Not only does “objective morality” not exist, it cannot exist. Morality is but meaning we give to behavior, and as all meaning is subjective, all morality must necessarily be as well.
But where one might interpret this as “anything goes,” our social ties means it does not. The fact that morality is subjective is indeed liberating—where obedience to the ghost of an objective or revealed morality is confining—but with freedom comes responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Hello John (& Janet)
Is your Statement:
"Not only does “objective morality” not exist, it cannot exist. Morality is but meaning we give to behavior, and as all meaning is subjective, all morality must necessarily be as well.
But where one might interpret this as “anything goes,” our social ties means it does not. The fact that morality is subjective is indeed liberating—where obedience to the ghost of an objective or revealed morality is confining—but with freedom comes responsibility."
Objectively or subjectively true?
I knew this would get a response from you, myrtle! :)
If we can objectively agree on a definition of morality—that it is fundamentally “meaning we give to behavior” and also agree that “all meaning is subjective” then the statement, by definition, is objectively true.
If we cannot agree on those definitions then the statement is only subjectively true.
Your thoughts?
p.s.
Is it absolutely true or relatively true?
all the best Myrtle
I would think the best phrase might be “provisionally true.”
“provisional - under terms not final or fully worked out or agreed upon”
I like this because it relates so well to the human condition. Dynamic, changing, yearning, growing, always in flux. Never fully worked out, never fully agreed upon.
If you use the definition of morality "conformity to the ideals of human conduct", can we not get closer to the idea that there is an objective optimum with respect to human behaviour. For example, when people cooperate (teamwork) they are energized; creative juices flow. When people "divide and conquor", they spend more energy trying to "tear down the other guy" than producing. Humility produces peace; dogma produces war. Can we not say that objectively these are morally "good" or "bad"?
Janet, good question.
I agree that if we could agree on what the “ideals” of human conduct are we could then make objective judgments on conduct. But isn’t the problem “agreeing”? And even if we all agreed today we might not tomorrow. And even if we all agreed forever and always doesn’t keep us from being wrong. Imagine if everyone on earth agreed that slavery was “ideal” would that make it an “objective truth”?
Now, obviously there is clearly behavior that is beneficial to happiness and behavior detrimental to it. This can be objectively observed. But is that the same thing as “objective morality?” I don’t think so because I have subjectively determined that happiness is good. Someone else may say “happiness” is not important but “obedience” to God is.
Interesting article in HuffPost about the new "silent majority" - the anti-religious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-silent-minority_b_173354.html
I guess if you believe in subjectivity to the point where "happiness" is subjective, then I have to agree that there can never be an objective morality. I clearly base my beliefs on assumptions (happiness is better than misery, love is better than hate, kindness is better than cruelty, etc.) - society works more smoothly under conditions of cooperation and so on. I believe we have evolved to be this way. But I will have to defer to you on this argument if we cannot come to any kind of agreement on what is objectively good for humankind.
hello you two
Would you say that “it is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to punish an innocent individual for being innocent”?
Janet and myrtle,
What people seem to forget about the rising “unbeliever” segment is we are not organized and so have no real clout. The Mormons may only have a tiny fraction of the numbers we do they all jump in unison when the church tells them to. If unbelievers were united (which is very unlikely) they would be taken very seriously. But it is encouraging that it is a growing segment that gets more and more attention and has led to people like Obama at least acknowledging our existence.
myrtle, you ask “Would you say that “it is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to punish an innocent individual for being innocent”?
This makes me think of a conversation with a fundamentalist christian apologist. Very bright man, teacher, lecturer, author, seemingly great husband and father, who, when I protested that God was portrayed as a immoral genocidal maniac for commanding the murder of men, women, children and infants, said something close to this: “no one is innocent, not even infants-we are all born in sin and deserve eternal punishment. It is only God’s great mercy that saves us from hell.”
This good, “godly” man easily justified the murder of innocent babies! I realized at that point it was rather pointless to discuss such matters.
