Can We Have Government Without Faith?

1) Admit that equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy aren’t absolute truths, or the only way our society must be.

He says this like it’s a problem. Let’s get this out of the way: “Equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy are not absolute truths. They are not the only way that society must be.”

Of course, I can use this in many ways: “Newtonian physics is not an absolute truth. It is not the only way particles must behave.” “Quantum mechanics is not an absolute truth. It is not the only way to describe the behavior of sub-atomic particles.”

We have precious few “absolute” truths- in fact, I can’t seem to think of any. Human beings might not have a pipeline to “absolute truth”, but we do have the ability to apprehend the world around us, to interrogate it, investigate it, and draw conclusions from it. When it comes to organizing a society, we have tried so many different things. We’ve experimented, even if we weren’t conscious of it. In all the experiments, we’ve found that equal worth, equal treatment and autonomy are extremely beneficial to individuals and society as a whole.

Societies that promote free and open exchanges of ideas see incredible scientific and economic progress. Societies without oppressed minorities are more stable. As a group, it’s in our best interests to hold these values, not because some divine decree forces us into it, but because they work. Other organizing principles haven’t worked as well.

Personally, and this is a controversial view, I don’t feel that people have equal worth. I think prizing someone merely because they have the good fortune to be genetically similar to myself is a perilous mistake. But, I also admit imperfect knowledge. There is, as of yet, no way to honestly determine, practically and fairly, the absolute worth of an individual. When measuring the relative worth, we must limit our scope- I can identify the more worthy chess player, but that doesn’t tell me anything about the person’s worth to society. I don’t hold that equal worth is an absolute truth, but I accept it as a practical one- there’s really no way to evaluate someone’s worth.

I’ll take a stab at this.

There is no “scientific” way to prove that all people are equal. I think that in order for all people to receive equal benefits from an atheist government, they would have to rely on compassion. Compassion is not scientifically based. In fact, I think we agree that in societies with fewer resources, it makes the most sense to use those resources on who has the best chance of survival- and that’s what many societies have done, and far be it from me to judge them.

Using that definition, it seems the belief in equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy are more faith based than science. So given that we want these principles in government, is it not necessary to have faith inside government? For people reading this who identify themselves as atheist yet believe in these principles, how is that not faith?

I think its compassion, not faith, at least not faith in a religious way. In a society where there is the ability to care for all the people, it seems better to err on the side of caring for more people.

So, if a person has a true atheist perspective, they should be willing to give ideas, such as that we don’t all deserve equal treatment, reasonable consideration.

I might be missing something here, but I don’t see why atheists have to give all ideas reasonable consideration. That has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is, in my opinion, about considering the world from a naturalistic perspective. There is no supernatural; only the natural.

I am going to go think about this some more.

I am not sure faith is the word to describe why I think human rights, equal worth of all humans, equal treatment, and autonomy are good things. For starters, there is some experimental data, such as the Greek democracy, the Roman Republic/Empire, the USSR, the USA, Nazi Germany and Germany today. We can look at these, and see what value they placed on those principals, and how well each society did and how well individuals in those societies fared. But I don’t think that is entirely your point. I follow those principals, not because they are backed up by science nor because I have faith that they are good principals (though I suppose I do). I follow them, because I want to be treated in a certain way, and I don’t think it is my place to tell others that they don’t deserve the very treatment I demand. In essence, I follow the golden rule, because I think it is a good Idea, and by my though process (aided by many great thinkers in history) these principals are the conclusion. Again, I fear I’ve fallen short of your criteria, but you have certainly sparked my thoughts on this topic. My last thought for now: I “believe” that social justice is invariant under the transformation from one person to the next. I call this principle The Relativity of Social Justice.

@Miko:

All merit-based awards, for example, are testimony to the fact that we don’t.

Well, I’m not sure merit-based awards really represent a social recognition of global inequality. We’re looking at relative merit within a very narrow field. There’s no “Best Person Alive” award. Nobody “fires” you from living if you don’t meet your quarterly goal (certain exceptions apply).

Alright, one more thing to add to the discussion- who is to say that we are all equal according to your god? Theist, I have no idea what version of God you believe in, but whose to say he cares about everyone equally? In the Bible, the Christian god is pretty mean to everyone besides the Jews and a few other groups.

I could say a lot more on this subject, but I’ll keep it short since there have already been some good answers:

It would be hypocritical to endorse harming other human beings who have feelings, thoughts, dreams, etc the same way I do while demanding that my own rights be respected. This kind of hypocrisy would be a logical contradiction and most other atheists I “talk to” via web and real life like to be internally consistent and logical in their thinking.

Also, if I were to set up a society that rewarded people with basic “rights” ONLY based on their contribtutions, I myself would have to constantly worry that I wouldn’t “make it.” And if I invent a system but exclude my self from its rules that makes me a hypocrite. So we’re back to the logical contradiction thing.

I would also say that morality or ethics based on commands from a deity is not really morality at all but rather obedience. Most monotheistic religions put the deity’s mere pride or “face” or “glory” (whatever the hell that is) above human life. I consider this to be a bad basis for morality and I would take a “less than absoute” foundation over a bad one. But even that compromise is not necessary.

As the laws of economics work, though they are not part of the physical universe, so, too, can ethics work without the intervention of a deity.
Empirically, it’s quite logical that when we all agree to cooperate and treat each other as we’d like to be treated, we all benefit from a better society. Lest you think Jesus Christ originated this idea, please know it was around hundreds of years before him in other cultures. It’s been said many times throughout history in different ways because it’s logical…and just plain fair, not because it’s divine.

I hope this helps. Good luck in all your musings and analysis.

There are thousands of different metrics from strength to beauty to intelligence to status of parents. Genetic endowment is far from equal, and all traits can be ranked on bell curves. There are smart people and stupid people–but most are in the middle.

People are not equal and life is nowhere near fair. Now get over it.

Whether government is necessary and what kind there should be is a whole other discussion. But if we are going to have government, it should be one that allows people of staggeringly unequal talents and genes to be fulfilled and to thrive with the least amount of suffering.

Where this becomes problematic is when smarter, stronger people start taking advantage of others, as they always do. I think this has to be permitted to a certain extent as being the natural course of healthy competition. Weaker, dumber people will never improve if they don’t have to face that competition. But we want to stop short of all-out Social Darwinism, or we might as well go back to tribal society. The real heart of the problem lies in the tradeoff between coercion (in the name of strong or universal utilitarianism) and the equally important preservation of individual liberties.

This is an area with room for all kinds of discussion. None of it having anything to do with a deity.

As Steelman points out, the idea didn’t begin with me. Great write-up, Steelman… but I didn’t notice God invoked anywhere in Rawl’s model of ethical behavior.

The Theist writes as someone seemingly unaware of models of ethics outside the Sunday School model of “God’s watchin’ you, so be good.”

But what he doesn’t realize is that for theism to provide “absolute ethical principles” we must know for a fact that we have absolute knowlege that we are getting the correct principles directly from God.

Without that continual confirmation, we morally MUST treat all of proported God’s laws as man’s laws, and not above question, lest we make a tyranny of the Priesthood.

Without 100% confirmation from God that we are following His laws, correctly and in practice, to the letter, a theistic-based morality suffers from the exact same limitations and non-absolute nature as human-derived morality.

Let’s get away from abstractions and look at America’s history and at the real divers of cultural transformation which are not “values” from God.

What’s the background to the ‘no state religion’ portion of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1786).

As former English subjects, newly victorious Americans had also thrown off a state church, the Church of England. In the Mother Country of 1786 a religious nonconformist (not a confessing Anglican) could not become a physician, attorney at law, an officer in HM forces on land or sea, could not attend either Cambridge or Oxford.

Americans were not about to tolerate a repeat performance. The issues were meat-and-potatoes: who eats well, procreates, educates the kids, rises in social standing. Real issues — not how to communicate with some cultural Icon, either theistic or deistic.

As Marvin Harris would put it — we’re always talking about “cultural materialism.” The race to death of food production and reproduction. Guts lead God by the nose every time.

Amendment 1 protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.

Check it out, the Constitution does not contain the word “God.” “We the people” give our rights to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Xian theocrats understand that.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

The question is not a meaningful one. A government is nothing more than a codified set of laws and people executing, making and upholding them. By definition a system such as a government cannot experience “faith” – a human condition. Only sentient beings can experience faith – and a government certainly isn’t one.

being committed to democratic ideals does not at all necessarily entail a belief that everyone actually is “equal.” I don’t know who’s saying they are. Equal in what sense? It’s being said, at the very least, that government has no principled way valuing and ordering people.. and the history of attempts to do so is riddled with tragedy. But the larger point, I think, is that.. it’s not about whether we have equal ability levels or not.. it’s more so that no one person’s interests necessarily trump another’s interests. The farmer and the locksmith have needs and interests just as much as professors do. And, in any case, as soon as you start weighting one group over another.. you introduce oligarchy and have set the stage for corruption and the exertion of political influence for the sole benefit of that “privileged class.”
But, sure, you guys are right to insist that our founding documents (while they are NOT “Christian”) cointain many references to the creator, from whom we are said to derive our “rights.” I agree with the first part (not the latter part) of the first poster’s post in which he/she said that we can justify these principles on the grounds that they work. It does involve a kind of faith.. but I think it’s a slightly different kind of faith than believing in the truth of an extraordinary supernatural proposition. There’s a distinction to be drawn between trusting other people.. and that a certain social arrangement will work out.. and invoking faith as a justification for believing in the truth of things. Now, sure, there is often faith involved in that too. But I just get annoyed when people invoke “faith” to justify any belief.. no matter how (in my view) outlandish and unparsimonious it is. Faith is going out on a limb and making yourself truly vulnerable. Religious faith means probably being wrong but believing anyway.. a very precarious thing.

Anyway.. my two cents was that republican ideals don’t require a (naive, foolish) belief that everyone actually is equal in some descriptive sense.. but rather a commitment to the idea that everyone counts.. that everyone has a right to have their particular viewpoint heard.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for responding. And just to make a clarification, I have many friends of an atheist perspective whom I would vote into presidency in a second if I could convince them to run. This question really has arisen from my own exploration of what I do or do not believe.

It is difficult to pose a response that will address everyone’s reply, I wish I could respond to each one individually. I will try to incorporate some of what everyone says into my response here.

Just to clarify my main point, using Dawkin’s definition that faith is treating something as truth that you can not test or prove, I think belief in an absolute right and wrong requires faith. I think our government embraces the concept of an absolute right and wrong, and thus incorporates faith. I do understand that some are explaining to me that government can simply represent what we as a society want, as defined by what we value as a community consensus, but I’m not sure we all truly accept the implication of this type of government (I’ll give an example at the end of why I think many Athiests don’t accept this). But first I must explain what I mean by absolute right and wrong.

I see a main difference between atheist and faith based explanations of ethics. I will try to describe below what the difference is. It has to do with the question of “why.”

Lets look at the basic sentence that derives from ethics, either “You should (fill in the blank)…. “ or “You shouldn’t (fill in the blank)…. “. I think both atheist and theist can derive similar principles for the (fill in the blank). For example, many responses reference the concept that people should be treated as they would want to be treated; a concept which I agree can come from pure logic or from religious sources. To all those who say that you don’t need Jesus to teach “the golden rule,” I agree.

The difference, to me, between theist and atheist perspectives when talking about what you should or shouldn’t do comes with the answer to the question “why” or “why not.”

For example, to the principle “Treat everyone with equal worth,” if asked “why?” you can come up with a logical argument that if everyone doesn’t do this it will result in a un-prosperous society. But then if one were to say, “I don’t care if society is un-prosperous, why should I treat people as equals?” it is harder to give an answer. One might even say, “I suppose you don’t have to, but I also don’t want you living in my society.”

From this comes the definition of government and ethics that Miko, theplainestguy, and Siamang explained, if I understand it correctly, which is that it is a social contract established by collective agreement. So society as a whole values certain things, and creates rules to achieve those values.

Now, here might be a theists answer to the question of why a person should or should not do something. Because it is wrong, period. If you argue that X is wrong because it will result in Y, than a person who doesn’t care about Y won’t see X is wrong. If you argue X is wrong by definition, than that’s it.

Now I know the response to this. Who has the authority to truly know what is right and wrong. As the plainestguy stated, the ethics of religion seem to change over time. As Jen says “who’s to say we are all equal according to your god?” As Siamsung said, religion often gets its wrong, such as racist views that people have used religion to defend.

I would answer it this way. I think one goal as humans is to discover what that truth, or absolute right and wrong, is. I don’t think anyone has claim to it. But I think that all of us have some sense of it, and speak about it as if it is real. There are themes in everyone’s posts above. Jen spoke about compassion, and argued that it is better to error on the side of caring for more people. Tammy stated that there are many things that everyone knows is wrong. Polly described concepts of treating other people with the same rights one’s self desires. I got the feeling in T3knomanswer and Mike’s post that they started with the conclusion that it is better for society that we are all treated equally and found evidence for it, ignoring all the evidence that unequal treatment in society can also lead to great progress (Egyptian pyramids built by slaves, China’s current overwhelming success in the marketplace). While they might be right, I bet they also want equal treatment to be the best strategy for society, and would be disappointed if someone proved the opposite. Black Sun perhaps summed it up best saying that, if we have government, it “should be one that allows people of staggeringly unequal talents and genes to be fulfilled and to thrive with the least amount of suffering.” All of these descriptions of what is right share many things in common. They all seem to point in one direction.

My feeling is that many people truly see these ideas as being “right,” not just a random opinion of how they think things should be to benefit themselves. We all seem to share similar ideas. Now, you can view these shared ideas in two different ways. Richard Dawkins described the concept of “memes”, which are ideas which evolve, just as genes do, because they have a survival advantage. In essence if we didn’t think this way we would be extinct. I think this is fair. You could call this “herd instinct.” You could call “the golden rule” heard instinct. But, if it were, it would also be ok to ignore it. The desire to have children can be considered a “herd instinct,” and it is ok to ignore. Yet I think if someone were to ignore the ethical “herd instinct,” we would see this action as something different, as truly wrong.

To respond to Siamsung’s statement that I am seemingly unaware of models of ethics outside of religion, I can understand where that statement comes from especially with the views held toward theists. But, I must say I am fluent in ethical concepts of consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology and with writers such as Sartre, Mill, and Hobbes. In fact, it was my exploration of ethical principles that led me to the conclusion that there is an absolute right and wrong. If there is not, than everything is based on what is trying to be achieved. If everyone has a different goal, than what should and should not be done is relative to what a person’s goal is. There would be no “right” and “wrong” in the traditional sense, there would only be actions and outcomes, and those outcomes would either be desirable or undesirable by an individual.

So I understand that the fact that I can’t accept a world without absolute right doesn’t make it so. But I also see a trend in people with atheist perspectives acting also as if there is an absolute right which isn’t just relative to an individuals goals. I think if a person ignores that they do this, it is intellectualy dishonest. I have not spoken with a person of atheist perspective who is comfortable admitting there truly is no absolute right or wrong.

For example:

The ideas above state that ethics in government can be simply a societal contract based on the consensus of the community. As Siamang states, “I vote for the society that I would like to live in.” I am familiar with the polls which conclude that America currently would not vote for an atheist president. (Just to clarify, I would vote for an atheist president.) If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community. It is only with the belief in absolute right and wrong that you can argue it is truly wrong.

-Lee (The Theist)

What is the “true atheist perspective”? I didn’t realize anything like that existed.

My suggestion to the The Theist would be to pick up Richard Dawkin’s A Devil’s Champlain, and read the very first essay (with the same title), as well as the Ethics section from the “Memo for Tony Blair” (if he/she has not done so already). But, to save time, I believe this quote from the book is a suitable response on its own to the question of science and ethics:

Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society. But science can clarify the questions being asked, and can clear up obfuscating misunderstandings.

As a sort of side note: just because science doesn’t provide an answer, doesn’t mean we automatically must turn to religion. And, atheists don’t use science for everything. To do that would be silly.

Now, so I actually address the main question, I’ll offer a definition:

faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Atheists (and, I think, a fair amount of theists) only really object to 4 and 5 (and maybe 2) being used in the government to decide and enforce legislation, particularly when it is unreasonably harmful or preferential (though these are objectionable no matter the source). That does not meant we object to all faith used in the government, or anywhere else for that matter.

I know I didn’t answer the question, but this comment is getting long, and I don’t think I can answer it as well as others have or will. Sorry.

As Siamang states, “I vote for the society that I would like to live in.” I am familiar with the polls which conclude that America currently would not vote for an atheist president. (Just to clarify, I would vote for an atheist president.) If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community.

No.

It doesn’t mean “majority rules”. If you’ve taken Rawl’s veil of ignorance and boiled it down to “majority rules”, you’ve made a huge error.

The problem with accepting the “consensus of the community” as the correct interpretation of “the world that most people want to live in” is it ASSUMES that a lack of atheists in government is the majority’s overriding desire for society.

Rather, I think fairness is a higher desire for most Americans. If I can convince them they’re being unfair, they will change their minds about electing atheists.

The entire idea of the veil of ignorance is that if you vote out atheists today, you’ve set up the idea that tomorrow it could be methodists, or jews or whoever.

Only a secular government can fairly represent a religiously diverse population. Government is granted its power by those governed, legislators ought to go about the business of governing, not praying to the majority deity for guidance.

Secularists are not anti-God. They understand religious freedom much better than the majority. Freedom doesn’t mean getting the government to espouse faith to all of the population. It’s having a government that says nothing about religion, so that we may all worship, or not, as we personally choose without any coercion, no matter how subtle.

I’d like to respond here:

Now, here might be a theists answer to the question of why a person should or should not do something. Because it is wrong, period. If you argue that X is wrong because it will result in Y, than a person who doesn’t care about Y won’t see X is wrong. If you argue X is wrong by definition, than that’s it.

Isn’t the option for theists to believe in this way proof of the very idea that absolute right/wrong do not exist? Said another way, if the above position of the theist were true, wouldn’t I as an atheist feel compelled to agree by something internal and/or innate? Doesn’t my ability to disagree negate the necessity of absolutism?

You said:

would answer it this way. I think one goal as humans is to discover what that truth, or absolute right and wrong, is. I don’t think anyone has claim to it. But I think that all of us have some sense of it, and speak about it as if it is real.

Please make the critical distinction here–though we all have a sense of right and wrong, we do not all have a sense that it is absolute. That is your personal conclusion which you have adopted for yourself after your studies of Hobbes, et al.

Then:

If everyone has a different goal, than what should and should not be done is relative to what a person’s goal is. There would be no “right” and “wrong” in the traditional sense, there would only be actions and outcomes, and those outcomes would either be desirable or undesirable by an individual.

Yes! Yes! But those individual goals must still jive within the bigger context of the particular societal contract which the individual has agreed to make himself a part of.

I have not spoken with a person of atheist perspective who is comfortable admitting there truly is no absolute right or wrong.

Allow me to be the first then!

