The problem of evil is one of the top five, maybe even the top intellectual and practical objection to the goodness and existence of God. I find the Christian answers incomplete and not really intellectually satisfying, but they are interesting to investigate.
Philosophical Answers to the Problem of Evil
A first argument is that evil does not need to be created, it is merely the absence of good. Kind of like dark is not created, it is just the absence of light – i.e. it is a type of “nothing” that exists when light is taken away.
A second argument for evil comes out of the idea that God created us with free will, and as free moral agents because love would not make automatons, but independent beings. That risk includes the ability to choose what is not good. This argument, however, is a little weak – I mean, if there is no sin or evil in heaven, is that because we all BECOME automatons and therefore lose our free will or ability to choose wrong?
Also, the existence of evil challenges God’s omniscience and foreknowledge. Why would God create Lucifer and man if He KNEW that things would get so screwed up. Is it really a brilliant plan to have to create everything, including a redeemer from the beginning (so He knew from the start it would get screwed up)?
The fact that the bible says that God regretted making man (Genesis 6:6-7), and decided to wipe him out with the flood implies that God made a mistake in judgment, and regretted what essentially could be considered a mistake. Interestingly, open theism has evolved to answer this question, saying that God doesn’t really know the future specifically, but this thesis is rejected by orthodox and evangelical scholars.
Evil and Good as absolute forces, powers or personifications do not exist in this world. Your getting good and evil confused with morality. For example, you may say that murder is evil. You would also say that murder is immoral. To answer the post's question: evil does not exist.
So you can never call anyone's actions wrong then? You can make no judgement on the actions of anyone. You give up that right when you remove any sense of an absolute morality that exists beyond our own minds.
So you can never call anyone's actions wrong then?
Of course you can. Why couldn't you? I think you are a hypocrite when it comes to embryonic stem cell reserch, for example. I don't think your evil though, just immoral.
You can make no judgement on the actions of anyone.
Yes you can. I certainly do.
You give up that right when you remove any sense of an absolute morality that exists beyond our own minds.
Why? The only place our morality exists is in our minds. How moral was Teri Shaivo? She had no mind. She had no morals. She was a vegetable. If I ever go into a hopeless vegetative state like her, I hope someone would be merciful enough to pull the plug and let me die with some dignity. It wouldn't be evil, it would be the moral thing to do. But you don't share my sense of "evil" on this issue do you? The issue is not one of evil it's one of morality. Do you see the difference?
To answer the post's question: evil does not exist.
So therefore, God did not create "evil" – we just created the concept. But did God create things we consider "evil", like deaith, suffering, and sickness.
I assume Cin will say those are just our concepts and value judgements, but I think it is useful and practical to look at those things as bad, and try to eliminate them.
The only place our morality exists is in our minds. How moral was Teri Shaivo? She had no mind.
This seems like self-referential observation, rather than objective, third person observation. I'm sure there is a well-defined philosophical concept here, but I don't know it.
But I think you are answering a question similar to "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound?"
You are arguing "NO" – if it is not in our mind, or not witnessed by us, it is not real.
What I mean is, you are saying that something is moral or immoral based on our mental concept of such things, and nothing more. I disagree, and say that certain things are objectively immoral or bad regardless of our value decision about it.
But did God create things we consider "evil", like deaith, suffering, and sickness.
I think these things are not evil in and of themselves. They are a natural part of life. I wish suffering sickness and death did not exist. I wish we lived in a utopia, but that is not realistic.
I think it is useful and practical to look at those things as bad, and try to eliminate them.
Yes, there are things that can be looked at as "bad" such as disease, for example. We should try to eliminate diseases, agree? Is disease "evil" though? No, I would say disease is natural. "Bad" does not equate to "evil." They are different things.
I disagree, and say that certain things are objectively immoral or bad regardless of our value decision about it.
Alright Seeker, take mankind out of the equation. Assume, man does not and never existed. What would you consider as being "evil" in the world? What would be "objectively immoral" without man?
Cineaste, what do you base your judgments on? How can you call me immoral or a hypocrite? That is purely in your own mind and has no bearing on me, in the view you are taking as far as "evil." What kind of appeal can you make to me to change my behavior or thoughts, which you view as immoral, if all you can say is, "you are wrong because I say so." You claim no absolute that transcends the individual, so you can make no judgment of anyone else. You can merely give your opinion, which with no standard has no weight on anyone else.
How can you call me immoral or a hypocrite?
Aaron,
In regard to embryonic stem cell research, given your position "person = moment of conception", you have no choice but label all doctors and staff of fertilization clinics, and all the "wannabe" parents as murderers for "wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn." If not, there is no other word to describe the obvious discrepancy of your views other than HYPOCRITE. Just because parents want to have a baby does not give them the right to murder "people" (the 5 day old blastocytes you equate with a person). What makes you a hypocrite on your ESCR stance? I agree, certainly not me. The dictionary does. You you match the meaning of the word. When it comes to ESCR, it is my opinion, you Aaron are an immoral person.
Stem cells: Bush's shameful first veto?
How dare you apply something so concrete as a dictionary to me? My moral standard says I can apply whatever definition I like to myself and my positions? A dictionary is just a tool used by others to oppress those of us who think freely and are not inhibited by archaic terms of rightness and wrongness.
See, how silly it sounds when you refuse to acknowledge any type of definite standard? If my morals say the dictionary shouldn't apply to me, then how can you force it on me?
You claim there is no standard, no good/evil, etc. but then you resort to using standards and good/evil type arguments. You may play semantic games and say no calling me a hypocrite is simply applying the dictionary, but that is applying an established outside standard.
What if I think according to my moral code that being a hypocrite is a good thing? What then? There is an established standard of morality and you proved it by calling me a hypocrite and an immoral person and using the assumption that I also considered those a bad thing.
Just the same as if I called you a hypocrite or immoral. You wouldn't say, great I love being those. You would defend yourself against those charges because they are by the external moral standard a bad thing to be.
As your thinking on my ESCR position – if the parents or fertilization clinc destroys embryos then that is the same as destroying them for ESCR or any other reason. I would probably prefer no IVF, just as I would perfer no ESCR. But I think we have a decent compromise going right now – no federal funding for either. Yet you think that is somehow hypocritical.
Try Shakespeare's formulation:
"Nothing's good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
But I think we have a decent compromise going right now (between killing people in IVF and killing people in ESCR)
Sure! Killing is okay if the end justifies the means. Listen to yourself. Hypocrisy! I'll leave it for people to form their own opinions, based upon their own moral standards, about this but it is evident to me, regarding your opinions on ESCR and IVF, it's true.
If not, there is no other word to describe the obvious discrepancy of your views other than HYPOCRITE.
I think you are being uneccesarily mean here – I’d say that “illogical” is the most you can accuse Aaron of. You might be able to argue that this position is hypocritical, but to call Aaron a hypocrite is to pretend to see into his motives.
But even the accusation that his position is hypocritical, in this situation, is probably not a sustainable argument. I mean, for an argument to be hypocritical, it would have to be self-serving in it’s illogic. How does his support of the “life begins at conception” idea support something he wants, while illogically eliminating his opponent’s position?
you have no choice but label all doctors and staff of fertilization clinics, and all the “wannabe” parents as murderers for “wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn.
I think that Aaron would probably agree with that conclusion, so rather than being hypocritical, he is being consistent. I think your real problem here is you don’t agree with THAT conclusion – in fact, you find it wildly insane to make such a claim. But pro-many lifers do not think this is inaccurate at all.
If not, there is no other word to describe the obvious discrepancy of your views other than HYPOCRITE.
So you are excluding any other valid principles or ideas that might alter this conclusion? Rather than applying this one idea in isolation, perhaps there are distinctions that make this type of unethical behavior (killing zygotes) not as bad as, say, rape or first degree murder. Dinstictions are necessary in these discussions, and if you want to exclude them, you are probably not worth arguing with. Yes, sometimes they don’t apply, and can be just sophistry, but you sound very intent on disallowing any surrounding discussion, like you want to drive home the point that there is no way that Aaron’s argument could make sense – and it may not if you are only allowing one line of argument.
