The Moral Argument

[quatona]

The utter bankruptcy of naturalism is the fact that on such a worldview, the self-centered hedonistic coward that preys upon little children is simply doing what nature has caused him to do, while the altruistic humanist philanthropist that gives all that he has to the poor is simply doing what nature has caused him to do. Neither is better or worse off than the other. Neither is more noble or less noble, more honorable or less honorable than the other. Such notions only obtain in the event that they could have done otherwise. But the chain of cause and effect must forever remain unbroken. What is, will be the antecedent cause for what will be tomorrow.

I agree that conclusively determining that genocide and slaughtering of toddlers and children
a. there to be a God who commands it,
b. requires you to have an authoritarean mindset.
I agree that to me (not knowing that there is a God, not having an authoritarean mindset) the insight that genocide and slaughtering of toddlers and children is objectively right is not available.
I´ll leave it to you and Oncedeceived to defend that position.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The utter bankruptcy of naturalism is the fact that on such a worldview, the self-centered hedonistic coward that preys upon little children is simply doing what nature has caused him to do, while the altruistic humanist philanthropist that gives all that he has to the poor is simply doing what nature has caused him to do.

Um, what?

By naturalism, do you mean metaphysical naturalism? That isn't a position on ethics, and naturalists don't necessarily take the positions you are ascribing to them. You are putting words in their mouths.

You might want to address people who actually make the argument you've made above, so that you aren't just debating the voices in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Metaphysical naturalism has significant implications for ethics.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Homo sapiens find themselves living in a closed system.

Homo sapiens are simply constituents of a vast, unknowing, uncaring, impersonal, universe that is ever increasingly heading either to heat death or to a big crunch.

Snakes shed their skin, bears hibernate, some homo sapiens say "rape is bad", some burp and blink their eyes. We sneeze, we breathe.

The act of saying, "rape is bad" even on a non-reductive physicalistic interpretation, is explained solely by appealing to antecedent, natural causes. A homo sapien sneezes because the little hairs inside his nose are aggravated by dust. Some say "rape is bad" because certain atoms in their body are touched and stimulated in a certain way as to produce the sound that comes out of their mouth when they utter those words.

Moral denounements are by-products of chemical interactions in our bodies not unlike the exhaust from an internal combustion engine is a by-product of the explosions taking place within it.

We may think or feel strongly about such things, nevertheless, such feelings or thoughts owe their existence to antecedent natural causes. There is no "I" or "self" that is feeling or thinking. There are no intentional states.



This is metaphysical naturalism.

 

[quatona]

Metaphysical naturalism has significant implications for ethics.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Homo sapiens find themselves living in a closed system.

Homo sapiens are simply constituents of a vast, unknowing, uncaring, impersonal, universe that is ever increasingly heading either to heat death or to a big crunch.

Snakes shed their skin, bears hibernate, some homo sapiens say "rape is bad", some burp and blink their eyes. We sneeze, we breathe.

The act of saying, "rape is bad" even on a non-reductive physicalistic interpretation, is explained solely by appealing to antecedent, natural causes. A homo sapien sneezes because the little hairs inside his nose are aggravated by dust. Some say "rape is bad" because certain atoms in their body are touched and stimulated in a certain way as to produce the sound that comes out of their mouth when they utter those words.

Moral denounements are by-products of chemical interactions in our bodies not unlike the exhaust from an internal combustion engine is a by-product of the explosions taking place within it.

We may think or feel strongly about such things, nevertheless, such feelings or thoughts owe their existence to antecedent natural causes. There is no "I" or "self" that is feeling or thinking. There are no intentional states.



This is metaphysical naturalism.

Ok, let´s start telling each other what the other person thinks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Um, what?

By naturalism, do you mean metaphysical naturalism? That isn't a position on ethics, and naturalists don't necessarily take the positions you are ascribing to them. You are putting words in their mouths.

You might want to address people who actually make the argument you've made above, so that you aren't just debating the voices in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

He doesn't care to address what people actually say.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Metaphysical naturalism has significant implications for ethics.

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Given that you've defined "objective moral values and duties" as "God-given moral values and duties"... You know what? Never mind. You aren't interested in sincere discourse, so it would be pointless...

Homo sapiens are simply constituents of a vast, unknowing, uncaring, impersonal, universe that is ever increasingly heading either to heat death or to a big crunch.

Impersonal? According to who? Are we not part of the universe? Are we not persons capable of caring?

Moral denounements are by-products of chemical interactions in our bodies not unlike the exhaust from an internal combustion engine is a by-product of the explosions taking place within it.

Given their immense importance to human life, I don't think you can compare moral statements to exhaust. But I guess I should bear in mind that you don't particularly care for an honest dialogue on this anyway...

