Cracking our humanitarian teeth on Godless Human Rights ...

[Caliban]

The data that comes by seeing additional spiritual patterns in the world that lend themselves to the further growth of a sense of coherency about the claimed 'truths' of Christianity. But without going to far afield, I'm going to shortcircuit this statement of mine for the purpose of not taking us astray from the focal point of this thread: the focal point being that neither you nor I, all by ourselves, has any really substantial ontological & axiological justification for claiming the ethical viewpoints that we do, respectively.

So, at this point in our discussion, I can actually just kick the Bible to the curb and let it sit and stifle in the watery gutter of secularist pretension. For me to cut down other people's ethical over-assertions, I don't need the Bible for that, just the tools of Philosophy (which again, is the focal point of this thread).

As I've told another poster here in this same thread who was asking essentially similar questions to the one your aking---I don't and I won't be doing any demonstrations (if they could be had .... which I don't think that directly can other than me giving you a hug and asking you what I can help you with in life). Otherwise, this will suddenly become an 'apologetics' thread and apologetics isn't allowed here in this section of the Forums. Of course, as I stated above, I don't need the bible or its assumptions to cut apart the fragility of modern day ethics. That can be done with philosophical tools.

I will leave you with this one little teaser of an answer, though, since you posed the question that you did: you'll have to understand that the field of Biblical Epistemology is a thing, an academic thing, and you'd have to engage it in order to gain at least some additional insight about the epistemology that the Bible infers or states. But enough about that. Back to the fragility of Modern Human Rights thinking, whether that be yours or mine ... two approaches that, though they differ, still hold some form of Human Rights as valuable to the human existential condition. The question though is: are they true and are they prescriptive for human conduct?

I am aware that people engage in Biblical Epistemology, but they are small in number in academia and I see no compelling reason those ideas correspond with reality. You have made many assertions throughout this thread, but when pressed, you decline supporting them with evidence. Please be understanding when a person who's viewpoint your thread criticizes, asked for evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am aware that people engage in Biblical Epistemology, but they are small in number in academia and I see no compelling reason those ideas correspond with reality. You have made many assertions throughout this thread, but when pressed, you decline supporting them with evidence. Please be understanding when a person who's viewpoint your thread criticizes, asked for evidence.

You asked for evidence? Where and why?

Didn't I just explain to you what the overall context of this thread is? Did you miss that? I'll repeat it: I will not devolve into a discussion of general apologetics for this thread, so you're inquiry into whatever my theology is a moot point since apologetics is prohibited here, not by my choice but by the rules of CF. If you don't like this current rule, then take it up with CF rather than imputing some "failure" on my part to produce so-called demonstrations. Of course, being that I'm a Methodological Naturalist, I don't assume that 'God' can be demonstrated in the world around us in clear fashion even if CF did allow apologetics in this section.

No, what you and I NEED to do here is test our respective epistemic, ontological and axiological assumptions (because that's what they are) regarding the nature of the modern conceptualizations of Human Rights. This will not be another "the Christian has to defend his point of view only and no one else does" kind of thread.

I'm here in this thread to 'crack some axiological teeth,' not build up people's positive moral sensibilities. Kapeesh?

So, let's start. How is "well-being" not a wax-nose of a term, one that is too languid a term to really mean much of anything that offers more than a mere descriptive note in the long development of human ethics. It's hardly a notation by which to hang one's moral and ethical hat. It's kind of anemic if you ask me. It's not a dead term, but it is somewhat languid as a term and doesn't to my mind offer much in the way of moral prescriptive substance.

 

[Caliban]

You asked for evidence? Where and why?

Didn't I just explain to you what the overall context of this thread is? Did you miss that? I'll repeat it: I will not devolve into a discussion of general apologetics for this thread, so you're inquiry into whatever my theology is a moot point since apologetics is prohibited here, not by my choice but by the rules of CF. If you don't like this current rule, then take it up with CF rather than imputing some "failure" on my part to produce so-called demonstrations. Of course, being that I'm a Methodological Naturalist, I don't assume that 'God' can be demonstrated in the world around us in clear fashion even if CF did allow apologetics in this section.

