Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[2PhiloVoid]

I'ld ask "what" instead. And that "what" would be the facts of reality.
I mean, does it really need explaining that being healthy is preferable to being sick?
That feeling good is preferable to being in pain?

Facts do not speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted and applied, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by groups. So, YES, it really does need explaining. Otherwise what you specifically 'count' as healthy can end up smudging over various aspects of life (and "well-being") that, while not important to you by way of your own personal logic, are still representative of felt needs among some other individuals, or groups.

I don't see how it is a matter of opinion.
Is the difference between "in pain" and "not in pain", a matter of opinion?
Between "sick" and "healthy"?
Between "slave" and "free"?

This is because you want to think it can be reduced down to simple terms without actually doing the ethical work of looking at the individual and group contexts of social and moral life. In which case....if you did, then you wouldn't just be using some kind of amorphous claim to an application of logic, or using the ambiguities of "well-being" as your semantic catch-all.

I'ld argue that we have that allready. Sure, what constitutes "well-being" surely can change over time as we learn more about humans and reality, but it nevertheless is defined by the facts of reality (that we know about) - not by anyones mere opinion.

So, you admit that these inherent understanding of facts can change over time. Do you all admit that these facts can be interpreted differently in the current moment between individuals and between groups?

I never claimed there is. Obviously, any moral framework we adhere to, will be something that only exist out of necessity of the human condition. Remove humans and you'll succesfully delete any moral framework which is an inherent part of humanity.

That is such a cop out, vacuous attempt at analysis which says little to nothing about the actual, ongoing debates we have in the world about all of these forms of ethics and morals.

But, again, if the goal/point of morals is not to increase well-being / decrease suffering.... then what do you mean by morals???

What do I mean? As a Christian, I would mean what Jesus would imply, but then I admit up front that I've placed myself into a particular ethical category. Something which you are struggling to do for yourself.

As Sam Harris himself says: if you can't agree that 'immoral behaviour' are those behaviours that increase suffering... then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word "morality"

This just shows that Harris is attempting to reduce down a concept to the shape and size he can (and is willing) to work with.

I don't care for all those labels, nore do I know what they all mean.

If you don't care about all those 'labels,' then you don't care that millions of people use these not always compatible ways of thinking about ethics and morals...throughout the world. Which also kind of shows that you don't really care about looking at the complexity of it all, which in turn shows that you're not much interesting in becoming educated about the complexities of moral and ethical issues.

Again, it's rather logical for me...
Moral = that which decreases suffering / increases well-being
Immoral = that which increases suffering / decreases well-being

yes, yes, yes. I know. You keep saying that, which isn't to say a whole lot, even though it is better than saying nothing.

And I just go from there. I can't think of a single act where I would come to the "wrong" conclusion, using those very simple premises/standards. Can you?

Have you ever taken an ethics class at the university level?

That is not to say that making moral evaluations is always easy... if it were, there would be no such thing as a "moral dilemma".

I'm just saying, it seems like a perfectly rational basis for a moral compass and I have yet to hear a single sensible argument against it.

Well...I've already scraped the tip of the iceberg on this ...........

So far, all I got was something along the lines of "but, but.... you're not appealing to the supernatural or some authority!!! so...there!"

And off course, without any sort of explanation of why it's apparantly necessary to have such an authority or supernatural ingredient.

And you're not appealing to any supernatural authority. And it shows. However, there is a caveat here; unlike some of my fellow Christian brethren, I don't really expect for you to be able to understand the Christian contours of ethics since it's not something that can be concluded just by thinking hard enough. So, I'm not going to place blame on you for a failure to see that Jesus Christ provides the focal point for human ethics.

2PhiloVoid

 

[ExodusMe]

Why?
Which would you classify as "well-being":
- sick as opposed to healthy
- in captivity as opposed to free
- in pain as opposed to not in pain
- having enough food versus being hungry
- being illiterate as opposed to literate
- being happy as opposed to depressed
- feeling appreciated/loved as opposed to being lonely
- ...

It really doesn't seem hard to me to understand what "well-being" is about as opposed to "suffering".




I'ld ask "what" instead. And that "what" would be the facts of reality.
I mean, does it really need explaining that being healthy is preferable to being sick?
That feeling good is preferable to being in pain?



I don't see how it is a matter of opinion.
Is the difference between "in pain" and "not in pain", a matter of opinion?
Between "sick" and "healthy"?
Between "slave" and "free"?



