http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/02/maine-teenagers-deny-animal-cruelty-charges-alleging-put-kitten-in-running/
A few months ago we had a discussion of whether non-human animals can be the subject of morality.
Over on UD, Mung opined that animals are meat robots, incapable of suffering.
EDIT: Wrong UD poster. Mapou, not Mung. Apologies.
The Myth of the Continuum of Creatures: A Reply to John Jeremiah Sullivan (Part Two)
Apparently the Bible neglects to mention the possibility that animals can be the subject of morality, or that torturing animals can be a sin. But some IDists have declared that torturing babies is self-evidently wrong.
So is microwaving kittens self-evidently wrong? Or self-evidently okay, because it isn’t forbidden by scripture? What Would William Do? Or Mung? Apparently we have secular laws against this. Why?
I’d like to ask this at UD, but I can’t.
Robin,
You’ve misunderstood the nature of the exchange between Alan and myself. I said that atheists, like everyone else, attempt to force their moral views on others, whether it is via something like government oppression or simply going to the polls and voting on what they consider to be right or wrong.
Alan said that atheists do not want to force their moral views on others. That’s patently absurd.
Whether or not their moral views have anything to do with their atheism is entirely irrelevant to the point. I only used the CPC as an example because it is the most obvious case of atheists being willing to force their moral views on others.
Moral is defined by Merriam-Webster:
All laws that attempt to promote what is considered good or proper human behavior – whether they are about the economy or not – are part of a moral system. The communist manifesto outlines it’s version of right and wrong human behavior. Equal distribution of wealth is right. Capitalism and private owndership/wealth is wrong. Morality, by definition.
Atheists have diverse beliefs about all sorts of things. Their moral views include everything about how they think humans ought behave – including what kind of economic system should be employed. Atheists that happen to be communists, or capitalists, or animal-rights activists, or gay-marriage advocates, or anarchists attempt to force their moral views on others – at least as much as non-atheists do.
The CPC was just the easiest, most blatant example to refute Alan’s absurd claim. I was not claiming that atheism and communism were necessarily related, nor that the morals they attempt to force on others are atheism-specific or atheism-derived.
William J. Murray: Are you saying that there are not any atheists that want to force their moral views on others?
[Fox]
Ah I see William is interpreting this as all atheists and alleged atheists in any country who have ever lived. I was thinking of atheists participating in the discussion and those that I see commenting in other forums and in publications and discussions currently in the Western World.
On the other hand, perhaps I would qualify, as I wouldn’t baulk at enforcing tolerance and the right to free thought and expression – true secularism (if I ruled the World!)
Unless those who are participating in this discussion don’t vote, my point includes them as well.
Ultimately? Someone/something made ’em up. As for why “you may coerce others for personal benefit” isn’t widely held to be a good principle, I don’t know that it’s possible to say for sure; cheaters and coercers sometimes eventually get punished, however. See Lance Armstrong, for example. I would guess that he has been used as an object lesson by some parents teaching their children about morality.
I understood this as your point.
Yep, I understood this as well.
Here I disagree.
Here’s the problem – you have not shown any connection between the CPC’s actions and their atheism. None. So, on what basis is any atheism being forced on anyone?
Again, what can be absolutely established is that the CPC is forcing their Communistic policies/structure/morals on others, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with atheism unless you are making the erroneous claim that Communism is synonymous with atheism.
Agreed.
Ehh…a fair, if oversimplified, summation.
The issue is, you have not established this. Once again, Communism is not synonymous with atheism. That the CPC happens to include atheists does not establish that their morals come from that atheism. You’ve not made that connection. All you’ve demonstrated is that Communistic regimes force communist policies and structures on the citizens. Ok…but what’s that got to do with atheism?
Then you’ve not made any connection to atheism at all William. Thus Alan’s point is not refuted.
I imagine that just because someone or something made them up doesn’t get them included in your principles, or else you’d have all moral principles ever thought of included. How do you validate or screen them as moral principles you personally accept in your system?