No, what you and I NEED to do here is test our respective epistemic, ontological and axiological assumptions (because that's what they are) regarding the nature of the modern conceptualizations of Human Rights. This will not be another "the Christian has to defend his point of view only and no one else does" kind of thread.

I'm here in this thread to 'crack some axiological teeth,' not build up people's positive moral sensibilities. Kapeesh?

So, let's start. How is "well-being" not a wax-nose of a term, one that is too languid a term to really mean much of anything that offers more than a mere descriptive note in the long development of human ethics. It's hardly a notation by which to hang one's moral and ethical hat. It's kind of anemic if you ask me. It's not a dead term, but it is somewhat languid as a term and doesn't to my mind offer much in the way of moral prescriptive substance.

I understand that you do want want this thread to veer off into apologetics; but I am not asking for anything like that. When I ask anyone to provide evidence for a claim or an ascertain, I am not asking them to do apologetics, or to do anything I am not willing to do myself. I don't know many educated people who will disagree with the statement that, all claims require evidence.

I don't know if well-being is a wax nose, at least not anymore than any other moralistic construct. For instance, if a religious text says to love your neighbor as yourself--that will require interpretation and context in order to understand the command. Is neighbor to be understood as all humanity; as ones physical neighbor; or, as some Hebrew Bible scholars now understand it--as ones religious and kin group. And, there are likely other readings of this NT passage. If well-being is a wax nose because it is malleable and vulnerable to semantic change--then it parallels any other standard which objectivity becomes controversial. Because of this, I think ALL standards of morality are imperfect. Humans simply do not always agree on what is right or wrong. Every system will include elements of subjectivity. Theology makes no improvement on this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is a source describing the development of the development of secular approached to law in Europe. The Nuremberg Trials are a classic example.

Langlois attempts to ground Natural Law in the concept of divinity. He means more than the fact that Natural Law develops from the ideas of theistic belief; he suggests that Natural law is inextricable from an actual divine source. I don't know how one could ever demonstrate that.

As for your source, when I click on the link, all I get is an abstract page. Do you have access to the entire article?

 

[Caliban]

As for your source, when I click on the link, all I get is an abstract page. Do you have access to the entire article?

Sorry no. It is a book I have and, after a quick search, I realize it is too expensive on Amazon. I will search for a source by the same author which addresses the same point but is more accessible.

 

[Caliban]

As for your source, when I click on the link, all I get is an abstract page. Do you have access to the entire article?

Here are a couple of interesting links concerning the development of secular law.

From George Holyoake’s book, The Reasoner (1871).


Constructing the Secular: Law and Religion Jurisprudence in Europe and the United States
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/94

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here are a couple of interesting links concerning the development of secular law.

From George Holyoake’s book, The Reasoner (1871).


Constructing the Secular: Law and Religion Jurisprudence in Europe and the United States
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/94

I'm already familiar with the development of secular law and the general contours of the developments in the philosophy of law that have taken place over the past 2,000 years. So, while I appreciate your source, it's not really addressing the focal point of this thread. The focal point of this thread is that ALL ethical viewpoints are criticizable from various angles, even those pertaining to modern conceptualizations and assumptions of ethics and Human Rights. None that are pure human constructs are perfect and thus above and beyond critical deconstruction.

So, the point and object of the OP article/book chapter from Langlois is to provide those so engaging it a survey of the various points of view and the basic ideas behind each one. This is not a "I'm really, secretly trying to support Natural Law" thread. No, that's not my objective.

