Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 21 of 161 (521283)
08-26-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Holyfire23
08-26-2009 6:45 PM


Lets look at some of the assertions that have just been presented. One of the notions was that human beings are capable of knowing right from wrong. This does not make sense to me assuming that morality is relative as you guys say it is. If there are no moral absolutes, then the concept of right and wrong ceases to exist.
False. The concept of objective right and wrong ceases to exist, but that doesn't matter - the assertion that morality is relative includes the rejection of an objective moral standard and the aceptance that ethics are subjectively determined by human beings.
One cannot call morality relative and then make absolute claims about what is right and wrong without contradicting himself.
One can call morality relative and then claim that a given act is immoral under a specified system of ethics. For instance, under Chrsitian authoritarian ethics, any act in disobedience to God is immoral. Under utilitarian ethics, the action that causes the most good for society as a whole is the most morally correct action.
Your statements require an objective standard of morality. When you're arguing against people who reject any sort of objective morality exists, you need to stop viewing moral judgments in such a light.
Let us look at some of the things humanity has deemed "right" and "moral". Look at Hitler and his genocides of the Jewish people, or Josef Stalin and his genocide of pretty much anyone he didn't like. All these men thought they were doing what was "moral". Were these men capable of distinguishing right from wrong?
Did they think they were morally correct? Hitler perhaps...he believed Jews were wicked and evil and the source of Germany's problems, if he believed his own press. Stalin I would propose simply didn't care, and acted in his own selfish interests rather than making a moral evaluation. But the very fact that hyuman beings do judge different actions to be "good" and "evil" proves the fact that there is no inherent moral absolute.
A better example would be the Aztecs, who believed they needed to sacrifice victims daily to feed their gods and among other things keep the Sun rising each day.
Today, we would consider human sacrifice to be abhorrent and immoral.
The Aztecs considered their actions to be morally correct, even necessary - what's a person a day to keep the Sun coming up and keep the entire world alive? A hundred? A thousand?
Morality and ethics are not written in stone. Rape is not universally and objectively evil - the vast majority of us simply agree that it is wrong, for various reasons, through various systems of ethics. Likewise with murder (though clearly not all societies agree on the definition of murder), theft, etc.
"Right" and "wrong" have only that meaning which we give to them. The reason we have a system of ethics at all is because societies don't function without some sort of morality governing interpersonal relationships. Societies that consider murder to be perfectly moral will die out, for example. Another reason is that we evolved from social animals - we can empathize with others, and innately recognize "I would not like to be beaten up, so I will not beat up other people."
Another question asked was this: Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say something is good because it is good? To this I would have to urge a greater understanding of who God is. God is morality. Morality is a part of God. Evil on the other hand is not of God. Evil comes from that of a man's mortal desires.
False, according to the Bible:
quote:
Isaiah
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
God says he creates evil.
God cannot change his mind about morality. Because to God morality is as absolute as one's heart ( aphysical blood-pumping heart. You cannot simply decide to not have a heart. In the same way, God cannot simply decide to change the definition of morality. Morality is unchanging just like God is.
If morality is absolute and unchanging, then what about the other moral dictates of the Bible?
If you have an unruly child, shouldn't you stone him? That's what the Bible says to do.
If you want a wife, can't you go hide in a vineyard, kidnap a girl of your choice, and force her to marry you (and if she doesn't please you in bed, send her packing sans virginity)? That's what the Bible says.
Is ejaculating on the ground punishable by death? The Bible says so.
If I work on the Sabbath, should I be killed? The Bible says so.
I could go on for quite a while. Nowadays, we find these things to be morally repugnant - rebellious children don't deserve capital punishment, forced marriage constitutes rape and we all agree that's immoral, etc. A few thousand years ago, those things would be regarded as morally correct and even necessary - just like the Aztecs and their human sacrifices.
We must have an absolute moral foundation in order to determine what is right and what is wrong.
I have no absolute moral foundation, and I challenge you to prove that such an objective innate morality exists.