If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community.

Well, sure. It’s not “wrong” in any ethical sense. It’s simply a state of public opinion that is counterproductive and limiting to the atheist wishing to submit himself to public service. And precisely because it is a state of public opinion, it has the potential to be changed by a counter-opinion that is inclusive of those which were previously marginalized.

There’s a lot of confusion here about the principle of Equality Under the Law. Please read my post on this issue at Winter’s Haven. (I’m posting this on my own blog because this comment thread is becoming rather long and unwieldy.)

Ethics and science are two different things. Ethics and faith are two different things. Humans naturally have empathy and compassion for fellow human beings. Where this came from I don’t know, but I would suspect it may have evolutionary origins. Atheists don’t following science like a religion, we throw in a little bit of reason to any scientific claim.

I have read numerous stories where the bible claims that certain people are inferior to others. God says that people with certain aliments are not allowed in the temple and that other tribes (races) should be killed and shown no mercy; and throughout the bible it is implied that women are inferior to men and that slavery is o.k.

Again, I think people have a natural tendency to treat others with compassion and empathy. It takes religion to move people away from that natural tendency.

To the Theist:

When a theist says X is wrong, by definition, he’s pretty much given up the exploration that you, Lee, are so interested in. He simply defines X to be wrong based on an arbitrary book (Bible, Koran, etc.)
Atheists are the ones who have to grapple with what is moral, theists don’t- they’ve had it handed to them.

So, while theists are doing the ethical equivalent of watching the sun revolve around the Earth, the non-religious are discovering new insights by thinking and exploring. Theism discourages this in the harshest possible terms (hell).

Polly, hogwash. Atheists, so inclined, are as able to be closeminded as any other kind of fundamentalist and there are plenty of “theists” who are openminded. Making these kinds of blanket assertions about two allegedly definable groups is an exercise in bigotry. I’ve found that religious liberals are generally more open minded and undogmatic than most of the fad atheists I’ve come into contact with. Not that all atheists are like that, just that those who aren’t generally aren’t particularly interested in asserting their moral superiority.

I read your blog, Jacob, and actually disagree that we’ve all been confused as to the meaning of equal protection under the law. As you noted, this conversation has gotten long, and a lot of points have been brought up, and I guess nobody had got around to the problem you bring up, and that is the problem of relevant differences. Sociopaths, schizophrenics, and others have to be treated differently under the law than mentally healthy people for obvious reasons(you mention gun ownership, I would add that the blind aren’t issued driver’s licenses). I for one had already written more than I intended to, so I just barely treated that aspect of the debate by saying something to the effect that we have to deal with everyone on a case by case basis. Well, thanks for your perspective on it, and I reiterate that I guess no one had gotten around to that part of the problem.

What does faith really have to do with any of this? I think it’s more a question of values.

Consider the following two statements.

“I believe strawberries are the best snacks in the world.”

and

“I love strawberries. They are my favourite snack.”

These sentences appear to have similar meanings but they are really quite different.

The first statement is an expression of a belief, that strawberries are the best snacks. Whatever the basis of the belief, the statement is certainly debatable. A critic or supporter can come up with any number of metrics to use as supporting evidence of their point of view.

The second statement is quite different. It is not a statement of belief, it is a value statement. Is it debatable whether or not strawberries are the speakers favourite? Not at all.

In terms of government, or even morality (or ethics) the same analogy can apply.

The rule of the law is the best social organization for humans. The golden rule is the best basis for how to treat our neighbours.

Compare those statements to:

I value the rule of law. I like to treat others as I would have them treat me.

I don’t see how either of those last two statements could be debated. Nor do I see how they require faith, belief, or anything else of the sort. Nor do I see how they are intellectually dishonest.

As for how this ties into the theism/atheism debate, I would say that most theists use the equivalent to those belief statements while atheists tend to use value statements.

Who would dare tell me I need faith to value your life?

hey Lee, just wanted to pick up on a couple of points you made…

Yinyang also said that even though science doesn’t give answers, we don’t have to turn to religion. I agree. But my question is where do we turn.

well, you seem to have already given us some answers – we look to society, we look to others, we look to ourselves. we see what others value, and decide whether we agree. as with your child, a vast part of our personal moral compass will be decided by our upbringing, then honed by the above. the instinct thing is plausible in many situations – e.g., even tho society/god/whatever tells you to not to hurt your child, you also have an instinct to protect it, as many children react when confronted with a baby/much smaller child. instincts become confusing possibly because they relate to an era that we mostly do not have to face these days, which may suggest evidence for some sort of genetic predisposition, but as we can neither prove/disprove that yet…

In a nutshell, I think that the argument is that I should treat others equally because in the long run it will benefit me.

yeeeah, but possibly more importantly, because it will benefit the species.

One good example is explaining why I should die for someone else. Nothing can be good for me once I am dead.

ok, putting aside the fact that a common human trait is self-survival, here’s a thought – if your choice had to be between your death and the death of your child, what would your instinct be? if your choice was between your death and the death of the only person you believed could save your family, what would your instinct be then? to put it crudely, would this be an ethical choice on your part or an instinctive need to preserve your gene pool? also, for a theist, would this choice be compelled by a need to do right in the eyes of their god, or to do right by themselves? but, no, i agree instinct does not explain it all.

without trying to have a go, can i ask what a person of a religious bent would see as an ‘absolute’ right or wrong? the problem i have with this assumption (and i’ll take the example of the bible here, coz it’s the one i know best) is that i see so much hypocrisy and contradiction in sacred writings, so much interpretation, selection and re-interpretation by followers that i’m not sure i see any absolutes there. say murder; it’s wrong, it’s a sin – except if it is done by god, in the name of god, is sanctioned by god…

Now, if from a theist (absolute right and wrong) perspective, I might say that we should treat people as equals because we are equal (perhaps we are all have equal souls inside unequal bodies), and because treating others equally is an absolute value.

if this were the case, there would be no ‘chosen’ people, and there would be no sect of people destroyed by god. this cannot be explained by the wrongful actions of man, when according to the bible, this is how god behaved. therefore, would it not be more reasonable to expect (at least from christians) there to be far more social inequality as divinely advocated?

It would seem better to me to have more absolute values in government, such as that we are all created equally and equally deserving to pursue happiness.

in principle, it’s a lovely idea, but this does not take into account that some people are extremely selfish, be they religious or not, and for some, their personal pursuit of happiness will involve causing others misery; i don’t believe we are all created equally, but that we should all expect to receive equal treatment nonetheless – for me, this makes the idea of a government influenced by faith an undesirable, and in extreme cases, a dangerous, concept.

Here is how I currently understand how ethics are decided in a non-faith based manner. Let’s take the value that everyone should be treated equally. In a nutshell, I think that the argument is that I should treat others equally because in the long run it will benefit me.

This is not the only reason one might decide to treat everyone equally. Can you conceive of the impulse to treat others with dignity because you think they deserve it, or because you want to set an example of how to treat others, or because you’re insane and doing so is just one of your nutty habits, or because to do so elevates your experience of life, or gives more meaning to life?

This I see as moral relativism. What is right and wrong depends of the goal or value, and the goal or value isn’t absolute. The conclusion of atheism to me is that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. There are also no absolute values. There are individual values which may or may not differ from others. When we as a group all share the same value, it may seem absolute, but it is really just a shared value.

What is this anabsolutophobia, and where does it come from? So what if your values differ from others? Newsflash: diversity in nature tends to be a good thing. I expect diversity; I depend upon it. I have no desire for a society wherein everyone thinks alike—if our founding fathers were correct, this would be a tyranny. All we can hope for is a set of shared fundamental ethical standards—which may be what nature has provided us; everything else is up for grabs and negotiable.

Here’s a thought experiment: postulate that you are in error, and that there is no god, no supernatural, and all of the world’s religions are just the products of human imagination. Then ask yourself “whence morality?” The answer will be one without the idea of absolutes. If you are right, then maybe there are absolutes, and by all means go find them. If I am right, then quite fretting over something that doesn’t seem to make a dime’s worth of difference to how people conduct themselves in this life.

So then what happens in a circumstance where I conclude that treating people equally won’t benefit me in the long run. If this is the case, I no longer have to treat people equally, since one’s only argument for doing so is that it is good for me. One could only try to convince me that it is really good for me, but what if it really isn’t good for me in whatever circumstance arises. One good example is explaining why I should die for someone else. Nothing can be good for me once I am dead.

Seems to me that Game Theory also suggests that people being “all good, all the time” would not be an evolutionary stable strategy. It would only take one person with a deviant strategy to bring down the system.

Whatever influence natural selection has had on our “morality” can also be found in our “immorality.”

Deviation from social norms “keeps us honest” as a species. It also allows for social progress. Consider it a method of constant natural error checking testing our system to make sure it is stable — that it works. In that sense, a degree of deviation is certainly good for the species.

How do you do that WITH absolutes?
I see no method of determining which of those is ALWAYS the top choice, whether theistic or not.

You’ve changed the question on us. Now you are asking if atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism. First off, moral relativism has gotten a bad name because people misuse it. In the broadest sense, yes. Morals develop out of human experience. Where human experience is different, morals will be different. Some moral positions are so valuable that they apply in almost every time and place. Others vary greatly. Still, if 1/2 the wold population suddenly vanished and aliens invaded and enslaved the other 1/2, some moral positions would have to change.

Now attempting to get back to government, I must state that laws do not assume absolutes. Look at the current executive branch. Apparently laws don’t even apply to them. The vice-president claims not to be subject to the laws regulating the executive branch. The Geneva Conventions are claimed not to apply to captured terrorists. While I believe what is being done is wrong, there are smart people who believe these are exceptions to general laws. Laws have exceptions. In the USA, the Constitution is relative in that it does not apply to foreigners outside the USA. “Persons” is meant to be “persons within the borders of the USA.”
Laws are not absolute. Governments are not absolute. Morals are not absolute.

Hi Lee…

I still need answers to my questions.

I asked:

These moral instructions, if we were to uncover them in their entirety, would improve the world (here it’s fuzzy… Would it eliminate all ethical quandries? Would it cause ethical perfection? Would it eliminate all suffering? Would it eliminate all human-caused suffering? Only willful or incidental as well? Fill me in on this.)

I think you’re dealing with generalizations and you aren’t being specific.

You use the words “absolute ethics,” but I think it’s actually a placeholder for many different shifting concepts… a kind of logical shell-game.

I’m not accusing you of duplicitousness… merely of foggy reasoning. Specifics would help here.

When you say “absolute ethics,” what are you referring to? Are you referring to a system of principles of decision-making to be done by the individual, the government or some other body?

Are you referring to a system of laws, or of principles? Do these laws provide for exceptions in extenuating cases? Who is the judge or jury of whether the exceptions are warranted in a particular case?

If we were to adhere to these absolute ethics, what results would we see?

How do we evaluate if we are applying an “absolute ethics” properly? Who provides that evaluation? Who enforces that evaluation?

How do we evaluate if we are mistaken in thinking an ethical rule is actually an absolute?

Are “absolute ethics” subject to critical evaluation and questioning? If not, do we run the danger of accepting a less than absolute ethics by mistake, and compound the problem by allowing an injustice to stand?

What is the enforcement mechanism of this “absolute ethics”? If the enforcement mechanism isn’t absolutely ethical, is that still okay?

Does this “absolute ethics” work in a world of limited resources and shifting circumstance? For example, if one rule of absolute ethics works in a world where there is plenty of food (let’s say, ‘all food is free’), does it still work when a crop blight happens? How ethical principles deal with a world of limited resources is very important. All ethical principles are equally valid in an imaginary utopia. How can we expect “absolute ethics” to work in a world of shifting survival challenges and limited resources?

Which brings up a good point. Do “absolute ethics” adjust to the changing realities of life? If so, are they really “absolute”, or are they situational? If not, how do they deal with the reality that tomorrow there could be a worldwide famine?

The essence of nature is change. Does your “absolute ethics” accomodate change?

The essence of nature is variation and adaptation. Does your “absolute ethics” accomodate the variation of different people and adaptation to solve new problems? If so, which is the absolute, the rule before the change, or the rule after the change?

You see, Lee…. there are a lot of unanswered assumptions behind declaring an absolute ethics.

If you can give me answers to these questions, I hope I can give you my thoughts on ethical dilemmas brought up by them. But right now, my understanding of what you’re actually proposing is really fuzzy. Can you help with some better specifics?

I appreciate those who have hung on this far. I am continuing to have value in this discussion. I will try and answer everyone’s questions.

Siamang and Ash, I agree I haven’t really defined what I mean by relativism and absolute ethics.

If I were to summarize my position, it would be three statements.

1) Deriving ethical principles from atheism concludes in moral relativism.
2) Having an absolute ethical principle at some point requires faith, of which theism is a part.
3) Although both positions are have their fair share of problems, I think government works better when based on absolute principles than moral relativism.

It sounds like there is some agreement on number one and two, (although I need to clarify my definitions), but clearly there is disagreement on number three.

So how do I define absolute and relative?

In moral relativism, you establish a goal which you desire (Y) and a goal you dislike (Z). If action or principle X results in Y, it is right. If it action or principle X results in Z, it is wrong.

It is relative for two reasons. If you change the goals, which are not absolute, than action X can change from right to wrong. Also, if you change the circumstance, action X can go from causing Y to Z, and thus go from right to wrong.

In ethical absolutism, you establish a principle, and say it is right because it is right, or wrong because it is wrong (I know, circular logic). It doesn’t depend on what it leads to. (Kind of like Kant’s deontology, however I’d rather not discuss Kant because I see it as different.) The obvious problem is where you derive these principles from. I agree with everyone who points this out.

So, here is an example of moral relativism gone bad in government. It’s kind of ironic that I am going to use a government theist as an example, our president. We have a law based upon the principle of equality; everyone should be treated equally under the law. Our president then decides that we don’t need to treat enemy combatants equally, because not doing so will result in a safer country. This is basing whether something is right or wrong on a goal, and since his goal is a safe country he can try to justify treating people in all sorts of ways. You can argue that unequal treatment really won’t result in a safer country and we should treat even enemies the same. The point is that moral relativism opens the door to all kinds of justifications of things that might not be right. The goal, whatever it is, is used to trump the principle, such as equality. And since some of what is argued is based on what will happen in the future, it gets very murky to prove or disprove something being right and wrong.

If you held equal treatment of people as an absolute principle, then our president wouldn’t be able to treat enemy combatants differently, no matter what he could argue would be achieved by it. The principle can never be trumped.

I think many times government has gone astray has been because of relativism. We take a good principle, but don’t apply it all the time.

My only confident example of an absolute ethical principle is to treat others as you’d like to be treated (Do as you’d be done by).

Ash poses an interesting question, can my principle result in bad things. I am willing to consider possibilities. Militant extremists always seem to be brought up in this type of discussion. I suppose the only way to know if a religious militant who uses violence is using “do as you’d be done by” logic is to ask one. After 9/11, there was a post on Al Jazeer by Osama bin Laden of why America was attacked. There was a lot of stuff about revenge, anger, and getting the West out of the Middle East, but I didn’t read anything in it that said he was doing it for our own good, or because that is what he would want if he was us. I think your example of the extremist Muslim who would punish someone for misdeeds isn’t doing it out of concern for the person’s who was punished own good, they are instead doing it out of prideful arrogance. Islam itself means a willing submission; it can’t be a forced submission.

I am willing to entertain that “Do as you’d be done by” could result in bad things, but I have not seen it yet. I would guess that any example which can be given is a hypothetical one, which by definition means it isn’t real. I would be interested in real examples.

Ash, for you statement:

i have yet to meet a faith system that does not believe that if one doesn’t believe, behave and/or practise in a certain way, that person is lost/damned/unenlightened/inferior etc.

Let me be the first. I have no idea what happens to anyone when they die. I think any thought of mine proclaiming that I am better than anyone else for any reason is prideful arrogance, and I try not to do it. I believe in the “judge lest ye be judged” and “throw the first stone” mentality that I am far from perfect and shouldn’t look down on anyone. And although I consider myself a Christian, I do not look at any other faith, or lack of faith, as being wrong, for that would be prideful arrogance of claiming that somehow I know God better than others. My belief there is a God is also a great hope there is a God, and in my life I search for God rather than believe I know God better than other people do. I don’t claim to know God any better than a person who says they don’t believe in one.

I understand the many reasons why the Christian faith is looked down upon. Like in many facets in life, unfortunately the actions of some public or outspoken theists create stereotypes for the rest of us. The basic tenant of Christianity I think is to “do as you’d be done by,” and I don’t know anyone who argues against that principle. It is also to love God, this is a bit more difficult to explain here, and since it wouldn’t impact government probably is best for another blog.

Now, to Siamang’s many many questions.

Your questions are very specific. I am going out on a limb here, because I don’t claim to have answers to everything. Thus, if I say something incredibly illogical, it doesn’t necessarily disprove my thesis.

I hope I have given at least beginning description of absolute ethics. They are principles that can never be violated. Not really the same as laws, but our laws are derived from them.

As I said above, the only absolute ethical principle I know of is “do as you’d be done by.” We should base our government’s laws on at least this, and vow never to violate it. Where did this come from? Almost every religion I know of, and also from logical reason. Although logical reason can deduce such an idea, it can’t prove it is an absolute principle that should never be violated, which is why I think faith is necessary to say that it is.

Who is judge and jury? I think the best we can do is get reasonable people to make laws based on the absolute principle. The principle is seen as infallible, the laws are not. The American with Disability Act (ADA) would be an example of trying to act out “do as you’d be done by” with a law, although I don’t see the act itself as some absolute. If I were in a wheelchair, I would like a reasonable amount of accessible ramps.

Do the laws have exceptions? Yes, but the principle does not. If you find that the ADA results in closing down a homeless shelter, something a person in a wheelchair wouldn’t want, you might conclude the law has missed its intent. This is showing the law, not the principle, is flawed. This is different from our president throwing aside “do as you’d be done by” by torturing enemy combatants.

Who evaluates / enforces this? The same people who do now, hopefully reasonable people.

Who decides if such a principle is wrong? Tough question. Don’t know. This is the flaw, I admit. I don’t know anyone who thinks “do as you’d be done by” is wrong, so I don’t think we’d have to worry about much opposition. I realize this is a huge area open to criticism.

I want to point at, as Vincent answered in my question, there is also no atheist way of deciding which of the values of survival of the species, promoting happiness, and minimizing suffering win out when they are in conflict. I see the same problem in relativism.

Absolute principles are subject to questioning. This doesn’t make them relative. I think we will discover what they are, just as we’ve discovered “do as you’d be done by.”

Absolute principles do not change in limited resources and shifting circumstances, which is what makes them powerful. You can’t start violating “do as you’d be done by” because times are tough and you are desperate to achieve something. If there is a famine, that doesn’t mean I can push my way to the front of the food truck, and shoot others to steal their food.