Aaron said: How dare you apply something so concrete as a dictionary to me
He’s got you there, Cin, on two counts. One, you cite the dictionary as if it were the only source of truth, i.e. your bible about what things mean. Not only have we not agreed on that as a source of absolute truth, but your underlying assumption that words can only be used as defined in the dictionary is not an assumption I agree with, for two reasons.
However, Aaron has you on a second line of reasoning. He is right to say that you apply the dictionary in a way that assumes objective, absolute truth, and moral rightness or wrongness. In fact, you seem to be arguign that there is no such thing as moral absolutes, and to argue that there are is morally wrong! Hehe, I’m sure that’s NOT what you mean to do , but it appears that way when you swing the
bibledictionary around like that.take mankind out of the equation. Assume, man does not and never existed. What would you consider as being “evil” in the world?
Actually, that is a good question, and so now I want to take the time to agree with you, at least on our defintion of terms. I do NOT think that the words bad, wrong, agasinst nature, immoral, and evil are synonymous, though actions or ideas that we discuss may fall into many of these categories, kind of like a Venn Diagram.
But regarding morality and nature, I also agree that perhaps morality only makes sense for those capable of moral reasoning, which in my mind, are only humans. However, this does not necesarily make morality merely a human construct, which I think is the point you are making. By your argument, because we see infanticide in nature, and we consider that to be morally inert, then it should also be so in human society, or at least, to call it immoral in human society is merely a human construct, which we should follow, but we should all admit that it is really an artificial value judgment that we agree to apply, and not an absolute thing.
I agree with you that, if that is your argument, it is a good one, but I would like to disagree with the conslusion. It is possible to consider human morality as an absolute, rather than subjective, but again, you would have to make a philosophical argument for it. But more importantly, xians emphasize the objective reality of such claims because to claim that such moral stances are subjective plays into the argument that, for example, if a culture thinks infanticide is ok, then it really is ok for them. Xians would say, I think, that it is an offense to God, who has made man in his image. to kill innocent children, and it is also a miscarriage of justice. And to allow miscarriages of justice leads societies towards moral and societal collapse which leads to suffering, and God, who loves us, does not want us to suffer.
CONCLUSION
So I said all that to say that the reason why we argue for objective morality is that we believe that (1) such objective laws do exist, and to break them is to inexorably invite suffering and cruelty, no matter what you believe about them, and (2) arguing for subjective morality always leads to self-justifying moral systems that lead to corruption.
Of course, as mentioned previously, while we argue for objective morality, we can’t nail down everything as either moral or immoral – there are core items which are obviously immoral, but many smaller, less significant items must be left to the conscience of the individual. This is not to say that such smaller items are subjective in their morality, but rather, the principle of human freedom and growth necessitates that we allow people to make such decisions for themselves. And, in fact, the morality of these “lesser” items may be subjective, or more exactly, they may be contextually immoral or moral (which is still objective).
For instance, it may be moral for me to have a drink while I am alone, but it may be IMMORAL for me to do so around a recovering alcholic. Or at least, unethical, but I don’t want to have the discussion of the relationship between moral and ethical (which is a good one).
he thinks the destruction of 5 day old blastocytes is murder yet this murder is permissible for the process of IVF.
I have to believe that this is a straw man of what he actually believes. We'll see what he says.
Perhaps I am being mean by pointing this out to Aaron but you yourself have often practiced a "truth hurts" philosophy.
In this case, I don't think you are (1) telling the truth, (2) are being logical, and (3) it sounds like you are intending to be hurtful while painting it with a false pretense of needing to "tell the truth." So I still think you are being mean.
I just want to show him that the position of "Personhood" starting at the moment of conception is not sound and that perhaps he should re-evaluate. I realize many conservatives hold this view but it is hypocrisy for the reasons I mention above.
I don't think this view is hypocritical, but selectively applying it would be, as in the case you have outlined. In that case, I think it would be illogical AND self-serving ("we want IVF, but other uses are killing"), and therefore, you might be justified in calling such an approach hypocritical, since I think the self-serving motive is a critical part of hypocrisy (maybe we should ask your bible, er, dictionary ;)
I would like to reference my previous post but I don't see a search feature on 2or3.
It is not obvious, but it is there. Right at the beginning of each post there is an ID# – e.g.
I replaced the less and greater than signs with [] so you could see them. Anyway, if you take the url of the page, then add # and that number, you can link to a comment. It's cumbersome, and I should look for a way to add this functionality.
There are no absolutes here (in the poll).
I agree with you that cultural mores are subjective, as is the ranking of acts that are immoral, to some extent.
However, I think certain classes of actions could be considered, even in an objective sense, more immoral than others, based on the ethic of harm to individuals or society. Others, which would be more indirect or questionable, should be left up to the individual.
Scripture certainly holds out some sins as more heinous than others, as can be intuited from their prescribed punishments in the OT, their consequences, and the divine judgments meeted out for certain sins. Also, the NT teachings single out certain sins (sexual sins, teacing falehoods about Christ or God, not caring for the poor) as worse than others. Or so it would seem. But I don't think a ranked list is really doable (but gross severity groupings may be defensible.)
The Salon article uses the word "craven." There is no nice way to say it. If it's mean to point out hypocrisy to the hypocrite then fine, I'm mean. In another thread, Aaron says that "In your (my) understanding, it was not immoral for them (Nazis) to kill millions of Jews… He is basically saying that I'm some kind of immoral monster that thinks the Holocaust was morally permissible. He is lucky I am not Jewish as I think saying something like this to a Jew would teach Aaron a lesson in "mean."
Scripture certainly holds out some sins as more heinous than others, as can be intuited from their prescribed punishments in the OT, their consequences, and the divine judgments meeted out for certain sins. Also, the NT teachings single out certain sins (sexual sins, teaching falehoods about Christ or God, not caring for the poor) as worse than others.
I pointed out that none of the above applies to non-Christians. So where do non-Christians get their morality from if the Christian God is the ultimate source of morality? Are they all immoral people?
So I am hypocrite, but you are threatening me with violence. Just as you say, I was merely pointing out the inconsistences in your statements. You make the leap to something I didn't say and read some type of sinster motives there that were not there.
You say everyone has there own moral standards. You even said that in the eyes of the Nazis the Holocaust was not immoral:
"Correct. It was not immoral in the Nazi view was it?"
Yet, you get mad or threaten violence at my extending your train of thinking to it's logical extent. You may personally believe that the Holocaust is wrong, but your understanding of morality is one that is left to the individual so you cannot condemn the Nazis or claim they violated any sense of morality, excpet your own personal preference.
My point was that you have no foundation on which to condemn the Nazis treatment of Jewish people, if you leave morality up to the individual. Just as we do not condemn someone if they like a different cereal than us, if morality is up for grabs and there is not moral code that transcends us as individuals we cannot call slavery, Holocaust, etc. wrong. It is simply a moral choice, one that we wouldn't make, but still just another choice. If, there is no outside moral code.
I continually have asked you and yet to get an answer, why did we have a right to stop the Holocaust? If it was simply a quibble over equally valid moral choices, what right did we have to do anything to stop the Nazis?
I didn't call you an "immoral monster." I don't think you are that at all. I think you are probably a good person. From all the contact with you I have had here, I think you are a fine upstanding person, who I disagree with on many issues. I just see your understanding of morality as being flawed or incomplete.
Again, this post is not about my ESCR position, but…how many times do I have to say this: If I had my way, my own beliefs enacted, we would not have IVF or ESCR simply because of the loss of life involved in the processes. But things are not developed around my own beliefs, so I think the current compromise is decent – no federal funding for either.
I don't subsribe to an ends justify the means view, that would be the ESCR view. It is okay to destroy human embryos because so much potential good can come out of it.
I think IVF is "less bad" than ESCR because embryos are not automatically destroyed in IVF. Some are later destroyed because too many were made, but an embryo is not destroyed as the intended consequence of IVF. It is similar (but not exactly like) comparing murder to an accidental death or an action that sometimes causes death, but is not intended. Yes the results are the same, but the circumstances are different.
Non-Christians are not automatically immoral people. Neither are Christians automatically moral people, although they should be. Morality comes from the same place for both – God.
Every person is created in God's image, regardless of whether they follow or even believe in God. Part of being in God's image is having a conscience, a morality that guides us. This morality originates from God and is pervasive throughout humanity. It is not merely the Western culture that holds a certain view of morality. While small differences may arise, no culture values laziness or cowardice. We may excuse those behaviors for whatever reason, especially in ourselves, but the very fact that we have to provide an excuse for them illustrates the common ground we share in morality. You don't try to excuse or downplay something that is morally good.