I am also reminded of the reason we are forgiven according to Christian doctrine. That innocence (Jesus) was tortured and killed in the ultimate loving act. So certainly, a Christian would have to answer your question “no.”
Now to what I think. I think it is wrong but even after spending the last hour trying to find an “objective” thing in the universe to point to that confirms my feeling I have not been able to. Seems as much as I would like to say it is objectively wrong, I can’t. But it is enough that most of us feel the same way and enact laws that try to protect innocence.
Janet I suspect your reflextions on my question might differ to John's, but please correct me.
As you have probably gathered from previous posts, I tend to lean toward the idea that there is some sort of "objective morality". At the very least, I would say I am not really a relativist. Over time and culture, I believe that the principles of justice, love, kindness, sharing, compassion, empathy, harmony, and balance are the "ultimate good" that EVERY culture in every time should strive for. These are timeless moral values; values that the bible even touches on (usually sandwiched between some kind of genocidal acts attributed to God).
Now to your question - "do I think it is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to punish an innocent individual for being innocent”? given my belief system, I cannot imagine a scenario where that would not be unjust. John's example of the christian's answer - that there is no such thing as innocence, and that Jesus' torture and murder was a beautiful thing, I don't know if I could really discuss this with a fundamentalist christian (which I don't believe you are) because we come from completely different moral bases. I do not think that the "sacrifice" of Jesus was beautiful - if it really happened, it's horrifying. If God truly was God, and if the salvation story is true (for the record I do not believe it), then God could have forgiven people because he was a loving God. He did not need to torture anyone. The only reason blood needed to be shed was because of the pagan history of sacrifice to appease the gods.
Bottom line, I do not see how the sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty can ever be a good thing.
In your view as a christian, Myrtle, why do you think God did all those terrible things in the bible (killing babies, genocide, rape, you know the drill!) And why did his son have to be tortured and murdered to "save" us?
Firstly Janet, you pose some challenging questions but they are off topic so other than to say your second comment, about Christ's death, it always surprises me to hear people who have had ongoing exposure to Christians thought over a long period still miss the point.
In response to the subject at hand, my comments try to address both John’s and your own point of view but probably address John’s more so.
I think you would both agree that you both would say that morals discovered not determined by us. Whereas I would say by and large morals are discovered not determined by us. So morals are not “out there” but rather over time humans have developed them.
The atheist J L Mackie says this “the ordinary user of moral language means to something about whatever it is that he characterizes morally, for example, a possible action as it is in its self or would be if it were realized & not about or simply expressive of his or anyone else’s attitude or relation to it; but the something he wants to say isn’t purely descriptive but something that involves a call for action or for the refraining from action and one that is absolute not contingent upon any desire or preference or policy or choice his own or anyone else’s.”
So Mackie is acknowledging that anyone using moral language is admitting that his / her claims are in fact objective.
With this in mind you use words like “justice” “innocence” and “murder” thus revealing an underlying “oughtness”. That is that injustice, corruption and murder are absolutely objectively and universally wrong. Despite this “oughtness” in your statements it would appear from it that there is still no absolute, objective & universal moral right or wrong. Rather as Richard Rorty would say it’s “what our peers will let us get away with” and thus relates more to power relationships.
Thus you take socio biological approach to ethics and should in a million years time should several successful Hitler’s come and go then exterminating vegetarians will have the “oughtness” of the day and since innocence and murder are social constructs we shouldn’t complain it’s just evolution the herd morality of Homo sapiens. To think otherwise is specie-ism.
So you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either all moral are subjective and developed over time or there are some things that are beyond us have an existence in some other transcendent orgin.
Ooops incoming correction
I think you would both agree that you both would say that morals are NOT discovered but determined by us. Whereas I would say by and large morals are discovered & not determined by us. So morals are not “out there” but rather over time humans have developed them.
myrtle, I think we could settle this discussion just as soon as you enlighten us with these “discovered” morals. They must be something truly extraordinary! Undeniably objective, absolute moral truth! Oh my! They must sing like Handel’s Messiah on steroids! I just can’t believe I haven’t come across such a thing in all my searching...Please do not keep this from us any longer!