 

[Caliban]

I'm already familiar with the development of secular law and the general contours of the developments in the philosophy of law that have taken place over the past 2,000 years. So, while I appreciate your source, it's not really addressing the focal point of this thread. The focal point of this thread is that ALL ethical viewpoints are criticizable from various angles. None that are pure human constructs are perfect and thus above and beyond critical deconstruction.

Well, of course human constructs are imperfect, how could they not be. I think you are entertaining the possibility that there is some Platonic moral construct out there and that humans have access to this knowledge. I see zero evidence for that. There is no religion which can provide it, no philosophy that can show it--I don's see how any construct of morality you hold to is any more sound than another. You say all "human constructs" are imperfect--obviously implying the presence of a non-human construct. Where? How can I also measure this objective source of morality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, of course human constructs are imperfect, how could they not be. I think you are entertaining the possibility that there is some Platonic moral construct out there and that humans have access to this knowledge. I see zero evidence for that. There is no religion which can provide it, no philosophy that can show it--I don's see how any construct of morality you hold to is any more sound than another. You say all "human constructs" are imperfect--obviously implying the presence of a non-human construct. Where? How can I also measure this objective source of morality?

...I just SAID that this thread isn't a secret rendezvous with Natural Law thinking. It's also NOT a rendezvous with Platonic moral constructs, at least not in a fashion that Plato would have envisioned as far as I know.

Stop this assumption of "implication" on my part. If I intended to imply any of this in this specific thread, then I would say so, like I did in another thread via another route of thinking, and if that kind of ethical scenario of debate is what interests you more, and you're suspicious over the various points I may be attempting to state here, then have a look at this other thread instead...

When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

 

[Caliban]

...I just SAID that this thread isn't a secret rendezvous with Natural Law thinking. It's also NOT a rendezvous with Platonic moral constructs, at least not in a fashion that Plato would have envisioned as far as I know.

Stop this assumption of "implication" on my part. If I intended to imply any of this in this specific thread, then I would say so, like I did in another thread via another route of thinking, and if that kind of ethical scenario of debate is what interests you more, and you're suspicious over the various points I may be attempting to state here, then have a look at this other thread instead...

When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

I am actually doing the very thing you mentioned in your OP. I have engaged you with the ideas of Langlois, I have asked for reasons why I should believe in a metaphysical ethic (paragraph 1 one of your OP), and I am discussing it's problems (paragraph 3). All of that is straight out of the first three paragraphs of your initial post.

You seem reluctant to defend claims. In paragraph 1 of your OP, you write, "...Humanity, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics...." You are correct about the increasing number of people rejecting a metaphysical basis for ethics and morality; I am just asking why shouldn't I? I am not assuming anything you didn't explicitly write. In post 1, paragraph 3, you say we should discuss the "problems" of modern Human Rights. Let's discuss it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am actually doing the very thing you mentioned in your OP. I have engaged you with the ideas of Langlois, I have asked for reasons why I should believe in a metaphysical ethic (paragraph 1 one of your OP), and I am discussing it's problems (paragraph 3). All of that is straight out of the first three paragraphs of your initial post.

You seem reluctant to defend claims. In paragraph 1 of your OP, you write, "...Humanity, today, as it continues to increasingly reject a really substantial metaphysics...." You are correct about the increasing number of people rejecting a metaphysical basis for ethics and morality; I am just asking why shouldn't I? I am not assuming anything you didn't explicitly write. In post 1, paragraph 3, you say we should discuss the "problems" of modern Human Rights. Let's discuss it.

I'm not here in this thread to "give" you reasons for some particular, positive ethical view. I'm here instead to get people to dare to question THEIR OWN ethical assumptions.

You see, I don't flap open the Bible and just assume it's self-evidence or fully rationally defend-able. I can very well see WHY people today will want to criticize the O.T. ethics. However, what I don't think people do today is question the principles that intersperse their own assumptions about ethics and by which they then condescend to knock the crap out of the biblical God's directives.

