Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Atheists/Materialists Are Closet Moral Objectivists
Uncommon Descent ^ | January 17, 2014 | William J Murray

Posted on 01/17/2014 6:50:09 AM PST by Heartlander

Atheists/Materialists Are Closet Moral Objectivists


1. If morality is subjective (by individual or group), as atheists/materialists claim, then what any individual/group ought to do is necessarily relative to that individual/group purpose. IOW, if my purpose is to make a frozen margarita, I ought put ice in the blender. If my purpose is to make fresh peanut butter, I ought not put ice in the blender. The ought-ness of any task can only be discerned by mapping it to the purpose for which the act is committed. Under moral subjectivism, acts in themselves are just brute facts with no objective moral value; they must be mapped to the subjective purpose to determine subjective moral value (oughtness).

2. The question “Is it moral to gratuitously torture children?” implies that whomever does such an act finds it personally gratifying in some way, and we are asking a third party if the act is moral or immoral. The only possible, logically consistent answer a subjective moralist (atheist/materialist) can give is that yes, it is moral, because the moral challenge is tautologically valid in the subjective morality model. If my purpose is to gratify myself, and torturing children gratifies me, there is a 1 to 1 mapping of act to purpose- I ought do so. It is moral by definition for anyone who is gratified by the act to do so for their own gratification.

3. If the moral subjectivist says that the act is immoral “to them”, they are committing a logical error. The acts of others can only be morally evaluated according to that particular person’s subjective purpose, not according to the subjective purposes of anyone else. That is the nature of subjective commodities and relationships. Whether or not it is something a third party “ought” do for their purposes is entirely irrelevant and is treating the third party’s purposes as if they are objectively valid and binding evaluations on the acts of others.

4. Would an atheist/materialist intervene if someone else was gratuitously torturing children? If they had the power to snap their fingers and eliminate this kind of activity from the world, would they do so? I suspect the answer to both would be: yes. Note how self-described moral subjectivists would treat their own personal preferences as if they were objectively valid and binding on others.

5. Only a sociopath can truly act as if morality is subjective. “Moral subjectivism” is a intellectual smokescreen. It is a self-deception or an oughtright lie. Its proponents cannot even act or respond to questions as if moral subjectivism is true. They betray themselves as closet moral objectivists in denial, hiding from the implications of a morality they must live and act as if objective.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: atheism
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.”
- William J Murray

1 posted on 01/17/2014 6:50:09 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following statements in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:

“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…( An Amoral Manifesto Part I )

2 posted on 01/17/2014 6:50:35 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
5. Only a sociopath can truly act as if morality is subjective. “Moral subjectivism” is a intellectual smokescreen.

For the last 30 or so years, our public school systems have employed subjective morality to teach children how to think about everything.

The plan was to separate children from their parent's moral bearings and children have been set adrift to fend for themselves morally.

Then we wonder how a kid could go into a school and shoot to kill his classmates.

Public education is creating sociopaths and Bill Ayers crows about their success.

3 posted on 01/17/2014 7:02:58 AM PST by Slyfox (We want our pre-existing HEALTH INSURANCE back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
"4. Would an atheist/materialist intervene if someone else was gratuitously torturing children? If they had the power to snap their fingers and eliminate this kind of activity from the world, would they do so? I suspect the answer to both would be: yes. Note how self-described moral subjectivists would treat their own personal preferences as if they were objectively valid and binding on others."

Although I agree with author up to this point, he is not necessarily correct on this point. The moral subjectivist here is not necessarily acting as if his ethic was objectinvly binding on others, rather, he is just imposing his will to achieve his subjective desires. He doesn't necessarily believe this will is "objectively valid and binding on others", he just feels no compunction in forcing others to do as he wishes becasuse that's what HE wants and he sees no reason not to. Objective ethics of "right" and "wrong" don't enter into it at all, just the personal desires of the actor - he's forcing others to act this way not because he thinks it's "right" but becasue it's what he wants. That's all subjective "morality" leaves, personal preference and social convention.

4 posted on 01/17/2014 7:07:18 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
No matter what Joel Marks says, their will always be a "philosophia perennis."