I’m not asking about “widely held”, I’m asking why one and not the other for you. Surely you realize that non-cheaters and non-coercers are not immune to themselves being cheated or coerced. Do you believe in karma or some kind of supernatural justice system?
Yeah. Decades of fame and fortune. There’s a lesson.
Seriously, it sounds to me like you’re just now trying to come up with a justification for your own moral principles when you say things like “I would guess that he has been used as an object lesson by some parents” or “isn’t widely held to be a good principle,”. Are you saying that you’ve seriously put no more thought in your morality than “whatever most parents do or is widely held to be a good principle”?
The only connection I need is that the person wanting for force their views on others is an atheist. Period. Whether or not the views being forced have anything at all to do with atheism is irrelevant to the fact that the atheist is forcing their moral views on others.
It has nothing to do with atheism. Nobody said anything whatsoever about atheism. Fox made a claim about ATHEISTS. Not atheism. He claimed that ATHEISTS do not want to force their morals on others. Whether or not their morals have anything whatsoever to do with atheism, whether or not the “forcing” has anything to do with atheism, ATHEISTS do indeed force their morality on others.
It’s patently absurd and utterly refuted. Is communism some kind of personal trigger for you? I’ve already said my point has nothing to do with communism per se. It has nothing to do with atheism, per se. It has to do with atheists who force their morals on others, whether or not those morals have anything to do with atheism. The CPC is the most blatant example of that. That’s the only reason I used it.
William,
that what my conscience experiences is the sensory information that comes from an objectively-existent moral landscapeWhether or not the premise is true or can be shown to be true is irrelevant;
In other words ,William,your conscience is based on the the personal , subjective feeling that your premise alone creates a conscience based on objectively-existent moral landscape whether it does or not.
And since like keiths your “moral principles cannot be said to be “deeper” than that which selects them” , and keiths is an atheist, logically one might say your moral system is based on atheistic logic and values.
my concept of god (at least the characteristics that have to do with morality) is derived from my empirical experience of morality and through experimentation with various moral and immoral behaviors and logical inferences thereof.
And since “empirical experience of morality and through experimentation with various moral and immoral behaviors and logical inferences thereof” is exactly the process that atheists use ,your concept of God is based on atheistic principles.
But the interesting part of your morality is it justifies any action as moral, after all one just has to assume what one does is objectively moral,whether it is or not is irrelevant.
No, that’s not what I said. I said that in my system, conscience **is** a sensory capacity that is in contact with what is presumed to be an objectively existent commodity – like sight and and a certain range of EM radiation.
But the interesting part of your morality is it justifies any action as moral, after all one just has to assume what one does is objectively moral,whether it is or not is irrelevant.
No. My system carries with it more than simply assumption. As I said, it’s based on empirical experience and logic. One cannot assume that which is self-evidently immoral to be moral, nor can one assume that which would make morality a self-conflicted system. Therefore, not all actions or moral rules are justifiable as moral.
Well, that would be a start. Give me a credible example of this atheist who is trying to force his or her views on others. A living, genuine atheist who fits your bill.
Already have.
Because atheists use the empirical and logical model doesn’t mean it is an atheistic principle.
Zhu Weiqun? Is that your example? You can’t come up with anyone living today in the Western World?
William J. Murray,
That’s right.
That’s right.
Equal in what way? Equal according to what measure?
What I am saying is that, in this case, there are two different moral perspectives with no objective means of deciding between them
No, my act of rescuing the woman from being stoned would not in any way force or even persuade the stoners to accept my morality. In all probability, I would be putting myself at grave risk of having the stoners impose their morality in me through the medium of stone projectiles. I would, however, be acting in accord with my own beliefs by trying to alleviate the suffering of others.
I should say that even if I had the power, I would not impose my beliefs on others. This distinguishes me from the Islamic fundamentalists who most certainly would impose their beliefs on others by fair means or foul and feel entirely justified in doing so.
Of course, yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If the entire population of Iran – women not just men – were polled on the question of whether it was morally right to stone to death female victims of rape, if they were presented with all the arguments for and against and if they were allowed to express their opinions freely and without fear of retribution – not that such a thing is likely to happen there in the foreseeable future – then what do you think the outcome might be?
