The source of moral obligation

[Eudaimonist]

Jeremy understands that some people, like Christians, or atheists like Mark or Archaeopteryx, feel very strongly that certain actions like stealing people's iPads are really wrong and that if he disagrees, he will be labeled as psychopathic.

It isn't disagreement on the subject of theft that makes someone psychopathic. It is the manner of disagreement that the hypothetical (and straw-mannish) Jeremy shows in his questions. Jeremy even goes to the point where he wonders why he should even consider reasons for not doing something. That is far more than mere disagreement.

You are misrepresenting what is going on here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

The fact that Mark and Archaeopteryx and others claim Jeremy is a psychopath is clear.

But why do they make this claim?

Because Jeremy´s attitude, mind set and behaviour matches the definition of "psychopath" to a T.

 

[quatona]

But why do they make this claim?
[...]
How they arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant to my point.

It is as if they are saying, stealing Mark's iPad is wrong and no reasonable person with a moral compass would deny this.

As I have understood them they don´t say your alter ego is a psychopath because he stole an ipad. (And stealing an ipad doesn´t make you a psychopath, per definition).
They say he is a psychopath because of the mental conditions you ascribed to him.

The most interesting part, however, is that you apparently have completely lost track of what your point is. According to the OP, it had soemthing to do with atheism. Now, a full fledged psychopath wouldn´t care, even if there were a "source for morality", and he wouldn´t care if this source of morality were a God.

How they arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant to my point. The point is that for Mark and for anyone else who wishes to label the case study protagonist as psychopathic, sociopathic, morally handicapped or lacking a moral compass, they are affirming the existence of at least one objective moral value/duty.

You seem to be under the impression that "psychopath" and "sociopath" are necessarily "moral" judgements. Granted, they often are used as such - but first and foremost they are descriptive.

We can err when it comes to facts. We cannot err when it comes to opinions.

It is said of a man that when he adds two and two and gets five that he made an error in his arithmetic and rightly so.

If this same man were to say that he thought chocolate was delicious, we would immediately distinguish this statement as fundamentally different from his statement regarding five being the sum of two and two. We may personally think chocolate to be the most disgusting food on earth, but we would not say the man had made an error in stating chocolate was delicious.

Yes. And?

 

[quatona]

A person merely putting their own needs over that of others, and thus stealing an iPad, does not make that person psychopathic. Even if he or she were psychopathic, that doesn't answer the question of why your morality is correct and his or hers is incorrect.

No, it doesn´t - and I do think such a claim needs explaining and substantiation (and I also think that moral objectivists - be they theists or non-theists - have great problems doing this).

However, if we take a look at the OP, this is not the topic or the issue Walker wants to discuss. And unfortunately, to tell from his posts, he seems to be changing his point at every turn.

 

[quatona]

We can err when it comes to facts. We cannot err when it comes to opinions.

It is said of a man that when he adds two and two and gets five that he made an error in his arithmetic and rightly so.

If this same man were to say that he thought chocolate was delicious, we would immediately distinguish this statement as fundamentally different from his statement regarding five being the sum of two and two. We may personally think chocolate to be the most disgusting food on earth, but we would not say the man had made an error in stating chocolate was delicious.

And how is the question (analogous to your OP question) "What´s the source of mathematical truths?" (and whether or not there exists such a source) material for the accuracy of "2+2=4"?
And why - if your assertion happens to be that a truth needs a divine source - do you keep toying with the "moral argument for God" instead of trying the "mathematical argument for God", for a change?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You had a number of "actual answers" in this thread. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. I could add my own 2 EuroCents... but they wouldn't really add anything to the discussion... just offer one more sample of thought.

Instead, I tried to approach that question from a slightly different angle: what are moral obligations? If they can "come from" any source, what does that mean for their nature?

The atheists here all assert that "moral obligations" (whatever they might think that means) come from humans. Whether they are based on an objective standard of "right and wrong", as Eudaimonist holds it, or on subjective or intersubjective reasonings, as I and others think... they are based on human experience and human reasoning.

In one of your posts you asked if it could be that "some things are objectively [morally] wrong". (post #71)

Well, if moral obligations need a "law giver", as your OP implies, the answer to this question would be negative: there are no things that are objectively wrong.

