In this post, I want to try and get us to think on the subject of same sex marriages and where it will lead society in the end. I know there will be a few who will start reading this and start labeling me, Intolerant, Homophobic and Dogmatic just because I bring the question up. But to be honest every one of those labels fails in describing me and my purpose in writing this post. To say that I am intolerant of people’s view, is to imply that the one disagreeing with me is tolerant of other peoples views. But this can not be the case if you will not tolerate my view to not accept same sex marriages. In fact you are just as intolerant as I am made out to be. The truth is, that the meaning of being intolerant has no meaning what’s so ever unless there is an absolute standard of right and wrong to which being intolerant is being judge against. And as any Christian will ask “Where does that objective standard come from”. As I have always said, if reality as a whole does not have its own interpretation and meaning to it, then us humans are lift to invent our own principles and rules. But if this world is a rational meaningful world then there is a rational mind behind it who has design things to act according to a correct way to function, which manifests the highest good. Either marriage is based in God’s created order of a man and women, who have a powerful connection to fit together on many levels to manifest love and faithfulness and procreation, or marriage is just a human construction shaped and modeled after our own inventions.
Also the label that I am Homophobic is also false, as I am not scared of homosexuals or fear them or hate them (I have friends who are that way), I just disagree with them. Nor am I any more dogmatic then they are in standing for what I believe.
If marriage is just a social construction then there is really no way that one can object to any marital union. If marriage is just about people being together who love each other, who can condemn the family on 60 Minutes the other day where a Father was sleeping with his daughter and had already given birth to two children. I mean does it not sound strange that the Child’s father was his Dad and also his Grandfather at the same time. I mean many people who watch the program were all condemning them, but on what bases is it wrong if marriage is just about two people who love each other.
When traditional marriage is merely a social construction, no principled reason keeps the state from permitting virtually any marital union. For example, marital arrangements that include two brothers, two sisters, a mother and son, a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, or a grandfather and a grandson, would be consistent with the philosophical assumptions undergirding the same sex marriage defense.
And this is not all, Nor is a polygamous marriage of one man and numerous spouses, which also may include his mother, his grandmother, his grandfather, as well as his adult daughter and son, inconsistent with the same sex marriage worldview. I mean where does it end, does marriage not stand for anything anymore? What about those who are bisexual and cant live with just one spouse of the same sex, why should he/she not be able to marry the ones he or she loves. Also why can’t some one marry their pets, why should we be dogmatic on speciesism. Shouldn’t we tolerate all species?
In the end we open the door, to complete ciaos, and reduce marriage to nothing. Does not marriage demonstrate some thing more profound than just sleeping with any thing in a number of different combinations. If same sex marriage is just a human invention, then why cant the rest of the examples be established if its just based on love and sex and no designed order.
Does nothing in this universe have a correct way to function?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Reason is Useless without a Moral Law
We have been looking at ways that try to start from the ground up in establishing morality from rational agency.
My whole point in the last few posts has been to prove that reason alone (without our human nature having a moral law) can not give us a reason why we should be moral or even what should be classed as morality.
"As Any reason for being moral must be either a moral or a nonmoral reason. If it is moral, then it cannot really be a reason for being moral, since you would have to be already inside morality in order to accept it. A nonmoral reason, on the other hand, cannot be a reason for being moral; morality requires a purity of motive, a basically moral intentionality, and that is destroyed by any nonmoral inducement. Hence there can be no reason for being moral, and morality presents itself as an unmediated demand, a categorical imperative."
Without God's moral law on our heart, reason is useless in defending morality and goodness.
My whole point in the last few posts has been to prove that reason alone (without our human nature having a moral law) can not give us a reason why we should be moral or even what should be classed as morality.
"As Any reason for being moral must be either a moral or a nonmoral reason. If it is moral, then it cannot really be a reason for being moral, since you would have to be already inside morality in order to accept it. A nonmoral reason, on the other hand, cannot be a reason for being moral; morality requires a purity of motive, a basically moral intentionality, and that is destroyed by any nonmoral inducement. Hence there can be no reason for being moral, and morality presents itself as an unmediated demand, a categorical imperative."
