DaveJes1979

dangin: The morality of prudence. You follow the laws of your society because it is in your self interest to follow those laws. This is historically accurate with social animals(which we are) because even with no written law there is an individual's need to maintain the protection and acceptance of the society that individual is in. Of course, for nonliterate animals of varying intellect, this will vary even within the society. Yet a standard of behavior can be deduced, which seems natural (even second nature) to the individual raised within the society. This is the preliterate foundation of the morality espoused in all scriptures, not the other way around.

Dave says: what, then, makes the society intrinsically "good" or "right"? The system you have proposed is simply another variation of "might makes right" ethics. Nor does it even address the issue of inter-societal ethics. Does this system also not hamper moral or civil reform?


datheron: Strawman. Evolution is not atheism. Nor is materialism.

Dave: I never said it was. I suggest you go back and re-read my post more carefully.

datheron: It's interesting that you're appealling to emotions - something which you just condemned on another thread.

Dave: its not an emotional appeal, it is a transcendental challenge. How can a materialist worldview account for any amount of outrage amidst atrocity like that?

datheron: Also note that "all there is is matter" does not begin to address the abstract concepts that we have. Do you claim to know the limits of matter, or that the scientific quest to discover additional properties of matter is already finished? If not, how can you make any such claim?

Dave: the problem is that IF "all there is is matter" is true, then one CANNOT have abstract concepts. That follows almost tautologically.

datheron: More appeal to outrage, plus a huge, waving strawman.

Dave: then why, I wonder, are you avoiding actually dealing with my challenge?

anarcho: Rightness and wrongness are concepts which humans have extended from natural behavior evolved to enable survival. The complexity of these concepts today reflects the complexity of human society and interaction.

God has nothing to do with it. We do just fine without him.

Dave: well, as interesting as your Darwinian explanation of ethics is, it still fails to answer the question I originally posed. What makes survival "right"? If you say there really is no such thing as "rightness", are you "right" in that assertion? Even if you are, SHOULD I believe it ("should" implies ethical norms)?? And I would still ask you how this Darwinian system of ethics can lead one to objecting against the WTC tragedy. It seems to me that this incident was simply "survival of the fittest" at work.

philos: What makes God a non-arbitrary standard of good? Simply because he says so? Heck, half the time his decrees don't even align with our inherent motivations and desires.

Dave: God is a non-arbitrary standard because He is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good. Goodness is one of his attributes. Nor do His decrees have to "align with our inherent motivations" in order for them to be normative standards of good.

philos: Excellent point. That's why atheists don't rely on these things for moral guidance.

Dave: yet many of the atheists I have talked to speak of "chance" as if it was a governing universal in their worldview.

philos: And this is different from God's decrees how?

Dave: the great thing about God is that He is not only MIGHT, but He is also, by nature, right, good, and just.

philos: Well, you can't exactly qualify intrinsic worth. We either have it or we don't. If it's contingent on God's issuance, then it's not intrinsic. If we have it independent of God's issuance, then you've got a logical problem.

Dave: ahhh, but God's decrees are a manifestation of His own eternal nature. And God's eternal nature is not contingent.

jlowder: Why? Which atheists are you referring to? Why was their objective ethics unacceptable?

Dave: well, the utilitarians come to mind. This system is reducible to subjectivism, since it grounds moral norms in man's emotions (if one understands the greatest amount of happiness/pleasure in these terms). One cannot find a more eradic or arbitrary "foundation" than emotions.


jlowder: You've made an assertion. You've asserted that atheism is logically incompatible with objective ethics. Now please provide an argument for that conclusion.

Dave: I assert this because I believe atheists have nothing to ground ANY of their knowledge in at all. I do not believe there is any viable alternative to God. The result of rejecting God as the governing universal inevitably leads to the acceptance of some non-universal. Much could be said about this, in reguard to particular movements, by this outline will have to do for now, along with my brief critique of utilitarianism.

jlowder: Easy. Here's one way: atheists can affirm ethical truths are necessary truths. As necessary truths, they are in no need of explanation.