That may well be true of some atheists – nobody’s perfect – but it’s far from all, in my view.
No. No one person should impose their moral views on others, although there is nothing wrong with argument and persuasion.
No, not for me. But if a majority in society decided that raping women was morally wrong they would be fully entitled, in my view, to do whatever they could to prevent the tiny minority of psychopaths who would like to rape freely from doing anything of the sort.
Well, you did ask what they are ultimately derived from. I cannot account for the ultimate derivation of moral principles which did not originate with me (which is generally the case for me—maybe I’m not very original).
If you are asking me where I acquire moral principles, the answer is probably the same as everyone else’s. Through my family, culture, reading, and just living life in general.
There are several people who I’ve been close to who I consider to be moral exemplars, and even though some have passed away already years ago, I am still learning things from them.
Regarding “validating” or “screening” moral principles, I think that’s all part of the same process I described above, although I don’t take such a formal approach as you apparently do. Not that it’s not worth discussing or debating principles in the abstract, of course.
I’m not asking about “widely held”, I’m asking why one and not the other for you.Surely you realize that non-cheaters and non-coercers are not immune to themselves being cheated or coerced.Do you believe in karma or some kind of supernatural justice system?
No, but I have witnessed a fair amount of worldly justice. Plus cheaters and coercers are regarded by many as jerks. I don’t want to be regarded as a jerk.
I wouldn’t trade my life for his. Even if I had had the opportunity to experience the fame and fortune. (I have no desire to be famous anyway).
No, if you read through my posts again, you will find that’s not what I’m saying. 🙂
William,
No, that’s not what I said. I said that in my system, conscience **is** a sensory capacity that is in contact with what is presumed to be an objectively existent commodity – like sight and and a certain range of EM radiation.
Yes I know. That is the point of self evident truths. Evidence that the objective commodity exists.
The problem I was pointing out that which interprets that assumed objective data is none other than the subjective self,”and so your moral principles cannot be said to be “deeper” than that which selects them.” per you.
Because atheists use the empirical and logical model doesn’t mean it is an atheistic principle.
That is the basis for scientific thought which is a naturalistic/ materialistic system which I thought was synonymous with atheism.
Wow! That’s utterly asinine! So if these atheists are pushing Sharia-based laws or supply side economics, their forcing “their moral views on others”? Ok…fine…run with that silliness William. Your point is officially meaningless then.
Alan, I’m afraid William’s argument has left the realm of sanity, or at least is not addressing your intended point. When you said you don’t think atheists force their morality on others, you with stating that atheists don’t force atheist-specific morality on others. William isn’t rebutting that point; he’s saying that any morality or law-based concept that any atheist espouses qualifies – so an atheist who votes for…say…gun rights if forcing his morals on others. That his morals aren’t connected to his atheism is irrelevant to William’s point. Utter silliness…
Except that then you are completely ignoring the context in which Alan’s comment was made William. Alan was contrasting atheist morals with theistic morals, but you’ve not addressed that contrast at all. In fact, ironically you’ve rather supported Alan’s point (in a weird way) by noting that such regimes only actually “force” theist-based principles (in order to control populations) regardless of whether they themselves are atheists or theists.
Oddly, what you’ve shown is that no one apparently forces atheist-specific morals (whatever those would be anyway) on anyone else; only theistic-based morals have any basis of control and coercion I guess. Better to be an actual atheist then as they have no basis to control anyone else apparently. Thanks for the support William!
William J. Murray,
Nothing but a statement of subjective assessment. ‘Empirical experience’, indeed!
There is absolutely no evidence that “Intelligently designed evolution” had anything to do with biological diversity, apart from your personal incredulity.
And yes, it’s also assumed to be the case that no invisible unicorns had anything to do with biological diversity. Do you also have a problem with that? In fact, there is a *very* long list of causes that are “ideologically assumed” to be irrelevant to evolution.
When you have evidence for “Intelligently designed evolution” then please start a new thread detailing it. Until you do that, as you say, it’s for you to support the assertion that there is even such a thing as “Intelligently designed evolution” wrt life.