Without God's moral law on our heart, reason is useless in defending morality and goodness.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Ontology/teleology and the Moral Law
Many Atheists believe that knowing good and evil, or right or wrong is an obvious thing to see. We do not need God to explain right and wrong, so they say. Richard Carrier in his book, makes the charge “do we all live in a sick society” implying that many of us are normal functionally people who live moral lives. It seems for the atheist that right and wrong is based on conceptual thoughts and ideas and not on a designed nature to act good.
Carrier says,
“In fact the universe exhibits zero value affinity, it operates exactly the same for everyone, the good and the bad. It rewards and craps on both with total disregard. It behaves just like a cold and indifferent machine, not the creation of a loving engineer. The only place any sort of value effect is every seen is in human thought and action, and only when humans are psychologically developed in a certain way. It thus stands to reason that values do not come from the design of the universe, but the adaptation of Homo sapiens to that universe, and in particular to a social ecology. After all the only place values are ever found are in human thought.”
Carrier makes it clear in this passage that values are not part of the universe as a whole, they are not part of a design. Humans invent them and use them.
Another bloger which I engage debate with says,
“Concepts of good and evil are in fact subjective. Still, thanks to common ancestry, there is a great deal of agreement about them among people. Science's role is not to define good and evil, but can be used to examine whether certain dubious behaviors cause effects that most people would clearly label good (or evil). I can't put it any simpler for you, sorry.”
So for the atheist good and evil are subjective ideas, that we can all have and see. It is just a matter of working out which work the best for most people, bringing more pleasure and less pain to people. The first problem with this is that “Happiness can be very subjective” and if we can in fact “all” see a value system that works for most people, does this not push for an objective standard. I believe it is true that atheists can see what good and evil is, (they say without God) because of the moral law that is written in us by God.
“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law (of Moses) do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2;14-15)”
Atheist might say they don’t need God to have morality, but scripture agrees, but we can’t get rid of God that easily. God is the author of the moral law written in our hearts. This is the objective standard that we all feel in side us that is independent of our own choices and actions. If there is an objective standard of good and evil, then there must be a moral lawgiver independent of our choices and feelings imposing our obligation to submit to it. This I believe is God, who is the eternal perfect, Good Being, who creates humans in his image, to bear his nature (in a finite sense) and moral standards. For the atheist this is just not so, humans have just invented these standards from conceptual ideas. But I believe this is a huge jump from the story of evolution. Big Bang, evolved by chance, no design or purpose, minds appear and think moral values, in a valueless universe.
Erik Wielenberg in his book “God and the Reach of Reason” takes on the moral argument of C.S Lewis and tries to refute it in chapter two of his book. I found the book interesting, but the more I read the quotes from Lewis I believed Lewis’s argument was stronger than ever.
Lewis says,
‘If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts of the universe…The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this is out to arouse our suspicions…I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.”
To say that an action or event is objectively wrong is to judge it according to an objective standard independent of human opinion and according to a standard that the universe should be following. This implies that there is a moral lawgiver behind the universe. If God does not exist then this universe is valueless.
If evolution was true, then why should we feel obligated to follow this moral law if it is just an impersonal force, which has evolved by chance. If there is no moral law then there is no conscience of the judge judging our thoughts and desires and bringing them into line.
For atheists who reject the moral law, they normally hold to nominalism and its conception of right reason. Humans do not they say have a created, designed nature that draws them to do good according to a good nature. For the atheist there is no guide or light in mankind or inherent teleology that draws us towards truth or goodness. No for the atheists all that humans are left with is right reason, and reason alone will tell us what is good and what is evil. As for the Christian we believe that God has created us teleological good, to function good with a ontological good nature. And this nature acts under the guidance’s of the moral law and standard of God. Since the natural order is teleological, oriented to good ends, moral law is evident in the natural ends of the human species.