We may think or feel strongly about such things, nevertheless, such feelings or thoughts owe their existence to antecedent natural causes. There is no "I" or "self" that is feeling or thinking. There are no intentional states.

This is metaphysical naturalism.

Who says that there is no "I" or "self" that is feeling or thinking? You have set up a strawman to knock down. Well done. Do let us know when you're interested in having a sincere discussion.

 

[quatona]

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.


We may think or feel strongly about such things, nevertheless, such feelings or thoughts owe their existence to antecedent natural causes.

That sounds a lot like they have an objective source - way more than declaring the opinion of an entity "objective".

 

[anonymous person]

The synopsis given on metaphysical naturalism is the standard synopsis one finds in university level course material.

 

[quatona]

The synopsis given on metaphysical naturalism is the standard synopsis one finds in university level course material.

More like sunday school level material.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If metaphysical naturalism is true, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

That's only your interpretation. It's not a requirement of being a metaphysical naturalist.

Homo sapiens find themselves living in a closed system.

A universe with a God is a closed system. Any system that represents everything is a closed system.

Homo sapiens are simply constituents of a vast, unknowing, uncaring, impersonal, universe that is ever increasingly heading either to heat death or to a big crunch.

Metaphysical naturalism does not require such reductionism. Human beings are still human beings, not mere "constituents" of something else. That is loaded language.

Snakes shed their skin, bears hibernate, some homo sapiens say "rape is bad", some burp and blink their eyes. We sneeze, we breathe.

We think, we dream, we judge, we love, we value.

The act of saying, "rape is bad" even on a non-reductive physicalistic interpretation, is explained solely by appealing to antecedent, natural causes.

No, it's explained by appealing to a human being's natural intelligence. You actually are trying to force a reductive physical interpretation.

This is metaphysical naturalism.

No, those are the voices in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's only your interpretation. It's not a requirement of being a metaphysical naturalist.



A universe with a God is a closed system. Any system that represents everything is a closed system.



Metaphysical naturalism does not require such reductionism. Human beings are still human beings, not mere "constituents" of something else. That is loaded language.



We think, we dream, we judge, we love, we value.



No, it's explained by appealing to a human being's natural intelligence. You actually are trying to force a reductive physical interpretation.



No, those are the voices in your head.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You know he has run out of arguments when he starts making up positions to attack.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You know he has run out of arguments when he starts making up positions to attack.

It smells like a rewording of some apologetic -- I don't know from whom -- making some attack on metaphysical naturalism. I doubt that he personally has made up any of this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

When dealing with matters of human interaction the human perspective seems quite appropriate.
I wouldn´t even know why whatever "objective (=non-human) perspective" would be so desirable to have around, to begin with. I guess that´s why all these arguments frorm consequence ("With/without [....] there is no objective morality."] are lost on me, even if their reasoning were sound.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ISIS is acting out the Quran's directives and not basing it on any first hand experience with their god. That was not the case with the Israelites. They had first hand experience with God during the deal with Pharaoh and during their journey from Egypt. So it is not the same.

One group claims that their God justifies the killing of men, women, and children; another group claims the same. What is different about it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This seems to me a little nonsensical as well juvenile. Why would that make me feel better?

Apparantly, it makes you feel better that the Israelites claimed to carry out the genocidal acts after Jawhe ordered them to do it....

If that was true

It is true. It's right there in your book.
Your god didn't come down to kill these women and children.
It were Israelites doing it, claiming to be instructed by their god to do so.

, and the culture thought this was morally right and morality is subjective to the culture do you think they were acting immorally and by which standard are you using?

A 21st century standard.
And I don't subscribe to "subjective morality". What I subscribe to, would be more something like "pseudo-subjective".

All I require are 2 premises, as common ground:
- well-being and prosperity for all is good
- suffering for all is bad

From there, we can use reason to conclude what is moral and isn't moral. And we can do that in a pretty objective way.

If you disagree with the 2 premises, then I don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: fixed below quoting issue - didn't alter post content

ISIS is acting out the Quran's directives and not basing it on any first hand experience with their god. That was not the case with the Israelites. They had first hand experience with God during the deal with Pharaoh and during their journey from Egypt. So it is not the same.

I don't see how it is not the same.
Both claim to have instructions from god.

I did say that but you are taking it out of context. God knows the future of the children and what they will do in the future.

I'm not taking anything out of context.
And remember that whenever you say "god knows", what you really mean is "israelites claimed that god knows".

Thirdly, it makes no sense. You and I both know that if you take a 2-week old baby from culture X and have it adopted in culture Y, it will grow up to be part of culture Y, not X.