The truth endures and good Lord abides.

5 posted on 01/17/2014 7:07:23 AM PST by Slyfox (We want our pre-existing HEALTH INSURANCE back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Morals are metaphysical. Ideas are metaphysical. Concepts are metaphysical. Words have meanings....& meanings are metaphysical. You can’t touch, taste, smell, see, or hear the meaning of a word or an idea. Basically, “materialism” is the idea that there are no such thing as ideas—which is a logically contradiction, similar as saying “It is true that there is no such thing as truth”. Things have “value”. VALUE also is metaphysical. That’s liberals’ biggest problem and why Al Gore screwed up his Biblical quote about the heart & what it treasures. And why Democrats think that the more valuable something is, the cheaper it should be for consumers to buy, ie trickle-down stupidity.


6 posted on 01/17/2014 7:09:13 AM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I understand but this does not necessarily become an ‘either / or’ situation – it can also be a ‘both’. IOW the atheist could both think it is right, and do it because that is what he wants.


7 posted on 01/17/2014 7:14:40 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
"I understand but this does not necessarily become an ‘either / or’ situation – it can also be a ‘both’. IOW the atheist could both think it is right, and do it because that is what he wants."

No, because the whole concept of "right" the way you use it suggests an ethical norm and the initial assumption of a subjectivist leaves this out. Once he incorporates any concept of "rigiht" he is no longer a subjectivist but a hypocrite who assumes an objective ethic but cannot identify any foundation for the same. In that instance he is exactly what the author suggests. Thus, while what the author suggests in paragraph 4 is a possibility it is not the only conclusion, as my alternitive is equally possible.

8 posted on 01/17/2014 7:22:53 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
Don't Let This Happen To You
Stay Sharp With FR

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

9 posted on 01/17/2014 7:24:51 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Yes, 4 gives the atheist the benefit of the doubt that they are not a sociopath as stated in 5.


10 posted on 01/17/2014 7:26:55 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
"Yes, 4 gives the atheist the benefit of the doubt that they are not a sociopath as stated in 5."

Paragraph 5 merely reveals that "moral subjectivist" is a contradiction in terms and violates the law of non-contradiction. Morality presupposes an objective standard. Subjectivist excludes such a standard. Both by definition. One cannot be both at the same time. A cannot equal not-A.

11 posted on 01/17/2014 7:32:56 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9
"Basically, “materialism” is the idea that there are no such thing as ideas—which is a logically contradiction, similar as saying “It is true that there is no such thing as truth”."

Materialism assumes that reality is defined by the empirical, yet there is no basis in logic or reason for such an assumption. This a major contradiction for a worldview which prides itself on its reliance on "reason" as the ultimate arbiter.

12 posted on 01/17/2014 7:44:20 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Correct


13 posted on 01/17/2014 7:46:23 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
IOW, if my purpose is to make a frozen margarita, I ought put ice in the blender. If my purpose is to make fresh peanut butter, I ought not put ice in the blender.

If your purpose is to make a Dead Baby Float, what ought you then to put in the blender?

Regards,

14 posted on 01/17/2014 7:56:44 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Given two different Earths -

(a) an Earth on which morality was the result of cultural evolution, to the extent that all but two percent of humans had the same general concept of right and wrong, the remaining two percent being clinically sociopathic, and

(b) an Earth on which a God had instilled identical moral laws in all humans, but had also instilled the potential for rejecting those laws, and in which two percent of humans had taken advantage of that potential,

- how would an external observer tell the difference?


15 posted on 01/17/2014 7:56:57 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Mi tio es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
"If your purpose is to make a Dead Baby Float, what ought you then to put in the blender?"

The answer to that is the title of an Alice Cooper song on the "Killer" album.

16 posted on 01/17/2014 7:58:58 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"(a) an Earth on which morality was the result of cultural evolution,"

But that wouldn't be morality, rather, it would just be social convention.