Dave: I certainly believe that ethical truths are necessary truths. You haven't provided a viable alternative merely by making that assertions. One must provide some authority or foundation in order to make your system meaningful. Are utilitarian ethics "necessary truths"? Which set of ethics, and why?


jlowder: This is a caricature of atheism. Chance or randommness are not the ultimate principles controlling the universe, on the atheistic view.

Dave: many speak as if this were so, in my own conversations with them. I do not think it is a caricature - atheists often appeal to chance when answering many of the big questions reguarding metaphysics and meaning.

jlowder: This is another caricature of atheism. Atheism does not justify "survival of the fittest" as the supreme ethical standard.

Dave: many atheists have EXPLICITLY stated that this is so. Read the posts above!


jlowder: Who said anything about materialism? I'm an atheist but not a materialist. Atheism (and, by extension, metaphysical naturalism) have plenty of room for abstract concepts.

Dave: this web site, however, endorses explicit materialism.

jlowder: No. When the world trade towers went down, thousands of people were directly and indirectly harmed from their internal point of view. The fact that humans are sentient beings capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain is enormously significant, morally.

Dave: so is the pleasure/displeasure of sensory data the standard? Would this have been morally good if the lives were snuffed out instantaneously, without pain and without repercussions to family and friends?

jlowder: The outrage is easy to explain, even on the assumption that materialism is true. (Note: I am not a materialist. I'm just pointing out that the outrage is easy to explain even on a materialist view.)

Dave: I am still waiting for someone to explain it!

jlowder: If humans are intrinsically valuable, then they just are intrinsically valuable. Their value does not depend on any external factors, including creation in God's image. In fact, to say that humans are instrinsically valuable because they were created in God's image is self-contradictory.

Dave: my use of the word "intrinsic" does not carry that sort of meaning. I mean that man does not depend on anyone or anything BUT GOD for his worth. I thought that was clear, in the context of my writing.

Davd Gadbois

anarchocyclist

Dave:

As I said before, survival is not intrinsically "right," nor does it have to be. I was merely describing a naturalistic theory about the development of human morality which requires no deity to complete it.

DaveJes1979: If you say there really is no such thing as "rightness",

I never said that. I said that rightness is a human concept, meaning that its practice is evolutionary in origin, and language has come up with a word to describe the concept behind it.

More: are you "right" in that assertion?

Apples and oranges. Factual veracity and moral correctness are two different meanings of "rightness." So if you want to start a semantical debate....

Even if you are, SHOULD I believe it ("should" implies ethical norms)??

Hey, beats me. If it seems to be valid, if it appeals to you, then believe it. I think it's more likely than any explanation which involves a deity.

daemon

Actually, relativism is not incompatible with theism, as you have implied here. If a God were to exist, their standards could certainly still be considered as arbitrary as any human's, thus leaving relativism valid.
Actually, you are incorrect, but it's a common error in trying to understand randomness. In any sequence of random events--take coin tosses, for example--periods of uniformity are expected in a truly random system. If there was no uniformity, it is actually unlikely for it to be random!

As to what controls the universe, I would not say that randomness controls it; instead, it appears to be self-controlling.
Odd diversion. How is Social Darwinism germane to the discussion at hand?
Perhaps you don't realize that things can be derived from the existence of matter; it has properties, and interacts. Abstract concepts are usually based upon those material interactions.
Non sequitur.
"Just"? Hardly.
That's why even materialists don't have this bizarre, shallow view of reality you've stuffed your strawman full of.
Ah, so the "Christian worldview" is an independent entity that you have special knowledge of?
Your failure to understand an accurate representation of, apparently, any other position does not mean that you are correct.

jlowder

There are many ways I could reply, but I will simply say this. Utilitarianism hardly exhausts the options for a fully secular and objective ethics. (Kant's deontological ethics comes to mind, as does Tara Smith's highly nuanced version of ethical egoism.) So even if you were right about utilitarianism, that wouldn't justify the a priori assumption that atheism is incompatible with objective ethics.

More assertions, but still no argument for the conclusion that atheism and objective ethics are incompatible.

