Brent, at Uncommon Descent, asked:
Is rape morally wrong because society says so?
Or:
Does society say rape is wrong because morality says so?
I answered:
I’m going to annoy you, I’m afraid, Brent, in my answer, but in for a penny…
“Morality” doesn’t “say” anything. People do. Collectively, people form a society, so it is reasonable to say that “society” says something – if that something is the collective mores, or precepts of a society.
So I’d say that people in a society collectively construct a shared system of moral precepts and those precepts include, in most societies, the precept that rape is wrong.
This seems to be fairly universal, probably because most societies develop a system that places a taboo on one person exploiting another for personal benefit. This is not surprising given that we are a social species and do better when we cooperate with each other than when we act individualistically.
So my answer is “closer to that first thing”, because the second doesn’t really make sense.
However, I would phrase it as:
In most societies, rape is regarded as morally wrong, because it violates the principle that underpins the continuation of a society that has potential net benefits for all.
He replied:
Sorry to take the last bit first, but . . .
However, I would phrase it as:
In most societies, rape is regarded as morally wrong, because it violates the principle that underpins the continuation of a society that has potential net benefits for all.
I’m surprised you would say this, not that it is inconsistent with your own beliefs on the matter, but that it leaves you completely open to, and obviously guilty of, WJM’s charges that a Darwinist system (system consistent with “Darwinism”) cannot condemn rape.
And the first bit last . . .
“Morality” doesn’t “say” anything. People do. Collectively, people form a society, so it is reasonable to say that “society” says something – if that something is the collective mores, or precepts of a society.
So I’d say that people in a society collectively construct a shared system of moral precepts and those precepts include, in most societies, the precept that rape is wrong.
This seems to be fairly universal, probably because most societies develop a system that places a taboo on one person exploiting another for personal benefit. This is not surprising given that we are a social species and do better when we cooperate with each other than when we act individualistically.
So my answer is “closer to that first thing”, because the second doesn’t really make sense.
Which all means that my original challenge to your system of morality, in fact, is correct and undermines it completely; there is no actual morality whatsoever.
If people of a society are the source of morality, then people of a society govern morality, and morality doesn’t govern people of a society.
And I invited him to continue the conversation here.
What Brent seems to be saying is that a morality – a system of oughts and ought nots – somehow doesn’t count as “morality” if it is constructed by a socciety of human beings.
My response to Brent is to ask: what morality can he name that is not constructed by a society of human beings?
This seems to be a major assumption on your part without warrant. I don’t know anybody that believes a strict list of moral or immoral actions can be made. Is it immoral to cut off my own arm? Personally, I think it is, unless it is threatening to kill the rest of me because I have a deadly infection, in which case it is actually moral to do so. I haven’t the slightest clue how you’ve come up with this idea, but it isn’t within a hundred miles of my own thoughts for sure, nor any closer to anyone else’s thoughts that I know of.
Cuz the Bible told me so, of course. How else?
Neil Rickert,
I think that’s helpful, Neil, though one would need to also have some further notion that refers to the question as to what laws we ought to have. And the best term I can find for that would be “justice.” So in those terms, justice would be the search for an absolute, or (better put) a universalizable standard. That seems right to me. Whereas what Neil calls “personal morality” could be re-phrased in terms of “character”.
So then the question, “is morality absolute?” would be answered in terms of whether we’re talking about justice or about character, or about some further notion not captured by either term.
What is incorrect about it?
If it can’t, then the entire absolutist’s argument is moot. This is why William’s arguments are now dismissed with a laugh; he, like you, insist in absolute morality, but oddly cannot define those absolute morals. Morals appear to be pretty much like porn to you guys – you know it (and call it) when you see it, but without the authority to keep you in check, anything could potentially go since you don’t really know what is moral and what isn’t. The irony is, this is far more arbitrary than the materialist approach.
Blockquote>Brent,
Cuz the Bible told me so, of course. How else?
LOL! Beg the question much? So the texts that say Odin is real are just myth, but the bible is true. Pray do tell us how one can arrive at such a distinction?
Brent,
Thank you for your lengthy reply, it helps to move the discussion forward.
I want to address a couple of your points, but before I do, I am going to say again what I’ve said a few times before, perhaps more to WJM than to you. It is this: I don’t think anyone has to ground their morality in anything. What they should be able to do is justify their actions, or sometimes inaction, with their conscience. I don’t see any value in the ability to ‘derive one’s morality rationally from one’s worldview’. The reason I don’t is that I am quite convinced that nobody has enough knowledge about reality to come up with a consistent worldview that is true, complete, objective and entirely free from inconsistencies. In the end, all of us will have to admit at one point or another that there are things, important things, we simply do not know. There are always assumptions at the very bottom of any person’s worldview, and therefore any worldview is a subjective construct, and anything rationally derived from it may be logical but can still very much be incorrect, and is certainly not objective.