17 posted on 01/17/2014 8:00:43 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
An interesting thought experiment but (a) takes liberty in assuming human conscience can ultimately be a result of mindlessness. I would contend that both human conscience and consciousness could not emerge from ‘mindlessness’ - and if it somehow did, it would not resemble scenario (b)…
18 posted on 01/17/2014 8:14:21 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Tell an atheist that they annoy you and ask them why you shouldn't just kill them, in order to end that annoyance.

Challenge every moral argument they make as being subjective to their point of view or reliant on Christian morals.

19 posted on 01/17/2014 8:34:19 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
1. If morality is subjective (by individual or group), as atheists/materialists claim, then what any individual/group ought to do is necessarily relative to that individual/group purpose.

The standard of value is the goal

2. The question “Is it moral to gratuitously torture children?”

Not if the ultimate goal and standard of value is life and life proper to a rational being. Life is the ultimate goal of a rational ethics based on reason and reality.

20 posted on 01/17/2014 8:54:50 AM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Not if the ultimate goal and standard of value is life and life proper to a rational being. Life is the ultimate goal of a rational ethics based on reason and reality.

Ultimate goal? Standard? Value? Rational being? Rational ethics? Reason?

The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called “ethical principles.” The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible.

Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.

Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
- Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson, The Evolution of Ethics

---------------------

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
---------------------

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist.
2) No life after death exists.
3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists.
4) No ultimate meaning in life exists.
5) Human free will is nonexistent.
- William Provine (from Darwin Day speech)

---------------------

stupid

/ˈstu•pɪd/ adj
lacking thought or intelligence:

Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.


21 posted on 01/17/2014 9:09:55 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

Basically, “materialism” is the idea that there are no such thing as ideas

<><><<><

Philosophical materialism suggests no such thing. It is an absurd position you have staked out with that statement.

The philosophical materialist would state that an idea is a mental process and mental processes physically exist in the brain.

You may disagree vehemently with the position, but it makes no sense to completely misstate the position they do take.


22 posted on 01/17/2014 9:16:04 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Materialism assumes that reality is defined by the empirical, yet there is no basis in logic or reason for such an assumption.

<><><><><

And the philosophical materialist - if honest - would agree with you. Their response would be very predictable. “I have no evidence of anything but the physical world”, and you - if honest - would have to agree. That you have faith in the existence of another realm of existence is not evidence of its existence.


23 posted on 01/17/2014 9:21:58 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

bookmark


24 posted on 01/17/2014 9:24:27 AM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

bm


25 posted on 01/17/2014 9:48:03 AM PST by Para-Ord.45 ( Americans, happy in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own dictators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

More precisely, the philosophical materialist would not admit to the concept of a purpose. A purpose is most definitely not a process, but everything is process to the materialist. They may say the illusion of a purpose is a process, but in order to say that they must use language that assumes the existence of purpose, because the use of language is not just random sounds, but rather sounds specifically ordered to convey an idea such that the purpose in one mind is copied to another mind. Each time the materialist communicates an idea, he betrays his own ideals.

We have been fighting this point since Democritus and Leucippus, yet they are still arguing it today, and the materialists of today are still no closer to explaining purpose.

David Hume tried, but came up with “You can’t get an ought from an is.” ... and he is right. An ought, meaning a purpose, has to be a self-evident concept or nothing else happens.

Materialists like Hawking and Dawkins have been trying to jam through the equivalence of purpose with a thought process, but they get no traction because it violates the everyday experience of nearly everyone with the ability of abstract thought.


26 posted on 01/17/2014 9:50:38 AM PST by Seraphicaviary (St. Michael is gearing up. The angels are on the ready line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Not if the ultimate goal and standard of value is life and life proper to a rational being. Life is the ultimate goal of a rational ethics based on reason and reality.

Something has to give here. If "life" is the goal of morality then it is not moral to help those with inferior genes. Moreover if morality is a byproduct of evolution, then it is also in error to not favor peoples who are similar to you genetically over those who are different than you genetically in many cases (not all--it could make genetic sense in some cases if the need to broaden your gene pool is greater than the pressures of competition for territory and resources).

