Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

 

[BigV]

This reminds me of Matthew Dillahunty's take. Which I agree with it. Dillahunty goes to objective morality as follows:

1. We must agree that human wellness of all people is the ultimate goal of society. This is the starting point.

What did you mean by "removing" the "inferior" people? Remember, point 1 says that we ought to promote wellness of all people. "inferior" and otherwise.

Matt Dillahunty - Wikipedia

 

[BigV]

Sorry, point 2 was supposed to be everything that furthers human wellness is going to be objectively good.

 

[Ken-1122]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

I would ask him to objectively prove promoting human wellness is good, and causing human harm is bad.

 

[Ken-1122]

This reminds me of Matthew Dillahunty's take. Which I agree with it. Dillahunty goes to objective morality as follows:

1. We must agree that human wellness of all people is the ultimate goal of society. This is the starting point.

I think the question was about right vs wrong, not what should be the ultimate goal of society.

 

[Ophiolite]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

A handful of thoughts:

1. He isn't a candidate for winning Logician of the Year.
2. It's people like him who give atheists a bad name.
3. Your request he provide an objective definition was well targeted. I would have asked him how he quantifies wellness.
4. As a social species, survival of a community may require, in the view of the community, "extreme harm" be applied to some members of that community. (It's why the US still has the death penalty.)
5. I make these observations as someone who is, in relation to the Christian God, an atheist.

 

[Ken-1122]

everything that furthers human wellness is going to be objectively good.

Can you demonstrate that is true?

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is what Sam Harris has bequeathed us. Lousy arguments for objective morality.

 

[BigV]

Can you demonstrate that is true?

As I understand it, we must agree that human wellness is good. That's the basis of our morality.

Of course, you can't demonstrate it to everyone, especially to the psychopaths or people like that.

 

[BigV]

A handful of thoughts:

1. He isn't a candidate for winning Logician of the Year.
2. It's people like him who give atheists a bad name.
3. Your request he provide an objective definition was well targeted. I would have asked him how he quantifies wellness.
4. As a social species, survival of a community may require, in the view of the community, "extreme harm" be applied to some members of that community. (It's why the US still has the death penalty.)
5. I make these observations as someone who is, in relation to the Christian God, an atheist.

So, what do you believe about morality? The US had slavery in the past also, as well as the genocide of Native American Indians. Was that all good since it benefited the survival of members of that (i.e. European Immigrant) community?

 

[durangodawood]

This is what Sam Harris has bequeathed us. Lousy arguments for objective morality.

I always thought that human wellness as an objective basis for morality was a pretty strong idea.

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

I think the question was about right vs wrong, not what should be the ultimate goal of society.

Correct. His argument was not one of policy or value (though in actuality, it was value), but factual.

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

I always thought that human wellness as an objective basis for morality was a pretty strong idea.

I agree that it is, but the problem is that you need to something external, something to maintain the consistency or something like that. Otherwise, if it becomes dependent on what we can all "agree" on, then we're entering into bandwagon logic.

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

A handful of thoughts:

1. He isn't a candidate for winning Logician of the Year.
2. It's people like him who give atheists a bad name.
3. Your request he provide an objective definition was well targeted. I would have asked him how he quantifies wellness.
4. As a social species, survival of a community may require, in the view of the community, "extreme harm" be applied to some members of that community. (It's why the US still has the death penalty.)
5. I make these observations as someone who is, in relation to the Christian God, an atheist.

Granted, I did make it apparent that I was arguing from a Christian worldview; I have my own authority, which he understood. I was thinking that I was missing something or some new argument. Tried watching youtube vidz, well just a few, but didn;t really get any clear answers.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, what do you believe about morality?

The general tone of your post seems quite confrontational. I'm not clear why that is and shall do my best to ignore it.

What do I believe about morality? In what sense? It's function in society? The origin of the moral sense? Whether or not it is objective, or subjective, situational or absolute? Specific moral positions I hold to? To address all of the possibilities would be impractical. Can you be more specific?

While I am waiting for you to clarify, I shall say this: I think morals are an expression of behaviours that have evolved and that are generally appropriate for a social, sentient and sapient animal. My own morals emerged from a Christian upbringing, I set great store by the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the specifics are often in accord with socialist leaning, tree hugging sceptics.

The US had slavery in the past also, as well as the genocide of Native American Indians. Was that all good since it benefited the survival of members of that (i.e. European Immigrant) community?

I don't think any of that was good. Quite the reverse. Slavery, in any form, is unacceptable. Genocide is an abomination.

That you ask the question suggests you think I might somehow approve of these. Did you take that from my observation that: "As a social species, survival of a community may require, in the view of the community, "extreme harm" be applied to some members of that community." Obviously, in the view of segments of the European Immigrant community slavery and native American genocide were good things. That does not mean I think it is a good thing.

On the other hand we are facing a situation in which triage of those affected with the Corona-virus may lead to "extreme harm" to older members of the community. That is a good thing compared with the alternative. (I speak as one who would be on the loosing side.)

 

[durangodawood]

I agree that it is, but the problem is that you need to something external, something to maintain the consistency or something like that. Otherwise, if it becomes dependent on what we can all "agree" on, then we're entering into bandwagon logic.

Well "God" is just something we all (traditionally) just agree on too. There's no objective God we can show each other. Now that's a bandwagon.

At least with well being as a standard we can observe the effects of various behaviors and see how they cause health/happiness or sickness/misery.

 

[Ken-1122]

As I understand it, we must agree that human wellness is good. That's the basis of our morality.

Everybody doesn't agree on which actions constitutes "human wellness" let alone if it is good, second; morality isn't determined by human wellness.

Of course, you can't demonstrate it to everyone, especially to the psychopaths or people like that.

Thus moral subjectivity not objectivity.

 

[Ken-1122]

Correct. His argument was not one of policy or value (though in actuality, it was value), but factual.

Morality is not about policy or value. IMO his point was insufficient to be applied to morality

 

[Hans Blaster]

I always thought that human wellness as an objective basis for morality was a pretty strong idea.

It's definitely an interesting idea.

I think its problems mostly are the vagueness of the idea, or rather how well it generalizes. In some example cases, it doesn't seem to be hard to show how one choice would be objectively better than others. [Recalling that "objective" means that virtually all outsiders would make the same judgement, not to be confused as some (*cough* WLC *cough*) would with an absolutist or imposed correctness/morality.]

But we still have to make choices (that don't seem to be fully objective) about how to balance the well being of the individual and groups of various sizes and membership. For example, how should my well being be balanced with the well being of your family (of which I am not a member) in prioritizing choices. It's not simple at all.

 

[durangodawood]

It's definitely an interesting idea.

I think its problems mostly are the vagueness of the idea, or rather how well it generalizes. In some example cases, it doesn't seem to be hard to show how one choice would be objectively better than others. [Recalling that "objective" means that virtually all outsiders would make the same judgement, not to be confused as some (*cough* WLC *cough*) would with an absolutist or imposed correctness/morality.]

But we still have to make choices (that don't seem to be fully objective) about how to balance the well being of the individual and groups of various sizes and membership. For example, how should my well being be balanced with the well being of your family (of which I am not a member) in prioritizing choices. It's not simple at all.

Yes, its absolutely not simple. Thats we we see a hundred different flavors of individual vs group morality across various human cultures (and even across various Christian cultures, all of which claim the same absolute basis for morality).

Also, human well being requires certain allowances for individual interests as well as the preservation of the group. There's constant tension there. And it takes real wisdom to discern the right balance that minimizes suffering in an enduring way. Still, the standard is essentially objective: the human well being and the minimizing of suffering in some kind of stable way.