Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
This isn't a contradiction.
Gravity is a universal law. It is the same, as far as we can tell, everywhere in the universe.
Morality isn't. We see aspects of what we would recognise as shared morality in other animals, but nothing universal. For example, it is usual for male lions, when they take over control of a pride, to kill the offspring of the previous male in charge. That is their morality. It is not ours.
Our morality has evolved because of the way we used to live - as small wandering bands of apes. Our opinion of morality is based on that.
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be."
It has been shown to be. By studies of other animals, and by evolutionary theory.
I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality."
Yes, indeed,
(And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Well, other species survive well without our form of morality (such as lions).
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Yes, he is and they are!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Morality and Gravity, cont.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Exactly where is the problem?
Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
In response to my claim that "Life is sacred" was an irreducible principle, you said that "Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be."
Nor are they reducible simply because we say they are. I suppose you could just say "Life is," but that wouldn't really be a "principle," per se. But hey, if you can reduce it, I'm open to correction.
On where people's derive their sense of morality, you said "I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!"
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be." I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality." (And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Would you like to move on to another topic? I kinda feel like we're not making much progress here.
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Exactly where is the problem?
Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
In response to my claim that "Life is sacred" was an irreducible principle, you said that "Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be."
Nor are they reducible simply because we say they are. I suppose you could just say "Life is," but that wouldn't really be a "principle," per se. But hey, if you can reduce it, I'm open to correction.
On where people's derive their sense of morality, you said "I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!"
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be." I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality." (And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Would you like to move on to another topic? I kinda feel like we're not making much progress here.
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Morality and Gravity
By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
Yes, but I can't see any basis for that opinion.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
I agree that it doesn't disprove anything, but I put it to you that how we feel is the only connection we have to rightness and wrongness. We can postulate absolutes, but that is pointless unless we can prove their existence.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Yes. They have evolved to deal with gravity, as they have evolved a moral sense.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
Yes, but I can't see any basis for that opinion.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
I agree that it doesn't disprove anything, but I put it to you that how we feel is the only connection we have to rightness and wrongness. We can postulate absolutes, but that is pointless unless we can prove their existence.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Yes. They have evolved to deal with gravity, as they have evolved a moral sense.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Right and Wrong, my (perhaps) final statement
As far as I can tell, we're in general agreement about the process most people go through to arrive at ideas about what's wrong and right and morality in general. Our fundamental disagreement lies in how we view the nature of our conclusions and the implications those conclusions have.
Here's what I mean.
To the Christian -- at least to this Christian -- Natural Law embodies universal truths about how men are to live. By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us go back to the question of genocide. I have asked whether genocide is morally right or morally wrong.
You stated that you "feel" genocide is, in some sense, "wrong," perhaps even "evil," and the very thought of it makes you hurt. Moreover, you have discussed it with others who confirmed your view: "And so [you] act on that, and condemn genocide."
Your condemnation, however, comes with a proviso that gives away the farm: being subject to "illusions" as we are, humans cannot be too careful about making absolute pronouncements about genocide, because at the end of the day, regardless of how palpably miserable one may feel about genocide -- or any other moral question -- it's really just an opinion.
I would submit to you that there are many questions of morality that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion nor are they a product of it.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
I'm not saying feelings can never lead you to the wrong conclusion. But neither should we assume that a conclusion is wrong just because, in the process of reaching it, we had a corresponding feeling.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Of course, many of the laws man has invented from time immemorial, injunctions against murder, for example, are derived from this basic principle. Now, that is NOT to say that this principle exists in isolation to other principles or that there aren't ever competing principles involved when considering it. But it is a basic, fundamental principle I hold to be true.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
It was upon this fundamental principle that Jesus could say: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (And yes, I'm aware that others down through the ages have articulated this same basic idea).
You mentioned the charitable contributions you had made to organizations who oppose human rights violation and torture. Were it possible for you to objectively assess your motivation, do you think it would be because A) these groups agree with your opinion that torture is probably one of the least preferable ways to deal with people, but that we cannot be sure, since we don't all agree nor can we appeal to some universal written code, or B) these groups believe torture, in some very real, fundamental way, is wrong?