For the atheist there is no good nature to humans, just his power to think right, which I would imply that there is an objective standard to thinking right then !?
But can reason alone change our behavior, I don’t think it can as if our bodies are not created to function good, or even moral, then how can we make it comply with our moral ideas. Reason alone cannot affect behavior as most of our thoughts are guided by our emotions which are part of a nature. Reason alone would just give us propositions, but no reason to act on any of them. If we have objective emotions then we again have a designed nature, which acts and feels good and evil. Reason must act with and in balance with our emotions and good nature.
Carrier says,
“In fact the universe exhibits zero value affinity, it operates exactly the same for everyone, the good and the bad. It rewards and craps on both with total disregard. It behaves just like a cold and indifferent machine, not the creation of a loving engineer. The only place any sort of value effect is every seen is in human thought and action, and only when humans are psychologically developed in a certain way. It thus stands to reason that values do not come from the design of the universe, but the adaptation of Homo sapiens to that universe, and in particular to a social ecology. After all the only place values are ever found are in human thought.”
Carrier makes it clear in this passage that values are not part of the universe as a whole, they are not part of a design. Humans invent them and use them.
Another bloger which I engage debate with says,
“Concepts of good and evil are in fact subjective. Still, thanks to common ancestry, there is a great deal of agreement about them among people. Science's role is not to define good and evil, but can be used to examine whether certain dubious behaviors cause effects that most people would clearly label good (or evil). I can't put it any simpler for you, sorry.”
So for the atheist good and evil are subjective ideas, that we can all have and see. It is just a matter of working out which work the best for most people, bringing more pleasure and less pain to people. The first problem with this is that “Happiness can be very subjective” and if we can in fact “all” see a value system that works for most people, does this not push for an objective standard. I believe it is true that atheists can see what good and evil is, (they say without God) because of the moral law that is written in us by God.
“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law (of Moses) do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2;14-15)”
Atheist might say they don’t need God to have morality, but scripture agrees, but we can’t get rid of God that easily. God is the author of the moral law written in our hearts. This is the objective standard that we all feel in side us that is independent of our own choices and actions. If there is an objective standard of good and evil, then there must be a moral lawgiver independent of our choices and feelings imposing our obligation to submit to it. This I believe is God, who is the eternal perfect, Good Being, who creates humans in his image, to bear his nature (in a finite sense) and moral standards. For the atheist this is just not so, humans have just invented these standards from conceptual ideas. But I believe this is a huge jump from the story of evolution. Big Bang, evolved by chance, no design or purpose, minds appear and think moral values, in a valueless universe.
Erik Wielenberg in his book “God and the Reach of Reason” takes on the moral argument of C.S Lewis and tries to refute it in chapter two of his book. I found the book interesting, but the more I read the quotes from Lewis I believed Lewis’s argument was stronger than ever.
Lewis says,
‘If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts of the universe…The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this is out to arouse our suspicions…I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.”
To say that an action or event is objectively wrong is to judge it according to an objective standard independent of human opinion and according to a standard that the universe should be following. This implies that there is a moral lawgiver behind the universe. If God does not exist then this universe is valueless.
If evolution was true, then why should we feel obligated to follow this moral law if it is just an impersonal force, which has evolved by chance. If there is no moral law then there is no conscience of the judge judging our thoughts and desires and bringing them into line.
For atheists who reject the moral law, they normally hold to nominalism and its conception of right reason. Humans do not they say have a created, designed nature that draws them to do good according to a good nature. For the atheist there is no guide or light in mankind or inherent teleology that draws us towards truth or goodness. No for the atheists all that humans are left with is right reason, and reason alone will tell us what is good and what is evil. As for the Christian we believe that God has created us teleological good, to function good with a ontological good nature. And this nature acts under the guidance’s of the moral law and standard of God. Since the natural order is teleological, oriented to good ends, moral law is evident in the natural ends of the human species.