What would the result be if we embraced this? There would still be suffering by natural events, illnesses, etc. If EVERYONE did it, I don’t think there would be suffering at the hands of humans, except for instances where a mental illness prevented someone from reasoning “do as you’d be done by.” But, the truth is that even if we base our laws on this, I think we all fall to temptation and will do selfish things and at times ignore “do as you’d be done by.”

I’m not sure what the question about accommodating change is asking. I would expect reasonable people to engage in great discourse and pull on scientific knowledge to try to implement the principle. So I guess it embraces change as it helps implement the principle. The principle itself does not change, it hasn’t needed to for thousands of years.

Ok Siamang, I’ve tried to answer all of your questions. Let me know if you need more, and I am interested to hear the ethical dilemmas it puts forth. I would also like to hear your answer to the problem that moral relativism doesn’t provide a way to rank values of survival of the species, promotion of happiness, and minimizing suffering when they are in conflict.

-Lee (the Theist)

Sorry this is so long, but did you see how many questions I was asked?

As I said above, the only absolute ethical principle I know of is “do as you’d be done by.” We should base our government’s laws on at least this, and vow never to violate it. Where did this come from? Almost every religion I know of, and also from logical reason. Although logical reason can deduce such an idea, it can’t prove it is an absolute principle that should never be violated, which is why I think faith is necessary to say that it is.

“Do as you’d be done by” is a human invention, not a divine one. It assumes a general equality among relations; a parity of power to do harm; a necessary bargain. When one party has hegemonic power over another, the one tends not to hesitate to violate your “only absolute ethical principle,” and always finds justifications for doing so. Consider our foreign relations. If this nation full of self-described Christians fails to observe your “only absolute ethical principle,” who will?

To ash, I see your point. But in your example I would say that your boyfriend isn’t incorporating “do as you’d be done by,” he is rather wanting you to want what he wants, which is different. “Do as you’d be done by” involves viewing things from another’s perspective. If he were applying that principle, he would see forcing you to argue causes unhappiness and stress, and he would not want that for you. I see your point though, and I think people run the danger of the not good “I know whats best for you” principle. I think this can look similar at times, but is different. Maybe that “do as you’d be done by” principle in your case would result in him not forcing you to argue, but you also recognizing it causes him happiness and letting him spend a few hours arguing on blogs, like a person might let someone play golf.

Your examples of governments doing this is fair. I would say that when governments go wrong, it might be because they apply different standards to the people than themselves. Such as if they were to take away our cars while they ride around in limos. This is not “do as you’d be done by.”

To Darryl, I see your point, and will pose the same question I posed to Siamang.

My original point was that you can’t so easily dismiss faith from government, as many are calling to do.

Using logic and reason, at times you still will face instances where things we value will be in conflict. For example, the conflict of survival of the species, promoting happiness, and minimizing siffering were in conflict with the decision of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima / Nagasaki.

From a relativistic perspective, I think you have to admit that there really is no absolute right or wrong. This is fine, and might be true, but for a government who has to make a decision (drop or not drop the bomb) saying there are no absolutely right answers is going to make it very difficult to arrive at one. Faith is the only thing that gives a way to arrive at a firm conclusion and make a decision.

How do you use relativism to resolve such issues when important values are in conflict?

-Lee (the Thesit)

Lee,
I guess my point boils down to “how do you use faith for that?”
or in the declaratory: “Faith is no better, and is often worse, than reason in formulating governments.”

If, as you suggest, there are absolutes, then we COULD NOT violate them.
If, as you suggest, all of our laws stem from one absolute, then the laws would not have exceptions.
Faith is not an escape from this dilemma. Faith is nothing more than submission to another.
Faith is where you choose to draw the line in the sand. It is an arbitrary stop to the infinite regression problem (How do you know x is good? it’s in the book. How do you know the book is good? It’s from god. How dod you know it’s from god? I have faith that it is)
Francis of Assisi, a man of intense faith, believed that submission to authority was the greatest of all virtues. Is that an absolute? Sounds like one, but it’s not one I agree with so it must not be absolute or I could not dispute it.
Faith is the arbitrary selection of a standard by which you measure all things. In the case of book-based faiths, that standard is holy writ. But considering how subject holy writ is to interpretation, and how many human hands went into creating it, there is no absolute way of choosing which book to submit to.

And as to “do as you’d be done by”, that itself is not universal and therefore not absolute. The buddhist have it the other way around, and I like their better: “don’t do as you’d not be done by”.

Lee, on reading through this thread, your answers are quite confusing to me.

Principles or “moral absolutes” like equality, justice, mercy, are abstract ideas, correct? It seems to me that saying atheists cannot have moral absolutes is like saying that atheists are incapable of abstract reasoning. So then it seems like you’re saying that an atheist’s moral absolutes are not as absolute as yours, because they are free to make them up or change them, whereas a member of a religion which has a set of laws handed down from on high (and not all religions have such) is adhering to a set of unchanging principles that have a divine stamp of approval. But to an atheist, this begs the question: how can you be sure a god, and not humans, came up with that set of principles?
And that also brings up another theme, which is best summed up with a phrase my husband often uses:
“It’s not just the law, it’s a good idea.” Meaning that is possible to extract from any set of divine laws many principles that make sense outside of their specific cultural/religious context (do as you would be done by) and others that don’t (prohibition against eating pork or wearing wool blend fabrics).
In any setting except a strictly monocultural one, you’re going to have to rely on those abstracted principles, rather than the divine law itself, to figure out how to have a just society.

Using logic and reason, at times you still will face instances where things we value will be in conflict.

Lee, with statements like this and others you have made, it seems like you are implying that a theist, following a divine set of moral principles, will never face moral dilemmas. I know from the example of my parents, that even very godly, devout people can have ethical dilemmas, or as they would say, “I’m not sure what God wants me to do in this situation.” The devout person reads scripture and prays for guidance, the atheist uses logic and reasoning. (In fact , both are probably using emotion and intuition also)

Faith is the only thing that gives a way to arrive at a firm conclusion and make a decision.

This statement seems to be a claim for the superiority of the “praying for divine guidance” model of solving ethical dilemmas. Again, you’re stuck with having to prove that divine guidance exists, and that the Scripture reading and prayer isn’t just your way of reasoning and feeling your way to a solution.

For example, the conflict of survival of the species, promoting happiness, and minimizing siffering were in conflict with the decision of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima / Nagasaki.

From a relativistic perspective, I think you have to admit that there really is no absolute right or wrong. This is fine, and might be true, but for a government who has to make a decision (drop or not drop the bomb) saying there are no absolutely right answers is going to make it very difficult to arrive at one.

If you are implying by this that the decision to drop the bomb on Hirosihma and Nagasaki was the absolute right one, you’ve totally lost me. I can think of a few alternatives that might have been better, such as dropping it on an uninhabited island, or maybe waiting for the Japanse govt to react to Hiroshima before dropping another bomb on Nagasaki two days later!

Now, I understand Lee’s point probably can also be understood also as non-religious faith.

theplainestguy, I got into a fifty comment pileup by demonstrating that all human activity, including all of science, couldn’t exist without faith. By “faith” I meant that the untested ideas and assertions of other people up to and including using formulae and doctrines that weren’t entirely understood was a daily and necessary practice of everyone.

I don’t think that there is a bright line between faith and knowledge, I doubt that there are two distinct and discrete mental processes that produce what are called beliefs and things that are held to be known. The absurd belief that there is a hard and fast distinction is, itself, a matter of faith and not really known. Adding in the arrogant morality that distinguishes the superstition of scientism doesn’t make the matter more certain. Lately this kind of scientism has become especially cultic and intellectually thuggish.

olvlzl, no ism, no ist said

Lately this kind of scientism has become especially cultic and intellectually thuggish.

All I had to do was read that sentence and I knew instantly who wrote it. You’re becoming a broken record here.

Siamang, if you think I’m a broken record what must you think of most of the atheist blogosphere?

Darryl, is this an invitation to explain myself? I don’t think Siamang would welcome that. I’m hardly alone in criticizing scientism, probably the most common superstition current in the United States today.

Siamang, if you think I’m a broken record what must you think of most of the atheist blogosphere?

I don’t read most of the atheist blogosphere. But if you check my blog, which is an arm of a Christian ministry, you may find that the conversations I enjoy are hardly typical of atheists.

Darryl, is this an invitation to explain myself? I don’t think Siamang would welcome that

Just letting to know that the rhythm of your pounding drum is getting monotonous. I’ve begun tuning you out when I see your name on a post, and your kneejerk tone.

If you want folks to pay attention to you, you might vary your approach from time to time. That’s all I’m saying.

olvzl, what I think people may be finding annoying is a certain tendency in your posts that makes it sound like you are addressing person or persons unknown to us here with whom you have clashed in the past. As Baba Ram Dass said, “Be Here Now”!

I also am not a big fan of the “Science Must Destroy Religion” campaign, because I think religion and spirituality (but also literature, music, poetry, and social activism) cover a lot of non-rational or ethical territory that science can’t and probably shouldn’t cover. But in some of your posts I have to admit that I see that viewpoint presented in a way that I don’t want to be associated with.

monkeymind, I don’t understand what you mean about addressing people who aren’t here. Since the comment that provoked Siamang and Darryl was specifically addressed to theplainestguy I assumed that was who I was addressing. The comment about scientism was relevant to what was said about “non-religious faith”. My experience is that calling that kind of belief by the perfectly accurate term “faith” is a potential minefield. Everyone operates on the basis of ideas that they accept without knowing the verification of them or even the soundness of them, quiet often on nothing more than the reputation of someone who holds the idea. That clear truth can be controversial among some people, I’ve found.

I’m sorry if people find my style annoying but I assume the people who read this and other blogs are informed enough to be able to deal with ideas and, if they’re interested but aren’t familiar with the subject, that they know enough to look it up. If someone can find a flaw in an argument I’d like them to point it out so I can fix it. Having grown up in a large family, name calling etc. just rolls off my back.

Lee (the Theist), Here is the piece I wrote back in Feburary, you might want to follow the two follow up pieces I wrote at the same blog that weekend. Things got pretty heated and I found out several months later that a prominent blogger had lied about what I wrote even as he must have read my correction of another person who made the same assertion. The piece wasn’t about atheists it was about pseudo-skeptics. That the examples I used may have all been atheists is a coincidence. They were chosen because they are all prominent as semi-professional “skeptics” or as members of CSICOP, including Dawkins.

You might want to read some things I wrote on my own blog about these subjects.

For clarity, the third sentence from the last should read:
The ones that stand the test of time unchanged do not continue to do so because they are absolutes, or just because the business owners have faith in them; they are simply the ones that continue to result in success.

Well, I can’t resist re-telling 2 stories of the incomparable Mullah Nasruddin here:

On “do as you would be done by” as a universal principle:

Once a renowned philosopher and moralist was traveling through Nasruddin’s village and asked Nasruddin where there was a good place to eat. Nasruddin suggested a place and the scholar, hungry for conversation, invited Mullah Nasruddin to join him. Much obliged, Mullah Nasruddin accompanied the scholar to a nearby restaurant, where they asked the waiter about the special of the day.

“Fish! Fresh Fish!” replied the waiter.

“Bring us two,” they requested.

A few minutes later, the waiter brought out a large platter with two cooked fish on it, one of which was quite a bit smaller than the other. Without hesitating, Mullah Nasruddin took the larger of the fish and put in on his plate. The scholar, giving Mullah Nasruddin a look of intense disbelief, proceed to tell him that what he did was not only flagrantly selfish, but that it violated the principles of almost every known moral, religious, and ethical system. Mullah Nasruddin listened to the philosopher’s extempore lecture patiently, and when he had finally exhausted his resources, Mullah Nasruddin said,

“Well, Sir, what would you have done?”

“I, being a conscientious human, would have taken the smaller fish for myself.” said the scholar.

“And here you are,” Mullah Nasruddin said, and placed the smaller fish on the gentleman’s plate.

On divine justiice:

Two children found a bag containing twelve marbles. They argued over how to divide the toys and finally went to see the Mulla. When asked to settle their disagreement, the Mulla asked whether the children wanted him to divide the marbles as a human would or as Allah would.

The children replied, “We want it to be fair. Divide the marbles as Allah would.”

So, the Mulla counted out the marbles and gave three to one child and nine to the other.”

In a world with not faith or theism, all is relative. So the problem exists of how you determine right or wrong.

If by “right and wrong” you mean “right and wrong in an absolute sense,” then theism has no definitive answer to that question. This or that system of religious belief might assert that it knows how to determine absolute right and wrong, but this dos not constitute proof that such is the case.

If, on the other hand, we’re prepared to live with non-absolutist concepts of right and wrong, and if we’re humble and honest enough to admit that we–all of us, theists and non-theists alike–simply do not (yet) know what we can call right and wrong in an absolute sense, then I see no reason why we cannot attempt to answer moral questions through the use of reason, discussion and debate as opposed to the blind adherence to religious dogma.

I don’t know why I bother because you clearly aren’t listening to anyone.
You claim those things don’t work but you haven’t shown any evidence that they don’t.
You claim faith works but haven’t shown any evidence that it does.

I just want to say:
“To Vincent, laws are a man-made attempt to live out an absolute principle, and are thus flawed and can be changed.”:
Just like religion or faith. Reason at least gives you some basis, even if imperfect, to choose.

Are you saying there is an absolute right and wrong, and you just are admitting you don’t know what it is?

I am admitting (a) that I don’t know if there is an absolute right or wrong (and neither do you), and (b) if there is an absolute right and wrong, I don’t know what it is (and neither do you).

In a world without faith and theism, right and wrong is like taste.

No, it’s not like taste at all. If you were to advance the claim “homosexuality is wrong,” and you wanted to convince me of the same, you would have to offer some kind of substantiation–some kind of supporting argument–for why I should accept your claim as true.

“Homosexuality is wrong because God/The Invisible Pink Unicorn/The Flying Spaghetti Monster says it’s wrong,” or “Homosexuality is wrong because erm, well, it’s just wrong”–neither of these are satisfactory answers. Indeed, they are non-answers: they don’t tell me anything about why I should accept your claim as true, and merely act as placeholders for your lack of substantiation/refusal to substantiate.

People keep saying through reason, but reasoning what? I listed things above that don’t work (instinct, survival of the species, social contract, negative consequences). What are the standards for which one determines right and wrong?

Here’s your problem. You advocate reliance upon religious dogma as a way of sorting out right from wrong, and simply assume a priori that everybody thinks about morality in this way. “So tell me, atheists,” you ask, “if you reject religious dogma, which dogma do you guys rely upon? What are the standards for which one determines right and wrong?” But why can’t one adopt a non-dogmatic way of thinking about these questions? In other words, what is wrong with an approach to thinking about right and wrong in which we don’t have to check our critical faculties at the door and blindly observe religious dogma?

In any case, reason and argument are not dogmas. They don’t offer answers about absolute morality that are etched in stone. What they can help us to do is reach tentative conclusions regarding moral questions. You seem to think this is a major flaw in taking a non-dogmatic approach: but here’s the news–tentative is the best we (and by “we,” I mean theists and non-theists alike) can do. Given that the absolutist cannot prove the absolute truth of his claims–and can only assert it–we have no reason to accept his claims.

Again: “X is wrong because God says so” is useless as a moral statement because it convinces nobody who doesn’t already accept the presupposition on which it based: i.e. that God exists. In which case, how do you convince the non-theist, or the theist who doesn’t worship your God? “X is wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong” is equally useless: why should I accept your authority to decide that X is wrong (as opposed to, say, the guy who delivers my pizza)? Not only are these approaches to morality useless, they are also anti-democratic, insofar as they attempt to arbitrary shut down debate about what is right and wrong (and how claims about right and wrong can be substantiated). “X is wrong because God says so” disenfranchises those who don’t accept the presupposition that God (or the particular God issuing the command) exists, which is why theistic dogmatism as a guide for determining law and public policy has (in my view) no place in a secular liberal democracy.

Thanks to all for a very interesting and civilized read. Similar conversations on other faith/atheist websites have not been so civilized.

I am friends (offline) with Lee the Theist, and have to vouch for his philosophical integrity and sincerity, which I think most of you have also seen by his writing. Thanks for giving Lee and I a lot to discuss on the phone/in person, because many of you gave me some good discussion points I had not brought up with Lee in the past.

in a world with faith and theism, saying “That is wrong” is saying “That is undesirable to god”. It can go no further.

ash, you are wrong. I base my morality on inherent rights of individuals, the absolute nature of those rights when the exercise of them doesn’t impinge on the rights of others and the negotiation of rights when those do impinge on other peoples’ rights. I put the necessities of life before mere desires which aren’t necessary to life.

One of the things that I find most objectionable in materialism is that it always seems to devolve into the denial of inherent rights on the basis that the pseudo-sciences that involve themselves in such areas are incompetent to find them. So, despite the long and bloody history of what happens when those inherent rights are denied to exist these invariably comfortable folk are quite prepared to relive a history they are quite untroubled by. The more of these discussions I read and participate in the more certain I am that the most recent crop biological determinsists are not much different from those of the past.

Christian the Atheist, thanks for vouching for my rationality, and welcome to the discussion.

Discussions and debates are most useful, I think, when both parties understand the other side before they try to debate it. Otherwise they fail to understand the opposing point more so than disagree with it, which isn’t as interesting.

One problem currently is that I don’t think you all have an accurate picture of what I am saying are my views on theism. I will take responsibility for this and try to correct it. I agree with about 95% of all the criticism against theism that has been presented here. I live in the same world as everyone here, and witness every day people acting with absolute moral authority doing horrible things. For everyone who says faith and theism can lead to horrible, wretched, awful outcomes, let me say again and again, I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE.

It is hard to argue with someone who agrees with you. If you want to keep arguing to me all of the flaws in theism, you can, but I agree with you.

As to the prior post on whether Dawkins is trying to abolish faith altogether, here is a direct quote from Dawkins as put for in his documentary on the God Delusion: “I don’t see there is a future of the world as long as people are brought up to think that there is something good about faith.”

So I am trying to understand why non-faith ethics are better.

To understand why non-faith ethics are better, I am trying to understand what they are.

The question I am posing to you all now is one I still am not clear on anyone’s answer to (except “olvlz no ism no ist”). The question is can there exist a right and wrong without faith. I seem to have gotten a yes, a no, and an I don’t know.

“Right” in the moral sense is defined as being in accordance to what is good. This manifests in saying what a person “should” do.

In atheism, how do you define what is good? I don’t see how you can in an absolute sense. I know Ash argued against this analogy, but I do think this would be like defining what tastes good, it depends on the person. Just like defining what a person “should” eat depends on what the person wants to achieve by eating, defining what a person “should do” depends on what the person wants to achieve in life. If there is nothing a person “should” achieve in life, how do you define what “good” is?

(In my theism, “the good” is defined by love for one another. It takes faith to embrace this, as it can never be proven. But again, I want to focus on atheism for a moment.)

