https://winteryknight.com/2024/07/20/utilitarianism-and-the-moral-life-by-j-p-moreland-7/
WK, re posted this analysis of Utilitarianism by JP Moreland. The two quotes below struck me as they are very similar to things Dan has said in regards to determining morality. I've often thought that Dan's view of morality aligns with a Utilitarian worldview. This essay does a relatively good job of demonstrating the problems with a Utilitarian worldview.
" Currently, the most popular utilitarian view of value is subjective preference utilitarianism. This position says it is presumptuous and impossible to specify things that have intrinsic nonmoral worth. So, they claim, intrinsic value ought to be defined as that which each individual subjectively desires or wants, provided these do not harm others. Unfortunately, this view collapses into moral relativism."
"This can be interpreted in different ways, but many utilitarians embrace the following: the correct moral action or rule is the one that produces the greatest amount of utility for the greatest number of people."
I suspect that Dan would disagree, which is fine as he usually does. I'll leave the essay linked and allow people to draw their own conclusions.
53 comments:
So, they claim, intrinsic value ought to be defined as that which each individual subjectively desires or wants, provided these do not harm others.
Not quite what I believe, although there is a moment of closeness to it.
I believe that we ought to do as Paul suggests here:
whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise,
think on these things.
And I don't think, generally speaking, that the concept here is all that difficult. We should focus on living lives in lovely, pure, just ways and supporting and encouraging others who do this and holding one another up as we strive to do so.
But do I think that "intrinsic value ought to be defined as that which each individual subjectively desires or wants..." well, no, not necessarily. Even if it doesn't cause harm to others, over-indulging in certain drugs or foods or not exercising... it doesn't mean these things have intrinsic value. I don't think that, do you?
There are many "victimless crimes" that may ultimately cause no harm to others, but that doesn't make them morally good or suggest they "intrinsically have value."
For one thing, causing harm to one's self can be a less-than moral outcome of chosen behaviors.
Secondly, causing harm to one's self can and probably usually does at least potentially cause harm to others. The drunk husband who falls off his porch and breaks his arm might mean his wife might have to work more... and if it happens enough, she may feel the need to leave him. That's causing harm.
I think the problem with this notion is the thinking of morality as a series of rules. The world and reality are more complicated than that.
Is the glass of wine three days a week something that promotes health OR does it promote alcoholism? Even if the imbiber isn't alcoholic, does it lend support to an industry that promotes alcoholism? What if it's two glasses a day, THEN is it wrong? At what point does drinking that wine depart from "having intrinsic value" as reasonably concluded by an individual to "causing harm to others," if only by extension?
Does driving 57 mph in a 55 mph zone have some intrinsic value? What if the laws are wrong and that level of speed can be counted on to cause harm (to the tune of tens of thousands of crashes a year)? What of the pollution emitted by that gas engine? It will/does contribute to air pollution which, in congregate, harms millions of people. Is ONE person driving and enjoying that intrinsic value causing harm? How do we measure, where do we land?
Or what of the nuns who actually steal (thou shalt not) the carburetors from the Nazis car so the persecuted family can escape? Intrinsic value or sin?
I don't think morality is rightly understood as a list of dos and don'ts, it's more complicated than that.
Sorry for going on so long, but I'm just trying to help you understand my actual position and that it's complicated.
So, in conclusion, no, I don't think that an individual finds intrinsic value in a behavior that does not appear on the face of it to cause harm is morally right, nor does that define morality.
It's more complicated than that.
Do you disagree?
"I believe that we ought to do as Paul suggests here:"
If those things are not objective and universally identifiable, I'm not sure how your hunch differs from Utilitarianism. A Utilitarian would absolutely agree that all of those are to be sought after, but that the specifics of those would be different for each person.
"whatsoever things are true, for me"
"whatsoever things are honest, to benefit me"
"whatsoever things are just, for me"
Etc. When you claim that multiple "truths" exist, you can see how seeking the Truth might be problematic when two people can seek a completely different Truth.
"But do I think that "intrinsic value ought to be defined as that which each individual subjectively desires or wants..." well, no, not necessarily. Even if it doesn't cause harm to others, over-indulging in certain drugs or foods or not exercising... it doesn't mean these things have intrinsic value. I don't think that, do you?"
I'm not someone who finds the Utilitarian worldview compelling, nor have I ever made comments that lean towards that worldview. Where I see a problem basing one's moral code on consensus is the it naturally leads to a "do the most good for the most people" Utilitarian worldview. To your example, who are you to tell someone else what has intrinsic value for them? Hell, we live in a society today that is going out of it's way to pretend like over indulging in food/being out of shape is a healthy/positive thing.
"There are many "victimless crimes" that may ultimately cause no harm to others, but that doesn't make them morally good or suggest they "intrinsically have value.""
Well, you can say that, but on what grounds do you demonstrate that objectively?
"For one thing, causing harm to one's self can be a less-than moral outcome of chosen behaviors."
That's an interesting thought, outside of an objective, universal moral code how does one define that? I'd certainly argue that removing one's perfectly functioning body parts is causing harm to oneself, and that it's a less than moral outcome. But by what authority would I apply that to someone who chooses to remove a leg because they think it'll make them happy?
"Secondly, causing harm to one's self can and probably usually does at least potentially cause harm to others. The drunk husband who falls off his porch and breaks his arm might mean his wife might have to work more... and if it happens enough, she may feel the need to leave him. That's causing harm."
In your opinion that's "harm", but not everyone else would agree. It could be argued that the wife leaving the drunk husband would be the best possible outcome for her, which seems the antithesis of harm.
"I think the problem with this notion is the thinking of morality as a series of rules. The world and reality are more complicated than that."
Yet, strangely, that's how you view things. You constantly label things as "moral" or "immoral", you clearly have a personal, subjective, binary matrix where you decide for yourself what is or is not moral. You clearly have some metric/rules which allow you to make this personal, subjective binary choice for yourself.
"Is the glass of wine three days a week something that promotes health OR does it promote alcoholism? Even if the imbiber isn't alcoholic, does it lend support to an industry that promotes alcoholism? What if it's two glasses a day, THEN is it wrong? At what point does drinking that wine depart from "having intrinsic value" as reasonably concluded by an individual to "causing harm to others," if only by extension?"
In the case of something that is, in an of itself, morally/physically/spiritually neutral (like drinking an occasional moderate amount of alcohol) we leave it up to the individual. Scripturally (for example) the "rule" seems to be "don't get drunk". Which seems a reasonable rule.
Nonetheless, your digression aside, none of what you've said really aggresses the Utilitarian worldview. You'd argue that morality is causing the least amount of harm to the largest amount of people, would you not?
"Does driving 57 mph in a 55 mph zone have some intrinsic value? What if the laws are wrong and that level of speed can be counted on to cause harm (to the tune of tens of thousands of crashes a year)? What of the pollution emitted by that gas engine? It will/does contribute to air pollution which, in congregate, harms millions of people. Is ONE person driving and enjoying that intrinsic value causing harm? How do we measure, where do we land?"
From a Universalist worldview the answer would involve balancing the positive things that driving brings to society (allowing people freedom, flexibility in work, moving goods and services, etc) with those things deemed "bad". Whichever side the scale tips to, becomes the default consensus.
More stupid questions that make me wonder if you actually understand the Universalist worldview that you seem to have some commonality with, or just the you don't know how to have a discussion without defaulting to repeating your same old talking points.
"I don't think morality is rightly understood as a list of dos and don'ts, it's more complicated than that."
You're just repeating yourself again. Who cares.
"Sorry for going on so long, but I'm just trying to help you understand my actual position and that it's complicated."
Really? IS your position not summarized by "Whatever does the least amount of harm to the greatest amount of people is the consensus moral code"?
"It's more complicated than that."
Again, you repeat yourself. I suspect that your desire for complexity has something to do with your desire to not be pinned down or bound to one consistent set of standards. You like the ambiguity that this complexity provides you, while applying a binary "moral or immoral" standard to others.
"Do you disagree?"
With what? Do I disagree with your convoluted and complex hunches that make no sense in relationship to how you apply your moral code to others? How could I? Under your moral code, as long as you have some consensus (real or imagined, and a subjective rule "harm") that you apply inconsistently I can't disagree that your personal/subjective moral code is wrong for you.
I can note that your (apparent) worldview (least harm for the most people) sounds like a Utilitarian argument and that nothing you've said here diminishes that impression. Even as you repeat your "Whatever is..." mantra, your insistence on a lack of objective rules or standards demonstrates that the definition of those things is subjective and can vary from individual to individual or culture to culture. As long as "good" is not accompanied by rules/standards defining "good", then "good" has no set meaning and becomes impossible to focus on.
I suspect that you would "define" (I suspect that you would never actually define "good" in any meaningful way, but for the sake of the discussion...) "good" as something like "Whatever results in the least harm for the most people" or "Whatever the majority of the world agrees is the least harmful", or something similar. Yet both of those definitions sound like rules or the basis for rules, do they not? Further, both of those statements are subjective in nature and cannot be applied consistently, can they?
