The Moral Argument

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

If intellectual support to assess the existence of objective morality must come from a novelist, then we are in a pretty bad shape.

That's an ad Hominem fallacy, viole.

Here's the thing, viole... you can't reject the rules of logic and still be rational.

I've noticed that you always seem to imply that you want to figure things out rationally and use deduction and other logical tools, and then you proceed to employ demonstrable fallacies and ignore the fact that you're doing so when it's pointed out such is the case.

I hope you don't mind if I ask, but have you actually put in any kind of systematic study of the rules of logic in order to understand and identify fallacious reasoning?

[LuftWaffle]

I am not sure we are talking about men trampling on morality or morality trampling on men, whatever that means. But even if that was the case, that represents about 1% of this post. And more importantly, I don't think he proves anything at all.

If intellectual support to assess the existence of objective morality must come from a novelist, then we are in a pretty bad shape.

Interesting to see the quote struck a nerve. Meaauw, eh?

LOL, You're so transparent

Well, at least I do not need the intellectual power of poets to support my ideas. Lol.

Classic! Attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. Certainly a venerable naturlist tactic, but hardly impressive.

I'll post again once your posts have some substance.

ta ta

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Luft and OES,

I stand corrected! I am sorry if I have caused some emotional response and I try the best I can to avoid logical fallacies in the future.

I now feel, obviously, obliged to respond each point of Chesterton message, and I will do that ASAP. But now, I have to go to a party

Ciao

- viole

Try not to have too much fun "Come," each one cries, "let me get wine! Let us drink our fill of beer! And tomorrow will be like today, or even far better."" (Isaiah 56:12).

No one's saying you have to do a line by line exposition of the sentiment that Luft quoted from Chesterton.

The salient point that you're failing to address is, if there is no moral absolute then enjoying your party right now is objectively as morally relevant as the pedophile who's molesting and murdering children.

Since there's no one who actually affirms that such could be true, then you affirm an objective moral standard that's transcendent of stimulus response.

Since you must affirm an objective, higher moral standard if you want to differentiate your pleasure at the party from the murder's with their crime, then you're by inescapable extension disconfirming your position of suggesting that there is no transcendent moral standard... you're trying to have your wine and drink it too, all the while denying even the very existence of the wine.

It is an inescapable ontological truth that's validated by your wholesale acceptance of objective moral standards, which is totally irrespective of any epistemological ability or lack thereof to determine the particulars of the objective moralit in question, and therefore your thought experiments are irrelevant.

In other words, by accepting the reality of a higher moral standard you're accepting its objective existance, and that's true even if we might be confused as to how we would understand the particulars of that objective truth.

As Luftwaffle pointed out... viole tried to live a good life then went to a party.

vs.

viole tried to live a good life then killed everyone at the party.

The thought experiment only works if you presuppose the objective wrongness of murder, which you do, so you concede the point that there is an objective moral standard at the outset.

Your position simply lacks the necessary preconditions to stand on its own two feet... in fact, it doesn't even have feet and must borrow them from a less intellectually bankrupt worldview like theism before it can even try to stand.

Your position contains a logical defeater and is therefore demonstrably self-defeating.

[LuftWaffle]

Luft and OES,

I stand corrected! I am sorry if I have caused some emotional response and I try the best I can to avoid logical fallacies in the future.

OES commented on your poor logic while making lofty claims about intellect. The problem with fallacies isn't that they invoke an 'emotional response', but because they're illogical and invalid, belying your claims that you're rational and logical.

I now feel, obviously, obliged to respond each point of Chesterton message, and I will do that ASAP. But now, I have to go to a party

Ciao

- viole

You still don't get it, do you? Chesterton's statement isn't a point by point argument, so answering to every point would be unnecessary, unless you're hoping to split the quote down into individual points in the hopes that that will detract from the core of the message. Which, if you choose to do that, will be a dishonest tactical move. I'm not saying that is your intention, though.

Chesterton's point is very simple. Since sceptics tend to denounce moral absolutes (in order to avoid its implications), their morality becomes arbitrary, depending upon the hat that they've decided to wear at a particular moment in time. This leads to them undermining their own mines.