I'ld argue that we have that allready. Sure, what constitutes "well-being" surely can change over time as we learn more about humans and reality, but it nevertheless is defined by the facts of reality (that we know about) - not by anyones mere opinion.



I never claimed there is. Obviously, any moral framework we adhere to, will be something that only exist out of necessity of the human condition. Remove humans and you'll succesfully delete any moral framework which is an inherent part of humanity.

But, again, if the goal/point of morals is not to increase well-being / decrease suffering.... then what do you mean by morals???


As Sam Harris himself says: if you can't agree that 'immoral behaviour' are those behaviours that increase suffering... then I don't know what you are talking about when you use the word "morality"



I don't care for all those labels, nore do I know what they all mean.

Again, it's rather logical for me...
Moral = that which decreases suffering / increases well-being
Immoral = that which increases suffering / decreases well-being

And I just go from there. I can't think of a single act where I would come to the "wrong" conclusion, using those very simple premises/standards. Can you?

That is not to say that making moral evaluations is always easy... if it were, there would be no such thing as a "moral dilemma".

I'm just saying, it seems like a perfectly rational basis for a moral compass and I have yet to hear a single sensible argument against it.

So far, all I got was something along the lines of "but, but.... you're not appealing to the supernatural or some authority!!! so...there!"

And off course, without any sort of explanation of why it's apparantly necessary to have such an authority or supernatural ingredient.

Here are a few glaring problems with your understanding of morality

1) Morals have to do with responsibility and obligation. We might be able to make inferences to the well being of a person from their actions, but nature does not tell us whether this action is right or wrong and it certainly does not give us an obligation to fulfill those actions.
2) Any fact based value judgements of the actions of other persons will A) lack a moral obligation to fulfill those actions b) lack the complete facts of the result of those actions. For example, a person who shoots and kills another person. At face value, this is murder. Suppose this person was allowed to live and ends up shooting up a mall. Would the original action then be good? This isn't the best example, but the point is clear. You do not have the complete facts surrounding moral value judgements and any facts related to moral value judgements will be based on opinion and bias.
3) Euthyphro dilemma isn't an issue with divine command theory. Morals are grounded in the perfect, unchanging, righteous, holy, amazing, nature of God. They are not based on what he says. What he says is based on his perfect nature.

 

[Moral Orel]

Euthyphro dilemma isn't an issue with divine command theory. Morals are grounded in the perfect, unchanging, righteous, holy, amazing, nature of God. They are not based on what he says. What he says is based on his perfect nature.

If God is real, there is only one moral, and that is "Obey God". In a worldview where genocide is ever a morally good thing to do, then all morals are relative, save for that one.

Sure, I can't prove that the world isn't a better place without the ancestors of all those Canaanites, maybe it is. But you can't point to any action and say, "that action is always morally bad no matter what" except for one action, and that is "do what God says". So yeah, morals are based on what God says.

 

[ExodusMe]

If God is real, there is only one moral, and that is "Obey God". In a worldview where genocide is ever a morally good thing to do, then all morals are relative, save for that one.

Sure, I can't prove that the world isn't a better place without the ancestors of all those Canaanites, maybe it is. But you can't point to any action and say, "that action is always morally bad no matter what" except for one action, and that is "do what God says". So yeah, morals are based on what God says.

you are nit picking. that point wasn't important and I probably shouldn't have said it that way. here is what I am saying

God's nature -> God's Command's -> moral obligation of humans to obey

This is important because your buddy is proposing that moral values and duties exist platonically a part from God. My diagram shows a proper model of divine command theory where moral values and duties arise from the perfect nature of our divine Creator.

 

[Moral Orel]

you are nit picking. that point wasn't important and I probably shouldn't have said it that way.

You brought up the originally argument that I am presuming Harris is trying to refute with his book. That objective moral duties exist apart from God. I'm saying that they don't exist with God other than "obey". That is an important distinction, because people talk about objective morals as if they're superior to relative morals, when in actuality, your system can still lead to the exact same horrific acts that a lot of apologists (including yourself when you decided to mention genocide) ignore.

This is important because your buddy is proposing that moral values and duties exist platonically a part from God.

They do. You aren't being precise enough here. Objective moral values and duties don't exist (according to you) apart from God. I do have moral values, and if they are all based on empathy and fairness, then they are the result of evolution.

My diagram shows a proper model of divine command theory where moral values and duties arise from the perfect nature of our divine Creator.