I manage to be a relatively ethical person simply by extrapolating empathy and desiring the greatest benefit for society as a whole. Stealing is bad because I wouldn't like my stuff stolen. Rape is bad because I wouldn't want to be raped. Murder is bad because I wouldn't want to be murdered, and rampant killing would destabilize society. Copyright infringement is bad because it harms the production of creative works. Legislating against a group for being black/gay/female/non-Christian/whatever so long as they are not objectively harming society is bad because I wouldn't want any group I beling to to be persecuted for similarly arbitrary reasons. Etc, etc, etc.
Stalin and Hitler are just two examples of man's inability to define morality. Humanity is depraved at its very core. We cannot determine what is moral and what is not by ourselves.
Most of us seem pretty good at it. Stalin and Hitler, thankfully, are not indicative of the rest of the human population. Last I knew, most people didn't rape, murder and steal - including thsoe of us who believe in no god(s). Unless you've heard of some Atheist rape/murder gangs?
The very notion that morality is relative is proof of this. Man cannot set absolut moral boundaries, so he simply chooses not to.
The easily observable fact is that mankind can and does determine morality for ourselves. Even when given a standard like the Bible, we still pick and choose what is and is not ethical, and the definition of "right"and "wrong" demonstrably change over time. Absolute moral boundaries are a myth - they don't exist, even for God, who very plainly changes his mind about the ethics of various actions in different parts of the Bible (ie, murder is bad...except when killing the children and non-virgin women of a defeated tribe, then it's okay. So is killing all of the firstborn children, right down to the animals, of Egypt for something God forced the Pharoah to do. Oh, and blowing up a pair of cities for undefined sexual immorality is another exception, but when the surviving family engaged in a drunken incestuous orgy, that was fine).
Human beings define right and wrong. We always have, and always will. Any suggestion otehrwise is an unsupportable assertion requiring the existence of objective morality. Good luck proving that exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Holyfire23, posted 08-26-2009 6:45 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 7:54 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 85 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-28-2009 2:31 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 23 of 161 (521290)
08-26-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 7:54 PM


but but but.....that's the Old Testament. Jesus changed all that, remember?
Which of course blows the whole "morality is unchanging" thing out of the water even for a Christian. Biblical ethics are very clearly tied to the whims of the deity, changing however his will dictates. Sometimes rape and murder are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes revenge is good, sometimes it's bad. It's okay for God to do some things, but not for you for the same reasons.
Even Chrsitianity doesn't have an moral standard - they're simply authoritarian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 7:54 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 61 of 161 (521527)
08-27-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
08-27-2009 5:07 PM


{AbE} The actual moral theory I subscribe to would say, yes go ahead and rape his mother if you're sure it will result in saving 100,000s of people, but I'm still not sure if I could do it.{/AbE}
The question is a false dilemma - the choices given are:
1) rape Hitlers mom and prevent the Holocaust
2) allow the Holocaust you inhuman monster
Those aren't the only choices possible. You could try convincing Hitler's mother to give the child up, or warn her of how he would turn out, or even kill Hitler as a child so that you don't have to rape his mother. You could forcibly sterilize his mother. You could intercept the first copy of Mein Kampf and burn it so that Hitler's ideas do not become so easily popularized. You could bring a DVD detailing WWII to various government leaders and warn them of the results of letting Hitler take power, and the consequences of the insane policies regarding Germany after WWI that directly led to his.
I could go on.
The most ethical choice if restricted to those two options is certainly to rape Hitler's mother...but that's like asking whether you would choose to kill one person or a dozen to prevent a puppy from being hit by a car - neither solution is ethical, and there are other, far more ethical ways you could accomplish the same end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:07 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 5:40 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 64 by Perdition, posted 08-27-2009 5:49 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 63 of 161 (521532)
08-27-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
08-27-2009 5:40 PM


Just to play devil's advocate here: you do realize they would lock your ass away for being a psycho witch for thinking you can tell the future and for this devil's tool: a "dvd", right?