See where am I going with this? I know one place where I'm not going, and that wouldn't be in the position to write out a 100,000 word post in order to try to beckon folks to follow----no, I'm just going to save time and laser-point "the problem."

And so, with that, the one problem that is ignored today is that the present Human Rights thinking, such as it is in official, World level organizations, has no real grounding of any ontological substance. And in this, I'm citing Michael Freeman, such as in the following articles [the 1st can't be accessed, but I provide it because I have it offline. The second and third should be accessible]:

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.

Freeman, Michael. "The problem of secularism in human rights theory." Hum. Rts. Q. 26 (2004): 375.​

And just to show that I do attempt to be balanced in my research, I'll set out the following article by Langlois where he questions Michael Freeman on the issue that you've been touching upon, however proximately it may be.

Langlois, Anthony J. "Human rights and modern liberalism: A critique." Political Studies 51, no. 3 (2003): 509-523.​

 

[Caliban]

I'm not here in this thread to "give" you reasons for some particular, positive ethical view. I'm here instead to get people to dare to question THEIR OWN ethical assumptions.

You see, I don't flap open the Bible and just assume it's self-evidence or fully rationally defend-able. I can very well see WHY people today will want to criticize the O.T. ethics. However, what I don't think people do today is question the principles that intersperse their own assumptions about ethics and by which they then condescend to knock the crap out of the biblical G

I'm not here in this thread to "give" you reasons for some particular, positive ethical view. I'm here instead to get people to dare to question THEIR OWN ethical assumptions.

You see, I don't flap open the Bible and just assume it's self-evidence or fully rationally defend-able. I can very well see WHY people today will want to criticize the O.T. ethics. However, what I don't think people do today is question the principles that intersperse their own assumptions about ethics and by which they then condescend to knock the crap out of the biblical God's directives.

See where am I going with this? I know one place where I'm not going, and that wouldn't be in the position to write out a 100,000 word post in order to try to beckon folks to follow----no, I'm just going to save time and laser-point "the problem."

And so, with that, the one problem that is ignored today is that the present Human Rights thinking, such as it is in official, World level organizations, has no real grounding of any ontological substance. And in this, I'm citing Michael Freeman, such as in the following articles [the 1st can't be accessed, but I provide it because I have it offline. The second and third should be accessible]:

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.

Freeman, Michael. "The problem of secularism in human rights theory." Hum. Rts. Q. 26 (2004): 375.​

And just to show that I do attempt to be balanced in my research, I'll set out the following article by Langlois where he questions Michael Freeman on the issue that you've been touching upon, however proximately it may be.

Langlois, Anthony J. "Human rights and modern liberalism: A critique." Political Studies 51, no. 3 (2003): 509-523.​

od's directives.

See where am I going with this? I know one place where I'm not going, and that wouldn't be in the position to write out a 100,000 word post in order to try to beckon folks to follow----no, I'm just going to save time and laser-point "the problem."

And so, with that, the one problem that is ignored today is that the present Human Rights thinking, such as it is in official, World level organizations, has no real grounding of any ontological substance. And in this, I'm citing Michael Freeman, such as in the following articles [the 1st can't be accessed, but I provide it because I have it offline. The second and third should be accessible]:

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.

Freeman, Michael. "The problem of secularism in human rights theory." Hum. Rts. Q. 26 (2004): 375.​

And just to show that I do attempt to be balanced in my research, I'll set out the following article by Langlois where he questions Michael Freeman on the issue that you've been touching upon, however proximately it may be.

Langlois, Anthony J. "Human rights and modern liberalism: A critique." Political Studies 51, no. 3 (2003): 509-523.​

If that is all you want this thread to be--that's cool. I would just recommend that in the future, you be willing to support your claims with evidence or don't make the claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If that is all you want this thread to be--that's cool. I would just recommend that in the future, you be willing to support your claims with evidence or don't make the claim.

Ok. But with all of the discussions I have here on C.F., what one claim have I made on this thread that you think I need to better explain or buttress?