Each culture views killing as bad. We allow for it in certain areas and times. "I was doing the will of Allah." "We had to satisfy the volcano gods." "He broke into my house." "It was during a time of war." Because each of us understands that taking a human life is wrong in and of itself, we give excuses (some valid, some not) for the behavior.
The problem of evil is a big problem not just for Christianity but for every worldview. If you are an atheistic evolutionists, you have to answer why we have not gotten considerably better. Should our morals have not evolved to a point where we don't face such immoral actions? No one can avoid the question of evil. Neither can there be some simple, all inclusive anwer to it. I think Christianity best explains it, but nothing is neat and tiddy. Because I am able to see that this world has evil in it, I am able to know that I was created for something beyond this world. I know this is wrong, because intrinsically I know something better is out there.
So I am hypocrite, but you are threatening me with violence.
Quote me where I did this.
Yet, you get mad or threaten violence
The only violence I treatened you with was a well deserved tongue lashing.
Yes, I get angry when you say I "have no foundation on which to condemn the Nazis treatment of Jewish people" It's like your saying my personal morality is not worth anything. This is just a stupid thing to say! And you wonder why I get so infuriated at you for saying garbage like this?
Holocaust is wrong, but your understanding of morality is one that is left to the individual so you cannot condemn the Nazis or claim they violated any sense of morality, excpet your own personal preference.
They violated my own sense of morality as well as the majority of the world's. I can and do condemn the damn Nazis!
My point was that you have no foundation on which to condemn the Nazis treatment of Jewish people, if you leave morality up to the individual. Just as we do not condemn someone if they like a different cereal than us, if morality is up for grabs and there is not moral code that transcends us as individuals we cannot call slavery, Holocaust, etc. wrong. It is simply a moral choice, one that we wouldn't make, but still just another choice. If, there is no outside moral code.
This is pure nonsense! You are equating the morality of slaughtering 6 million Jews to one's preference in cereal brands? I hate to break this to you; this is patently offensive.
I continually have asked you and yet to get an answer, why did we have a right to stop the Holocaust? If it was simply a quibble over equally valid moral choices, what right did we have to do anything to stop the Nazis?
Why do you even need to ask this question? We had a right to stop the holocaust because it was wrong! Not wrong because God said so but because the Nazi's were monsters. What made WWII a "just" war was that we fought it because of our personal convictions. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was only toward the end of the war that Americans discovered why they were really fighting the Nazi's. The morality of the holocaust had more import than the morality of choosing a cereal you equate it to. One does not need an "outside" moral guide to judge something as wrong. Are you saying that without the Christian God the holocaust was "simply a quibble over equally valid moral choices?"
It is okay to destroy human embryos because so much potential good can come out of it.
This describes your view of IVF!!!! ARRRGHHHH!
Every person is created in God's image, regardless of whether they follow or even believe in (the Christian) God.
This is a fine example of your own personal morality. You take this as a matter of faith. Most people in the world don't.
It is not merely the Western culture that holds a certain view of morality.
This is correct. Moral views vary thoughout the world and time. This shows that morality is not an absolute. It is not natural. It's not given to man by God. It's a human construct that changes along with social mores. Raise a child as a bigot in a society of bigots and the child will most likely grow up as a bigot. If the child comes to another conclusion on his own though, that bigotry is wrong because he recognizes that skin color is not determinative of one's character, and the child adheres to these personal convictions, this is called integrity. It's these personal convictions that are so much more important then the "choice of cereal" you equate personal conviction with.
I come to my personal convictions through reason. God is extraneous. I have a brain and I use it. When it comes to morality, many Christians credit God just on faith, they don't think about it. The bible tells them what morals they should have and they don't question God.
Yes, I get angry when you say I "have no foundation on which to condemn the Nazis treatment of Jewish people" It's like your saying my personal morality is not worth anything. This is just a stupid thing to say! And you wonder why I get so infuriated at you for saying garbage like this?
His point is, however, that since you make all morality subjective, unless you add some other logical principle to the mix, you can't actually condemn Hitler, because your morality is strictly personal, and to extend it to forcibly restrain someone else is hubris. He is pointing out the fact that your morality, therefore, would be insufficient to justify stopping Hitler. In this case, your personal morality WOULD be worth essentially nothing to those who need our help.
We had a right to stop the holocaust because it was wrong! Not wrong because God said so but because the Nazi's were monsters.
So, morality is subjective until you say it is not? You see, your system of thought doesn't work in reality. It is illogical, or incomplete.
It is okay to destroy human embryos because so much potential good can come out of it….
This describes your view of IVF!!!! ARRRGHHHH!
He's got you there Aaron.
Moral views vary thoughout the world and time. This shows that morality is not an absolute. It is not natural. It's not given to man by God. It's a human construct that changes along with social mores.
Wrong. I contend that across time, in all civilized societies, we must obey the moral laws of "nature and nature's God" or suffer the consequences. If your society values thievery, sexual exploitation, dishonesty, and killing, you will reap negative consequences NO MATTER WHAT.
Social mores may be related to morality, but they are not the same. To the extent that they reflect and enfornce the objective moral laws, they are effective and correct. To the extent that they are enforced in a way that inhibits freedoms that have nothing to do with morality, they are bad. So what if these drift over time? The moral laws do not change.
His point is, however, that since you make all morality subjective, unless you add some other logical principle to the mix, you can't actually condemn Hitler, because your morality is strictly personal, and to extend it to forcibly restrain someone else is hubris. He is pointing out the fact that your morality, therefore, would be insufficient to justify stopping Hitler. In this case, your personal morality WOULD be worth essentially nothing to those who need our help.
This is foolish, Seeker and you make the same lame assumption as Aaron. You are morally equating the Holocaust to a choice in cereal preference. Here is what your are saying but reflected back at you.
Seeker can't actually condemn Hitler because his morality is strictly religious. In this case, Seeker's morality would actually be worth nothing.
So, morality is subjective until you say it is not?
No, all morality is subjective, yours and mine.
The moral laws do not change.
No moral laws exist. Look at the poll I referred you to if you have any doubt. "Tax evasion is worse than adultery."
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day
This is foolish, Seeker and you make the same lame assumption as Aaron. You are morally equating the Holocaust to a choice in cereal preference.
No, I am saying that if your morality is totally subjective, you can't condemn anyone else unless we all agree together that it is bad – but that doesn't mean it is REALLY bad – it's just what our culture might agree on. However, if we agree that killing jews is OK, it really is OK.
Seriously, if morality is subjective, how can you condemn Hitler? ON what basis? I'll tell you – on the basis that what he is doing is MORALLY, OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
What makes your subjective morality better than his? I mean, he was well-intentioned – he was purifying mankind and pushing evolution fowards! How dare you judge him with your own opinion?
Seeker can't actually condemn Hitler because his morality is strictly religious.
Sorry, straw man. I have consistently said that public morality must be argued from common ethic and natural law – that is, "don't harm others or society" and "we hold these truths to be self-evident", resp.
While "biblical" principles of government, such as the five spheres, the functions of legislation, and the functions of civil government fit within a biblical framework, as I have argued, they are not necessarily religious.
Hitler clearly violated many common moral/ethical principles, not to mention biblical ones, and can easily, logically be condemned with an objective (pun intended) view of morals.
I think, however, that despite what you preach about the subjective nature of morality, you deep down agree with the reality that there is a group of major items which should be considered immoral, and the lesser ones should be up to the indvidual. That is also the biblical viewpoint, as I pointed out in Navigating Moral Gray Areas.
Look at the poll I referred you to if you have any doubt. "Tax evasion is worse than adultery.
Actually, now you are talking about something else – that is, the hierarchy of moral values. This is more difficult, but an argument around this can still fit into the "major sins are clearly, objectively, always wrong" while "other items may be left to the individual" framework.
“major sins are clearly, objectively, always wrong” while “other items may be left to the individual” framework.
So now it’s only SOME morality that is objective and other morality is subjective? Give me a break!
I think, however, that despite what you preach about the subjective nature of morality, you deep down agree with the reality that there is a group of major items which should be considered immoral, and the lesser ones should be up to the individual.