They'll lock me away for raping Hitler's mom, too.
"DVD" was meant to also imply a player. Technology as advanced as a portable DVD player and few WWII documentaries would do wonders to convince people that what I'm saying is true.
ABE - the point is that the entire question is a false dilemma; there are many more options than "rape" or "allow Holocaust."
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 5:40 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 84 of 161 (521687)
08-28-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by purpledawn
08-28-2009 1:51 PM


Re: God Easily Provoked
Then we have the first born in Egypt before the Hebrews left. Pharaoh may have provoked the Hebrew god, but not every first born in Egypt could have provoked him.
Addendum - Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go...several times. God specifically "hardened his heart" and made him change his mind.
God punished all of Egypt for what God forced Pharaoh to to.
It doesn't even make any sense. That's like me forcing my son's hand into a cookie jar, and then spanking his sister for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 1:51 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 2:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 90 of 161 (521696)
08-28-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Lithodid-Man
08-28-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
First of all I want to thank you Rahvin for an absolutely brilliant post. I have c&p'd it to save as a reference, just amazing.
Thanks!
Your first point nails an important concept that cannot be stressed enough:
quote:
Rahvin writes:
False. The concept of objective right and wrong ceases to exist, but that doesn't matter - the assertion that morality is relative includes the rejection of an objective moral standard and the aceptance that ethics are subjectively determined by human beings.
This addresses the classic "bait and switch" tactic unscrupulous theists use when discussing the 'problem of evil'. Get your opponent to admit that some things are right and some things are wrong (subjective morality) then switch to objective morality as if synonymous. I think Ravi Zachiarias does this best in his famous and constantly repeated anecdtote:
quote:
Ravi Zachiarias writes:
Ravi Zacharias tells of a student who stood up in a lecture he was given and shouted "There's too much evil in the world! God can't exist!" Ravi asked him to stay standing for a little while. This would only take a moment.
He said "When you are saying that evil exists are you not admitting such a thing as good?" The student thought and said he guessed so. Ravi continued, "And are you not then saying there is a moral law on which to differentiate the two?"
Returning to his student he said, "So if there is a moral law aren't you saying there is a moral law giver? If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no recognizable good. If there is no recognizable good, there is no recognizable evil. Thus, you are using evil to disprove that which you are trying to prove. What was your question?"
This exchange is often presented as a "checkmate!" proof of god, but is really quite a flawed argument meant to impress the already convinced.
I've seen YouTube clips of that guy. You'll note that he never actually debates anyone with his bait-n-switch. He simply recounts slightly different versions of his personal anecdote - meaning he "wins" the "debate" every time, becasue his opponent is simply a character in his story. He tells the story to people who already agree with him - and so his tactics and logic are never questioned, but rather met with resounding applause and laughter at those silly deluded atheists.
To the OP, I find it sad but not surprising that fundies are hesitant to declare rape (or slavery, etc) as immoral. When confronted with demonstrations of their deity's apparent condoning of said immoral acts they immediately become moral relativists ("well those were different times...."). Anyway, thanks again for the post!
It would be more honest of them to say "God's will be done" or something similar. They're obviously authoritarian - they don't believe in objective morality either, they believe in following the moral dictates of their deity. If God says kill these people, and then later says that we should turn the other cheek, well God knows best. They just confuse the issue by claiming God to hold up some objective, unchanging standard - when the Bible itself practically screams that that isn't the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-28-2009 2:31 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 3:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 92 of 161 (521698)
08-28-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 2:53 PM


Re: God Easily Provoked
No one has answered my question yet. Would you send your son or daughter to be tortured and killed so that the very people who tortured and kill him/her could have a chance at salvation?