I see people have tried to establish a non-faith based good with concepts like survival of the species, instinct, and consequences. But these all clearly break down. One can’t prove that the species “should survive”, one can’t prove that I “should” obey my instinct. If I am wrong on this, please show me how these stand up. (To Vincent, it seems you are putting the burden of proof on me to show these things don’t work, instead of proving they do. I agree with atheists who argue the burden of proof on the existence of God is on theists, and so to I say the burden of proof on the existence of good, or right, is, or how instinct or species survival fulfill it, is on you.)

To ash, it seems like you agree with me that these things fail on their own. Are you saying that individually they don’t work, but together they do constitute some absolute good?

I’ll repeat the C.S. Lewis quote: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.” (I need to give ‘Christian the Atheist’ credit for pointing me to an article containing this quote, I had forgotten it from ‘Abolition of Man’.)

To AV, your statement: “In other words, what is wrong with an approach to thinking about right and wrong in which we don’t have to check our critical faculties at the door and blindly observe religious dogma?”

I have done this. I explored atheism, and concpets of right and wrong without faith using only reason. In doing so I concluded there is no right and wrong. Tell me how you concluded otherwise. To the comment: “In any case, reason and argument are not dogmas,” I would say that your holding to an idea of right and wrong without proving it is a dogma. To the comment that I have “already rejected the use of reasoning in deciding moral questions,” show me how your reasoning concludes there is a right and wrong.

Please, don’t respond to this by criticizing the many faults of theism, because I will agree with you. I am trying to understand atheist ethics. I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, just understand. I have had this discussion with high-profile atheists who have told me they think there is no right or wrong.

If there is a right and wrong, what really is it, and how do you define “good.” If you can’t define it, or prove it, how do you say it exists?

-Lee (the Theist)

Also to the comment: “theistic dogmatism as a guide for determining law and public policy has (in my view) no place in a secular liberal democracy,” I would just say that my theism mainly asserts that we should love each other.

For everyone who says faith and theism can lead to horrible, wretched, awful outcomes, let me say again and again, I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE.

LOL!!! brave man!

I seem to have gotten a yes, a no, and an I don’t know.

unlike most religious groups, atheism ain’t a society, there is no-one that can claim to speak on behalf of all atheists with any authority, so if you’re looking for a definitive answer or viewpoint, you’ll be disappointed.

To ash, it seems like you agree with me that these things fail on their own. Are you saying that individually they don’t work, but together they do constitute some absolute good?

broadly, yes. i think that to use absolutes will usually disguise a situations complexities (hence my liking for the terms perhaps, maybe, usually etc), and that as most situations are complex, trying to use only one rule, or an absolute, would be to ignore or disregard all the details. murder in self defence is still murder, and if judged by only one standard, or by an absolute of ‘do as you would be done by’ you could expect the same sentence for this as for murder with no extenuating circumstances. the human eye is a remarkable thing, but by itself, it’s pretty useless.

In my theism, “the good” is defined by love for one another. It takes faith to embrace this, as it can never be proven.

in my atheism, i’d argue that my sense of ‘good’ is defined by respect for others. can this be explained without faith? i’d say so, again through a combination of the factors that we’ve already discussed. perhaps olvlzl would disagree, but like i said, i see a disparity between religious-based faith, and a faith based on testable, changable theories (just to clarify).

I explored atheism, and concpets of right and wrong without faith using only reason. In doing so I concluded there is no right and wrong. Tell me how you concluded otherwise.

it’s not that there is no right or wrong, it’s more that ideals of right and wrong are not informed on an immutable base and are therefore subject to question and change. again, i’d have to point out that even the idea of religious moral absolutes are subject to question, change and exception. i’ll refer to holy books again because it cannot be claimed that ancient writings and practises have no relevance to modern day conceptions. polygamy was once considered perfectly ok and moral, but is now widely regarded as wrong. issues such as rape have not always been condemned. even whole scale murder by gods has been viewed as morally just.

my theism mainly asserts that we should love each other.

unfortunately, it would appear that many, theists, atheists and even gods do not share your noble convictions.

For everyone who says faith and theism can lead to horrible, wretched, awful outcomes, let me say again and again, I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE.

But you don’t seem to have paid enough attention to why faith and theism can lead to bad outcomes. They don’t attempt to substantiate their claims or to test them against the real world. They make no attempt to convince anyone of the truth of their claims–they simply insist that you accept them, and that’s that.

In atheism, how do you define what is good? I don’t see how you can in an absolute sense.

I agree. And as an atheist I would never claim to be able to define what is good in an absolute sense. But theism cannot do this either. It claims or pretends to be able to do so, but this is simply argument by assertion. No evidence is (or has yet been) provided in support of the claim that theists have the ability to define what is good in an absolute sense.

I know Ash argued against this analogy, but I do think this would be like defining what tastes good, it depends on the person.

I argued against it too. And you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that a non-theistic approach to defining the good is like defining what tastes good–you simply assert that it is so.

To Vincent, it seems you are putting the burden of proof on me to show these things don’t work, instead of proving they do.

Well yes: if you are making a positive knowledge claim to the effect that “x, y and z non-theistic methods of determining what is right and good don’t work,” then the burden of proof indeed rests upon you. We are under no obligation to accept your claim if you are not prepared to substantiate it.

Just like defining what a person “should” eat depends on what the person wants to achieve by eating, defining what a person “should do” depends on what the person wants to achieve in life.

Why does it (only) depend on that?

In my theism, “the good” is defined by love for one another. It takes faith to embrace this, as it can never be proven.

It also depends upon how “love for one another” is defined. I recall a fundamentalist commenter on my blog arguing that the “loving” thing to do is to teach schoolchildren pseudoscientific anti-homosexual propaganda. There is a Christian ministry that promises to “convert” homosexual teens that calls itself “Love in Action.” You might claim that they are using the concept of “love” incorrectly, but what would give you the authority to make such a claim? If you agree with this use of the term “love,” then just about anything–no matter how horrid, wretched or awful–can be justified if it is motivated (or if it is claimed to be motivated) by “love for one another.”

I’ll repeat the C.S. Lewis quote: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I have done this. I explored atheism, and concpets of right and wrong without faith using only reason. In doing so I concluded there is no right and wrong.

What you seem to be asserting is this. There are no good reasons not to murder people, once you eliminate the bad reasons (bad because they are not really “reasons” at all): (i) because God says so, or (ii) because murder is wrong because its wrong because its wrong because its wrong (at which point the one advancing this claim sticks his fingers in his hears and chants “lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala”).

Now what I think you’ll find is there are likely to be a great many theists who would disagree with you. I think there are likely to be a great many theists who can think of many a mundane, non-theistic reason why we should murder or steal from each other–without either appealing to supernatural consequences or arguing by fiat. (And I think it would be doing a grave disservice to theists to think otherwise.) You might come up with counterarguments to their arguments, and they might respond with counterarguments to yours–thus is the nature of reasoned debate. What I have suggested is that it is through this process of reasoned debate and discussion that we can reach tentative conclusions about what is right and good. Not final conclusions. Not absolute conclusions. The non-dogmatist does not pretend to be able to reach absolute conclusions about right and good; the dogmatist does pretend this. The non-dogmatist advocates that it is through discussion and debate that we should seek to define the right and the good–even if we can only do so in a tentative way; the dogmatist simply seeks to close down discussion and debate altogether.

To the comment: “In any case, reason and argument are not dogmas,” I would say that your holding to an idea of right and wrong without proving it is a dogma.

But how does that prove that reason and argument are dogmas?

To the comment that I have “already rejected the use of reasoning in deciding moral questions,” show me how your reasoning concludes there is a right and wrong.

My reasoning does not conclude that there is a right and wrong–if by that you mean an absolute sense of right and wrong. I have already acknowledged that I do not know or cannot see how one can arrive at absolute conclusions about right and wrong through the use of reason. I have also maintained that I cannot see–and you have not proven–that one can arrive at absolute conclusions about right and wrong by appealing to supernatural authority or arguing by fiat.

All I have claimed is that we can, through the use of reasoned debate and discussion, and (I might add) evidence, reach tentative conclusions about how individuals and groups ought to behave.

I am trying to understand atheist ethics.

I think you should instead try to understand that there is no single atheist ethics. Different atheists will take different approaches to ethical questions, and I personally cannot claim to speak on behalf of the atheist community. What I can tell you is that the idea of a single atheist way of thinking about ethics is an illusion–a strawman.

I have had this discussion with high-profile atheists who have told me they think there is no right or wrong.

Well, now you’ve met a low-profile atheist who agrees with them: I have not seen any evidence to suggest that there is an absolute right or wrong, so I have no reason to believe that there is an absolute right or wrong.

Also to the comment: “theistic dogmatism as a guide for determining law and public policy has (in my view) no place in a secular liberal democracy,” I would just say that my theism mainly asserts that we should love each other.

But you are advocating, are you not, that faith play a role in government?

AV, as I said earlier history is able to demonstrate the virtues of assuming that people have inherent rights due to what happens in the absence of that assumption.

But that’s not what you said. You didn’t say that we should assume or act as if people have inherent rights–an idea which I personally have no difficulties with, by the way; you claimed that these rights are absolute.

History is really superior to the various schools of psychology, etc. that are the fields actively in denial of those rights when it comes to making discoveries in this area.

I’m sorry, but how does history prove that inherent rights exist? Certainly the case can be made that history shows what can go wrong if we don’t pretend that inherent rights exist, but that does not constitute evidence that inherent rights exist–all it provides is a good reason for embracing the notion of inherent rights as a necessary legal fiction.

Unlike, say Evolutionary Psychology or Pinker-style cognitive speculation, the facts of history can be relied on to have actually existed.

What one makes of such facts–what moral lessons one can draw–on the other hand, is itself a matter of great speculation. (And you’ll have to do a lot more to convince me that history is more objective than the natural sciences than simply asserting that it is so.)

I assume you are actually going to look deeply and critically at the claims of Dawkins, Pinker, etc. since you are asking me to ‘prove’ that inherent rights exist.

I don’t recall mentioning Dawkins, Pinker, etc., and perhaps you can point out where I have. Or are you simply assuming the existence of an Atheist Hive Mind, such that everything uttered by Certain Famous Evil Baby-eating Atheist Scientists will be automatically and unquestioningly agreed with by every single atheist on the planet?

Evolutionary Psychology, the current fad in this area is largely based on nothing more than making up stories about life in a period from which we have absolutely no physical or cultural evidence of things such as family life, gender relations, political organization

Strawman. (And you accuse others of making things up!)

Oh, you disagree with me? OK: please provide evidence that Evolutionary Psychology is “largely based on nothing more than making up stories.”

Of course, no one can “prove” such a thing exists or doesn’t exist, proof is a burden that is seldom met in even the real sciences and those things “proved” are always open to modification or even over-turning as knowledge progresses.

OK–please provide the evidence that inherent rights exists. You’re right that real sciences don’t work on proof–but the conclusions that they do reach are based on evidence. You’ve made the claim that inherent rights exist; if you want to convince anybody of the truth of this claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it with evidence.

I’d say that the burden of proof is on those who want to risk repeating what has happened when pseudo-scientific biological determinism is adopted by a political and economic elite as an organizing principle in politics and society.

Why is it pseudoscientific? Off hand, I’d say you’re applying the label “pseudoscience” to ideas that you personally don’t like. But perhaps you can show me how the ideas you label as pseudoscientific are indeed pseudoscientific.

AV, their atheism is of absolutely no interest to me. The knee-jerk defense by atheists of any huckster who is an atheist who gratifies them by slamming religion, including making them above any criticism, is one of the major weaknesses of pop-atheism.

I hold that rights are absolute UNITL they impinge on the rights of other people, that is not the same thing as holding that they are absolute in every case. I rely on the fact that the exercise of rights that do not impinge on other beings is, in fact, harmless. It is the creation of harm that causes the limits on rights. The preception of what constitutes harm is a large part of what the negotiation of rights consists of, that is a more complex matter than I am going to go into here. It is what necessitates the existence of politics.

Evolutionary Psychology is a pseudo-science because it is based in phony methodology. It has all of the bad habits of the old Sociobiology, the afforementioned reification and conflation, myth-making, assuming that things not proven to be the same “behavior” are actually the same thing only because they care called the same thing. The practice of doing “studies” to back up their story telling is in no way different from the practices of the previous schools of psychological speculation that have fallen out of fashion. Behaviorism is a very good example because it was at its zenith of reputability just before it crashed into disrepute. I suspect that the same is going to happen to EP, that is if it doesn’t morph into yet another “science”.

You ask me to “prove” to you that EP is based in storytelling? Ok, where is the physical evidence or historical record that supports anything that the practitioners of EP have said about family life, gender rolds, political organization, etc. in the period before writing began? Their stock and trade is the creation of such stories and conducting “studies” to support their stories as having an existence in the present day. As mentioned, those “studies” are not much different from those that “supported” the previous schools of psychological speculation.

If you are willing to foregoe your political rights unless they can be demonstrated scientifically to exist, that’s your business. I don’t think that if it was put to people in a way that they could understand that they would be willing to just let the biological determinists suspend their political rights anymore than they would allow religious fundamentalists to suspend them on the basis of their authority. As I mentioned here the other day, I’d shed blood to protect those rights.

You know, AV, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the word “strawman” is a sign that the side using it can’t think of what to say. If you think that rights aren’t there, then why shouldn’t I ask you the question?

If you aren’t aware of the methods of EP that isn’t my fault. Anything anyone says making assertions about the behaviors of pre-historic people and our nearest ancestors other than the most general assumptions based on the physical record are telling stories. EP constantly makes up stories about the behaviors of these people without any basis whatsoever. I mentioned the fable that Dawkins, himself, told on Terry Gross’ program to “explain” how religious belief is the product of evolutionary adaptations. I assume he did so to back up the absurd writings of Daniel Dennett, his rather pathetic version of Thomas Huxley. I would request you go do some reading about the theories and methodology of EP before you accuse me of distorting their practices. The creation of explainatory myths to explain the world in terms of a predetermined theory or ideology is exactly the same thing that the various writers of Genesis did. Exactly the same thing.

Did I say you were the one who mentioned Dawkins or Pinker? I did out of the assumption that bringing up two of today’s more prominent biological determinists would be safe ground in a discussion of the subject. I assure you if this was forty years ago I’d bring up Skinner, but he’s sort of gone the way of Freud, fashionwise.

What rights do I hold to be inherent? The right to life, freedom of thought, speech, equality, bodily integrity and ownership,…. that’s enough to be getting on with. Since none of these can be “proven” to exist by the methods of science which ones are you willing to forgoe? Or how can you, on the basis of your ideology defend their practice? How would a biological determinist explain why any or everyone of them should not be brushed aside? I think it’s time for the mechanistic materialists to answer these questions and I’ll continue asking until I get an answer whenever the subject comes up.

AV, if you hold that there is no such a thing as an inherent right you could fairly be asked:
1, If you believed that people possessed rights.
2, How they would come by those rights.
3, Under what conditions would they retain those rights.
4, And, most pertainantly, which of your rights you are prepared to sacrifice on the alter of biological determinism.
Your calling the most basic civil rights “legal fictions” would lead any resonable person to assume you are quite prepared to abridge or abolish their freedom. Which, I’m sorry to say, I’ve found to be true of more and more materialists and true believers of scientism.

If you resent the tone of my pointing out the logical conclusions, to yourself, that you position necessitates, you really have to expect that kind of thing if you are going to continue in the business of calling peoples’ rights into question. I certainly intend to encourage people to consider the full implications of biological determinism.

Your calling Dawkins’ explainatory fable an “explaination” doesn’t change the fact that it is entirely made up on the basis of absolutely no physical evidence of any kind AND in service to his chosen orthodoxy. That is exactly the same thing that other fundamentalists of a religious nature do in service to their orthodoxy. If you object to the term “fundamentalist” in the previous sentence, it was used by Stephen Gould to describe exactly the school in question, I didn’t make it up. Where there is no physical evidence there can be no science, that is absolutely unassailable. Science absolutely depends on the existence of physical evidence or it is no better than rather bad science fiction.

I will answer all of the above questions / observations tonight when I have time. For right now, to AV or ash or Vincent or Darryl or anyone (I think I know what olvlzl, no ism, no ist thinks)

What is the definition of right, as simply as you think it can be stated?

-Lee (the Theist)

Sorry for the third clarification, but I am trying to figure out if some here are saying ABSOLUTE right and wrong doesn’t exist but that right and wrong does exist, or that right and wrong doesn’t exist even in a non-absolute form. If right and wrong does exist in a non-absolute form, how is it defined? If it doesn’t exist at all, please say it doesn’t so I can be clear on it.

-Lee (the Theist)

hi Lee, i’ll do my best to try and answer you

the problem in your asking for a clear definition of right and wrong from a moral relativism perspective is that moral relativism doesn’t work that way – i can tell you what would inform my decisions, as i and others already have, but i cannot make broad sweeping statements of ethics that would apply wholesale to any given situation; that would be a position of absolutism. do you see the problem? therefore, whilst one can argue for certain standards, these have to be flexible, open to change and dependant on specific circumstances. for example, should we invade a foreign country where we believe the people need to be liberated? absolutism – yes. i would wish to be free if i were oppressed. moral relativism – i need more details before i can decide whether this would be a right moral action, ie, why do we claim they are oppressed? are those people asking for intervention? will we cause more damage by this form of action than another? will we exacerbate their circumstances, what weapons will we use? etc…

it is easier to define a moral standpoint that can be boiled down to a slogan than one that by its very nature is dependant on relativity to the situation.

AV said that he has no problem acting “as if” right and wrong exist, while at the same time admitting there is no absolute right and wrong. He even suggested embracing inherent rights as “necessary legal fiction.”

i think the point here was that these are concepts, and they need us to slap a label on them to make them exist – or, i do not believe that such concepts exist independently of concious thought. i am not claiming that there is no right or wrong at all, merely that these are invented concepts necessary for even basic social cohesion.

I know that you are saying right is some combination of many things, but I just don’t think you are being very clear on exactly what that combination actually is.

quick allegory for you; morality as a minefield where the mines have the potential to change position every 10 seconds. i could not draw you a definitive map because the moral situations (mines) change. the combination can always alter, so we have to tread carefully, work with new info as we receive it, and apply our route accordingly.

if you put “respect for others” as your good, and someone else puts “survival of the species” for theirs, there is no deciding who is right, which is to say there is no right.

no, there is careful navigation and negotiation between views to find the best or least harmful solution for all parties, the search for a moral right despite contradictory opinions.

an absolutist could claim to know a definitive safe route, but does risk coming a cropper – see

monkeymind said, July 14, 2007 at 10:10 pm stories of the incomparable Mullah Nasruddin

To all of the questions about how we determine the absolutes, I do believe they are self evident

the problem here is that if they were self evident, you yourself would have been able to come up with more than just ‘do as you would be done by’.

From the beginning I foresaw the discussion ending when I pressed for a definition of right and wrong

this sounds a tad self-defeating, in that it appears you were looking for an absolute definition, which for the reasons i’ve given, was never gonna happen, further it sounds like this is the only answer that you’d be happy with. again, highly problematic.

