Which according to Vinnie – and the evidence – means it is arbitrary. Human nature is capable of, and has done so, forming societies where the highest virtue is to trap a close friend into betraying others, where placing newborn female infants out for wolves to devour is see not merely as acceptable but as proper, and where throwing acid in the face of someone who compromised ‘honor’ is not just tolerated but expected, even demanded.
Because, according to the Bible, at least some commands are not derived from objective morality, which can be seen because they contradict more basic principles in the Bible. It took centuries, but even before Christ came rabbis had figured out that slavery was nigh unto blasphemy, not because of their subjective view but because it objectively spits in the face of the principle that we are made in Yahwehs’s image.
Because they are crappy candidates for deity, acting in arbitrary and cruel fashion towards those closest to them in Creation – and because according to reasoned philosophy, they’re nothing more than bad servants of actual deity.
I would call those human behaviors. I would say that part of our nature is our intellect and rationality. We can choose to go against what our nature intends for us. So in that sense we are capable of engaging in moral and immoral activity.
It is not any more subjective than saying that a human heart barely pumping blood is bad. I defined morality in relation to the ends or purpose of human nature. I do believe human flourishing is a part of that but I did not define morality as “human well being.” As I noted to you below, the is/ought issue is completely erased by Thomists. “From an A-T perspective, again, granting final causality, “is” and “ought” are not separate. To be a “good” heart is to pump blood. To be a “bad” heart is to fail at it.” To be a good vehicle is to reliably and safely transport people from A to B. To be a good human is to (insert the object ends, telos, or purpose nature intends for us).
The triangle analogy is only to show you that a triangle has objective features that define it (plane figure with three line segments. . . ). I never said drawing a triangle is a moral issue. You are saying the artist is constructing “a sloppily drawn triangle.” Whether intentional or not, it is an objective fact that is a sloppily drawn or skewed triangle. But this is not a moral issue. You are confusing artistic merit with the nature or essence of triangularity and have admitted my point.
Speaking of infectious diseases, they have an end much like a heart. So curing the person is in one sense, “bad” for the virus but good for the human. But a virus does not have rationality or free will. We alone are capable of morality.
It’s not good to allow people to die of infectious diseases. But is it morally bad or neutral to let nature take its course? Even here we can say this would be objectively bad. It goes against our ends or purpose. Humans are social. We rely on others for survival, development and education from infancy. We are fashioned by nature to live in communities. Nature intends us to help one another. That is an objective fact.
The Thomist says objective morality is tied into human nature. Infectious diseases are not human nature. The Thomist does not consider every animal behavior a part of human nature. That animals engage in actions that humans would consider rape, murder, or filial cannibalism, does not make them a part of human nature or something morally acceptable.
And I am say saying morality is based the nature or essence of what it means to be a human which is an objective part of reality just as having three straight sides and angles that add up to 180 degrees is what makes a triangle. A man may want to rape a woman. Are you saying wanting something makes it moral to that individual?
Then accept final causality and become a natural law theorist. You are using nature is a sense I don’t fully agree with based on previous thoughts you’ve articulated . But it almost appears as if we are dipping into the same well. You are just using a very leaky bucket. Of all our conversations on morality, those last two sencenses might be the most important of them all.
I gave you a car analogy and the Michael Jordan comment. They are meant to and do established that one you know the ends of a human, you know what is objectively moral or immoral. You can dispute the ends I have articulated thus far but it’s anyone’s right to dispute objective facts about reality.
You can subjectively say whatever you want. And anyone can subjectively agree or disagree with you. As I said. Your standard for “moral advance” boils down to “people agreeing with you.” When society or people become more like you and share your beliefs, you call it advance. Subjective morality comes with a blatant narcism when progress is defined in terms of your own personal outlook. Does the sun also revolve around you?
That is part of the problem all along. You think I am trying to sneak in “thus everything the Bible says is true” and give you a specific list of moral commands you should agree with me on or you are immoral. How I interpret the Bible is here. Furthermore, morality is one of the reasons I reject Biblical inerrancy. From section 1 of 8 on why I reject inerrancy.