It relates to this topic for the simple reason, that while in this discussion, right and wrong(ethically speaking) are mere chemical responses in your view, yet in a discussion on theology, you denounce God's judgement as wrong or unfair.

You have stated that believing in objective morality commits anthropocentrism, but you have thus far not explained why anthropocentrism is a problem, and frankly I'm not surprised, because apart from stating that you don't like it, there's no imperative to avoid such an action. Your preferences simply do not carry any more weight than anybody else's if one is to accept your position.

So by doubting moral absolutes you have lost the right to appeal to any moral imperative. In short, you doubt the doctrine by which you denounce.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

If we are just biological bags of atoms that react to the way our electro-chemicals fizz then what makes what anyone does evil or bad? How do we measure goodness or evil on such a basis as anything other than atoms banging together? Me

Your reductionism does not take into account all the different layers. It would be like understanding a weather forecast computer program by having only the equations that explain transistors. -Viole

I'm a simple person. I like to reduce things to their simplest common denominator - God or chance. I know we are complex and amazingly made. I like to think of how something so intricately made can originate from "chance permutations...working with mindless forces." (B. M. Baillie) So far no secular humanist has given a sufficient or plausible explanation that I've heard. It doesn't add up. John Lennox, God's Undertaker, Has Science Buried God, (p.129) in discussing the origin of the protein structure and the odds of them forming by chance by taking into account the twenty amino acids involved in making proteins and their sequencing in the correct order as 1/20. So in getting 100 aminos in the right order would be (1/20) to 100 or about 1 in 10 to the power of 130, and only for a single protein. Life requires hundred of thousands of proteins and the odds of producing them by chance has been estimated at 10 to the 40,000 power, according to the calculations John Lennox cites. Maybe you will dispute these numbers but the point remains how does chance produce anything but random happenstance? Ultimately if you want to believe that chance is responsible, that is up to you but I find it incredibly improbable. A code like DNA shows intent since it contains information and order. Show me how random chance produces either. If Darwin only knew how complicated the simple cell was he may have reconsidered his trail down naturalism's way.

So why does a mindless, illogical, impersonal, physical, unintentional, thus chance, inorganic/non-living process produce living beings with personality, intent, purpose and mind? And to take it one step further, where do you witness anything other than being producing being, mind from being, personality from being, intention from being and so it goes.

And I do not see how you can prevent beings whose functioning could be explained in natural terms, from doing acts you consider evil. First we have to prove that conscious beings cannot be explained in natural terms.

You can, in principle, explain goodness and evil even if we are nothing else than bags of atoms, as you say. But your explanation will include a perception (algorithmic) of good and evil and not a nebulous abstract version of them. In other words, your explanation will be functional and restricted within the context of these interacting units. -Viole

But you haven't explained evil. You have explained a biological function but not the nature of good and evil. What is the nature of goodness? Who decides? Who decides the measure for 'good'? What is the ultimate standard you get best from? I think you are confusing a qualitative value to a quantitative function. You are telling me why something is the way it is but you are not telling me why something 'ought' to be that way. You have no basis for ethics other than the random changing of the universe and all that is in it. Good for you can change in one minute. It is a mystery how it can stay consistent, and for so long. But how can good be good one minute and evil the next or good in one persons opinion and bad in another? It is relative to the individual in your world. So why 'should' your standard be the standard that all others 'must' follow? If it is not then why 'should' it be considered good?

Take a look around you at the different cultures of the world, or even within your own culture at the different ideas of what goodness is. Some countries view same-sex marriage as evil, as do some people; others see it as good. Or take the view of abortion and a woman's right to choose. Is abortion taking the life of a human being (murder)? If so then is that not a bad thing? Which opposing viewpoint is 'right'? For you it is just a function of the brain. My brain functions one way, yours another. What is good or bad about that?

Viole, apart from the fact that this man premeditated the murder in buying the gun, there remains a dead girl. and probably a family left to their sorrow. The fact that he feels remorse suggests that the act goes further than just the tumour pressing in on a part of the man's brain, as LuftWaffle mentioned. But regardless, if we are just chemicals fizzing together why do the majority seek justice for such acts as murder? -Me

The point is that he did not feel any remorse, before the tumor has been removed.

