“After losing the Second World War, the leaders of Germany were put on trial by the Allies for war crimes in what were known as the Nuremberg Trials. The main defense presented by the Germans was, ‘Who are you to judge us? We have the right to make and follow our own laws, and that’s all we did. Who are you to judge us with your laws?’ They argued that morality is subjective and that each nation has the right to create laws as it sees fit. Chief U.S. Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson responded with a powerful declaration: There exists an authority higher than any nation, a universal moral law that transcends human dictates. By invoking this transcendent moral authority, the Allies had firm ground to judge the Nazi atrocities as fundamentally wrong. However, if there is no God, if there is no transcendent moral law, if morality is just subjective, then the Nazi leaders would have been absolutely correct. Without a transcendent law that we are all bound to, the Germans could make whatever laws they want, just like any other nation, and there would be no justification to say they had done anything wrong. Do you agree with Robert H. Jackson that a transcendent moral law exists? Or do you agree with the Nazi leaders who said, ‘We can do what we decide is good in our own country; who are you to judge us?’”
I'd suggest that in the absence of a transcendent moral law, that it becomes problematic to make these sorts of judgements on any other basis than "Might makes right.". The Allies won, and therefore the Allies get to determine whether or not the Axis did evil things, simply because they won.
7 comments:
Do you agree with Robert H. Jackson that a transcendent moral law exists?
Yes. Period.
Or do you agree with the Nazi leaders who said, ‘We can do what we decide is good in our own country; who are you to judge us?’
No. Period.
At the same time, I'm noting the reality that none of us can PROVE objectively our notion of a transcendent moral law or the details - that YOU can't, that Jackson couldn't, that I can't - and yet, because some actions are so self-evidently wrong that it is imperative that we draw some lines that should not be crossed and stick to it by common assent.
It would be nice if you, Craig, could prove your transcendent moral opinions objectively, but you can't. In the lack of an objectively PROVEN moral code on at least some actions, it is imperative for us to form reasonable moral agreements about what is and isn't acceptable.
Do you disagree? If so, where? Provide proof of any moral opinions you claim to have objective proof for.
So your definitive claim is that you believe that some sort of "transcendent" moral law exists (despite your earlier claims that morality is subjective), yet you can't define it, can't say for sure what it says, can't point to a source for this "transcendent" law you believe in, but are convinced that you can say definitively that certain things violate this "transcendent" moral law.
Since I've never made any claims about a "transcendent" moral law, why would you expect me to prove claims I have not made? I have merely pointed out flaws in your unsupported/unproven hunches, and the subjective nature of your claims.
Yes, I disagree that you can act as if your subjective moral hunches, can be treated as if they are "transcendent".
Again, why would I "provide proof" for something I've never claimed was objectively True?
See, here is where you read my words and completely fail to understand them:
despite your earlier claims that morality is subjective
NO. I have never said and do not believe that morality is subjective. I haven't said it and you can't point to a place where I did because I do not believe and have not said that.
What I've said is the more rational, observable, respectful and humble claim that
1. I believe there IS objective moral rights and wrongs
AND
2. I note the reality that we can't objectively prove them, ourselves.
I think CLEARLY raping women or running swords through children are grossly evil atrocities. I think it is CLEAR to all morally reasoning people, it is an affront to human rights and a gross injustice. AND, I recognize that I can't prove it, any more than you can prove that sometimes, it IS morally acceptable to run swords through children (as you believe is possible IF "god" commands it, right?). But if and when we can one day ASK God - an authoritative judge - to clarify for us: IS it actually always wrong to rape, enslave, run swords through children? ...God will answer, "My beloved, simple-minded child, OF COURSE, don't be an idiot! Of course, it's always great evil to do any of those things!"
But I'm humble enough to know I can't objectively prove that now. But do I believe in objective morality? YES, as I've always made clear.
AND, do I recognize that we can't objectively prove it? Yes, as I've always made clear.
Understand now?
Since I've never made any claims about a "transcendent" moral law, why would you expect me to prove claims I have not made?
Because you've posted this post about Jackson making the claim of a transcendent moral law, I'm asking you the reasonable questions:
1. Can you objectively prove a transcendent moral law on any moral questions?
AND
2. Even if you can't, don't you think it is imperative to join with those of us willing to take reasoned moral stands on some issues, EVEN IF we can't objectively prove them?
These are reasonable questions, given your post.
What you said:
I'd suggest that in the absence of a transcendent moral law, that it becomes problematic to make these sorts of judgements on any other basis than "Might makes right.".
Does that mean you are advocating a "might makes right" moral code OR do you believe in a transcendent moral code, even if you can't objectively prove it?
Reasonable, respectful questions, brother.
Yes, I disagree that you can act as if your subjective moral hunches, can be treated as if they are "transcendent".
So, are you saying that Jackson (the fella you quoted, as if you agree with him) was WRONG to take a stand for what he clearly thought were transcendent moral codes EVEN IF he couldn't prove them? OR, do you suspect that in some hidden cave somewhere, Jackson hid the objective proofs for his transcendent moral code?