AV, why not come clean, do you believe that there are rights that all people hold simply because they are people?

I suppose a “right” assumed under a contract, assuming the contract was freely entered into by all parties, would constitute a right that was not inherent. I would be more likely to analyze such a “right” as a privilege. Under our rather foetid legal system today such “rights” are accorded more respect than real rights. Such is the security of civil rights when they are not given special respect.

You seem to think I care that you are an atheist, I don’t. As I’ve mentioned at least twice in this exchange I’ve known atheists who believed in inherent rights and the governmental system that belief necessitates. I haven’t questioned them about how they would square that with a mechanistic view of human personality, alas, most of those people have gone on to their final reward (I believe) and so can’t enlighten me as to how they managed what would seem to be unlikely if not impossible. I’m finding fewer and fewer of such atheists today, most seem to be under the influence of some form of biological determinism, have little confidence in peoples’ ability to think independently and, in the worst cases, have no faith in democracy. Most of the last group are snobs who seem to believe in some sort of oligarchy in which they imagine they will be part of the elite, innocent as they are.

Axe to grind, why because I don’t hold Dawkins or Pinker to be sacrosanct and above criticism? I was writing critiques of Dawkins before his latest hobby career as the successor to Madalyn Murry (God, do I miss that woman,pop atheists used to be so much more fun back then), I had no interest or thought to his views on religion. That was during his “selfish genes” period. I continued to criticize him in his second hobby career, the “meme” period. I’ve got a feeling that “memes” and his latest gig as the atheist pope are evidence that he has less than complete faith in EP. That would be logical since every single other speculation based attempt at psychology has had a very limited shelf life.

I doubt anything I could tell you about EP would be something you believe, I’d advise you to look at what Gould had to say about it. You could fruitfully look at the critiques of Sociobiology (which is what they used to call EP). If you don’t notice the story telling then I’m afraid you won’t see much else, since that’s really just about all there is to it.

AV said that he has no problem acting “as if” right and wrong exist, while at the same time admitting there is no absolute right and wrong. He even suggested embracing inherent rights as “necessary legal fiction.”

What I would add, however, is that we need to be prepared to justify (in the case of morality) why we think people should or should not behave in certain ways, and (in the case of rights) why we think it is beneficial that we recognise these rights, and detrimental if these rights are denied.

I hear people harshly criticizing theism for abandoning critical reasoning, yet I see the exact same logic applied to concepts of right and wrong by non faith based perspectives.

Tu quoque fallacy. What’s wrong with critical reasoning?

I do highly value science and reason, and take offence to references that because people are faith-based, they must by definition abandon reason.

But you yourself are advocating–are you not–that we, and the government, ought to abandon reason in the area of ethics.

I can put my definition of right and wrong clearly and simply. Right is in accordance with what is good. Good is defined by God’s will, which is that we love one another. You can argue this is wrong, and I can’t defeat you, but at least I defined it.

But you haven’t defined it, because there is no clear definition of what “loving one another” entails. According to certain Christian fundamentalists, it entails noisily disrupting a Hindu chaplain reading a prayer before the US Senate–and who would you be to declare them wrong? All you’ve done is attempt to explain a mystery (what is “God’s will?”) with another mystery.

Furthermore, what reasons would you give to a non-theist for why we should love each other?

Also, if you put “respect for others” as your good, and someone else puts “survival of the species” for theirs, there is no deciding who is right, which is to say there is no right.

Who is to say that these two goals–”survival of the species” and “respect for others”–are necessarily mutually exclusive?

I’m not talking right in an absolute sense; I am just talking about right in any sense at all.

By “right and wrong” I am referring to ethics/morality in a general sense–how people ought or ought not to behave.

AV, I asked you what is good, and you told me you could not define it in an absolute sense. But then you didn’t define it in a non-absolute sense.

What I meant is that you seem to be asking for an Atheist Guide to Right and Wrong–a kind of Atheist Code of Ethics or Bible–and I responded that there is none. Different atheists will have different ideas about right and wrong, depending upon their own worldviews and perspectives. Conservative atheists will have ideas about right and wrong that will differ from those of libertarian atheists, who will in turn differ from socialist atheists, and so on.

I say “what is right?” and you answer “there is no absolute right, only tentative right” but then don’t explain what “tentative right” is in a clear way. To me tentative implies a final, so I am still confused by your use of that term.

Dictionary.com defines “tentative” as “of the nature of or made or done as a trial, experiment, or attempt; experimental,” so I can’t see how it implies “final.” Scientific facts are often referred to as “tentative,” in the sense that while they are based on evidence, there is always the possibility that they will be overturned upon the discovery of new evidence.

I see a non-theistic approach to moral reasoning in similar terms: conclusions about how people ought to behave can be reached through sound reasoning, debate, and appeals to evidence. They are tentative in the sense that they can always potentially be overturned by more convincing counter-arguments, a better understanding of the facts, and so on. And so the conversation continues.

I have never said there are not good non-theist reasons to avoid murdering someone.

Well, if there are good non-theist reasons for not murdering people, then why do we need a theistic reason? What does “Because God says so” add?

Many people seem to be caught between being unable to define right, and refusing to say it doesn’t exist.

You yourself have alluded to two definitions of “right”: your own (=God’s will=loving one another), and the “classic” definition–which you have not defined.

Perhaps the problem is that we’re all speaking past each other, and need to agree upon what we mean when we say “right and wrong.”

Without faith it would be more accurate to replace right and wrong with terms describing actions as “legal, illegal, advantageous to survival, detrimental to society, a cause of suffering, against the social contract, etc.”

I think many of us are using “right and wrong” as shorthand for the above (I think I am). But I think that, in the absence of any evidence of absolute right and wrong, independent of these, it is the best we–any of us, theist and atheist alike–can do. If you’re looking for an atheist absolute right and wrong, you will not get one, and it might indeed be time for you to pick up your ball and go home.

This is why I choose to embrace faith based government. Faith defined as holding something to be true that you can not prove. I want my government to hold as truth that I have rights that can not be violated to serve some other purpose, like survival of the species or welfare of the community.

Again, I’m not sure why human rights and the survival of the species or the welfare of the community are necessarily mutually exclusive. But surely you can offer reasons why you think it is beneficial for us, as individuals and as societies, to have these rights recognised and protected.

When you talk about faith-based government, in one breath, and then define faith as “holding something to be true that you cannot prove,” you are in danger of committing the fallacy of equivocation. “Faith-based government” implies a government that privileges a certain religion or that enshrines its dogmas as policy and law (i.e. a theocracy). How is faith-based government compatible with the right to freedom of religion or the separation of church and state? As for “holding something to be true that you cannot prove”–well, you don’t need to be a theist to do that. You could be describing simple idealism, or beliefs based on personal experience but unsupported by expert knowledge, or any kind of belief that one cannot demonstrate with absolute certainty. For example, I believe but cannot prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

So I don’t see how a faith-based government can guarantee the protection of the rights you would have them protect. The faith-based governments that we do see around the world–Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban), etc.–are synonymous with grievous human rights violations, and on the grounds of faith.

Concepts of rights and freedoms haven’t changed in thousands of years.

You can’t be serious.

AV, as the people who wrote and adopted the First Amendment I find the proof of the desireablity of people having freedom of speech and to their religious beliefs in the history of Europe from roughly the 14th through the 17th centuries. The history of those countires that have adopted these freedoms demonstrates that in the real world, not that make believe univers of social scientists and devotees of other pseudo-scientific pretentions, these freedoms help produce a relatively decent and non-violent society. That, AV, is proof superior to anything your heros have produced about anything. Unlike Dawkins “explainations”, it can be shown to have really happened.

How can you distinguish an inherent right? A right that is necessary for a person to live their life, follow their reason and their conscience while not depriving other people of the same rights is an inherent right.

The fact is that many areas of life can’t be sewn up in a neat and final form causes fundamentalists great anxiety and anger, religious as well as materialist fundamentalists. While I am sorry that such people are so rigid as to not be able to accept the limits of science and logic that doesn’t change the fact that there are many, perhaps most, areas of life and the universe which will never be susceptible to the methods and limits of science. Pretending that simple fact isn’t true is the very heart of the superstitions of scientism, positivism, reductionism. I’ve always suspected that the adherents of those ideas, clearly unsupported by the facts, are following their emotions instead of their reason.

No, Dawkins is the atheist pope, at least of those atheists who treat him that way. I know atheists who think he, as well as the other heros of pop-atheism you name are jerks who are more likely to put off full civil rights for atheists than to promote them. Harris, no, he’s a much lesser figure. Hitchens, I can’t imagine that enormous ego that feeds on itself would settle for something as low as pope. I suspect he’s bright enough not to challenge Dawkins but he’s back-stabbed just about everyone who he was associated with so it might happen if he lives long enough.

No, Dawkins is the atheist pope

Really? Can you substantiate this?

I think it is a logical conclusion that without theism or faith, there can be no absolute ethics.

This pre-supposes that absolutes are necessary or even desirable. It’s also self contradictory if you want to be pedantic about the term ethics; ethics being a process to determine what is right and wrong, absolutism simply being a check list of morality.

Having a working definition of ethics is at the core of this issue (even if I’m not actually so pedantic as to seriously posit the above quibble.) We can define ethics as something to exclude a group by definition, rather than as a means to actually engage in moral actions. For example, one pre-suppose conculsions by positing absolutism as essential to ethics to exclude non-absolutists (but don’t take this point as my coup-de-grâce, I’m still toying around).

If we chose ethical to mean obidence, it is redundant without something to be obidient to. Insert God. Which God? Which God do we choose? The God of the generally sensible caring Christian majority or the God of Terry Mark Mangum?

This is a serious question. The problem is, in any ethical debate where substantiation is required (as opposed to faith), one can no more substantiate one God than the other and hence one moral more than another. Unavoidably, by way of ethics as obidenice to divine, the murder of Kenneth Cumming joins the ranks of deeds such as caring for the poor in terms of what is known to be ethical.

This isn’t just counter-intuitive. If I was claiming that counter-intuition was all that was wrong, and was sufficient to end the debate I’d be pre-supposing my conclusions (ethics y says murder is wrong – falsifying ethics X – therefore ethics y is right and so on.)

I’m not talking about contradiction in one literal interpretation here, I’m talking about contradiction across all equally non-faith substantiated metaphysical interpretations; where substantiation matters, “murder as moral” in an obedience to unfalsiable God schema is as equally knowable as valid as “murder as immoral” is. This breaks the law of non-contradiction.

Don’t think for a second that I’m singling out theists here either. This criticism applies to any metaphysic of morals. Consider that some atheists include metaphysics (sometimes citing Kant) and this is a wider problem. All metaphysics requires faith to assert as true, and in any reasoned debate all faith bares the same coinage (no substitute for substantiation).

Theists can take this as a limitation of mortals to comprehend the mind of God if they will.

Absolutes not only have the effect of appeal to metaphysics, but they are crap at resolving dialemma. Say for example; X type of deed is absolutely wrong; Y type of deed is absolutely wrong. In scenario Z, failiure to do X precipitates Y. I’ll let people fill in X and Y according to their beliefs.

Some absolutists claim that they can resolve this but such a statement is untrue for either of two reasons; congnitive dissonance between the states of X and Y (didn’t do X or Y) or that they argued X or Y down to a non-absolute (making the alternative the absolute) and don’t have the honesty to admit they abandoned absolutism.

So let’s do away with metaphysics as arbiter of the absolute. It doesn’t work.

So what have we got left? Nihilism? Well I think we can all agree that nihilism isn’t acceptable.

What do I use as an atheist? Reason a priori. Empericism. Utilitarianism.

Reason is the basis for my epistemology. I don’t need a metaphysic to prop it up either. The reason of reason, unlike so many other things claimed to be self-evident, actually is. Reason is reasonable. It needs no proping up with Gods or catagorical imperatives.

Empericism. I borrow from “radical constructivism” here. Something I could prattle on about forever (given that I have a few qualifications). But suffice to say, it is possible to accept many things as fact without recourse to any metaphysic. This forms the basis for knowing the circumstnaces of any situation requiring moral consideration.

It’s not fool-proof, it won’t grant omniscience, but as I’m aware, no human is claiming to be omniscient or infalliable in these regards anyway. The limits of my epistemology in this regard are the same as in contending thesis.

Utilitarianism (positive with negative caveat for those interested). I’ve harped on about a definition of ethics earlier and this is why. If we are going to have a meaningful definition of ethics that excludes absolutes, and abandons the flawed narrative of morality as obedience (ultimately to a metaphysic one can’t back up) we are only left with considerations of harm. It’s either this, or redefine ethics as something so alien and meaningless that us having this discussion in the first place is meaningless.

Harm. Ethics. If we are to use harm as the main criterion for ethics, then ethics by definition becomes a utilitarian beast. Deciding on what causes harm in my epistemology of ethics is informed by somewhat of a heirarchy of heuristics. The first step is to ascertain facts emperically; what do we know of X that has capacity to harm?

When, and not before there are gaps in my emperical knowledge of capacity for harm, then I go to the inter-subjective. I ask “will this hurt you”? I’ve used the example of two men being hit in the groin with equal force before. One may say they are equally harmful. Wrong. If man 1 wants children and has a tender loin, while man 2 doesn’t wnat kids and has an S&M streak then kicking man 2 in the groin may very well not be as immoral as kicking man 1 in the groin.

To make a distinction, inter-subjectivity is used. Confirming people’s opinions and feelings when the raw emperical facts won’t solve a problem.

Only after all of the available non-metaphysical subjective heuristics are used up (by way of reason’s right of deferal) without prevail would I ever consider the metaphysics. Importantly, if using metaphysics in any critical way (which I avoid and make a posteriori to reason) I recognise that it doesn’t impart knowledge, but rather just inspiration.

There is nothing nihilistic, moral relativistic, or absolutist about any of this. Of course, straw men of relativism and nihilism abound. This is where the big lie repeated uncritically comes in.

The hard cold fact that some theists are going to have to learn to accept is that atheists can be moral people. They do it by doing more or less what I do; act on a utilitarian imperative. The reason theists need to take this on board and the reason that the contrary is “the big lie” is because most good, functioning Christians do the same thing; act on a utilitarian imperative.

If they didn’t we’d have more Christians demonizing the D&C proceedure irrespective of how many women it kills. We’d see more Terry Mark Mangums following their metaphysical impulses. Sure, some people can interpret away the apparent nastiness of parts of the Bible, but many can’t.

Why don’t those who can’t become psychotic killers?

It’s because they don’t actually use the Bible for moral guidance when reasoned empericism and intersubjective notions of suffering cotridict their interpretation of the gory bits. They intuitively use the same means that atheists use.

In fact, I strongly suspect to some extent we are hard wired to behave this way (not that biology dictates morality, but rather gives us the faculties to consider it).

Why on Earth then are theists asking where atheists get their morals from if so many rank and file theists are getting their morals from the same place?

I don’t mind discussion ethics at all, which admittedly is why I’ve engaged in this debate. This is even if my discussion of ethics is actually somewhat off-topic from what is really going on in this debate.

The question “can atheists have morals?” is a question posed by theists, theists who should really know better. It can be treated as a genuine question of ethics, but in reality, to borrow the virus meme, the question is a carrier body for a memetic virus that spreads a smear against atheists.

I’ve answered the question as an ethical question as is my desire for genuine ethical discussion. Theists engaging in this debate however should not assume me credulous that their motivations are at the core genuine.

With the ascent of our host Hermant, I’d like to ask the theists; what precisely do you hope to acheive by asking such a question?

So he is the atheist pope, then? I thought it was Hitchens. Or Harris. Tell me who my pope is, please?

First they decided on why we are atheists.
Now they are telling us who our Pope’s are now.

Wait. We have a Pope?!?!?!?

He was good as cliff though, but I think his best performance was in the Warlords of Atlantis.

I’d like to acheive abolishing the stereotype that those of us who embrace faith have abandoned reason and will undoubtedly destroy society.

Oh well, it’s a bit hard for me to entertain stereotypes about reason and faith when I see them measured in a kind of fuzzy logic from person to person.

Lee, your challenge is meaningless.
You want a definition of right but what we’ve been saying all along is that the definition of right is situational.
You haven’t given me any reason to believe any system in the world, religious or not, will give you an absolute.
Why do you criticize atheism for not giving you what no system can give you (my unicorn analogy)?

Good/right depends on the ethical system you practice.
For example, in desire utilitarianism, good is that which fulfills the most desires (I think. I’m not a professional ethicist).
In epicurianism, good is that which reduces pain and increases pleasure.
In christianity, good is the salvation of intangible, undetectable immortal souls.

AV, as long as you and your pals keep presenting me with what you keep calling “strawmen” you can be assured that I’ll keep pointing out that they are not based in science, logic or experience. See what I first said to you about my conclusions about the contemporary use of the term “strawmen”. It’s almost as bad as the use of “Occam’s razor” around here.

The problem is with the superstition that absolute proof is possible when even a mildly rigorous look at the question shows that it is almost certainly not. There has never been universal agreement as to what constitutes morality, even such a moral stand as a prohibition to murder has been shown to be infinitely flexible depending on the interests and prejudices of different people and populations.

We do seem to be on the same page here, however.

I am not asking for examples, I am asking for a definition. I think, whether people like it or not (and so many people clearly do not like it), right and wrong throughout the ages has been entrenched with religious concepts. I want to know what a definition of right and wrong is once it is liberated from religious concepts.

I thought I had addressed this earlier.

Earlier, you said “Without faith it would be more accurate to replace right and wrong with terms describing actions as “legal, illegal, advantageous to survival, detrimental to society, a cause of suffering, against the social contract, etc.”” And I replied that these are what I mean, and I daresay it’s what some others in this discussion mean, by the terms “right and wrong.” (And there is also the harm consideration that Bruce talked about.)

I also added: “But I think that, in the absence of any evidence of absolute right and wrong, independent of these, it is the best we–any of us, theist and atheist alike–can do.”

I don’t see how defining “right” as “right” and “wrong” as “wrong” gets us anywhere. (Actually, neither are definitions, really.) You tried to define “right” as “the good,” “the good” as “God’s will,” and “God’s will” as “love one another.” (In short, “right” = “loving one another.”) As I showed, “love one another” is practically useless as an ethical foundation, given that there is no authoritative definition of what “loving one another” entails. Love is a motivation, not an action, and sometimes people who describe themselves as so motivated can do unspeakable things (see: Terry Mark Mangum, who also, as Bruce observed, saw himself as doing God’s will).

Actually, there’s something I think you need to clarify here. Does “right” = “doing God’s will,” or “loving one another?”

So it isn’t that the bird “ought” to fly south, it is simply that if it wants to live it should. In that respect, there is nothing a person “ought to do”, it depends on what a person wants to achieve. For example, “you ought to tell the truth if you want to live in a society where you can believe what people say” involves the condition “if.” There is no “ought” without an “if.”