No, you think wrong about me. I think morality is completely subjective. Morality is dynamic, it changes from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture. Your morality and my morality are dependent upon these factors: the time we live in, the place we live in, the culture we live in, the circumstances we live with. All this makes morality subjective. There is no such thing as “good” or “evil” outside of ourselves, mankind.
However, if we agree that killing Jews is OK, it really is OK.
Isn’t this what we essentially do in war? Killing German’s is okay. Killing Japanese is okay. Killing terrorists is okay. If we were at war with Israel and you were a soldier… Killing Jews would be morally okay. Who agrees that genocide is okay? Those with a warped sense of morality. I say their morality is warped through a sense of personal conviction and I’m not alone. You will find that the vast majority of Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Non-Christians hold this conviction all without any love for the Christian God. Reasonable cause is the justification man needs for morality. Reasonable cause is in the eye of the beholder. You may think it’s morally wrong to kill me Seeker, but if I give you a good reason to, you would probably think differently. Heck I may think it’s morally wrong to kill myself but if it was to sacrifice my life for someone else, I would probably do it.
Raise a child as a bigot(Nazi) in a society of bigots(Nazis) and the child will most likely grow up as a bigot(Nazi). If the child comes to another conclusion on his own though, that bigotry is wrong because he recognizes that skin color(religion) is not determinative of one’s character, and the child adheres to these personal convictions, this is called integrity. It’s these personal convictions that are so much more important then the “choice of cereal” you equate personal conviction with.
I come to my personal convictions through reason. God is extraneous. I have a brain and I use it. When it comes to morality, many Christians credit God just on faith, they don’t think about it. The bible tells them what morals they should have and they don’t question God.
Seeker can’t actually condemn Hitler because his morality is strictly religious.
Sorry, straw man. I have consistently said that public morality must be argued from common ethic and natural law – that is, “don’t harm others or society” and “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, resp.
Of course it’s a straw man. It’s your own argument. I just replaced “Cineaste” with “Seeker” and “personal morality” with “religious morality” to draw you a picture but it still went over your head. I’ve already refuted the above elsewhere.
Seriously, if morality is subjective, how can you condemn Hitler? ON what basis?
This seems to be the the heart of our disagreement. On what basis can I condemn Hitler? On the basis of his actions. I have a personal conviction, based upon reason and not divine edict, that Hitler's actions were wrong.
What makes your subjective morality better than his?
I'll put this question to you. Do you think my subjective morality is better than Hitler's? I would hope that you do indeed believe I have better morals than Hitler.
I mean, he was well-intentioned –
"Hell is full of good intentions or desires." – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) No, I don't believe in Hell but I thought this would resonate better with you. Hitler's intentions don't matter, he monstrously killed millions.
How dare you judge him with your own opinion?
This is how everyone judges, with their opinions, with their personal convictions. How do you judge Hitler if not with your own opinion? I am not sure if you are being facetious here though.
Cineaste we are arguing in circles because you fail to recognize that you are claiming an objective morality while clinging to your belief in a subjective morality.
Also, a lot of the statements seeker and I have made (ie cereal choice, good intentions) were not our actual beliefs. They are the logical extention of subjective morality. The fact that you disagree with these so adamently lets me know that you don't actually believe in subjective morality.
I never equated killing Jews with making a cereal choice, I said that was the logical extent of subjective morality. You find many people today who actually admit that, although they are few and far between because who wants to actually say something like that.
Take your statement:
I think morality is completely subjective. Morality is dynamic, it changes from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture. Your morality and my morality are dependent upon these factors: the time we live in, the place we live in, the culture we live in, the circumstances we live with. All this makes morality subjective. There is no such thing as "good" or "evil" outside of ourselves, mankind. In addition to your statement that the Holocaust was not immoral to the Nazis. This is why I wonder how you can claim what they did was wrong.
It was immoral for the Nazis to do what they did and underneath their own propoganda they knew this. That is why we can call their actions horrible and immoral. There is a moral code that transcends cultures and even humanity and we can appeal to that to make moral judgements.
Cineates, I have said this before and I will say it again. You are a good person. Of course your own personal morals are better than Hitler's. That's not the point. If we have no objective standard on which to compare, how do we rate our morality? How do I know that your morality is better than Hitler's or anyone elses? If it is just my personal perference, what weight does that carry?
I hate to keep going back to IVF, but you keep misstating or at least misunderstanding what I said. I didn't say IVF was okay because of the potential good. I said that IVF was "less bad" because it didn't automatically result in the destruction of an embryo. It may happen, but IVF does not require embryo destruction, where ESCR does. And again, I state my personal belief that no embroys should be destroyed for any purpose (IVF or ESCR), but if we have to do anything the current plan of not giving federal funding to either is the best option (politically) right now. How does this make me a hypocrite again?
As to objective morality standards, look back at your answer to seeker about it somehow being okay to kill Jews if we say it is. With each instance you give a reason as to why the killing may be considered acceptable. That is because killing is morally wrong, we may allow for it and give excuses as to why it is acceptable in some instances, but at the heart of it we know that it is not a simple thing to kill (for whatever reason) another person. Why do we have to offer excuses or allowances for certain cases – because the transcendent moral standard tells everyone that killing is wrong, unless you have a very good reason.
As much as you want to talk about a subjective morality, you must continually revert back to a standard by which to judge the morality of other's. You cannot escape objective truth.
To the threats of violence. You wrote this:
All I have to say is, you're lucky I'm not Jewish
He is lucky I am not Jewish as I think saying something like this to a Jew would teach Aaron a lesson in "mean."
Granted, I do not think you would literally do something violent to me if you meet me, so I didn't think anything of it. But it is hard to take those as something other than a threat.
If they were simply threats of a "tongue lashing," then I apologize. I misread your statements. I hate when someone does that to me *ahem* IVF *ahem* ;)
Apparently, we both should work on stating our thoughts more clearly. This is the dilemma of online debates. You cannot hear the tone or see the facial expressions – many misunderstandings result from words taken the wrong way.
Aaron, so much to say, please pardon the length of my response but I hope you read it all and carefully.
Cineaste we are arguing in circles because you fail to recognize that you are claiming an objective morality while clinging to your belief in a subjective morality… The fact that you disagree with these so adamantly lets me know that you don’t actually believe in subjective morality.
This is just untrue so lets try to clear this up. Here is what I assume we are talking about. From my favorite source to clear up word definitions, the dictionary…
Objective – Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Subjective – Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.
Our very nature is subjective. No one can be totally objective with moral dilemmas. Morality is not math. One can not simply say killing is wrong every time, every place, every circumstance. Our minds have emotions and cultural biases that are intertwined in every moral decision we make. Every single one! For example, so much of your morality is based on your faith. So much of my morality is based upon humanism. Neither are objective, both are subjective to human nature. Both are imperfect because of that. This is the root of our misunderstanding I think. You believe there is a perfect morality humans can follow. I don’t believe this. I believe that morality is a human construct, subject to human nature, and as such, is imperfect. If you try Try! to see things from my perspective, it becomes clear that “good” and “evil” don’t exist as absolutes, or outside of the realm of man. Why? Because something “good” in one man’s mind may be “evil” to another man, meaning; “good” and “evil” are not absolutes, not objective. They are tied to human nature. This is why I say Christians confuse “good” and “evil” with morality. I think you and Seeker are proof of this.
Also, a lot of the statements seeker and I have made (ie cereal choice, good intentions) were not our actual beliefs. They are the logical extension of subjective morality… I never equated killing Jews with making a cereal choice, I said that was the logical extent of subjective morality.
I don’t see your logic at all here. Perhaps you can explain how it’s a logical extension?
It was immoral for the Nazis to do what they did and underneath their own propoganda they knew this.
I totally disagree. The real fanatical Nazis, like the SS, truly felt perpetrating the Holocaust was completely moral. Their twisted thinking was that the elimination of the Jews would lead to a better, purer mankind. They saw the Jews as a blight to erase. The propaganda, “Triumph of the Will” for example, so well done by Leni Riefenstahl, was targeted at non fanatics to sway their subjective thinking.
In addition to your statement that the Holocaust was not immoral to the Nazis. This is why I wonder how you can claim what they did was wrong.