 

[Caliban]

Ok. But with all of the discussions I have here on C.F., what one claim have I made on this thread that you think I need to better explain or buttress?

I would refer back to my petitions for evidence in posts 199, 201, and 203.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thats a rather substantial assertion. What data am I missing or do not have access to? I don't see how you might demonstrate a god actively withholds this information from some people and yet somehow admits other to suck knowledge. If I thought that was impossible, how would you show me my error?

I don't know 'how' God witholds information other than to just not give it to us. Again, you're asking for a demonstration, and here it is to my mind one that requires the implemenation of biblical epistemology. But, you've already stated that you don't think biblical epistemology is relevant, soooooooooooooo...................................that leaves me up the creek and without a paddle, because the explanation would require engagement with the epistemology that is (and should be) a part of Christian Theology. But, you don't want to engage that, yet proceed to ask for 'evidence.' The only evidence would be provided by statements in the Bible. But then, if I get into the Bible to explain the Bible, then I'm doing apologetics, which we can't do here.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? Besides, whether you do or don't, this thread is about challenging our respective ethical assumptions by which we evaluate other people's ethical (or unethical) ideas and actions.

 

[Caliban]

I don't know 'how' God witholds information other than to just not give it to us. Again, you're asking for a demonstration, and here it is to my mind one that requires the implemenation of biblical epistemology. But, you've already stated that you don't think biblical epistemology is relevant, soooooooooooooo...................................that leaves me up the creek and without a paddle, because the explanation would require engagement with the epistemology that is (and should be) a part of Christian Theology. But, you don't want to engage that, yet proceed to ask for 'evidence.' The only evidence would be provided by statements in the Bible. But then, if I get into the Bible to explain the Bible, then I'm doing apologetics, which we can't do here.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? Besides, whether you do or don't, this thread is about challenging our respective ethical assumptions by which we evaluate other people's ethical (or unethical) ideas and actions.

It's not my fault that any evidence you might point toward is outside of the jurisdiction of methodological naturalistic inquiry. How could a biblical Epistemology not include the presuppositions of theistic belief? That would involve an acceptance of metaphysical constructs that a naturalist does not hold. I am not attacking your belief, I am merely asking to see evidence that does not lead to circular reasoning on my part. For example, I would have to already accept the existence of the metaphysical in order to be convinced by any evidence to which it could point. How can I, as a one who is, thus far, unconvinced of the metaphysical, access any true evidence it exists, and therefore, the moral system it produces?

 

[zippy2006]

The other is side (and I keep coming back to this "other" side for some reason) is that if the practical is done because it works (and it does), then so sad for the folks whose commitments are floating free. Oh well, sorry about their bad luck. Just so they do it as a matter of principle and stick to it.

I wish everyone's moral commitments were grounded in God. I really do. And, I wish that because I think it is appropriate given that this is God's creation. Nonetheless, if those who don't have that grounding, and can't accept it, are willing to be consistent for the sake of utility, or pleasure, or pragmatic insight, then so be it.

The trouble as I see it is summed up by a quote inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre, "Teaching ethics to traders is as pointless as reading Aristotle to your dog." Our society has become so complex that the weak moral foundations actually matter. Folks don't know the difference between "legal" and "moral" and they are perfectly content to push the envelope of legality in an, "Ask forgiveness, not permission," sort of way. If they can get away with it, they will, and the Ring of Gyges is a hot commodity.

Of course modern man isn't running around murdering people. The practical justification seems to suffice for these more obvious sorts of transgressions. At the same time, he doesn't believe stock and market exchanges have any moral quality, he is happy to pirate music and movies where he can, he will dole out subprime loans without any consideration of the lives that could be ruined by a giant housing bubble, and he thinks the only moral issue relating to the sex industry is one of consent. Millions of these tiny infractions add up to corporate and governmental corruption on a scale that makes the entities "too big to fail" while at the same time saddling the country with seditious wealth inequality and various different--and often warring--populist movements.

