As to the objectivity of morality, I agree. Much like logical arguments (i.e. All Spaniards are European and John, being a Spaniard, is therefore also European. Or 2 + 2 = 4), which are axiomatic and conclusive, if morality is objective, we can say with just as much certainty it is wrong to steal. But when we ask how long have these conclusions been true, it becomes apparent that the answer is always or from the beginning. In fact, since logic and morality are attributes of God, they have been true from eternity (separate from time).
As for moral motives, some posit that it's less noble to do good from a fear of punishment or promise of reward. Those actually sound like pretty good reasons to me, but I'll extend it further, in that those motives are a good starting point for moral development. They must with maturity however, give way to love. 1 John 4 says "17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." So doing good for it's own sake seems an intellectual exercise in futility. Let us instead, do good for love's sake - and God is love.
Hey Bit,
ReplyDeleteQuick question. Without using the Bible as a reference, is it possible to determine if something is objectively right/wrong? If so, how?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"..is it possible..?"
Yes. I believe man is stamped with a general sense of morality (conscience). It would be tough to experimentally verify (maybe Khoeler?) that it exists apart from social conditioning.
If however, due to that selfish nature I mentioned, one continues committing immoral acts anyway and ignoring the conscience, it will become numb to sin - "seared with a hot iron" as the Bible describes it. And even if we are able to achieve Kantian, objective, reasoned morality, I don't think it's in us to adhere to it (on our own). Rather, our conscience serves the same purpose as the Law of Moses in convicting us of sin, but lacks the power to make us righteous.
Your thoughts?
Bit,
ReplyDeleteI think we have to back up a tad here.
What is morality? To my mind, morality is a term we use to describe a person's ability to discern and select courses of action based on their real or perceived harm to themselves and others.
Whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' to do something is based on our understanding of the harm or benefit that action would cause.
Would you agree with this? I'm just trying to establish some common ground on what we're talking about here. You may (and do, clearly) think that our morality is given to us by God, but that doesn't help us understand what it is.
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"What is morality?"
I think there is more, but in the pragmatic sense, I agree with your def.
In that case, human morality is clearly subjective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is more than that; it is inter-subjective. Because we are social beings, our choices affect not just ourselves, but our families and those close to us. Our morality is both determined by and influences the society we live in.
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"...human morality is cearly subjective..."
There's still the issue Kant alluded to of "oughtness". We may have the ability to perceive that an action will benefit or harm others, but why "should" we do/avoid it? Why not do selfish, harmful things if we can get away with it? The Brother Kazmarov said, "If God is dead, all things are permissible." Now if morality is as objective as 2+2=4, one could support doing it just because it's the right thing to do, but even then, with the moral course of action decided by pure reason, are we always able to execute it? Why(not)?
Objective truths are true absolutely, whether or not we agree or even think about them, so if existing independent from the human mind, from whence do they come? It's no surprise I believe it to be the Lawgiver, whose nature (vs decision) determines what is right.
Bit,
ReplyDeleteAre you a sociopath? I'm going to assume you're not, okay?
"There's still the issue Kant alluded to of "oughtness"."
I should say right now that I've never read Kant, but I get what you're getting at.
"We may have the ability to perceive that an action will benefit or harm others, but why "should" we do/avoid it?"
Because we are social creatures and what goes around comes around. Seriously, it's not that hard.
"Why not do selfish, harmful things if we can get away with it?"
People do do selfish, harmful things when they think they can get away with it. Which is why we have a legal system to at least attempt to make people feel like they won't get away with doing harmful things.
"The Brother Kazmarov said, "If God is dead, all things are permissible."
I'm not sure why I should care what he said.I don't believe in God, but there are a lot of things I won't do, purely because I don't want to harm others. My reasoning for this is that I wouldn't want them to do harm to me. It's called empathy.
"Now if morality is as objective as 2+2=4, one could support doing it just because it's the right thing to do, but even then, with the moral course of action decided by pure reason, are we always able to execute it? Why(not)?"
Life is complicated and choices aren't always as black and white as perhaps we'd like them to be. In a complex society, your actions are always going to impact on someone.