I'm pointing out a significant similarity between your stated positions and a Utilitarian worldview. Nothing you've said has really done anything to explain any major differences.
You seemed to get obsessed with the phrase "intrinsic value" to the point that you ignored the larger context.
You seem to be imputing "harm" or absence of harm" with a significant amount of "intrinsic value". In fact, "harm" or "preventing harm" seems to be the singular defining characteristic of your worldview. It is the most common thing you point to as the driver of your moral code. Therefore do you not suggest that preventing "harm" has "intrinsic value"?
From a Biblical perspective, one could argue that "harm" is one of the things that make Judaism and Christianity unique. That YHWH is quite clear that He will use trials, persecution, and things that cause "harm" as the primary means to facilitate our growth. When one engages in weight training (or almost any athletic training) the core principal involved is that you have to cause "harm" to muscles so that they will grow stronger. When you break a bone, the Drs will tell you that the "harm" of the break can/will actually result in a bone that is stronger. In business, there is a common thread among successful people where they credit things that "harmed" them with their ultimate success.
So, it seems that advocating a simplistic "harm" based moral code might be inadequate to deal with what people encounter in the real world.
Again, on a simplistic level the "Golden Rule" (it's strange that you claim that it's not about rules, then base your entire moral code on a rule) makes sense. On a personal level it's something to strive for. Yet, does that mean a coach should never push those they coach to the point of "harm", when doing so will prevent them from achieving their goals?
All of this simply points out that as much as you seem to deny it, that you do hold the prevention of "harm" to be an "intrinsic value" and that you hold that "intrinsic value" to be one that is "good".
When you claim that multiple "truths" exist, you can see how seeking the Truth might be problematic when two people can seek a completely different Truth.
You keep re-treading this when, 1. You can't dispute it and 2. You almost certainly can agree with it.
It is a Truth that we should be kind.
It is a Truth that we should stand for justice.
It is a Truth that we should watch out for/support/love our families.
It is a Truth that sometimes - for instance, if some in our families are abusive/harmful - we may need to separate ourselves from our families.
It is a Truth that we should be respectful to this planet we live upon.
And so on.
These are all Truths, do you dispute that? Some may even be somewhat contradictory, and that's okay. Do you dispute that?
I have no idea what you're trying to get at in disputing (seemingly) obvious realities/truths.
Is it because neither you or I can objectively prove any of these claims?
Do you think that your inability to objectively prove the truth that we should love our neighbors that it's not a real truth, anyway?
By all means, explain what you're trying to get at in these kinds of comments.
A Utilitarian would absolutely agree that all of those are to be sought after, but that the specifics of those would be different for each person.
I'm not disputing that portion of utilitarianism. Probably neither are you. For you, being kind might mean letting a family member who yelled at you in the past, stay with you in a time of need. For someone else, maybe they need to have some distance between them and their family member.
Do you think HOW being kind might play out be different for different people?
I can't imagine you do.
The thing is: "Being kind" is not a demonstrable, "here are the literal specific steps to do it" kind of thing. It can be played out in many ways. Is it being kind to lend an addict in recovery $100 if they asked for it? Or is it enabling a possible relapse?
There are 1,000 different variables to consider answering that question and there may be NO CLEAR, PROVEN one way to do that.
Do you disagree?
"whatsoever things are just, for me"
Etc. When you claim that multiple "truths" exist, you can see how seeking the Truth might be problematic when two people can seek a completely different Truth.
Let's take that example. Let's suppose that there is a man in prison for manslaughter. He killed someone while driving when he was 18. Not drinking or anything, just carelessness and immaturity and inexpert driving skills.
This man has been in prison now for five years of a seven year sentence. The young man has always been remorseful and accepted responsibility for his mistake. He has expressed a desire to only travel by way of bicycle, walk and busing when he gets out. It's a tragedy that he deeply regrets.
Now, one brother of the killed person believes that the convict should stay in prison for the full seven year term. Indeed, he believes that he should stay in prison for the rest of his life. The young driver's carelessness removed his sibling from the world for a lifetime, so he should be removed from society for a lifetime, the brother reasons. But the dead person's sister thinks that he should be released early. The convict never intentionally caused harm, he's spent five years in prison and he is remorseful and penitent. He's even planned not to drive any more!
What is "being just" in that instance? Is the first brother wrong for wanting him to be in prison longer, for "justice's" sake? Is the sister right for saying he's learned his lesson and that he should be released for justice's sake?
We don't know and have no way of proving that answer one way or the other.
For the brother, he may feel just in his position and we can't say his "truth" or opinion on justice is wrong here, and the same for the sister.
Do you disagree?
I could offer countless examples where a Truth for someone (I shouldn't drive a car because of the cost to the world) is not a Truth for someone else (I can help the world by driving...). Who's to say one's wrong and one's right?
I'm saying that morality is not a rules game. It's a grace and love game and having the grace to recognize that we don't have a hard and fast set of rules that cover every possible scenario, as an objective fact, and sometimes we're making the best decisions we can with no certain proof that we (or the Other) is right. It's our truth, the best we understand it, for both people.
Are you saying that's not correct?
All of this simply points out that as much as you seem to deny it, that you do hold the prevention of "harm" to be an "intrinsic value" and that you hold that "intrinsic value" to be one that is "good".
I DO agree that the prevention of harm is a good starting point and a vital point to consider in making moral judgments. But then, so do you, do you not?
I'm not disagreeing with that element of utilitarianism. I'm just noting that "harm" may not be the only consideration. Again, this would seem to be a point you agree with, as well. Clearly, bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki caused devastating evil degrees of harm. But folks like you reason that, MAYBE IF we didn't choose to kill hundreds of thousands of citizens, MAYBE even more would have eventually be killed by the war.
People who think that way are "weighing harm" to try to come to a reasonable, moral conclusion, are they not?
Is it the case that you're saying you don't think looking at potential harm is a reasonable way to consider morality?
IS your position not summarized by "Whatever does the least amount of harm to the greatest amount of people is the consensus moral code"?
No.
Now, when I say, "No," What I mean is, "NO, that is NOT how I would summarize my position."
Does that help?
"You keep re-treading this when, 1. You can't dispute it and 2. You almost certainly can agree with it."
1. Says who? You?
2. No I don't.
I'll have to note the goal post move when you add "a" before truth.
"I have no idea what you're trying to get at in disputing (seemingly) obvious realities/truths."
I'm not disputing anything. If you didn't understand why I brought it up, then ask that specific question and point out specifically what confuses you.
"Is it because neither you or I can objectively prove any of these claims?"
No.
"Do you think that your inability to objectively prove the truth that we should love our neighbors that it's not a real truth, anyway?"
I think that your question is irrelevant to, and a distraction from, the point I made in confirming your hunch as being your hunch. The fact the you posit a truth you can't prove isn't my problem.
"By all means, explain what you're trying to get at in these kinds of comments."
"When you claim that multiple "truths" exist, you can see how seeking the Truth might be problematic when two people can seek a completely different Truth."
This is what happens when you respond without reading.
"I'm not disputing that portion of utilitarianism. Probably neither are you. For you, being kind might mean letting a family member who yelled at you in the past, stay with you in a time of need. For someone else, maybe they need to have some distance between them and their family member."
So?
"Do you think HOW being kind might play out be different for different people?"
Sure.
"I can't imagine you do."
Then you're a closed minded idiot who's convinced that his hunches cannot be disagreed with.
"The thing is: "Being kind" is not a demonstrable, "here are the literal specific steps to do it" kind of thing. It can be played out in many ways. Is it being kind to lend an addict in recovery $100 if they asked for it? Or is it enabling a possible relapse?"
Given the fact that "being kind" has not come up in this conversation prior to you introducing it inn this comment, I fail to see how this is relevant.
"Do you disagree?"
I agree that adding a new category "being kind" is pointless, not helpful, and seems to be a diversion. But I agree that there are multiple ways to be kind, including some that are "harmful".
"What is "being just" in that instance? Is the first brother wrong for wanting him to be in prison longer, for "justice's" sake? Is the sister right for saying he's learned his lesson and that he should be released for justice's sake?"
Who cares? What an absurd, bizarre, hypothetical that does nothing to make anything clearer.
What's "just" is that he serves his full sentence.
If your point is that "just" is a subjective concept, that doesn't help you.
If your point related to the Utilitarian worldview, and where you overlap with it, that would have been helpful.
"Do you disagree?"
No. I fail to see how one's opinion can be Truth.
"I'm saying that morality is not a rules game."
Yet, the entire basis for your subjective moral code is a rule.
"Are you saying that's not correct?"
No, I'm saying that whatever your personal, subjective, moral code is is simply yours. That you have no grounds to apply your personal, subjective moral code to others.
I'm also saying that rehashing this argument in a thread about where you overlap with Utilitarianism seems pointless.
From a Universalist worldview the answer would involve balancing the positive things that driving brings to society (allowing people freedom, flexibility in work, moving goods and services, etc) with those things deemed "bad". Whichever side the scale tips to, becomes the default consensus.
