Premise:
- A “bad state” is a state that an organism would want to change.
- A “good state” is a state that an organism seeks to achieve.
Therefore:
- A “bad action” is causing an organism to enter a state that they would want to change.
- A “good action” is helping an organism achieve a state that they don’t want to change.
Unfortunately, sometimes the good state of one organism depends on the bad state of another (or of the same organism at a different time). So for any organism (and we are probably the only ones on this planet at this time) with the capacity to weigh up actions on the basis of cui bono? (and when?), there will be frequent tension between competing claims. I suggest that our methodology for resolving these claims are what constitutes what we call our “morality”, and that our methods of agreeing on this methodology are what constitutes our justice systems. I also suggest that both arise directly from of our capacity to weigh up alternative courses of action on the basis of competing claims to the right to a “good state”, and need have nothing to do with whether or not there is a God or gods who care either.
Man of all creatures
Is superlative
(Away melancholy)
He of all creatures alone
Raiseth a stone
(Away melancholy)
Into the stone, the god
Pours what he knows of good
Calling, good, God.
Away melancholy, let it go.Speak not to me of tears,
Tyranny, pox, wars,
Saying, Can God
Stone of man’s thoughts, be good?
Say rather it is enough
That the stuffed
Stone of man’s good, growing,
By man’s called God.
Away, melancholy, let it goStevie Smith, “Away Melancholy“
Although of course, if there is such a God, and that God is good, she might care very deeply.
Give an example of something that is “innately good” and tell me how you know this is so.
phoodoo,
Sigh. No, it comes from a combination of genetics and culture.
No. Genetics is heredity. Genetic change comes from copying errors. But that covers only the variational aspect – variation is freely acknowledged to be ‘random’ (see also any evolutionary algorithm). But this variation is then filtered/sifted/sieved/sorted/’selected’ by its survival value. What remains is not ‘accidental’ in the same sense as the initial variation is. What remains does so because it has survival value (broadly). I don’t think ‘accident’ covers that adequately, any more than ‘whim’ would cover your version.
I said that because I was an atheist/materialist/physicalist, and embraced the logical consequences of that worldview, I realized there was no rational reason to feel moral outrage. It may be a brute physical fact of my experience, but there was no reason for me to feel that way. I didn’t like the feeling, so I figured out how to overcome it and did.
There’s no logical reason for me to feel moral outrage under my current worldview, either. I don’t feel moral outrage. I’ve cured myself of it, so to speak. There are a few benefits I still enjoy from my time as an atheist and the personal experiments I conducted at that time.
Having love in your heart for others is innately good. I know this by direct communion with the absolute. Thank you for challenging me on this, because I hadn’t even articulated this to myself until just now.
What is “the absolute” and how does one “commune” with it?
William J. Murray,
Incorrect. Subjectivism and relativism are not fully congruent. They use two words for a reason. What you repeatedly describe is a consequence of relativism.
No shit, Sherlock.
You regularly say “this is irrational”. The converse assertion is equally valid.
Nope. It is rational regardless of the basis. ISIS are rational, according to you, while a collection of atheists is not. I think we all are rational, conditionally – that is, we can give reasons for our choices. “I believe there is an external arbiter and I am scared of it/keen to please it” is hardly a clincher, when it comes to rational cases, but I guess it is rational.
My morality is meaningful to me. If it empowers others to believe that their morality is superior (and mine inferior) for extra reasons – that their opinions are given weight by denying they are opinions at all – good for them. As long as we keep them out of the gun cupboard … oh, hang on …
That’s a ‘no’, then. ‘Logic’ is just a bit of empty puffery.
Suggesting that the ice cream/pie comparison is invalid.
Hey, you got a new slogan!
This may be one of those “religious language” problems, but I’ll give it a go.
The absolute is the nature of what I call god, the ground of existence itself. Since we are all part of existence, we are all aspects of god. We have individuated qualities that identify us as individuals – personalities, beliefs, preferences, etc.- and separate us from everything else (in a sense). One of these individuating commodities is how we use our free will.