In the case of the theist I make the point that one first has to subjectively believe in the premises of the particular religious flavour the person holds, before one could be forced by any rational construct to accept their particular moral concepts. This immediately makes the entire enterprise subjective, at least until the day that the particular premises of that religious position can be objectively verified. In effect, absolute morality is inaccessible to anyone who first requires a subjective leap of faith to arrive at a world view at all. And I truly believe that is every single one of us.
For example, I think that a (hypothetical) justification you might present as to why you are against abortion, based on your religious beliefs, is no more objective than the position of a Muslim who believes homosexuals need to be stoned to death, based on his religious beliefs. The whole idea of objectivity is anathema to any religion, where certain things have to be taken on faith, not on reason.
I think you don’t like this point but I have never seen a convincing riposte to it.
The reason I sometimes enter these discussions is not to claim that “yes, yes, I too can rationally derive my morality from my worldview!” – I couldn’t care less. Rather, I want to argue against the idea that moral subjectivists like me somehow have less justification to judge others than people who claim there is an absolute morality and they know what it is. I find that an offensive and potentially very dangerous argument and try to neutralise it as best as I can. This ability you claim to have, and I contest, is in my mind absolutely irrelevant to anything, and most certainly not a reason to deny anyone the right to tell right from wrong. And don’t try to suggest that this is not an argument anyone ever uses – I see it regularly in many places, it is always made by theists and you can get plenty of examples of it at UD and also here. “Hey Darwinist, how come you even think you can tell so-and-so he is wrong!” it goes, and I find this a truly offensive thing to hear in a conversation between reasonable adults.
Ok, that off my chest , I will address some of the points in your reply.
fG
A fourth guy walks up. He is as normal as the other three, with a different exception. He is walking on the ground, but says that he doesn’t believe the ground is absolute – that there is no universal ground for it is an aspect of individual planets. He jumps.
You’ve been provided with numerous references to specific chapters and verses in the bible that do exactly that.
Unless and until you can provide a logically coherent definition of what you mean by “god” and some objective, empirical evidence for the existence of such an entity, it is you who is making ungrounded statements.
A fifth guy walks up. He is as normal as the other four, with a different exception. He is walking some distance away on “ground” that slowly sinks beneath his feet. He believes in the ground, but when he tries to jump he sinks further, faster. “Help!” he screams, “I’m caught in quicksand.”
No problem. We agree on it as a society.
Ah, so there is an absolute morality but you don’t know what it is. Doesn’t that make it difficult to make moral decisions?
If your position doesn’t imply a list or potential list of actions and buckets, then I would like to see a worked out example of your objective morality.
I would like to see the premises and the logical relations.
If you cannot demonstrate that your morality can lead an ordinary person to make fairly quick decisions, then it is pretty worthless.
If your morality is in fact objective, then it should be binding on all entities, not just those lacking super powers. What else could the term objective mean?
When I read stuff written by theists, I often come away with the impression that god is exempt from morality. That sounds like might makes right to me. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
I am not sure I understand this. I get my ‘ought’ from my conscience. Don’t you? Where my conscience comes from is of course another question, and I don’t think anyone really knows, although I have seen various theories, either theistic ones or naturalistic ones. Whatever, I don’t feel limited by not knowing where my conscience comes from, in behaving in accordance with it and using it to justify telling right from wrong. If you disagree I wouldn’t mind hearing why.
Thanks for your straightforward reply.
You lose me where you say this was not an issue of morality but of a mistaken belief that other people were inferior. Surely this itself is a matter of morality?
Is claiming that other people are inferior (or not, either way works) not a judgement in itself, rather than a fact?
Let me rephrase the question: is it right or wrong to treat other people as inferior (using your absolute moral framework)?
Ok, so if someone acts immorally it could be because they know better but still choose to act immorally, or it could be that they don’t understand morality correctly and unknowingly act against it. My next question then is, how can we tell if someone understands morality correctly or incorrectly? Would this be by comparing their understanding to the way you understand it? If so, what makes you immune from the risk of misunderstanding morality?
Not at all. The standard I have to say that there has been advancement is my personal moral concept, my conscience. That is really all I need to make moral pronouncements. In fact it is all I have, and so it is with you. Don’t forget that you too could be mistaken in your understanding of morality, so be very careful before you pronounce it as absolutely true.
I do not argue that whatever society agrees is moral, is therefore moral. The only yardstick that actually exists is every person’s own conscience. Every person judges for themselves. Or have you ever seen anyone using another persons’s morality to make judgements? I didn’t think so.