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Maybe that's a corny example. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Here's what I mean.
To the Christian -- at least to this Christian -- Natural Law embodies universal truths about how men are to live. By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us go back to the question of genocide. I have asked whether genocide is morally right or morally wrong.
You stated that you "feel" genocide is, in some sense, "wrong," perhaps even "evil," and the very thought of it makes you hurt. Moreover, you have discussed it with others who confirmed your view: "And so [you] act on that, and condemn genocide."
Your condemnation, however, comes with a proviso that gives away the farm: being subject to "illusions" as we are, humans cannot be too careful about making absolute pronouncements about genocide, because at the end of the day, regardless of how palpably miserable one may feel about genocide -- or any other moral question -- it's really just an opinion.
I would submit to you that there are many questions of morality that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion nor are they a product of it.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
I'm not saying feelings can never lead you to the wrong conclusion. But neither should we assume that a conclusion is wrong just because, in the process of reaching it, we had a corresponding feeling.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Of course, many of the laws man has invented from time immemorial, injunctions against murder, for example, are derived from this basic principle. Now, that is NOT to say that this principle exists in isolation to other principles or that there aren't ever competing principles involved when considering it. But it is a basic, fundamental principle I hold to be true.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
It was upon this fundamental principle that Jesus could say: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (And yes, I'm aware that others down through the ages have articulated this same basic idea).
You mentioned the charitable contributions you had made to organizations who oppose human rights violation and torture. Were it possible for you to objectively assess your motivation, do you think it would be because A) these groups agree with your opinion that torture is probably one of the least preferable ways to deal with people, but that we cannot be sure, since we don't all agree nor can we appeal to some universal written code, or B) these groups believe torture, in some very real, fundamental way, is wrong?
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Maybe that's a corny example. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wright and wrong - my final statement
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
Good. This is important, as it clears up a major and frequent misunderstanding about how someone can be a materialist atheist like me and still be moral. I am generalising from my own experience, but I would say that we don't seek out some universal perfect standard for our morality, as we don't believe that such 'universals' exist, but neither are our standards arbitrary, or purely for convenience. We try (if we are good people - although this may sound circular) to feel our way through this as best we can, and build up our own moral system (although in discussion with others) that can be a firm foundation for the way we think and act. We stick with this moral system, although if we find our feelings changing, or discussion with others over a period of time can convince us we have been mistaken, we are willing to change our moral systems, although carefully and slowly.
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
I am certain it is, but then I would say that, because it is my belief that religious moral systems are reflections of the way our minds work, rather than through access to some transcendental standards. I believe that almost everyone who has a moral sense uses the same process.
I would like to point out that you are the first Christian I have had a coherent discussion about this with.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
No, I think this has gone very well so far, and I am happy to move on.
(If you know a way to delete duplicated posts, as the forum software crashed, could you let me know?)
Good. This is important, as it clears up a major and frequent misunderstanding about how someone can be a materialist atheist like me and still be moral. I am generalising from my own experience, but I would say that we don't seek out some universal perfect standard for our morality, as we don't believe that such 'universals' exist, but neither are our standards arbitrary, or purely for convenience. We try (if we are good people - although this may sound circular) to feel our way through this as best we can, and build up our own moral system (although in discussion with others) that can be a firm foundation for the way we think and act. We stick with this moral system, although if we find our feelings changing, or discussion with others over a period of time can convince us we have been mistaken, we are willing to change our moral systems, although carefully and slowly.
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
I am certain it is, but then I would say that, because it is my belief that religious moral systems are reflections of the way our minds work, rather than through access to some transcendental standards. I believe that almost everyone who has a moral sense uses the same process.
I would like to point out that you are the first Christian I have had a coherent discussion about this with.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
No, I think this has gone very well so far, and I am happy to move on.