[1] Errors in the Bible:
The simplest reason I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is because I think there are examples of legitimate human errors in the Bible. I believe there are internal contradictions in the Bible pertaining to events, numbers, figures, narrative details, theology, and even morality. I also believe there are external contradictions . . .
I am not a proponent of a stringent version of sola scripture nor do I even accept sola scripture in any form. We have two books: the Bible and nature. Moral law is enough to render certain parts of scripture incorrect in what they sanction, condone or command people to do just as science is enough to render some Biblical statements or assumptions mistaken or outdated. I would use a two-prong approach when discussing with Christians though. Moral law in conjunction with Jesus.
Christians who tell atheists they have no grounds for judging the morality of the Bible are partially correct. They are correct because the atheist usually embraces a subjective morality. So they really have nothing objective to say. But these Christians are incorrect because we do have objective grounds from nature for questioning the inherent goodness of any command in any sacred scripture. Let that sink in.
@Roy Try me. What’s your background? I was raised baptist. Seriously questioned my faith when I learned about evolution in high school. Never was really satisfied with the standard apologetics arguments. I eventually came to realize that given the assumptions most Western Christians have about the nature of reality (derived from Greek philosophy and merged into theology by the early Church) that Atheist’s like you are actually perfectly reasonable. Your arguments are simply better then those of the apologists from Augustine to Aquinas to William Lane Craig. It’s all garbage and an embarrassment to Christianity. But God exists nonetheless.
1 Like
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
167
“We humans have a lot to be proud of: by thinking it through and arguing amongst ourselves, we have advanced morality hugely, with Western society today giving vastly better treatment to individuals, to women, children, religious minorities, foreigners, those of other races, the disabled and mentally ill, criminals, etc, than any previous society.”
We can envision moral change as a view moving from A to B. Moral improvement is moving from A to B which is closer to C (the standard). Without a standard we only have change, not improvement. Contrary to what the author above asserts, we can’t actually call something a moral advance unless we have an objective standard by which we can measure moral change. A person could define their own moral system and set their own standard by which they could then measure everything else. But the real problem is how does one compare one moral system with another moral system? Abolition is moral progress to the slave but not the slaver. The person who owned slaves saw the process as theft of their legally owned property. Without an external, objective standard, this is just a matter of opinion, like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla. What is to stop a person from adopting a standard that prioritizes white males and excludes or views “women, children, religious minorities, foreigners, those of other races, the disabled and mentally ill, [and] criminals” as sub-human?
Imagine you draw a map outlining the United States using a small number of straight lines. In a revision you erase several of the lines and replace them with a lot of smaller jagged ones. You then declare: “My new map is better than the other one.” But if there is no actual coastline to the United States that exists outside your head, how could your map actually be a better representation of it? C. S. Lewis said something similar:
“The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head,’ how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.”
2) The Concept of Subjective Moral Progress is Narcissistic
As noted above, subjective morality lacks the ability to identify genuine moral progress. In response to this an intelligent atheist once told me:
“One knows that morality is better by using our subjective appraisal of morality.”
The claim is that we can have a subjective moral system and measure growth towards or away from that moral system from within it. I do not disagree. A person can subjectively claim whatever they want and anyone is free to subjectively disagree with them. But defining moral progress in relation to your own subjective standard is analogous to throwing a dart at a piece of wood and declaring wherever it hits is the bullseye. My response to a person espousing this view would be:
Your subjective standard for “moral advance” boils down to “people agreeing with you.” When society or people become more like you and share your beliefs , you call it advance or more progress. When society or people become less like you and disagree with your beliefs , you call it moral regress. Subjective morality comes with a blatant narcissism when progress is defined in terms of your own personal outlook. This is a form of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If the standard for “better” is “what you currently think,” then you are always perfect by definition. Does the sun also revolve around you?