Same answer as above. I condemn those who act against my ideas of morality. So do you. So do all of us. You claim your ideas are in accordance with an absolute standard but you cannot escape the possibility that you, too, could be mistaken like many others are about what that standard actually is.
I don’t deny that someone who does something that in my eyes is immoral could be acting according to their conscience. I’m sure it happens many times. I still judge them, and I am entitled to judge them, because using one’s morality to judge others is part of who we are, as human beings. If we couldn’t do that we would be zombies. And obviously I won’t deny them the right to judge me in turn, because denying them that right would be to deny their humanity. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them!
You really don’t understand subjective morality.
You haven’t really argued against my position.
I would like to know if you think you cannot be one of those many people who have an incorrect understanding of morality. If so, what is it you have that they don’t?
fG
No christian has access to any absolute morality.
They make moral decisions the same way a decent human being does, by taking into account the feelings of their fellow humans, and – we hope – by aiming for the least harm and most good for all. Except when they don’t – except when their “understanding of how morality applied to a certain situation” impels them, for example, to hunt and kill witches, or runaway slaves, or homosexual men, or whichever their target du jour happens to be.
Christians of the US have recently infected Uganda with gay-killing religious fever.
Brent has no basis to justify condemning any immoral acts of his christian brethren in Uganda. How can he? He can’t. They’re not wrong; he said so himself: they just don’t have the exact same “understanding of how morality applied to a certain situation” as he does.
A sixth guy walks up. He is as normal as the other five, with a different exception. He is walking some distance away on “ground” that slowly sinks beneath his feet. He believes in the ground, but when he tries to jump he sinks further, faster. He goes under because he refuses to admit any possibility that he is wrong in his belief that he is standing on solid ground.
A seventh guy appears. He’s fairly savvy with modern physics. He tries to explain that the “ground” is composed of atoms, and that there’s a very real sense in which it’s mostly empty space.
The narrator, being stuck in another era, misunderstands the guy and claims that he “doesn’t believe in the ground”.
The 7th guy and the 3rd guy go off together for a beer.
“I refute it thus!” [Kicks.]
Going all the way back to the top,
three questions.
1) If the players of a football game are the source of the rules, then the players of the football game govern the rules, and the rules don’t govern the players of the football game. Ok, there isn’t really a question here. Just an idea to explore.
Now granted, analogies are always limited and an examination of how this analogy is limited will probably yield useful fruit, but please don’t get so bogged down in BAD ANALOGY!!!111!!! BAD ANALOGY BAD ANALO BAD BAD BAD 1111 1!!!!!11!!!…..
that you are trollishly ignoring the point of the analogy.
2) The part I quoted from the OP has been stated over and over again as being logically obvious. I would like to know if the statement is the conclusion of a syllogism. If so, can we have the syllogism? If it isn’t the conclusion of a syllogism, since it is supposed to be ‘obvious’ then is it instead a basic axiom, since axioms are simply taken as true from basic experience.
To all the non-absolutists like myself, if the statement from the OP is an axiom simply taken as a given then is there any point to arguing with Brent and Murray? Can any amount of evidence ever work?
3) While it is granted that science can’t answer ought questions, is it not possible to use the methods and sensibilities of science to improve the questions we are asking about morality as it is being discussed here? Which world do we live in? The absolutists world, or the non-absolutists world? What is the null hypothesis? How can we tell the difference? How can we test? An answer here is sought from everyone, not just Brent and Murray, although an answer IS ESPECIALLY sought from Brent and Murray.
Ok, and what prize do we win for ‘right thinking’?
See you all tomorrow.
I have come to the conclusion that for people like Brent, WJM and many others, the attribute of ‘objectivity’ is hard coded into the definition of morality. If it ain’t objective it ain’t morality, it is just the same as a preference for icecream. This being the case we will of course never be able to change their views because you are arguing against someone’s definition.
One way of understanding morality is to view it like beauty. Beauty is also a very subjective concept but like morality it extends outward from individuals to their environments and the societies they live in. Concepts of beauty also change over time.
So you could likewise ask ‘could science establish if there is such a thing as absolute beauty?’. Personally I doubt if it could do that, but it might be possible to come to a better scientific understanding of why certain things are generally perceived as more beautiful than others, of how the general sense of beauty changes over time in relation to other changes in the human condition, and stuff like that. A similar approach could work for morality. Of course absolutists would challenge that you are not actually studying morality but just the human understanding of it. And round and round it goes.
fG
I wondered at first what it meant for morality to “govern” people (or not). WJM provided an answer: To him, it means that moral/immoral behaviour has “necessary and inescapable” consequences of a “spiritual” or “karmic” nature. So I’ve asked for some elaboration on that, since these (invisible? delayed?) consequences sound fascinating.