At the end of the day it matters whether we value justice for its own sake or only as a matter of practical expediency, and one can't help but wonder how long we can go on like this.

 

[public hermit]

The trouble as I see it is summed up by a quote inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre, "Teaching ethics to traders is as pointless as reading Aristotle to your dog." Our society has become so complex that the weak moral foundations actually matter. Folks don't know the difference between "legal" and "moral" and they are perfectly content to push the envelope of legality in an, "Ask forgiveness, not permission," sort of way. If they can get away with it, they will, and the Ring of Gyges is a hot commodity.

Of course modern man isn't running around murdering people. The practical justification seems to suffice for these more obvious sorts of transgressions. At the same time, he doesn't believe stock and market exchanges have any moral quality, he is happy to pirate music and movies where he can, he will dole out subprime loans without any consideration of the lives that could be ruined by a giant housing bubble, and he thinks the only moral issue relating to the sex industry is one of consent. Millions of these tiny infractions add up to corporate and governmental corruption on a scale that makes the entities "too big to fail" while at the same time saddling the country with seditious wealth inequality and various different--and often warring--populist movements.

At the end of the day it matters whether we value justice for its own sake or only as a matter of practical expediency, and one can't help but wonder how long we can go on like this.

As I read your list of moral failings, it doesn't strike me as the result of a society that has moral principles grounded in some x other than God. That looks to me like a bunch of folks who aren't really trying and don't really care. I take it that was what your Ring of Gyges reference was meant to indicate.

My comment was in relation to the issue of human rights and those who take the notion seriously and yet their understanding is not grounded in God. It is certainly possible, and we can locate some historical examples if needed, where two people with radically different groundings are working side by side to address human rights issues. This is the kind of practicality I had in mind. In other words, on the ground the result looks practically the same.

In short, I would rather someone feed the poor or work against modern slavery out of some utilitarian commitment (or whatever their considered grounding might be), than to do nothing at all

 

[zippy2006]

This is the kind of practicality I had in mind. In other words, on the ground the result looks practically the same.

But why doesn't the result look the same in our secular society? There is a premise floating around that grounding morality metaphysically and grounding it in modern social contract theory produce the same result. Most of the time CF gives a priori arguments regarding that premise; I'm offering an a posteriori argument. If those two approaches terminated in the same result, then we wouldn't have such systemic ethical problems in our society. We do have such problems, therefore the two approaches don't terminate in the same result. The argument is that the Ring of Gyges doesn't flourish nearly so much in a society which grounds morality metaphysically.

In short, I would rather someone feed the poor or work against modern slavery out of some utilitarian commitment (or whatever their considered grounding might be), than to do nothing at all

Sure. I'd say that while it is better than nothing, it's not good enough, and the gap is noticeable.

 

[public hermit]

But why doesn't the result look the same in our secular society?

Your examples were people stealing music and bankers making questionable loans. Do these strike you as people who have even considered the grounding of their moral decisions? It doesn't to me. It sounds like people who are just doing what they want, without consideration for morality at all.

I could also offer a posteriori examples. I could give examples of people who are out doing good things for moral reasons not associated with metaphysics or God. Or, in terms of societies, we can look back at periods of history where (presumably) morals were grounded in metaphysics, in God, and yet horrendous acts contrary to that grounding were committed and considered justified.

If we're going to compare apples to apples, we have to compare the best possible scenario for each position. It may be that even under that consideration anything other than a metaphysical grounding is going to come up short. In fact, I am inclined to think that would be the case.

What I don't agree with is the idea that the sorry state of our current society is the result of people putting their best foot forward in light of their non-metaphysical moral commitments, and yet still coming up short. I would say the sorry state of current society is the result of selfishness and greed without much moral consideration at all. And, you can find that same sorry result throughout history.