Even Charles Darwin opined that taking care of weak individuals and invalids etc was moral--right after he pointed it out it was obviously contrary the good of our gene pool to do so. Seems this serves as a concrete counter-example to your premise unless Mr Darwin was quite mistaken.

Sorry, if materialism is correct, then modern concepts of ethics are obviously in error, and if you think it through no ethical statement would be either valid or not valid in the sense of the western notions we have of ethics and Natural Law that even our materialists seem to embrace in practice. Rather all ethical judgements would be echoes of the advantage of those having them and would be nor more valid than any other phenomena would be. You might as well decide if what a computer did was "ethical" when it followed a program. Or if a chair is "ethical" for just being about obeying the laws of physics.

27 posted on 01/17/2014 9:58:23 AM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"And the philosophical materialist - if honest - would agree with you. Their response would be very predictable. “I have no evidence of anything but the physical world”, and you - if honest - would have to agree."

No, I would not have to agree. I believe human experience shows that universal concepts such as logic, beauty, values, moral laws, etc. have just as much evidence for their independant objective existance and are just a "real" as gravity or any other aspect of the material word. Faith is not blind faith or a leap of faith - it is based on objective evidence.

28 posted on 01/17/2014 10:02:17 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

You have changed the definition of the word objective to suit your needs. Of the senses and subject to verification is entirely absent from your construction.


29 posted on 01/17/2014 10:07:11 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"You have changed the definition of the word objective to suit your needs. Of the senses and subject to verification is entirely absent from your construction."

No I have not. The existance of universal moral laws and values which have existed in every culture known to man is objective non emperical evidence of their existance. Logic is not empirical and cannont be discerned by the senses but exists indepedant of perception. Both are objective non empirical realilties. Both remain true whether you believe in them or not.

30 posted on 01/17/2014 10:11:12 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Seraphicaviary

Each time the materialist communicates an idea, he betrays his own ideals.

<><><><<<>

That is a significant misread of philosophical materialism. Nothing in the materialist bag of tricks suggests that communication of ideas is antimaterialist.


31 posted on 01/17/2014 10:18:11 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

No I have not.

<><><><

I’m sorry, but you have.

You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together.

Likewise, logic. The notion that A=A is an empirical observation that has been made into a ‘law’.

And before y’all join together to kick my a$$, I was philosophy major in college, having graduated 30 some years ago. I am not a strict materialist by any stretch, but folks do themselves no favors by being simply misinformed.


32 posted on 01/17/2014 10:29:38 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Agreed, math (or logic) isn’t something we imagine or make for ourselves, it’s something we discover. It points to a realm of objective reality beyond ours. Even if Pythagoras never lived the theorem, just differently named, eventually would have been revealed and still would be an objective truth.


33 posted on 01/17/2014 10:31:24 AM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together."

I most certainly can as these laws are universal and you can't provide a shred of evidence that they are "the result of trial and error", Many are counter-productive to survival and counter intuitive. I'm not even sure what "trial and error " means in this context of a demonstrably innate, universal phenomenon veiwed across widely separated groups in time and space that have had no interaction among each other.

Also please show me how you touch, taste, see, smell or hear A=A or A does not equal not-A. Please measure it it for me. I'm not sure what your being a philosophy major 30 years ago has to do with it - Alan Plantinga, chair of Philosophy at Notre Dame and one of the most, if not THE most, repsected American philosophers today agrees with my side of this argument. That doesn't in itself make it right but it certinly counter-balances your 30 year old major.

34 posted on 01/17/2014 11:18:47 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Alan = Alvin (typo)


35 posted on 01/17/2014 11:21:04 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Can I ask what the specific laws that make up universal morality including those which are counter-intuitive or counter-productive?


36 posted on 01/17/2014 11:45:56 AM PST by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
My sharing my degree and its age were indicative of why I am interested in the topic, and that I have studied it. It certainly was not intended as an argument from authority. I don't pretend I am. Just a personal anecdote. My apologies for that offense.

Funny thing about those who study and discuss philosophy, for anyone arguing abc, we can find another arguing xyz, in total contradiction to abc.

It doesn't surprise at all that someone like Alan Plantinga, apparently known for his Christian apologetics would take the position you state that he has taken (I confess to having never read any of his books).