By granting that ethical truths are necessary truths, you have conceded that God isn't necessary to explain ethical truths. Necessary truths are just that--logically necessary. They exist in every logically possible world. No further explanation is needed.

This doesn't follow at all. First, it is not even clear what it would mean for a necessary truth to have "some authority or foundation." Second, you haven't provided any argument for the conclusion, "necessary ethical truths must have an authority or foundation in order to be meaningful."

I don't know. But I don't have to know the answer to such normative questions, in order to answer the meta-ethical question of whether objective ethical truths can exist even if God does not.

Many atheists have no formal training in philosophy. Appealing to such atheists is just as fallacious as appealing to the average lay Christian to determine what philosophical doctrines are entailed by Christianity. I don't know of any atheist philosophers of religion who embrace the view you attribute to atheism in general.

Atheism does not entail that "survival of the fittest" as the supreme ethical standard, and you have provided no argument to the contrary.

I don't know of any atheist philosophers who argue from the fact of "survival of the fittest" to the value, "the fittest ought to survive." Anyone who makes such a move must be able to answer the standard objection against deriving an ought from an is. I do not find an answer to that objection in this thread.

As the co-founder of this website, I think I know what it endorses. It endorses metaphysical naturalism, but not materialism.

Is physical and emotional pain the complete standard? I don't know. Probably not. But it is certainly relevant.

That's like asking, would it still be wrong to harm someone, even if they weren't really harmed?

Several thousand innocent people died or were injured. Families were destroyed. Our sense of security was damaged. Of course people were outraged.

I understand your view. I don't think intrinsic is the right word to accurately describe that view.

jlowder

jlowder

I disagree. If moral relativism were true, theism would have to be false. Theism and moral relativism are logically incompatible. See <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/god.html" target="_blank">Graham Oppy's excellent article</a>.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

HelenM

It's not quite, because it might be immoral to end a person's life even if you do it painlessly and their friends and relatives don't mind.

Because you had no right to end it - to take away some of another person's life - without permission, even.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

DaveJes1979

anarchocyclist Dave:
As I said before, survival is not intrinsically "right," nor does it have to be. I was merely describing a naturalistic theory about the development of human morality which requires no deity to complete it.

Dave: fine. Then you haven't actually presented us with an ethical system that atheists can use to justify moral norms.
DaveJes1979: If you say there really is no such thing as "rightness",

anarcho: I never said that. I said that rightness is a human concept, meaning that its practice is evolutionary in origin, and language has come up with a word to describe the concept behind it.

Dave: is it ONLY a human concept - or is it more than convention?

More: are you "right" in that assertion?

anarcho: Apples and oranges. Factual veracity and moral correctness are two different meanings of "rightness." So if you want to start a semantical debate....

Dave: not at all! There is a moral dimension to all linguistic propositions. This is demonstrated by what I said next:

Even if you are, SHOULD I believe it ("should" implies ethical norms)??

anarcho: Hey, beats me. If it seems to be valid, if it appeals to you, then believe it. I think it's more likely than any explanation which involves a deity.

Dave: "beats me"? Well, that's what happens when you try to seperate epistemology from ethics.

daemon: Actually, relativism is not incompatible with theism, as you have implied here. If a God were to exist, their standards could certainly still be considered as arbitrary as any human's, thus leaving relativism valid.

Dave: that is unless, of course, God is, by nature, eternally and perfectly Good and Just.

daemon: Actually, you are incorrect, but it's a common error in trying to understand randomness. In any sequence of random events--take coin tosses, for example--periods of uniformity are expected in a truly random system. If there was no uniformity, it is actually unlikely for it to be random!
As to what controls the universe, I would not say that randomness controls it; instead, it appears to be self-controlling.

Dave: self-controlling, though, implies that it is not controlled. There is no subject/object distinction.

daemon: Perhaps you don't realize that things can be derived from the existence of matter; it has properties, and interacts. Abstract concepts are usually based upon those material interactions.

Dave: but this does not account for a priori knowledge. Through what filter do we see and interpret the world? Through a whole ream of presuppositional baggage. Abstract ideas exist apart from experience, and are used IN ORDER TO INTERPRET experience.

daemon: Non sequitur.

