Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

Since lawmaking includes an attempt to protect people from harm, which includes harm by unbelievers, that creates a conundrum when living among unbelievers that I've never really resolved - except the hope that they will one day become believers.

I don't see that. Laws, at least in most western democracies, are secular. Religious morality isn't a concern. Although, and I have to keep mentioning this, there is an obvious overlap between any given religious moral precept and some laws.

 

[Bradskii]

And that's that! Because Bradskii said so. No argument required.

I can give you one if you one. But can you give me an example of a law that you is just based on someone's moral position?

So when the government tells you that you can't engage in sex trafficking and rape, you don't think it is telling you that sex trafficking and rape is bad behavior? Because, regardless of anyone's personal feelings or opinions, sex trafficking and rape causes undue harm, and it is wrong to cause undue harm?

As I said in my last post, I have to keep reminding people that there is an overlap. What you and I would both consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal. Because they are harmful and not because we consider them immoral.

I assume that you think that sex outside of marriage is immoral. You may have good arguments for your position. But we don't make laws against it.

 

[zippy2006]

I can give you one if you one.

I've asked you a few times and you've failed just as many times.

But can you give me an example of a law that you is just based on someone's moral position?

I already gave you an example.

As I said in my last post, I have to keep reminding people that there is an overlap. What you and I would both consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal. Because they are harmful and not because we consider them immoral.

Let's visit some basic logic. Suppose you say something. For example, "Laws are legal but they aren't moral." Now when you say something, you should be able to give a reason for what you say. That's called an argument. Now the reason you give should be such that 1) it is not unfalsifiable, 2) it is not tautological or vacuous, and 3) if the reason/argument turns out to be invalid, then your claim has less of a chance of being true.

Do you want to try that? Do you want to try to give a reason for your claim that adheres to those three criteria?

What you and I would both consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal.

"What you and I consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal." You literally just said that every act that we mutually consider to be an immoral act is an illegal act.

Because they are harmful and not because we consider them immoral.

Except that you have literally said that every immoral act is harmful, so you are contradicting yourself:

In fact, it cannot be immoral if it is not harmful.

You can't say, "It is illegal because it is harmful, not because it is immoral," while at the same time saying, "It cannot be immoral if it is not harmful." This is because you are positing that harm is the basis for both immorality and illegality, and then you arbitrarily say that some act is illegal because it is harmful, not because it is immoral (except that it is immoral because it is harmful!).

Note that this is why your position is wrong. Law is moral precisely because law and morality are both based in the same consideration, in this case 'harm'. Law is a subset of morality, namely the subset of perceived morality that the Sovereign deems fit to publicly promulgate and enforce. Morality has to do with norms regarding behavior; law has to do with publicly enforced norms regarding behavior. The idea that morality and law are separate is a pipe dream.

 

[Bradskii]

I've asked you a few times and you've failed just as many times.

I only made the point the one time.

I already gave you an example.

I can't find it. Can you mention it again?

Let's visit some basic logic. Suppose you say something. For example, "Laws are legal but they aren't moral." Now when you say something, you should be able to give a reason for what you say. That's called an argument. Now the reason you give should be such that 1) it is not unfalsifiable, 2) it is not tautological or vacuous, and 3) if the reason/argument turns out to be invalid, then your claim has less of a chance of being true.

Do you want to try that? Do you want to try to give a reason for your claim that adheres to those three criteria?

My point is that what is immoral causes harm. If it doesn't cause harm, it isn't illegal. Sex outside marriage being an example. So there is an overlap between what I consider to be immoral and what is illegal. Because we formulate laws to prevent harm. If laws were just formulated to prevent immorality then you'd be able to give me an example of what you consider to be an illegal act that you consider to be immoral but which doesn't cause harm.

"What you and I consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal." You literally just said that every act that we mutually consider to be an immoral act is an illegal act.

No. What you and I both consider to be immoral - acts that causes harm, are generally illegal. Because they're harmful. But acts that you consider immoral and I don't - sex outside of marriage for example, are not illegal.