IIRC, Brent endorsed the WJM post in which that definition was made. This may appear unremarkable, given the Christian tradition of an afterlife. But if we make the obvious connection between Christian afterlife traditions and WJM’s words about “necessary and inescapable consequences”, then a major theme of Christian tradition is that these consequences are neither necessary nor inescapable after all.
But I digress.
To the non-absolutists here, I think the idea of morality “governing” people refers to something far less dramatic: People tend to hold other people accountable. Non-approved behaviour leads to anything from legal penalties to whispers about how you’re really a jerk.
Thus there’s no mystery about how the “governing” relationship between people and morality can go in both directions. People affect other people, and one of the ways we do so is most easily described using the language of morality.
Here I’ve seen the light!
By which no man can see
In a game better lost
Victory you’ve achieved
I graciously bow to your vaunted and hard earned ignorance.
I was going to ask what this was in response to, but it hardly matters.
Yep. Can’t provide even an attempt to justify your claims. SOP.
Brent,
I gather from this that you don’t want to continue the conversation, but in case you’re still around I would appreciate your answer to this question I asked: if, as you say, large numbers of people have incorrectly understood the absolute morality (e.g. as evidenced by their thinking that some people are inferior and therefore can legitimately be taken into slavery) – do you think it possible that you, too, might be mistaken about the absolute morality?
If not, what do you have that those people did not?
Thanks,
fG
I’ll provide a conclusion/summary later and answer your question then. I came back partly because I felt leaving off after your comments wasn’t very nice, and it also looked like, perhaps, my final comment was directed primarily at Brother Daniel.
Brent,
Brent:
Too late, I guess, but I would like to say this:
Although I am an atheist/naturalist, I wanted to say that I respect the energy you have shown in taking on all comers in the thread and the fact that you tried to keep the exchange focused on metaethics and not any particular set of morals. I also got a kick out of some your irony/sarcasm, although I am not sure I always understood when you were in that mode.
I have a question based on some of your responses which, as I understood them, agreed that a process that produced moral progress was possible and that biblical statements needed to be understood in the light of this process. In particular, I understood you to say that the process would move the set of moral standards closer to some ideal, objective set of standards.
If that is correct, I wonder what you see as a components of a valid process. Who could participate? What ground rules would there be? What would be the starting assumptions?
I personally am not attracted to relativism or nihilism, so am searching for a process which allows principled assessment of moral positions (but excludes theological considerations). I suspect you think that such a process is possible. In any event, I’d be interested in understanding how theological considerations fit into your process.
I am only familiar with the thoughts you have posted to this thread, so if you have already answered this elsewhere, a link would be appreciated. Or if not, it would be great if you could post them at some point.
I see Brent has castigated us at UD for failing to see what he thinks is obvious.
Brent: if you were able to provide some logical or evidential support you might have persuaded some people. “It’s obvious” is the “argument” of one who has no argument.
Do you not know how to copy and paste a quote from another site? Shall I send you instructions? It might be helpful if I, the accused, knew of what I was accused, and others might like to know as well.
This discussion would be more of a discussion if you would simple answer questions. I realize you are one person,and you have many adversarial interlocutors, but most of the questions fall into a few buckets.
I would say there are several important issues. I apologize if not all of them apply to you (Brent).
1. The claim or implied claim that objective morality has social utility. That it produces better people or a better society, and that relativism degrades society.
2. The claim or implied claim that objective morality is accessible by ordinary people when making ordinary life decisions.
3. The claim or implied claim that there are inevitable consequences for moral or immoral behavior.
I’m still waiting for a worked out example of accessing an instance of objective morality. A simple didactic story would be interesting.
I know how.
Not necessary.
Shall I send you a link to a site to improve your memory? At 10 AM you posted:
But just over three hours later you have forgotten!
You led with “obviously”, and you closed with “obviously”. In between you ducked and dodged and didn’t even acknowledge the fact, which several of us pointed out, that your “argument” was built on the quicksand of unsupported assumptions
Hi, Brent! I can’t help but notice that you’ve failed to address a point which I, among others, have raised. Here it is again:
Once upon a time, slavery was a Good and Right thing which God Himself approved of. Now… not so much. So which the Objectively Moral position, Brent? Is it the position that Slavery Is Bad, or is it the position that Slavery Is Good? You’ve made noise about oh, us fallible humans have changed our understanding of the Objective Moral Truth, but that doesn’t help us understand which position (Slavery = Bad, or Slavery = Good) actually, genuinely, really and truly is the Objectively Moral position. Yes, us fallible humans have swapped out one position for a different position that contradicts the first position. But of those two mutually-contradictory positions, which one is the Objectively Moral position? And how do you know which one it is?
