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.

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)

In my example of the parents who didn’t want their daughter to go away to college, let’s say that their fears they expressed weren’t amenable to reasoning, because they were in fact rationalizations of their desire for control. My point was that in a society where “love” is characterized as acting out of concern for others, and is seen as the highest or indeed the only value, manipulators will always have the upper hand unless there is a concept of fairness and justice to balance the concept of “love as acting out of concern for others first”.
In this case regardless of the rights and wrongs, the daughter knows that she will cause her parents much pain by going away to college. My concern is that in your universe, the daughter would not only have the pain of a break with her parents, but also the burden of sinning against “God’s will,” unless her worldview is balanced by the idea that fairness demands that everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness or self-fulfillment.

I think the reason you have a sense of right and wrong, is that we all have an innate sense of empathy for others, and an innate sense of fairness. You can see this in very young children. These capacities can be developed or suppressed, in our society, most people agree that they should be developed.

You seem to have some anxieties about moral choices being debated by people who may have different opinions about how different moral principles might be ranked, etc. It’s hard to envision an alternative, however, since even those who believe they have insight into the will of God come to different conclusions about what to do about various social questions. In such a discussion, it seems like the most important thing is to decide HOW the question will be discussed, so that all the interested parties (which includes all citizens for the most important questions before society) have a voice in the discussion. And it seems to me to be a fair condition of an open discussion like this, that no one can make the claim that “this is how it must be, because God told us so.” Everyone in the discussion should be able to phrase their particular view in universal terms. This is in fact the premise of discourse ethics, developed by Jurgen Habermas and others.

With regard to your Survival party vs. the No Pain party, in the first place, the scenario is implausible because I doubt there would be much medical benefit from experimenting on such a non-representative population. I think the best argument against the Survival Party is through the accepted prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, from the standpoint that the state’s power to punish must be limited within strict bounds for the health of society as a whole.

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.

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

For those who are interested in continuing this, I will be back on Monday. I realize that this has gone on for a long time, but I have found it helpful. I can understand that at some point the utility of this post is lost.

I want to refocus my question, then I will try to respond to everyone.

If I had to boil down my point to one question, it would be to ask how atheists rank the value of opposing principles (survival of the species, avoidance of suffering) when they are in conflict. If they can not be ranked, it seems that right and wrong become a matter of opinion.

I think this question is best illustrated in the medical experimentation of death row inmate example, so I will state it again, and would appreciate some perspective on it.

There are two political parties. The “No pain” party believes that the prevention of human suffering is the most important principle. The “Survival” party, which believes survival of the species, is the most important principle. A law is proposed to do forced (non-consented) medical experimentation on death row inmates. The “No pain” part argues that it is wrong because it is causing more suffering. The “Survival” party argues that the benefits derived to society will far outweigh the suffering, which is less important. If the “No pain” party and the “Survival” party never bend on their principles, than it seems to me right and wrong either don’t exist, or becomes a matter of personal preference.

To ash,

You said: “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”

So lets say that the “Survival” party could prove that this is the best method and would produce the desired results. I say this because it is true it would be the most effective method of research. Progress is quick when researching lab rats. You can give them diseases, study drug toxicity, biopsy organs at any given time to test drug effect / adverse effect. When you move to humans it becomes incredibly slow. The trial has to be safe, severely limiting what can be studied. Randomized placebo controlled trials require at least the standard of care for the placebo arm (ie, no cancer trails can be done with just placebo anymore as it would be unethical), require recruitment and voluntary enrollment, require constant preliminary review of results and terminating the study early if harm is shown…. I can go on. Treat humans like rats, you’ll have a quick answer. Want to know if Estrogen replacement is really good or bad for women, it would take about six months. We will likely never know with current ethical retrospective observational data in humans.

So, what now. The Survival party and No Pain part both have strong arguments given their principles. Is it even possible to decide who is right? Isn’t this saying right is a matter of preference?

For the example you pose of people who might think that loving death row inmates could be interpreted as forcing them to be involved in experiments for atonement. It can easily be shown that atonement has to be voluntary. A forced apology is not an apology, forced atonement is not atonement.

Regarding the argument that some extremists might be acting out of love for others, I would still argue that that rare person is still either 1) Blinded by pride, which blocks them from perspective viewing, or 2) Mentally Ill, which brings up a whole new topic as to what extent the mentally ill (schizophrenic) is responsible for their actions.

I realized I did not answer your previous question to define art. “Art: That which produces pleasure by nature of its form, substance, or style.”

To Steelman,

I understand that was your last post, and I would like to say thanks for exploring some ideas with me. Since that was your last post, I will ask only rhetorical questions, with no need to respond.