I don’t understand how you can even “wonder” about this! I am calling what the nazi’s did wrong through the force of my own morality, my own personal convictions. And yes, when I condemn the Nazi’s it means just as much as your condemnation. That my morality is subjective and the Nazi’s morality was subjective is irrelevant because ALL morality is subjective.
Which leads to…
There is a moral code that transcends cultures and even humanity and we can appeal to that to make moral judgments.
Where is this moral code? It does not exist anywhere but in our minds and “in our minds” is the VERY definition of subjective. You can’t say the code is the bible because then it wouldn’t be “transcendent of cultures and even humanity”; not everyone is a Christian. You can’t say that non-Christians know this code and follow it unconsciously because frankly, that makes no sense. Slavery was a perfectly moral practice for millennia to most cultures yet only in the last 200 years or so people start to heed their unconscious code of morality? This sounds absurd. The more plausible reason for slavery being abolished was that society changed and along with it, morality.
Cineaste, I have said this before and I will say it again. You are a good person. Of course your own personal morals are better than Hitler’s.
Thank you for this compliment, Aaron. May I ask you if you came through this conclusion through a sense of personal morality and reasoning based upon my writings on your blog or was it because of a transcendent moral code? I only ask to illustrate to you my point that all moral judgments are subjective.
That is because killing is morally wrong, we may allow for it and give excuses as to why it is acceptable in some instances, but at the heart of it we know that it is not a simple thing to kill (for whatever reason) another person.
Aaron, this means killing is a subjective morality. If killing was objectively wrong it would be wrong period, in all circumstances. Killing is “subject” to the circumstances. Please understand, you just articulated my whole point I’ve been trying to convey for the last 30 posts :)
As far as IFV goes, Seeker made a good point…
…you sound very intent on disallowing any surrounding discussion, like you want to drive home the point that there is no way that Aaron’s argument could make sense.
After some re-evaluation I came to the conclusion that what Seeker said was essentially true. I am trying to pin you down. I don’t see what purpose that would serve anymore other than antagonizing you, which I don’t want to do. It would sour our discussions which I do enjoy. They help me explore and focus my own beliefs. For now, perhaps we can just move on?
It may happen, but IVF does not require embryo destruction, where ESCR does.
So you are saying there *is* a way to ethically, morally do IVF – that is, if you don't kill any zygotes. I'll buy that, although again, I don't think that zygotes are really persons yet. But that's me, the moderate conservative ;)
If we have no objective standard on which to compare, how do we rate our morality?
Aaron, that is the critical point that we agree Cin is missing. He has no claim to moral superiority over Hitler UNLESS he can validate his position against some authority outside of himself – otherwise, it's just "he said, she said". While Cin may argue that his external authority is the consensus of, for instance, the Allied Forces, that's still silly, since there was also a consensus on the Axis side.
The truth is as you say – he is referring to the obvious objective un-ethicalness(?) and immorality of Hitler's actions because that is the reality of it.
However, in his defense, I think that many liberals (not that Cin is a liberal ;) have a knee jerk reaction against the "objective morals" argument because they think, and many conservatives preach, that EVERYTHING can be declared moral or immoral, and therefore, we can legislate or condemn/approve everything. This brings up the spectre of theocratic control.
However, the balanced, biblical view that we need to promote is that smaller, personal, private moral issues most certainly are somewhat subjective and up to the individual, as per Romans 14.
However, when one's choices begin to affect others, we begin to get into the area where we need to protect the rights of others, esp. the weak and powerless, like the unborn. At that point, the larger objective moral laws, like not killing, come into play. These are not merely religious principles, but objective moral laws that are are "self-evident."
Agreed on IVF, no problem, let's move on. As an aside, seeker basically stated my position simply. I enjoy the discussions as well.
Seeker made my point on the logical extention – on what basis do you claim your morality as superior to Hitler's? If you truly believe in subjective morality, then you cannot claim yours (or mine) as better than his, only different. His morality was subject to his culture, etc and was just as valid as mine – if morality has no outside standard on which to judge all moralities.
When you measure things you have to have a ruler, or something to show the measurements. We all understand what it means when we say something is 12 inches long? We all relate to the ruler. If for morality the ruler changes constantly then no one knows what "immoral" means.
Your condemnation and my condemnation of Nazis mean just as much as anyone else's – not much – if everything is subjective and depending on culture. We are merely giving a moral perference, which may be more than a cereal choice, but it is still simply a personal perference. I perfer to not kill Jews, Hitler did. But without any standard outside of us both, we have nothing to judge us on.
As to my judgement on your personal morals – it came from reading what you write and judging that based on the objective moral code. You come up higher than Hitler on that, so congratulations. ;) All of us fall somewhere on that continuim (according to Christianity, no one is high enough (perfect) to attain salvation by themselves).
As far as slavery, was it morally wrong for those who held slaves when it was culturally acceptable? If someone says morality is subjective and dependent on culture then it must have been okay for them to hold slaves. I hold that slavery was wrong then and it was immoral then. People may not have realized that at the time, but that does not change the immorality of the action.
As to killing being subjective – I will try to explain this as best I know how. Killing is immoral, but so are other things which some time come in conflict with the moral code against killing (like the death penalty, self defense, war, etc.) In those cases, we must decide which part of the moral code is acceptable to uphold and which is the one that should be downgraded for that instance. This does not change the fact that killing is morally wrong, but the case may be that it is more morally wrong to allow someone to kill your family without doing anything about it.
That does not make it subjective, in the sense that it can change depending on culture. It means that because at some points moral choices collide with one another, at that point what do we do? We must appeal to the outside moral code (subconsciously or consciously) to decide what to do in these moral dilemmas – hence the old trick question of do you lie to save your family's life and if you do then that means lying is not objectively wrong. Of course, lying is wrong, but so is allowing someone to kill your family. We appeal to the outside moral code and we can know we are being completely moral in lying to save our family.
Objective morality can be misused, as seeker said, so I understand people's hesitance to acknowledge it. It can also be twisted to say that certain actions are always wrong, no matter what. Again that cannot be the case because moral actions are often in conflict with one another. Then that illustrates the need for an outside ruler by which to judge moral actions and choices.
This does not change the fact that killing is morally wrong, but the case may be that it is more morally wrong to allow someone to kill your family without doing anything about it.
Actually, I would argue that under those circumstances, killing may actually be morally just. This does not mean that it is subjetive, but contextual – that is, you can't make decisions in a moral vaccum, as if no other principles apply.
In fact, moral, not to mention sociologic and scientific priniciples, exist not as isolated modules, but in a web or continuum of reality, each affecting and touching one another. Applying principles in exclusion will always lead to illogical mistakes – it's called extremism.
The opposite error is to qualify a principle so much that it ends up being subjective because you've created a subjective hierarchy of values that makes any position arguable.
I think what we need to do in most of these cases is establish a rough hierarcy of moral principle, and then argue for the right application of such to common decisions, like capital punishment, war etc.
If you truly believe in subjective morality, then you cannot claim yours (or mine) as better than his, only different. His morality was subject to his culture, etc and was just as valid as mine – if morality has no outside standard on which to judge all moralities.
No. Though Hitler’s culture, morality, upbringing, etc all played a role in his sense of morality, Hitler’s actions were not completely determined by his morality. I.E. Hitler actually did kill millions, he didn’t just think about it. This is what Christians would call free will I think. I say Hitler made a choice. You keep saying I “can not say” my morality is “better” than Hitler’s but you are just repeating yourself with no substance to back this up. Why do you need some outside standard to say your morality is better than someone else’s? I can say I am stronger, weaker, faster, slower, smarter, dumber, more articulate, less articulate, happier, sadder, more delusional, less delusional, funnier, more boring, curious, less curious, blah, blah, blah, than someone else is. I can certainly think that someone is more or less morally virtuous than I am. What you keep repeating; that I can’t condemn Hitler if morality is subjective is nonsense. All the attributes I mentioned above are subjective and so is morality.
When you measure things you have to have a ruler, or something to show the measurements. We all understand what it means when we say something is 12 inches long? We all relate to the ruler. If for morality the ruler changes constantly then no one knows what “immoral” means.