It’s an assumption for a very good reason, there’s *never* been any reason to think otherwise!
When you have evidence for “Intelligently designed evolution” then I’m sure it will be assessed fairly and dispassionately. Do you have such evidence?
Thanks for your recent comments, Robin. They were most helpful.
Robin said:
No, he wasn’t. He was making a characterization about religious people, as if attempting to force your moral views on others makes you a bigot or a bad person (good, not-so-good):
Alan said:
My response was to show that everyone – including atheists, and including “good christians”, wants to or attempts to force their morals on others, even if it is voting for representative candidates or propositions, whether those moral are religious (or atheistic) in nature or not. Singling out religious groups was a canard just as attempting to draw a distinction between “good” and “not-so-good” Christians was a canard We. All. Do. It. Period.
IOW, you an be outraged all you want at religious groups that “attempt to force their morals on all of us”, but that’s exactly what all of the rest of us do – including atheists. Being outraged that religion does so is just hypocrisy. We **all** do it, whether our morals are “religious” or not.
You have a different idea than me on what “forcing” means.
In Pakistan, the crime of blasphemy (which should not be a crime at all) is punishable by death. There is no equivalent movement of atheists who want to prevent people believing what they want and threatening them with dire consequences if they dissent. Freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas is enshrined in all western democracies as far as I know.
I wonder how you know that? Are you sure it’s not just something which you have chosen to believe rather then something that actually is?
You think it is acceptable to force other people to conform to a particular moral precept or belief system? You don’t think there is any merit in or need for any safeguards to free expression?
Alan said:
Yes. Also, we apparently have a different view of what the term “morals” mean. You seem to think that only religious people have them, and that the only time they are forced on others is through religious oppression or when religious people get laws passed.
However, that’s not what the term “morality” means, nor what “force” means.
My idea of what “forcing” means doesn’t conveniently cut off where my ideological preferences decide. Laws that are backed up with police/imprisonment force ideas about “how people should behave” on those who might disagree – whether it is about personal choice issues, economic issues, taxation issues, educational issues, etc.
If you vote for representatives in government, or on propositions, then you want to force your morals (your idea of how people should behave) on others. Just because they are secular-based or commonly accepted doesn’t change that fact.
So, if you don’t vote, and would not intervene if someone was beating a child with a tire iron, then I’ll make an exception for you in my generalized statement.
How would one safeguard free expression? By rule of law? Wouldn’t that be forcing your moral views (which include free expression) on others who may disagree with the idea that free expression is a moral right?
Just checking definitions for “morality”, I find, for instance;
seems fine to me and I don’t suggest religions are the exclusive source for moral frameworks: quite the opposite. Do you disagree with this definition at all and, if so, how?
Agreements about conduct only become necessary because human society is social. I suspect that the most successful social living rules make use of fairness as a guiding principle. Regimes that are inherently unfair seem to unravel quite often.
I don’t vote, as it happens, as I am not a French citizen so can’t vote in France and while technically able to vote in the UK until the 15 year rule disenfranchises me next year, there doesn’t seem much point. But nonetheless, your attempt to claim that participating in a ballot is “forcing” someone else to adopt your morality is a bit bizarre.
The only potentially violent situation I can recall intervening in was a few years ago, where a French close neighbour and friend had learnt her partner was cheating on her and tried to throw him out of her house, whereupon he started to attack her. She called for help and I went to make sure he left without assaulting her further. So I guess I’m unexcepted.
It is so simple. Everyone is guaranteed human rights. But those rights extend to all in the group, society, culture, state, whatever. Rights for one have to be limited when they diminish the rights of another. A psychopath does not have the unfettered right to kill people. His potential victims have the right not to be killed. The religious bigot is allowed to believe homosexuality is a grievous sin and refrain from indulging in it. Gay people have the right not to be attacked and prevented from entering into loving relationships with the same tax and property benefits as heterosexuals.
Granting the right to free expression to everyone indeed should prevent someone exerting the right to prevent someone else from freely expressing a contrary view. Just as the right to life prevents murderers from freely exercising their right to kill people.