More stupid questions that make me wonder if you actually understand the Universalist worldview that you seem to have some commonality with, or just the you don't know how to have a discussion without defaulting to repeating your same old talking points.
1. I assume you mean Utilitarian worldview, which could be different than the Universalist worldview?
2. To be sure, I'm not super-studied on the utilitarian worldview, as it's not one I ascribe to, at least not in all points. I certainly studied it way back in college in my philosophy class, and some since, but since I didn't ascribe to it fully, I haven't researched it deeply.
There are some points one might make, for instance, your:
"Whichever side the scale tips to, becomes the default consensus."
...that we can objectively say, "Yes, in most places, when the bad outcomes of actions outweigh the good outcomes of actions, a society may well come to a consensus that those bad things are not to be encouraged or perhaps should be outlawed."
That is, sure, that is a reality that we can see. But is it a reality that we should encourage? No, I don't think so. So, if THAT is a part of utilitarianism you suggest I support, you're mistaken.
Does that help?
If you're taking offense to me not being super familiar with utilitarianism, well, why? I am not deeply familiar with all philosophies on earth, being a finite human. I don't find that unreasonable.
YOU raised the points saying "Dan appears to agree with this..." and I responded to THOSE particular points you raised to help you understand that when you cite some few sentences talking of some particular elements of utilitarianism, where I agree and don't agree and how I'm literally not a subscriber to utilitarianism, but that I can agree with parts of it that neither of us seem able to dispute and that are, for the most part, observable.
Let me repeat a point that I've frequently made over the years with you that I'm not sure you have grasped.
I believe in morality. I believe, by and large, that there are objectively moral and objectively immoral actions. That is, IF we could ask God or some omniscient moral observer, "Is slavery always evil - is the owning and enslaving of humans to do forced labor an affront to human rights and thus, always evil?" I believe God would say, "Yes, of course."
THAT would objectively settle the matter (presuming the God in question was a perfectly omniscient God, as I believe in).
But at the same time, I recognize that we can't objectively prove such questions HERE, now, not without some objective, authoritative decider.
Thus, I believe in objective morality AND I recognize that neither you nor I can objectively prove our moral ideas.
And, at the same time, I don't think morality is an obtuse unknown... I generally think it's pretty obvious. We can REASONABLY reach conclusions - solid conclusions - on most broad moral questions... even if we can't prove them objectively, as you have endlessly helped to demonstrate by never proving even one moral opinion objectively... and really, haven't even tried.
"I DO agree that the prevention of harm is a good starting point and a vital point to consider in making moral judgments. But then, so do you, do you not?"
So you agree that "prevention of harm" has intrinsic value. That you base your subjective, personal moral code on that "intrinsic value". Yet you somehow deny that "preventing the most harm for the most people" is not a Utilitarian worldview.
"I'm not disagreeing with that element of utilitarianism."
Then why not just say that instead of all of the bullshit?
"I'm just noting that "harm" may not be the only consideration. Again, this would seem to be a point you agree with, as well."
As I'm not a fan of a Utilitarian worldview in general, I fail to see your point. Obviously Utilitarianism does not mandate only one "intrinsic value", I'm merely pointing out that the "intrinsic value" you base your entire moral code on is the Utilitarian view of preventing the most harm to the most people.
"Clearly, bombing Hiroshima/Nagasaki caused devastating evil degrees of harm. But folks like you reason that, MAYBE IF we didn't choose to kill hundreds of thousands of citizens, MAYBE even more would have eventually be killed by the war.""
No, folks like me understand the reality that the Japanese leadership could have prevented Hiroshima and Nagasaki from happening, they chose not to. We also understand that the invasion of Japan would have been guaranteed to cost far more lives than those two bombings. We also understand that it's reckless and absurd to take those two events out of the context of the years of intentional barbarism, vileness, and evil that the Japanese inflicted on China, Korea, The Philippines, and many other countries and peoples. The fact that you choose to ignore the context, misrepresent my position (and the position of every non Axis leader at the time), just demonstrates your contempt for anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
"People who think that way are "weighing harm" to try to come to a reasonable, moral conclusion, are they not?"
Don't know, don't care, don't even try to speak for other's motives.
"Is it the case that you're saying you don't think looking at potential harm is a reasonable way to consider morality?"
At best it's one possible, yet subjective way to potentially consider morality. Although, that's not really relevant to the topic here.
"No."
"Now, when I say, "No," What I mean is, "NO, that is NOT how I would summarize my position.""
"Does that help?"
No, it doesn't.
I'll have to note the goal post move when you add "a" before truth.
When I'm speaking of Truths, I'm speaking of Truths. What ONE TRUTH are you thinking of in your mind?
That there is a God? That IS one Truth.
Is "There is a God" ALL truths?
Does the question: What is the Truth about driving automobiles and the moral implications of that? answered by "There is a God..."?
No.
What ONE TRUTH are you imagining that answers all questions?
1. Yes, the entire post concerns the Utilitarian worldview. Unfortunately I used the incorrect term in that instance. You probably could have gotten that from the context, showed some grace and moved on, but I appreciate you clarifying.
2. So?
"...that we can objectively say, "Yes, in most places, when the bad outcomes of actions outweigh the good outcomes of actions, a society may well come to a consensus that those bad things are not to be encouraged or perhaps should be outlawed.""
Then you are arguing for a Utilitarian worldview based on your subjective "intrinsic value" of doing the least harm to the most people. Of course, illegal is not the same as immoral. Which is just one more goal post move.
"That is, sure, that is a reality that we can see. But is it a reality that we should encourage? No, I don't think so. So, if THAT is a part of utilitarianism you suggest I support, you're mistaken."
Given that you seem to be basing your entire moral code on the Golden Rule, how could you disagree with actually doing that?
"Does that help?"
No, you've thrown out so much irrelevant bullshit and seemingly contradicted yourself a couple of times, while agreeing with at least part of the Utilitarian worldview, while not actually demonstrating why the specific examples I gave don't align with your personal, subjective moral code.
"If you're taking offense to me not being super familiar with utilitarianism, well, why? I am not deeply familiar with all philosophies on earth, being a finite human. I don't find that unreasonable."
I'm not. I'm pushing back against the fact that I offered two specific examples of where your personal, subjective moral code seems to overlap with a Utilitarian worldview and you've not really specifically explained why the two don't align.
"YOU raised the points saying "Dan appears to agree with this..." and I responded to THOSE particular points you raised to help you understand that when you cite some few sentences talking of some particular elements of utilitarianism, where I agree and don't agree and how I'm literally not a subscriber to utilitarianism, but that I can agree with parts of it that neither of us seem able to dispute and that are, for the most part, observable."
You see, when you take what I've clearly said then make up a bunch of bullshit that I didn't say and respond to the made up bullshit, that's where you get into problems.
"I believe in morality. I believe, by and large, that there are objectively moral and objectively immoral actions."
You claim to believe this, yet cannot prove that your belief expresses Truth. So instead, you've constructed a substitute moral code, based on your personal, subjective hunches about harm and attempted to impose your subjective, personal moral code on others by saying that other's actions are (objectively) "moral" or "immoral". What good is an objective moral code which cannot be known?
"That is, IF we could ask God or some omniscient moral observer, "Is slavery always evil - is the owning and enslaving of humans to do forced labor an affront to human rights and thus, always evil?" I believe God would say, "Yes, of course.""
So you base your "objective" moral code on what you personally, subjectively, "believe" "God" might say.
"THAT would objectively settle the matter (presuming the God in question was a perfectly omniscient God, as I believe in)."
Would it really?
"But at the same time, I recognize that we can't objectively prove such questions HERE, now, not without some objective, authoritative decider."
Yes, you've said this multiple times.
"Thus, I believe in objective morality AND I recognize that neither you nor I can objectively prove our moral ideas."
Which means practically that you are left with a subjective, personal moral code based on your subjective, personal hunches about what "God" might say if you asked, or on your substitute which is the subjective "harm" rule.
So, Craig, you're saying that this statement:
"When you claim that multiple "truths" exist,
you can see how seeking the Truth might be problematic
when two people can seek a completely different Truth."
Is problematic.
You don't think that Multiple Truths exist?
That Love your neighbor is ONE truth and
Love your family is a SECOND truth and
Be kind to strangers is a THIRD truth and
Never start a land war in Asia a FOURTH truth...
Are not multiple Truths found in those views?
When I'm speaking of Truths over the years, I've always been speaking of Truths, plural, you can tell by the S on the end.
In what sense do multiple truths not exist in a world with endless questions? Each question can be answered with a different Truth, depending on the specifics of the situation in question.
I'm guessing that you're speaking of the possibility of multiple Truths to any one question, is that it?
But in any one question, there are often (always) going to be potentially multiple variations and variables in the specific situation.
Should we always strive to speak to our mothers and welcome them into our homes regularly?
Sure, as a rule.
What if she was abusive and might abuse my kids if we invite her in?
Then no, as a rule, you WOULDN'T necessarily speak to your mother regularly or invite her to your home.
What is it you are trying to get at when you seem to be raising a One Truth theory?