Yeah, and it all results in "obey". You could be commanded to obey any command, no matter how terrible and awful and really bad it may be. So there are no actions that are objectively bad except for disobedience. Killing someone (man, woman, child, whatever) not in self defense and not in the context of a war is not objectively bad. Genocide is not objectively bad. Slavery is not objectively bad. Etc.

While I recognize the faults in Harris' argument, mainly the one he recognizes that it isn't always practical to evaluate how much suffering or how much well-being results from an action, it's still a plenty good starting point. But to think that people try to use the Bible to advocate for objective moral duties is preposterous. There might be one, but only one.

 

[ExodusMe]

You brought up the originally argument that I am presuming Harris is trying to refute with his book. That objective moral duties exist apart from God. I'm saying that they don't exist with God other than "obey". That is an important distinction, because people talk about objective morals as if they're superior to relative morals, when in actuality, your system can still lead to the exact same horrific acts that a lot of apologists (including yourself when you decided to mention genocide) ignore.

They do. You aren't being precise enough here. Objective moral values and duties don't exist (according to you) apart from God. I do have moral values, and if they are all based on empathy and fairness, then they are the result of evolution.

Yeah, and it all results in "obey". You could be commanded to obey any command, no matter how terrible and awful and really bad it may be. So there are no actions that are objectively bad except for disobedience. Killing someone (man, woman, child, whatever) not in self defense and not in the context of a war is not objectively bad. Genocide is not objectively bad. Slavery is not objectively bad. Etc.

While I recognize the faults in Harris' argument, mainly the one he recognizes that it isn't always practical to evaluate how much suffering or how much well-being results from an action, it's still a plenty good starting point. But to think that people try to use the Bible to advocate for objective moral duties is preposterous. There might be one, but only one.

Let's take a step back for a second. T-monsters proposal was that humans could make objective value judgements of right and wrong on fact based situations. I argued that 1) we have no moral obligation to follow those moral value judgements and 2) we actually lack all of the necessary facts to establish true value judgements.

Divine command theory provides both.

With God, you have 1) a moral law giver who has sufficient authority to command obedience and furnish a moral obligation to us and 2) God also has the necessary knowledge to make fact based value judgements of situations.

You bring up another point regarding how God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites, etc... but I think that is more of a hyperbole. God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites as a form of judgement to their nation.

This isn't to say that God can command evil, which is what you are trying to say. God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil (i.e. there will be an end times judgement, etc...), so Christianity has specific doctrines to answer why evil is allowed today.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's take a step back for a second. T-monsters proposal was that humans could make objective value judgements of right and wrong on fact based situations. I argued that 1) we have no moral obligation to follow those moral value judgements and 2) we actually lack all of the necessary facts to establish true value judgements.

Divine command theory provides both.

With God, you have 1) a moral law giver who has sufficient authority to command obedience and furnish a moral obligation to us and 2) God also has the necessary knowledge to make fact based value judgements of situations.

I can make my own obligations to myself. I can simply decide, "this is something I must do" and now I'm obligated. I can be obligated because I think God told me to do something, I can be obligated because I feel I should, etc... Obligation is an arbitrary term.

And as I, and even Harris agreed, we don't always have enough facts. But needing all the facts leads to an "ends justifies the means" argument, and that makes all actions morally relative.

You bring up another point regarding how God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites, etc... but I think that is more of a hyperbole. God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites as a form of judgement to their nation.

This isn't to say that God can command evil, which is what you are trying to say. God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil (i.e. there will be an end times judgement, etc...), so Christianity has specific doctrines to answer why evil is allowed today.

God commanded genocide in the case of the Canaanites. He committed genocide in the case of the flood. So it was not an "allowance" of evil. People who could do no wrong and had done no wrong were commanded to be killed. People who could do no wrong and had done no wrong were killed by God's actions in the case of the flood. So it was not wholly a "judgement".

I am not saying God can command evil. You're interpreting things that way because you feel that genocide is an objectively evil act and you're being forced to reconcile the fact that a perfectly good God ordered genocide to be done and committed genocide by His own hand. I'm saying that, according to a Biblical worldview, genocide is not an objectively evil act. Sometimes, in some cases, in some situations, for some people, genocide is a morally good action. Every action is judged based on the results of the action, and is therefore relative. The only objective moral is "obey" and other than that, anything goes as long as God commanded it. And there is nothing that we can be sure God will never command.

 

[ExodusMe]

I can make my own obligations to myself. I can simply decide, "this is something I must do" and now I'm obligated. I can be obligated because I think God told me to do something, I can be obligated because I feel I should, etc... Obligation is an arbitrary term.