Social contructs and behaviour are things that you are taught. They are not determined by your DNA.

It is part of my argument. If they were going to spend an eternity in hell prior to dying but they are now spending it in Heaven then that is a good thing. That doesn't mean that I then believe that it is best if all children die so they go to Heaven and I never claimed that.

That completely undermines your own argument.
And it's sad that you are to stubborn to get that.

I said: Like I said, I do not have the necessary information to pass judgement on any people and only God possesses this information. God is the arbitrator of life and has this necessary information to make a moral judgement against evil.

2-week old babies aren't "evil" - no matter what people claim their god says.

You didn't comment. Did you miss it or did you ignore it?

No. I'm quite sure that I said that babies aren't evil, no matter what gods say or are claimed to say.

If a god wants a 2-week old baby killed, then that god is not moral.

I didn't forget did you?
Dirty games?
Abortion is just as relevant as the OT passages you are citing.
You don't believe that abortion is brutally killing children? Babies? Are you defending abortion then?

A baby is a born human.
Abortion is not part of this discussion.

The discussion is about people killing women and children in the name of a god.
The discussion is not about women terminating a pregnancy.
There are other threads for that.

My feelings however are not the issue.

That's the thing... maybe you should make it the issue......
Maybe you should try to reason about it for yourself, instead of swallowing your moral code in tablet form (to quote The Hitch)

My interaction in this discussion is pointing out the act in a Biblical sense and providing reason for the actions God took.

Once more... God didn't take any actions. PEOPLE took actions claiming god ordered them to.

You know, in discussions about "theistic" morality, I oftenly ask the question "would it be moral to rape someone if god commanded me to?".
99% of the time, the answer I get is something like "...god would never command such a thing"

I'ld say the brutal genocidal murder of toddlers and babies is a LOT worse then raping someone.

Perhaps you should think about that.

This aligns with the question of objective morality vs. subjective morality.

Idd. This aligns with "reason about it, think it through" or "just accept whatever the perceived authority tells you and just obbey".

Thanks, this is a great illustration of the moral bankrupcy of "divine command theory".
This is what it leads to...... defending the practice of genocidal killing of women and children. And even calling it a good thing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, then show me the verse that directly links the "cities at a distance from you" with the accounts of human sacrifice.

God specified the ones that were of these listed in the agenda God set forth, the majority of them worshiped Baal or Molech which involved child sacrifice.

HUMAN SACRIFICES AS WORSHIP TO BAAL AT BAALBEK TEMPLES
Beginning with the founding of the Phoenician colony of Carthage in about 814 BC, mothers and fathers buried their children who were sacrificed to Baal. The practice was apparently distasteful even to Carthaginians, and they began to buy children for the purpose of sacrifice or even to raise servant children, instead of offering up their own. However, in times of crisis or calamity, like war, earthquakes, drought, or famine, their priests demanded the flower of their youth. Special ceremonies during extreme crisis saw up to 200 children of the most affluent and powerful families slain and tossed into the burning pyre. During the political crisis of 310 B.C., some 500 were killed. On a moonlit night, the body was placed on the arms of an effigy of Baal made of brass. The Priests lit fires that heated the effigies from its lower parts. The victims were placed on the burning hot outstretched hands. As they were burned alive they vehemently cried out. The priests beat a drum sounded flutes, lyres, and tambourines. This drowned out the cries of the anguished parents. The father could not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

http://www.ancientdestructions.com/baalbek-temple-human-sacrifice-worship-baal/

I'm taking the accounts in the Bible as a given. I may not believe in the divine aspects, but I'll take those as a given as well. I do believe that most of the accounts in the Bible happened, but maybe not some of the specifics. For instance, I believe the Israelites went to war a lot. I believe they conquered cities. I believe that cities named in the Bible as conquered cities were conquered by the Israelites. I believe that the practices described in the Bible about other peoples did happen to some extent, though I think the Israelites may have exaggerated some. I believe that the Israelites did the things they said they did in the context of enforcing the law and dictating what that law is, and that is the most important thing of all.

The only thing I won't take as a given is the justification for the acts described in the Bible. That is what we will discuss.

Fair enough, I don't know what you mean by other peoples did these things to some extent. To what extent do you believe they did them and if they did them at all does that make any difference and if so why? The Canaanite religion was overtaking other nations and instilling this horrendous practice throughout.

As far as the law is concerned, we know that while not condoning divorce God allowed it during the time of Moses.

"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she find no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and give [it] in her hand, and sends her out from his house. And she is leaves his house, and goes and becomes another man's [wife], And [if] the latter husband turns against her, and writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife; [Then] her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."