"Objective truths are true absolutely, whether or not we agree or even think about them,"
If they're are true whether we know abut them or not, how can you possibly even know that they exist?
"It's no surprise I believe it to be the Lawgiver, whose nature (vs decision) determines what is right."
Which came first; your belief in absolute morality, or your belief in God?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"Are you a sociopath?"
Not yet, but it's a goal. Really, unless something involutarily broke loose in my brains, it's something I could never be.
"..your actions are always going to impact on someone."
Agreed. Well-said.
"Which came first..."
I learned of God first, but God's unchanging attributes are eternal with Him such as morality, logic, love.
Bit,
ReplyDeleteWould it be fair to say then that by 'learning of God' you by necessity accept the attributes that the Bible ascribes to Him? Which would include eternal morality/logic/etc?
In which case, you can't really argue for the existence of God from the position of absolute morality because the only reason you believe/know they exist is because you 'know God'.
Would that be fair to say?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"...you can't argue for the existence of God..."
The (absolute) moral argument is used in support of the existence of God. Can it PROVE it? No, but when considered with others, I believe it makes a very good case. Here is a short article, that seems to give a good rendering: http://www.existence-of-god.com/moral-argument.html
I especially like the last paragraph, regarding the strength of the arguments combined.
Wow,
ReplyDeleteSome serious is-ought fallacies at play there.
"Commands Imply a Commander"
Yeah, and creation implies a creator, robotic unicorns imply a robotic unicorn factory and celestial teapots imply celestial tea parties.
Assuming your conclusion will always lead to your desired conclusion.
Please demonstrate that 'moral facts' are 'commands'......../crickets.
Or, better yet, demonstrate that the originator of morals needs to be an outside agent as opposed to morals being an emergent property of the evolved mind of an intelligent and social animal.
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"...creation implies a creator..."
True.
"Assuming your...desired conclusion."
Also seems to cut both ways:
"I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." --Thomas Nagel, Prof of Philosophy
And I've read other statements from the secular expressing a simliar, desired conclusion. Again comes down to choice, agreed? I don't think that was an accident.
"...morals being an emergent property of the evolved mind..."
The impression I'm left with from my readings is that evolution is amoral. Indifferent. Pitiless. The law of red claw and fang, where might makes right. Survival is the only relevant, pragmatic theme. Darwin saw the darkness in his own theory and predicted vile social outcomes. "Descent of Man" gets overlooked in the shadow of "Origin of Species".
Diametrically opposed is Christianity, where not only are we to love those who love us, but our enemy who hates our guts as well. We love, because He first loved us, while we still hated His guts. By proxy of my sin, I was there, driving the nails and plunging the spear, and still He forgave? What a Savior!
I don't think it's an accident we encountered each other here. Make the choice, Matt!
Bit,
ReplyDelete""...creation implies a creator..."
True."
Mate, I can't tell if you're being funny, or if you really didn't get what I was doing there. Could you clarify?
I was pointing out the tautology of the argument that 'commands imply a commander'. If you're not going to provide evidence that there are indeed 'commands' or that the universe is indeed a 'creation' or that robotic unicorns do exist, then the whole thing is pointless.
I am not Thomas Nagel, Prof of Philosophy, so I don't speak for him and he doesn't speak for me. Please don't foist other people's arguments onto me as if I made them. Thanks!
"And I've read other statements from the secular expressing a simliar, desired conclusion. Again comes down to choice, agreed? I don't think that was an accident."
I think Liverpool are going to win the English Premier League and I also want them to win the league. That is not the same as saying that they are going to win because I want them to. That is the position that theists take when they assert - without evidence - that the universe is a creation and that therefore there must be a creator.
So no, it doesn't swing both ways.
Moving on....
I was talking about morals being an emergent property of our evolved mind and you said;
"The impression I'm left with from my readings is that evolution is amoral.Indifferent. Pitiless."
You are here talking about the process of evolution, not the traits that can arise as a result of the process; these are two different things.
"The law of red claw and fang, where might makes right."