Except that you have literally said that every immoral act is harmful, so you are contradicting yourself:

Yes, it is my position that what I consider to be immoral is harmful. Because it is harmful. It's not immoral if it doesn't cause any harm. That's not your position.

You can't say, "It is illegal because it is harmful, not because it is immoral," while at the same time saying, "It cannot be immoral if it is not harmful." This is because you are positing that harm is the basis for both immorality and illegality, and then you arbitrarily say that some act is illegal because it is harmful, not because it is immoral (except that it is immoral because it is harmful!).

I'm differentiating it because your position is not the same as mine. You might say that an act should be illegal purely on the basis of it being immoral. I say it shouldn't unless it causes harm. Your criteria is immorality in itself. Mine is whether harm is caused.

Note that this is why your position is wrong. Law is moral precisely because law and morality are both based in the same consideration, in this case 'harm'. Law is a subset of morality, namely the subset of perceived morality that the Sovereign deems fit to publicly promulgate and enforce. Morality has to do with norms regarding behavior; law has to do with publicly enforced norms regarding behavior. The idea that morality and law are separate is a pipe dream.

Then why are there acts which you consider to be immoral not illegal?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm differentiating it because your position is not the same as mine. You might say that an act should be illegal purely on the basis of it being immoral. I say it shouldn't unless it causes harm. Your criteria is immorality in itself. Mine is whether harm is caused.

I'm perfectly happy to adopt your position (which is a form of negative utilitarianism) for the sake of argument. The idea that some act should be prohibited purely on the basis of being immoral and to the exclusion of any other notional consideration is a strawman, and it is a strawman that you are particularly prone to make. This would be the same as saying that things are immoral for no reason at all, and this reveals why it is such a tempting strawman for the atheist.

So the problem that I pointed to in your position stands. You think that every immoral act is immoral because it is harmful, and every illegal act is illegal because it is harmful, and that nothing is illegal because it is immoral. This is a very strange position. It is a bit like saying, "Brown hair is caused by melanin production; and brown eyes are caused by melanin production; but there is no causal link between brown hair and brown eyes. Brown hair and brown eyes are altogether separate and distinct, although they randomly overlap from time to time."

But that's just a clarification. I will return to your post later on.

 

[o_mlly]

My taste for pineapple on pizza is most good, reasonable and persuasive ['Try it, you'll like it!'], but I do not consider it objective.

Hawiian Pizza? Yes!

Anchovies Pizza? Malum in se.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm perfectly happy to adopt your position (which is a form of negative utilitarianism) for the sake of argument. The idea that some act should be prohibited purely on the basis of being immoral and to the exclusion of any other notional consideration is a strawman, and it is a strawman that you are particularly prone to make. This would be the same as saying that things are immoral for no reason at all, and this reveals why it is such a tempting strawman for the atheist.

So the problem that I pointed to in your position stands. You think that every immoral act is immoral because it is harmful, and every illegal act is illegal because it is harmful, and that nothing is illegal because it is immoral. This is a very strange position. It is a bit like saying, "Brown hair is caused by melanin production; and brown eyes are caused by melanin production; but there is no causal link between brown hair and brown eyes. Brown hair and brown eyes are altogether separate and distinct, although they randomly overlap from time to time."

But that's just a clarification. I will return to your post later on.

I understand your argument. But I hold to my position because it differentiates it from others who might suggest that a law should be passed against something purely on the basis that it is immoral.

If you said 'Let's agree that if something is immoral we should consider making it illegal' then I'd say no. I'd say 'Let's agree that if something is harmful we should consider making it illegal'. That would be an easier basis on which to reach agreement.

A Catholic might say that sex outside of marriage is immoral, so we should therefore make it illegal. I might not be married to my partner so I'd need an argument that it caused harm else I'd reject it.