I already mentioned to you that “morality is not math.” Further more, the proverbial ruler you mention happens to be unique to each individual. Here is evidence…
A Barometer of Modern Morals
We are merely giving a moral preference, which may be more than a cereal choice, but it is still simply a personal preference. I prefer to not kill Jews, Hitler did.
A personal preference is your choice of cereal brands. A personal conviction is your belief that Hitler was immoral. “I prefer not to kill Jews” as opposed to “It’s wrong to kill Jews.”
But without any standard outside of us both, we have nothing to judge us on.
We judge ourselves, Aaron. We judge everything from should I be faithful to my wife to shall we be a slave holding nation, or not. Every moral decision we make is subjective, meaning subject to personal bias and circumstance.
As to my judgment on your personal morals – it came from reading what you write…
Aaron, this means its a subjective conclusion you came to about my morality because it’s just your personal opinion based on what I’ve written here. Someone else could have said that what I’ve written, makes me worse than Hitler. You see? It’s your subjective opinion about me.
This does not change the fact that killing is morally wrong, but the case may be that it is more morally wrong to allow someone to kill your family without doing anything about it. That does not make it subjective, in the sense that it can change depending on culture. It means that because at some points moral choices collide with one another, at that point what do we do? We must appeal to the outside moral code (subconsciously or consciously) to decide what to do in these moral dilemmas – hence the old trick question of do you lie to save your family’s life and if you do then that means lying is not objectively wrong. Of course, lying is wrong, but so is allowing someone to kill your family. We appeal to the outside moral code and we can know we are being completely moral in lying to save our family.
You refer to this universal moral code for us to appeal to yet this code is non existant. It is not concrete, it does not tell you exactly what to do. In the situation you mention above I don’t appeal to any illusionary outside code (consciously or subconsciously). I look at my own experiences, my own moral convictions and act upon these. If my actions are “wrong” other people will judge it so according to their own subjective morality as well. A persons sense of morality is certainly influenced by their culture and upbringing.
Here is an example of how widely culture and morality vary throughout the world. In the United States we have a moral conviction that eating cats and dogs is wrong because they are viewed as pets and loyal companions, yes? In other countries dog’s and cats are on the menu, so moral convictions against eating them are non existent in those countries. Now, would you say those people are objectively immoral, subjectively immoral, or not immoral at all but moral because that’s their culture? We have Bessie the cow, on our menu and they have Rover the dog, on theirs. Seriously, wouldn’t you just use your own convictions to answer me and not appeal to a “transcendent moral code for all humanity” to decide if it’s right or wrong to “chow dog” instead of “dog chow” for poor Rover?
What you keep repeating; that I can't condemn Hitler if morality is subjective is nonsense. All the attributes I mentioned above are subjective and so is morality.
OK, you CAN do it, but you would be self-contradictory (even hypocritical) to claim that yours is better. You would have to answer the question "on what grounds?" and the ONLY possible logical answer is "because I am referring to an objective standard."
A personal conviction is your belief that Hitler was immoral. "I prefer not to kill Jews" as opposed to "It's wrong to kill Jews."
If your convictions are subjective, then you have no valid argument to make that your convictions are any better than anyone else's unless you have some method of external validation. And as we've said, using subjective culture is not a valid method, since Hitler could use his own culture to "validate" his view. What you need is an objective standard for validation.
You refer to this universal moral code for us to appeal to yet this code is non existant. It is not concrete, it does not tell you exactly what to do.
That is untrue. We claim that it DOES exist, even if it is not concrete or always clear. For the times when it is concrete and clear, we can say "we hold these truths to be self-evident", and when it is not, we can appeal to reason and even written authority (books of collected wisdom or revelation.)
I look at my own experiences, my own moral convictions and act upon these.
That is a great method. But your personal experience, similar to religious experience, is not really admissable in debate. You have to use reason, logic, and assumptions, and subjective morality leads nowhere. The reality of objective morality in the big issues is clear, that is, self-evident to those of reason ;).
the United States we have a moral conviction that eating cats and dogs is wrong because they are viewed as pets and loyal companions, yes? In other countries dog's and cats are on the menu, so moral convictions against eating them are non existent in those countries.
I believe that this less important behavior falls clearly into the Romans 14 category, that we should let each person or community (or country) decide for themselves. An absolute morality in this area is not self-evident, though it may seem to so vegetarians.
Again, the scriptures teach that some items are clearly, objectively immoral. Lesser things are left to the individual. It is only extremist fundies who want to make all morality either objective or subjective.
The bible does not condemn eating any animals (though it did for the OT jews, but for health and ceremonial reasons, not as timeless moral principle – in fact, the dietary laws were specifically repuidated in the NT by both Jesus and Peter's vision from God). This is not an example of a major moral issue like those around the life and welfare of humans, caring for the environment, or human sexuality (which is really about the welfare of humans).
Okay, here's one more stab at trying to illustrate my point. You say you can claim you are more or less moral, stronger, weaker, faster, slower, smarter, dumber, more articulate, less articulate, happier, sadder, more delusional, less delusional, funnier, more boring, curious, less curious, blah, blah, blah, than someone else is. How? By what standard?
You must first understand what strong is, what fast is, smart is, etc. We don't look at someone running a 52.3 sec 40 yard dash as being fast. We have an objective standard that tells us that's not fast. Sure in comparrison that person may be faster than someone who runs a 60.0, but they are not fast. We know what fast is and we appeal to that definition.
But above anything else we know that fast is not slow. To say the morality is subjective is to argue that in some cultures a person running a 4.3 40 is slow, while someone running a 25.4 is fast. If it is subjective it can be totally changed and rearranged. As you say morality is similar to fast, smart, etc.
This is why I say we have a moral code. We know things that are wrong. We give excuses for those actions when we do them because we know they are not right unless we provide some explanation.
Hitler did make a free will choice, one that was immoral then and immoral now. Slavery was an immoral choice then and an immoral choice now. I say that not because they were worse than me or because my personal perference says so, but because I look at the objective standard of morality and it says they are wrong.
Just because people can come to different conclusions does not negate the truth of a matter. I can say 2+2 is 7, but that doesn't mean I am just as right as the person who says 4. I may not believe a train is coming, but if I walk in front of it and I am wrong – it won't matter. My personal thoughts on an issue, only mean something if they are supported by the truth. Would I be just as valid morally if I said Hitler was a good person and did good things? Would that be a good decision compared with he was a bad person who did bad things?
As to eating dogs or cows, I don't really view that as a moral choice. I don't think Asians are immoral for eating a dog or cat. That is a personal perference. I think this is one of the reasons why, as seeker said, people bristle at the idea of objective truth. They believe it will dictate to them every aspect of their life. But for the most part, people already follow it and know when they violate it. They just don't recognize it as such.
OK, you CAN do it, but you would be self-contradictory (even hypocritical) to claim that yours is better.
Why? This is your subjective opinion. I can say I am stronger, weaker, faster, slower, smarter, dumber, more articulate, less articulate, happier, sadder, more delusional, less delusional, funnier, more boring, curious, less curious, blah, blah, blah, than someone else is. I can certainly think that someone is more or less morally virtuous than I am. I say I have better morals than Hitler. You’ve agreed that I do. Last time I checked, I haven’t slaughtered 6 million people in concentration camps. So claiming I’m better than that makes me self contradictory and hypocritical? Your so full of sh*t.
You would have to answer the question “on what grounds?” and the ONLY possible logical answer is “because I am referring to an objective standard.”
No, this is untrue. I already answered this several times.
If your convictions are subjective, then you have no valid argument to make that your convictions are any better than anyone else’s unless you have some method of external validation.
And exactly how does one go about getting “external validation” for their morals? For example, how would an Atheist validate their morals? What is on the tip of your tongue is that you believe Atheists have no morals right? If that’s true, your one sick pup.
For the times when it is concrete and clear, we can say “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, and when it is not, we can appeal to reason and even written authority (books of collected wisdom or revelation.)
The most blatant contradiction to “All men are created equal” and it also smacks of hypocrisy, is that Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. At one time, slavery was morally acceptable despite slaves “being endowed by their creator” with “unalienable” rights. Is this not an example of how morality is not objective at all but rather VERY subjective?
That is a great method. But your personal experience, similar to religious experience, is not really admissible in debate. You have to use reason, logic, and assumptions, and subjective morality leads nowhere. The reality of objective morality in the big issues is clear, that is, self-evident to those of reason ;).