However, we are still deeply embedded in/connected to the absolute, even if there is a bunch of personal crap isolating us largely generated by our use of free will. We are able to commune with it by finding it in ourselves, which means reaching past individualized characteristics and beyond superficial beliefs where core truths can be recognized and accepted via that direct experience. IMO, it’s requires a deep humility that puts all beliefs and views and ideas on the altar and a yearning for communication/understanding, that yearning being a spiritual pathway into part of ourselves we share with god.
IMO, we aren’t talking to some other being or some bearded guy in the clouds, but rather communing with the core of existence itself which lies within.
Well, that should provide you guys with a lot of ammunition for future ridicule. 🙂 Enjoy it!
Allan Miller,
I have always qualified the ‘accidents’ aspect of evolution, with the fact that the accidents that breed better breed better.
I don’t see how that changes their status as accidents.
Allan said:
Well, then, it’s no wonder you consider your views rational. ‘Nuff said.
If everyone has this same core of existence, why does labeling it absolute or subjective matter? Personal preference ?
Newton asks:
I’m not sure what this question means. Whether or not one’s moral basis is presumed to refer to a subjective or objective commodity determines whether or not some of their views/behaviors are logically coherent with their worldview. If morality is subjective, then to call another’s behavior “wrong” is not logical. It would be like saying that Mike prefers vanilla, when Mike says he prefers chocolate. Only Mike can say what is right and wrong for Mike, under subjective morality.
If morality is objective, as I’ve described a core aspect of existence itself, then if Mike thinks something is moral which contradicts that objective morality (what is good), then Mike is factually wrong about what is moral, and under such a premise it is rationally possible for Mike to be wrong about what is moral for mike to do, and for me to be right. This model rationally justifies me saying Mike is wrong about what is moral because there is an objective arbiter of right and wrong to refer to regardless of individual preferences and beliefs.
You can think what you like, who cares. It’s just when you pull up a study that agrees with your argument and then don’t respond to legitimate criticism of that study (which in a recent example was little more then a self-published pamphlet) it shows you don’t really care about the aspects of reality that we can actually attempt to come to some sort of consensus on, but rather only care about what you can use to support your arguments regardless of the actual quality of that support.
Is it moral to sacrifice 1 life to save 5? 500? 5000?
You have to give an answer before “wrong” matters.
What do you mean “breed better”?
OMagain,
Let me know which word is causing you trouble, breed, or better, and I will try to help you help.
Explain in a few sentences what *you* mean by the phrase.
Erik,
I agree. The rules of the game here are pretty clear. I look forward to you demonstrating your morality by aligning your behavior with them.
William J. Murray,
Aside from conflating existence with god and leaving “free will” undefined, that’s the longest piece of prose I’ve seen from you that I agree with. It certainly doesn’t deserve ridicule.
William’s argument here is a classic example of confusing the map for the territory. As a moral subjectivist, I certainly do think that…ISIS (just to pick a target)…has the same internal basis for their morals as I do and as such, their morals are as valid to them as mine are to me. However, just because I intellectually acknowledge validity of the basis for their morals, there is nothing illogical about judging them based on my moral code. Because that moral code is *about me and what I want the world to be like*. And that is all that matters to me and my ilk. Just like, their moral code is all that matters to ISIS.
Everyone’s moral code may well come from the same irrational place, but that does not mean that *acting on a given moral code* to the dismissal of all others is irrational. In point of fact, it is quite the opposite; just like I don’t really care about other peoples’ hunger pangs when I consider my own desires for food and tuck into a steak.
It occurred to me so many of my personal moral preferences seemed much at the gut level like my personal aesthetic preferences. In aesthetics, something deep down seems “right” vs. “wrong”.
If there is, as I believe a Lawgiver who is the ultimate judge, as _hotshoe pointed out, it is also clear He doesn’t make His moral code abundantly evident, but in fact goes to great lengths to conceal that He exists, and thereby also conceals what His code is.
I’ve written on the issue “Stealth Design” and “Absent Designer”
I also think the moral code is designed in as much as it applies to a designed creation. i.e. the notion of murder wouldn’t exist if there were no living humans.
So the moral code of God I consider in the category of somewhat a stealth design.
There are subtle ethical questions regarding stealth moral choices. For example, if one has the role of executioner, and the legal system has unjustly condemned someone to death, is the executioner liable for killing an innocent person? Even less, how about a police officer arresting someone innocent. I find that a bit offensive. I find the presumption of guilt until proven innocent, morally reprehensible.