Obligation has to come from an appropriate authority (e.g. police officers, supervisors, God, parents, etc...). This is pretty non-controversial in regards to morality. Your own person is not an appropriate authority for objective moral values and duties, because that would be a direct contradiction to being objective (objective vs subjective).

And as I, and even Harris agreed, we don't always have enough facts. But needing all the facts leads to an "ends justifies the means" argument, and that makes all actions morally relative.

Unless you are God who has all of the appropriate facts....

God commanded genocide in the case of the Canaanites. He committed genocide in the case of the flood. So it was not an "allowance" of evil. People who could do no wrong and had done no wrong were commanded to be killed. People who could do no wrong and had done no wrong were killed by God's actions in the case of the flood. So it was not wholly a "judgement".

Now you are judging God's actions based on a very insignificant amount of information in regards to the historical context of the flood. This is pointless. We don't have all of the facts concerning God's moral actions. We cannot say he killed innocent people. Further, Christian doctrine says that nobody is morally righteous before God. Again, Christianity has doctrines that explain your proposed contradictions.

I am not saying God can command evil. You're interpreting things that way because you feel that genocide is an objectively evil act and you're being forced to reconcile the fact that a perfectly good God ordered genocide to be done and committed genocide by His own hand. I'm saying that, according to a Biblical worldview, genocide is not an objectively evil act. Sometimes, in some cases, in some situations, for some people, genocide is a morally good action. Every action is judged based on the results of the action, and is therefore relative. The only objective moral is "obey" and other than that, anything goes as long as God commanded it. And there is nothing that we can be sure God will never command.

No, I don't believe genocide is objectively evil. God was morally righteous to command the genocide of the Canaanites because he 1) had the moral authority to command their death 2) knew the facts concerning the situation to determine it was a morally righteous command

Please reread your previous statement

Quoted from you:
1) I am not saying God can command evil
2) The only objective moral is "obey" and other than that, anything goes as long as God commanded it. And there is nothing that we can be sure God will never command.

You need to be more explicit with your statements as I don't clearly see your argument.

It is either
1) you are afraid of people like the mohammedans who yell alahu akbar as they blow up mothers & daughters in the name of allah & claim they have a moral defense for what they did
2) You are claiming that God can command evil

I don't see any problem for 1) with Christians. The command of genocide of the Canaanites was to bring the people of Israel into the land God promised them. God gave the Canaanites something like 400 years to repent. Generation after generation they disregarded their Creator. He was just in destroying them after 400 years and shows unbelievable mercy & patience towards all of us including myself. Today, God has fully revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. All of his promises (except his return) have been fulfilled. We wait for the end. Any proper Christian cannot threat violence in the name of God and be morally justified. This gets extremely complex when we talk about self-defense, national defense, military war, etc... so lets just stop there...

2) I don't think I need to beat this horse. Divine command theory provides and excellent model for this. The source of God's commands is his perfect, holy, righteous, loving, nature. He cannot command evil.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I don't believe genocide is objectively evil.

I think we agree, actually. So instead of going through and talking about your whole post point by point and going off on tangents, can you tell me one objectively evil action other than disobeying God? Is there any action that no human should ever do? If genocide isn't objectively evil, then what is?

 

[Larniavc]

God was morally righteous to command the genocide of the Canaanites because he 1) had the moral authority to command their death 2) knew the facts concerning the situation to determine it was a morally righteous command

So morality is subjective the law giver? I'm not looking for a 'Gotcha' but we are sailing very close 'just following orders', here.

 

[ExodusMe]

The problem is we are taking a word "genocide" and applying it to God's actions with an implied moral consequence. There is nothing moral about genocide in and of itself. It is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.". Now we can get emotional about this and say "what deliberately killing a large ethnic group of people isn't evil!?!?!", but I think that would only be an emotional response, because from a human perspective, genocide is usually racially motivated (i.e. this type of people are of race X and we don't like race X, so let's kill them).

If genocide is carried out as a moral judgement I don't see that as evil because of my two reasons before (God' has the authority and knowledge required to carry out the action). In this sense, genocide of the Canaanites should be considered a mass execution (I cringe myself by saying these things, but it is only from my fallen human state and my lack of knowing God's knowledge).

Now let's look at another word. Murder is objectively evil. Why? Because the definition itself includes a moral imperative. The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". This is necessarily/objectively evil by definition, because it is defined as unlawful.