So what does that mean for the nature of "moral obligations"? Consider the consequences of the question you asked in the OP, consider how the answers you were given here adress these consequencese and how your "Jeremy" character does not.

And then chide me again for asking a question instead of giving an answer.

If a person does not share your belief about human beings being the ultimate source or grounds for moral obligation, are they under any moral obligation to abandon their views and adopt yours?

Yes or no? If they are, why are they?

 

[quatona]

If a person does not share your belief about human beings being the ultimate source or grounds for moral obligation, are they under any moral obligation to abandon their views and adopt yours?

I still fail to see how this is less of a problem for a theist moral objectivist than for an atheist moral objectivist:
If a person does not share your belief about a
God existing and being the ultimate source or grounds for moral obligation, are they under any moral obligation to abandon their views and adopt yours?

 

[Freodin]

If a person does not share your belief about human beings being the ultimate source or grounds for moral obligation, are they under any moral obligation to abandon their views and adopt yours?

Yes or no? If they are, why are they?

As I don't see "adopting my views" as a moral obligation at all, no, they would not be "under [a] moral obligation" to do so.

 

[Freodin]

I still fail to see how this is less of a problem for a theist moral objectivist than for an atheist moral objectivist:
If a person does not share your belief about a
God existing and being the ultimate source or grounds for moral obligation, are they under any moral obligation to abandon their views and adopt yours?

That is an interesting thought: is there a moral obligation to be subject to moral obligations?

So there is a law giver, who gave "moral laws". Does there need to be another law "you shall follow the law"?

Why would anyone be obliged to follow that meta-law over just following the laws? Wouldn't we need a meta-meta-law, telling everyone that they should follow the law that they should follow the law that they should follow the laws?


[edited to add]
Did that sound a little weird? Let my try to rephrase, and adress it directly to Jeremy:

Is there a moral obligation to follow the laws of the law giver.

If yes, where does it come from? If no, why should one follow these laws?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I am not dismissing him as psychopathic; I am diagnosing him. He needs treatment. I never claimed that he is psychopathic because he doesn't adopt my particular views on what is right and wrong. If that were the case then I would be claiming that everyone who disagrees with me on any moral issue is "psychopathic." I make no such claim.



No, you misunderstand. There are various reasons why someone may fail to recognise certain actions as good, or recognise that they are good but fail to act that way. Psychopathy is one of them, and I mention it only because it is most relevant to this particular case.



Is this some sort of revelation to you? You seem incredulous at the fact that an atheist could claim that moral statements are in some sense objective, even though a number of atheists have already stated as much. I suspect your incredulity comes from the erroneous assumption that holding such a position depends on having a theology.

Are you one of them?

 

[Davian]

An obigation often isn't chosen, but it no less binding. Even with a voluntary contract, there's an authority that has the responsibilty of enforcing it.

How does your hypothetical "moral law giver" enforce these obligations? Does Jeremy get struck by lightning?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Please detail how they are distinct.

Well going back to the example of ancient Greek ethical philosophy, there was no concept of a "moral law" or "moral obligation". There was virtue and there was vice. What distinguished the two was humanity's end, or purpose, which the Greeks called telos. Whatever that telos was, virtue was what turned you toward it, and vice was what turned you away from it. Telos was an important concept in Western ethical philosophy until the Enlightenment.

Buddhist ethics follow a similar structure. The end of humanity is a state of perfect enlightenment called nirvana. Actions, then, are right insofar as they aid in attaining this enlightenment, and wrong if they turn people away from it. There isn't a "moral law" the transgrssion of which is called "sin". Regarding Jeremy, a Buddhist might answer that nothing obligates him to leave Mark's iPad, but that taking it will feed an unhealthy attatchment to the material world that will set him up for misery later - bad karma.

"Man's moral nature", by all the evidence at hand, appears to be a product of evolution, of being a social animal. On what exactly are you going to hang Jeffery's "moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties" sign on in that circumstance?

Just to clarify, are you saying that man's moral nature is the source of the moral law?