Jon, I rarely promote myself as being smarter than anyone, but I really must say that you are seriously challenged in the area of thinking — at the least, thinking before acting — and I feel sorry for you. Perhaps it’s just a rabid response mechanism and you actually can think, so don’t give up hope just yet.
Yes, a link also works quite well. It provides for inspecting and comparing time stamps too, did you know? If anyone is interested in reading the thread, they’ll see clearly that you’ve just embarrassed yourself by saying I “ducked and dodged”, when, in fact, I continued to post, and that my posts are all made before you kindly linked to the thread from here (but I have just added a couple more).
And, no, my memory isn’t that bad yet. A simple hint would have been all it took to know what you were talking about, but you seem to think that I make one post at UD concerning TSZ or its contributors and can easily know what you are referring to, but you’ve failed to account for the possibility that within not only hours, but mere minutes or even seconds, people are capable of both thinking and posting multiple times. I know, hard to wrap your head around that one, but not everyone is working with the same handicap you are.
In all the years that fundamentalists have been pushing their “absolute moral foundation,” there has never been one who will even respond to the case of John Calvin’s role in burning Michael Servetus at the stake for heresy.
Who was the bad one; John Calvin or Michael Servetus?
The closest fundamentalist defense for burning people at the stake for heresy amounts to a statement to the effect that absolute morality is out there, but people don’t always see it.
Now if people don’t see it, the question is why don’t they see it? Of all the thousands of quarreling sectarians who hate each other’s guts, which ones are the truly moral? They all proclaim themselves to be right and true.
So if there is an absolute morality that nobody can truly see, how is that effectively any different than no absolute morality at all?
The main problem with people who believe in absolute morality is that most think they are the most moral; even to the point of condemning others to death for heresy. Believing oneself to be tapped into an absolute morality justifies killing someone for no other reason than that he/she doesn’t hold to a particular sectarian dogma.
People who recognize that there are no moral absolutes are less likely to be as judgmental as fundamentalists who believe they have some corner on “THE TRUTH. Because fundamentalists believe they are obeying absolute moral rules, they feel no shame or guilt in condemning others to death for heresy. They will never say Calvin was wrong, even though today Calvin and his cohorts would be sent to prison for their roles in Servetus’s death.
Neither Brent nor WJM have access to an absolute moral standard. If there were such a thing, they could name it and lay out its unambiguous rules; but they won’t because they can’t.
Well, I came in here last night to post the conclusion/summary I promised but TSZ was down; proof that God truly is merciful.
I got entangled with KN and Lizzie’s lying and hypocrisy on UD, which actually started here, and when TSZ was back up, I didn’t have any energy for trying to wrap things up tidily, but only to rub some dogs noses in their own poo.
Honestly, I don’t much care right now, but I promised, and we’ll see where this goes. I don’t “feel” coherent at the moment, so I’m sorry to the degree that it reflects below.
I told fG that I’d respond to him because he was being honest, it seemed (and still does), and at least somewhat thoughtful in his questions and challenges. Due to my busy week I was very on and off, so when I was on I had a lot to respond to, and therefore chose carefully what to post. Since when I came back to fulfill my promise to respond to fG there were many other posts lingering as well, I ignored them and posted to fG http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3349#comment-31873 .
But as I did so, I was already feeling pretty miffed, since Lizzie joined in saying that the Bible commands rape, a charge that I had let go for the simple fact that since it obviously does not say such a thing, it is meaningless to point it out to the one who is already being so dishonest about it. Clearly, facts are not the issue, so posting them are not going to be fruitful. I was hoping that Lizzie, KN, or petrushka — somebody — would take responsibility and tell the trolls to stop. Alas, they joined in (don’t remember about petrushka, and KN did so, eventually, at UD directly).
So, I posted my response and what do I get? I get a response that:
And when I replied: “This seems to be a major assumption on your part without warrant. I don’t know anybody that believes a strict list of moral or immoral actions can be made. Is it immoral to cut off my own arm? Personally, I think it is, unless it is threatening to kill the rest of me because I have a deadly infection, in which case it is actually moral to do so. I haven’t the slightest clue how you’ve come up with this idea, but it isn’t within a hundred miles of my own thoughts for sure, nor any closer to anyone else’s thoughts that I know of.”
I got in response from Robin:
Now, I’ll admit that I was being perhaps uncharitable in hoping that someone would respond, “Ha! Brent never thought of that, did he?” So that I could rejoin with, “Of course not! I’d be ashamed for the rest of my life to think of something so blindingly stupid”.
Alright, let’s take this stupid idea and apply it to physics. You have to make a comprehensive list of the properties of, well, any proposed anything, in order to know that it objectively exists. Please give that a shot, geniuses. You’ll have unraveled the entire universe in Planck time. How much do we really know about the four forces of nature, for example?