This is simplified to the point of being wrong. Evolution is all about exploiting niches, with those that are slightly better adapted being slightly more likely to pass on their genes, it is not simply a matter of big, nasty animals in a battle royale to see who's strongest.
"Survival is the only relevant, pragmatic theme."
What do you mean by 'theme'?
None of that matters anyway because it all fails to address the emergence of empathy/morality in intelligent, social creatures.
"Diametrically opposed is Christianity, where not only are we to love those who love us, but our enemy who hates our guts as well."
Christianity is the ultimate 'might makes right'! God is Mighty, therefore He's Righty and that's pretty much the basis for your entire worldview, right?
"We love, because He first loved us, while we still hated His guts. By proxy of my sin, I was there, driving the nails and plunging the spear, and still He forgave? What a Savior!"
What are you talking about? 'By proxy of your sin'?! You did not kill Jesus! You are not to blame for the actions of people 2,000 years ago. Or, more so, the actions of Adam and Eve (how ever long ago you think they were around). That is truly messed up, to feel like you need to be forgiven for something that others did. And the fact that you think that murdering an innocent - by way of blood sacrifice - is the best way to get out of this guilt that you shouldn't even have is just, well, it makes no sense to me.
"I don't think it's an accident we encountered each other here."
I've been chatting to folk on the internet for quite some time - what is it, specifically, that makes you think that our encounter here is of greater significance than the others?
"Make the choice, Matt!"
I make choices based on informed opinion. at the minute, I'm choosing the most reasonable option; agnostic atheism.
Cheers,
PS. I really am enjoying our back and forth here - it's nice to be able to chat in a friendly manner!
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"Mate, I can't tell..."
Ok, sorry. Now that you mention it, it seems I did come off unclear. When I said "True" in reply to "Creation implies a Creator", I was simply affirming that I do hold that position. That's based not only on my acceptance of scripture, but DNA information code, irreducible complexity, etc.
"I'm not Thomas Nagel..."
Well, neither am I. Oh - I mean, I know. I also know not all atheists hold the same opinions about everything and don't mean to stereotype. I was just pointing out that a wanting a specific conclusion is also possible among the unbelieving. On the other hand, when C.S. Lewis concluded God exists, he did NOT want it so, referring to God as a Holy intruder. I take it he warmed to the idea later at some point.
[I addressed the process of evolution, not the emergence of empathy and morality]
Got me there. Before I proceed down the wrong rabbit trail again, I'm thinking you mean relative morality has emerged, versus absolute, correct?
"Christianity is the ultimate might makes right..."
If I take your meaning correctly, I notice a lot of unbelievers view God as "Do it or off to Hell with you!" I don't look at it that way (2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4). I see Him as holy (perfectly just), therefore he cannot just let sin go unpunished. We'd rightfully have in a moment the job of a judge who let a drunk driver go without penalty, agreed? The difference is that this Judge, in mercy came down off the bench and paid the massive fine He Himself was obliged to levy on us. If that's not merciful and loving, I'm quite at a loss.
"You did not kill Jesus!"
I didn't physically kill Him, but the fact that I've lied, stolen, cheated, lusted, etc, in my past was among the reasons He had to make the ultimate sacrifice. This is what I meant by, "I killed Him by proxy."
"[Why was our encounter] of greater significance than the others?"
I don't think any of them were accidents. Nor is it an accident that you have it in you to peruse blogs/threads like this.
[nice to chat in a friendly manner]
I too, enjoy having a courteous discussion about these things. When will some "Christians" learn that's the way Jesus would have it. On some personal notes, I like that British lingo (mate). I wish I could hear your accent as well as your best American impersonation. When I was in the Marines (the bulldog on your avatar reminds me of their mascot) I asked a girl in Australia to say something with an American accent for me and she said, "Y'all come back now, y'heah?
RS,
Bit
My question in all these discussions is 'What are your absolute, unchanging fixed objective morals'.
ReplyDeleteI usually don't get much of a response.
I have 1 that I can think of (for Christians), but only 1.
And how do these morals stack up against some classic moral dilemmas?