(If you know a way to delete duplicated posts, as the forum software crashed, could you let me know?)
Right and wrong - agreeing to disagree
Great! I can work with that. I think it needs a little unpacking, though. So let's break it down:
"I believe that those acts are wrong by the[se] standards..."
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
This is the very same view I hold as do many, if not most, Christians.
Continuing on, you explain what these standards are: 1) what you have "learned and understood," 2) in combination with your "conscience", and 3) your ability to "empathize."
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
"I believe that those acts are wrong by the[se] standards..."
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
This is the very same view I hold as do many, if not most, Christians.
Continuing on, you explain what these standards are: 1) what you have "learned and understood," 2) in combination with your "conscience", and 3) your ability to "empathize."
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
Pain of wrong-doing - more explanation
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Ah, but we don't know what it is like. We don't know it feels bad. It is a concept with no associations.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
No. Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I said actions can't be objectively morally right or morally wrong because there's no way to objectively measure these qualities. However, we can subjectively measure them, because of our feelings and understanding.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
I am a little confused, because I thought I had.
I can condemn unethical acts by saying "I believe that those acts are wrong by the standards I have learned and understood, in combination with my conscience and my ability to empathise".
What I can't do is say "I believe those acts are wrong by some universal objective standard of how wrong certain acts are", because I have no idea of any foundation on which to base such a statement. There is no universally accepted book, or stone tablet, or sign in the sky that say "this act is wrong" (and even if there where, how do I know those are telling the truth?)
But I will condemn acts that I consider evil. (In fact, I not only do condemn them, I actively support charties that campaign against abuses of human rights and torture).
I think that is the best I can do. I can go into more detail about how I believe my conscience and empathy works, with a discussion of the evolution of altruism, and the operation of empathy-inducing "mirror" brain cells...
Ah, but we don't know what it is like. We don't know it feels bad. It is a concept with no associations.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
No. Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I said actions can't be objectively morally right or morally wrong because there's no way to objectively measure these qualities. However, we can subjectively measure them, because of our feelings and understanding.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
I am a little confused, because I thought I had.
I can condemn unethical acts by saying "I believe that those acts are wrong by the standards I have learned and understood, in combination with my conscience and my ability to empathise".
What I can't do is say "I believe those acts are wrong by some universal objective standard of how wrong certain acts are", because I have no idea of any foundation on which to base such a statement. There is no universally accepted book, or stone tablet, or sign in the sky that say "this act is wrong" (and even if there where, how do I know those are telling the truth?)
But I will condemn acts that I consider evil. (In fact, I not only do condemn them, I actively support charties that campaign against abuses of human rights and torture).
I think that is the best I can do. I can go into more detail about how I believe my conscience and empathy works, with a discussion of the evolution of altruism, and the operation of empathy-inducing "mirror" brain cells...
The pain of wrong-doing, cont.
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm not following you. To my way of thinking, your analogy with pain actually serves to illustrate my point.
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
"Is there an objective, independent standard of pain?...I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear other describe a similar pain."
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Let me ask again. If one believes there are no real, objective standards by which to judge actions -- moral actions, if you will -- upon what basis would you condemn this statement:
"We can rightly say that we believe passionately genocide is right, because of the pleasure we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense."
I'm not asking you to approve of genocide, Steve. I'm simply asking you to give me a definite answer, one way or another, to my question.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
"Is there an objective, independent standard of pain?...I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear other describe a similar pain."
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Let me ask again. If one believes there are no real, objective standards by which to judge actions -- moral actions, if you will -- upon what basis would you condemn this statement:
"We can rightly say that we believe passionately genocide is right, because of the pleasure we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense."
I'm not asking you to approve of genocide, Steve. I'm simply asking you to give me a definite answer, one way or another, to my question.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
The pain of wrong-doing
However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
Perhaps this analogy might help. Is there an objective, independent standard of pain? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! Other people's suffering hurts me. When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear others describe a similar pain.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
We can rightly say that we believe passionately it was wrong, because of the pain we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Thank you.