You said:
“So, stealing is both right and wrong, depending on perspective and information, and you find a consistency in this?”

Nope, it’s not what I am saying. When Newton proposed the laws of gravity, from his perspective they seemed correct. Einstein and others later noticed they didn’t predict planetary motion, and motions of objects at high speed. Now we have relativity theory that does. Newton was incorrect. I do not think of him as being correct back then, but incorrect now. He was incorrect then. Einstein is also probably incorrect. Their theories are incomplete, but the correct theory does exist.

There is a right and wrong for stealing. To determine it, you have to judge things equally from all perspectives. We are limited in our ability to do it, but if we want to get closer to right and wrong we have to keep trying, and allow for modifications as we get more information. Recognizing human limitations does not mean love as a principle is wrong.

I lot of your argument against love being a good judge for right and wrong seems to stem from the fact that I don’t do it. I’ll respond to that by saying that you are correct, I don’t do it. I am selfish. I still think this is wrong.

To the concept of love being equated with time, you said: “It impacts how much you are able to love them.” I don’t agree with equating love with action.

Are you saying a stay at home father loves their children more than you, a father with out of home employment?

I agree we can’t do everything for everyone. But I disagree that just because we aren’t there for everyone it means we can’t love them equally. It is indifference that is wrong, not lack of omnipotence.

To the issue of you continuing to argue it is ok for one to love ones family more than others. You seemed to backtrack.

In the father on the medical board letting his son in example, you argue against nepotism by saying: “I could include another aspect of my own self-interest, my goal of building the type of society I would want to live in (and the real fact that my actions entail the actual building of that society),” Sounds like you are backtracking. Sounds like you are putting the interest of others at least equal to those of your child. People have shown favoritism in this way (nepotism) for hundreds of years without the downfall of society, yet you still argue against it. Sounds like you are admitting you shouldn’t look at your own family as more important than the rest of society. Now it is my turn to say you are doing a fine job at arguing my point.

You said: “the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’m really having a hard time believing you live by this principle of equal love.” And “I can only conclude that I’ve either completely misunderstood you, that you’ve been totally disingenuous about what you actually believe and do.”

I’m not sure I understand this logic. I am not too good at quantum mechanics, that doesn’t mean quantum mechanics doesn’t exist. I fail to love on a daily basis in countless ways. Instead of saying this means loving everyone equally isn’t right, I see that I am a flawed human being, selfish, a sinner to use a religious term.

You said: “No matter how many times I’ve explained it, you can’t seem to get your head around the idea of employing both logic and emotion in decision making. Which, by the way, is exactly what I think you actually do in practice”

I agree with you. Love is determined with emotion, hence the question “How would you feel if that were you.” Logic is needed to ask the question of how everyone will view a situation, and to suppress unhelpful emotions such as anger and pride.

You said: “you can’t have morality without desire.”

Yes, if you believe that than perhaps we do agree after all. Every “ought” requires a “if.” You need to want something to know what the “ought” should be. If a person has no desire, you can’t tell them what they “should” do. There is no right. It is only with a theistic concept, an idea that no matter what a person desires, they should love others, that you can do this.

You said: “your seeming insistence that you’re some kind of faith-based robot who can’t make his own decisions.”

If that is your impression of me, or faith, then perhaps this purpose of this blog was lost.

My impression of you is that you do make your ethical decisions based on the principle of love, and the idea that people “should” love others no matter what their desire. Hense your imperative of non-suffering.

Monkeymind,

Ok, I’ll address your scenario.

Love, in part, is doing what is in another’s best interest.

If the parents are making a decision to protect their daughter from danger, than the best thing to do is explore what the danger is. An honest exploration of the dangers at the far away college (crime rate, homicide rate, etc.) and comparing it to their home town will likely show it is no different. Hence the parents will change their mind.

If the parents are making their decision because women don’t need to go to college, then the best thing is an analysis of why they feel that way. If they are able to view things from their daughter’s perspective, they will see her as equal to men. They will also see that it will cause her happiness, and will want that for her.

Now will you answer my political scenario at the beginning of this post?

-Lee (the Theist)

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?

So, stealing is both right and wrong, depending on perspective and information, and you find a consistency in this? What if the landowner wasn’t hoarding food, he was just going about his business as the formerly wealthy, now starving, person was doing previously? Still okay to show love by stealing? What about the person who holds to the absolute principle that stealing is always wrong? It seems you’re now arguing in favor of preference in assessing morality. I think we all can stop spending so much time refuting your absolutism now that you’re doing such a fine job of it yourself.

Lee said: “There might be a limit on how much time you can spend with other people, but this doesn’t impact whether you love them. Limiting time isn’t the same as limiting love.”