But there is an additional complication with a Stealth Moral code with the problem of Stealth Innocence and Stealth Guilt. I mean, say I was a Roman centurion ordered to crucify someone. I’m just doing my job right? What about the centurion who carried out the execution order on Jesus?
What about the bomber crews who dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
In my view, we’re all guilty of something according to the Lawgiver in the Sky, even of many unintentional sins.
We’re all cursed by the Lawgiver’s code.
Admittedly, that doesn’t seem very nice, but if the is a God that is the intelligent designer of life and the moral code that governs it, He isn’t very nice, rather harsh and cruel on many levels. God being a God of Love is about what God loves, not about what he doesn’t love. What he doesn’t love, but curses — it ain’t pretty.
I’ve said it before, the God of the Bible is not quite the God preached by most preachers.
Jesus repeated the curse in Deuteronomy 28 upon Jerusalem. It happened in about 40 years later in AD 70. Lots of people became Christians after His curse came about and was evident for the world to see. Jesus is the Old Testament God. People just don’t want to see it that way.
Question begging doesn’t exactly make for a very strong or satisfying argument. Got anything a little less subjective and vague?
Robin said:
Yes, there is. You cannot logically say that their moral code is as valid as your own, and then judge their behavior wrong. At best, you can say that behavior would be wrong if you did it, but you are logically obligated to accept that what they are doing is factually moral in the only way anything is ever factually moral – it is moral to them.
Whether or not their behavior would be immoral if you did that thing is entirely, utterly irrelevant under moral subjectivism.
You cannot judge the morality of their actions as if you yourself were committing them, because you are not them. You can only judge the morality of your own actions/thoughts, or judge whether or not an act would be moral for you.
This is the essence of what you and Allan are apparently blind to: you cannot logically evaluate the morality of some other person’s actions from your own moral preferences, because morality, under moral subjectivism, ***is defined as*** the subjective relationship between an individual’s preference and that individual’s actions/thoughts. You logically agree to this when you admit that their moral system is as valid as your own.
You are mistakenly applying your subjective reaction to what would be immoral for you to do with the idea that it is also wrong for them to do it, when you cannot possibly know what is right or wrong for them (unless they told you).
I’m not making an argument in that post. I’m answering a question.
William, you’re making the same map/territory mistake again. I did not say that their moral code (e.g., the moral territory) is as valid as my own and in fact, I dismiss their moral code as both erroneous and immoral based on my own experience with my moral code (the moral territory). I stated that I find the basis (e.g., the map) for their understanding of morality to be valid. But ehh…I can quite clearly and rationally judge their interpretation of the map to be faulty (and I do).
You are still making an argument in answering the question William. And it still lacks any validity outside of, “because…my opinion…and question begging.” Whatever…
Robin,
If there is an actual moral territory that we all are creating our maps in relationship to, then our subjective moralities (maps) refer to some objectively-existent moral territory. Thus, we can say someone else’s map is not valid – is incorrect wrt the actual moral territory.
No, I’m not.
So why worship that God?
Not necessarily (and I happen to find this is not the case). Like food preferences, moral codes may be based on real conditions in the world, but they are also influenced by personal experience (subjective condition), cultural upbringing (subjective condition), biology (subject conditions), and so on. As such, the “territory”, while in this world, is still not objective.
To align this with my food preference comparison, it is an objective fact that humans are omnivorous and that human bodies operate most efficiently with a mix of nutrients from both plant an animal sources. The territory would suggest there’s an objective diet code for humans. Yet there are those folks who prefer vegetable-based diets, all meat diets, and all sorts of subjective variations based on the dietary maps they’ve derived from experience. So, clearly dietary preferences (maps) are subjective and the quality of life of many of those dieters would indicate that many of those dietary variations are just as valid as the baseline, however it does not then follow that judging certain diets as “inferior” (based on incidents of obesity, diabetes, kidney failure, heart failure, and other such health problems) is “irrational”.
Ooooo…an assertion against my example! Gosh…how will I ever recover?
