Needing justification for morality

[quatona]

If I said the Bible says so, I can give you the exact sentence in the Bible for that.

Cool - and that answers the "why?" question exactly how?

Where is the book of humanism?[/quote]
The humanist manifest.

You may give me 10 books for it. And I can add one more to it which is written by ME.

I can give you a couple of other religious holy books. And I can write one myself, as well.

According to ME, I can certainly justify what Hitler did and also justify murder, easily.

Yes, sure, you have already demonstrated that you justify genocide, murder and slavery - with reference to the holy book of your preference. So you turning humanism upside down isn´t even a requirement for your justifications, although I have no doubt you´d use anything you can get hold of.

That is humanism.

No, it isn´t. It is diametrically opposed to the basic tenets of humanism.

 

[lesliedellow]

I´m not sure that "empirical evidence" even makes sense when applied to a value judgement. I don´t understand the question.
When it comes to "ultimately" justifying my value judgements I will readily admit that I am just as empty-handed as you or the next guy.

That´s why I think this approach is as futile as discussing if garlic tastes good or not.

Except that even moral relativists find themselves wanting to say that genocide is wrong absolutely - and that it is not just a matter of personal preference or societal mores. What they cannot say is where that absoluteness, which they know full well exists, comes from.

 

[quatona]

Except that even moral relativists find themselves wanting to say that genocide is wrong absolutely

Do they? That would be a funny thing, considering that in the given context relative and absolute are irreconcilable opposites - unless, of course, you guys are inadvertantly using "absolute" in different meanings.
Just like I personally fail to see how God´s opinion would qualify as "absolute".

What they cannot say is where that absoluteness, which they know full well exists, comes from.

It never ceases to amaze me when highly abstracts concept are discussed by asking seemingly naive unspecific questions like "Where does...come from?" - when actually the only response you´d find valid is "from God", anyway.
Concepts are brought to you by your mind. If they consider something wrong and can´t think of any exception they´ll call it "absolutely wrong". This "absoluteness" is not an object and needn´t "come from" anything or anywhere.
An absolute moral statement doesn´t require a God to "come from" any more than a relative moral statement does.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I did not say misinterpretation, I said interpretation. It appears that you don't think that such of a thing exist, as implied in the post of yours.

If there are two mutually exclusive interpretations, then at least one of them is a misinterpretation. For example, your interpretation and mine can not both be true. Either one or both of us is wrong.

It doesn't surprise me the slightest, if you think that the result of following the "true" way of the bible is to be the most barbaric way as possible.

I don't consider the most barbaric interpretation to be true. I do however read what the passages say, and interpret what it spells out in plain English.

Quite often the Christians are the ones putting ridiculous spins on some of the more barbaric texts to make them sound better, so they can still morally justify following them. I even had one christian a few months ago try to argue they didn't stone people to death while they were still alive (he argued it was a post-death punishment).

There are a number of verses which are clear in what they mean, and many religious people simply try to rewrite or reinterpret the barbaric verses to not sound barbaric. Keep in mind, the book was written by barbaric people in a barbaric time. We should expect a fair bit of barbarism.

That doesn't mean it's morally justified or true, but it would be an accurate reflection of an ancient culture.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you want to make the absence of suffering your basis for morality. Suppose Hitler had said, "Sorry chum, I don't accept that as a basis for morality. Racial purity is my basis for morality" How would you demonstrate that you were right, and he was wrong?

I would ask him to rationally justify his position.

So, what's the rational justification?

 

[Dave Ellis]

A wise(?) person like you should not make this low level mistake. Shame on you.

No. The master may not. He MUST have a good reason to do that. This should not happen in normal case. The Bible verses describe an extreme behavior.

Nowhere in scripture does it say the master must have a good reason. You're making stuff up.

The slave is the master's property. The master can deal with the slave however he wishes.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is why human can NOT handle this good system. We banned slavery, not because it is a bad system, but because we are bad person.

Then why were we wise enough to ban it, but your god decided to endorse it? Are we smarter than your god?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You may have talked with some who make a bare assertion without evidence. If so, then they did a lousy job.

No apologist I know of does this. They give reasons why the premise is more plausibly true than its negation.

I haven't ever heard an apologist give evidence in support of the first premises.

Don't get me wrong, I've heard many attempt it, but every time it's had a fatal logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Thus far you have given no reason to believe premise one of the cookie monster argument to be more plausibly true than its negation. Apologists have given reasons to believe premise one of the moral argument for God's existence.

So no, until you can give reasons for your premise, the two arguments are NOT on equal footing evidence wise.

Which is why I asked him to give reasons for premise one.

Well, lets flip this back to your argument. What is your evidence to support your first premise? If you can back up your first premise, then we could raise it up above cookie monster status.


(Note, you'd then have to back up your second premise as well in order to justify your conclusion, but we can start with the first premise for now.... If you can back that up, we'll move to premise two)

 

[Dave Ellis]

If I said the Bible says so, I can give you the exact sentence in the Bible for that.

