http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html
The above link is to a reasonably good attempt to justify the existence of objective morality that is not grounded in a theistic worldview.
So, Dan, let's see if you can demonstrate that this gentleman is objectively wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
An additional non theistic case in favor of objective moral standards.
http://crossexamined.org/do-objective-moral-truths-exist-in-reality/
A case made from a theistic/Christian perspective.
I guess that I'll be able to see the affirmative case made to prove that morality is subjective in short order.
I was listening to the radio today and realized something, for all of Dan’s kicking against the goads of objective morality, his ethic of “harm=bad” is essentially a form of an objective moral code. Unless, he’s prepared to argue that in some cases harm is good, he’s basically arguing for and against the same thing.
I don't think a case can be made that all harm is bad unless one first explains what one means by the term "harm". When a cop tackles or even shoots a criminal while trying to make an arrest, clearly the criminal is harmed. But that harm inflicted is not immoral if there is no other way to make the arrest. The "harm" standard is a ruse, not a serious attempt to discuss what is moral. And for a "Christian" to be uncomfortable with the notion that God is the source of morality, and thus Scripture is our best source for understanding God's teaching of morality, is to put the claim of "Christian" in doubt.
I’m not arguing that the harm standard isn’t problematic, I’m arguing that is an objective standard. Even if you exempt some specific “harms”, it would still be an objective standard.
Dan’s problem is that to blindly accept his “societal consensus” standard means that all of his pet “evils” ( slavery, raping puppies, devaluing people, racism) can be moral just as easily as they can be immoral. It’s all about societal consensus. It’s essentially one of the defenses raised at the Nuremberg trials. “Our society said it was moral and we should be judged by that standard.”.
The bottom line is that Dan wants the morally superior high ground which comes with transcendent objective moral standards, without having the transcendent objective moral standards. In other words, he just wants to tell people how immoral they are when they transgress one of his opinions.
I'm reading the source now. In the meantime, I'll leave your comments up on my blog. In the meantime, this fella is making the case for a non-theist belief in an objective morality... Do you even believe the case he's making? Or do you think atheists have no case for objective morality?
I'm looking specifically for your case for objective morality (on some points, on some list of actions which you believe you objectively know as a fact that these actions are immoral...) I'll be interested in figuring out what this fella's saying, but I'm not sure it's going to help your case... I'm guessing you may even reject his hunch, but you tell me...
I’m doing what I said could be done, which is make a case for an objective moral standard. I pointed out that this was a non theistic case, to make the points that; 1. It is possible to make a non theistic case, and 2. Given that it aligns more with your stated ethic I thought it valuable.
Your clumsy attempt to imagine some sort of selective objective moral code is beyond foolish, and I’ve decided to up the ante. If you’d be satisfied by something partial, how can you be unsatified with some more encompassing.
Whether I agree with the cases being made here is irrelevant. You asked for a case to be made, I’ve given you three options.
Now, going forward, if you want to comment further you have 2 options (more than you have given).
1. You can acknowledge that I’ve done what I said could be done ( not your perversion of what I said, what I actually said) has been done.
2. You can provide detailed, specific rebuttals to the specific points raised along with objective proof that demonstrates that the cases are also objectively wrong.
Any other comments run the risk of being summarily deleted for being off topic.
One hint, you don’t get off to a good start when your first comment contains a factual error.
FYI, this post isn’t about you making demands or telling me what I’ll do. It’s about you taking one of two options and realizing that starting from a place of error isn’t going to serve you well.
Maybe I’m a prophet, I addressed and preempted your non theist canard.
I thought it would be valuable to quote what I actually said, as opposed to allowing Dan’s perversion of what I said to go uncorrected. When Dan attempts to demonstrate that I didn’t do what he said, this will demonstrate the falseness of his claims.
“A. I don’t believe that every topic can be divided into those two categories.
B. I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person.
C. I’m completely comfortable with the fact that there are plenty of philosophers who have made reasonable compelling cases.”