For the atheist there is no good nature to humans, just his power to think right, which I would imply that there is an objective standard to thinking right then !?
But can reason alone change our behavior, I don’t think it can as if our bodies are not created to function good, or even moral, then how can we make it comply with our moral ideas. Reason alone cannot affect behavior as most of our thoughts are guided by our emotions which are part of a nature. Reason alone would just give us propositions, but no reason to act on any of them. If we have objective emotions then we again have a designed nature, which acts and feels good and evil. Reason must act with and in balance with our emotions and good nature.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Sense and Goodness without God
Richard Carrier in his book “Sense and Goodness without God; a defense of Metaphysical Naturalism” makes the claim that “we do not need God to have objective morality”. Carrier defines his view as Secular Humanism and it holds to two basic doctrines, that the progress and welfare of all human beings is the greatest good. Now this sound good but what is “Good” and what brings the greatest good to all people?
For carrier it comes down to not harming people and also what is good is clearly objectively obvious to those whose faculties are working properly. It is strange that this new Atheist moment of late seems to believe that the good is obvious. So why has the history of ethical philosophy been debating the issue for centuries. For the record atheist haven’t shown very good examples of being good without God. It has been Christianity that has dogmatically held that there are absolute fixed morals against others that have held to a pragmatic view. I mean if Christianity’s ethics are lived out to the words and deeds of Jesus, life would be a great place. So its interesting that Atheist now think that objective morality is obvious to any rational person who’s thinking faculties are working properly.
It seems that all that the atheist is doing is snatching Christianity’s morality and throwing away God. I mean just stating moral principles doesn’t imply God does not exist. . The problem with Carriers view is just stating his theory does not make it objective for all people.
Carriers defends his system,
“The Goal Theory does not root moral value in popular sentiment or majority vote, or even in current beliefs or attitudes, but in the actual facts, particularly in the sentiments that every person would have if they were both (1) fully informed of all the true facts about themselves and the universe and (2) cognitively accurate in their analysis of these facts. In other words, when we know what is true, and logically deduce from this what is actually valuable to us, we will all find ourselves in agreement about a certain set of objects of value. And this entails a certain set of behavioral principles, and by virtue of this universal agreement, those objects would have objective value, and those behaviors would be objectively right and wrong. Hence, values are objective because every person who is informed of all the facts and whose reasoning abilities are functioning properly would agree to them. (Note: When we call something "objective," we mean that it is true regardless of people’s opinions, and that they would agree with it if they knew all the details and were thinking clearly.”
Carrier argues that values are objective because everyone would agree with them if they knew all the facts and were thinking clearly. This is equivalent to saying, "Values are objective because they are objective." Thus, Richard hasn’t offered an argument for the objectivity of moral values. He has simply restated the meaning of "objective.") Richard applies a similar argument in favor of the value of life itself, for he says that "life has objective value to the degree that every sane and informed person would value it if informed of all the facts, and their cognitive faculties were functioning without error.
David Wood makes a good point when he says,
“There are several problems with this view. First, it suggests that in order to reach this state of agreement, we will have to be "fully informed of all the true facts." But how can we ever know that we are in full possession of the facts? Until we reach such a state of knowledge, Richard’s moral theory is useless. (I also find it difficult to believe that it would be helpful for Richard to simply walk up to a Nazi and "tell" him that his views are factually false. Would this strategy ever work?) Second, it is difficult to believe that people will agree on moral issues as soon as they are in possession of all the facts. No matter how many facts we learn, people still disagree about things like abortion and homosexuality. Will a few more facts change this disagreement? Third, Richard says that there will be moral agreement as long as everyone’s cognitive faculties are working. But who is to decide whose faculties are functioning properly? That is, if I say that abortion is wrong, and Richard says that it is right, we will be at a standoff. He will say that my faculties are malfunctioning, and I will argue the same about him. In other words, determining proper mental function when it comes to moral values seems like it would be an extremely subjective science, and Richard is arguing for objective values”
We are still left in his atheistic worldview with the question “What objective standard do we use to define ‘what is proper functioning faculties”
Carrier also thinks that something is immoral only if it interferes with another person’s happiness and he uses this principle to test moral claims:
Since homosexual sex hinders no one’s happiness, while suppression of homosexual emotions has been empirically proven to be destructive of human life and happiness, it is actually immoral to denounce or repress them.