It is only suitable for toddlers with no reasoning capabilities. Mature adults need reasons for moral judgement so they can be responsible for their own decisions and lives.
It is incapable of speaking to the moral challenges of a changing world. Taking your morality from a 2000 year old text is foolish because you don’t live in the world of 2000 years ago when it was applicable and it clearly doesn’t speak the moral questions faced in the modern world.
When people questions the authority (the religious organization) they are left with no basis for morality at all. This is very dangerous because there are often some very good reasons why some behaviors will be catastrophic for their lives.
Mt 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”
I’m afraid His words are just slightly more authoritative…
May I ask what the reason would be for not behaving egoistically in the example I gave for Acquaticus?
I asked him the following question
“Suppose I’m an atheist and find myself in a position where I can gain maximum wealth and well-being for myself and my family—at the expense of others—without facing any legal consequences (in this scenario I have very powerful friends protecting me and assuring that I’m untouchable)…why shouldn’t I do that? Why should I care at all about some made-up morality? From my perspective, whether I live like El Chapo or like Gandhi, the same fate awaits me: a pack of worms devouring my corpse (or fire burning it to ashes). That’s it. So why choose the so-called ‘moral’ path, which seems entirely fictional, when I could secure the greatest benefit for myself and my offspring and loved ones by doing otherwise?”
He has not been able to respond so far. He did tell me that if I have empathy, I should be able to understand why that behavior is wrong, to which I replied as follows
“if I came to believe again (as i did in the past, before my conversion) that we live in a meaningless universe where, whether I live like Himmler or like Oscar Schindler, I end up the same way (that is, devoured by worms or burned by fire, and that’s it), I would absolutely prioritize my own well-being and my family’s well-being at the expense of others—especially if, as in the example I mentioned in the post you quoted, I could do so without legal repercussions. Why would I do that? Because I would have no reason not to. It would be highly irrational to place the well-being of strangers above that of myself and my family. If we are merely bags of meat destined for oblivion regardless of our choices, then failing to prioritize our own well-being and that of our loved ones—even at the expense of others, if we can get away with it—would be the very definition of irrationality. This behavior may serve an evolutionary purpose (as society would otherwise collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes), but as a conscious being, I can choose not to give two flying f**ks about evolutionary purposes—especially when, from an atheist perspective, they amount to nothing more than a cold, senseless, heartless mechanism. Actually, now that I think about it, I would say that not giving two figs about evolutionary purposes would, in that scenario, more clearly distinguish me from lower animals: namely, the ability to establish my own priorities and even act against the ‘natural order’ when necessary—especially since that natural order would have no inherent value and would not give two figs about me or my loved ones. I would see no inherent value in subjecting myself to such a mechanism. In fact, from a materialist perspective, doing so would bring me closer to lower animals, since they cannot choose not to serve their evolutionary purpose. But I can.”
Do you or he have any counterargument explaining why, in a situation like the one outlined above, one should follow the ‘moral’ path and renounce one’s own and one’s loved ones’ greater good for the sake of strangers, when one can choose to act selfishly without repercussions—especially if one believes that this miserably short life is, for oneself and one’s loved ones, the only spark of light between two literal eternities of darkness and complete annihilation that await everyone, regardless of whether one has lived like El Chapo or like Maximilian Kolbe?
Yes, there are behaviors that are harmful to oneself no matter what, and one can conclude—reasoning from a completely secular perspective—that such behaviors should not be permitted. I am not denying that. But what about situations in which one can be selfish and “antisocial” without facing any repercussions, while securing the greatest benefit for oneself and one’s family? Such situations do exist. Why should one make sacrifices in those cases? For what reasons?
How individuals behave affects not just how they are treated by others, but also how societies develop.
If you want your family to inherit a society full of selfish back-stabbing opportunists in which they are despised and in which no-one will help them if they get into difficulties, go ahead and be a selfish back-stabbing opportunist.
I prefer a society in which people are mutually supportive and and work together for the benefit of all, and so encourage that behaviour in myself and others.