"When I'm speaking of Truths, I'm speaking of Truths. What ONE TRUTH are you thinking of in your mind?"
Which is my point. When you speak of "truths" you speak of the possibility that multiple contradictory "truths" exist and yet are all "true" in some sense. I'm not speaking of "one Truth" in the sense you are suggesting.
"That there is a God? That IS one Truth."
Well, that seems to be the case.
"Is "There is a God" ALL truths?"
No.
"Does the question: What is the Truth about driving automobiles and the moral implications of that? answered by "There is a God..."?"
It's a category error. There are no moral questions about driving automobiles. Driving automobiles is morally neutral. An automobile is not sentient, it is an inanimate object.
"What ONE TRUTH are you imagining that answers all questions?"
Truth is a category. Things are True of they are not True. It is impossible for two conflicting claims to both be True at the same time. You seem to be giving subjective, personal, opinions the status of being some sort of subjective "truth".
"You don't think that Multiple Truths exist?"
No. I do not think that two contradictory things can be True simultaneously. But excellent job of diverting attention from the inescapable conclusion of your multiple truths hunch.
"Are not multiple Truths found in those views?"
Not if they are not True.
"When I'm speaking of Truths over the years, I've always been speaking of Truths, plural, you can tell by the S on the end."
It's strange, I literally made this point earlier, you agreed that the point I made accurately represented your hunch, yet now you're bitching about the fact that I accurately represented you while not dealing with the problem you hunch carries within itself.
"In what sense do multiple truths not exist in a world with endless questions? Each question can be answered with a different Truth, depending on the specifics of the situation in question."
Answered.
"I'm guessing that you're speaking of the possibility of multiple Truths to any one question, is that it?"
Answered.
"Should we always strive to speak to our mothers and welcome them into our homes regularly?"
What a stupid, irrelevant, ridiculous, question.
"What if she was abusive and might abuse my kids if we invite her in?"
See above. and multiply by 2.
"What is it you are trying to get at when you seem to be raising a One Truth theory?"
Nothing, I was trying to explore your hunch about multiple truths and the problem of multiple contradictory things being true simultaneously. You are vigorously and rabidly attempting to shift the discussion away from that inescapable result of your multiple truths hunch.
"When you speak of "truths" you speak of the possibility that multiple contradictory "truths" exist and yet are all "true" in some sense."
Ah. I see. You think that when I'm speaking of multiple truths, I'm speaking of contradicting truths.
Let me clarify.
I'm not.
Understand, now?
That is, I'm not saying that BOTH running a sword through a baby can be a moral good AND running a sword through a baby can NOT be a moral good.
I'm saying unequivocally, that stabbing a baby to death is a moral wrong.
Of course.
Do you understand now that I'm not advocating the notion of contradicting moral truths, certainly not in that sense?
Dan
"Ah. I see. You think that when I'm speaking of multiple truths, I'm speaking of contradicting truths."
Close, but wrong again. When you posit a world in which everyone has the capacity to manifest their own multiple truths, it becomes inevitable that multiple people with end up with truths that conflict with others. Unless, you somehow impose secret limits on your multiple truths construct which you don't clarify up front. In this case you choose to deal with the structural problem with your hunch by waving a magic wand and declaring that you choose to ignore the consequences of your worldview.
"Let me clarify."
Why start now?
"I'm not."
Yet absolutely nothing in any of the examples you've spewed precludes this. The fact that you retroactively decide that you will not speak of this, hardly solves the structural problem with your hunch.
"Understand, now?"
Yes, you've inserted your fingers into your auditory orifices, closed your eyes, and are vocalizing some sort of "nah, nah, nah" sound as a way of pretending that your construct doesn't carry the conflicting truths problem inherently.
"That is, I'm not saying that BOTH running a sword through a baby can be a moral good AND running a sword through a baby can NOT be a moral good."
No, but you are saying that one individual can believe that it's true that stabbing a baby is good, while another can believe the opposite. As your construct has no actual central, universal, objective Truth, it has no ability to tell either that their truth is not true.
"I'm saying unequivocally, that stabbing a baby to death is a moral wrong."
Yes, I understand that under your personal, subjective, individual, moral code that you believe the above to be your truth. Unfortunately noting you've said precludes someone else from concluding that they have a different truth.
I'd suggest that the better hypothetical would be child sacrifice. It is indisputable that there have been multiple cultures that believe that the truth was that sacrificing children to appease their gods was a good thing. There is absolutely no way to deny that they believed this to be their truth.
Yet other societies believed the truth that protecting their children was the best option.
Under your construct there is no reason why those two truths cannot exist simultaneously. Absent some known, universal, objective standard, there is nothing to prevent conflicting truths to exist simultaneously.
Hell, I'd almost guarantee that there are individuals who deeply believe the truth that speeding is wrong, yet also believe the truth that whatever they are doing is the exception to the truth they believe.
"Of course."
Well, as long as you say "of course", every single problem with your construct magically disappears.
"Do you understand now that I'm not advocating the notion of contradicting moral truths, certainly not in that sense?"
Excellent job moving the goal posts, and constructing a straw man. I've never said that you "advocated" this, what I've done is to point out that nothing you've said precludes this. Unfortunately, all you've offered is that you've blinded yourself to that possibility.
By the way, let me say Thank You for asking these questions. I find these sort of intellectual exercises interesting and well-worth thinking about. I certainly enjoy addressing questions like these that you raise and clarifying my position, even if it's repeatedly having to do so.
At least to some degree (on the latter).
(And lest you suspect I'm somehow mocking you or something, I'm not. I enjoy these sorts of conversation and this kind of thinking regarding moral philosophies.)
Along those lines, I'm curious about something you said:
There are no moral questions about driving automobiles. Driving automobiles is morally neutral. An automobile is not sentient, it is an inanimate object.
Says who? Why is it you think there are no moral questions around the policy and practice of humans getting around in automobiles?
I mean, the very fact that I raise moral questions about the policies and practices of the automobile MEANS that there are moral questions about it in the real world. HOW is it you think that "driving autos is morally neutral..."? In the real world, automobile crashes kill over one million people globally and harm millions more, costing billions of dollars. Air pollution driven in large part kills countless others.
The policy decision and practice, then, to have and drive autos as a transportation solution - especially when nearly everyone is doing it - has serious harm and thus, moral, components. Further, such deaths and harm comes disproportionately to the poor, so yet another moral concern.
I'm curious under what circumstances you think policies about transportation and autos are not even a moral consideration?
I get that the auto isn't sentient, but neither are bombs used to kill people or knives used to stab people. The PRACTICE and policy of the personal auto has moral implications.
I don't think it's the case that you only limit what is and isn't moral to those matters brought up in the Bible, right?
child sacrifice. It is indisputable that there have been multiple cultures that believe that the truth was that sacrificing children to appease their gods was a good thing. There is absolutely no way to deny that they believed this to be their truth.
Yet other societies believed the truth that protecting their children was the best option.
Yes, this is true. Which is why I don't agree with the utilitarian argument fully, or at least as you are arguing it. (I don't feel comfortable enough with the intricacies of utilitarianism to say you're understanding it correctly.)
But just because some societies or some segments of some societies believe in rape, in child sacrifice, in slavery... doesn't make it right. That's certainly not my argument, you know that, right?
Under your construct there is no reason why those two truths cannot exist simultaneously. Absent some known, universal, objective standard, there is nothing to prevent conflicting truths to exist simultaneously.
My construct is that there ARE things that are right and that are wrong. SO, UNDER MY CONSTRUCT, of course, there is reason to say X is right and Y is wrong.
I GET that you keep repeating endlessly that I (any more than you) can objectively prove my moral opinions, but that does not mean that two competing truths or practices are equally valid. And that's certainly not what I believe.
You understand that, right?
I've never said that you "advocated" this, what I've done is to point out that nothing you've said precludes this.
You've said that under my belief "construct, there is no reason why those two truths cannot exist simultaneously." But of course, there is. MY belief construct is that there ARE something that are right and some that are wrong. Under THAT construct, then of course, we can understand that I believe that some things are right and wrong.
If, again, you're suggesting that because I can't prove my moral opinions objectively, that then I have no reason to speak out against slavery or killing children, that is moral nihilism, is it not?
I mean, once again and forever, YOU can't objectively prove your moral opinions. Does that mean that you choose not to speak out against child sacrifice, against slavery, against rape in places where it happens?
Again, thanks for the questions. I hope you'll answer some of mine so it's a productive conversation.
You might begin by clarifying with no equivocation: CAN you objectively prove your opinions about gay folks marrying, about slavery being sometimes acceptable, that running swords through children, is sometimes morally acceptable, etc ARE objectively factually proven? Or can you directly and clearly admit that you can not objectively prove those opinions?
And IF you can admit that reality, do you still think it's worthwhile to speak out against slavery and other atrocities elsewhere or do you think we should remain silent if we can't objectively prove an idea?
"By the way, let me say Thank You for asking these questions. I find these sort of intellectual exercises interesting and well-worth thinking about. I certainly enjoy addressing questions like these that you raise and clarifying my position, even if it's repeatedly having to do so."