Where is the book of humanism? You may give me 10 books for it. And I can add one more to it which is written by ME.

According to ME, I can certainly justify what Hitler did and also justify murder, easily. That is humanism. Who are you to say I am wrong?

Because what you are advocating is in direct opposition to the principles of humanism.

If you had bothered to read what humanism is about, you'd understand that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Except that even moral relativists find themselves wanting to say that genocide is wrong absolutely - and that it is not just a matter of personal preference or societal mores. What they cannot say is where that absoluteness, which they know full well exists, comes from.

You're conflating the term "absolute". Try an argument that isn't fallacious next time.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Case in point.

ROFL, I quoted the bible!

So according to you what the bible teaches is not what the bible teaches.

Can't you see the ridiculous lengths you must go to to support the morality of your bible?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Humans are intrinsically valuable because they are useful (utility) is what you just said.

Somewhat, yes. It's not the only reason humans are valuable but that is one. As a social creature, we depend very heavily on others so it's natural to value the utility of others but that's not the only reason people are valuable.

People are valuable because of our ability to improve life for others. Anytime you hear of a parent making a sacrifice for their kids. Anytime you hear of a complete stranger risking his life to save someone else. Someone he's never met. Anytime you hear of a new medical breakthrough that helps make someone's life a little bit easier.... These are all things that we rely on each other for and would not have gotten to where we are without the help of good people.

The human ability for good greatly outweighs the bad that some of us commit.

That is why humans are valuable. Because we see something's wrong or there's some injustice and we try to correct that for the good of society. We're the only species who does that.

Following this logic, the rubberband on my desk is intrinsically valuable, or the poop-scooper I use to pick up dog poop is intrinsically valuable because both are wonderfully useful.

Those things were created by humans for humans. If there's any value to them, you owe it to the inventor for making your life a little bit easier.

Why "should" someone who disagrees with you, deny their own views to accept yours?

They can disagree all they want. It's when they act on that and cause other people to be denied what's afforded to everyone else when they'll be stopped.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do they? That would be a funny thing, considering that in the given context relative and absolute are irreconcilable opposites - unless, of course, you guys are inadvertantly using "absolute" in different meanings.

Yes they do have irreconcilable meanings, and that is just the point, unless you are prepared to say that genocide isn't absolutely wrong, that it is just your opinion, and, of course, Hitler was perfectly within his rights, when, acting upon his different opinion, he slaughtered 6 million Jews, amongst others.

Just like I personally fail to see how God´s opinion would qualify as "absolute".

It qualifies as absolute because it is not relative to whether anybody else likes it or not, and God is in the position of not being just another human being, with no particular right to lay down the law to his fellow creatures.

It never ceases to amaze me when highly abstracts concept are discussed by asking seemingly naive unspecific questions like "Where does...come from?" - when actually the only response you´d find valid is "from God", anyway.

Not true. You are welcome to come up with an alternative which doesn't give the green light to genocide, provided that some group is prepared to sanction it as being moral in their eyes.

You can't have it both ways. Either Hitler was evil, or you have just got your opinion, and he was entitled to his.

 

[lesliedellow]

I would ask him to rationally justify his position.

And doubtless he would return the compliment. Then you could have a fun time of accusing one another of irrationality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And doubtless he would return the compliment. Then you could have a fun time of accusing one another of irrationality.

That's the difference, I can rationally justify my position. He can't.

I notice you dodged answering what the rational justification is for his actions. Is that a tacit admission on your behalf that I'm correct? If not, please explain what the rational justification is.

 

[Huntun]

Genocide has certain consequences. If a person has a working sense of empathy, a modicum of rationality, and they are properly educated on the short and long term results of genocide (their possible victims given a face and personalized, shown the negative fall out of from past genocides, etc..) then you could probably convince them to refrain from supporting genocide. A belief in moral realism isn't required. A psychopath on the other hand would continue to support genocide. Adding a moral argument, or red light, "it's evil", would do nothing to stop them . Compassionate people don't need a theory of morality to force them to behave compassionately and people with little or no empathy are not restrained by moral arguments to begin with. Morality seems redundant like preaching to the choir.

Also..like my signature says:

“moral language is combative and it serves to justify one’s self, condemn others, or both..morality is not so much an inner conviction that prevents people from doing bad things as a rhetorical device that helps them justify their actions before and after they act."

 

[Huntun]

The philosopher and mathematician Raymond Smullyan has a book out "The Tao is Silent" that has a hypothetical discussion between a Taoist and a moralist that is worth posting here in part:

Taoist: A humane person is one who is simply kind, sympathetic, and loving. He does not believe that he should be so, or that it is his "duty" to be so; he simply is. He treats his neighbor well not because it is the "right thing to do" but because he feels like it. He feels like it out of sympathy or empathy- out of simple human feeling. So if a person is humane, what does he need morality for? Why should a person be told that he should do something which he wants to do anyway?