 

[J_B_]

I don't see that. Laws, at least in most western democracies, are secular. Religious morality isn't a concern. Although, and I have to keep mentioning this, there is an obvious overlap between any given religious moral precept and some laws.

That's a very recent thing. Christianity had a significant influence on English Common Law, which in turn is the bedrock of American Law. Of course there were other influences, but Christianity was in the mix nonetheless. When I took my history course in American Law, I was surprised at how recently Christianity was assumed to be the basis of American Law. IIRC, I came across some rulings on education cases from the 1940s/1950s where the presiding judge quoted from the Bible in his ruling, and no one batted an eye.

Even in recent decades where "freedom from" rather than "freedom of" has become the guiding principle of the law, it's more a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. So, people don't advertise their motives for pushing one law vs. another. That doesn't mean views of religion play no role.

 

[J_B_]

That would be an easier basis on which to reach agreement.

Not really.

A Catholic might say that sex outside of marriage is immoral, so we should therefore make it illegal. I might not be married to my partner so I'd need an argument that it caused harm else I'd reject it.

Exactly. Though you'll claim otherwise, I'd bet no such argument exists that would convince you (Because, what is harm?).

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. Though you'll claim otherwise, I'd bet no such argument exists that would convince you (Because, what is harm?).

Some evidence would help. If I shot someone in the head then there'd be plenty to show that there'd been harm. If I slept with my partner of 40 something years last night then what evidence might be produced?

 

[J_B_]

Some evidence would help. If I shot someone in the head then there'd be plenty to show that there'd been harm. If I slept with my partner of 40 something years last night then what evidence might be produced?

What standard does the evidence have to pass? In other words, do I have to prove that YOU have caused harm to your partner? Or that harm occurs in more than 50% of cases? 5%?

 

[Bradskii]

That's a very recent thing. Christianity had a significant influence on English Common Law, which in turn is the bedrock of American Law.

You might as well say that murder is a crime in the US because it's been influenced by by the Torah. Or the Vedas. Or the Qur'an. Do you know of any law that is on the books purely because it is based on some aspect of Christianity?

 

[Bradskii]

What standard does the evidence have to pass? In other words, do I have to prove that YOU have caused harm to your partner?

Yes. Or vice versa. Harm or potential harm.

Or that harm occurs in more than 50% of cases? 5%?

Just the one case. Mine. I'm saying that if something is not harmful then it cannot be illegal. We're not arguing about whether it's advisable to have sex with random partners or your best friend's wife (you'll note that some things which are harmful and could be considered immoral are not necessarily illegal).

 

[J_B_]

You might as well say that murder is a crime in the US because it's been influenced by by the Torah. Or the Vedas. Or the Qur'an. Do you know of any law that is on the books purely because it is based on some aspect of Christianity?

Mmm. My example was English Common Law. The goal posts have shifted to murder. But, OK, let's talk about murder and I'll circle back to Common Law toward the end.

I would not claim Christianity influenced criminal prosecution for murder in pre-colonial India, or pre-colonial Arabia, etc. If and how the Vedas or the Quran influenced such things, I'm not sure. I am highly confident, however, that the arrival of the British brought changes to the law in those areas. Are you going to claim it didn't? If not, we can agree law in Britain was different from law in India and Arabia. That means it's very likely there was a difference in the criminal prosecution of murder in those areas. If you are going to claim it wasn't different, I'd need a citation.

Christianity was a major cultural influence in Britain. As I said from the very first, it wasn't the only influence, but it was significant. Are you disputing that claim? If so, again I need a citation. IIRC Blackstone, the goto reference on Common Law, noted Christianity as a major influence on Common Law. I've not seen anyone since dispute that? Have you?

I never claimed murder was 'on the books' in Britain 'purely' because of Christianity. I said Christianity had a significant influence on Common Law. By association, Christianity would very likely have had an influence on the prosecution of murder. A current English barrister argues as such in a recent paper (How Does Christianity regard English Law? David McIlroy). That paper cites a source from 1965 (The Spirit of the Common Law, Richard O'Sullivan). I'm not going to chase the turtles further until you join the hunt with opposing citations.