Oh wait…riiight…doesn’t really address the whole question begging opinion issue…
But you go right ahead and stand fast on your insistence that you aren’t making any argument there William. ‘Cuz that’s the real issue and all…
Robin,
All you are doing here is begging the question, Robin. If you choose “nutritional value” as the basis for your food preferences, and Mike chooses “paleo diet” as the basis for his food preferences, then all you are doing is, once again, judging Mike’s food preferences from the perspective of your own preferential model – even if both can point out what would objectively be the right food according to their own preferred model.
The other person is not obligated to accept your model, nor does your model obligate Mike to accept your model. In fact, the basis of your model choice – subjectivism – means that Mike’s model is as valid as your model because it is a subjectively chosen model of food preferences.
For you to say that Mike’s preferences are wrong is the same non-sequitur as you had before you stuck a subjectively-chosen objective-referrant model into the mix; they are only wrong for you, under your model. What makes a choice wrong for you is the fact that you have adopted that model. If you ditched that model and adopted Mike’s model, then his Paleo diet choices would be right for you.
What makes a food preference right or wrong for that person, under your example, is whether or not it is validated by their subjectively-chosen model.
Same problem, one step removed – under moral subjectivism, in the first argument, you don’t get to logically say Mike is wrong for not choosing your preferred food; in the second, you don’t get to say Mike is wrong for not choosing your food-preference model.
Do you not realize there is a difference between making an assertion for an argument, and explaining a personal experience or view? I’ve never said I can logically support or successfully support all the views I hold or all the experiences I’ve had. In fact, I’ve explicitly stated that I cannot.
Incidentally William:
“In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion” (my emphasis)
So your answer to Rumraket was not in fact an example of why you accept your own conclusion that in your world, “good” is an innate quality? How exactly was your response an answer then?
Well, if we go by that definition, nothing I write here is part of any argument, because I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Knowledge is not solely gained by reaching conclusions via an argument. I was asked how I know love in my heart for others is an example of the innate good of existence; that is how I know it – I experience it.
I believed good was an innate aspect of existence before that via rational conclusion via argument.
Yes, I understand the difference. However, by definition, even explaining a personal experience or view, if such explanation includes the reason you accept said view is an argument.
And yes, I’m being technical and pedantic to prove a point. Your opinions on subjective morality’s validity and rationality, along with your opinions on “the logical conclusions of the atheistic worldview” are just as unsupportable – technically speaking – as your opinions concerning your own beliefs. You’re welcome to make any claims about said subjects you wish of course, but clearly based upon your own claims then, you must realize there’s no reason for anyone to find your claims particularly compelling. So why keep insisting your claims have some inherent logical consistency (as opposed to others) when clearly your own claims demonstrate not only otherwise, but that you actually believe otherwise?
See that “or” above William? The two clauses are separate conditions. That’s why I put the emphasis on the second clause.
Indeed. And as my response notes – such an example is, “the reason [you] accept [your conclusion] that “good” is an innate quality. That’s an argument, technically speaking.
That’s nice, though irrelevant to my point.
That’s lucky, as it would be absurd to try to convince people who you consider to be biological automatons of anything. Far better to do what you are doing instead and just answer questions, err, hold on, that makes no sense either!
William, who here do you consider to be a biological automaton? Me, of course. Anyone else? I presume most people you don’t, or why engage with them?
Robin said:
There may be any number of reasons a person might find what I have to offer particularly compelling. Who knows what particular chaotic influences, such as how I word a phrase here, might generate a bio-chemical reaction so that someone finds what I have to say compelling?
I’m not really sure what that means. I make arguments about that which I want to make arguments about; it is for the reader to judge the consistency of the logic or how compelling those arguments are.
I’ve never claimed that if a thing is not logical, it is therefore an incorrect view.
I also explain my personal beliefs and views when asked. I don’t, however, try to support those views because they don’t require support; I believe what I believe because I choose to. Period. I’ll defend an argument I”m making, but not a description of my beliefs or experiences. I don’t give a crap if my beliefs are logically coherent or supportable by scientific evidence.
The first sentence is certainly true, though I might quibble and say “intrinsically” rather than “innately.”
The second sentence might be true, though I’m somewhat skeptical of the epistemology of the metaphysics there.
However, I am deeply skeptical of the idea (which, I note, no one has asserted but which might be detected in some vague implications) that direct communion with the absolute is the only way to know that having love in one’s heart for other is innately good.