False dilemma. God is the one making all of the rules, including setting the terms of the debt. He could have just, you know, forgiven everyone without using himself/his son as a human sacrifice. Your scenario posits that only two options are possible when, as I'm sure you would agree, "all things are possible with God."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 2:53 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 140 of 161 (523125)
09-08-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 2:18 PM


Re: God Has No Legal System
Answer me this, using your mode of moral reasoning, please tell me who is more moral. The ancient Aztecs, or todays western society? FYI, the ancient Aztecs regularly made child sacrifices to their rain gods. They believed the more tears the child shed before they died, the more rain would come. Who is more moral?
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
The Aztecs honestly believed that their sacrifices were necessary for the continued existence of every living thing in the world. The sun literally would not rise the next day without a human sacrifice.
By purely utilitarian ethics, assuming the Aztec's beliefs were accurate, sacrificing even thousands of people daily to preserve the lives of millions (at the time) would be the more ethical choice, though even then it would be more like choosing the lesser of two evils.
But that's the point - there is no such thing as absolute, objective morality. The moral value of an act is determined not by some written-in-stone objective standard. The same act can be both moral and immoral given different circumstances and in different contexts.
If you kill a man, have you committed murder? What if he was threatening your life? What if not your life, but your property? What if he was threatening to rape you? Your wife? Your child? What if you just didn't like him? What if you killed him in a bar fight accidentally? What if you were driving drunk and you killed him with your car? What if you were a doctor trying to save his life, and you accidentally cut a blood vessel and killed him?
Socially, we identify each of these as a separate issue. Some are crimes, some are not. Some carry the identifier "murder," while others do not. Even within murder, we have degrees.
Other societies have different rules, and different moral values are expressed. In some countries, corporal punishment (ranging depending on location from caning to actual beatings to amputation) is regarded as ethically acceptable, while in most Western societies we consider such practices reprehensible and barbaric. Female genital mutilation is considered, in those countries where it is practiced, to be a moral obligation, yet here in the US most people would be happy to imprison (or worse) anyone who participates in the practice.
Just look at the "Two wrongs don't make a right" thread - it's very clear that some people value human life equally regardless of whether a person is a criminal or not, and others diminish the value of a life if that person chooses to commit a criminal act.
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
What we consider to be evil and reprehensible here and now was considered right and proper just a few years ago, or in different places. Even right now in the same country we cannot all agree whether the death penalty is ethically justifiable, whether shooting an intruder in your home is ethically acceptable, whether providing healthcare for everyone is ethically monstrous or angelic, etc.
Your question is circular - assuming modern, Western ethics, you ask us to judge whether modern, Western society is ethically superior to Aztec society. That's the same as asking whether, assuming Biblical ethics, a strict Biblical society is ethically superior to (insert anything else here).
All you've done is reinforce the undeniable fact that there is no objective moral standard. Ethics and morality are decided for human beings, by human beings. It is not an intrinsic force of nature, it is not a universal law - we, as societies, decide what is "good" and what is "bad" and every shade in between based on our cultural perspectives, and those judgments change as our societies continue to evolve.
Even the Bible's ethics have changed over time. According to the Bible, you should stone rebellious children to death, along with homosexuals, "witches," and any number of other sinners. Slavery would be fine (and in fact the Bible was long used as justification for the American slave trade). If you rape a single woman, your moral obligation would be to marry her, meaning you'd get to rape her for the rest of her life.
Nearly all Christians today accept that those ethical judgments no longer apply to today's world. Homosexuals are allowed to live, along with "witches"and rebellious kids. We don't execute victims of rape or adulterers; we don't punish the victim of a rape by forcing her to marry her rapist. "Thou shalt not steal" has interesting interpretations in today's world of digital media and Big Banking investment schemes. "Thou shalt not commit murder" changed immediately after the commandment was issued:
quote:
Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
This notion of moral absolutism is a myth propagated by the unthinking, unquestioning hordes of Christian hypocrites who participate and agree with moral relativism every single day of their lives.
There is no objective moral absolute. Moral relativism, far from being the curse word fundamentalists like to paint it as, is simply the only way that morality and ethics come to exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 2:18 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 150 of 161 (523308)
09-09-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Holyfire23
09-08-2009 10:09 PM


Ethics and morality
Holyfire, it really doesn't look like you're comprehending what the terms "subjective" and "objective" are. At the very least, you didn't understand my post - from all appearances, you seem to have ignored it almost completely.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Under what ethical system, using what assumptions?