I don't see how the question of Natural Law helps. First, many people don't follow it (like Hitler), secondly, where is this Law "written"? Who says how we read it?
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.
That is how civilised people should act.
I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
I may be an atheist, but I rarely yell :)
Perhaps this analogy might help. Is there an objective, independent standard of pain? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! Other people's suffering hurts me. When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear others describe a similar pain.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
We can rightly say that we believe passionately it was wrong, because of the pain we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Thank you.
I don't see how the question of Natural Law helps. First, many people don't follow it (like Hitler), secondly, where is this Law "written"? Who says how we read it?
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.
That is how civilised people should act.
I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
I may be an atheist, but I rarely yell :)
Right and Wrong (closure?)
"This argument assumes some independent standard of 'legitimate' by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs."
First, when I question whether genocide is legitimate, what I really mean to do is question whether genocide is right. The fact that you put 'legitimate' in scare quotes illustrates how problematic this issue can be for someone who doesn't accept objective morality. (If you can think of a more accurate term, I will be happy to consider it, but I think it does convey the sense of what we're talking about here).
You wrote: "I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide."
Now, I don't have any real issues with what you're describing here. For someone who tries to apply what they believe about morality, this is a pretty good description. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
On what basis would one conclude that those like Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom, who protected Jews, did the "right" thing if there are no objective standards?
One final observation:
"I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be 'wrong' by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right."
Your point is well taken. I'm not saying one necessarily gains anything or could win a debate by appealing to Natural Law. Yes, Hitler would absolutely argue the point of genocide. You are right in saying some people "will say they know what the standard is, and they are right."
But we both know people are dishonest. I can't prove it, Steve, but I firmly believe Hitler knew genocide was wrong. And why do I believe it?
Natural Law.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things. I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs."
First, when I question whether genocide is legitimate, what I really mean to do is question whether genocide is right. The fact that you put 'legitimate' in scare quotes illustrates how problematic this issue can be for someone who doesn't accept objective morality. (If you can think of a more accurate term, I will be happy to consider it, but I think it does convey the sense of what we're talking about here).
You wrote: "I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide."
Now, I don't have any real issues with what you're describing here. For someone who tries to apply what they believe about morality, this is a pretty good description. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
On what basis would one conclude that those like Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom, who protected Jews, did the "right" thing if there are no objective standards?
One final observation:
"I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be 'wrong' by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right."
Your point is well taken. I'm not saying one necessarily gains anything or could win a debate by appealing to Natural Law. Yes, Hitler would absolutely argue the point of genocide. You are right in saying some people "will say they know what the standard is, and they are right."
But we both know people are dishonest. I can't prove it, Steve, but I firmly believe Hitler knew genocide was wrong. And why do I believe it?
Natural Law.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things. I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
More on the Question of Right and Wrong
Steve, thank you so much for your very honest and obviously heartfelt reply. The question of right and wrong, and morality in general, is a tough one. Your answer really presents a good example of how you try to put your ideas into practice, which is very helpful to me. I think it also illustrates one of the core differences between atheists -- some of them, anyway -- and Christians (I won't use the term "theists" here, since I'm not sure what other religions believe).
You raise several important points I'd like to address.
You raise several important points I'd like to address.
My view
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
This arguments assume some independent standard of "legitimate" by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs.
This arguments assume some independent standard of "legitimate" by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs.
Right and Wrong, a continuation
Alright, fair enough. Let's talk about the implications of your view.
In recent years, it has become popular for philosophers of different stripes to point to the Holocaust and Hitler as a way of proving or disproving a particular theory about this or that. I think this is because of the horrific singularity of the event. The worst fears of mankind were realized in the Holocaust, and personified in Hitler and his henchmen. Oddly enough, Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza can both point to the Holocaust to prove opposing points. I assume you know the arguments of both, so I won't bother going into them at this point.
But what are the implications of your view if we apply them to the Holocaust?