The absolutist view is this (keeping in mind that there are various views within the absolutist camp and that I’m only sharing my personal thinking on it here): A moral code exists apart from man that informs man what he ought to do. The code exists objectively and necessarily, whether or not it is recognized as such, just like there are mathematical truths that are necessarily true that exist that no one has discovered yet. This view also provides for what we perceive as actual moral progress (apparent changes in the actual moral code, how we understand that code, objectively, to be, as opposed to my earlier comments about changes in understanding how the moral code applies to a given situation).
It is a little frustrating to have to deal with such blatant hypocrisy that upon the most cursory inspection reveals, if applied in any other area of knowledge, we’d have to conclude we have no knowledge at all.
Next . . .
In my (apparently failed) attempt to correct Lizzie about why we are even having this discussion in the first place (it was clearly started as a critique of the naturalist view which is incoherent), I posted my three men walking analogy http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3349#comment-31875 .
And in return I get from her:
Am i supposed to apologize for not making it obvious enough that the “ground” in the analogy is meant to be taken as an example of the need for the “grounding” of morality on a solid foundation? Am I supposed to apologize that she doesn’t understand that I believe that she has an ability to know the objective moral code, and use it? Am I supposed to apologize for the fact that she cannot decipher the parallel of the third man having a grounding without a correct understanding of that grounding? The analogy is to stop the misunderstanding (which is sometimes not really a misunderstanding but a blatant attempt to derail the focus of the discussion) that an absolutist is saying one must believe as they do in order to actually know about the moral code. Little children get gifts from “Santa” every year, meaning they don’t really know where they came from. Does that mean they cannot enjoy and play with and use the gifts? Neither does a person have to know where morality came from to make it available to him, and if you say one does, you simply and obviously commit the genetic fallacy.
It’s for stupidity like this — Lizzie saying she cannot understand what I’m saying or to have to ask what is incorrect when it should be perfectly clear, or petrushka and Robin making up stupid and arbitrary rules for ascertaining (deny) the existence of something they don’t like — that I’ve become frustrated.
So, what was this thread about anyway? I just stated it, but will again. It is a critique of the naturalist view of morality. That’s all it was.
Hopefully everyone can remember: If man is the source of the moral code, then man governs morality, and morality doesn’t govern man.
It took how long for someone to start talking about the Bible and rape????? ONE post! I thought at first this may be a record of some sort, but after wading through the rest of The Skeptical Zone intelligentsia fair, I now believe it is probably an automated response.
Continuing . . .
It was sad, though a bit funny, that many of you took the bait of my “trolling the troll” posts. You really should be more careful.
It was sad only, though, that several people took my three men walking analogy as an attempt to prove my position and sought to refute it (okay, wait, it is also pretty funny). It was only an analogy to make my own position clear; to make sure you knew what I was and was not saying. If you are not embarrassed by that, you have no “embarrass” in you. Wow!
So, to the conclusion:
If man governs morality then morality does not govern man.
You say first that it isn’t obviously true and want more “proof” and “argument”, but when I laid out the arbitrariness of the moral code on your position that makes it clear that no ought can be derived from it, you switched to, “yeah. so???”. So, it seems like you want a morality that can actually bring about an ought, but when shown that it isn’t possible, you just shrug and say it’s no trouble.
But, you still say that my argument isn’t obviously true. However, if I came to TSZ with an OP stating:
If A is superior to B, then B cannot be superior to A.
You would have said, “Well, no kidding, Sherlock.” But when I apply the same logic to your naturalistic view of morality, you say it isn’t obviously true. Yeah, OK!
fG, please continue with your patience as of a saint. I have to stop looking at this monitor or my head’s gonna ‘splode.
According to your absolute moral code, were John Calvin and his cohorts justified in burning Michael Servetus at the stake for heresy?
Was that a moral act then? Would it be a moral act now?
Who gets to decide that A is superior to B? What are the criteria?
Brent
UD link.
Oh prophet Brent, please please do let me know the “truth”. Your taunting has made me shut up, then shamed, now I want to change!
Oh wise one, possessor of the truth please spill those pearls of wisdom before us mere swine.
The trouble, oh wise one, with this lot is that they think that unless it’s written down then peer reviewed by experts in the field it’s just talk. Your wisdom, oh wise one, would be appreciated for what it truly is if you were to play their game. Up for the challenge?
The list I requested is just a way of saying that if a moral system can’t help you decide what is moral and what is immoral, it isn’t much of a system.
The Bible teaches by example and by parable. Some of us have noted that the teachings are inconsistent and even contradictory.
In the case of dietary laws, for example, A cleary does not equal A.