That having love in one’s heart for others is intrinsically good — I think that’s clearly right. In terms of the actuality of ethical experience and conduct, lovingkindness (chesed, agape, caritas) is foundational. In terms of virtue ethics, I think that one of the deepest philosophical insights to come out of Jesus’s mission is that the foundation of all virtue is not temperance (sophrosyne (as Plato thought) but agape.
The debate between theists and atheists about morality can be nicely focused in terms of whether the cultivation and practice of agape logically presupposes a belief in God.
Before answering, I should mention as an aside, why I was more friendly to the TSZ views about UD’s “principle’s of right reason” and “self evident truths”. I don’t think the “self evidence” crowd at UD are in agreement with the general problem of uncertainty nor with what Jesus actually teaches. We know truth not because of self-evident truths, but because of grace that makes truths accessible.
Seems something I want to do, just like loving beautiful music.
I grieve every day for humanity and the human condition. If all the pain in the world is due to a random accident, that would be a far more merciful outcome than pain being carefully orchestrated by the Old Testament God Jesus Christ.
Though at a human level it is impossible to conceive any human is deserving of
the retribution God pours out on humanity, I accept God is willing to do this.
To answer your question, despite God’s cruelty, I love and worship God because it is evident something divine is the source of many of the beautiful things in the universe, and that there is the potential (which I accept by faith) for a better world after the present world passes away.
When I listen to music and see nature and see love between people, I don’t think it is an accident and it has a source beyond material accidents. God may be cruel, but God is also the source of all the few good gifts that reach us in our Earthly lives. I believe He is saving up many more good things for those that love him.
“God works all things for the good of those that love him.”
As far as the present suffering, for those that love Him, it is preparing them to appreciate the next world.
“For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, ” 2 Cor 4:17
Pain is necessary, much like a little dissonance is necessary to make certain kinds of beautiful music possible. See:
“Bad design” in the short term can be “good design” in the long term.
Except of course that’s the atheist/materialist/physicalist view of things and you are no longer such a person. So since you don’t believe in “chaotic influences” and fully acknowledge the influence of extra-natural influences (such as prayers curing cancer and so forth) and that most folks are biological automatons (which would pretty much prevent them from accepting anything you put forth), what should I infer from the above statement? That you really don’t know what your own worldview is or that you really don’t care?
Cool. I’ll keep that in mind when you post nonsense like:
Well, I would think that would go without saying. Unless…you happen to be a god…
Spoken like a true subjectivist. Thanks!
Did anyone ask?
I said:
Let me correct this.
That good is necessarily an innate aspect of existence in order for there to be a rational morality under theism is a rational argument argument to conclusion. Whether or not such a rational argument to conclusion could be made, I had already chosen to be a theist and to be good.
Clarifying question for WJM: sometimes it seems to me that on your view, physicalism is incompatible with semantic content and/or epistemic relations (e.g. implications, entailments). There are theists who hold views like that — C. S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga among them. Is this your view as well?
Atheists are irrational when they do not or cannot make an argument justifying their moral outrage. Elizabeth tried. I credit her with at least that much.
Trying to shift the burden of proof and engaging in tu quoque fallacies is a poor substitute for rational arguments.
Perhaps the moral outrage is just their faith in action.
I asked scordova
The only problem I have with your argument, Sal, is that the pain in this world is rather arbitrary and inconsistent. If this were really a character-building exercise, I really think that everyone would face pretty much the same weight of challenge. Or are you suggesting that your god deliberately creates unchallenged beings who are destined to be unfulfilled later? Either way, that just doesn’t make for anything worth worshiping or looking forward to in my book.
Wouldn’t the answer involve first demonstrating there is something to worship?
There is no need for an argument. Moral outrage is the same regardless of the beliefs of the rager.
Mung,
I have a moral code that I choose to follow. It has evolved throughout my life. I judge my own and others’ behavior against that code. I judge the code based on how well it supports or accords with my values.
Theists do exactly the same thing. Sure, most of them were indoctrinated when they were too young to be said to have freely chosen, but they choose that code anew every day, just as non-theists do.
Moral outrage occurs when one’s moral code is transgressed. It doesn’t matter if one claims that one’s code is objective, the reality is that we each choose our own and don’t like when it is violated.
petrushka,
Writing my thoughts more concisely before I write them is just rude. 😉