We seek justice because we are interacting and social units. If we did not have this feeling of retribution, we would probably be unstable as a species. It could be that these characteristics (sensing injustice/seeking justice) of our psychology help to reach an optimum to guarantee stability for us as a species, and could, therefore, have been naturally selected.

In other words: perception of so-called good and evil and retribution might be objective mechanisms of our psyche that have been naturally selected to improve our survival as a species. In this respect, they do not necessarily hold any universal validity outside our species. Important for us, but for us only. -Viole

I don't feel like a social unit. I feel like a human being. No animal interacts to the level of understanding that a human being does on this planet.

Perception alone does not solve the problem of good and evil. It adds to it if the standard is always in flux or relative. In a fluctuating or relative world how do you arrive at a measure for good? What do you compare it to, someone else's relative? All you have is power politics. It is whatever measure can be forced on another. Take a look at some of the great atheistic regimes of the twentieth century and there are many - Stalin. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung,Tito, Ho Chi Min, and so on.

I'd like to dig up a biblical example that may be relevant to this scenario and the additional details, but that too will have to wait. -Me

Feel free to do that, but please consider that the Bible has no persuasion power on me. -Viole

Then I'll save it. You are not open to the persuasive power of God's word, even though laws used to judge offences in courts around the world in this day and age are based on standards found in the Bible.

Edited October 26, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

I've been on, and am on, a forum in which my view is considered the minority view, so I know where you are coming from, but I chose to go on the 'Darkness' Forum and the UK Debate Forum, and in the distant past the Washington Post On Faith Forum and pick someone of a secular human persuasion. I think you have chosen a predominately Christian world-view in which to debate. G.K. Chesterton was exposing the underbelly of a skeptics worldview. The skeptic is the kind of person that critiques everything, (part of the nature of skepticism) on the one hand questioning why something is or should be the way it is and then goes out and acts just like it is the way that he has objected to.

The examples Chesterton is citing is doing just that.

"As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time."

Either that comes out from your phantasy or you have an example of politicial/phylopher that acts like that. Either way, that does not address the objectivity of morality. -Viole

Many politicians have this double standard. They criticize the previous administration for an act and then when elected to office do exactly the same thing they criticized. Their skepticism is just a ploy for some deeper goal. It is not consistent in many cases with what they really believe deep down.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. -G.k.Chesterton

Another retorical diversion. -Viole

Maybe you don't understand the significance of these illustrations. The evolutionary world-view basically views man as a 'higher animal' with some that have not 'evolved' as far up the chain (like the African pygmies were thought of during the 1800 century in Britain, or Hitler thought of the Jews). So if you prove man is nothing other than a glorified beast (the very foundation of an evolutionary world-view) then why object when he acts like the 'savage beast'?

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. -

I think it is a valid point. You criticize God and the Bible, but you keep borrowing from the Bible when you identify with and live like biblical principles really do matter.

Edited October 26, 2011 by PGA

[LuftWaffle]

Guys,

now I am really confused.

You accused me, correctly, to attack the messenger. I recognized the mistake and I apologized. Now you are asking me not to attack the message, either.

How am I supposed to defend my arguments like that?

I have nothing against posting contributions from other authors, but I honestly though that I can reply to them. If that is not the case, am I allowed to post morally relevant contributions from

secular humanists, evolutionary psychologists, neurobiologists, game theorists, etc. and ask you not to address their points? I don't think so, and even if I could I don't think that would be

considered honorable of me to win or shut down a discussion with this tactic.

So, let's have a look. I will address Chesterton here. I don't think he will be able to counter my remarks, but if anyone believes that his message was, indeed, relevant, then he

may consider himself addressed instead.

But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.

Three ad hominem attacks. Attacking the skeptic does not really address the issues about objective morality.

Red herring. You are trying to divert attention from the issue by talking about revolution nonsense.

Either that comes out from your phantasy or you have an example of politicial/phylopher that acts like that. Either way, that does not address the objectivity of morality.