:) Thanks for the counterintuitive rhetoric John, it made me smile.
(Incidentally this kind of comment is known as a specific type of logical fallacy known as a red herring, its an avoidance tactic.
My own line of reasoning is called reductio ad absurdum. Thought you might be interested)
What do you think to the position that the atheist Michael Ruse takes when he says:
“Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hand, feet & teeth. Considered as a rational justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says “love thy neighbor as thyself” they think they are referring above and beyond themselves; nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival & reproduction & any deeper meaning is illusory”
Is this a step too far for you I wonder? I think it will be for Janet.
All the best
Myrtle
hi myrtle, Always glad when I can induce a smile! You made me smile too! :)
I do find it amusing that you suggest I am perhaps using avoidance tactics when all this time (which I have enjoyed) you have avoided giving an example of what you seem to be arguing for. Talk about avoidance!
As for Ruse's definition, I think it is overall quite accurate but would say that morality is not confined to simply aiding survival and reproduction but the QUALITY of life.
I return you to my previous question and rephrase it thus:
It is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to punish an innocent individual for being innocent.
Yet Bertrand Russell says about moral values “ethics arises from the pressures of the community on the individual. Man does not always instinctively feel the desires which are useful to his herd. The herd being anxious that the individual should act in its interests has invented various devices for causing the individuals interests to be in harmony with that of the herd; one of these is morality.
Now according to your "good" self, Ruse & Russell innocence is an illusion of the herd mentality; are you one of the herd?
myrtle,
On what do you base your statement that it is absolutely wrong to punish an innocent person?
1)I note your reluctance to address my point about the absurdity of your naturalistic & auto-centric relative philosophical stance.
2)naturalism doesn’t provide a sound foundation for morality because:
a.On the naturalist view, objective right and wrong do not exist
b.it does not provide an objective basis for moral accountability.
3)You misquote me, please re read the statement.
I am not denying that naturalism offers no objective basis for morality. Of course I think that is indeed the case.
My question to you is what do use to justify your statement: “It is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to punish an innocent individual for being innocent” ?
For example, if I say “It is absolutely, objectively & universally wrong to cause needless suffering” I am full of sh!t. As much as I personally believe this I recognize that it is but my opinion, and though it may be shared by many, it is simply a powerplay to assert it is “absolutely, objectively & universally wrong”.
You can’t simply assert something and want to be taken seriously without backing up your assertion with some credible reason.
You can’t simply assert something and want to be taken seriously without backing up your assertion with some credible reason.
The atheist Paul Kurtz says “the central question about moral & ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”
Let me summaries if I may.
Janet,
It would appear that you aspire to an objective, absolute & universal moral “oughtness” but you do not find grounds for them in your current philosophy and therefore are in a logical dilemma, as Kurtz concludes, “that they must be anchored in transcendent ground or all is ephemeral.”
John,
You appear to be quite comfortable with a near nihilistic view with this auto-centric, bottom up individualistic relativism. Yet it seems to me that on this view when justice lays bare her breast to give succour to those who suffer injustice she instead has the dagger of your personal opinion thrust in it. There are no objective morals & duties it is all a matter of personal development and opinion. You thus remove any need for “god” and place yourself in its stead.
Nevertheless I have shown:
1.On the naturalist view, objective right and wrong do not exist
2.Consequently naturalism doesn’t provide a sound foundation for morality and is subject to whims of power relations within any given group.
3.Neither does it provide an objective basis for moral accountability and is therefore bankrupt.