Right Seeker, don’t use your personal experiences, reason and logic to make decisions. The correct way to make a moral decision is don’t think at all! If you don’t use your brain then everything will turn out just fine but if you do think then your morality will lead nowhere. I think I understand you better now Seeker.
An absolute morality in this area is not self-evident
Well surprise, surprise! Knock me over with a feather!
Here is an example of how widely culture and morality vary throughout the world. In the United States we have a moral conviction that eating cats and dogs is wrong because they are viewed as pets and loyal companions, yes? In other countries dog’s and cats are on the menu, so moral convictions against eating them are non existent in those countries. Now, would you say those people are objectively immoral, subjectively immoral, or not immoral at all but moral because that’s their culture? We have Bessie the cow, on our menu and they have Rover the dog, on theirs. Seriously, wouldn’t you just use your own convictions to answer me and not appeal to a “transcendent moral code for all humanity” to decide if it’s right or wrong to “chow dog” instead of “dog chow” for poor Rover?
I believe that this less important behavior falls clearly into the Romans 14 category…
Seeker, Atheists, a Muslims, a Secularists, Buddhists, Agnostics, all the billions of Non-Christians don’t give a hoot about Romans 14. Furthermore, the way you referred to scripture, was subjective. Meaning, that’s YOUR interpretation of scripture. FCL may have a different interpretation, for example. So at least now you know that even your own morality is subjective. Welcome to the club.
Again, this is an example of why Christians confuse good/evil with morality. Christians maintain that God is the ultimate moral authority yet they, as fallible human beings, must interpret God’s laws as they see them, and those laws have a lot of leeway when it comes to their interpretation. Eating shellfish for example, is not adhered to. Thou shall not kill (murder). What if its in war? What if it’s a capital punishment? Does it apply to humans only? I could go on. The plethora of Christian sects show that not even Christians themselves can agree on an interpretation of the bible. And Christians want to apply their interpretation of “God’s law” as moral judgment on non Christians? Appealing to God as the source of pure and perfect good/evil/morality is invalid because all such appeals travel through a fallible, self interested middle man, mankind. Mankind is the true source of morality (a sense of right and wrong) and morality is open to interpretation. Many Christians are confused about this. They don’t like the idea that morality is in the eye of the beholder, that the world is not black and white, its shades of grey.
Aaron…
We don’t look at someone running a 52.3 sec 40 yard dash as being fast. We have an objective standard that tells us that’s not fast.
Exactly, what time is needed to be run in the 40 to be considered “fast?” Exactly, what time is needed to be run in the 40 to be considered slow? There will always be a gray area between what is considered “fast” and what is “slow.” What if the person ran a 7.3 second 40 yard dash? Is this fast or is this slow? You can’t really say because it’s subjective. Listen, I know what you are trying to communicate. In your worldview you see “fast” as running exactly 4.3 in the 40 yard dash. Anything above that is slow. It’s a neat way to see things. Can you see what I’m trying to communicate you though? I see “fast” as falling within a range of times and these times are subjective. Who can say whether a 6.2 second 40 yard dash is slow or fast? It depends on who is judging right? I may see morality in shades of grey rather than black or white but that does no invalidate my moral convictions. I know a purely B&W picture has sharp contrast, but when you add all the subtle grey tones to flesh out the shadows, you see more detail.
I have great hopes that this post will lead to a break through in understanding because you are still making an effort to really talk about this issue. I think you’ve got us on common ground now, 40 yard dashes! The post addressed to Seeker above has deteriorated into repeated arguments on both sides, I think. The conversation I was having with him is not really moving forward anymore.
Yes, you do have a type of "mushy middle" in being fast (or being moral), but that does not change that some things are objectively fast or objectively slow based on unstated outside criterea.
My point has been that the objective morality does not define down to the smallest detail of how everything must be done. It serves as a guideline or measuring stick for the choices we make.
How do we make a choice when it is between bad and bad or between good and good? There must be some outside abritrator that we can appeal to in order to make that decision, hence the moral code.
And to your own personal moral convictions – my point and I think seeker's point has not been to say you have none, or that atheist can't be moral, your convictions are worthless, etc. It is that if you place yourself within the confines of moral subjectivity you limit yourself in judging other people's morals.
You can make moral claims just as easily as we do, because you appeal to the same moral code we do. You may not realize it, but you do. Now, of course, we are going to disagree on some things but that does not mean the moral code is nonexistent – it means that one of us is wrong.
We can judge moral choices as being wrong or right because an outside standard exists. Getting that standard wrong does not mean it is not there. You have the law of noncontradiction, which does not allow for opposite things to be true. As with the fast example. Something that is objectively fast, cannot be at the same time objectively slow (when using the same standard for each). Something cannot both be right and wrong at the same time.
The fact that you can call Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite for writing all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, while at the same time holding slaves, illustrates my point. If morality was subjective neither of us could condemn Jefferson for anything because according to his culture he was okay, holding slaves was just fine. But we know that the form of slavery in the early US was objectively wrong and we can criticize him and others for that regardless of what their culture said or allowed.
One of the areas you disagree with seeker and I is gay marriage. If morality is subjective then our morality that gay marriage is wrong is just as valid as your morality that it is right. What do you appeal to to say that ours is wrong besides your own personal morality? Why would that hold any weight over us? Just like you talk about Romans 14, why would that hold any weight with non-Christians (if subjective morality is true)? No one's sense of morals could trump anyone else's because their is no abitrator between the two. In a sense it creates a wild west of morals, a free for all where no one knows what they can or cannot do.
The consequence of objective truth is not to remove every last speck of gray from the world, but to clarify the gray to make the picture distinguishable. If everything was gray you would have a washed out photo – worth nothing with no beauty. Limits and definitions bring beauty to a subject.
Part of the problem is that you are surprised that we are not claiming an objective morality for eating dogs. Again, an objective morality does not demand every decision be classified as carved in stone. It serves as the guidepost, the abritrator and outside standard for moral decisions.
Agan, I don't mean to answer for seeker (he may have already done it before I get this posted), but I don't think his purpose is to state that you have no morals or no way to make a moral judgement, but only that would be the case for you and everyone else if morality was subjective. We can all make moral judgments because we can appeal to something outside of us.
Aaron,
I'd just like to interject here briefly. When Seeker, and other, Christians argue morals, they are precisely insisting that while they are moral and upstanding, whomever it is that is being argued with isn't. You know that. Do you really think that Seeker believes that I have any morals whatsoever? I like blowjobs, and gay marriage, and I think its okay to smoke pot even though I don't do it, and that kids ought to learn about sex, and whatever other opinions I have. To him, that is evidence that I lack morals.
What you're talking about is respecting the fact that there are those of us with different sets of moral values. I'll agree to that in a heartbeat. Others around here won't, because they believe that if your morals aren't in perfect sync with theirs, then you're not moral.
And finally, policies based on morals shouldn't be written, because nobody can agree to what is or isn't moral. That which doesn't harm another person should be allowed. That which does shouldn't.
I don't think you lack morals. I think many of our moral choices are wrong, or else I wouldn't disagree with them.
Also, policies must be written on morality because that is all there is. Every political decision is based on someone's version of morality. What you are saying is they shouldn't be based on mine or seeker's morals. Now you can make that argument, but that is different from no moral based policies.
Look at your policy standard (doesn't harm = good, harms = bad). That is a moral based policy. Why shouldn't policies be allowed to harm? Define what harm is. etc., etc. This policy is based on your moral standard. Virtually nothing is devoid of some type of morality.
Aaron, I’m going to try to keep to the, “How fast is fast?” analogy since it something that we can both relate to.
Yes, you do have a type of “mushy middle” in being fast (or being moral), but that does not change that some things are objectively fast or objectively slow based on unstated outside criteria.
Okay, In my attempt to understand what you are saying here I am having trouble with why the “outside criteria” for running fast remains “unstated,” why the “criteria” for fast comes from the “outside” and not the persons own idea of what “fast” is, and why there is specific “criteria” at all when you just said that there is a “mushy” middle.
My point has been that the objective morality does not define down to the smallest detail of how everything must be done. It serves as a guideline or measuring stick for the choices we make.