First, let's be clear what we're discussing. My B. Question was
B. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
The question I had, again, was can you PROVE OBJECTIVELY what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
Your response, in your typically vague, milquetoast and indirect fashion was...
B. I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person.
I. Now, given that you remain indirect and vague and rarely if ever clarify directly, this is risky, but what I'm hearing you say is that, Yes, you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some topics... to a "reasonable person..."
Is that correct?
And please, please, please, for the love of God and all that is rational and adult, answer the question directly and clearly.
II. Assuming that this was your intent, you offered this OTHER GUY's hunches about what HE thinks is an objective case. It is NOT your answer - in fact, you almost certainly reject it.
Is that fair? Again, just to speed this up, I'll assume your answer is some vague notion of Yes.
III. Okay, whatever, it's not an answer to the question I asked, but I'll play along. You have found what you're suggesting is ONE rational case for objective morality (one that you almost certainly reject, keeping in mind). And you've stated/asked me, on my blog, "I'm eagerly awaiting your demonstration that the case is objectively wrong."
That is, you're waiting for me to demonstrate that this OTHER author's case is wrong. Okay, I'll play this game.
IV. The definition, again, of objective (MW):
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers"
(Dictionary.com):
"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
That is, you'd like me to demonstrate that this person's argument proves - independent of any one person's opinions or thoughts and perceptible to ALL observers (and I'm glad to clarify, "all reasonable observers")
V. This author's argument begins (as he sums it up near the end) with this definition of morality...
"Morality is the distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided. "
cont'd...
VI. Thus, IF morality is indeed the distinction between right and wrong, with "right" being that which positively affects or helps people and wrong being that which harms...
and IF everyone agrees with this definition... if it is observable to all, independent of opinions, then he is beginning his argument with a sound presupposition.
VII. However, I suspect that the "harm" measure definition of morality is NOT observable to all, that indeed, you probably don't accept this definition and you are a reasonable person (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd agree with this claim about you) and thus, his argument fails on its first premise.
Indeed, as the very first commenter said at your source,
"I would summarize the author's claim as saying that things which foster the wellbeing of conscious beings are morally good, things that do harm to the wellbeing of conscious beings are morally wrong. I know there are nuances, but that seems to be the ultimate test. Where I think the author falls short is that he does not demonstrate why the wellbeing of conscious beings is OBJECTIVELY good/the right goal to pursue. By "objective" I mean those things that are factual regardless of our beliefs and desires."
Which is to say that, even if you are not one that disagrees with the premise, there are other reasonable people who do. Thus rendering the premise subjective, not objective.
Now, I will say that this guy does an amazing job of dismantling what I'll call the fundamentalist argument for THEIR presumption that they know objectively what God wants and that the fundamentalist approach to morality is in fact a rejection of morality in favor of flailing about in pursuit of appeasing a whimsical god and by all means, I'd love to see you deal with the holes in fundamentalist theology on these points.
And this author DOES make a compelling - if ultimately, I believe, an incomplete argument for objective morality from the rational point of view... the problem is that there are too many relatively reasonable people who do not agree with the harm theory model of morality.
Anyway, I believe that you yourself disprove your own source on just the first point. I'll add that later on when the author defines evil, he also fails to come up with a definition that is comprehensive and objectively demonstrable, but rather, opinion that is unprovable, so the first premise is not the only place where the author stumbles.
Does that answer your question?
And note: I've reached the conclusion that conversation with you is not really leading anywhere, so I'm not very inclined to jump through many more hoops, but there's your answer for this hoop.
At some point, I'd think that intellectual honesty on your part would push you to provide your own reasoning on
1. The list of points/actions on which you claim to know objectively to be moral/immoral, and
2. Your reasoning to support that claim.
As to your conservative/fundamentalist theist attempt at defending objective morality, the author begins with...
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
But does not prove it. It fails before it gets started.
Also, the author is not really focusing on that point, but the second premise...
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Now, in this case, I happen to AGREE with the claim. The difference is, I note the reality that we can't objectively, definitively PROVE which values are moral or immoral. I think we can make a reasonable case about which actions are moral or immoral in a large number of circumstances to the vast majority of reasonable people, but that we can't objectively prove it.