David Wood replies again with an interesting point,
“Suppose America adopted Richard’s position into law. Only acts that interfere with the happiness of others would be classified as immoral. Now let’s try a test case. Bob is caught with a great deal of child pornography. What should the government do? We might reasonably conclude that taking pictures of naked children could interfere with their happiness, since being child porn-stars may give rise to psychological problems. So Bob should go to jail. But let’s modify the scenario. Bob took the pictures with a hidden camera while the children were having their bath. This wouldn’t affect the children, since they wouldn’t know about the pictures. However, we may argue that the children may one day find out about the pictures (by seeing them on the internet, for instance), so this could still cause problems. Hence, Bob should still go to jail. But let’s modify the situation a little more. Using a hidden camera, Bob took pictures of naked children while they were having a bath, and the children were wearing masks. There is now no conceivable way for the children to be affected by the pictures, so according to Richard, we couldn’t call this pornography immoral. One may respond by arguing that child pornography may trigger thoughts that lead pedophiles to prey on children, but this could also be applied to any sort of pornography. Richard would never agree that all pornography should be banned, so why ban child porn? The answer, of course, is that it should be banned because it’s immoral. It doesn’t matter whose happiness it affects; it’s still wrong, as are many other things. Even if a man and his horse are completely happy as lovers, it is still an immoral relationship. This is why Richard’s moral theory is utterly impractical. It’s also why he admits that he can’t think of a single fixed moral law:”
The major problem with Richard Carriers claims is that it is not objective, and where does one go to seek an objective standard that can judge who has proper functioning faculties. The next problem is, is it that easy to see what is the greatest good for humanity. I mean Jesus did, because of his perfection and hand in creating us, he has given us perfect rules that fit with how we are created to sense happiness and peace and fulfillment, that don’t harm people. Some people opinions are wrong, some peoples desires might be good for them but not for all. But to think humans can just come along and do the same thing, with trail and error killing and hurting millions along the way to find the good, I don’t think is the greatest good. And I don’t think human are any where close to writing an objective moral rule book for the world, that is different than Jesus’. And if it is the same then what a waste of time of rejecting it all along. It is also a bad example of carrier’s statement that “what is good” is obvious to all atheists who have proper functioning brains.
Is it that easy to see what is objectively good and well being for all people? I mean well being or success can be very subjective and easy to bend standards. I mean large groups have killed millions of Jews to gain success and happiness, to rid the world of inferior races that threaten the race with problems and unhappiness. What about abortions and euthanasia, it may seem to help people engage in more happiness, but is it moral? Do contradictory points of view that help deferent kinds of large groups make well being easy to define. What if an abortionist believes he’s helping “unexpectedly “expecting” women to uphold their right to control their own bodies and their freedom of choice? And what if the abortionist claims he finds the killing of unborn babies satisfying and useful for the upward mobility of women in society. But then what about volunteers at a pro-life counseling center who are richly rewarded and gratified by counseling women considering abortion to keep their babies. These volunteers are also aware of post abortion trauma and the psychological havoc that abortion wreak’s on women. So to say what ever works for you leads to deep conflict. Both cannot be true can they?
What we think is useful or promotes well being is for some is person relative or culture relative, and there are many different options out there. But something’s can be true even if it’s detrimental to a this-worldly sense of well being or success.