Given your detours and lack of specifics, I'm glad I can amuse you.
"Says who?"
Well the fact that it's an inanimate object is pretty cut and dried. If you really need a source, I can try to find one that'll confirm that a car in an inanimate object. Again, if your Looking for a source to confirm that cars aren't sentient, same deal.
"Why is it you think there are no moral questions around the policy and practice of humans getting around in automobiles?"
Because I didn't say anything about "the policy and practice of people getting around in automobiles", that subject has everything to do with sentient humans who use the non sentient inanimate objects. That's a whole other subject.
"I mean, the very fact that I raise moral questions about the policies and practices of the automobile MEANS that there are moral questions about it in the real world. HOW is it you think that "driving autos is morally neutral..."? In the real world, automobile crashes kill over one million people globally and harm millions more, costing billions of dollars. Air pollution driven in large part kills countless others."
I do so love the self referential conclusions you draw and how you assume that because you fart something out of your brain that it has some larger importance or that it represents millions of people.
Driving automobiles is morally neutral. Some uses people intentionally put cars to might be able to be judged morally, but accidents are accidents, they have no moral weight.
"The policy decision and practice, then, to have and drive autos as a transportation solution - especially when nearly everyone is doing it - has serious harm and thus, moral, components. Further, such deaths and harm comes disproportionately to the poor, so yet another moral concern."
Of course if we eliminated all motorized transportation prices would rise, draft animals would replace cars, and draft animals also cause pollution not to mention we'd likely need to convert arable land to produce animal feed instead of food for humans.
But again, we look for balance. To suggest that cars have few or no positives and that they bring nothing positive to culture is just more childish fairy tales.
"I'm curious under what circumstances you think policies about transportation and autos are not even a moral consideration?"
I answered this once, the fact that you're too impatient to wait for me to read the comment and respond is annoying as hell. The fact that you've chosen to move the goal posts from your original statement and fight that straw man is even more annoying.
"I get that the auto isn't sentient, but neither are bombs used to kill people or knives used to stab people. The PRACTICE and policy of the personal auto has moral implications."
All of those items are morally neutral, inanimate, non sentient objects. What uses people put those objects to is an entirely different (and irrelevant to this thread) conversation. I understand that you want to go with this new (post goal post move) direction, I don't.
"I don't think it's the case that you only limit what is and isn't moral to those matters brought up in the Bible, right?"
When you start to "think" about what other people believe/think/conclude you are invariably wrong. If not flat out wrong you base your hunches on the straw men you construct instead of reality. So I don't care what you "think".
Driving automobiles is morally neutral. Some uses people intentionally put cars to might be able to be judged morally, but accidents are accidents, they have no moral weight.
You are just factually mistaken. Our POLICIES about inanimate objects that can potentially cause harm - even if unintentional or accidental - STILL can have moral considerations. Because of course, they can.
What uses people put those objects to is an entirely different (and irrelevant to this thread) conversation.
Look, if you want to discuss whether it's moral or not to own BUT NEVER DRIVE a car, then that's a different question. But the policy of mass transportation using cars that WILL result in millions of deaths through "accidents" and "bad driving" IS a moral question. We know that these deaths will result. We know that polluting God's good earth and the lungs of many millions of humans will result.
Pouring inanimate poisons into an inanimate waterway that LIVING humans will be impacted by and harmed by, that is a moral question. Same for deliberately, by policy and practice, pouring poisons into the air.
This is so deeply weird. Again, I'm thankful for you having this conversation, because it illuminates the minds of other people for me... but HOW are policies that WILL result in harm (even if unintentional) NOT a moral question?
Do you think that policies that WOULD require employers to hire gay folk (EVEN IF the employers are morally opposed to gay folk or gay folk who are married...) are not moral questions? But what if you think they are economically or theologically "harmed" by being required to serve gay folk... you don't think it's a moral question? (hint: It is, although probably not the way you think.)
What makes one a moral question and the other not?
"Yes, this is true. Which is why I don't agree with the utilitarian argument fully, or at least as you are arguing it. (I don't feel comfortable enough with the intricacies of utilitarianism to say you're understanding it correctly.)"
Given that my example is taken from your "multiple truths" hunch and has nothing to do with a Utilitarian worldview, it seems clear that you don't understand much of anything. I've literally asked you to explain why TWO specific quotes regarding Utilitarian thinking sound incredibly similar to the incomprehensible pablum you spew, and instead of limiting your response to those two specifics, you whine about me expecting you to be an expert on Utilitarian thought. Which, is just one more straw man excuse.
"But just because some societies or some segments of some societies believe in rape, in child sacrifice, in slavery... doesn't make it right. That's certainly not my argument, you know that, right?"
Again with the moving goal posts. You've claimed that multiple truths exist. I've shown you a real life example of two truths, relatively widely held throughout history, that directly contradict each others. By your hunch, there is no grounding to make any claims about which truth is truthier, nor is their grounding to make claims about "good, moral, or the like". I know facing the inherent weakness in your hunch is difficult, but moving the goal posts doesn't make it any better.
"My construct is that there ARE things that are right and that are wrong. SO, UNDER MY CONSTRUCT, of course, there is reason to say X is right and Y is wrong."
But under your multiple truths construct you have no foundation to prevent these two truth from being held as true simultaneously. The fact that your unproven, unprovable, objective moral code can't be proven renders your judgements meaningless. Merely your individual, subjective, expressions of personal preference. If you mean that there are some things that are objectively, Truly "right" (a subjective term which the Aztecs would quibble with in this regard), then you just argued for an objective standard of Truth.
Another problem is that you have no possible way to disprove the (for example) Aztecs beliefs that human sacrifice was vital to their survival and thriving. If an action is vital to the survival of a society, group, nation, or species, how can something vital be "wrong/immoral"?
"You've said that under my belief "construct, there is no reason why those two truths cannot exist simultaneously." But of course, there is. MY belief construct is that there ARE something that are right and some that are wrong. Under THAT construct, then of course, we can understand that I believe that some things are right and wrong."
Yes, I did. As long as you insist that multiple truths can exist, you have no grounds to prevent truths that contradict each other from existing simultaneously. What you "believe" is simply your individual, subjective, personal preferences which are not binding on anyone else and don't set you up to make moral judgements of others.
"If, again, you're suggesting that because I can't prove my moral opinions objectively, that then I have no reason to speak out against slavery or killing children, that is moral nihilism, is it not?"
Not at all. You can shout your subjective, individual, personal preferences from the rooftops. You have no standing to declare your subjective, individual, personal preferences as "moral or good" or those who have different subjective, individual, personal preferences as "immoral or bad". But shout away, just stop making the argument based on your subjective morality or some alleged objective moral code that you can't demonstrate to be True.
"I mean, once again and forever, YOU can't objectively prove your moral opinions. Does that mean that you choose not to speak out against child sacrifice, against slavery, against rape in places where it happens?"
No, see above.
"Again, thanks for the questions. I hope you'll answer some of mine so it's a productive conversation."
If I was bored, I'd go through and list all the questions you haven't answered. Unfortunately this is your MO and it's very predictable.
"You might begin by clarifying with no equivocation: CAN you objectively prove your opinions about gay folks marrying, about slavery being sometimes acceptable, that running swords through children, is sometimes morally acceptable, etc ARE objectively factually proven? Or can you directly and clearly admit that you can not objectively prove those opinions?"
No, I cannot prove any opinions. I've never said I could.
"And IF you can admit that reality, do you still think it's worthwhile to speak out against slavery and other atrocities elsewhere or do you think we should remain silent if we can't objectively prove an idea."
See above.
Driving automobiles is morally neutral. Some uses people intentionally put cars to might be able to be judged morally, but accidents are accidents, they have no moral weight.
And pollution is poison/toxin. It causes harm and we KNOW it will cause harm and we KNOW that the harm will be disproportionately on the poor, children, the ill and the elderly... and that harm carries MORAL WEIGHT.
Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
(Setting aside for a minute your unsupported first claim - having policies that we know will result in millions of deaths and people being harmed WILL have moral questions about them. DO unto others as you'd have them do unto you. That covers a broad swath of moral considerations.)
And I don't know if you're getting what I'm saying: There are also potential moral/ethical benefits to driving personal autos - being more efficient/speedy at getting from point 1 to point 2 MAY have moral benefits. It's not a matter of "cars only bring harm and have no benefits - I still drive, you know? But that there are potentially ethical benefits to driving doesn't mitigate that there are clearly ethical/moral negatives associated with driving cars as a universal policy.
This is so strange.
Do you think you're in a position to declare authoritatively that the question of automobile policies are objectively not a moral question or is it just your wild guess/opinion?
You have no standing to declare your subjective, individual, personal preferences as "moral or good" or those who have different subjective, individual, personal preferences as "immoral or bad".
So, are you declaring that you are definitively a moral anarchist and because you can't prove any moral opinions, you think people should be free to do whatever they want?