Assuming the theory of moral relativism is true, please tell me who is more moral---the ancient Aztecs or our modern society?
Assuming that morality is indeed subjective, that judgment cannot be made, as there is no objective standard to compare the two (really, more than two - modern society is not as homogenous as you seem to think it is).
Under modern, Western ethical systems, the Aztecs would be judged to be horrifically immoral; monsters, even.
Under Aztec values, we would be considered awful - we aren't meeting our responsibility to sacrifice to the gods and ensure that teh Sun continues rising, the rain continues to fall, crops prosper, etc.
Let's try bringing this down a level to make it easier to understand.
If something is "objective," it is true regardless of the observer; it exists whether there is an observer or not, independently. The pen on my desk objectively exists; whether I am here or not to observe it, there is still a pen on my desk, and anyone else who observes my desk will observe the same pen. The pen's existence is an objective fact.
My love for my girlfriend, however, is "subjective." It depends entirely upon the "subject," in this case, me - if I were to die, the love I feel does not exist independently. Other people will not feel the same as I do towards my girlfriend; the value I place on her is completely dependent on me, and not any external fact.
Now, let's bring it up one level.
A stop sign objectively exists; the red octagon remains perched on its post at the street corner regardless of whether someone is there to observe it or not. All observers who are able to see the stop sign will see it; it exists independently of the human mind, of human emotion. A person from Kansas, from California, from the UK, and from India will all see the sign and describe its physical features the same way. Even animals will see it.
The meaning of the stop sign, however, is subjective. To a person who's never seen a car and doesn't speak English, the stop sign will have no meaning at all - it will be an odd red octagonal object, but the meaning that the sign represents will not exist. The meaning of the stop sign, the instruction to stop your car before proceeding, does not exist independently of the observer. Through commonality of experience and agreeing that a red octagon with the word "STOP" written on it will symbolize the instruction to stop your vehicle, many people (hopefully everyone with a US driver's license, though I've seen a fair few who apparently take the meaning to be "slow down slightly;" which both helps prove my point and tends to earn one a traffic ticket) will agree upon the meaning. But to a person wholly unfamiliar with US traffic signs and driving in general, the sign will not function as an instruction to stop a vehicle. Symbols are subjective - they have common meaning only when we all agree upon the common meaning. The meaning does not exist outside of our agreements. A squirrel will not understand the "meaning" of the sign. A young child who has not yet learned how to read or picked up on the meaning of a stop sign yet will not understand. If humanity disappeared tomorrow, no stop signs would have any meaning whatsoever. In another culture, a red octagon could be used as a "yield" sign, or a "no parking" sign, or be assigned any other meaning at all.
Are you still on-board about the difference between "objective" and "subjective?" If so, we'll move it up one last time and bring the discussion back to the topic:
An action (walking down the street, killing a person, taking an object from a store, etc) is objective. Regardless of who observes the activity, the action still happened. Even if nobody saw me take the pen that is now on my desk from the supply drawer, the pen is still no longer in the drawer and is now on my desk. Whether we are aware an action has taken place or not, the action still happened.
The meaning and value of an action is subjective. The circumstances and observer determine the value and meaning, not the action itself. When one man kills another, it is only "murder" if the society agrees that the circumstances make it a murder. Other homicides are classified as manslaughter, accidental death, self defense, etc. In some societies killing a person under certain circumstances could be considered "good." Examples include executing inmates on Death Row (not a value I agree with, but that's not the topic), or sacrificing children to ensure rain for the next year. In other societies, or even to other individuals, those acts may be considered abhorrent. The "good" and "bad" value of an act does not exist independently of the human mind, and is determined solely by communal agreement. First Degree Murder is typically considered to be worse than Second Degree, which is worse than Manslaughter, which is worse than a self-defense killing, which is worse than an accidental death...unless the person who caused the accident was intoxicated, in which case the killing is judged to be just as "bad" as First Degree Murder. The value of each is relative to the specific circumstances involved and the society applying the meaning.