And in response to this statement of yours: I most certainly can as these laws are universal and you can't provide a shred of evidence that they are "the result of trial and error"

I can only say, turn that statement around and see if it does not equally apply to your statement about moral laws being transcendant. Where's your proof?

37 posted on 01/17/2014 12:51:25 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dmz
As the article points out, absent absolute moral truths is a world where there is nothing wrong with gratuitously torturing children - where rape, torture, and murder are not wrong or evil. But only a sociopath would believe there is ‘nothing’ that is wrong or evil. Even the materialist appeals to a moral standard and morality implies how a human “ought” to behave.

Are you an atheist / materialist? - or just looking for logical fallacies…

38 posted on 01/17/2014 1:31:09 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Are you an atheist / materialist? - or just looking for logical fallacies…

<><><><>

I’m agnostic. Of the type that says “I don’t know”, not the type that says “it cannot be known”.

I don’t agree with the statement that in a world where there are no transcendant values, there is nothing wrong with gratuitously torturing children.

Accepting that it’s OK to gratuitously torturing children would completely shatter any social strucure in place, and early man figured out that the protections a social structure provides is more than enough incentive to curb those behaviors which destroy social structures. Thereby, the good (as it relates to the society) are those things that hold society together, and the wrong would be those things that tear society apart. To wit: murder, adultery, stealing, and bearing false witness against others.


39 posted on 01/17/2014 1:59:25 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dmz
You cannot presume, as you have, that those universal moral laws are transcendant, and not the result of trial and error in groups of humans living together.

You say he can not presume it...but you seem to mean he did; rather what you seem to mean is that if he does presume it his reasoning is not valid; if so you are using the priori that reason is objective to make this evaluation.

Trial and error in your example would have to do with discovering a moral system that is preferable to those with influence on its development. There are many such subsystems of morality, for example pork packages in legislatures being considered ok among experienced legislatures. But in real life, these examples are often degradations of morality rather than the discovery of it. Most of us judge pork to be unmoral. But then on a materialist view I am not sure how our judgement could be considered more valid than that of the pork peddling politician.

40 posted on 01/17/2014 2:10:02 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Accepting that it’s OK to gratuitously torturing children would completely shatter any social strucure in place, and early man figured out that the protections a social structure provides is more than enough incentive to curb those behaviors which destroy social structures. Thereby, the good (as it relates to the society) are those things that hold society together, and the wrong would be those things that tear society apart. To wit: murder, adultery, stealing, and bearing false witness against others.

Hmmm… Natural selection is merely death and is necessary according to neo-Darwinism. Male animals kill the babies of another male and then mate with the female. Killer whales toss around baby seals. Evolution does not need morality. Darwin even acknowledged that human morality lets the feeble and feeble minded survive - which would not normally happen.

Read post 21 - as Dawkins states:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

41 posted on 01/17/2014 2:30:22 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
"Can I ask what the specific laws that make up universal morality including those which are counter-intuitive or counter-productive?"

Sacrificial love for one.

42 posted on 01/17/2014 3:14:54 PM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I can only say, turn that statement around and see if it does not equally apply to your statement about moral laws being transcendant. Where's your proof?"

Human experience consistently repeated throughout history.

43 posted on 01/17/2014 3:15:44 PM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

I need to be more specific. You argue that there are universal laws that are innate and universal. What are they, specifically?


44 posted on 01/17/2014 3:43:22 PM PST by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
How would this look without universal laws?

We hold no truths to be self-evident, that all (men) are evolved based on chance, that they are endowed by a mindless chemical process from a mindless universal algorithm with uncertain inalienable illusions that among these are a delusion of life, and the pursuit of happenstance.

www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php

45 posted on 01/17/2014 9:14:16 PM PST by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Ping


46 posted on 01/18/2014 9:18:20 PM PST by Jayster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jayster; UnRuley1; mlizzy; Arthur McGowan; mc5cents; RichInOC; Prince of Space; JoeFromSidney; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

47 posted on 01/18/2014 9:22:52 PM PST by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson