jlowder

SRB,

You beat me to it. I was going to make exactly the same reply. It never ceases to amaze me when theists will seize upon Moore's open question argument to attack ethical naturalism, without noticing that Moore's open question argument is designed to attack ANY realist view, including ethical supernaturalism, that is contrary to Moore's ethical nonnaturalism. To trade in one view of goodness as a set of properties (ethical naturalism) for another view of goodness as a set of different properties (ethical supernaturalism), on the basis of Moore's open question argument, is to miss the point of Moore's argument completely.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

kingjames1

Nightshade, the very basis of your distinctions (e.g. guilty emotions from doing wrong to someone) is what I am questioning. To say that it is 'better' to help people and be nice is to beg the question: why should I be bound to do that which promotes the greater 'good' of a society? What if the "greater good" does not in fact promote my well being? I suppose in such a case, the greater good is no longer binding. Where is the authority of your ethics located? In myself? This is just pragmatism. And of course that may be precisely your view. Nevertheless, you seem to be holding to a basic Judeo-Christian ethic in making your distinctions between brutal and civil, cruel and kind, etc. Do you yourself have any basis for these distinctions? Who decides what civil is? An arbitrary, culturally embedded (in this case, post-christian culture) conscience? Whose conscience then is right, in making public policy? Mine or yours, or the majority?

You have no basis for claiming that chopping off people's hands is bad -- except that you don't like it. But your personal preferences have little if any to do with the foundational questions of social ethics -- unless you're a solipsist. Some people prefer racism, anti-semitism, and genocide. What's wrong with that?

What if I were to argue that chopping off people's hands isn't necessarily wrong -- do you not think so? And on what basis? It has been used to great effect in other cultures to deter stealing, hasn't it? That's pragmatic, isn't it? Promotes the greater good, right? ...less theft and robbery!

Also, your claim that there is a contradiction in my statement about God's goodness is not substantiated. God is good by His eternal nature, and God cannot be other than what He is. There is no need to claim some external, abstract moral principle external to God. Neither than are His commands arbitrary, but are rooted in goodness - His own divine nature. Hence, it is quite correct to say that God CANNOT claim that something wicked is good (e.g. torturing children)! It would be against His very nature to do so. And God cannot deny Himself, as the apostle Paul argued. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do logically impossible tasks (e.g. draw a four-sided triangle or be evil). Neither can He do stupid things (like create a rock so big not even He can lift it).

Anyway...one last point. The reconstructionist represent a small minority of Christians within the reformed tradition. I do not agree with their hermeneutics. Nevertheless, I can heartily agree with their affirmation of the OT law as good and of abiding significance for the church today. Chopping off hands is no more applicable than executing adulterers in the church, but that there should be alterations in the application of the law is hardly surprising since the church is not Israel, i.e. a theonomistic, geo-political entity.

I should also point out that the law intentionally brought curse, guilt, and death in order that "the sinfulness of sin" might be made known through the law (which in itself was holy, spiritual, and good). But Christ redeemed those under the law from the curse which the law brought ("Cursed are those who do not continue in everything written in the book of the law") by becoming accursed for us. The law, Paul concludes, was a taskmaster to lead us to faith in Christ.

SRB

KJ
Nightshade, the very basis of your distinctions (e.g. guilty emotions from doing wrong to someone) is what I am questioning. To say that it is 'better' to help people and be nice is to beg the question: why should I be bound to do that which promotes the greater 'good' of a society? What if the "greater good" does not in fact promote my well being? I suppose in such a case, the greater good is no longer binding. Where is the authority of your ethics located? In myself? This is just pragmatism. And of course that may be precisely your view. Nevertheless, you seem to be holding to a basic Judeo-Christian ethic in making your distinctions between brutal and civil, cruel and kind, etc. Do you yourself have any basis for these distinctions? Who decides what civil is? An arbitrary, culturally embedded (in this case, post-christian culture) conscience? Whose conscience then is right, in making public policy? Mine or yours, or the majority?

SRB
What is meant by "moral" is a matter of (reportive) definition. Once we have sorted that out, we can objectively classify acts as moral or immoral using that reportive definition. The only remaining question is then "why be moral?"

There are various reasons to be moral. For some people, a desire to do what is moral is itself a basic desire they have, so rationality requires those people need give no further reason to be moral, beyond pointing out that being moral is for them a basic desire rather than an instrumental one. For other people this is not the case, and a desire to be moral is merely instrumental for other ends. A desire to do what is prudent (to avoid jail and condemnation from others), and a desire to live a fulfilled life, give most other people good reasons to be moral. Immoral behaviour is often too risky, and would make people feel guilty and unhappy in the long term, which is something almost everyone wants to avoid.

The requirements of rationality and of morality overlap significantly, but not perfectly in all conceivable circumstances. IMO, there are occasional circumstances where it is rational for people to be immoral. This is not especially shocking or surprising.

What is the inspirational motivation to be moral that "the Judeo-Christian ethic" can tack on to all that? Is it merely that God will beat us up in the afterlife if we’re not nice here and now?

SRB

KnightWhoSaysNi

As Jeff Lowder pointed out, the reason why some people would move against their self interest promoting the greater good is a good question. But I don't think theism is the reason for self-sacrificial altruism.

I'm not sure if you exchanged comments with LadyShea in this forum, but she actually donated her healthy kidney to help her friend survive. Given that she's an atheist, how would you explain her motivation to do this?

As I discussed with luvluv, why can't we have objective reality as our foundation for what's right or wrong? For example, we don't need to appeal to the supernatural to know that drinking water is beneficial to humans while drinking toxic waste is harmful. This is an objective fact. Why can't we base our morality on this objective notion of what is benefical vs. harmful to humanity?

I think <a href="http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/goodness.html" target="_blank">Morriston's paper</a> refutes this quite nicely.

Also, to say that God would never torture children because the act is wicked (just like he cannot make a rock so big he can't carry it) implies that there's a standard independent of God.

I should say that I'm relieved that you're not a CR. I place CR's in the same group I would put Nazis, Stalinists, the KKK, and the Taliban. All of them use their theology or ideology to justify their wish to oppress, enslave, or exterminate people who disagree with them or are different.

kingjames1

Of course...however, as has been pointed out, all such questioning must come to an end, and the application of Moore's open question to the Christian answer has, in my estimation, a good terminus: God (the Absolute).


Indeed, I agree (what is "justified" for that matter, cf. the works of Plantingia). Language is tricky, to say the least, and its complexity has been the downfall of many philosophers, as Wittgenstein insisted. And "good" is one of the most difficult words to define (the usages of the word are multifarious and seemingly innumerable).

However, the question I ask is basic: on what basis do we claim that something is good? - Not how 'goodness' is best analyzed. I could ask the same of knowlege: on what basis do we claim to know anything? The Christian, as you know, has a simple (yet profound) answer to these questions.

Moore's open question simply highlights (for me) the 'mystery' of getting an 'ought' from an 'is'. Of course, the Christian too has to contend with this, but again, the Christian answer seems most satisfactory to me: God is --&gt; therefore good is, and ought follows. God exists in relationship: oughtness 'subsists' within the Trinity. The existence of God seems to me to be the most profound of 'ethical facts'. That such a God exists (is), clearly gives rise important moral implications (oughts)...and so on.


I understand this distinction, and I'm not so sure Moore didn't. This distinction was articulated by Kant long before him. However, most contemporary philosophers are very wary of endorsing the analytic-synthetic distinction, following W. V. Quines devastating attack upon it.

Nevertheless, your hypotethical experiment fails the test too. You presuppose that "good" as used by a society accurately reflects some objective property of goodness. Your experiment would only demonstrate that "greatest benefit" is an acceptable synonym for "greatest good" in that society. On what basis does a moral realist assume that human language about "good" has any correspondence a supposed abstract property?

J.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Response to Nightshade

Because you have no basis for claiming that what is benefical is good and what is harmful is bad --You might suggest common sense, perhaps conscience, or superego, but the question is this: why do these things have the authority to claim your obligation? Who stands behind your conscience? God or an arbitrarily evolved group survival instinct ( or socially determined superego)?

If your conscience tells you to treat others well, why do you listen? Is it God speaking to you through conscience, the very image of God reflected in your nature, as Scripture teaches? Or because society has taught you to internalize their rules for perserving the social order? Etc.

Why treat people well? Why not harm them? That's the question. What is your basis for doing good and not harm? Why do you suppose that people deserve respect, the right to life, etc.? Surely you recognize these things (as an atheist) as social constructs...

<strong>
quote:
I think Morriston's paper refutes this quite nicely.
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Luckily, I've already read and responded to Morriston's paper - its on page 6 of this thread if you're interested. I find his grasp of Christian theology to be woefully inadequate.


J.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

K

kingjames1:

An arbitrarily evolved group of survival instincts.

I listen because I have no choice. I am bound to the behaviors my instincts dictate as tightly as a projectile is bound to the trajectory dictated by the forces acting on it.

When you are hungry, why do you eat? Why do you seek warmth when you feel cold? Are those examples of God reflected in your nature or are they evolved survival instincts?

11. Thou shalt eat when hungry.

Again, it is because I have no choice. I am genetically programmed to treat people well.

kingjames1

Surely you're kidding! Apparently Pol Pot didn't have to, nor did Hitler, Stalin, or the abusive sonuvahbitch across the street who beats his wife.

kingjames1

Why be moral in the (hypothetical) cases when it is rational to be immoral? That is to ask, OUGHT I to be moral in such cases?

The reasons you list for being moral are all superficial, and ultimately hollow. If I behave morally simply because to behave thus gives me a certain sense of fulfillment or satisfaction (a sort of behavioral, non-sexual form of masturbation?), is my 'morality' really commendable or noble? If I behave morally merely because it is prudent for me to do so, am I anything more than pathetic (living life in quiet desperation?)! How am I any different than the coward, taking the path of least resistence? Isn't this precisely the silly, sorry man that Nietzsche dismisses as outmoded, now that "God is dead"?

I.e. if moral behavior is ultimately nothing more than utilitarian (something that benefits me), then I don't know how one would escape the charge that 'moral goodness' as such is a phantom, even worse, a delusion.

And when you say, "a desire to do what is moral is itself a basic desire they have, so rationality requires those people need give no further reason to be moral, beyond pointing out that being moral is for them a basic desire rather than an instrumental one," surely you say too much!
Do you really think this is the case? Does basic human desire justify all behavior? Surely you recognize that all forms of human behavior stem from human desires. A theif desires wealth, a murderer desires to murder his victim, a child-molester has powerful desires to molest children! In fact, therapy for child-molesters is very difficult, and the eradication of those desires nearly impossible (though not completely so - there is minimal therapeutic success).

The mere desire to behave in some way gives no justification for that behavior.

J.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

K

kingjames1:

No, I'm not kidding at all. Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and everyone else were all born with brains which map sensory inputs to intenal brain states and action outputs. The initial structure of those brains were determined by genetics. After that, it was just a matter of those brains reacting to the environments they had been born into.

The illusion of choice is not the same as choice. If you don't believe it, then choose to believe that cutting off your right ear will not cause any pain, but will instead make you the greatest of God's disciples. You can't do it. Your brain won't let you.