God could not murder someone for the sake of judgement. A person is not murdered in an execution by the state. An execution is the lawful (at least on the states terms) killing of a human being.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is we are taking a word "genocide" and applying it to God's actions with an implied moral consequence. There is nothing moral about genocide in and of itself. It is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.". Now we can get emotional about this and say "what deliberately killing a large ethnic group of people isn't evil!?!?!", but I think that would only be an emotional response, because from a human perspective, genocide is usually racially motivated (i.e. this type of people are of race X and we don't like race X, so let's kill them).

If genocide is carried out as a moral judgement I don't see that as evil because of my two reasons before (God' has the authority and knowledge required to carry out the action). In this sense, genocide of the Canaanites should be considered a mass execution (I cringe myself by saying these things, but it is only from my fallen human state and my lack of knowing God's knowledge).

Now let's look at another word. Murder is objectively evil. Why? Because the definition itself includes a moral imperative. The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". This is necessarily/objectively evil by definition, because it is defined as unlawful.

God could not murder someone for the sake of judgement. A person is not murdered in an execution by the state. An execution is the lawful (at least on the states terms) killing of a human being.

The amazing thing is that it was an execution (or capital punishment) made upon the Canaanite peoples who were: 1) more numerous, 2) more powerful, and 3) better equipped than the Israelites. I wonder............how exactly did Israel get the upper hand in all that and how did it all really go down?

 

[Larniavc]

If genocide is carried out as a moral judgement I don't see that as evil because of my two reasons before (God' has the authority and knowledge required to carry out the action).

Then morality is subjective to the whims of the being with the most power?

 

[ExodusMe]

Then morality is subjective to the whims of the being with the most power?

If you are talking about some general theism, then sure.

In Christianity, morals are based on the perfect, holy, divine, righteous nature of God. His commands come from this nature and are executed in perfect accordance with his will.

 

[Larniavc]

If you are talking about some general theism, then sure.

Then that is awful: so if he decides someone is for the chopping block that's it, game over?

 

[ExodusMe]

I'm a Christian. You would have to ask someone who is defending the god you are talking about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then that is awful: so if he decides someone is for the chopping block that's it, game over?

Yep...a meteor lands on the spiritual perpetrator's house ... and it's "lights outs"! YIKES!!!

 

[Chriliman]

I think we agree, actually. So instead of going through and talking about your whole post point by point and going off on tangents, can you tell me one objectively evil action other than disobeying God? Is there any action that no human should ever do? If genocide isn't objectively evil, then what is?

Indeed, we cannot know what evil/sin is apart from God's command/law.

Romans 7:7-9
"7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died."

Essentially, we would have no knowledge of good and evil had God not commanded that we not eat of the tree. However, his command enabled us to either listen and obey or not and consequently we did not obey, which is why there's death, which is also why God came in the form of a man named Jesus to take on death even though he did not sin, and overcome it through resurrection in order that we may find freedom from sin and death and receive God's mercy and love through Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are so blind to logic it is maddening.

Do you have something besides bare assertions?

Everything you just said pretty much confirms Sam Harris' equivocation. I can't believe you don't see this.

Perhaps you should try and point it out then.

I am almost convinced you are just pretending not to see it and are just messing with us at this point.

Not seeing, what exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I answered that in my previous post....the meaning of "well-being" is open to equivocal usage.

How?

Sick as opposed to healthy? Really.

Yes, really. Do you disagree that "healthy" would fall under well-being while "sick" would fall under suffering???

So, when we wish to immunize children against diseases, and we know going into the procedure that there usually remains a risk, however small (?), that some children will be adversely affected by the immunization itself, then... .by your understanding, that only requires sheer logic to discern the moral (right) course of action on behalf of the "well-being" of any individual child.

This is an action that has nothing to do with the idea that health is preferable to being sick.
And I'm not about to get sucked into what-looks-like anti-vaccination rants.

I'll just say: if vaccination ensures that children dying form preventable deseases to an all-time low, then vaccination is a good thing. Because guess what... being alive and kicking is preferable to being dead.

And in which case, you think you're only using sheer logic, but not really subscribing to any particular form of ethical framework by which you've made a decision as to what the moral thing is to do?

My moral compass is based on "well-being is better then suffering".
And yes, I base my moral judgement on that foundation.

Let's turn it around then... what do YOU base it on?
I note I still haven't gotten a straight answer to such questions. If by "moral" you don't mean things that increase well-being / decrease suffering, then what DO you mean by it??

Really? Do you think this? If this is the case, please never, ever work on an ethics board for any health institution...or for any other institution for that matter.

Because... working to decrease suffering and increase well-being is.... a bad thing, somehow?