4.This is clearly illustrated by the life of Donatien Alphonse-Francois De Sade (1740-1814) De Sade was a French aristocrat and philosopher, as well as a writer of extreme pornography (the term 'sadism' derives from his name). In De Sade's view, atheism legitimised sexual experimentation, since without a God there was no justification for setting any limits on human action. De Sade was in this sense an example of Enlightenment philosophy taken to its extreme, advocating total freedom and recognising pleasure alone as the goal of life.
I await the answer to my rebuttal of the unwarranted nature and assertions of your philosophy.
How is Jacob (jake)?
Myrtle, Jake is doing just fine, hope to see him tomorrow-thanks for asking.
I assert that not only is there no “objective morality” but there cannot be. I cannot prove this assertion but based on the lack of evidence I feel it is as reasonable a position as asserting there is no Santa Claus keeping tabs on who’s naughty and nice. I believe we are personally responsible for making meaning in our life and “morality” is meaning we give to behavior.
I have deducted from experience that creatures from insects to humans prefer a state of well-being to one of suffering and so that is the empathetic source from which all my choices flow. I also recognize that this is a personal idea that has no reality outside of human minds (that we know of) so no one is obligated to agree with me. All I can do is try to persuade people that the more we nurture life and the less we needlessly harm life the more happiness we are all likely to experience. But bottom line, I have no objective grounds for this.
It was once thought that God made everything, held the stars in the sky, orchestrated the storms and earthquakes, punished with disease, appointed rulers and so on. Now all of these things have natural explanations and the role of the gods has almost been eliminated. But the last great hope to find a job for God seems to be this notion that “God” is necessary to have a basis for morality.
There are a several serious problems with this idea.
1. First and foremost there is no evidence for “God”.
Thus the idea that “God” provides a basis for morality is nothing but wishful thinking and a powerplay.
2. There is great difference in opinion about what “God” is and what “God” wants as evidenced by the many different religions and divisions within religions rendering the idea of “objective, absolute Truth” meaningless as no one can agree on what it is.
3. Evidence showing where belief in “God” is higher, standard of living is lower and where belief is lower, the standard of living is higher along with the disproportionately low number of nonbelievers in prisons point to the idea that for all practical purposes, “God” is not necessary and may in fact be detrimental to the healthy functioning of modern society.
4. If a society were taught the only reason to be a good neighbor is because “God” commands it, it would teeter on the edge of collapse. For when people stop believing in “God” what is to prevent them from being a very bad neighbor? In contrast, a society taught to revere life has no reason to fear a loss of faith in a “God”.
5. And finally, the Western idea of “God” demands obedience which is the antithesis of morality which is a personal choice determined by one’s sense of empathy, wisdom and courage not mere obedience.
Can you give me 5 solid reasons why an ethics based on a Reverence for Life is as problematic as one based on the idea of “God”?
John,
You finally managed to segue the conversation to your favourite topic. Well done! But I guess this is what you wanted from this conversation from the start.
You will have noticed I have not quoted the Bible nor preached any sermons only used logic & analytically critiqued your position.
I am happy that I have been successful in doing that and any unbiased reader would find adequate reasonable rationale logical conclusions regarding my contentions.
1)Your assertion regarding “evidence” for God’s existence is:
a.sadly in error,
b.Even if it were true absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
2)This is a genetic fallacy & therefore a non sequitur
3)I would like to see this evidence please
4)This is “if” stuff, it’s not even anecdotal evidence.
5)Obedience is not the “antithesis of morality” it is the essence of it. I take it you are obedient to the laws against stealing.
In regards to your last question this needs looking at more thoroughly as it requires close analysis of its constituent parts.
Glad Jacob is thriving.
(Don't you just love this stuff?)
myrtle,
First of all, I do appreciate the fact that you/we were able to keep the G-O-D word out of the conversation for as long as we did but it seemed to be time to address it.
1. You suggest there is evidence for God but fail to produce it. We both know your evidence is not terribly compelling so this does not surprise me. You also rightfully note that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence but of course this allows us to hold all ideas from your notion of God, to the Scientologist’s Xenu, the Muslim Allah, and the Mormon Angel Moroni as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and invisible Pink Unicorn, etc., as possible realities. (Lots of nonsense to wade through if one is trying to understand reality a little better! I think it best we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, don’t you?)