Yes. Or vice versa. Harm or potential harm.

I see. Historically sexual relationships have been managed within the law through the use of licenses. Therefore, as preventative law rather than after-the-fact criminal law. So you'll only accept arguments where there is after-the-fact evidence of physical abuse from a medical doctor or emotional abuse from a psychologist/psychiatrist? If so, I'll mention there have always been aspects of the law that treated physical and mental abuse apart from whether or not it stemmed from a marriage. As such, your approach here seems an attempt to dismiss the reasons for a license that are specific to marriage relationships before they even get a trial.

 

[zippy2006]

I understand your argument. But I hold to my position because it differentiates it from others who might suggest that a law should be passed against something purely on the basis that it is immoral.

But you're shifting the goalposts. We are asking whether illegal acts are immoral. That is the question, and you seem to think they are. For example, you say, "What you and I consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal." In fact, it seems to me that you define an immoral act as that which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm. If that is right, then an illegal act which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm is an immoral act, and you hold that all illegal acts are prohibited or censured in this manner.

I can't find it. Can you mention it again?

Sex trafficking.

My point is that what is immoral causes harm. If it doesn't cause harm, it isn't illegal. Sex outside marriage being an example. So there is an overlap between what I consider to be immoral and what is illegal. Because we formulate laws to prevent harm. If laws were just formulated to prevent immorality then you'd be able to give me an example of what you consider to be an illegal act that you consider to be immoral but which doesn't cause harm.

Rather, if some illegal things were not immoral, then you would be able to give me an example of something which is illegal but not immoral.

No. What you and I both consider to be immoral

Which is of course exactly what I said.

Then why are there acts which you consider to be immoral not illegal?

Because not every moral norm should be publicly enforced.

 

[Bradskii]

Christianity was a major cultural influence in Britain. As I said from the very first, it wasn't the only influence, but it was significant. Are you disputing that claim? If so, again I need a citation. IIRC Blackstone, the goto reference on Common Law, noted Christianity as a major influence on Common Law. I've not seen anyone since dispute that? Have you?

Yes. Bentham for one. See here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1113015

'In order to apply the law of nature to which all human laws must conform, says Blackstone, it is necessary to have recourse to reason; but as man's reason is corrupt and blind, God Himself has discovered and enforced reason's law by divine revelation in the Scriptures. Upon this passage Bentham leaps with some ferocity proclaiming the impropriety of mixing theology and jurisprudence, and indicating how incompatible such views are with his own sovereign principle that utility is the only guiding principle of legislation, and that utility is to be determined only by observation and experience.'

But all we have here is Blackstone saying that divine revelation is the means by which we should determine the legality of an act and Bentham saying that we shouldn't. What I would like to see is a law based purely on 'divine revelation in the Scriptures' and not based on anything else. If there are none then saying that those who enabled the laws were guided by scripture is meaningless. The fact that they would be based on utility doesn't mean that Christianity was the cause of the law simply because it happens to align with scripture.

I'm not sure if Bentham pointed this out, but if a law was divinely influenced, then why has the law changed so drastically over the centuries? What was the Christian influence that would see a person hung for stealing a loaf of bread? What was the Christian influence on keeping slaves? What was (and still is) the Christian influence on the death penalty?

I never claimed murder was 'on the books' in Britain 'purely' because of Christianity. I said Christianity had a significant influence on Common Law. By association, Christianity would very likely have had an influence on the prosecution of murder. A current English barrister argues as such in a recent paper (How Does Christianity regard English Law? David McIlroy). That paper cites a source from 1965 (The Spirit of the Common Law, Richard O'Sullivan). I'm not going to chase the turtles further until you join the hunt with opposing citations.

Links would be handy. But if you want to claim that Christianity had an influence then again I will ask for an example of a law that was determined only by that influence and not on practical matters.