Jesus explained that it was due to the culture and the people's ways that He allowed it for a time but Jesus said that He didn't want that. So we know from the mouth of God according to the Bible that God allowed laws to be made that were not condoned by Him but that He allowed them due to the times involved.


Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, ANDTHE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SENDherAWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

First of all, as we know people sometimes twist what is found in the Bible and in this case that is exactly what the Pharisees did. Moses never commanded they give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. And we know how God feels about divorce here:
Malachi 2:14-16 God states "The Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously... 'For I hate divorce' says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'and him who covers his garment is wrong.' " So while Moses gave the law for what to do in a divorce, God didn't condone it. This is a very specific example but if we have Jesus confirming that God allowed some behavior that He even hated due to the times and the culture and the mindset (free will)He restrained or instructed them within that framework.

The issue at hand is that Christians in this thread are trying to prove the existence of objective morals. If I start believing in the Judaeo-Christian God, I have to stop believing that rape is objectively immoral, genocide is objectively immoral, slavery is objectively immoral, etc... It seems like The Bible is the ultimate source for morals being subjective, and I don't see how it has a place in this argument of objective morality. So we are going through all the horrible stuff in The Bible, one by one, as you try to justify it, that is what we are doing. This is why I asked you early on what objective morals are in the Bible other than "obey God", and "worship God", but you didn't want to answer.

Yes, we are trying to demonstrate that objective morals exist. There is no reason to stop believing that rape is objectively immoral, or that genocide is objectively wrong or even slavery is objectively wrong. God knew Israel wasn't capable of rising above certain social ills of their day. He was taking them from where they were and pointing them to a better way. Slavery was deeply entrenched in the economic system of the time, and to try and remove it would have caused more havoc and problems than would have been solved. There was no other system known at the time. There were no bankruptcy laws then. There was no welfare system. So God gave specific commandments to make sure that relationship wasn't permanent nor life threatening. God doesn't endorse the institution, but allowed it for a time, until a better way was found. In Israel there were very strict restrictions on females going out alone without proper supervision. The laws were given more for the protection of the women as society of the times didn't award rights to a women at all and in most communities of the times there were no punishment at all for raping. So again we see certain laws for the case of rape, not condoning the practice but what should be done in accordance to the crime. Just as our laws do not condone the actions from which they arise but the consequences for them.

Nope, my argument has been about what is permitted. If it was permitted, then it is not objectively immoral to do it. It doesn't even matter if there was ever one instance of it happening, it would still be a moral code that says, "you can do this".

See above.

I answered it once, and you said you worded it wrong. I don't want to answer again until you word it exactly the way you want it to be worded.

I clarified my statement...not including accidental death.

Please answer the question, and then you can ask yours. If a soldier decides to keep his captive as a wife, and then forces her to have marital intercourse with him and she resists, who is acting immorally?

As above the practice of taking women and from all civilizations of the time, women were prizes of war. Still to this day, raping women is still used as a tool in war. Making laws about an act does not mean it is condoning the act. All the nations around Israel took captives but they were just flesh for the victors and they never married them, killed any young that came about from abusing them and their lives were filled with suffering and humiliation. Now we see the Israelites taking captives but now they have to treat them differently than the customs dictated. They had to marry these women and raise the children as their own even with them inheriting the wealth of the men. They were treated as family and in fact were the matrons in the families. Maybe not the best (no captives at all, no war at all, no victims at all) but that wasn't what happened in that culture. The culture all around gave no rights or good to those they captured. So this was pointing the Jews towards God's desire that all women be loved as a man loves Himself. So while I don't condone the practices that are depicted in the Bible and have just as much moral distaste for them, I look at what was being done in the Jews pointing towards a better place. IF God had commanded all Canaanites to be killed (which He didn't and told Israel to drive them out in some instances)it was due to their horrendous actions that would never go to a better place but would drag others down with them. They infected all the areas which they had defeated the people, their religion taking over all others.

Once you've answered my questions about rape, then I swear I'll talk to you about abortion till you're blue in the face. I don't want to have to handle 100 different topics at once. So all it takes are concrete answers, not answering questions with questions.

I understand how hard it is to address so many issues in a thread. So now I've answered.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One group claims that their God justifies the killing of men, women, and children; another group claims the same. What is different about it?

First hand experience of God and outward demonstration of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First hand experience of God and outward demonstration of it.

Yeah, they claimed to be acting at the behest of a deity, just like ISIS does.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God specified the ones that were of these listed in the agenda God set forth, the majority of them worshiped Baal or Molech which involved child sacrifice.

So Yahweh's brilliant plan to save the children from being sacrificed was to have them killed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ethical subjectivism is not equivalent to moral relativism/nihilism.

Is not Ethical Subjectivism individual relativism? If not why?