On your other point, can you name a physical object whose properties cannot be listed? Or to follow my form rather than yours, can you name a physical property that does not apply or not apply to a given object?
Brent,
Brent, as you have made the effort to write such a long post, I won’t move it to Guano on this occasion, but please read the site rules – claiming that other posters are lying is against the rules.
I will respond to your post in more detail later.
I would like to see an example of knowing the objective moral code.
Just one wafer thin example.
You seem to want to focus on rape, which is fair enough since the word appears in the thread title.
How about killing? That would seem to be an important issue. Is it moral or immoral to kill a child not in self defence?
First of all, my OP was entitled “Society, Morality, and Rape”, so Rape is on topic.
Second, I’d have said that biblical references to rape are also on topic as we are contrasting, apparently, the source of the moral code, and the bible, where regarded as God’s Word, is frequently regarded as the source of the moral code.
Third, Numbers 31 seems to me to indicate to me that the writer wanted to convey the idea that Yahweh had commanded genocide of the Midianites – the slaughter of all mothers, men and boys, and the capture “for yourselves” of the virgin women. If you don’t think that meant sexual slavery, fine. It seems to me the obvious interpretation.
But even if we allow for the possibility that Yahweh meant “for yourselves to look after, and only have sex with if they consent to marry you”, the instruction is classic genocide: end the Midianite lineage, by killing everyone of full Midianite blood, sparing only those whose only chance of childbearing will be of Israelite children.
The bible thus appears to report, as divine command, an instruction that would be genocide by any definition, and now regarded as a war crime.
It is therefore clear to me that Divine Word cannot – and should not -be regarded as an objective source of morality, whether as written scripture, or the internal conviction that one’s actions have been commanded by God.
Which leaves the only objective source that developed and agreed on collectively by people, and constantly updated in the light of new knowledge and insights. Just as we now condemn as genocide and a war crime practice that in the days of the writer of Numbers was clearly considered a morally justified action.
Regarding your comment:
this seems to me, as I’ve said before, a non sequitur, and nothing you have said so far persuades me that it is not.
Sure, “If man is the source of the moral code, then man governs morality”, but it does not then follow that “morality doesn’t govern man”. Feedback loops are perfectly possible, and morality is a classic feedback loop. People, collectively, as a society, over the years, construct a system of moral rules for governing members of that society.
So people both govern, and are governed. To take a simple case: a government can pass a law that applies to members of that government.
No?
Exactly.
William has attempted to answer this, but I don’t understand his answer. He seems to think that we have to believe that there IS an objective morality to be able to consider ourselves bound by it.
But as every precis I have attempted of his position has been met with denial, I have no confidence that this one will be any different.
But on the offchance that I finally got it right: no, that doesn’t follow. We can consider ourselves bound by a morality that society has constructed just as easily, at worst because knowing that violations are likely to entail social opprobrium and possibly legal sanctions, but at best because most of us tend to agree that what is best for all is probably ultimately best for each.
The question of killing children is not academic to me. I have actually sat face to face with a person admitting to killing women and children in war. I happened to be participating in the same war.
You might have read about one of these incidents, but I got the news directly from the mouth of one of the killers. That was 45 years ago, and I can still see the room where this conversation. Took place. I was a bystander to the conversation, but at the same table.
Aside from whether his actions were moral, what about mine? What does objective morality say about what I should have done?
“Ducking and dodging” referred to your behavior here. Yes, I realized after I make my original post that you had continued to duck and dodge over at UD, but that’s not relevant.
I’m not a major Biblical scholar, but it’s obvious that the Bible says that rape is A-OK in some circumstances, and it certainly seems to me that God commanded rape in some passages. Your response has been “it’s obvious that’s wrong”. That’s the “argument” of one who has no argument.
Lizzie also pointed out at UD that your interpretation of the particular passage under discussion was not shared by at least one major Christian scholar. Last time I looked you hadn’t addressed that.
Apparently your memory is exactly that bad. You only accused people at TSZ of denying the obvious in one recent message. My memory’s far from what it once was, but I remember what I posted in several places days ago. You can’t remember for a few hours.
Your entire participation in this thread can be boiled down to claiming “it’s obvious” and no support.
You are equivocating on “superior” and assuming transitivity. If A is better than B, then B cannot be (using the same criteria) better than A. But people have presented logical arguments why we can both rule over our morality and our morality can rule over us.
IOW, your summary again boils down to “it’s obvious” with no logic or argument.
I found Brent’s 24th 6:33 and 25th 4:10 posts to be the most interesting in this thread. Here I understand him to say that absolute moral truths exist but we continue must examine and improve our current understanding of what they are. Further, he agrees that atheism is no barrier to participating in this process.