I see. Historically sexual relationships have been managed within the law through the use of licenses. Therefore, as preventative law rather than after-the-fact criminal law. So you'll only accept arguments where there is after-the-fact evidence of physical abuse from a medical doctor or emotional abuse from a psychologist/psychiatrist?

No, I'll accept what you personally think might be harm or potential harm (so not necessarily 'after-the-fact') in me having sex with my partner of 40 something years that would justify it being illegal. Remember, we are looking at an act which you might consider could be made illegal for no other reason than you consider it immoral (presumably by reference to divine revelation in scripture).

 

[Bradskii]

But you're shifting the goalposts. We are asking whether illegal acts are immoral.

No, we're not. Well at least I'm not. We're actually discussing whether what you consider to be immoral acts should be made illegal. As I said upstream:

'You might say that an act should be illegal purely on the basis of it being immoral. I say it shouldn't unless it causes harm'.

That is the question, and you seem to think they are. For example, you say, "What you and I consider to be immoral acts are harmful and therefore illegal." In fact, it seems to me that you define an immoral act as that which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm. If that is right, then an illegal act which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm is an immoral act, and you hold that all illegal acts are prohibited or censured in this manner.

I'd generally agree with that. I can't offhand think of any laws against acts that that do cause harm but which I don't think are immoral. There may be some.

Sex trafficking.

You don't think that causes harm? Well, you obviously do, so I'm not sure why you gave that example. I want an example of a law based on a moral position where no harm is done.

Rather, if some illegal things were not immoral...

I'm not arguing that. There may be some obscure law that say that you can't wash your car on a Tuesday but those aren't what we're talking about.

Which is of course exactly what I said.

That on some things we agree that an act causes harm and we consider it to be immoral? Yeah, that's obvious.

Because not every moral norm should be publicly enforced.

And my position is that no moral norm should be enforced...unless it causes harm.

 

[zippy2006]

No, we're not. Well at least I'm not. We're actually discussing whether what you consider to be immoral acts should be made illegal.

Well we can ask what either one of us thinks, but you think that all illegal acts are immoral, for the reasons I've already set out. I happen to agree, and could explain.

You might say that an act should be illegal purely on the basis of it being immoral.

And I literally told you that is an absurd strawman, so it's odd that you would repeat it.

I'd generally agree with that.

There you go. You think illegal acts are also immoral acts.

You don't think that causes harm?

I gave it as an example of an act that is both illegal and immoral.

I want an example of a law based on a moral position where no harm is done.

I actually think a form of negative (act) utilitarianism is sufficient for law. So there are moral precepts that are not based on harm, but these moral precepts ought not or need not be put into law. For example, "Be amiable with your neighbors."

I'm not arguing that.

If you don't think there are any illegal things that are not immoral, then your earlier claim that began this conversation is wrong, "The law doesn't deal with morality because it's not its job to do so" (Bradskii). You seem to agree with me that the basic thesis you have been proposing has been undermined.

And my position is that no moral norm should be enforced...unless it causes harm.

And you also think that every moral norm "causes harm," so that every law is correlated to a moral norm. You believe what I already pointed out:

Law is a subset of morality

That is, you think the legislator is doing the exact same thing as the moral philosopher, namely devising norms that prevent harm. They are just doing it in different circumstances and with a different set of constraints. Law and morality go hand in hand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some evidence would help. If I shot someone in the head then there'd be plenty to show that there'd been harm. If I slept with my partner of 40 something years last night then what evidence might be produced?

Zoning laws aren't about harm....because laws aren't about morals.

You guys are talking about universal murder laws as if they were universal. We allowed two men to duel to the death till the 1800s. They still allow all sorts of honor killings in many places.

 

[Bradskii]

That is, you think the legislator is doing the exact same thing as the moral philosopher, namely devising norms that prevent harm. They are just doing it in different circumstances and with a different set of constraints. Law and morality go hand in hand.

If you don't think that immoral acts that cause no harm should be made illegal then we generally agree. We get to the same point but we're approaching it from different directions.