All atheist attempts to ground objective morality seem to fail,
The idea that non-moral properties just evolved into moral properties, and we just have to define what we think is good out of the options, then live them. The idea that humans are not created morally good to do good, but some how we have just over time evolved with abstract thoughts from non-conscious matter, that goodness is real and useful. The ideas that objective morals and values exist independently out side human thoughts in matter some where in an impersonal universe (moral realism). The idea that are actions are hardwired to irrational chemical reactions in our heads that in the end rob us of free will and responsibility. That morality because it has evolved and at times humans have had to fight to survive in the process of evolution, make morality subjective and rape can be a virtue to promote the survival of the species.
For carrier it comes down to not harming people and also what is good is clearly objectively obvious to those whose faculties are working properly. It is strange that this new Atheist moment of late seems to believe that the good is obvious. So why has the history of ethical philosophy been debating the issue for centuries. For the record atheist haven’t shown very good examples of being good without God. It has been Christianity that has dogmatically held that there are absolute fixed morals against others that have held to a pragmatic view. I mean if Christianity’s ethics are lived out to the words and deeds of Jesus, life would be a great place. So its interesting that Atheist now think that objective morality is obvious to any rational person who’s thinking faculties are working properly.
It seems that all that the atheist is doing is snatching Christianity’s morality and throwing away God. I mean just stating moral principles doesn’t imply God does not exist. . The problem with Carriers view is just stating his theory does not make it objective for all people.
Carriers defends his system,
“The Goal Theory does not root moral value in popular sentiment or majority vote, or even in current beliefs or attitudes, but in the actual facts, particularly in the sentiments that every person would have if they were both (1) fully informed of all the true facts about themselves and the universe and (2) cognitively accurate in their analysis of these facts. In other words, when we know what is true, and logically deduce from this what is actually valuable to us, we will all find ourselves in agreement about a certain set of objects of value. And this entails a certain set of behavioral principles, and by virtue of this universal agreement, those objects would have objective value, and those behaviors would be objectively right and wrong. Hence, values are objective because every person who is informed of all the facts and whose reasoning abilities are functioning properly would agree to them. (Note: When we call something "objective," we mean that it is true regardless of people’s opinions, and that they would agree with it if they knew all the details and were thinking clearly.”
Carrier argues that values are objective because everyone would agree with them if they knew all the facts and were thinking clearly. This is equivalent to saying, "Values are objective because they are objective." Thus, Richard hasn’t offered an argument for the objectivity of moral values. He has simply restated the meaning of "objective.") Richard applies a similar argument in favor of the value of life itself, for he says that "life has objective value to the degree that every sane and informed person would value it if informed of all the facts, and their cognitive faculties were functioning without error.
David Wood makes a good point when he says,
“There are several problems with this view. First, it suggests that in order to reach this state of agreement, we will have to be "fully informed of all the true facts." But how can we ever know that we are in full possession of the facts? Until we reach such a state of knowledge, Richard’s moral theory is useless. (I also find it difficult to believe that it would be helpful for Richard to simply walk up to a Nazi and "tell" him that his views are factually false. Would this strategy ever work?) Second, it is difficult to believe that people will agree on moral issues as soon as they are in possession of all the facts. No matter how many facts we learn, people still disagree about things like abortion and homosexuality. Will a few more facts change this disagreement? Third, Richard says that there will be moral agreement as long as everyone’s cognitive faculties are working. But who is to decide whose faculties are functioning properly? That is, if I say that abortion is wrong, and Richard says that it is right, we will be at a standoff. He will say that my faculties are malfunctioning, and I will argue the same about him. In other words, determining proper mental function when it comes to moral values seems like it would be an extremely subjective science, and Richard is arguing for objective values”
We are still left in his atheistic worldview with the question “What objective standard do we use to define ‘what is proper functioning faculties”
Carrier also thinks that something is immoral only if it interferes with another person’s happiness and he uses this principle to test moral claims:
Since homosexual sex hinders no one’s happiness, while suppression of homosexual emotions has been empirically proven to be destructive of human life and happiness, it is actually immoral to denounce or repress them.