Questions that interest me: How do we justify that a process is not simply another form of relativism: that is, here is the best current understanding of objective moral principles relative to this process. And, if you don’t accept divine revelation as part of the process, what does theology bring? If it is ancient sources of potential moral wisdom, then these are just as available to the atheist.
I found KN’s contributions the most interesting for this reason. Of course, outside of this thread, there is a vast philosophical literature on the issue of whether such objective moral laws exist and what process is needed to discover them if they do.
I personally find the analogy with science to be helpful (interesting that Brent raises math in his summary post, which is not quite as germane IMO, due to the nature of mathematical proof). According to some approaches to scientific realism, laws are there but the best we have is a process to discover them. Some laws are very well confirmed by this process and so likely very close to the real laws, others are more provisional.
For morality, we need to understand the evolutionary, psychological, and social facts about humans as social animals to inform the process. Currently I am trying to better understand Kitcher’s ideas, where he tries to bring modern ideas in these areas to updating Dewey’s pragmatic approach to developing a process for evaluating and improving moral precepts. Google “The Ethical Project” with Kitcher for a précis and his book.
http://www.nordprag.org/papers/Kitcher3.pdf
Patient, moi? Not so much in RL! On the web though, time flows at its own speed. No pressure, but I do hope you will respond eventually. I have of course been in these sort of discussions with others before, and never got far past this particular point, so here’s hoping for progress.
In purely practical terms, I find it difficult to see why it matters if morals are subjective, owned by the individual (always of course knowing that individuals exist in their society, that their personalities are influenced by that society, and that they in turn influence it themselves), or if they are absolute but apparently easy to misunderstood even in hugely fundamental ways. After all, it doesn’t get more fundamental than to claim that some people are inherently inferior to others (for reasons of characteristics they possess involuntary such as race, gender etc). That step taken, one can justify pretty much anything!
So tell me Brent, why does it even matter if morals are subjective by themselves, or the subjective interpretations of an apparently quite easily misunderstood absolute standard?
Now, if all this was just a free-floating philosophical discussion, frankly, then who cares? But there are practical implications – I already noted that not seldom are we subjectivists being told that we shouldn’t be criticising anyone or anything because we have no justification to do so. Since I believe that our propensity to criticise and judge is inherent to our human nature, being denied the right to do so is tantamount to being denied our humanity. Strong words, but this is how it feels to me. Of course it could be that such ripostes are the last measure of people who haven’t got an actual argument, but even so, it can be quite grating. Not saying that you made this argument on this thread, but WJM certainly did.
fG
So this moral code exists, but nobody can tell us what it is.
Whether or not such a moral code exists seems to have no relevance to anything. We might just as well say that it does not exist.
Mathematical truth is truth relative to assumed axioms.
Here’s an important point: when people discover mathematical truths, there is widespread agreement on those truths. It is far harder to find agreement on what are asserted as moral truths.
It seems to me that there is stronger evidence for saying that the tooth fairy exists objectively, than there is for saying that there is an objective absolute moral code.
BruceS,
I haven’t read Kitcher’s newer works, but he’s been taking an increasingly “Deweyan” turn lately, and I really need to see what Kitcher is up to. It’s bound to be good — I have a lot of respect for him.
The comparison with scientific realism is helpful, because there are parallel problems on that side of things. Here’s the problem: suppose we have two theories, T1 and T2, and T2 gives us more accurate predictions, or has fewer anomalies, or has been more rigorously tested, than T1. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that we should prefer T2 over T1. But what makes it better?
A scientific realist would say that the epistemic virtues of T2 over T1 are how we now that T2 is better than T1, but what actually makes T2 better than T1 is that T2 is a more accurate model of reality — it is closer to “how the world really is”.
The question is, however, about how we define the limit of the series T1, T2, T3 . . . . Tn. How do we know that T2 is closer to Tn than T1 is, if we cannot describe Tn itself, and perhaps will never be able to? The moral absolutist finds herself in a similar predicament — if we can’t even describe the absolute moral principles, then how could we know that we’re moving closer to it or further from it?
In the case of quantitative theories, Jay Rosenberg (no relation to Alex Rosenberg, that I know of) proposes a very clever solution: we can build a simulation of T1 in T2, and we can build a simulation of T2 in T3. (Think of how we model Newtonian mechanics within relativity theory.) If the numerical values of the variables necessary to model T2 in T3 are smaller than the values needed to model T1 in T2, then T3 is closer to the absolute description of physical reality than T2 and T1.
(I’m not explaining this very clearly, I know, but I can provide those interested with the citation for the paper I’m getting this from.)
The thing is, even if this solution works — and it’s a big ‘if’! — to salvage what’s called “convergent realism” — the idea being that our theories are converging on reality over time — I really don’t see any way of solving the analogous problem for moral theories and practices.