2. It is crystal clear that since there are countless ideas about what “God” is and wants, the idea that “God” provides an objective morality is ludicrous, as even if “He” did we would continue to kill each other over who had the Truth.
3. A simple google will turn up as many stats as you care to look for. A couple here:
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' - Times Online: "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.
It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.
Denmark and Sweden aren't exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.
4. You may dismiss this concern as merely “if” stuff but Freud, generally recognised as one of the most influential and authoritative thinkers of the twentieth century, saw a great danger in having faith in a personal God. In The Question of God, author Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr., says “Freud argued that not only does moral truth come from human sources, but attributing this truth to God is unwise and ‘dangerous.’ He wrote, ‘The ethical demands on which religion seeks to lay stress need, rather, to be given another basis; for they are indispensible to human society and it is dangerous to link obedience to them with religious faith.’ Why dangerous? Because Freud believed that as people became more knowledgeable they would eventually turn away from their religious faith. He wrote that as ‘the treasures of knowledge become accessible, the more widespread is the falling-away from religious belief.’ If the masses no longer believe in God, what will motivate them to live moral lives? ‘If the sole reason why you must not kill your neighbor is because God has forbidden it and will severely punish you for it it in this or the next life—then, when you learn that there is no God and that you need not fear His punishment, you will certainly kill your neighbor without hesitation, and you can only be prevented from doing so by mundane force.’” He said that “a personal God is, psychologically, nothing other than an exalted father” and this belief is “so patently infantile and so foreign to reality, that…it is painful to think the great majority of mortals will never rise above this view of life.”
5. You suggest “obedience” is the “essence” of morality. I could not more strongly disagree. Obedience is obedience, morality need not have anything at all to do with it. Your definition would have us believe the obedient Nazi soldiers were exhibiting the “essence” of morality while the disobedient Schindler was exhibiting the essence of immorality. It seems you would have us think the Rosa Parks of the world were/are immoral for disobeying authority.
Granting power to an outside authority (god, government, teacher, parent) requires our obedience not morality. Morality allows us to question authority, to decide that it is immoral to be obedient and moral to be disobedient. Obeying is easy. Obedience requires no wisdom, no courage no inner dialogue on what the consequences of one’s actions will be as evidenced by the fact dogs can be obedient.
Am looking forward to your deconstructing the idea of Reverence for Life. And yes, I do love this stuff and it is a great pleasure discussing such things with you. Have a great evening!
My, I bet you feel better now!
:)
Much! :)
Hello John (& Janet)
What busy weekend, retirement is just as busy as working for a living. Still it was rewarding and refreshing despite my arthritic joints complaining.
I have given some thoughts regarding your observations and though at first blush they come across as quite forceful they actually don’t hold up to well with closer scrutiny.
I have couple of dilemmas firstly whether I should look more closely at each point in turn or give a rather general overview of your responses. Secondly, it would be easy to fall into the trap of getting into a theological / Bible slanging match which so far we have managed to avoid so my responses require further scrutiny on my part to avoid lapsing into that mind set rather than addressing your remarks in a philosophical mode.
Furthermore you may recall I am slow of thought and may require a little time to think through some of your statements, so please bare with me if do not respond quickly.
I will get back to you soon; hope you all had a good weekend.
Myrtle
John,
"1. You suggest there is evidence for God but fail to produce it. We both know your evidence is not terribly compelling so this does not surprise me.
You are correct that I did not give any "evidence"; this was deliberate on my part. However, I disagree that it is "not terribly compelling" in fact quite the contrary particularly as a cumulative case. But I thought there were other more pressing issues but we can look at later if you wish.
2. "It is crystal clear that since there are countless ideas about what “God” is and wants, the idea that “God” provides an objective morality is ludicrous, as even if “He” did we would continue to kill each other over who had the Truth."