This applies to theistic morality as you have defined it, also. “You ought to do x if you want to do God’s will.” (Which opens up several questions: “What is God’s will?,” “How do we know that it’s God’s will?”, “Why ought we do God’s will?”, etc.)

But I would say that there’s no “ought” without a “because” (and maybe that’s the same thing). You yourself have affirmed this, when you said that you could think of several good non-theistic reasons for people not to murder each other. Theistic morality is all well and good when people share your theistic presuppositions, but what happens when they don’t? Other than by force, how are you going to convince them to share your views on right and wrong? At some point, you’re going to have to resort to (bum bum buuuuuuuuuuum) reason.

There’s a point Bruce made earlier which I think you ought to address:

“Sure, some people can interpret away the apparent nastiness of parts of the Bible, but many can’t.

Why don’t those who can’t become psychotic killers?

It’s because they don’t actually use the Bible for moral guidance when reasoned empericism and intersubjective notions of suffering cotridict their interpretation of the gory bits. They intuitively use the same means that atheists use.”

Discussions of right and wrong often appeal to self evident ideas in this way. Another example, someone might say “If what you are saying is true then you could justify slavery” which is to say that they presume that slavery is self-evidently wrong.

Perhaps. But what’s stopping you–or anyone else–posing the question: “Why is slavery wrong?” And who’s to claim they might not be capable of offering reasons, if you did ask? (And what reasons would you offer?)

I’d like to acheive abolishing the stereotype that those of us who embrace faith have abandoned reason and will undoubtedly destroy society.

I think you protest too much. You yourself are arguing for a morality that is based on faith rather than reason.

I don’t think anybody is entertaining the stereotype you claim they are. I don’t think theists are altogether unreasonable, but I do maintain that they abandon reason to the extent that they embrace faith–faith (belief without justification, evidence, or substantiation) being the antithesis of reason.

Lee said, regarding the difference between definitions and examples: “Definition: A prime number is one which can not be divided without a remainder.
Example: 3″

Oh, dear. This is quite telling of the problems I think you’re having, Lee. You are trying to derive a palatable system of ethics from a single principle. And, as others have mentioned, a system of ethics is unable to yield the same deductive certainty as mathematics. At least not without tyranny, and consequences that might entail the antithesis of its objective. When it comes to ethical dilemmas, it seems to me, sumthins gotta give.

Earlier you said: “I can put my definition of right and wrong clearly and simply. Right is in accordance with what is good. Good is defined by God’s will, which is that we love one another. You can argue this is wrong, and I can’t defeat you, but at least I defined it.”

Then you say: “AV, I asked you what is good, and you told me you could not define it in an absolute sense. But then you didn’t define it in a non-absolute sense.”

Um, when did you define right and wrong, absolute or otherwise, Lee? You’ve completely sidestepped the definition by saying, “Right is in accordance with what is good. Good is defined by God’s will, which is that we love one another.” You have provided a “definition” that requires quite a bit of unpacking:

How do we choose the right version of the God concept?

If God’s will of “love one another” comes from a holy book, how do we choose the right book, passage, and interpretation to gain insight into its application?

If God’s will does not come from a holy book, how did we come by it?

If we have the right God, holy book, and interpretation of will, how do we properly apply something as nebulous as “love on another” in a myriad of complicated, real world situations, the solutions to which are bound to leave someone feeling that they haven’t been treated with “love”?

In addition, as has been stated here and earlier in the thread, a single absolute principle does not an ethical system make. There must be more than one, and then there will ultimately be a situation in which they conflict, causing one of them to be shown not to be absolute. This is why, I think, you are now choosing “love one another” over “do as you’d be done by.” You are switching now? It seems that this discussion, as discussions regarding the existence of God also often do, has progressed to the point where a definition of the object under consideration must become increasingly vague in order to avoid criticism.

Lee said: “The confusion here, I think, is that I keep asking ‘What is the definition of right and wrong’, and people keep responding, ‘I can give you no exact examples because it is dependent on so many things.’ ”

I think what we’ve given you are plenty of examples which show that any definition of right and wrong cannot be applied outside the context of other moral principles with which it might conflict. It may even conflict with itself, necessitating the employment of some process to decide the proper application of the principle (i.e., who wins the dispute).

Lee said: “I’d like to acheive abolishing the stereotype that those of us who embrace faith have abandoned reason and will undoubtedly destroy society.”

Your definition of right and wrong leaves wide open the question of how it will be applied in an as yet undefined ethical system. Since you have determined the definition of absolute right and wrong with the aid of religious faith, it causes non-believers to wonder if you might also use religious faith to build the ethical system required to apply your definition. It causes me to wonder if your system will need to be as vague as the principle it applies.

I don’t think those “who embrace faith have abandoned reason.” I think they have allowed themselves the unwarranted and arbitrary trump card of faith when they cannot persuade others of the correctness of their position through reason. It doesn’t matter if the theist’s opponent has logic and evidence on their side; the theist can always play the faith card, which is always available and never wrong. The same game can be played by non-religious individuals who declare absolute definitions by fiat (e.g. rabid nationalism equals “true” patriotism).

Non-religious ethical stances can be persuaded by appeals to logic or emotion, and human beings are solely answerable for the consequences of the formulation and use of such systems. Ethics that are based on religious faith can ultimately be held as unassailable by logic or emotion, once formulated. A system of ethics that has God as its final arbiter is truly an “anything goes” proposition since God is apparently unavailable for comment.

I can understand that you need a great deal of details and information to determine what action is right, but the very statement suggests that right itself has been defined.

i can only resort to personal opinion, and i’m going off the top of my head, so please don’t see this as definitve or absolute, but;

right;- an action that results in a desirable outcome

a desirable outcome as judged by -
- the benefit to social cohesion
- the benefit of species survival
- the avoidance of doing harm to others
- the wish to respect others
- the avoidance of legal penalties
- the desire to be affirmatively recognised by others

all these can result from a historical observance that if these ideals are not practised, there is conflict which can only be advantageous to a minority elite (until the masses revolt, removing the advantage), from a possible genetic predisposal to recognising such things as advantageous, from an upbringing with moral precedents and from individual reasoning of wanting equal treatment so affording it to others (see? you can have ‘do as you would be done by’ without the need to resort to a god!)

i have to re-state here that this is only my personal opinion, the way that i would approach a situation that required moral judgement. the reasons i have stated here are open to fluctuation, and so can work in conjuction with each other with no particular reason taking priority as matter of course. i’d also say that this list, once you take away the ‘trump card’ of religion, sounds remarkably similar to that of which most theists operate on. given that, and given that religion seems only to stifle debate in the terms of ‘god said so. end of.’, why do you still see the need for religious faith especially in government when it comes to the matter of morality?

For any definition of right and wrong given, I can show it doesn’t exist. Or that it becomes in effect something different, and therefore we no longer need the word.

call a spade a spade, yeah?…except ‘spade’ does not define the dimensions of the blade, the material of the shaft, the handle as a T or D shape, etc. does ‘spade’ then not truely exist, or are labels inadequate to describe the complexity of ‘spade’? we resort to such labels as ‘spade, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because they give us a point of access and mutual comprehension of the subject which leads to an ability to discuss them. i see your point of abandoning these words in favour of ” terms describing actions as ‘legal, illegal, advantageous to survival, detrimental to society, a cause of suffering, against the social contract, etc.’ “, but besides this being a mouthful, i think it would actually make it harder to communicate effectively, especially with one not privy to this conversation.

I check in on this thread every couple of days or so, and I find the same arguments being made. Pretty much everything that we can think of has been said about this topic at least twice. Anybody got a new angle on this? As I said previously, Lee is not going to be convinced. This is not about a discussion intended to lead to a conclusion. When reason is played out, what remains is unreason—this is the last support of religious conviction, and the hardest to remove.

Isn’t it obvious that if our shrinking world is going to be able to live in peace, ultimately, there will have to be a global set of ethical principles? Do you really think that an ethic in this context can be derived from any particular religion, or religion at all? The possibility only exists in the least common factors of humanity. No matter what becomes of religion in this century, our global ethic will emerge in spite of religion, not because of it. Do not believe what the preachers and priests claim when the time comes; they are liars and fools.

Steelman, as usual you have played the ace.

Just letting everyone know I will respond to the above posts tonight.
Thanks for the replies.

-Lee (the Theist)

pretending that things are absolutely certain when they are not is something I’ve always thought was the height of intellectual dishonesty

Isn’t that the MO of every religion?

Darryl asks:
Anybody got a new angle on this?

I think I may have one. I tried to articulate it earlier but let’s see if I can do a better job here.
The original question posed was “Can we have government without faith.” Lee’s argument as I understand it was that government requires some idea of absolute right and wrong, and that an atheistic worldview is incompatible with moral absolutes. Others have done an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in this position from a secular standpoint, and I heartily agree with them.

I’d like to look at it from the standpoint of one who is more sympathetic to religious belief.

This is Lee’s definition of good:

Good is defined by God’s will, which is that we love one another.

Lee, how can you propose that people be forced, through the state’s apparatus of power and control, to love one another? How can a human government ever approximate infinite love or infinite justice (as Bush tried to name the operation to invade Afghanistan)

Now, I am guessing that this idea of God’s will comes from a reading of Jesus’ words in the Gospels (thought other religious texts say similar things). Do you really think Jesus was imparting guidelines for the running of a state, or for a radical counterculture?

Vincent,

Remember, I am not asking for a list of all the prime numbers in the world, or a formula by which all prime numbers can be derived. I am just asking what in the world prime is.

I find your answer very interesting. You can not define right because it is situational. Words that are difficult to define are words that are subjective (taste, beauty, etc.) Yet, everyone has rejected calling right and wrong similarly a matter of taste.

If you were to write a dictionary, would you leave the words “right and wrong” out of it, or would you just put them in there and say “sorry, there is no definition.”

You said my question to define right and wrong is pointless, I find the use of a word one can not define pointless.

You said:
“Good/right depends on the ethical system you practice.
For example, in desire utilitarianism, good is that which fulfills the most desires (I think. I’m not a professional ethicist).
In epicurianism, good is that which reduces pain and increases pleasure.
In christianity, good is the salvation of intangible, undetectable immortal souls.”

Yes yes, I agree, this seems to be saying “right” is a matter of personal preference.

AV,

I think where I am getting confused is that you write several paragraphs, then state that therein lays the definition of “right.” I am looking for the sentence, or sentences, or a short paragraph you would put in a dictionary. I understand right and wrong is too complex to embody in short format. So is science, or archeology, or astrology… but you can still define them in simple format. Can you compose a dictionary definition of right?

Ash,

Thank you so much for giving a precise definition! The definition you gave is very good. I realize you aren’t claiming that this is a formula by which you can determine all right from all wrong. I still would like to examine it closely. I am going to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions that I don’t expect an answer to. And I realize that you have already thought of these questions, and aren’t claiming to have answers, but I am asking the questions to illustrate a point.

There seem to be two parts to the definition. The first part: “right- an action that results in a desirable outcome” can’t stand alone, or it would be saying the same thing as “right, whatever gets you what you desire.” So it has to be qualified, as you have done.

Now look at the qualification: “a desirable outcome as judged by the benefit to social cohesion, the benefit of species survival, the avoidance of doing harm to others, the wish to respect others, the avoidance of legal penalties, the desire to be affirmatively recognized by others.”

This first question that comes up is how the outcome is defined, and I see at least two ways to do this. There is an actual outcome, what actually occurs (objective). Many faults can be found with looking at objective outcomes. For example, if I get drunk and drive but I don’t crash, hurt anyone, get caught, and no one knows then the outcome would not be judged as undesirable. Also, there is the problem of not knowing what is right until after the fact. To the question “Is invading Iraq right?” One might answer “We won’t know until we see what happens.” Then comes the question of how long to wait for objective outcomes (6 months, 1 year, etc.) Another way of viewing outcomes is the idea of what outcomes are likely or possible to occur, subjective outcomes. In this case even if I don’t crash, the possibility is there so it can be judged wrong. Then there is the problem of how to determine subjective outcomes. Possibilities include what is intended (hence the defense ‘but I didn’t mean too’), what you foresee (hence the defense ‘I didn’t know that was going to happen’), or what should be foreseeable by a reasonable person (hence the argument ‘you should have known that was going to happen). Obvious questions arise, how much should good intentions matter, can you blame someone for not knowing a bad outcome was going to occur, etc.

As you can see, using objective, subjective intent driven, subjective foreseen driven, and subjective foreseeable driven outcomes can all result in different answers to what is right and wrong.

Then there is the problem of conflicting judgment aspects. Benefit of species survival can often conflict with respect for an individual. Sending someone off to die in war might benefit the community, but not the person. Do you rank certain aspects as more important than others, do they all have to be fulfilled to be right or just some?

All of the above falls under the category of consequentialism. There is another school of ethics, deontology, which does not think rightness or wrongness depends on outcomes. For example, if a doctor tells the truth about a diagnosis to an insurance company resulting in denial of claim, lack of appropriate therapy, and death, then consequentialism could argue telling the truth was wrong. Deontology might judge the situation regardless of the outcome.

There are hundreds of questions which come from the definition. You can view the answers to these questions in two ways:
1) There are actual real answers to these questions, resulting in absolutism. Absolutism has been effectively argued above not to exist.
2) There are no answers to these questions. If this is the case, almost anything can be judged right and wrong at the same time. This would seem to be pointless.

So my conclusion is that without absolutism, everything is right and wrong. Right becomes a matter of opinion. It becomes whatever you want it to be. This isn’t the same as saying right and wrong isn’t absolute, it is saying that right and wrong has no meaningful definition.

One argument against faith and theism is, “who decides such ambiguous concepts as what is love.” I think all the questions above illustrate that non-theist based right and wrong is just as ambiguous, and presents the same problem of who answers all of these questions. These moral concepts have been argued for thousands of years, literally, without any consensus or advancement on consensus.

No one seems to have a problem using the words right and wrong, but everyone seems to have a problem defining it. I think it is not because it is so complex, it is because its meaning is rooted in faith or theistic concepts that, in atheism, do not exist.

Why is the concept of “That which is done out of love for others is right” any more ambiguous than all of the questions that are posed above, which also have no answers and no designee to answer them?

To Darryl, my concept that right is defined by actions that embody love of others is not specific to Christianity. Which is why I think religions can work together. You certainly can’t force anyone to love through laws. The concept is that a person shouldn’t be the means to an end, they should be an end. No one should be a pawn to achieve another purpose, and I have no problem with our government embracing these concepts. So for questions such as “Should we liberate Iraq,” need to come questions such as “Are we really doing it for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are we judging their lives and deaths as important as our own?” Looking at motivations of politicians and laws, particularly concern for others, I think is necessary in good government and good interpretation of laws.

To AV, I can understand why you would call love for one another pointless with no ability to define it, but isn’t the same true for all definitions of right and wrong, as shown above? I find it useful to examine a person motivations when deciding right from wrong, which is why I find concepts of love useful, and of paramount importance.

Look at it this way. If someone you are close to (a spouse, a friend) does something that results in great harm to you, think of how you might view the situation. The first things I think of are not species survival, good of the community, etc. My first thought is whether the action was based on love for me.

-Lee (the Theist)

Vincent,

If that is your definition, would you agree then that since there a multitude of principles out there, every action is right and wrong at the same time due to all of the principles? (Consequentialism, deontology, utilitarian, hedonism, etc…. and don’t forget the pirate principle: “Take what you can, give nothing back.” )

I like Shakespear’s view on this: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

-Lee (the Theist)

hi Lee, good points to which i can think of further points/clarification/room for debate, but right now i’m busy – and harry potter’s out tonight! i’ll get back to you soon as possible, just wanted you to know i’ve not abandoned this thread! ;¬)

I found this post after reading the Atheist Ethicist’s response

I don’t have much to say, except to note that you have an enviable readership

Vincent, I understand you suspect there are actions which conform to a principle without opposing any others. Maybe simple ones, like donating money to a charity (then again, one might argue a principle that one shouldn’t enable others to he helpless.) But for the controversial issues that face society, like war, I would say no. If you have found them for these issues, please enlighten me. Otherwise, you are asserting something exists without any proof. Kind of like me saying “I suspect there is a God.”

Vincent also said “you have to have some system by which you decide which principle takes precedence in any given situation. That is what we call ethics.” The same problem arises as that which does in theism, who decides which principle is better? What gives them authority?

Let me draw this parallel. What if I created a word, called “artism.” This would be a process by which one determines which piece of artwork is better than another. It would seem kind of silly, because there is no way to do it in any “real” sense. It becomes a matter of opinion.

There are many principles (as Ash has pointed out) which by themselves seem good. Autonomy, social cohesion, survival of the species, avoidance of doing harm, respect for others, affirmation by others, etc. What atheism does not answer is how to rank these. There have been some posts alluding that it is possible to achieve them all, for them not to be in conflict. There is no evidence of this. I think they are mutually exclusive.

Here is a very simple example. Let’s say you are in charge of an apartment complex, and you must set a music policy. You think it is important for people to be able to sleep undisturbed. You also think autonomy is important. The minute you make any type of rule regarding how loud music can be played, or during what hours, you have limited a person’s autonomy. The majority of people in the complex might agree to the rules, and thus it can be argued no one’s autonomy was violated if everyone agrees, but what about that one person who doesn’t (maybe the person who works the nightshift and enjoys loud music at 3:00am when he gets home).

For every principle (autonomy), there comes so many qualifications (as long as it doesn’t impact another’s autonomy) that it eventually ceases to exist as a principle.

From the beginning, it was never my purpose to “convert” anyone, or change anyone to my viewpoint. I started this post because I do care and think about these things and enjoy discussing them, and because I want the flaws in my ideas to be pointed out so I can modify them. I also have the hope that at least a few people can see that theists have the ability to give a lot of thought and reason to discussions, and might have arrived at their beliefs through reason.

I do not claim to be a professor, but have spent a great deal of time reading on ethics, including topics like consequentialism, considering objective and subjective outcomes, deontology, utilitarianism, etc. I have done this to try to decide a system of ethics by which I can make decisions on controversial issues, like the war in Iraq.

After giving it a lot of thought, I could not come up with any system of ethics by which various principles can either all be satisfied, or be ranked.

The fact that I couldn’t find the magic answer is no surprise, as great philosophers have not been able to find it for thousands of years. Anyone who has read Plato’s Republic knows how far off track he was. Who am I to think that I can find them. While this doesn’t prove they don’t exist, I have stopped believing such a system of ethics exists. I see myself similar to atheist in this respect, who might decide not to believe in God given the absence of any evidence that God exists.

If people want to keep believing there is a system of ethics, or definition of right and wrong, which can achieve, balance, or rank principles like autonomy, respect for others, survival of the species, social cohesion, etc. than I think people believe it because they want to, which is no different than the reason some believe in God. Ethics to me from a non-faith perspective is personal preference, and I don’t think anyone has been able to show otherwise.