 

[Davian]

Well going back to the example of ancient Greek ethical philosophy, there was no concept of a "moral law" or "moral obligation". There was virtue and there was vice. What distinguished the two was humanity's end, or purpose, which the Greeks called telos. Whatever that telos was, virtue was what turned you toward it, and vice was what turned you away from it. Telos was an important concept in Western ethical philosophy until the Enlightenment.

Buddhist ethics follow a similar structure. The end of humanity is a state of perfect enlightenment called nirvana. Actions, then, are right insofar as they aid in attaining this enlightenment, and wrong if they turn people away from it. There isn't a "moral law" the transgrssion of which is called "sin". Regarding Jeremy, a Buddhist might answer that nothing obligates him to leave Mark's iPad, but that taking it will feed an unhealthy attatchment to the material world that will set him up for misery later - bad karma.

I do not see how that shows a distinction between morals and moral law.

Just to clarify, are you saying that man's moral nature is the source of the moral law?

I would say that moral law is descriptive of man's moral nature. "Man's moral nature", by all the evidence at hand, appears to be a product of evolution, of being a social animal. On what exactly are you going to hang Jeffery's "moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties" sign on in that circumstance?

 

[Non sequitur]

As an atheist, I just got another No Raping or Murdering anniversary chip!

If it weren't for the chips, I don't know what I'd do (or wouldn't)...

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

From your description of him, Jeremy is callous, narcissistic, manipulative, lacks empathy and remorse, and displays severe antisocial behaviour. All these are characteristics of psychopathy.

We only talk of treating or correcting conditions or things (and here I am thinking of psychopathy which you claim to have diagnosed in Jeremy) when we believe there is something in a thing that needs to be corrected or made right.

For example, I build custom motorcycles.... (no, really, I do...) and sometimes, or rather, quite frequently to my dismay I confess, I come across things that need to be fixed or treated on a particular motorcycle. A clogged carburetor jet, a fouled spark plug, etc...

You see, I know how an engine is supposed to sound, run, and idle when it is running right. In other words, if the engine idles rough, that is usually indicative of a carburetor issue. So I check it. Sometimes I have to clean the cards etc.

If I knew nothing at all about motorcycles, I would not know to check the carburetor if the engine was idling rough.

Knowing how something is supposed to work enables me to know something is wrong with it when it is not working the way it is supposed to.

If I was in my garage working on a brand new motorcycle I bought that was running in every aspect perfectly, and my wife walked up to me and asked me why I was working on it and I replied, I am fixing and working on it and correcting the problems with the motorcycle because it is running perfectly, she would rightly assume I had bumped my head on something or had either gone mad!!!!

We do not speak of diagnosing, correcting, treating, or fixing things unless we presuppose that there is some way the thing is supposed to work and that it is indeed broken or in need of fixing.

You have said that Jeremy needs to be treated because he has certain characteristics i.e. narcissistic behaviour, callousness, apathy, remorselessness etc.

This would be like me saying that my bike needs to be fixed because it has certain characteristics i.e. rough idle, stalling when the clutch is released, tracking issues, etc.

In both cases, you and I have an idea in our mind or a standard, that we are comparing something to. In your case you are comparing Jeremy to your ideal or model human being who has empathy, who has remorse, who is not narcissistic etc. In my case I am comparing my bike to a bike that has a buttery smooth idle, perfect transition of power from the engine to the transmission, perfect tracking etc.

Now, what grounds do you have for maintaining that a model or ideal human being would possess such characteristics such as empathy, remorse, and any other you wish to add? What basis do you have for maintaining that unless a person has characteristics x,y, and z, then they are broken, in error, need to be fixed, messed up, etc.?

You see, the grounds I have for maintaining that a model or ideal bike would have a buttery smooth idle, smooth and continuous transfer of power from the engine to the transmission etc, is that I go to the owner's manual that was written by the engineer who designed the bike and check my bike to what the designer says the bike should be like.

If it lines up with what the engineer or designer has in his manual, and it runs how the designer says it should, boom, I know I got a properly functioning bike.

That is my standard.

What is yours?

 

[quatona]

To get back to your original question:
Under what obligation is any of your (the engineer's) customers to have his bike "fixed" so that it works, sounds and runs the way you say it should be like?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. But I recall nowhere in my OP where I claimed that we are under moral obligation. Thus, I have no burden in demonstrating their existence.