You can hold up the Bible as the transcription of an objective moral law, but you have to ignore facts to do so. You have to ignore the fact that many Biblical laws (the imperative to stone homosexuals, rebellious children, and "witches," the imperative to marry your rapist if you are single and to execute the victim of a rape if married, etc) are considered abhorrent and evil by most Western ethical systems. You have to ignore the fact that, despite a degree of commonality, moral values change over time and between societies.
The Bible exists as a moral standard among many. Depending on your personal beliefs, it may be considered a "good" or "bad" moral standard to varying degrees.
If no human beings existed, the concepts of "ethics" and "morals" would not exist. We made them up, because they allow us to establish a functional society. Every "right" you have, every value you assign to an action or to a human life, is all determined by the human mind. There is no objective, independent Morality that exists outside of human societies.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
That is an absolute statement. This implies that truth is absolute (I agree with this). However, if you adhere to the belief that truth is absolute, then you are forced to say that their is an absolute definition of right and wrong. Absolute truth implies absolute morality, therefore, your statment is a contradictory one.
Holyfire, your statement doesn't even make sense.
My claim that there is no such thing as a moral absolute is a simple observation, based on the indisputable fact that moral values differ over societies and change over time.
"Truth" is not absolute. Truth is subjective - the teachings of Jesus, for example, can have great "truth" regardless of whether the man Jesus ever existed or ever said the things recorded in the Bible. Even fairy tales contain "truth," even though they're completely made-up.
Fact is absolute. There is a difference; a rather large one, at that.
Further, there's a rather large leap between understanding that some statements are "true"a nd some are "false," and stating that there is an absolute definition of "right"a dn "wrong." I've spent a good amount of time over the past two days refuting the very idea that an absolute "right"or "wrong" exist, and you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
Atheists make alot of absolute statements that they cannot defend because their own beliefs don't allow for the theory of absolutism.
Behold, generalities and stereotypes! I make very few absolute statements, Holyfire, because I hold basically everything I believe to be tentative, subject to new information. The degree of tentativity depends wholly on the amount and quality of evidence supporting my current belief.
There is very little tentativity in my belief that no objective morality exists; I have roughly the same degree of tentativity concerning the existence of the pen on my desk. It's conceivable that I could be wrong on both counts, but all observation clearly shows that not only is there a pen actually on my desk, but moral judgments and ethical values differ from one society to the next, and they change over time. What one person considers to be "bad," another person could consider to be "good," or at least "less bad." Morality does not seem to exist outside of the minds of human beings,
Let me ask all of you this question. Do you agree with me that veiwing child pornography is absolutely evil and wrong?
It's amusing that you thought this trap would work.
No, I don't agree. The reason is simple:
Under current, Western ethical systems viewing child pornography is typically considered to be monstrously wrong. Under other ethical systems, it is not necessarily so. What I consider "child porn" may be considered "adult porn" to a society where the age of consent is lower (and this is, in fact, the case). Viewing child porn can be valued in different degrees of wrongness even under a variety of Western ethical systems - some may consider the viewing of porn to cause no harm since any harm is already done regardless of the viewing, and so consider it less bad than actually performing an act with a child. Other systems view the observer of the porn as complicit in the child's abuse and hold it to be jsut as bad as committing the act oneself. A police officer viewing child porn in order to identify the victim and catch the perpetrator would even be considered good under most Western ethical systems. Even to those of us who consider viewing child porn as wrong, the degree of wrongness differs; some consider it to be as bad as murder, others less so to varying degrees. personally, I judge the "wrongness" by the act and age of the child - a simple picture isn't very harmful, and so while it's still exploitation of a child and therefore wrong, it's not nearly as bad as a picture of an actual child rape. The younger the child, the more "wrong" the act; taking a nude picture of a 17-year-old is barely "wrong" at all (and in some societies is considered perfectly fine), while a picture of an actual sex act with a toddler I would consider monstrous, combining the "wrongness" of rape, torture, and exploitation of children into the same act.