I think right and wrong boils down to whether a person has love for others, or has disregard for others. I think that most people, whether they recognize or admit it, view right and wrong in this same light.

A simple example: If someone steps on my foot, what do I think about it? If it was my spouse in the process of making a birthday cake who did it on accident, it is not wrong. If it is a person at a concert who is pushing me out of the way to get closer to the front, this is wrong.

A more complex example. Aptly named, Good Samaritan Laws protect healthcare providers from liability for providing care at the scene of an accident. In this, the law has decided it is better for a person to care, try to help, and cause harm than it is for a person to have indifference for those injured. These laws have limits, and don’t protect in instances where actions had other motivations besides help for the injured, like assault.

I have no problem incorporating this concept into our laws. It might not be written in as directly as the Good Samaritan Laws, put it still is applied by juries who interpret the application of the law.

So one might say that great harm can come from what one person perceives as love. As I had mentioned earlier, I have read Osama bin Ladin’s statement concerning 9/11, and he did not orchestrate it based on love for America. I have no evidence that suicide bombers are doing it out of love for the victims. In cases where a schizophrenic is on a psychotic break and causes harm, I would argue they are not wrong, but medically sick.

Failure to do right I think has two man causes:

1) Inability to see things from others perspectives. Rights of minorities have been neglected in part due to people seeing minorities as different, and being unwilling or unable to put themselves in the minority’s position and view things from there. As was discussed in Gladwell’s book “Blink,” the severe end of being unable to “mindread” another’s perspective is autism. Some things that might block accurate perspective viewing are pride and anger.

2) Choosing not to do what one knows is right. If one gets extra change from a teller, and chooses to keep it without caring how it will impact the teller or the business, this is just choosing to do wrong, it is not a matter of not having enough information or perspective.

So why do I need God if this is my definition of right?

In this definition, right involves personal sacrifice. It is putting the interest of others ahead of your own. In extreme instances, it might mean sacrificing ones life for that of a stranger or even enemy. From an atheist perspective, one could make an argument that if everyone loved each other, we might live in a utopia, so everyone should do it. But when it comes down to a time where I will be the one sacrificing, and another will be benefiting, I don’t think one could make a compelling logical argument for me to be the one who looses while another gains. Believing in a principle like “One must loose one’s life to gain it” does give a compelling reason.

The bottom line, I can think of no compelling reasons to convince someone they should do right when they don’t stand to gain, without incorporating faith or theistic concepts. If there is no reason to convince someone what should be done, than that action can no longer be seen as right, and right ceases to exist.

There might be no God. If there is none, in the words of Michael Gerson, liberating me from my belief in God is like liberating a whale from the ocean.

-Lee (the Theist)

back again!

thought i’d stick to to comparing my definition;
1 the benefit to social cohesion
2 the benefit of species survival
3 the avoidance of doing harm to others
4 the wish to respect others
5 the avoidance of legal penalties
6 the desire to be affirmatively recognised by others

to (how i view) Lee’s definition;
a Good is defined by God’s will, which is that we love one another.
b ie, do as you would be done by

using his examples…

donating money to a charity (then again, one might argue a principle that one shouldn’t enable others to he helpless.)

me; fulfils 1,2,3,4+6, so a right action (of course dependant on the charity, the nature of which would possibly change how i ranked/correlated said principles). even with helping one to stay helpless, you can resort to logic and reason to inform yourself of whether this is the case or not, just as a theist would.
Lee; fulifils a+b, unless you take into account his clarification, in which case it could actually negate both a+b, which would make such principles non-absolute (in that there is no system other than ‘personal taste’ to tell us how these principles should be applied – to follow Lee’s argument, right cannot then exist)

you are in charge of an apartment complex, and you must set a music policy. You think it is important for people to be able to sleep undisturbed. You also think autonomy is important.

me; using principles 1,3,4,5 +6, i would set a music policy of no loud music after a majority agreed evening hour, reasoning that most people work during the day. logic would lead me to deduce that the availability of wireless headphones would therefore not impact on the autonomy of the few, further in the interests of the few, i could also ask for the same respect when setting a music policy during daylight hours.
Lee; same problem, using his principles you would still have to decide whether there should be absolutely no music on the principle that it will always be inconvenient to some, music all the time as they should all have a right to it whenever, or a happy medium (deduced by logic and reasoning rather than following absolutes) by which you will risk upsetting some but not others. further, if one hates rap but loves rock, and another is opposite, should there be a policy of which music is acceptable and when? simplifying morals only seems to complicate the matter…

I think they are mutually exclusive.

no, as seen above, they can be used in conjuction with another, in fact i’d argue that many theists use them in conjuction with their thinking. the part we agree on is that there is no system of ranking them; however, this is the point of relativism – that each situation demands careful consideration of which principles you use and how; ie not to prejudge by an absolute. if you did not get the point earlier, let me clarify – even absolutes are used relatively, and their application is relative to each individual that lays claim to them. also, this relative perspective is usually justified by means of logic and reasoning – as Lee himself has indicated.

given that the only reason belief in a god seems to be upheld is as giving ‘proof’ for views held, that may be arrived at through logic and reasoning without the need for any deity, i’d have to ask…why the need for a god in the specific instances of government or moral standards? from most theists it appears to be from some kind of fear, that they can produce this ‘trump card’ without needing to debate whether their views are valid, true or ‘right’ – just watch, ie, Bush, fall back on it in hard times!

I also have the hope that at least a few people can see that theists have the ability to give a lot of thought and reason to discussions,

never doubted that in your case, or most liberal/moderate theists

and might have arrived at their beliefs through reason.

hmm, i can see people arriving at agnosticism and possibly mysticism through reasoning, (and i get that even if it’s not for me) but believing in a specific god is where i disagree – to take the art example, it’s kinda like saying ‘i have given much thought to art, and this particular picture provides an ultimate definition of it’ !

Lee, nice comeback ;¬) let’s examine it…

“in other words, it’s not the same thing.”. no, it’s a compromise reached using my principles of right and wrong coupled with and informed by logic and reason. the exceptions which you mentioned can be reasoned out this way – cooking dinner – he does have an alternative, having friends over – if they wish to talk they would not need the volume loud, if they wish to party, there is nothing stopping them from either pre-planning with neighbour consent, or partying at a time when the policy is not in force, daytime hours – would be covered by the daylight music policy i suggested.

i noticed that you didn’t answer how your view of morality could possibly work in this situation, or how, when it would appear the absolutes you suggested are in conflict you could resolve this issue without either abandoning them in preference of reason, or admitting that using absolutes could result in anything but unfair treatment for some.

i also need a bit of clarity – when you argue that my principles are mutually exclusive, do you mean to each other, or to the idea of right + wrong?

Vincent, (Ash, I will get back to your reply later)

There are some assumptions you are making about my beliefs I would like to clarify.

You said, “theists told you that god provides universal right.” Actually, no theist ever told me that. I concluded it myself.

You said, “Since you couldn’t find in anywhere else, you took their word for it.” I never said I took anyone’s word for anything. The only thing I believe is that there is a God. Beyond that, which denomination is closer to understanding God, I have no opinion on. I did say earlier that I practice Christianity, but this doesn’t have to mean I am saying it is better than anyone else’s religion. I don’t know if the New Testament is inspired. I am trying to find God through Christianity. I am not saying this is the best, right, or only way.

You said, “and if you define god based on scripture, you took the word of whoever wrote the book).” I don’t define God based on scripture. To tell the truth, I don’t know what to make of scripture.

You said, “If you have some evidence by which you arrived at faith, I can respect that, even if the evidence would not be sufficient to convince me.”

Here is how I arrived at it, lets see if you respect it.

I have explored, and continue to explore, atheism. In discussions with my friends who are atheist, I have asked myself similar questions they have asked about religion (religions justifying atrocities, who has authority, where is proof, the problem of suffering, authority of scripture etc.)

One conclusion I came to is that in atheism, there is no right and wrong outside of personal preference, no matter how you define right and wrong (absolute, non absolute). In my reasoning, it takes a concept like “God” to make right and wrong exist. No matter how much I think about this, I can not convince myself there is no right and wrong. Since I continue to believe in right and wrong, I continue to believe in God.

In a continued effort to explore atheism, I often ask atheists how they deal with this. The answer I get is that many atheists still do believe that right and wrong exist. The difference I would say between me and you, or me and many (I can’t speak for everyone) atheist is not that I abandon reason, it is that my reason has drawn the conclusion that right and wrong doesn’t exist in any form. It sounds like your reason has drawn the conclusion that right and wrong does exist. I can see then why you don’t believe in God. Can you see why I do if I have drawn that conclusion?

Can you respect that?

The useful thing for me then, is to explore how right and wrong can exist without God. If someone can show me, I might actually become atheist. I am not just saying this, I am being honest.

Whenever I ask atheists to define, or prove the existence of, right and wrong (or admit there is no right and wrong) I often get no answer or a change in conversation. I value everyone here for staying with the blog, and everyone’s continued efforts to explain it to me. I still see people struggling with a definition of right, and struggling to prove it exists. At the same time I still see people refusing to admit it doesn’t exist.

So, I look at your definition: “Right is that which conforms with a principle.” Given the plethora of principles, that is the same to me as saying right is that which conforms to whatever you want. But I see you saying that right is not a matter of personal preference.

I assure you (for whatever my assurances are worth) I am not trying to be obtuse or stubborn; I just don’t understand how you reconcile that right is not personal preference and argue its existence.

One more time, can you tell me what right is, and show me that it exists but is not personal preference? If you can’t, can you explain why you continue to believe it exists?

-Lee (the Theist)

Vincent,

Ok, I’m a little confused. Are you saying:

A) Right does not exist at all.

or that

B) Right by my definition does not exist, but exists in some other form.

If you are saying B, than I want to know what your definition is and why it is different from right being personal preference. You are correct; you don’t have to answer this question. But the burden of proof is on you to answer it, since I am the one saying right doesn’t exist from an atheist perspective.

I keep asking “What is right”

And I keep hearing:

“It’s not what you think it is.”

So what is it then? Your one attempt to define it (that which conforms to a principle) sounded to me like saying right is a matter of personal preference, but you are denying that.

Every time you get close to saying right doesn’t exist, you qualify it by saying “as you define it.” Leave me out of it and tell me what you think.

I keep hearing you say B. Then when pressed for what your definition is, or how it exists in a form that is different from personal preference, you seem to be dodging the question. This is what I keep finding among atheists. I think it is intellectual dishonesty.

Either tell me what right is as you define it, and why it is not personal preference, or admit it doesn’t exist.

Ash,

Thanks for your continued attempts to define right for me (the above comment of atheists dodging the question doesn’t apply to you.)

Can you clarify, what would be the daytime rules that would allow the night time guy to sleep during the day?

Saying it is a compromise assumes the nightshift guy agrees to them. When I view things from his perspective, I don’t think he would agree to them. It seems that others get all the benefit with little sacrifice, and he gets no benefit but makes all the sacrifice. I wouldn’t agree to that, which would result in rules I don’t like being thrust upon me, and I would see lack of respect, lack of social cohesion (by me being separate from them), avoidance of doing harm, and affirmation by others (as I wouldn’t look kindly on them) were not upheld.

I am saying the principles are mutually exclusive, not right and wrong.

For your question: “i noticed that you didn’t answer how your view of morality could possibly work in this situation, or how, when it would appear the absolutes you suggested are in conflict you could resolve this issue without either abandoning them….”

I did try to answer it with this in my above post:
So what would my policy be based on my definition of right? You can play your music whenever you want, as loudly as you want, as long as you don’t think it is disturbing anyone. You should turn it down or off if anyone asks you to.

For the question about absolutes, the only absolute I see is that we should love one another. This rule would satisfy that.

-Lee (the Theist)

Lee,
How do you define personal preference then? You seem to be equating it with principles.
My preference is for dark chocolate, but that does not mean dark chocolate is a principle. Nor does it mean dark chocolate is inherently better than milk chocolate.

You can’t switch the burden on me. You have said right exists. When you present questions you imply that you want a “right” that is always true. I said such a thing does not exist. You say it does, so show it to me.

So, several of us have now said right does not exist (it’s an invisible pink unicorn, perhaps you didn’t get that part of my analogy).

Vincent: I’m no longer participating in this debate, mainly because I have limited access to the internet right now and even less time on my hands. But you have highlighted out another reason. I have articulated in response to Lee what you say above several times–and there are only so many times one can make the same point and be ignored before one can reasonably conclude that one’s interlocutor is not acting in good faith.

Here’s what I said:

Earlier, you said “Without faith it would be more accurate to replace right and wrong with terms describing actions as “legal, illegal, advantageous to survival, detrimental to society, a cause of suffering, against the social contract, etc.”” And I replied that these are what I mean, and I daresay it’s what some others in this discussion mean, by the terms “right and wrong.”

The ineffable, indefinable, theistic, absolutist right and wrong . . . Like yourself, Vincent, I don’t see any evidence that such a thing exists, and therefore I see no reason to believe in it. The burden of proof that such a thing exists remains upon the one who insists that it exists, no matter how earnestly he wishes to avoid it.

It’s bad enough that Lee ignores the very well thought-out contributions of Bruce and Steelman, and then complains that nobody is answering his questions. But he also has the arrogance to accuse us of being “intellectually dishonest” by “dodging” his questions, when in the very next breath he dodges yours.

The topper, though, has to be his repeated strawman: that non-theistic ethics are a matter of taste, and only a matter of taste. Perish the thought that non-theists are not in the control of a Great Non-Theistic Hive Mind and might actually take varying approaches to ethical questions: these varying approaches are for Lee nothing more than evidence that our ethics are based solely on personal preferences–like choosing between Pepsi Max and Coke Zero. (Even if they suggest no such thing.) Nor is it allowed that we might adopt critical thinking in attempting to address questions of ethics.

I’ll give this one last poke.
Lee, what color is an invisible unicorn?
If you tell me they don’t exist, then I say you just are using a different definition of color.

That’s all this discussion is.
I say your 2 is incorrect. I also say your 1 is incorrect because it is circular. You are still using “right” as an absolute. You say if it’s defined any differently, it doesn’t exist even with the new definition. In fact, the new definition does exist but is not absolute. I can’t prove the existence of universal right because I don’t believe in the existence of universal right. Because I believe right is situational does not mean it doesn’t exist. It means universal right doesn’t exist.

I’m sorry you can’t comfortably live in a world of uncertainty.

Lee said to Ash, actually, regarding seat assignments on a lifeboat: “To me, balancing principles is the same as compromising principles. So the only thing I can see as being right are actions done out of love for others, and viewing this as something which can never be compromised and still be right. This requires personal sacrifice. In the life boat example, I think the right thing to do is to give up ones seat and give others a chance, instead of deciding who should be tossed. Anything apart from this might be understandable, but not justified.”

Unless your kids are sitting next to you in that lifeboat, depending on you for their survival, right? The tough nut to crack there is who do we include in the category of “others”, and in whose favor we should commit “actions done out of love” (whatever that may mean). Who to love, how to love them, and how much? I don’t think you offer the same consideration to strangers, in or out of lifeboats, that you do to family members. Otherwise you’d be just as apt to feed, clothe, and send their kids through college as you would your own. Even the most loving theists shouldn’t abandon their familial obligations and behave in that fashion; that would be wrong, yes? Doesn’t giving up your seat in a lifeboat depend on the application of principles beyond just loving others?

Lee said: “Your question about the loud teenagers: “should i love them enough to forego mine? once again, it seems simplicity introduces complexity…” I have no idea, and don’t claim to have answers to complex scenarios.”

This is a complex scenario? It seems the single-principle system of ethics is nearly impossible to apply, even for its most ardent advocate. You say you’re unable to solve such a simple dispute? Am I reading you wrong here? I think the trouble you’re having with this one (and a few others) is that there is no universally right answer. A best possible answer for this particular case, all things considered, a number of principles applied, and compromises offered, but not a universally right one. Otherwise, conflict resolution would be a solely logical enterprise, devoid of emotion on all sides. Without emotion, without desire and preference, there’s no conflict in the first place. Without consideration of desire and preference, how would one resolve the question above? We must rank desires and preferences, and the way such things are ranked may change over time, or with the situation. More on this below.

Lee said to Vincent, regarding the failure of ranking of principles in ethical decision making: “There are countless principles with no system of ranking them, so it would boil down to whatever principle I prefer. Therefore right would be a matter of personal preference, because someone who chose a different principle has no way to prove me wrong. For example, how in the world could anyone ever prove what is more important, survival of the species or respect for others?”

Lee, you do indeed, as you’ve stated a number of times, prefer a certain principle above all others (loving others because it is the will of God). The fact that you’ve chosen this principle beforehand does not rescue you from the heavy lifting of deciding how to apply it, in various situations, in the way you think is best. That is, the way you most prefer to apply this principle in any given situation. It seems none of us can escape from our own preferences when it comes to ethical decisions. Or do you claim that the vague principle on which you base your ethics can be applied in a manner that has nothing to do with what you’d prefer?

I think your puzzling aversion to preference has to do with that, in your mind it seems, preference is defined solely as trivial, capricious whim (e.g. “I prefer chocolate to vanilla, and like helping little old ladies across the street more than murder…usually.”) I think preferences can go well beyond what we choose at a moment of high emotion. I think ethical systems are based on preferences; hopefully, well considered in light of reason and consequences. And even those operating under the same system can arrive at different answers as to what is right or wrong in a given situation. That’s one of the reasons why those Christians who wish to love their neighbors, according to the will of God, are split into hundreds of different sects, regardless of the fact that most of them claim to live by the same overriding principle.

Steelman,

You said: “I don’t think you offer the same consideration to strangers, in or out of lifeboats, that you do to family members. Otherwise you’d be just as apt to feed, clothe, and send their kids through college as you would your own.”

You are correct, I don’t. This doesn’t mean I’m right by not doing so. I fail to love in countless ways every day. To me, love is treating everyone on the planet as equally as yourself. Wrong is when you start thinking of some (including yourself) as more important than others. It might be natural to love family and those close to you more than others, but it does not make it right. Consider this. Many Americans get a lot more upset about reports that American soldiers have died than they do when Iraqi civilians have died. This is understandable, but not right. Would the United Nations see this as right?

You said: “Even the most loving theists shouldn’t abandon their familial obligations and behave in that fashion; that would be wrong, yes?”

Uh, no. It would be a sign of love for me to say that my kids college education is equally as important as everyone else’s. Favoring one’s child’s education is the kind of logic of people who opposed desegregation. “Why should my kid be the one to suffer to help your kid?” Again, understandable, but not right. (I understand there are other reasons for opposing desegregation, I am just using this example.) Loving others is really hard to do, and no one does it all the time, which is why in my theism we are all seen as sinners.

You said: “This is a complex scenario? It seems the single-principle system of ethics is nearly impossible to apply, even for its most ardent advocate. You say you’re unable to solve such a simple dispute? Am I reading you wrong here?”

