Alonzo Fyfe

Doesn't it also make sense to use the Plato's Euthyphro argument against the subjectivists?

Do prople approve of something because they are good? Or are they good because people approve of it?

If the answer is the latter, then things such as torturing children for pleasure can become good, simply by people giving it their approval. If people approve of rounding up all of the Jews and killing them in slave labor camps, then they really OUGHT to round up all of the Jews and kill them off in slave labor camps.

When it comes to the issue of subjectivism vs. divine theory of ethics, the Euthyphro argument largely says, "A pox on both your houses."

If the Euthyphro arguments is offered as a reason to reject one theory (because of a "reductio ad absurdum" to the absurdities that can be considered "right" and "morally good"), then it is an equally good reason to reject the other. And if one does not take it as a good reason to reject their own preferred theory, they cannot offer it as a good reason to reject their opponent's theory.

To use it against one and not be willing to use it against the other is simply inconsistent.

The Euthyphro argument, in fact, pretty much gives us reason to reject BOTH divine command theories of ethics, and common subjectivism.

winstonjen

Only if the Jews have some input to the process, making that end result unlikely.

Alonzo Fyfe

If you are insisting that the Jews have some input in the process, then you are arguing for some sort of Contractarian or Utilitarian theory, not for Subjectivism.

These two count among the "third alternatives" I mentioned.

The subjectivist would say that the the statement, "The Jews ought to have some input" is true only for people who approve of giving Jews input, and false for everybody who does not want to give Jews input.

If you want to say that "The Jews ought to have some input" is a true statement independent of people approving of it -- some type of universal rule, then it has to be defended as such.

Alonzo Fyfe

For the religious among us who think that the above arguments against subjectivism prove their cause, and consistent with the title of this thread . . .

Religion has been doing to ethics for the last several thousand years exactly what it did to science -- holding back advancement in the name of primative supertition.

Every advance in ethics in the last 1000 years, from the abolution of slavery to the equal treatment of women to the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings to the condemnation of crusades and inquisitions, has been reached by secularists firsts. Religion has not been the moral leader. Religion has been the anchor that rational thinkers have has to fight and struggle with in order to create a more moral society.

Think about it. Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, Bentham, Mill, not a one of them quoted scripture to prove a moral point. They may have mentioned a God in their writings, but they derived their ethics from reason, and were all condemned (some to the point of running for their lives) by the religious leaders of their time.

dk

Think about...our first problem in the examination of subjective/objective morality requires an objective perspective. If we assume morality regulates conduct then moral law becomes a function of human nature i.e. the laws that govern or explain human nature. Clearly people being rational creatures participate in their own destiny with directed actions (work). Because people participate in destiny they naturally have dominion, or human beings are in and of themselves a force of nature. This raises the key question, "How can a finite creature completely ignorant of the future, participate in destiny without knowing the future?"

It seems obvious to me that reason (based on experience) alone is blind to the future. Morality and ethics serve to regulate human conduct with reason, yet reason is alone is blind. So the question of religion is in and of itself an important moral component. Does religion suit people? If the answer is yes, then how does religion serve to shape human destiny [im]morally?

I think its obvious religion presents a universal aspect of human nature that has shaped human culture, civilizations, nations, households, families and individuals hence embodies a universal human theme. I find it curious that you so casually postulate religion impedes science or ethics. Its impossible to know how many great scientists have been destroyed directly by unethical and immoral scientific experiments. Religion has inspired science from the beginning, and visa versa. The scope of what Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume,,, etc... proved depends on the validity of their assumptions, observations and ultimately what they believed. From an objective view I'd say morality and ethics has digressed over the last 150 years, while science and technology have progressed. This, in and of itself, threatens the planets future. In fact humankind objectively stands upon a precarious precipice over a host of man made scientific catastrophes. Global warming, weapons of mass destruction, MDR viruses, famine, social/political/economic collapse and international terrorism threatens every man, women and child on the planet with an apocalyptic end. The entire 20th Century was literally one world war with intermissions so nations could rearm and retool with more destructive (scientific) weaponery.

I submit civilizations and nations grow and progress by solving problems with life affirming solution. Science and technology are simple tools that lack intrinsic value. In fact there’s a lot of evidence that suggests morality and ethics have devolved people into biological machines absent intrinsic value, at the immoral and unethical hand of science. Scientific racism, biometrics, social engineering and command style communism were all inspired by science. I think you've got some major problems with your thesis.

yguy

Funny how the most prominent secularist nations in the last century, Soviet Russia and Communist China, were the foremost exemplars to date of all these noxious ideas with the possible exception of the treatment of women. Slavery was far more pronounced in these countries after Lenin and Mao took over than they had been previously; and both were genially willing to kill their own as if they had the divine right of kings, and to conduct inquisitions meant to flush out their political enemies who often ended up being tortured to death.

Alonzo Fyfe

Would you accept it as a defense of somebody, say, on trial for murdering 10 people, that he is innocent because he knows the name of somebody else murdered 11?

By the rationality you are using above, you would consider this a viable defense.

Alonzo Fyfe

The instant that you get to this point you confuse the presecriptive with the descriptive; you confuse 'is' and 'ought'.

To say that A regulates B is an is statement. But moral statements are not is statements, they are ought statements.

You need to either recast your assumption into the form of an ought statement, or you need to provide some additional piece of data that explains the relationship between is and ought.

By the way, I think that there is a relationship between is and ought, but once you work out the relationship none of the other things that you write about follows from your assumption.

yguy

I'm not defending anything. You are defending secularism while ignoring the most odious manifestations of it, and I'm attacking that defense.

Apathist

PEOPLE commit atrocities, this includes theists and non-theists. We already know that.

Alonzo points out that ethical advances come from the secular camp. Your comment does not address the point, so isn't an attack at all - just more of your patented evasion.