I disagree with that rather amoral/immoral worldview, if so. I think MORAL REASONING is a legitimate reason to state that some things are bad and should be stopped.
Slavery is wrong and harmful and should be stopped. Period. Says I. But YOU can't prove it objectively so you won't speak out against it, is that what you're saying?
So very strange.
You've claimed that multiple truths exist. I've shown you a real life example of two truths, relatively widely held throughout history, that directly contradict each others.
I am so puzzled.
I have never said that all "multiple truths" are equally valid. It is a reality that SOME people (you?) think that there are some instances where stabbing babies to death and enslaving people is a moral option. I disagree. THAT "truth" is not valid or moral.
I'm not saying all multiple truths are okay. I'm saying, in your example you gave, that ONE of those opinions is not morally valid - child sacrifice IS wrong. I can't prove it. You can't prove it. STILL, I think it is wrong and think it is obviously wrong using moral reasoning that is attainable to all.
You appear to be taking the moral anarchy route and saying, "Well, I can't objectively prove it's wrong, so I won't say it's wrong."
Is that correct?
OR, if you are willing to say child sacrifice is wrong, are you willing to say it's always wrong? And if so, based upon what? Nothing provable, right?
CAN you objectively prove your opinions about gay folks marrying, about slavery being sometimes acceptable, that running swords through children, is sometimes morally acceptable, etc ARE objectively factually proven? Or can you directly and clearly admit that you can not objectively prove those opinions?"
No, I cannot prove any opinions. I've never said I could.
THEN SAY IT. Say, I can't prove objectively that two gay guys marrying is wrong. Say, I can't objectively prove that slavery is always wrong, including when it happens in the Bible stories.
THEN, clarify, EVEN IF you can't objectively prove slavery is always wrong, will you stand against it today or will you shrug your shoulders and do nothing?
And if the latter, what does that say about your moral understanding?
"You are just factually mistaken. Our POLICIES about inanimate objects that can potentially cause harm - even if unintentional or accidental - STILL can have moral considerations. Because of course, they can."
No I'm not. I'm differentiating the policies made by animate, sentient, humans, from the inanimate objects. It's not that hard.
"Look, if you want to discuss whether it's moral or not to own BUT NEVER DRIVE a car, then that's a different question. But the policy of mass transportation using cars that WILL result in millions of deaths through "accidents" and "bad driving" IS a moral question. We know that these deaths will result. We know that polluting God's good earth and the lungs of many millions of humans will result."
It's now clear that what I "want to" discuss on this thread about your overlap with Utilitarian thought, is now irrelevant. You are completely committed to forcing me to discuss what YOU want to discuss, not the topic of the post. So, I'll let you post your off topic idiocy, because I'm not like you and don't delete comments. But I'm not playing your game.
"Pouring inanimate poisons into an inanimate waterway that LIVING humans will be impacted by and harmed by, that is a moral question. Same for deliberately, by policy and practice, pouring poisons into the air."
If you say so.
"This is so deeply weird. Again, I'm thankful for you having this conversation, because it illuminates the minds of other people for me... but HOW are policies that WILL result in harm (even if unintentional) NOT a moral question?"
If you say so. Because what I actually say or how I actually respond clearly have no bearing on the conversation you've decided to have.
"Do you think that policies that WOULD require employers to hire gay folk (EVEN IF the employers are morally opposed to gay folk or gay folk who are married...) are not moral questions? But what if you think they are economically or theologically "harmed" by being required to serve gay folk... you don't think it's a moral question? (hint: It is, although probably not the way you think.)"
And Dan brings the topic around to one of his big obsessions, gay folk. Regardless of if it's relevant, on topic, or what I might say. Dan's got a hard on to bring gay folk into this and nothing is going to stop Dan when he's determined to discuss gay folk.
"What makes one a moral question and the other not?"
How this relevant to the very limited topic of this post?
Oh never mind, you've decided to take control and are just talking to yourself and your straw men.
"THEN SAY IT."
I JUST DID, ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF READING? OR ARE YOU OBSESSED WITH FORCING OTHERS TO PARROT YOUR UNPROVEN HUNCHES?
"So, are you declaring that you are definitively a moral anarchist and because you can't prove any moral opinions, you think people should be free to do whatever they want?"
No. I'm pointing out the self defeating nature of your construct. You're just building/knocking down straw men at this point.
"I disagree with that rather amoral/immoral worldview, if so. I think MORAL REASONING is a legitimate reason to state that some things are bad and should be stopped."
Since I haven't actually expressed a "amoral/moral worldview", I'm confused as to what you could possibly be disagreeing with other then the straw men you've built in your quest to define what I think for your own ends.
"Slavery is wrong and harmful and should be stopped. Period. Says I. But YOU can't prove it objectively so you won't speak out against it, is that what you're saying?"
No. Which clearly means you either can't or don't read what I actually write.
"So very strange."
Yes, your inability to defend your won position and therefore attack straw men is very strange.
"I have never said that all "multiple truths" are equally valid. It is a reality that SOME people (you?) think that there are some instances where stabbing babies to death and enslaving people is a moral option. I disagree. THAT "truth" is not valid or moral."
You've insisted that multiple truths exist, yet provide no reason why those multiple truths cannot simultaneously contradict each other. Because you say so is not an answer stop that bullshit. You've constructed this ridiculous "system" and just added whatever arbitrary restrictions you wanted to after the flaws are pointed out. You've also moved the goal posts again. I've been quite clear that under your "multiple truths" construct there is no foundation for non contradiction. You've now decided that you want to change the metric to "valid" or "moral". I get that it's your made up system, but do you seriously think you have the grounding to tell someone that their passionately held truth is objectively and univesally wrong.
"I'm not saying all multiple truths are okay. I'm saying, in your example you gave, that ONE of those opinions is not morally valid - child sacrifice IS wrong. I can't prove it. You can't prove it. STILL, I think it is wrong and think it is obviously wrong using moral reasoning that is attainable to all."
Again the goal post move. You've moved away from the fact that your construct has no means to prevent contradictory truths, to making a value judgment on others truths based on your subjective, individual, personal preferences. By what standard do you judge others truth?
"You appear to be taking the moral anarchy route and saying, "Well, I can't objectively prove it's wrong, so I won't say it's wrong.""
No, this is a straw man.
"Is that correct?"
No it's bullshit made up and turned into a straw man.
"OR, if you are willing to say child sacrifice is wrong, are you willing to say it's always wrong? And if so, based upon what? Nothing provable, right?"
I've answered so many variation of this question, I'm simply tired of it.
yet provide no reason why those multiple truths cannot simultaneously contradict each other.
But I have. Repeatedly. Endlessly.
It is MORALLY REASONABLE that it is an atrocious wrong to sacrifice children.
It is MORALLY REASONABLE to do no harm, to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you AND to NOT do unto others as you'd NOT want be done to you. It is MORALLY REASONABLE that humans have human rights and that includes the right to life to not be taken without consent.
These are nearly universally accepted moral reasons that are obvious on the face of it.
What are wrong with these reasons that I keep giving and keep giving and that no one seriously disagrees with?
Is it because I can't objectively prove them?
What of it?
Should we take NO ACTIONS to stop obvious moral wrongs unless we can objectively prove it?
You do not think that, do you?
So, you say you're NOT a moral anarchist, correct?
Then you DO support standing against slavery, against child sacrifice, against rape wherever and whenever it happens, is that correct?
IF you don't do that based on the moral reasoning arguments I've supplied, then why DO you do them? Because it sounds like you're rejecting out of hand my reasons but not providing anything in their absence AND at the same time, saying you're not a moral anarchist.
Please, help me understand your position and reasoning.
I GET that you say you've answered this question and others like it, but I honestly don't know what your answer is. You appear to be offering moral anarchy as your reasoning AND at the same time, saying you're not a moral anarchist.
Help me understand: ARE you standing against child sacrifice? Based upon what?
I can't imagine this is a difficult question to answer. Look: I just in one paragraph summed up my reasoning and answer to that question. But after all these years, I still don't know your answer.
Help me understand.
By what standard do you judge others truth?
Do you seriously not know this answer, no matter how many times I've answered?
MORAL REASONING. MORAL REASONING. USING our MORAL REASONING to reach reasonable moral conclusions. Conclusions like the Golden Rule - Do unto others... Reasons like Human rights, that we all have a right to life and liberty.
THAT is my standard. What is wrong with that standard?
And don't you DARE say, "you can't objectively prove it..." when you are not able to prove your moral hunches. Just answer reasonably and directly with something else, because that answer is logically flawed (UNLESS you want to advocate for moral anarchy, which you say you don't affirm, no matter how much it seems like it!)
"You've moved away from the fact that your construct has no means to prevent contradictory truths, to making a value judgment on others truths based on your subjective, individual, personal preferences."
Again, I'd ask you to help me understand.
What do you think it means to "prevent contradictory truths..."? I don't think, by definition, contradictory truths are a Thing. I don't believe in contradictory truths when we're talking about a question like, "Is it moral to stab the infants of an enemy opponent. "
There is an OPINION that, Yes, in some cases this is moral (the position I believe that you would say you hold)... Which opinion is not supported by basic moral reasoning and human rights or basic human decency theories.