Yes, you are reading me wrong. It is hard to get in the middle of Ash’s dispute without all of the details. What is important is to act out of love, which is something a person needs to judge for themselves. The barrier is the difficulty of seeing things from another’s perspective. I would argue that most wrongs committed are either failing to see from another’s perspective (blocked by pride, greed, anger, etc.), or simply choosing to do wrong.

You said: “I think the trouble you’re having with this one (and a few others) is that there is no universally right answer.” Well, according to that, then rape is not universally wrong. Kind of a chilling thought. Defend that one.

Monkeymind,

Sorry for not answering your previous post. Its not all that easy to try to respond to multiple different points.

You said: It would help me if you could explain further what you mean here. By “incorporating faith or theistic concepts” , do you mean rewards in the afterlife for sacrifices in this one, or to hear the words “Well done, thou good and faithful servant?” from the Absolute Judge of Right and Wrong? If so, that just seems to be a re-definiton of “gain”.

You make a good point. And hence the question: “If the meek shall inherit the Earth, how meek will they be when they do?”

You could argue that if a theist does “right” it is simply for personal gain. I have no idea what the afterlife is, or what “gains” there are to be had.

I look at it this way. Lets say someone above gave a wonderful definition of right. If I then were to ask: “Why should I do right?” The answer might be something like: “Because if you don’t, bad things will happen.” If I then were to ask, “What if I don’t care if bad things happen, why should I do right?” There really is no answer. This is where my theism comes in. The answer is, because God requires it.

Vincent,

Here is how I see the current debate:

Me: What is right?
You: It’s not what you think it is, its not absolute.
Me: Then does it exist.
You: Yes.
Me: Then what is it?
You: I’ve already told you what right is.
Me: Sorry, I missed that, can you repeat what right is?
You: I told you, it’s not what you think it is. It’s not absolute.
Me: You’ve told me what it isn’t, can you tell me what it is?
etc.

You said: “In fact, the new definition does exist but is not absolute.” I wonder why you won’t tell me what this new definition is?

You are using a word you have no idea how to define. If you did, all of your emails would say: “I told you already, right is defined by…… “ You did this once, saying it is that which gives you a desired outcome, but then you quickly abandoned this.

I have learned from this debate that atheistic arguments commonly involve the terms straw man and pink unicorn. I’ve also learned that the word absolute is used as a smoke screen. “Question: Is there right and wrong? Answer: Not in an absolute sense.” That isn’t answering the question. I think you are the one who can’t bring yourself to say there are no pink unicorns. Why don’t you admit that you do not believe there is a right and wrong? I think it is because you do believe in right and wrong even when logic tells you it isn’t real. A closet theist perhaps?

-Lee (the Theist)

I said to Lee: “I don’t think you offer the same consideration to strangers, in or out of lifeboats, that you do to family members. Otherwise you’d be just as apt to feed, clothe, and send their kids through college as you would your own.”

To which Lee responded in part: “To me, love is treating everyone on the planet as equally as yourself. Wrong is when you start thinking of some (including yourself) as more important than others. It might be natural to love family and those close to you more than others, but it does not make it right.”

There is a practical limit to how many people a person can actually “love,” whatever actions this loving might entail. Human beings can only spread themselves so thin. Can you imagine a man telling his wife that he was late getting home because he needed to love three other ladies down the block equally? From what I understand of Christian family values, a good solid marriage is one of them, and I don’t see how that can be achieved without a husband spending an unequal amount of time with his wife as opposed to others. Yet this is wrong in your book of moral love?

I think you and I have completely parted company when it comes to this particular moral obligation, Lee. I agree with you that it is “natural to love family and those close to you more than others,” but disagree that it is wrong to do so. I’m not sure why you’re advocating unnatural behavior as an ideal. I don’t mean unnatural in the sense of controlling natural impulses to achieve a desired outcome, I mean literally denying a large part of what I think it is to be human. Humans, like most mammals, naturally care almost exclusively for their own young. That’s one of the things that makes more humans possible, yes?

Lee commented further on this subject: “It would be a sign of love for me to say that my kids college education is equally as important as everyone else’s.”

What if parents told their kids they’ve been contributing an equal amount of money to both their college fund and a charity one for disadvantaged children? The result for many parents might be that a number of disadvantaged children would go to college, while their own would be under funded and, due to the parent’s income level, would be unable to benefit from the charity fund. It seems here that loving others is limited by financial resources, and splitting the money up equally results in unequal opportunity (love). Due to external factors, you simply cannot send everyone else’s kids to college. Instead of treating all college bound children equally, perhaps you could contribute less to the charity fund while fully funding your own children’s education (if able). And your own children might use their education, and resulting financial resources, to spread even more love and opportunity (however you think that might best be accomplished).

An even greater limiting factor than finances, when it comes to loving others, is time. You may be able to make more money, but you can never make more time. Each weekday I leave for work before my two small children are up (8hr job, 1hr lunch, 1hr commute each way), and arrive back home 2 hours before their bedtime (8pm). In those two hours I eat dinner with them, talk and listen to them, help the 1st grader with his reading and martial arts practice, read them bedtime stories (which often include aspects that contribute to their academic or moral education), then get them ready for bed (pajamas, tooth brushing, etc.) I then have approximately 2hrs before my own bedtime in which to do daily chores, exercise, prepare for work (pack lunch, lay out clothes, etc.), and spend time with my wife.

Of course, things can happen that break the above routine. Then I have to spend time on the weekend (which has its own set of duties, including spending time giving “love” to people other than my wife and kids) to make up for the regular family obligations which have been neglected due to life’s little interruptions. However, I maintain my routine because I consider it the minimum necessary for having a healthy, happy family. I think this type of family generally has greater potential to do more to help others than one in which the parents are out trying to love everyone else in the world equally.

A counterexample to the good of loving equally: I’ve seen Christians in ministry involve themselves in so many projects, in an attempt to love others, that none of those projects fared well, and their own family suffered from neglect. This isn’t about a sinful lack of moral effort, it’s about the zero sum game of what humans are literally able to do. And I don’t care if you believe you have God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and all the saints helping you out, there are physical and temporal limits to how thin you can spread yourself, and there are consequences to be considered in how you do the spreading.

Lee said: “Favoring one’s child’s education is the kind of logic of people who opposed desegregation. ‘Why should my kid be the one to suffer to help your kid?’ Again, understandable, but not right. (I understand there are other reasons for opposing desegregation, I am just using this example.)”

So you’re basically admitting that you realized opposition to desegregation is a poor example for making your (rather bizarre, I think) point the moment you typed it?

Lee said, regarding the noisy neighbor dispute: “Yes, you are reading me wrong. It is hard to get in the middle of Ash’s dispute without all of the details. What is important is to act out of love, which is something a person needs to judge for themselves.”

It’s a hypothetical situation, Lee. Make up any details you like, and solve the problem using your single, universally applicable, ethical principle. Although, according to your last sentence there, it seems this would involve the preference of the decider (which you eschew), so no universal answer is possible. Everything I said to you in my last post, about the problem of preference in the application of an absolute ethical principle, once again rears its ugly head. How can something be absolute when such absolutes can only be applied in a relative fashion, thereby resulting in non-absolute outcomes? You still haven’t dealt with this problem, and it’s a deal breaker.

Lee quoted me and said: ” ‘I think the trouble you’re having with this one (and a few others) is that there is no universally right answer.’ Well, according to that, then rape is not universally wrong. Kind of a chilling thought. Defend that one.”

By “no universally right answer,” I meant you cannot apply an “absolute” principle in a myriad of situations to always arrive at the same outcome. The idea of absolutism fails. If anyone goes back and reads the rest of the paragraph, from which you pulled my quote, I think it will be abundantly clear to them that that is what I meant. You sidestepped the issue I was presenting (preference) by quoting out of context.

You’ve asked me to explain why rape is wrong in an ethical system that isn’t grounded in concepts of absolute right and wrong. At the end of my 7/14 7:43 pm response I likened the development of social morals to a business model of “best practices” (I’ve corrected a grammatical error in the original):

I think of social morals like the business model of “best practices.” The best practices of today may or may not turn out to be the best ones for tomorrow. Some of those practices may stay the same indefinitely, others may change at the next board meeting (and then continue to be accepted, or later rejected). The ones that stand the test of time unchanged do not continue to do so because they are absolutes, or just because the business owners have faith in them; they are simply the ones that continue to result in success. The difference between practices accepted on faith as absolute, and the best practices that stand the test of time, is that the best practices may be reviewed to determine if they still are indeed the best. This, I think, is how relativists can still be strongly principled without turning to absolutism, which lends itself to authoritarianism.

I would apply the business model by equating “success” with the prevention of unnecessary and non-consensual human suffering. Unless we’re talking about the survival of a small band of prehistoric humans who will cease to exist unless they reproduce, and whose females are all sexually reticent, it would be my desire to place the prevention of human suffering above all other principles, and so be opposed to rape. It is true that members of that prehistoric band might consider their ultimate survival a lesser principle in that scenario, in which case we would be assured that none of us are related to them.

Now, I’ve presented “the prevention of unnecessary and non-consensual human suffering” as one of my strongly held principles. It’s been quite “successful” in meeting the goal of building the type of society in which I (there it is again!) prefer to live, and have my children live in as well, so I’m keeping it for the foreseeable future. If others disagree with my application of this principle in a given situation, I can try to talk them into accepting it through appeals to reason and emotion. The only thing I can’t do, in good conscience, is push my agenda by claiming the right of divine purpose (although I can appeal to the moral agreement of other’s religious beliefs with my position on an issue, even if we agree to disagree about the metaphysical origins of our shared moral stance).

Could it be said that I’m holding this as an absolute principle? In the sense of it being universally applicable, no; “unnecessary” opens it up to subjective interpretation. In the sense of it being objectively true, regardless of differing opinions (i.e., a moral fact), no; I have no reason to believe that any moral principles exist outside of human minds. We make the rules. We make them in response to outside influences, and our genetic predispositions, but human beings are solely responsible for their formulation and application. In your “system” (and, sorry, I fail to see even a hint of any actual system) God formulates the rules correctly, and human beings always apply them incorrectly. It seems the fix is in, and humanity has been played the fool, since they’ve been designed to be incapable of hitting the moral mark. But I digress…

Look, Lee, you’re welcome to follow the path of the bodhisattva if you like. And as long as you weren’t neglecting your family by doing so, then I’d say more power to you. Otherwise, and to put it back in the Christian paradigm:

“Some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.”
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

i’ll start with the hard one…

I still think you are sidestepping the rape issue. Is rape universally wrong?

Steelman’s answer;

Unless we’re talking about the survival of a small band of prehistoric humans who will cease to exist unless they reproduce, and whose females are all sexually reticent, it would be my desire to place the prevention of human suffering above all other principles, and so be opposed to rape.

i’d go with the fact that rape is now universally unjustified in terms of survival of species (the only one of my reasons that could possibly apply to oppose wrong) due to technological advance (ie species propogation now available with artificial insemination), therefore there is no reasoning to justify rape as morally right. i’d also throw in the idea of statutory rape…2 kids, both 15 (i’m going by english law BTW), both consenting, both responsible in that they used contraception etc…the male is arrested, charged + convicted of rape. now i see that as morally wrong, but the law + any member of society without the facts see him as a rapist. to confuse things further, you could also introduce beastiality, but i really don’t want to go there…!

Lee I am not asking for a formula by which all prime numbers in the world can be derived, I am just asking for a definition of prime.
Vincent Right is that which promotes a principle.
Principles are prioritized according to the situation you are in.

i’d say Vincent has given a definition of right here, no he hasn’t qualified it at all, but Lee has said again and again that he didn’t need to

Lee, the biggest problem here is that we’re coming at the same conversation from completely different purposes, you appear to be saying that you view right and wrong as tangible concepts that exist whether there is a concious mind to observe them or not, i and others view right and wrong as concepts that exist only as inventions of a concious mind. as such, principles of right and wrong can only be relative, to the situation, to the beholder, to the judged etc. as yet, i’ve heard plenty of things to support my view, but nothing to even start convincing me of the way you view these concepts. i know you keep saying that by my view, you can prove right + wrong don’t exist, but i see nothing to prove that your right + wrong exist either. so should we just take these concepts as given and focus on how we understand them?

to pick up on a much earlier point, i have actually heard the suicide bomber ‘done out of love for others’ argument – that is that not only are westerners worshipping the wrong god, but they live and worship in the wrong way, risking the eternal damnation of their souls; a minority of both sides should be willing to pay with their lives in order to bring the majority to their senses, and therefore allow more to be saved; nothing but love for their god and their fellow man compels them to become instruments for that love. totally sick in my view, but arguably following both ‘do as you would be done by’ (i would wish to be saved from hell) and ‘everyone should love each other’ (i am willing to die for your sake).

Words can’t have shifting definitions. Everyone disagrees on what they consider to be art, but everyone can still agree on a definition of art.

ok, here’s a simple one – please define ‘art’ for me without referring to an example of it…?

If you tell him it is wrong to hurt people, he will say “Why is it wrong to hurt people?” You have no answer, unless you appeal to some base by saying “it’s just wrong.”

i could actually have a convo with him regarding why i felt it was wrong based on logic and reasoning. however, if i had to resort to an absolutist base of ‘because it’s wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong…’, what stops him from just asking ‘why?’ once more?

temporal limits don’t equate to less love.

no, but try telling the iraqi child that you have never seen, that has never heard of you, and has not benefitted from your vote or money that you love them as much as your american son at home that you spend time with and money on…and then explain to them how the temporal effects don’t really mean as much as your love…and maybe then forgive them for their disbelief.

the ‘no pain’ vs ‘survival’ party theory, for me, just illustrates why my principles do not have to be mutually exclusive and why the ranking of such principles cannot be set in stone. no pain is desirable as an individual would not wish it to be so for themselves; this is a good argument based on reason. for the survivalist point, they would have to prove that this method is a) the best method and b) would actually produce the desired results, for it to be a truly reasoned logical argument. if this cannot be proved, then though the point would still be valid and could be used as part of the reasoning involved in reaching a decision, in this particular case it would count less in deciding right than the more logical argument of the no pain principle.

the counter example would be this; 2 political parties – ‘love each other #1′ and ‘love each other #2′. #1 believes medical experimentation on death row inmates should be allowed because it will help all those currently suffering, they further believe that if they had done harm to others such as the inmates had, they would wish to atone by loving others in this way. #2 believes medical experimentation on death row inmates should not be allowed because their love for those who are suffering should not impose further suffering on others, regardless of any previous wrongdoing committed.

So it would seem that medical experimentation on death row inmates is both right and wrong depending on who is viewing it. It seems a matter of personal preference.

***********************

re; the terrorist issue –

although i’d agree with you in the majority of cases (and i’m not just talking about those in america), i do believe that some islamic extremists act out of genuine concern for others, just as i believe that some fundamentalist christians are prompted by the same motivations. this is not to say i appreciate the words or actions of either, however…!

Wow! You folks have gone chasing rabbits on this topic. I suppose that means that no progress was being made on the original question. I see that Lee is still typing his excessively long rejoinders and that he is being surrejoined by the faithful handful. Thinking deeply about morality is useful so long as it does not become too abstract. I think the meta-commentary on this thread is more interesting and useful than the topics discussed so far.

Lee:

Let me propose an example to test your immutable Law of Love.

Let’s say that a young woman has an opportunity to attend a prestigious college a thousand miles away from her parents. Her parents are strongly opposed. They feel that women don’t need to go to college, but should stay at home until they are married. In this way, they will be protected and safe from all the dangers of the world.

Furthermore, let’s say that the daughter wants to study fashion design (the most frivolous occupation I can think of) and the far-away college she has won a scholarship to is the top school for fashion design. She would be virtually guaranteed a job in a very competitive field is she attended this college. Her reasons for wanting to go away to college are that it will be interesting and fun and she really, really loves designing clothes. No altruism there, just a desire for self-fulfillment.

The parents are completely convinced that their view of the duties of parental love is the only correct one. The daughter also believes that their love for her is sincere. If the daughter accepted your idea of love as the only moral imperative, she would have to stay home and forgo her chance of self-fulfillment, correct?

Lee, final points before i abandon this thread (i think most points have been made and argued pretty well already).

So, what now. The Survival party and No Pain part both have strong arguments given their principles.

now we’d have to look at all the other lines of reasoning i suggested and see whether they gave any further rationale to add to the decision, the correct moral decision would then be the one that concurred with most of these guidelines, was guided by historical precedents, was influenced by instinctual examples, etc. i do not believe that right and wrong are already tangible concepts that we can just stumble across by any method. the art definition you gave exemplifies this for me; the definition means as little as ‘that which is desirable’ means to you as a definition of right and wrong; it may define a word, but gives absolutely no meaning to it’s content. ie by this definition, art is butter, a tree, a bird, marshmallows etc. does this mean there either is no art? or that art does not exist? or that art is already there, just waiting to be discovered by an artist? i would say not, and that its similarity lies to right and wrong in that it is a man-made/defined reality. i hope i have made the way i view these concepts clear to you.

i also feel that arguing from an absolutist stance is possibly more open to abuse than moral relativism – with relativism, one has to argue the point from a logical reasonable base, and seek agreement/comprehension from another by appeals to the same. with absolutism, one proposes that there is only one right answer, so with less/no room for compromise, by appeals to a higher authority that no-one can argue with. if we’re talking about government, i would always rather one that had to prove it was right on any moral issue, than one that claimed it was right and any disagreement was heresy.

anyhoo, i’ve appreciated you being polite, honest + reasonable. cheers for the discussion x

It does appear that we have come to a close.

Ash, I also thank you for your honest answers and non-judgmental tone. Your answers, and the answers of others, have helped shape my thoughts.

Monkeyman, I very much agree with your closing statement:

“The discussion of what constitutes the Good, the True and the Beautiful has been going on for a long time, and I for one find it hopeful that these questions remain open, and that the search for ways to resolve the tensions between various competing values goes on through the process called civilization.”

Even though I believe that the Good exists as an absolute, admitting that I don’t know what it is can still leave me as open to ideas and rational discourse as any atheist. I hope that atheists can find a way to view theism as not necessarily mutually exclusive with being open and flexible.

As it does a good job of expressing my thoughts on the difference between atheism and theism, I will close with a quote from Michael Gearson:

“None of this amounts to proof of God’s existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement — which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature — imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold. This form of “liberation” is like liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean. In this kind of freedom, something dies.”

-Lee (the Theist)

Even though I believe that the Good exists as an absolute, admitting that I don’t know what it is can still leave me as open to ideas and rational discourse as any atheist. I hope that atheists can find a way to view theism as not necessarily mutually exclusive with being open and flexible.

Or as closed to rational discourse. I think rational discourse has to include considering the possibility that you are wrong. Atheists and Theists can be equally dogmatic. Admitting you don’t know what absolute good is, you are only partly open to ideas. You have closed out the idea that there is no absolute good.