (for some reason), for the moral sense we do, or some of us do. But it isn’t ‘logical’ to find this girl prettier than that. We just do, for reasons part-genetic and part-cultural.
fifthmonarchyman,
It will be rejected out of hand by anyone who actually understands the species problem, regardless of their beliefs.
lets see,
Suppose each individual in a group is guilty of mass murder and has been individually convicted by a jury of their peers and also harbors a incurable contagious virus that will definitely kill all life in the universe if they are not killed immediately.
Next suppose they are artificially kept alive with a life support system that derives it’s power from the last remaining breath of baby seals.
would it be possibly moral to pull the plug?
hypotheticals are pretty worthless
peace
you obviously don’t understand the ten commandments or the covenant that they represent
no God has revealed to me that I think therefore I exist.
Not sure how you missed that one.
yes context
peace
I guess you could say that if you wanted to be misleading.
0% and 100% are also percentages so all disagreements whatsoever are simply quibbling over percentages,
peace
William J. Murray,
This dumb slogan again! Pretty clearly, if I experience personal revulsion at (say) killing someone, I don’t actually feel like it. The fact that someone else might feel like it is not a significant factor in one’s personal choice of worldview – “must be a theist because … other people”. The merit of this approach seems to be that you can jolly well tell them they’re wrong!
Mung:
You did ask the following in your first post:
My response:
Any thoughts?
some but not all things.
The real question is why is there so much agreement despite vast difference in culture/geography
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
??? Yes. My point, indeed. You obviously don’t think that 100% of your moral outrage is due to a correct view of God’s Morality. Therefore, within this region of uncertainty, you are experiencing the moral outrage of a ‘subjectivist’ – it’s a matter of personal experience and opinion, not something revealed to you. But you would not characterise those portions of your experience as ‘like pie’. I presume, anyway.
fifthmonarchyman,
We are all related.
What? Do you think I need to know everything before God can reveal anything to me at all?
Whatever gave you that idea.
If some of my moral opinions are subjective does that mean that all of them are?
It seems like you are assuming a priori that revelation is impossible. Is this what you are doing?
peace
That is revealed knowledge 😉
quote:
he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,
(Act 17:25b-27)
:end quote
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No. I am saying that there is a realm of uncertainty between what God has revealed and what you just conjured up yourself – unless you think God revealed all your morality to you, which is in contrast to your recent statements (but would not surprise me).
No. Whatever gave you that idea? I’m saying that if some of your moral opinions are subjective, how is that portion of your moral outrage any different from an atheist’s? The fact that there is another portion which is?
No. Why would I assume such a thing a priori? I’d leave that kind of thing to the Presuppositionalists.
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s genetics, more to the point.
in the grounding and weight given to those areas
An Atheist thinks that there is no objective morality and all morality is a matter of subjective opinion. Do not murder is not different in kind than do not be rude to traveling salesmen
A Christian knows OTOH that there is objective morality and endeavors to conform all his moral opinions to that objective standard. Do not murder is different in kind from do not be rude to traveling salesmen
Do you see the difference?
peace
Allan Miller said:
How and if one chooses a worldview is irrelevant. The real task lies in logically justifying one’s worldview and reconciling that worldview with their actual actions in the world.
Atheists challenge theists all the time in pretty much same manner – to support their worldview and to explain how their actions can be reconciled with their worldview. Both moral subjectivists and moral objectivists interfere in the behaviors of others on moral grounds; the question is, how is that interference rationally justified in their worldview? Interfering because you consider an act objectively wrong is rationally and morally justifiable.
Do you consider interfering in the affairs of others because you subjectively feel like it morally justifiable? Is it a morally justifiable reason to interfere to say “because I feel like it, and because I can”?