I asked a question. Remember?

Atheists, where do moral obligations and prohibitions come from if there is no moral law giver to prohibit or prescribe moral duties?

You replied that there are no moral obligations. To which I replied, good, you do not have to worry about answering the question.



So what is the truth about morality?

It's an opinion... a matter of taste of preference (if that gives you a clearer idea of what kind of opinion)....nothing more.

While I don't believe in moral obligations, what I originally said was that i don't "know" of any moral obligations. I'm actually very interested in the discussion of them if someone could demonstrate their existence. Without first doing that, the conversation becomes a lot of people going..."I think they come from this" or "I think it comes from that". It will never get to a point where someone can show where they come from... so it's all going to be opinion... including wherever you think they come from.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We only talk of treating or correcting conditions or things (and here I am thinking of psychopathy which you claim to have diagnosed in Jeremy) when we believe there is something in a thing that needs to be corrected or made right.

For example, I build custom motorcycles.... (no, really, I do...) and sometimes, or rather, quite frequently to my dismay I confess, I come across things that need to be fixed or treated on a particular motorcycle. A clogged carburetor jet, a fouled spark plug, etc...

You see, I know how an engine is supposed to sound, run, and idle when it is running right. In other words, if the engine idles rough, that is usually indicative of a carburetor issue. So I check it. Sometimes I have to clean the cards etc.

If I knew nothing at all about motorcycles, I would not know to check the carburetor if the engine was idling rough.

Knowing how something is supposed to work enables me to know something is wrong with it when it is not working the way it is supposed to.

If I was in my garage working on a brand new motorcycle I bought that was running in every aspect perfectly, and my wife walked up to me and asked me why I was working on it and I replied, I am fixing and working on it and correcting the problems with the motorcycle because it is running perfectly, she would rightly assume I had bumped my head on something or had either gone mad!!!!

We do not speak of diagnosing, correcting, treating, or fixing things unless we presuppose that there is some way the thing is supposed to work and that it is indeed broken or in need of fixing.

You have said that Jeremy needs to be treated because he has certain characteristics i.e. narcissistic behaviour, callousness, apathy, remorselessness etc.

This would be like me saying that my bike needs to be fixed because it has certain characteristics i.e. rough idle, stalling when the clutch is released, tracking issues, etc.

In both cases, you and I have an idea in our mind or a standard, that we are comparing something to. In your case you are comparing Jeremy to your ideal or model human being who has empathy, who has remorse, who is not narcissistic etc. In my case I am comparing my bike to a bike that has a buttery smooth idle, perfect transition of power from the engine to the transmission, perfect tracking etc.

Now, what grounds do you have for maintaining that a model or ideal human being would possess such characteristics such as empathy, remorse, and any other you wish to add? What basis do you have for maintaining that unless a person has characteristics x,y, and z, then they are broken, in error, need to be fixed, messed up, etc.?

You see, the grounds I have for maintaining that a model or ideal bike would have a buttery smooth idle, smooth and continuous transfer of power from the engine to the transmission etc, is that I go to the owner's manual that was written by the engineer who designed the bike and check my bike to what the designer says the bike should be like.

If it lines up with what the engineer or designer has in his manual, and it runs how the designer says it should, boom, I know I got a properly functioning bike.

That is my standard.

What is yours?

What is my standard for diagnosing Jeremy's psychopathy? My standard comes from clinical psychology and psychiatry. Clinical psychology does not provide a standard for the "perfect" or "ideal" human being; it does, however, identify certain traits and behaviours that are both abnormal and maladaptive. Jeremy's behaviour meets the criteria for psychopathy. The cluster of symptoms he exhibits are abnormal, occurring infrequently in the normal population; and they are maladaptive, making Jeremy prone to criminality and anti-social behaviour, which is neither in his best interest or society's.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does your hypothetical "moral law giver" enforce these obligations? Does Jeremy get struck by lightning?

No, he delegates enforcement to his obedient servants - those who constantly bloviate about doing "God's Will" as they unleash all manner of cruelty on others.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's an opinion... a matter of taste of preference (if that gives you a clearer idea of what kind of opinion)....nothing more.

Is that an opinion, or a truth claim?