My cat would look at child porn of any sort and not care at all; she'd either walk past the photograph, or lay down on top of it. Not being human, she doesn't make moral judgments.
No act is objectively good or evil. Commonality of experience and sharing the same basic culture allows most of us to agree that certain actions under certain circumstances are "bad," and to what degree. Ethics and morality are nothing but shades of gray, and we all interpret them a little differently. On many things, we agree as a society that certain activities are "wrong." On others, we wildly disagree even within the same social groups - there are some who consider Atheism to be as "bad" as terrorism in the US, while others make no such judgment; some consider gun control "good" and some "bad," and within both groups individuals consider those judgments to varying degrees. Some people consider a fetus to be an actual child and thus abortion to be murder and "Wrong," while others disagree. Some people believe that wearing a Hijab is a moral imperative for women, while others consider it to be morally repugnant oppression. Some people believe that universal healthcare is wicked and evil, while others consider it to be a moral imperative.
Do you see what I mean yet? If an objective standard were to exist, we would all agree, because the standard would exist independant of the observers. Just as we can all see the pen on my desk, we would all be able to see the same "rightness" and "wrongness" of every action. Morality and ethics would be identical across all societies, and would not change over time. Bu that's not the world we observe.
Direct observation proves indisputably that morality and ethics are the creation of the human mind. They exist subjectively, and are slightly different for all of us. Like the meanings of symbols, we can often agree on basic moral judgments even across multiple ethical systems - but also like the meaning of symbols, we typically disagree with the details, and over many other major issues as well. If humanity were to disappear, morality and ethics would not exist; animals have no concepts of theft, of rape, of murder. Those concepts have no existence outside of the human mind - they are not objective, but are rather subjective.
There is no such thing as a moral absolute. Morality exists only subjectively, and is the creation of human minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Holyfire23, posted 09-08-2009 10:09 PM Holyfire23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Drosophilla, posted 09-09-2009 3:58 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 153 by Holyfire23, posted 09-10-2009 1:33 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 156 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-11-2009 11:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 154 of 161 (523470)
09-10-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Holyfire23
09-10-2009 1:33 PM


Re: Ethics and morality
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, you cannot say there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute moral law, nor can you acknowledge the presence of fact. All you have is speculation and that cannot be used to make an absolute assertion.
All I have is the conspicuous absence of any evidence whatsoever suggesting that absolute objective morality exists, and more than ample evidence that morality is, indeed, subjective. I have proven the negative (objective morality does not exist) by proving the mutually exclusive opposite (morality as we have observed it in each and every case everywhere at every time is purely subjective and a creation of the human mind, not an independently existing objective fact).
This is not idle speculation. I've provided specific examples and evidence to support my argument. You, however, have not even attempted to do so.
Further, statements of fact have nothing to do with morality. pen resting on my desk is an absolute fact...and implies not one thing about morality and ethics. Observing that morality and ethics stem from the human mind just as symbols and emotions is simply a statement of observed fact, and does not itself imply a "moral lawgiver" in any way.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
A stop sign objectively exists; the red octagon remains perched on its post at the street corner regardless of whether someone is there to observe it or not. All observers who are able to see the stop sign will see it; it exists independently of the human mind, of human emotion. A person from Kansas, from California, from the UK, and from India will all see the sign and describe its physical features the same way. Even animals will see it.