There are various objective measures of successful societies.[1] Life expectancy. Crime rates. ‘Happiness’ indices that evaluate quality of life. Average wealth. It’s easy to compare those measurements and see which societies are the most successful - and see if societal success correlates with selfish opportunism.
The measures themselves are objective; the choice of which to favour is subjective. ↩︎
In the scenario outlined above, I would make so much money for my family that they would have no reason to fear any reprisals. I would therefore be securing, both for myself and for them, the opportunity to enjoy their short and ultimately vain spark of light between two eternities of darkness.
So no, I would have no reason not to do that. If I can become a multibillionaire by stepping on others’ needs and well-being, and I am certain that there will be no repercussions—neither legal (because, as made clear in the example above, I have extremely powerful protections) nor spiritual (because I believe that complete annihilation awaits me regardless of whether I have lived like Mahatma Gandhi or like Peter Scully)—then I would have no reason not to act in that way in the scenario described above.
Vinnie has subjectively chosen an ‘objective’ standard of morality (which is not based on the Bible, and which he cannot reproduce) yet insists that others cannot do the same.
And why should I place the ‘good of society’ above my own good and that of my family? This is a very serious question, not a rhetorical one. If my fellow human beings are not created in the image of God, but are merely animals whose inherent value is no different from that of a pig or a cockroach, why should I prioritize their well-being over my own and my family’s when I am in a situation where I can become a billionaire without any legal consequences, and without any spiritual consequences either (since, in that scenario, God does not exist)?
I am well aware that, in this example, I would be acting against the greater good of society—because yes, if everyone behaved this way, there would be utter chaos. As I said, society would collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes if everyone were to act like that.
But there are two caveats.
First, it is a fact that not everyone would behave this way, so the likelihood of society actually degenerating into a Hobbesian ‘dog-eat-dog’ world would be negligible.
Second, in this hypothetical scenario, I have been lucky: I drew the winning card in the lottery and can become a multibillionaire. I know that doing so would require me to literally step on other people’s well-being in order to increase my own and that of my family—but I would be able to do so without any repercussions whatsoever. I have extremely powerful friends watching my back, and God does not exist, so there would be no higher authority to punish me. So why shouldn’t I? Seriously.
After becoming a billionaire, we would go on to live in the most wondrous places the world has to offer. Why, in that scenario, should I care about the harm I caused in order to reach that goal? I would have harmed only mere biological robots, with no more inherent value than a cockroach. And wouldn’t you step on a cockroach to achieve a goal you consider important?
One possible answer would be that, if I have empathy, I would suffer from knowing the harm I caused. But I could reply that the wealth I have gained for myself and my family—wealth so abundant that it would allow the next ten generations to live in absolute abundance of every earthly good—would be more than enough to justify it, and that any suffering I might experience would be more than outweighed by the benefits secured for my loved ones.
And if you were to say that no, such an act would not be justified regardless, why would you say so? On what basis?
Whether Moloch was a demon is a matter of interpretation. I guess an interpretation following the tradition of Enoch may suggest that but there are alternative interpretations. One interpretation is that God gave responsibility of different areas or tribes to heavenly beings and those beings sometimes misused their status - fallen in that sense. Another interpretation is that Moloch was just an invented false god, so nothing real behind the image and cruel worship.
How we interpret this kind of matters depends on our worldview. I accept that there are fallen heavenly beings that we call angels [angel is actually a task or role (messenger), so perhaps the title ‘angel’ is a bit misleading]. Because of my worldview I can think of your interpretation as a potentially real one. If I would not believe in the existence of fallen angels, then my interpretation would be the last alternative - Moloch was an invented unreal false god with nothing supernatural or heavenly behind it.
What we believe is how we interpret.
The word ‘believe’ is not used here in the sense of faith. Rather, it means that we all have our worldview and we start from the assumptions of our worldview when we interpret our observations.
Baptised CofE and went to church-based school, but not seriously immersed. Tried to contact God during teens to see if religion was real. Nothing happened then and nothing has happened since.