Moralist: Oh, I see what you are talking about; you're talking about saints! Of course in a world of saints, moralists would no longer be needed-anymore than doctors would be needed in a world full of healthy people. but the unfortunate reality is that the world is not full of saints... most people are fundamentally not so nice. They don't love their neighbor; at the first opportunity they will exploit their neighbor for their own selfish ends. That's why we moralist are necessary to keep them in check!

Taoist: Keep then in check! How perfectly said! And do you succeed in keeping them in check?

Moralist: I don't say we always succeed, but we try our best. After all, you can't blame a doctor for failing to keep a plague in check if he conscientiously does everything he can. We moralists are not gods, and we cannot guarantee our efforts will succeed. All we can do is tell people they should be more humane, we can't force them to do it. After all people have free will.

Taoist: And it has never once occurred to you that what in fact you are doing is making people less humane rather than more humane?

Moralist: Of course not, what a horrible thing to say! Don't we explicitly tell people that they should be more humane?

Taoist: Exactly! and that is precisely the trouble. What makes you think that telling one that one should be more humane or that it's one's "duty" to be humane is likely to influence one to be humane? It seems to me, it would tend to have the opposite effect. What you are trying to do is to command love. And love, live a precious flower, will only wither at any attempt to force it. My whole criticism of you is to the effect that you are trying to force that which can only thrived if it's not forced...​

 

[quatona]

Yes they do have irreconcilable meanings, and that is just the point, unless you are prepared to say that genocide isn't absolutely wrong, that it is just your opinion,

What do you mean - "just" my opinion. It is my opinion, hopefully it´s your, as well, and - if a God exists and we are lucky - it´s His opinion, too.

"Absolute" can mean "always, as opposed to sometimes yes and sometimes no". The moral value of killing, e.g., is - in most understandings - relative. I suspect that that´s how those person you address mean. You better not conflate it with other meanings of "absolute".

and, of course, Hitler was perfectly within his rights, when, acting upon his different opinion, he slaughtered 6 million Jews, amongst others.

I don´t know how you got to "rights" here. It´s a new concept you throw into the ring.

It qualifies as absolute because it is not relative to whether anybody else likes it or not, and God is in the position of not being just another human being,

God is "just" another being, and His opinion is "just" His opinion - relative to your or my opinion.

with no particular right to lay down the law to his fellow creatures.

Who hands out "rights" to Gods and or humans?

Not true. You are welcome to come up with an alternative which doesn't give the green light to genocide, provided that some group is prepared to sanction it as being moral in their eyes.

I already told you that I don´t have an alternative. I also told you that you don´t, either. Or else the genocide wouldn´t have happened.

You can't have it both ways.

You´re ignoring the third option.

Either Hitler was evil, or you have just got your opinion, and he was entitled to his.

What´s hard to understand about the subjective and relative "In my opinion [insert concept] is [insert judgement]" and the subjective and absolute "in my opinion [insert concept] is always [insert judgement]"?

 

[Huntun]

He then quotes the book "Christian Ethics" by Waldo Beach and H Richard Neibuhr. They point to the same thing from a more Pauline/ Christian angle. :

"In a sense Paul's whole thought on the law may be interpreted as development of Jesus' idea that a good tree brings forth good fruit and that no amount of external conduct can make men really good. In so far as the imperative moral law remains something external to man, and affair of "You ought" and "You ought not," it cannot make him good at the core; it cannot transform his motives. The imperative form of the Law, not its content, is a relative thing which presupposes the presence in man of a desire contrary to the intention of the law. Moreover, the giving of the injunctions to men is likely to arouse their self-will and so tempt them to transgress the law. Where there are imperatives, adults as well as children are tempted to see how close they can come to the edge of the forbidden. Again, imperative law cannot produce the innate, unforced graciousness of conduct evident in Jesus Christ which is so much more attractive and so much more fruitful than self conscious goodness."​

 

[lesliedellow]

What do you mean - "just" my opinion. It is my opinion, hopefully it´s your, as well, and - if a God exists and we are lucky - it´s His opinion, too.

I mean "just your opinion, and, if it is "jst" your opinion, it is binding on nobody else. A genocidal maniac included.

"Absolute" can mean "always, as opposed to sometimes yes and sometimes no". The moral value of killing, e.g., is - in most understandings - relative. I suspect that that´s how those person you address mean. You better not conflate it with other meanings of "absolute".

How did genocide transmute itself into "killings"

I don´t know how you got to "rights" here. It´s a new concept you throw into the ring.

You are being transparently evasive.

God is "just" another being, and His opinion is "just" His opinion - relative to your or my opinion.

The creator of all things isn't "just" anything, least of all just another being on the same level as his creatures.

I already told you that I don´t have an alternative. I also told you that you don´t, either. Or else the genocide wouldn´t have happened.

And exactly how do you figure that out?

What´s hard to understand about the subjective and relative "In my opinion [insert concept] is [insert judgement]" and the subjective and absolute "in my opinion [insert concept] is always [insert judgement]"?

Waffle.