Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-30-2002, 04:43 PM

Paul5204

Quote:

While it may be true that one can have a "morality" without a god or a religion, absent what my other friends at Hebrew National call the "Higher Authority," such a "morality" is nothing more than the figment of your, my, and their imagination.

Yes, so what?

Quote:

And absent some standard external to humanity, any morality such as, say, one that holds that the Nazis were evil, is more or less equal [as it were]to my statement that chocolate is good and vanilla is bad.

Well, both categories are examples of subjectivism, but people generally consider moral beliefs substantively different from taste beliefs, and consider assertions of equivalence to be both false-to-fact and self-righteously insulting.

Remember that while subjectivism might (under logically possible but nonactual circumstances) permit Nazism, only objectivism can (provably under actual circumstances) compel Nazism, crusades, inquisitions, mass slaughter, torture, rape, genocide, slavery. Amazingly enough, all of these have actually occurred under theistic objective morality; none of them have occurred under subjective humanism.

Quote:

Have to go now, my most moral friends, ie., the murderers, rapists, and thieves, have invited me to dinner. O joy!

Having dinner with Yahweh, are you?

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Bill Snedden · 03-30-2002, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul5204:
<strong>And absent some standard external to humanity, any morality such as, say, one that holds that the Nazis were evil, is more or less equal [as it were]to my statement that chocolate is good and vanilla is bad.</strong>

While this sort of lazy assertion might play well from the pulpit, it doesn't here.

Simply put, subjectivism does not necessitate relatavism, contra your simplistic misrepresentation. I would argue that "value" presupposes a "valuer"; therefore all value is by definition subjective and therefore all moral systems are also, by definition, subjective.

Those who claim that an external standard exists (or is better for us than our own internal one) bear the burden of proof.

Good luck. This question has remained in dispute at least since Euthyphro if not longer, but perhaps you'll have better luck than Socrates...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-30-2002, 05:48 PM

Paul5204

Quote:

And absent some standard external to humanity, any morality such as, say, one that holds that the Nazis were evil, is more or less equal [as it were]to my statement that chocolate is good and vanilla is bad.

It seems to me that this line of reasoning does not show the objectivist, especially the Divine Command Theorist such as Paul5204 appears to be, in a better light than the subjectivist.

It seems that this approach requires that one declare that one's moral beliefs are divorced from one's emotional nature. Paul appears to reject Nazism, not because he has a particular emotional reaction to Nazism itself, but because it appears that the Nazis did not have divine authority for their actions.

If this belief were sincerely held (and I frankly do not believe Paul sincerely holds it), then we would conclude that if Paul were convinced that his understanding of his god's will were incorrect (or if a religious authority proclaimed a particular interpretation), he would participate in activities morally equivalent to Nazism without even the emotional distress felt by a subjectivist persuaded to eat brussell sprouts or Vegemite.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.