The main thing I am having problems with here is that when you say “guideline” it means “subjective.” Why, because with any guide there is a middle ground that is left to the individual.
How do we make a choice when it is between bad and bad or between good and good? There must be some outside arbitrator that we can appeal to in order to make that decision, hence the moral code.
We make choices between “good” and “bad” “fast” and “slow” based upon our own convictions and perspective. How fast is fast? Okay, you have said “must be” many times. Why “must” there be some outside arbitrator to appeal to? No matter how hard I try to honestly understand what you are saying, I can’t get past “Must be” Why “must?” Such an arbitrator would be extraneous because human morality is just that, human and “mushy.”
It is that if you place yourself within the confines of moral subjectivity you limit yourself in judging other people’s morals.
Aaron, since all morality is subjective, I/we are no more limited in judging other people’s morals than anyone else is.
As with the fast example. Something that is objectively fast, cannot be at the same time objectively slow (when using the same standard for each). Something cannot both be right and wrong at the same time.
I think Carl Lewis and Jim Thorpe ran fast and I think everyone almost everyone will agree, yes? This is an example of your “objective fast” right? Do you realize that although everyone agrees these guys are fast runners, it’s still a subjective view? Jim Thorpe is considered one of the greatest athletes in history yet Carl Lewis would consider his 40 time slow. Now, I and almost everyone else think Jim Thorpe was fast but what if Carl Lewis thought Jim Thorpe was slow (Lewis’s 40 time obliterates Thorpe’s)? So who is right in saying Jim Thorpe was fast and who is wrong? Carl Lewis or me? Now, you did say “when using the same standard for each” but what standard of “fast” are you talking about here? If you say Thorpe was fast according to the standards of his era and Carl Lewis was fast according to the standards of his, then what you end up with are subjective standards.
You can make moral claims just as easily as we do, because you appeal to the same moral code we do. You may not realize it, but you do. Now, of course, we are going to disagree on some things but that does not mean the moral code is nonexistent – it means that one of us is wrong.
If your intimating that my moral code is derived from God then you’re mistaken. If we disagree on things it does not always mean one of us is right and the other is wrong, it can also mean we have different views. These views are subjective, as we all have bias, personal experiences and circumstances we base these views upon. How fast is fast? If Carl Lewis says Jim Thorpe is slow and I say Jim Thorpe is fast, where is the “objective standard?” Which one of us is wrong according to that standard?
If morality was subjective neither of us could condemn Jefferson for anything because according to his culture he was okay, holding slaves was just fine.
I think Jefferson was hypocritical not because “according to his culture” it was “okay” to own slaves, but because Jefferson held a personal conviction that “All men are created equal” yet in practice he owned slaves contradicting his own professed belief. I think Jefferson was a great man and I do believe his words “All men are created equal.” I’ve been to Monticello. This is not an attack on him.
One of the areas you disagree with seeker and I is gay marriage. If morality is subjective then our morality that gay marriage is wrong is just as valid as your morality that it is right. What do you appeal to to say that ours is wrong besides your own personal morality? Why would that hold any weight over us? Just like you talk about Romans 14, why would that hold any weight with non-Christians (if subjective morality is true)? No one’s sense of morals could trump anyone else’s because their is no arbitrator between the two. In a sense it creates a wild west of morals, a free for all where no one knows what they can or cannot do.
That’s quite a meaty paragraph so I’ll respond in order.
1. I don’t appeal to anything other than reason to show your stance on gay marriage is unsound.
2. My personal sense of morality holds no weight with you I am sure, but I hope my reason and rational do. It’s an interesting dilemma though, if you hold a moral because of something the bible says, on faith, can reason ever be enough to change your mind about it? Would I have to appeal to a God for reason to have weight with you? It’s a paradox in and of itself.
3. The last sentence of this paragraph is the truth. We live in a Wild West of morals. It is mankind’s task to navigate through all the “muddy waters” of morality. This is what living our lives means. Some fail navigating these waters where others succeed. We do know what “we can and can’t do.” Our guides in this world are our fellow humans, our friends, our families, the people we love.
If everything was gray you would have a washed out photo – worth nothing with no beauty.
Your taking my analogy out of context. I am not saying everything is one shade of gray. Hitler, Stalin, etc I would say are close to absolute black and Mother Teresa, Gandhi are close to absolute white. You must also recognize that there are a myriad of grey tones in between which give the picture diversity. Diversity, subtle gradations of light playing on shadow give power to a B&W photograph. Christians don’t like it, but we do not live in a world of absolute black and white morality. Morality is a range of gray tones between black and white. In short, morality reflects human nature and well it should for it’s a human construct.
An objective morality does not demand every decision be classified as carved in stone. It serves as the guidepost, the arbitrator and outside standard for moral decisions.
Such guides are only indictors, their very nature entails subjectivity.
I don’t think his purpose is to state that you have no morals or no way to make a moral judgment, but only that would be the case for you and everyone else if morality was subjective.
But all morality is subjective so this must be what Seeker is saying!
We can all make moral judgments because we can appeal to something outside of us.
Aaron, it’s the opposite. We make moral judgments because we appeal to something inside of us. We use our brains.
Why? This is your subjective opinion.
Not at all. I am saying that it is illogical and contradictory for you to say "all morality is subjective" while at the same time saying "some morality is better than others." If it is all subjective, then all such values judgements are PURELY opinion, and of equal worth.
The only way to get from opinion to meaningful evaluation of an idea's worth is to have some objective way to measure and compare. Now, you might argue that the agreed-upon standard itself could be a subjective standard that we all agree upon, but I would again argue that, while such subjective consesus standards do exist and are useful (like 8 ounces make a cup), all standards are in turn based on an objective reality (8 ounces is a specific mass, weight, volume, etc.) that can be objectively verified.
It is the same with morality. You can not validly argue that your morality is better unless you have a standard to measure by, and even subjective standards must be grounded in some objective reality.
Is murder "bad" (or immoral, or evil) just because we say it is? On one level, yes, and so I agree with you, and I do see your point.
On quite another, if we do not agree on an external ethic that things that lead to the sickness and death of innocent humans are bad, then we are really going away from the path of life. I guess the bottom line is that death, esp. human death, is bad and life is good.
I think I kind of see where you are coming from, now that I've talked it through. But the error in subjective moralizers if often that they want to argue (like we are doing, and you are not) that therefore we can't value one moral system above another.
Do you really think that Seeker believes that I have any morals whatsoever?
I'm sure you have some moral system. Whether or not it squares with objective moral principle is uncertain.
However, I am SURE that you have a twisted stereotype of Christians, and me, because you consistently display erroneous beliefs and misunderstandings (purposeful?) of what I say and believe.
You make valid points and I understand what you are saying, but like seeker said, I don't see how it is possible to make any claim of morals when we do not allow for something outside.
With the example of fast: Carl Lewis may say Jim Thorpe is slow and Jim Thorpe may say that Carl Lewis can't sing. ;) Seriously, Jim Thorpe is called slow in your example because you use Lewis as the standard. In order for Thorpe to be defined as slow you must measure him against someone, something else who is faster. You are using someone outside of your own personal judgment of Thorpe to make the decision.
The same is true for morals. In order to get some type of definition of who is moral we must use someone/something to compare and contrast in order to make our judgement.
For morals we could use another person like Ghandi, but then they would have faults as well. So their standard would not be totally correct. And how do we even know to call Ghandi moral? If morality is subjective could their not be a time in the future when Hitler is considered the more moral person? We must instinctively know that there is some perfect morality out there and that Ghandi is much closer to that goal/standard than Hitler.
I guess a way to look at this is to ask was slavery immoral, not to you personally we have already established it was, but to those involved in it? If morality is subjective to the whim of the culture then they were not immoral and were doing nothing wrong. Culture dictated that slaves were subhuman and okay to own.
If morality is objective you can look back at things like slavery and the Holocaust and say regardless of your culture, regardless of what you are taught – it is still wrong. I'll give you a personal example.
Being from the South many people here still hold to ignorant racist views. They still use racist terminology. When you try to tell them this is wrong, inevitably it comes back to, "That's how I was raised." They were taught to be racist. Is it morally wrong for them to be racist, if they grew up and were formed in a racist culture?
Now, I know it to not be the case. I have seen countless individuals come to a realization that their racist views were wrong and had always been wrong.