Here is where you are hoisted by your own petard since, on the one hand, by using the example of Danes & Swedes you point to a society that exemplifies those things you consider to be moral goods. Therefore you not only imply but advocate certain moral virtues and by connotation they have an “oughtness” about them. Yet on the other hand, you proclaim yourself to be an auto-centric relativist. You freely admit there are no absolutes ALL is relative, situational & only illusory herd behaviour.
So again I say to you’ you cannot have your cake and eat it; either all morals are subjective and developed over time or there are some things that are beyond us have an existence in some other transcendent origin.
The second problem is that you can find societies that are “religious” and behave somewhat similarly to your examples. For instance Bhutan, steeped in its religious traditions, was crime free until it opened the doors to American influences and the Coca-Cola generation began to create delinquency among the youth. You can even find examples at home look at the Amish all that you point to as dysfunctional & undesirable are minimal amongst them despite being surrounded by a post Christian ethic.
Thirdly, it is simplistic & reductionist to claim that atheism is the focal force for good. Whilst I was studying the political aspects of anthropology the socialists used the Dane / Swede examples to bolster their corner. However, the capitalists said no it’s because they have a mixed economy that sustains a welfare state.
If you look at Kerala in India where a similar system was implemented under Christian influences you will see a case study of how overall quality of life index improved dramatically.
If you look at the quality of life index for 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
You will note that ALL the leading countries have orthodox Christian heritages.
In regards to “they don’t pray or go to church” indicates nothing since even Richard Dawkins himself considers himself a “cultural Christian”.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2034,Dawkins-Im-a-cultural-Christian,BBC
The fact remains though they may no longer practice religion the morality and ethic of Christianity pervades the culture.
Hmmm, Freud is an interesting subject and I will address this very shortly.
Hi myrtle,
Thanks for your thoughts.
1. Of course, if the evidence for the existence of this thing called “God” was terribly compelling there would be little need for “faith”. There would be little confusion on what “God” was and what “God” wanted from us. Followers of “God” would not have doubts and stop “believing”. What YOU may call “compelling” is obviously not considered compelling to billions of other people.
2. I repeat myself: "It is crystal clear that since there are countless ideas about what “God” is and wants, the idea that “God” provides an objective morality is ludicrous, as even if “He” did we would continue to kill each other over who had the Truth."
This is fact, plain as day. Your “objective truth” is not the Muslim’s “objective truth” nor the Mormon’s. So what practical good does even the (false, in my opinion) idea of “objective truth” have on a world-wide scale? I would say it exacerbates divisiveness and war and leads to much suffering.
You had asked for some information to back up my claim that “God” is not necessary and may in fact be detrimental to the healthy functioning of modern society.
I provided that. Stats such as these can be very misleading and it is very difficult to determine what is causing what. The point I was trying to make is that “God” is not necessary for individuals nor societies to function in very life-affirming ways. And often is the case that the more “God” or “Allah” is central to a community the more unhealthy it is.
Bottom line, neither theism nor atheism are in themselves beneficial or detrimental to society. People’s actions make for healthy or unhealthy societies.
You mention the Amish. I used to have a very romantic notion of them but the Amish are some messed up monkeys in many ways. Check out the documentary movie The Devil’s Playground.
And don’t bother bringing up Freud again. I only used his quote to say that what you so easily dismissed as an inconsequential “if” thing, he saw as very important and possibly very dangerous.
Off for a walk on a beautiful afternoon after many long dreary gray days. I think I’ll feed the migrating seagulls who have taken up residence on our little neighborhood lake. Hope your day is bright and sunny too.
Hope you enjoy(ed) the sun, seagulls & stillness of the moment
I wish you well
Myrtle
(I need to address points 1 & 2)
Hello John (& Janet)
At your request I will not go into Freudianism (Pity you declined the analysis of his oedipal complex and its “father figure” projections of god” it’s quite interesting) only to point out a couple of amusing Freudian concepts.