Dave: oh? Do tell.

daemon: "Just"? Hardly.

Dave: then, please, tell me how an atheistic worldview can account for moral outrage, if strictly materialist processes can account for all of experience.

daemon: That's why even materialists don't have this bizarre, shallow view of reality you've stuffed your strawman full of.

Dave: its it a "straw man", then please answer my challenge. I know very well that atheists are outraged at this atrocity. What I am trying to figure out is WHY.

daemon: Ah, so the "Christian worldview" is an independent entity that you have special knowledge of?

Dave: huh? Where did I even remotely imply such a thing?

jlowder: There are many ways I could reply, but I will simply say this. Utilitarianism hardly exhausts the options for a fully secular and objective ethics. (Kant's deontological ethics comes to mind, as does Tara Smith's highly nuanced version of ethical egoism.) So even if you were right about utilitarianism, that wouldn't justify the a priori assumption that atheism is incompatible with objective ethics.

Dave: but all non-Christian ethical systems fall prey to similar criticisms because they all CONTAIN THE SAME DEFECT - a failure to start one's thinking with God. If you would like to defend Kantian ethics, I'd be glad to interact with you on it. Utilitarianism was simply an example.


jlowder: More assertions, but still no argument for the conclusion that atheism and objective ethics are incompatible.

Dave: it follows from the simple fact I pointed out above - since atheists don't have a universal, their ethics must be grounded in something finite. Once one does this, one has already given up any hope of an "objective" set of norms. I know that this is a somewhat broad outline of the issue - but you still have not interacted with what I have said either in general or in particular (by pointing to an 'objective' ethical system that is compatible with atheism, that you believe can be consistently sustained).

jlowder: By granting that ethical truths are necessary truths, you have conceded that God isn't necessary to explain ethical truths. Necessary truths are just that--logically necessary. They exist in every logically possible world. No further explanation is needed.

Dave: that conclusion does not follow at all. Ethical truths are necessary BECAUSE THEY REFLECT GOD'S ETERNAL, NON-CONTINGENT NATURE. And God exists in every "logically possible world", so your criticism falls flat.


jlowder: This doesn't follow at all. First, it is not even clear what it would mean for a necessary truth to have "some authority or foundation." Second, you haven't provided any argument for the conclusion, "necessary ethical truths must have an authority or foundation in order to be meaningful."

Dave: I did provide an argument for that. I did this by asking you precisely WHICH ethical system is "necessary". The "system" is what I mean by authority - basic principles, if you will. Your system is not a distinctive system at all simply because it is "necessary". Is Kantian ethics necessary? Utilitarian? What?

jlowder: I don't know. But I don't have to know the answer to such normative questions, in order to answer the meta-ethical question of whether objective ethical truths can exist even if God does not.

Dave: the reason you avoid any particulars at all is because the case for such a hypothetical objective system collapses when you try to "give it feet". You tell us that an objective atheistic system can exist, even though you have no idea what such a system would look like.

jlowder: Many atheists have no formal training in philosophy. Appealing to such atheists is just as fallacious as appealing to the average lay Christian to determine what philosophical doctrines are entailed by Christianity. I don't know of any atheist philosophers of religion who embrace the view you attribute to atheism in general.

Dave: Richard Dawkins (a biologist, but also philosopher, in my estimation) stated that all life is the outcome of an "unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process." Unpredictable? Is that chance I hear?


jlowder: Is physical and emotional pain the complete standard? I don't know. Probably not. But it is certainly relevant.

Dave: FINALLY, we are starting to talk specifics. Ahhh, the devil is in the details, isn't he? Well, since you admit that sensory data is not the "complete standard", you are going to need to begin somewhere else - in naturalism or materialism - for you to ground moral norms in.


jlowder: That's like asking, would it still be wrong to harm someone, even if they weren't really harmed?

Dave: is someone "not really harmed" simply because they are killed painlessly?? I am sure I can find a homeless guy with no family or friends, whom I could murder instantaneously - without him ever knowing it.

jlowder: Several thousand innocent people died or were injured. Families were destroyed. Our sense of security was damaged. Of course people were outraged.