And indeed, the author does not prove it or even attempt to do so, so far as I can see. He merely asserts its rationality, which I agree with, but does not prove it objectively.
Dan,
I have to wonder if you understand English or you just don't understand how to behave when your not commenting on your own blog. Your "B" was a ridiculous request. By definition an objective moral framework is not limited to just a specific subset of behaviors. So, of course, I clarified what I meant and was specifically clear about what I was prepared to offer.
If you think that making demands and being insulting is an appropriate way to engage in adult conversation, then you will be disappointed.
"First, let's be clear what we're discussing."
Yes, let's. Let's start with the fact that I am not going to address your perversion of what I said. I'm going to address the reality of what I actually said.
With that in mind, I'm going to deal with the specifics of your comments that pertain to what I actually said, and to you responding in the manner you were asked to respond. Anything outside of those parameters will be deleted.
Your "B" was a ridiculous request. By definition an objective moral framework is not limited to just a specific subset of behaviors.
Why is it ridiculous? And, given your response, then the question would reasonably be:
B. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on all topics?
That seems to be a reasonable question, the reasonable answer to which is, "No, I can NOT objectively prove what is and isn't moral on all topics..." Is that correct?
But given that you are probably not making THAT claim, that brings me back to my original question:
B. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
What is ridiculous about the question? It's a sincere question that I reasonably wonder what your answer is. How is that ridiculous?
Support the claim, please.
And this is important because it gets to the heart of a lot of the disagreement the rest of us have with the fundamentalist types of the world.
And delete anything you wish, but as I'm speaking directly and specifically to the questions that YOU asked me, I'll take it as a sign of surrender from you, that you no longer wish to try to support your claims or deal with my reasonable questions. I'm already inclined to think that you HAVE surrendered and are just monkeying around out of foolishness now, seeing how long I'll keep trying to reach out to you in the face of nonsense and false claims.
"Is that correct?"
Not exactly. What I am saying (no your perversion) is that there are rational cases that have been made for an overarching transcendent objective moral code. I'm further saying that these cases can be made to and assessed by reasonable people.
"Is that fair?"
Is what "fair"? Doing what I said I'd do? Why wouldn't offering a case for a universal, objective moral standard be "fair"? What does "fair" even have to do with this?
"Does that answer your question?"
No.
"And note: I've reached the conclusion that conversation with you is not really leading anywhere, so I'm not very inclined to jump through many more hoops, but there's your answer for this hoop."
I get it. Before you actually engage in the entirety of the conversation, you decide to give yourself an out that allows you to dodge actually answering questions and proving others wrong. I understand that it's difficult for you to live up to the standards you demand of others. It's difficult for you to have conversations in forums where your arbitrary rules and speech codes can't be selectively enforced to silence others. I get it. But to start making excuses before you even begin, is particularly craven even by your standards.
"At some point, I'd think that intellectual honesty on your part would push you to provide your own reasoning on
1. The list of points/actions on which you claim to know objectively to be moral/immoral, and
2. Your reasoning to support that claim."
The problem with your demand, is that it represents your perversion of what I actually said. Why you think it's reasonable that I jump through your perverted hoops to do something I never said I'd do is, frankly, bizarre. Even more so given your preemptive excuses to run away from doing what you've been asked.
So, it's wrong for one person to assert something without "proof", but it's perfectly fine for you to do so.
Nice try though. Your aversion to answering questions and proving your own case is quite apparent.
"I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person. I’m completely comfortable with the fact that there are plenty of philosophers who have made reasonable compelling cases.”
I feel compelled to point out the fact that the above is what I actually said, and I actually did what I said could be done.
I also feel compelled to note that you AGREE with my what I actually said could be done. While attempting to argue that I haven't lived up to your perversion of my words.
"What is ridiculous about the question? It's a sincere question that I reasonably wonder what your answer is. How is that ridiculous?"