Freud proposed that “alcoholism” was “an expression of repressed homosexuality.” He also said, “About the Irish, they are the only people impervious to psychoanalysis”.
Today I (we) find these ideas amusing yet the effects of many of his indefensible claims linger in the minds of many.
You say,
“5. You suggest “obedience” is the “essence” of morality. I could not more strongly disagree. Obedience is obedience; morality need not have anything at all to do with it. Your definition would have us believe the obedient Nazi soldiers were exhibiting the “essence” of morality while the disobedient Schindler was exhibiting the essence of immorality. It seems you would have us think the Rosa Parks of the world were/are immoral for disobeying authority.”
Actually John here you make my point for me, Schindler acted out of the innate, a priori natural law that is part of the human condition. Natural law (in ethics) is the view that there are innate or natural moral laws known by ALL people.
It is not that I disagree with you about morality being personal but rather that of its origin. Like you I think that we should respond from an inner “knowing” of “oughtness”; those “who do not have or relativies God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.” For you its just relative subjectivism originating in the evolution, for me it a subjective experience that express’ an objective theistic origin. Schindler was a social actor operating out of the objective and subjective reflection of the “natural law”.
You say,
“Obedience requires no wisdom, no courage no inner dialogue on what the consequences of one’s actions will be as evidenced by the fact dogs can be obedient.”
Again you make my point as social agent with freewill we make choices like Schindler whereas dogs are not moral agents simply because they don’t make choices. You obey the speed limit by choice because you respect life, but many make other reckless choices. Your example of Rosa Parks is an excellent case in point; she stood against an unjust system as a social agent and was obedient to a more transcendent law.
Just because, as freewill moral agents, there are those individuals and cultures that “evolve” differing values, codes and norms that then degenerate into tyranny & anarchy rather lends itself to the notion that there is an absolute objective & universal law that can be suppressed but never finally removed or altered.
You say,
“The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.”
I agree, I have never suggested that “religion” is a requisite ingredient of morality since as I have indicated I see a “natural law” in operation. However, someone once said “pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world.” Since, from my point of view, we are created in his image the hallmarks of that inner image even if marred percolate through.
Hope this is helpful
Hmmmm
Isn’t it strange how, when you re read things, you read what you are thinking not what you are reading, hence the typos.
Good morning myrtle!
Seems you and I have a lot in agreement but just see a different source for morality. Mine natural, yours supernatural. Implementing Occam’s razor and common sense would result in my position winning by a knockout! :)
And Freud would be an interesting topic for another day. Your points remind me of all the great minds of history from Newton to you name it...As great a genius as someone may be, they all have some very wacky ideas mixed in.
Off to deal with a hobbled car and then to the zoo! (which I should be protesting instead of patronizing but I think I’ll just appreciate the prisoner’s beauty today.)
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor
The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. Occam's Razor has become a basic perspective for those who follow the scientific method. It is important to note that it is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers.
Since when does billions of years with unquantifiable purposeless & unguided multitudinous forces, innumerable elementary particles, laws & even a multiverse resulting highly complex beings become more simple than a creator / creation? The various naturalistic processes that are invoked are far more complicated than any that a theist might consider.
The idea of God creating is much more economical & elegant than the naturalistic complexity.
John, you’re thinking is like Dawkins again!
Oh, you flatterer! Thinking like Dawkins? In my dreams! By the way, I might be seeing Hitchens in person this weekend. Be still my heart!
DOES GOD EXIST?
A Debate
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS vs. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG
Moderated by Hugh Hewitt and hosted by Craig Hazen
Saturday, April 4, 7:30 pm
Like to be there?
Would love to.
Here’s a fairly decent debate between Turek and Hitchens (who seemed to have a bit of an off day)
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3286,Turek-vs-Hitchens-Debate-Does-God-Exist,Christopher-Hitchens-Frank-Turek,page1
Post a Comment