The meaning of the stop sign, however, is subjective. To a person who's never seen a car and doesn't speak English, the stop sign will have no meaning at all - it will be an odd red octagonal object, but the meaning that the sign represents will not exist. The meaning of the stop sign, the instruction to stop your car before proceeding, does not exist independently of the observer. Through commonality of experience and agreeing that a red octagon with the word "STOP" written on it will symbolize the instruction to stop your vehicle, many people (hopefully everyone with a US driver's license, though I've seen a fair few who apparently take the meaning to be "slow down slightly;" which both helps prove my point and tends to earn one a traffic ticket) will agree upon the meaning. But to a person wholly unfamiliar with US traffic signs and driving in general, the sign will not function as an instruction to stop a vehicle. Symbols are subjective - they have common meaning only when we all agree upon the common meaning. The meaning does not exist outside of our agreements. A squirrel will not understand the "meaning" of the sign. A young child who has not yet learned how to read or picked up on the meaning of a stop sign yet will not understand. If humanity disappeared tomorrow, no stop signs would have any meaning whatsoever. In another culture, a red octagon could be used as a "yield" sign, or a "no parking" sign, or be assigned any other meaning at all.
The notion that the meaning of a Stop sign is subjective to man’s interpretation is true. You are forgetting one thing howeverthe purpose for which it was created. Someone put that stop sign there. That purpose was so that people would see the sign and know it meant Stop. It is true that a foreigner might see a stop sign, have no clue what it means, and drive right by. But just because he interpreted that sign differently does not change the fact that he is violating the purpose for which that stop sign was created. The creator of the stop sign did not put the stop sign there for people to interpret it subjectively. That creator had an absolute purpose in mindstop. In order to interpret the meaning of a stop sign correctly, we must look to the creator of the stop sign. In the same way, we must look to the Creator of the human mind to interpret the meaning of morality. My question to you is, who or what created the human mind?
What an absurd argument. Symbols, despite having a definite conception in the minds of those who use them, are still subjective. The fact that a specific meaning is assigned when a symbolis used does not make that meaning objective! You have simply failed to comprehend the meaning of the words "subjective" and "objective." Again.
Symbols (like stop signs and words) are the very definition of subjectivity. Without a human mind to interpret them, they are nothing more than meaningless markings. The meaning exists only within the human mind, and absolutely nowhere else. There is nothing objective about a symbol.
So too with morality. Without a human mind to assign a value of "good" or "bad" to an action, that action has no "good" or "bad" value at all. Morality is entirely subjective. Your "creator" in this case is directly analogous to a king who makes a set of laws; the king may have a specific ethical system he is using, but that doesn't make morality any more objective or less subjective. Without human beings who agree with the kings's laws, the laws have no meaning - there's no such thing as murder without human beings to decide what murder is; there's no such thing as theft without human beings to agree on property rights.
You have failed, utterly, to provide any evidence of an objective standard of morality. You;ve simply chosen your own ethical system (that which is given in the Bible), and held it up as objective. I can do the same with any of the innumerable ethical systems that have existed around the globe, from Authoritarianism to Hedonism to Altruism to Utilitarianism and countless more. The fact that I can write down an ethical standard and have a group of people agree with my values does not make ethics and morality and more objective - the mere fact that not everyone agrees proves the fact that morality is entirely subjective.
Here we have a fundamental difference in our modes of reasoning. I base my reasoning off a Creator, you do not.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is evidence - I have provided much, and you have provided none. Your arguments aren't even logically sound; half of your statements do not make any sense at all, and involve massive unsupported leaps of logic. You even decline to respond to the entirety of my posts, instead picking out just a sentence or paragraph or two to reply to. It's rather difficult to debate when the majority of ones points are simply ignored.
Until one of us is able to agree with the other on this level, we cannot effectively argue the specifics i.e. the things created. This is what turns so many arguments between atheists and theists into circular arguments. In order to argue a point effectively, we must agree on some level of assumption. If we cannot agree on the level of assumption, all arguments past the level of assumption become circular or dead-ended. We get nowhere. This argument was doomed from the beginning. None of us set up a good foundation on which to build an effective argument, and thus, no good argument has come about.
In other words, your arguments will only make sense if I already agree with you.
I am, therefore, done posting on this thread.
Concession accepted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Holyfire23, posted 09-10-2009 1:33 PM Holyfire23 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024