And, there is the morally rational, No! Of course that's not a morally defensible option, which Golden Rule and human rights theorists would hold to.... which I hold to.
There are no contradictory truths, only contradictory OPINIONS on that point. Seems to me.
So, help me... what do you mean by this?
My means of preventing such atrocities is an appeal to moral reasoning, to the Golden rule, to human rights. Is that not sufficient, in your personal human opinion? If so, based on what?
Dan
"I've answered so many variation of this question, I'm simply tired of it."
Even if that were true, why? When we're talking about human rights, slavery, child sacrifice!... these are HUGE and important moral questions. Why would you not want to objectively prove your opinion, if you could? I mean, this is HUGE. IF it could be proven, then you wouldn't even have to do anything other than point to...
ObjectiveProofThatChildSacrificeIsWrong.com
That kind of proof is earth shattering and the OBJECTIVE PROOF would be out there in many places.
The fact that not only you, bit NO ONE is providing that sort of "proof" of earth-shattering news should give you a clue, right?
Why isn't this information out there, if it exists?
Because it doesn't, my friend. It just doesn't.
Dan
My best guess as to why you refuse to even try to answer is that you truly think in your head that objective morality as you understand it on the topics you believe in REALLY exists... it's just that you can't provide that data in a way that will actually objectively prove it, is that correct? You've said similar things in a vague manner in the past.... something like, Not that will prove it to YOU! Right?
But that's sort of the point of objectively provable, isn't it? I don't have to agree with some points you subjectively hold, it's just demonstrable to whoever views the case.
Dan
"But I have. Repeatedly. Endlessly."
No, you haven't. You've simply announced that you've summarily excluded the possibility without any grounding for doing so.
"It is MORALLY REASONABLE that it is an atrocious wrong to sacrifice children."
I understand that this is your opinion, and that you're repeating your personal, individual, subjective preference.
"It is MORALLY REASONABLE to do no harm, to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you AND to NOT do unto others as you'd NOT want be done to you. It is MORALLY REASONABLE that humans have human rights and that includes the right to life to not be taken without consent."
See above.
"These are nearly universally accepted moral reasons that are obvious on the face of it."
Which is totally in line with the Utilitarian world view. The notion that morality is decided by subjective consensus is fine for a subjective moral code.
"What are wrong with these reasons that I keep giving and keep giving and that no one seriously disagrees with?"
Because nothing in those "reasons" is grounded in anything other then your subjective personal preference.
"Is it because I can't objectively prove them?"
It's because they're just your subjective, individual, personal preferences. Not grounded in anything universal. Simply saying "It's not MORALLY REASONABLE" absent some universal, objective, standard of "MORALLY REASONABLE" is just words. "REASONABLE" is a subjective standard, as is your consensus based moral code.
"What of it?"
See above.
"Should we take NO ACTIONS to stop obvious moral wrongs unless we can objectively prove it?"
No, pay attention to the answers I gave you yesterday before you ask some reworded version of the same question I answered then.
"You do not think that, do you?"
You'd know the answer if you paid attention.
"So, you say you're NOT a moral anarchist, correct?"
Yes.
"Then you DO support standing against slavery, against child sacrifice, against rape wherever and whenever it happens, is that correct?"
Pay attention to my answer to this question yesterday.
"IF you don't do that based on the moral reasoning arguments I've supplied, then why DO you do them? Because it sounds like you're rejecting out of hand my reasons but not providing anything in their absence AND at the same time, saying you're not a moral anarchist."
1. Your subjective "arguments" aren't compelling to anyone outside of you.
2. Pay attention to my answers before you ask the same question over and over again.
"I GET that you say you've answered this question and others like it, but I honestly don't know what your answer is. You appear to be offering moral anarchy as your reasoning AND at the same time, saying you're not a moral anarchist."
That's because you either don't read, ignore what you read, or are unable to ask specific questions about what you read. The fact that you can't point to a specific part of an answer I've given, but choose to endlessly repeat the same questions tells me you aren't paying attention.
"Help me understand: ARE you standing against child sacrifice? Based upon what?"
Yes. This attempt to move the conversation away from the topic and away from you explaining what your subjective moral code is based on, tells me that you're afraid of facing the flaws in your hunches.
"I can't imagine this is a difficult question to answer. Look: I just in one paragraph summed up my reasoning and answer to that question. But after all these years, I still don't know your answer."
In your imagination, maybe.
"Help me understand."
Why, you ignore almost everything I say and misrepresent the rest.
"By what standard do you judge others truth?"
Since you won't answer this, beyond simply restating your subjective, personal preference, why should I.
"Do you seriously not know this answer, no matter how many times I've answered?"
I know the answer, I don't know what in your answer allows you to impose your personal, subjective, moral code to others.
"MORAL REASONING. MORAL REASONING. USING our MORAL REASONING to reach reasonable moral conclusions. Conclusions like the Golden Rule - Do unto others... Reasons like Human rights, that we all have a right to life and liberty."
Oh, by all means, repeat the same subjective, personal, individual preferences as if they extend beyond yourself.
"THAT is my standard. What is wrong with that standard?"
Nothing as long as you recognize that it's subjective, and based on your individual, personal preferences and provides you no basis to impose or apply your subjective, personal moral code to others. You have your own personal, subjective, moral code. Within that you have no basis to apply your personal preferences to others. You have no standing to declare that anyone or anything is either "moral" or "immoral" based on any standard beyond your subjective personal hunches.
"And don't you DARE say, "you can't objectively prove it..." when you are not able to prove your moral hunches. Just answer reasonably and directly with something else, because that answer is logically flawed (UNLESS you want to advocate for moral anarchy, which you say you don't affirm, no matter how much it seems like it!)"
I love it when you threaten me at my blog and try to impose your subjective preferences on me. The fact that all you have is misrepresenting what I've said and straw men to cover your inability to ground your subjective, personal moral code to impose it on others makes me wonder why you keep fighting with no ammunition.
"Again, I'd ask you to help me understand."
I seriously doubt it.
"What do you think it means to "prevent contradictory truths..."? I don't think, by definition, contradictory truths are a Thing. I don't believe in contradictory truths when we're talking about a question like, "Is it moral to stab the infants of an enemy opponent. ""
In your construct where (presumably infinite) multiple truths exist, it is impossible that some of those truths will not contradict each other. Nothing in your assertions precludes the simultaneous existence of multiple, contradictory truths.
The fact that you "don't believe" in something isn't what determines if that something exists.
"There is an OPINION that, Yes, in some cases this is moral (the position I believe that you would say you hold)... Which opinion is not supported by basic moral reasoning and human rights or basic human decency theories."
This makes no sense, and is a straw man.
"And, there is the morally rational, No! Of course that's not a morally defensible option, which Golden Rule and human rights theorists would hold to.... which I hold to."
Rational is subjective, as is your moral code. By all means, cling to your subjective moral code personally. Defend it, shout as loud as you want about perceived immorality. Stop making objective moral judgements based on your subjective moral code. I suspect that the problem is that you're too lazy to properly express yourself, so you use a rhetorical shorthand expecting others to read your mind.
What you say- "X is immoral"
What I suspect you mean- "In my opinion, based on my subjective interpretation of my personal subjective moral code and my subjective ability to reason, I (and perhaps some unknown number of others) believe that, in my opinion, X is likely immoral."
The first is an objective claim based on a subjective moral code.
The second more accurately represents your subjective moral code.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have and embrace your subjective moral code. I'm saying that applying your subjective moral code as if it is objective is something that you haven't laid a foundation for.
"There are no contradictory truths, only contradictory OPINIONS on that point. Seems to me."
Well, that's your opinion based on nothing.
"So, help me... what do you mean by this?"
Usually when I refer to "this" I'm using "this" as opposed to restating whatever the subject of my statement was. I'm surprised that you are unaware of how "this" is used.
Or you expect me to explain something you just said, which is stupid.
"My means of preventing such atrocities is an appeal to moral reasoning, to the Golden rule, to human rights. Is that not sufficient, in your personal human opinion? If so, based on what?"
Again, and lord do I get tired of repeating myself, feel free to trumpet your subjective moral code from the rooftops. It's obviously perfectly sufficient for you. Go right ahead and do what you can to prevent what you perceive as "moral tragedies". Even enlist those who's personal, subjective,moral code aligns with yours and go to town.
Just stop acting as if your personal, subjective, moral code allows you to impose your subjective moral code on others. Stop making objective moral claims about others, based on your subjective moral code. Stop repeating the same old crap grounded only in your opinion. Accept that your moral code is subjective and deal with it accordingly.
"Even if that were true, why?"
Because answering you over and over again, often multiple times in the same comment is a pointless waste of my time when you regularly misrepresent what I actually said, argue against the straw men based on your misrepresentations, then expect me to treat your straw men as if those straw me actually represent anything I've actually said.