Another red herring. What has this to do with objective morality? I also find it slightly insulting, if I were a Russian pessimist.

Another retorical diversion.

Another one with a bit of ad hominem.

Can you be a bit more specific and explain what that means and how it fits with the current discussion?

Ad hominem. I never said I rebel against anything, but even if I did that would not be relevant to disprove my claims, so, red herring, too.

Dear Chesterton, your message is littered with logical fallacies. I can only use OESD words here, since I could not make it any better than he did:

"Here's the thing, Chesterton... you can't reject the rules of logic and still be rational.

I hope you don't mind if I ask, but have you actually put in any kind of systematic study of the rules of logic in order to understand and identify fallacious reasoning?"

So you went and did it anyway...

Chesterton's statement isn't a point by point argument, so answering to every point would be unnecessary, unless you're hoping to split the quote down into individual points in the hopes that that will detract from the core of the message. Which, if you choose to do that, will be a dishonest tactical move.

Now you are asking me not to attack the message, either.

This is demonstrably false. We never said that you can't attack the message, in fact we even highlighted the salient point of the quote to help you 'find' the message, instead of just slicing up the quote and writing irrelevant oneliners against each sentence, which as anticipated would detract from the salient point (which you failed to address yet again) and would be a dishonest tactical move.

This sillyness is getting a bit too much, so I will be watching the thread to see if you'll actually respond to the points that PGA and I have made. Remember PGA made some good points, which you completely ignored in favour of trying out your thought experiment. The thought experiment has been demonstrated to be a non-starter as it assumes precisely what you're trying to disprove. You have also made some other moral judgements such as stating that objective morality is anthropocentric, but you have not explained why anthropocentrism or racism or chauvenism is undesireable apart from your own subjective feelings. You have yet to explain why your feelings are more important than anybody else's. Thus far, as PGA has stated, you have not made sense of morality apart from appealing to future discoveries and "other options", neither of which ironically pass your own criteria of testability and observability. When I stated that Christianity can explain morality, your retort was that just because something can explain something doesn't make it right, but yet you haven't provided an explanation of your own. So while shooting down Christian arguments your own worldview isn't capable of carrying even it's own weight without borrowing from Christianity. I have mentioned that for atheism to be taken seriously it cannot just rely on rejecting ideas, while not offering anything of it's own. You have also attempted to redefine the meaning of "objectivity" which has been pointed out to you.

Given the discussion thus far, I can only assume that if you had a good argument you would have used it by now, so what remains can only be knee-jerk responses and face-saving.

It's been an interesting discussion.

cheers

LW

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OK viole,

I'm having trouble sorting through your post and separating the emotions from the point here, but I'll give it a try.

Guys,

now I am really confused.

You accused me, correctly, to attack the messenger. I recognized the mistake and I apologized. Now you are asking me not to attack the message, either.

How am I supposed to defend my arguments like that?

OK viole, here's the thing... we're making the points and you're failing to address what we're saying.

As a result of your refusal to address our points Luftwaffle posted a poetic conclusion penned by Chesterton which works because you failed to address our points and it captures the essensce of the discussion thus far.

The Chesterton quote is not a systematic argument - the systematic arguments we're providing are systematic arguments.

Therefore, if you're going to response appropriately and consistently you must provide systematic responses to PGA and Luftwaffle's systematic arguments, instead of responding to the poetic conclusion that was posted in response to your ignoring said arguments.

There's nothing fallacious about a generalization in prose that's designed to express a general point, since it was not and has not here been positioned as systematic deductive reasoning. Luftwaffle was obviously not quoting him as an authority to prove his points, as the points that PGA and Luftwaffle have raised stand on their own authority, but simply as summary regarding your unwillingness or inability to address his points. Your inability to differentiate is the kind of example of why I asked if you've put any kind of systematic study into the rules of logic.

It seems that your emotions might be clouding your rational a bit here, since your response to the summary of the conversation that Chesterton's words well encapsulated (instead of providing a response to the points made that validates the use of Chesterton's words) is a bit silly, so I hope this helps clarify for you.