I've already answered this, and see no reason to do so again. If you're really, seriously, genuinely unable to scroll up and find it, just let me know and I'll consider giving you some help.
"Support the claim, please."
Support what claim? The claim I actually made, or your perversion of what I actually said?
You're the one who virtually started this by giving the excuses for why you were going to run away again, and your trying to twist that into me somehow trying to do what you've already said you were doing.
Unlike you. I will save your comments for later reference or to be restored if you decide to be more responsive, I will also answer your questions and deal with valid points. Finally, I won't falsely represent the comments if I delete them.
Just to clarify/reiterate. The fact that whatever I offer regarding what I actually said could be done is reflective of a few factors.
1. Virtually every case I've seen made for a transcendent, objective, system of morality is longer and more involved than is reasonable to deal with in one blog post.
2. I have a life. Family, travel, two jobs, etc. I'm not inclined to invest a significant amount of time in summarizing and rewording available material, when I can post links and let people's own words speak for them.
3. Given past history, and present, the level of response and effort put into response will most likely not justify the amount of effort I'd have to put in.
Craig, this conversation has arisen because there are some in the fundamentalist/conservative theist world who assert that they can and do know as objective facts what God's will is for humans on at least some points. They will generally all gladly agree that they - no one - knows what God wants perfectly, but on some points, they can't be mistaken. On points of morality, for instance, of wars, slavery, gay folk marrying, smoking pot, etc... as well as on points of theology - that God objectively wants us to believe in sola scriptura, in the "authority" of scripture, in a virgin birth, in the PS Theory of Atonement, etc... and that we can know these as facts, objectively.
Into that conversation, I've raised reasonable questions such as the ones I've asked you and, to the point of this conversation, THIS question:
B1. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on all topics?
or
B2. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on some subset of topics?
To the LATTER question, you answered/responded with the vague response...
B. I have seen enough to believe that it is provable to any reasonable person.
Perhaps you'd be better served by explaining exactly what you mean by your response. Gauging by your responses since then, it's beginning to sound like the direct answer to my actual question is, "No, I can not do that." Or perhaps, "No, I can't do that... because it's not a rational question because... (fill in the blank)" or perhaps No, I can't do that because it's a 'ridiculous' question because, by definition an objective moral framework is not limited to just a specific subset of behaviors..."
IF that is your response to my actual question, then answering B1 would be prudent.
B1. Do you think you can prove objectively what is and isn't moral on all topics?
I THINK your direct answer is No, but you tell me.
Perhaps if you tried to either directly answer my original question OR say you can't answer it and explain what your answer is would be helpful.
As to limited time, I fully get that. Me, too. I'm not asking you to recreate the wheel. Surely SOMEONE SOMEWHERE has made the case for being able to objectively "know" and/or "prove" as facts what is and isn't moral... or at least on some points (but if so, on which points and why?). Just point to a source.
The thing is, I've done some researching and I haven't seen it. I don't think it exists (a good rational case, that is) because it can't be done. But maybe I'm wrong. Point me to the arguments and we can take it from there.
Till then, I've done what you've asked. I addressed the holes in your sources arguments, as well as pointing out where it's valid, in my opinion.
Perhaps the better course would be for you to stop the incessant focus on attempting to pervert my responses and simply deal with them.
I’ve offered 3 reasonable options for cases to support an objective, transcendent moral order and you’ve not proven any of the three to be wrong.
You’ve spent more time talking about what “some” anonymous, unsourced “fundamentalist” “conservatives” say in such broad, vague, and amorphous terms than you have demonstrating what you’ve been asked to demonstrate. One wonders why you’re expending so much effort on everything except what you’ve been asked to do.
Of of course I have directly answered your original questions, the fact that you’re not happy with those answers, feel the need to pervert what I’ve said, and now add additional questions is telling.
To be clear. I believe (and provided 3 examples of) reasonable, rational, cases for objective moral standards. You’ve made some general responses to one of the three, but not proven it wrong. You’ve ignored one, and dismissed one summarily.
So far, not an impressive showing.