Again, why would I "provide proof" for something I've never claimed was objectively True?
Because in the real world, evil atrocities happen and it behooves us as humans created in the image of God to take stands against them. That seems rather obvious, isn't it?
Do you disagree?
"NO. I have never said and do not believe that morality is subjective. I haven't said it and you can't point to a place where I did because I do not believe and have not said that."
I should keep an index of the claims you make so I can find them, unfortunately I don't. For someone who's used their poor memory as an excuse before, I'm not sure what to make of this sudden perfect recall.
"What I've said is the (subjectively) more (subjectively) rational(per Dan's subjective definition of rational), observable (morality by consensus), respectful and humble claim that"
Referring to any of your claims as "humble" makes me laugh out loud. But otherwise, I fixed it.
"1. I believe there IS objective moral rights and wrongs
AND
2. I note the reality that we can't objectively prove them, ourselves."
As if repeating this makes it True.
"I think CLEARLY raping women or running swords through children are grossly evil atrocities. I think it is CLEAR to all morally reasoning people, it is an affront to human rights and a gross injustice. AND, I recognize that I can't prove it, any more than you can prove that sometimes, it IS morally acceptable to run swords through children (as you believe is possible IF "god" commands it, right?). But if and when we can one day ASK God - an authoritative judge - to clarify for us: IS it actually always wrong to rape, enslave, run swords through children? ...God will answer, "My beloved, simple-minded child, OF COURSE, don't be an idiot! Of course, it's always great evil to do any of those things!""
Yes, those are your subjective individual hunches. What you lack is the framework to impose those individual, subject give hunches on anyone else who has reached a different individual, subjective conclusion.
"IS it actually always wrong?".
Based on your subjective, individual, hunches there is no way you can answer yes. SO what you do is decide to speak for YHWH and to put your words in His mouth. To invoke YHWH is the source of your moral code, seems to be the only possible way to reach a transcendent moral code, yet you deny the ability to prove your own claims. Why would anyone simply accept your condescending version of YHWH's words as anything except your own subjective, individual, interpretation?
"But I'm humble enough to know I can't objectively prove that now. But do I believe in objective morality? YES, as I've always made clear."
An objective morality that can't be proven, applied, or completely understood seems no different from a subjective morality in practice. Of course, this mystery"objective" moral code still doesn't get you to imposing it on those who's god tells them differently.
"Understand now?"
I've always understood that you pay lip service to this mystery "objective" moral code, and that in practice you advocate for a subjective moral code based on consensus of those in power.
"Because you've posted this post about Jackson making the claim of a transcendent moral law, I'm asking you the reasonable questions:"
But my objection was not about you (after the fact) asking questions, it was about your demand that I prove something I haven't claimed. Are you acknowledging that your demand that I do so was ridiculous and unfounded?
"1. Can you objectively prove a transcendent moral law on any moral questions?"
Not to your satisfaction. I've seen some excellent work on the topic, but it's all by people you'd dismiss without even reading their arguments. I see no reason to try to prove something to you when you can't/won't even tell me what "proof" constitutes?
"2. Even if you can't, don't you think it is imperative to join with those of us willing to take reasoned moral stands on some issues, EVEN IF we can't objectively prove them?"
It's not a matter of me "joining" you and your group of imaginary friends who want to impose a subjective moral code on others. What's you're describing is passing laws, not establishing morality. Laws are passed by a consensus of those in power, morality isn't decided that way. Except, other folx who worship other gods have a different moral code than you and your invisible friends and I don't see what foundation you have to impose your subjective moral code on anyone else.
"Does that mean you are advocating a "might makes right" moral code OR do you believe in a transcendent moral code, even if you can't objectively prove it?"
No. I was quite clear that if one does not have a transcendent moral code, then morality is going to inevitably be decided by those with enough power to enforce their subjective moral code. My belief is irrelevant to my statement.
"So, are you saying that Jackson (the fella you quoted, as if you agree with him) was WRONG to take a stand for what he clearly thought were transcendent moral codes EVEN IF he couldn't prove them? OR, do you suspect that in some hidden cave somewhere, Jackson hid the objective proofs for his transcendent moral code?"
No. I'm saying that Jackson's point is internally and externally consistent. IF a transcendent moral standard exists, then it is right and proper to punish people for violating that moral standard. If as the NAZI's (and the sociological definition of morality I quoted a while back-that moral are decided at the family.tribe/village/societal/cultural level) then there is no basis for punishing the NAZI's as there is no transcendent moral code. Of course, a mystery transcendent moral code which we can't know or prove, doesn't really help in this case either.
"Because in the real world, evil atrocities happen and it behooves us as humans created in the image of God to take stands against them. That seems rather obvious, isn't it?"
No, it seems like some bullshit you made up to hide the fact that you continue to demand that I prove claims I've never made.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
Post a Comment