[PGA]

Hi LuftWaffle,

Thus far, as PGA has stated, you have not made sense of morality apart from appealing to future discoveries and "other options", neither of which ironically pass your own criteria of testability and observability. When I stated that Christianity can explain morality, your retort was that just because something can explain something doesn't make it right, but yet you haven't provided an explanation of your own. So while shooting down Christian arguments your own worldview isn't capable of carrying even it's own weight without borrowing from Christianity. I have mentioned that for atheism to be taken seriously it cannot just rely on rejecting ideas, while not offering anything of it's own. You have also attempted to redefine the meaning of "objectivity" which has been pointed out to you. -LuftWaffle

Your points are well taken.

I have yet to see an atheist/secular human argument concerning morality that employed anything other than subjective opinion as if it 'should be' considered valid in an objective sense. The question is why is that subjective opinion valid in an objective sense? It is just one of a myriad of subjective opinions. The secular humanist tries to make it objective by appealing to science, that has its own quagmire of opinions on events in time that are not provable by repeatable or observable methods. Rather the scientist first starts out with his/her bias intact and then starts interpreting the information from that bias. When you start digging into what undermines these opinions the answers usually state that science has not found out why such and such is valid yet, but the answer is right around the corner. They are trying to valid something as proven before it has actually been proven in many cases of evolutionary or origins science, and these proofs lead back to one time events/occurrences in time that cannot be duplicated or repeated.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Hi LuftWaffle,

Thus far, as PGA has stated, you have not made sense of morality apart from appealing to future discoveries and "other options", neither of which ironically pass your own criteria of testability and observability. When I stated that Christianity can explain morality, your retort was that just because something can explain something doesn't make it right, but yet you haven't provided an explanation of your own. So while shooting down Christian arguments your own worldview isn't capable of carrying even it's own weight without borrowing from Christianity. I have mentioned that for atheism to be taken seriously it cannot just rely on rejecting ideas, while not offering anything of it's own. You have also attempted to redefine the meaning of "objectivity" which has been pointed out to you. -LuftWaffle

Your points are well taken.

I have yet to see an atheist/secular human argument concerning morality that employed anything other than subjective opinion as if it 'should be' considered valid in an objective sense. The question is why is that subjective opinion valid in an objective sense? It is just one of a myriad of subjective opinions. The secular humanist tries to make it objective by appealing to science, that has its own quagmire of opinions on events in time that are not provable by repeatable or observable methods. Rather the scientist first starts out with his/her bias intact and then starts interpreting the information from that bias. When you start digging into what undermines these opinions the answers usually state that science has not found out why such and such is valid yet, but the answer is right around the corner. They are trying to valid something as proven before it has actually been proven in many cases of evolutionary or origins science, and these proofs lead back to one time events/occurrences in time that cannot be duplicated or repeated.

Hey PGA, nice to meet you!

I agree with what you're saying to Luftwaffle here, and I have a little thought experiment of my own to try.

Let's assume that viole is correct and that morality is set by stimulus response. Basically what you have is Sam Harris’ moral landscape. Now, let’s ignore for a moment that there’s a clear knock-down argument which exposes Sam’s argument as self-defeating and just pretend it’s valid for the sake of argument.

What then would be wrong with the establishment of Islamic hegemony over the world? You could potentially have a sort of unity by conformity so no more wars or in-fighting. You would have men being pleased by harems of women, so they’re happy, and the women could be brainwashed into submission so that they no longer suffer negative stimulus from being oppressed (since oppression is such a morally presumptuous concept in the first place, since it assumes there’s something wrong with conducting things as such).

We could totally do away with western freedoms, men could be exhausted high above women and women could be taught to be complacent and therefore even happy about their circumstances, as many women under Sharia Law are today.

It may be the very optimal system for ensuring the least amount of suffering and the most amount of joy, so whether or not it contains a one-to-one relationship with reality or is in some sense delusory would be irrelevant. All that matters is that it works the best to achieve the subjective morality which is all that naturalism can afford.

Would then the best atheist be a Muslim, do you think?

And by the way, don't get us started on evolution, let me tell ya...