I've demonstrated why the first one is wrong as well as the second. I'm guessing you don't understand why (although, at least with the first, you do, since you almost certainly don't agree with his reasoning??). At any rate, this is too convoluted.
I ask questions to get you to clarify and instead, you go on the attack complaining about an "incessant" focus on "perverting" your responses, etc. Asking question is an effort to UNDERSTAND your responses, not pervert them. But that, too, you don't appear to understand or are not willing to understand.
You're not answering the questions asked and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, don't even appear to understand that you're not answering them, nor do you understand (again, giving you the benefit of the doubt) that I have answered your questions.
For that reason, I'm done.
Of course you are. You’ve mistaken disagreement with something as demonstrating something. You’ve been laying the groundwork to bail since one of your first comments.
Not surprised at all.
“So, Dan, let's see if you can demonstrate that this gentleman is objectively wrong.”
This was my request of you, I’m willing to give you as much room as you’d like to do so.
I’ve indulged you with a lot of space devoted to not doing what I asked, so you have the choices, di as you’ve been asked, raise off topic issues, or run off.
One thing that I can't escape is how this whole thing is the result of Dan NOT answering a question of Craig's. I'm not about to search out how this all started, but I seem to recall that it began with Dan answering a question of Craig's with a question...and since then Dan is insisting Craig respond as if Craig's question never happened. I concede, however, that without that painstaking effort of trying to wade through all the comments to get to the beginning, I cannot confirm that my recollection is correct. But given Dan's constant equivocations, tap-dancing and the graceless scoldings as if he has some moral authority, it seems about right. Indeed, Dan's constant muddying does not serve to compel me to do the work.
On another note, Dan lists as follows;
"On points of morality, for instance, of wars, slavery, gay folk marrying, smoking pot, etc... as well as on points of theology - that God objectively wants us to believe in sola scriptura, in the "authority" of scripture, in a virgin birth, in the PS Theory of Atonement, etc... and that we can know these as facts, objectively."
We CAN know these facts...objectively...by the study of Scripture, and the various cases have been made repeatedly by using Scripture. Indeed, the claims of knowledge has never been more than the claim (the truthful claim) that we can know what Scripture teaches about all of these things...that the truth Dan doesn't like is actually found in Scripture if one reads it honestly and objectively. It's not that anyone claimed to know without the benefit of Scripture what morality is. Therein lies the problem. Dan rejects Scripture as the source of God's revelation when it doesn't work in his favor, seeking other sources of moral thinking as if any other source can trump what Scripture teaches.
It's been clear for some time that while many of us regard God as the source of morality...that it is a reflection of Him..., Dan prefers to believe that morality stands apart from God and His will/law/rules for living/whatever is/are constructed to align with morality. That is to say, God says "don't do it" because it is immoral. The truth is that it is immoral because God says "don't do it". But that doesn't work for Dan.
Oh...I forgot to mention...Dan will default to "opinion". That is, I believe what I believe but it is only based on my "opinion" of what Scripture says. But this is only a favored ploy to allow him to believe what he likes by claiming he doesn't give it any more weight than his opinion, formed by his (so he says) serious, prayerful study. It's a good ploy when you can't really use Scripture to back up the opinion. The concept of "objective" morality, just doesn't work for Dan.
Yes, those things can be known. Dan’s worry is that by admitting that they can be known, he’ll have to have some level of accountability for rearranging his opinions. Clearly, if God had spoken on those sorts of issues, then a self described Christian would want to be in alignment with Him.
Dan wants the ability to occupy and make pronouncements from the moral high ground, he just can’t/won’t defend it when questioned.
I believe that's the point that led him to question your ability to prove objective morality. So, rather than defend his position (answer your question), he responds by insisting you defend a position he assumes you're taking. It really doesn't matter if you hold the position or not, so long as he can get by without doing the work of defending his own position upon your request that he does.
Yes, that is the tactic. It’s one of two that get used regularly. The other is to leave questions hanging, abandon the thread, and pretend they don’t exist.
Both are cowardly.
Post a Comment