Dave: OK, but this does not tell me, still, WHY you are outraged. Why is it outrageous that thousands die, and families are destroyed?

Dave Gadbois

jlowder

I agree. You are correct.

jlowder

This begs the question. You still haven't provided an argument for the conclusion that an objective ethics requires God.

"Since atheists don't have a universal?" Please clarify what that means. I have already stated that necessary ethical truths are compatible with atheism. I don't see why I need to show anything else.

I have interacted with what you have said in general by pointing out that ethical truths are necessary truths which need no explanation. I have interacted with what you have said in particular by pointing out 3 different normative,
objective ethical systems that are compatible with atheism: utilitarianism, Kant's deontological ethics, and Tara Smith's highly nuanced ethical egoism.

Shouting the assertion in all capital letters isn't a substitute for argumentation. What is the argument for that conclusion?

Another assertion without argument. The fact of the matter is that no theist has ever been able to come up with a sound argument for God's necessary existence. God's existence is not necessary. You may not like it, but there are logically possible worlds in which God does not exist.

You are conflating meta-ethics with normative ethics:

</strong>

First, who are you to say why I do or do not do something? You don't know me at all. Contrary to what you write, I'm not "avoiding" particulars. I am no expert on moral philosophy and I honestly am undecided about normative ethics, but I am actively reading ethical philosophy to make an informed decision.

Second, the claim that morality is objective is a meta-ethical claim. It isn't necessary to determine which normative ethical theory is correct in order to assess the meta-ethical claim that ethics is objective.

This is false. There are 2 things that secular objective ethics have in common, and I can identify both characeristics for you:

(1) Such ethical systems are autonomous -- they are independent of God.

(2) Such ethical systems hold that ethical propositions are objectively true or false -- the truth of ethical propositions is independent of anyone's opinion about such propositions

I have great respect for Richard Dawkins. I agree with the statement you quote, but note that unpredictable doesn't necessarily mean "random." Since humans are not omniscient, it may well be the case that an event is unpredictable given our lack of knowledge, yet determined (and hence non-random) by mechanistic causes.

</strong>

Re-reading your original question, I now think I misunderstood your question. I don't think sensory data is "the standard" or even part of "the standard," if by "the standard" you mean the normative standard according to which actions are judged. Sensory data is factual information. Sensory data is relevant in the sense that it can help determine whether a given moral principle is relevant. For example, consider the principle, "One should not inflict pain or death on innocent people when no greater good will result." Such a principle is not based on sensory data, but sensory data can help us to determine when that principle is relevant.

I don't follow you at all. I don't know if this is the case, but perhaps the issue is that you feel an atheistic objective ethics must be grounded in atheism, just as theistic objective ethics must be grounded in theism? If so, I should point out that I don't believe atheism, naturalism or materialism can be the foundation of objective ethics. Although I am an atheist and an ethical objectivist, my atheism isn't the "foundation" for my ethical objectivism. They are quite independent of one another.

You are absolutely right. My earlier response was incomplete/wrong. Ending the life of another person without their consent is wrong.

Because it is objectively morally wrong that thousands die, families be destroyed, etc. The terrorists had no right to do what they did.

jlowder

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

And here is what I find:

Atheists have tried to substitute God with "chance" or "randomness" as ultimate principles controlling the universe....

So if the materialist tells me that matter is all there is to the universe...

Strawman equivocation? You tell me.

You label it right on the forehead, and you still don't see the emotional appeal? Why use the WTC attacks? Furthermore, what of the theists that created the destruction in the first place, hm?

Anyway, to answer your question, the simple question is that humans consider human life valuable. Every person on the face of this planet can tell you this without the need for any God or any guiding deity.

Once again, you're already claiming to know that matter and abstract concepts cannot mix. This can only be the case if we already know all that matter can do and entrail. Unless you do, the claim is baseless.

So I'm supposed to respond to a strawman, thus making my argument much weaker than it originally was?! Is this supposed to be funny?