Alan,
So let’s say as free expression, I enjoy standing naked and cutting off the heads of live puppies. Can I do this in the middle of Trafalgar Square, under your principles?
No.
This is exactly what I meant. The characterization contrasts against non-religious people who don’t force their “non-religious moral views” on others.
Yeah, but that doesn’t then rebut Alan’s point because you haven’t shown that non-religious people force their non-religious morals on others. You didn’t address the context at all.
No, “we” – at least the non-religious of us – do not. And ironically you’ve supported my and Alan’s position with your absurd example of non-religious CPC forcing religious-based laws on others. Wooohooooo…
Ok, your views are completely inconsistent, and arbitrary-and not sustainable logically.
I get it.
phoodoo,
I think not. Do you want me to elaborate or are you just going to invent your own narrative?
Collectively that sounds like the argument for ID. Some people say “fine-tuning” was it and that was it while others hold that every new protein was deliberately created.
Yet you are an ID supporter. Check the mote in your own eye etc etc.
Omagain,
You don’t have the capacity to even fake a good argument. ‘Some people say this, and others say that…and therefore my point must be incorrect.”
Were you attempting to see how many logical fallacies you could put into one small paragraph?
Alan isn’t being contradicted by what some people believe as opposed to some others, he is being contradicted by his own stated principles of policy. He can’t be consistent for five minutes.
Any false labels you want to put on me are meaningless, that is just your cop-out to throw a distraction.
I don’t think you mean you want to elaborate Alan. I think you mean you want to fabricate some rationalization.
Its hardly necessary for you to elaborate on something that is so obviously clear. You don’t really believe in your own stated principles of policy. You simply want to impose your own ideas of what should be allowed and what shouldn’t based on your own personal preferences, just as William said.
I haven’t formulated a complete set of policies yet, as I don’t expect to be ruling the world any time soon and I doubt if you or anyone else would be interested. Which is my most egregious contradiction, do you think?
No indeed! I would like everyone to have the maximum amount of personal freedom and happiness. Not that I think it can be achieved solely through a fair administrative and legal system but it helps. One necessary aspect of a free society that I would like to live in is even-handed secularism.
Alan Fox,
“Granting the right to free expression to everyone indeed should prevent someone exerting the right to prevent someone else from freely expressing a contrary view. ”
In what way would being naked and killing puppies infringe on someone else’s idea of their own free expression?
Oh, so it’s the case that there is a single, unified theory of ID that most ID supporters will agree represents their understanding?
What is it?
It’s an observation really. There is no agreement on what ID is, rather ID supporters seem to agree that ‘Darwinism’ is simply wrong and take it from there.
What flavour of ID do you support? Just one intervention (at the OOL presumably) or many (for each new protein family) or somewhere in-between?
Dare you answer?
It’s the causing of unnecessary suffering to sentient creatures that is immoral. Nakedness is not particularly objectionable per se. In a social context, there are more and less appropriate environments for being naked.
Of course I have with the CPC example, and the fact that atheists vote.
There’s evidence the Chinese Communist Party discourage active party members from overt religious activity. The motive for this, judging by the rhetoric, is to discourage religious freedom that the party leadership see as synonymous with pressure for separatism in Tibet and Xinjiang
Atheists vote? What?
What do you mean by unnecessary? Its for my pleasure.
Some people feel killing cows is unnecessary, you could eat vegetables. But some people enjoy eating meat. And some people like killing spiders and cockroaches, in your world would you prefer this be illegal?
Do you really feel you can defend such an arbitrary set of rules, based on the principle of everyone decides their own version of personal freedom of expression?
OMagain,
There is no agreement on what Darwinism means. Evolution is second only to string theory and multi-verses as the vaguest and most speculative theory in history.
I think I can make a reasonable case for the rules for living in a social environment I would be reasonably happy in. A fair application of the golden rule of course restricts everyone’s personal freedom (the goal would be to the least extent necessary). My particular criteria may not be popular enough to be acceptable in my society but shouldn’t stop me trying to advocate and argue for them.
I did not ask you about Darwinism.