David Wood replies again with an interesting point,
“Suppose America adopted Richard’s position into law. Only acts that interfere with the happiness of others would be classified as immoral. Now let’s try a test case. Bob is caught with a great deal of child pornography. What should the government do? We might reasonably conclude that taking pictures of naked children could interfere with their happiness, since being child porn-stars may give rise to psychological problems. So Bob should go to jail. But let’s modify the scenario. Bob took the pictures with a hidden camera while the children were having their bath. This wouldn’t affect the children, since they wouldn’t know about the pictures. However, we may argue that the children may one day find out about the pictures (by seeing them on the internet, for instance), so this could still cause problems. Hence, Bob should still go to jail. But let’s modify the situation a little more. Using a hidden camera, Bob took pictures of naked children while they were having a bath, and the children were wearing masks. There is now no conceivable way for the children to be affected by the pictures, so according to Richard, we couldn’t call this pornography immoral. One may respond by arguing that child pornography may trigger thoughts that lead pedophiles to prey on children, but this could also be applied to any sort of pornography. Richard would never agree that all pornography should be banned, so why ban child porn? The answer, of course, is that it should be banned because it’s immoral. It doesn’t matter whose happiness it affects; it’s still wrong, as are many other things. Even if a man and his horse are completely happy as lovers, it is still an immoral relationship. This is why Richard’s moral theory is utterly impractical. It’s also why he admits that he can’t think of a single fixed moral law:”
The major problem with Richard Carriers claims is that it is not objective, and where does one go to seek an objective standard that can judge who has proper functioning faculties. The next problem is, is it that easy to see what is the greatest good for humanity. I mean Jesus did, because of his perfection and hand in creating us, he has given us perfect rules that fit with how we are created to sense happiness and peace and fulfillment, that don’t harm people. Some people opinions are wrong, some peoples desires might be good for them but not for all. But to think humans can just come along and do the same thing, with trail and error killing and hurting millions along the way to find the good, I don’t think is the greatest good. And I don’t think human are any where close to writing an objective moral rule book for the world, that is different than Jesus’. And if it is the same then what a waste of time of rejecting it all along. It is also a bad example of carrier’s statement that “what is good” is obvious to all atheists who have proper functioning brains.
Is it that easy to see what is objectively good and well being for all people? I mean well being or success can be very subjective and easy to bend standards. I mean large groups have killed millions of Jews to gain success and happiness, to rid the world of inferior races that threaten the race with problems and unhappiness. What about abortions and euthanasia, it may seem to help people engage in more happiness, but is it moral? Do contradictory points of view that help deferent kinds of large groups make well being easy to define. What if an abortionist believes he’s helping “unexpectedly “expecting” women to uphold their right to control their own bodies and their freedom of choice? And what if the abortionist claims he finds the killing of unborn babies satisfying and useful for the upward mobility of women in society. But then what about volunteers at a pro-life counseling center who are richly rewarded and gratified by counseling women considering abortion to keep their babies. These volunteers are also aware of post abortion trauma and the psychological havoc that abortion wreak’s on women. So to say what ever works for you leads to deep conflict. Both cannot be true can they?
What we think is useful or promotes well being is for some is person relative or culture relative, and there are many different options out there. But something’s can be true even if it’s detrimental to a this-worldly sense of well being or success.
All atheist attempts to ground objective morality seem to fail,
The idea that non-moral properties just evolved into moral properties, and we just have to define what we think is good out of the options, then live them. The idea that humans are not created morally good to do good, but some how we have just over time evolved with abstract thoughts from non-conscious matter, that goodness is real and useful. The ideas that objective morals and values exist independently out side human thoughts in matter some where in an impersonal universe (moral realism). The idea that are actions are hardwired to irrational chemical reactions in our heads that in the end rob us of free will and responsibility. That morality because it has evolved and at times humans have had to fight to survive in the process of evolution, make morality subjective and rape can be a virtue to promote the survival of the species.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)