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
Have you ever heard of Corrie Ten Boom? She was a Dutch Christian Holocaust survivor who hid Jews in her home during the Holocaust. Doesn't your view, logically applied, imply that her actions and beliefs were no more "right" than those of Hitler? If they're not, please explain why they aren't.
In recent years, it has become popular for philosophers of different stripes to point to the Holocaust and Hitler as a way of proving or disproving a particular theory about this or that. I think this is because of the horrific singularity of the event. The worst fears of mankind were realized in the Holocaust, and personified in Hitler and his henchmen. Oddly enough, Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza can both point to the Holocaust to prove opposing points. I assume you know the arguments of both, so I won't bother going into them at this point.
But what are the implications of your view if we apply them to the Holocaust?
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
Have you ever heard of Corrie Ten Boom? She was a Dutch Christian Holocaust survivor who hid Jews in her home during the Holocaust. Doesn't your view, logically applied, imply that her actions and beliefs were no more "right" than those of Hitler? If they're not, please explain why they aren't.
Definition of Right and Wrong, cont.
Just so I'm clear on this, let me make sure I understand your point of view.
You believe right and wrong are the labels we give to certain actions or ideas, and our designation of a thing as "right" or "wrong" depends on 1) how those actions/ideas make us "feel" and/or 2) input from others.
Is this correct?
You believe right and wrong are the labels we give to certain actions or ideas, and our designation of a thing as "right" or "wrong" depends on 1) how those actions/ideas make us "feel" and/or 2) input from others.
Is this correct?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
In what sense is there right and wrong?
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
We have consciences and "a moral sense". It is unpleasant to "do wrong", and we feel happy when we "do right". This moral sense is combined with discussions with others. Our minds can model what other minds feel, and that gives us empathy.
So, I believe "right" and "wrong" are, at the core, labels for feelings.
We have consciences and "a moral sense". It is unpleasant to "do wrong", and we feel happy when we "do right". This moral sense is combined with discussions with others. Our minds can model what other minds feel, and that gives us empathy.
So, I believe "right" and "wrong" are, at the core, labels for feelings.
Man, you are fast!
Ha! I went back and changed my question, but by the time I posted it, you had already responded.
Continuation of Right and Wrong Discussion - criteria for allowing for existence
What, exactly, is your criteria for allowing for the existence of something or the possible existence of something?
Corroborated, reproducible, testable evidence for simple interpretations, or careful extrapolations from them.
Start simple, work up from there carefully, and don't assume that what seems obvious is true.
Corroborated, reproducible, testable evidence for simple interpretations, or careful extrapolations from them.
Start simple, work up from there carefully, and don't assume that what seems obvious is true.
Back to Right and Wrong...
I think we're far afield here, so lets get back to the original issue. You said this:
"Yes, I do believe in right and wrong, but I don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
"Yes, I do believe in right and wrong, but I don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Right and wrong, a digression, continued further
I think you're the first person I've come across who compared the notion of happiness with the color red. Then again, we're probably not reading the same books ;-)
Probably not! Have you read any Paul Churchland, or Daniel Dennett? :)
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Actually, no. I am talking about what happens in our brains to generate the feelings.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept
Sure, but just because there is a concept, this does not mean that anything "real" exists. There is no "essence of red".
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
No, it doesn't. But we have to be wary of assuming that because we have perceptions that there is anything external and real behind them. The example of phantom limbs comes to mind, when people experience sensation in limbs that are no longer there.
In a sense, we live in a "phantom world". All we have are experiences in the brain.
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
Not at all!
Probably not! Have you read any Paul Churchland, or Daniel Dennett? :)
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Actually, no. I am talking about what happens in our brains to generate the feelings.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept
Sure, but just because there is a concept, this does not mean that anything "real" exists. There is no "essence of red".
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
No, it doesn't. But we have to be wary of assuming that because we have perceptions that there is anything external and real behind them. The example of phantom limbs comes to mind, when people experience sensation in limbs that are no longer there.
In a sense, we live in a "phantom world". All we have are experiences in the brain.
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
Not at all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)