"When we're talking about human rights, slavery, child sacrifice!... these are HUGE and important moral questions. Why would you not want to objectively prove your opinion, if you could? I mean, this is HUGE. IF it could be proven, then you wouldn't even have to do anything other than point to..."
You see, when you try to divert attention away from the flaws in your construct by demanding that I "prove" something I've never claimed that I can prove, or even said, it just makes you look desperate and stupid.
The fact that you have somehow twisted my example about the competing truths regarding child sacrifice into me defending or advocating for child sacrifice demonstrates the lengths you'll go to to misrepresent what I say and how you'll use those misrepresentations to attack a position I've never held. The fact that your multiple truths construct is broad enough to allow for two contradictory truths about child sacrifice is a problem with your construct.
FYI, I know what you're trying to sneak in with this idiocy. You so badly want to be able to announce that it is objectively True that child sacrifice is objectively and universally wrong, but you know what happens to your construct if you do. So you play semantic games, and retroactively add rules to your construct to hide the flaws.
"Because it doesn't, my friend. It just doesn't."
One more objective pronouncement from Dan, that he can't prove to be True.
Rational is subjective, as is your moral code. By all means, cling to your subjective moral code personally. Defend it, shout as loud as you want about perceived immorality.
ALL MORAL CODES ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE. YOUR moral code (if you have one - you remain weirdly vague about it all) is not objectively provable. It is SO unprovable, that you don't even try to make a case for it.
But, given the reality that none of us can objectively prove moral claims, we STILL should try to promote what is REASONABLY GOOD and helpful and take a stand against what is REASONABLY recognized as bad and harmful.
That is my position. Maybe it's yours, too. I truly don't know. You come across as more of a moral anarchist, even though you deny that, too. But then, maybe a moral anarchist WOULD deny being a moral anarchist, as nothing is moral to them..?
Do you have a moral code?
Is it important for you to be honest and forthright in the confines of your moral code?
If so, are you violating your moral code by not answering these reasonable questions:
Do you admit that you absolutely can not objectively prove your moral code?
Do you think that, even if we can't objectively prove our moral codes, on at least some matters, it's vital that we try to prevent obvious moral harm - for instance, the killing of babies, the enslavement of humans, the rape of people?
"ALL MORAL CODES ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE. YOUR moral code (if you have one - you remain weirdly vague about it all) is not objectively provable. It is SO unprovable, that you don't even try to make a case for it."
You keep saying this as if repetition proves something. Unfortunately, "rational" is still a subjective measure which presents a problem when you act as if "RATIONAL MORALITY" magically answers everything.
"But, given the reality that none of us can objectively prove moral claims, we STILL should try to promote what is REASONABLY GOOD and helpful and take a stand against what is REASONABLY recognized as bad and harmful."
Again that's an entirely different subject. You'll note that I have encouraged you to "stand up" for or against things that your personal, subjective moral code finds problematic. Go to town. Just stop making objective claims based on your subjective, individual, personal moral preferences.
"That is my position. Maybe it's yours, too. I truly don't know. You come across as more of a moral anarchist, even though you deny that, too. But then, maybe a moral anarchist WOULD deny being a moral anarchist, as nothing is moral to them..?"
Blah, blah, blah, blah, "moral anarchy" bullshit, repeat the same old mantra, don't address the problem you have when you impose your subjective, individual, personal moral hunches on others.
"Do you have a moral code?"
Since you've already made up the answer to this and repeatedly claimed that I have a "moral code", why bother to ask now? It literally doesn't matter what I say, you'll just make up your own bullshit version anyway.
"Is it important for you to be honest and forthright in the confines of your moral code?"
It's clearly not in your moral code. The problem is that this thread is NOT about my moral code, it's not even about your moral code, it's about how your statements about certain things sound incredibly like a Utilitarian worldview. As you've decided that you don't want to stay on topic, and are simply going to steamroll any attempts to stay on topic, I've decided not to enable your diversions.
"If so, are you violating your moral code by not answering these reasonable questions:"
No.
"Do you admit that you absolutely can not objectively prove your moral code?"
The problem is that this thread is NOT about my moral code, it's not even about your moral code, it's about how your statements about certain things sound incredibly like a Utilitarian worldview. As you've decided that you don't want to stay on topic, and are simply going to steamroll any attempts to stay on topic, I've decided not to enable your diversions.
"Do you think that, even if we can't objectively prove our moral codes, on at least some matters, it's vital that we try to prevent obvious moral harm - for instance, the killing of babies, the enslavement of humans, the rape of people?"
The problem is that this thread is NOT about my moral code, it's not even about your moral code, it's about how your statements about certain things sound incredibly like a Utilitarian worldview. As you've decided that you don't want to stay on topic, and are simply going to steamroll any attempts to stay on topic, I've decided not to enable your diversions. Although I've already answered this earlier.
I have hand it to you, your ignorance, intransigence, or ability to avoid what I've actually said are impressive.
I have to say again...as off topic as it might be...this nonsense about proving one's moral code. Mine is informed by Scripture. As one who strives to be as Christian as possible, in service to God, there's no "code" which can be had which can serve that purpose but one based on Scripture. And, as a Christian, to suppose one must go beyond Scripture to "prove" one' moral code is sophistry. Either one abides Scripture as the Will of God (not a god itself, as fake Christians like Dan and his troll falsely assert) or one doesn't. If one does, there can be the odd legitimate, good faith debates one a point or two of understanding, but Dan doesn't do that sort of thing. Dan doesn't subordinate his will to God's Will. He subordinates Truth to serve his preferences. God's Will as revealed to us in Scripture solidly backs my "moral code" and that code is in stark conflict with Dan's love of perversion and falsehood. Thus, my "moral code" is proven objectively by the Truth revealed to us in Scripture.
Art,
I agree that it's nonsense. Especially when, as Dan, your moral code is subjective. There are plenty of people way smarter than us, let alone Dan, who have written volumes on objective morality and why it makes sense. I've never seen Dan produce a coherent argument to dispute those people. Dan thrives in the gray area where he "believes" that there is some sort of secret/hidden objective moral code, but that absolutely no one can know what it is. Therefore we are stuck with having to bumble our way through life not really knowing for sure what is moral and what's not. Except Dan needs to reserve the right for himself to judge others and their actions. "Trump is immoral." He has no objective standard to do so, he regularly offers "consensus" as justification, but as we know morality isn't determined by polls.
As I've pointed out Dan's "consensus" model is compatible with the sociological definition of morality as a set of guidelines for behavior determined by family/village/tribe/clan/society/country/culture. Those can be agreed on or imposed, but they are not universal and not objective. Hence, one society adopts slavery as a moral practice, one doesn't. Or, one society adopts slavery as a moral practice, then changes it's collective mind.
I have no argument with those who choose to define morality in this way, as long as they acknowledge the limitations of this construct. Namely not being able to unilaterally apply one society's moral code to a different society.
As you point out, it is entirely possible and satisfactory to take one's moral code from one's holy book. Clearly Muslims take this approach to morality. Obviously, one can look to Christian scripture and come up with a completely valid, coherent, and workable moral code. One could even misuse scripture to do the same thing.
Where this approach comes into conflict with the others is in the source of the authority and the reliability of communication.
For those who deny the existence of God, who believe in a different god or gods, those who deny a God who sets "rules, guidelines, and best practices", or those who believe that Darwinian/Materialistic/Naturalist theories can account for morality, we see the conflict. They deny the authority of YHWH, and the accuracy/inspiration/etc of scripture.
What needs to be "proven" is not a "Biblical moral code", what needs to be "proven" is that YHWH is who and what scripture reveals Him to be and that He superintended the humans who wrote and compiled scripture to do so in a way that renders scripture an extension of the authority of YHWH. That's what Dan really wants you to prove it's easy to demonstrate that the Bible contains all sorts of things that can compose a moral code. What's hard is to demonstrate that the Bible is authoritative enough to justify applying a Biblical moral code universally.
Dan's skepticism about all of this is founded in his instance that nothing about YHWH can be proven to the satisfaction of a skeptic. Therefore since nothing about YHWH can be proven, anything derived from YHWH and His authority is "fruit of the poison tree" (to use the legal term). It's an internally consistent worldview, although not one that lends itself to passing objective judgement on others.
It simply all comes back to Dan being convinced that it's impossible to prove anything about YHWH to his skeptical satisfaction.
One of my favorite stories is when some PCUSA malcontent (maybe Shuck) wrote something like- "If I was sitting on my deck and Jesus appeared to me and told me that homosexuality was a sin, I'd tell him that I wanted nothing to do with Him.".
I see Dan who's quick to speak for his version of Jesus, like he just did, in this story. I sincerely think that if Dan was confronted with Jesus telling him that he was wrong about what "the gospel" is and wrong about his other cherished beliefs, that Dan would choose his cherished beliefs over Jesus and continue to insist that his gospel was Jesus' Gospel.
Now this scenario presupposes that Dan would not be cowering on the floor after soiling himself in fear like everyone else who's recorded interacting with Jesus or an angel. I really believe that Dan thinks that he'll be able to stand in front of Jesus and argue that his hunches about the gospel are correct.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Post a Comment