It impacts how much you are able to love them. Remember, you were talking about loving all people equally. Are you saying that you can demonstrate this belief of yours by actually doing more for your family than others, and then telling the rest of the world that you’re just thinking about them? I continue to find it (mildly) interesting how you introduce concepts as morally necessary (e.g. do as you’d be done by, equal love), then drop them when they prove to be indefensible.

Lee said: “If you were pulled away from your kids for a year, lets say to go off to Iraq or because of an illness, does that mean you love them less?”

You’re proving my point about the impossibility of equal love. I would be there for my kids if those extenuating circumstances you propose weren’t preventing it. The extenuating circumstance that keeps anyone from loving all others equally is that of being human. There aren’t enough hours in the day for anyone to even think of each individual person on the globe, let alone be able to actually do something for all of them. Therefore, equal love seems practically impossible. My Christian ministry example shows why it is also inadvisable; it takes love away from one’s own family, which I think is the stronger moral obligation (I know you disagree with that).

There’s more suffering in the world than I can ever even know about, and I can’t love (or even think about) everyone equally, so I have to settle for picking a cause or two and doing something about it. That’s my take on loving others.

Lee said: “Figuring out what is right and wrong involves getting information to judge things from all perspectives.”
…and…
“So much of right has to do with viewing things from other’s perspective, and so much of wrong comes from when we are unwilling, or make an error, in doing so.”

It seems we’re back to “do as you’d be done by.” You are able to view things from another’s perspective because you think about how they feel, yes? You apply “do as you’d be done by” by thinking about how you would feel if someone did to you the thing you’re considering doing to them, right? It seems to me that what’s going on here is not just a gathering of information, but a consideration of preferences, in order to assess right and wrong. More on this later.

Lee said: “If I am on the board at a medical school, are you saying it is ok for me to grant my child acceptance, slip him in the back door because I love him more than other people’s children?”

I could consider my desire to help my son, along with the short and long term consequences of breaking the rules (I might lose my job, and my son his future opportunities). I could include another aspect of my own self-interest, my goal of building the type of society I would want to live in (and the real fact that my actions entail the actual building of that society), when considering if I’d find it desirable to have a medical board that I couldn’t trust to admit only qualified students. In this case it seems using personal preference, to arrive at a self-centered view on this question, gives me the answer I think you would consider right (i.e., “no”).

Lee quotes me here and responds below:

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.

Lee said: “You are correct, we have parted company.”

So, since you believe you should love everyone equally, when it comes to deciding between the welfare of your children and the welfare of strangers you have no preference? If you only had enough money to buy food for your kids or for the homeless guy that just showed up on your doorstep, what would you do? Flip a coin? Unless you’re just paying lip service to this ideal of loving everyone equally, (and considering some of the things you’ve said since about just thinking of others, rather than taking action, I think you might be) your kids can’t trust you to care for them any more than you would a stranger. I wonder if they’d prefer to be raised like many of their friends; by someone who loves them more than some random person off the street? Maybe your kids are on board with your version of morality, and they have no greater love for you than the guy who feeds the pigeons in the park, so they might as well spend as much time with him as they would you. Sorry, Lee, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’m really having a hard time believing you live by this principle of equal love.

Lee quotes me here and responds below:

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 said: “Ok, I’ll defend my definition of right.
I say, right is that which one should do. Everyone, no matter who you are or what you desire, should love each other. I can say that because I think God requires that we do it.
So, in essence, love is the judge of right and wrong.”

Lee, I completely fail to see how your response addresses my question in any way. Using love to judge right and wrong is dependent on a person’s interpretation of that word in any given situation. Their interpretation depends on what they prefer to call love according to their desires. Don’t you personally first have to desire, to prefer, to do what God requires to be moral? It seems desire, and the preference it entails, is an integral part of morality. People have to care about right and wrong to even begin to consider whether their actions might fit in one category or the other. They then have to care about, have preferences for or against, different parties and positions on issues. An example:

A police officer arrives at a domestic dispute call where a man is pointing a gun at a woman. The man refuses repeated commands by the officer to drop the weapon, is highly agitated, and says he’s going to kill her. The officer believes that the commission of a homicide is imminent and, according to the law and police procedure, the use of lethal force is justified. He cannot love both parties in the dispute equally, he cannot consider both human lives of equal value, it is his duty to shoot and kill the man. His desire to uphold the law, and protect the innocent party, exceeds his desire not to kill. He’s not putting desire aside in this moral decision, he is favoring one desire over another.

Lee said: “So, if someone holds that survival of the species is more important than prevention of human suffering, do you seem them as wrong, or as having a different preference? If you see them as having a different preference, it seems to mean that right is a matter of personal preference.”

Personal preference is a factor, but not the only factor, in determining right and wrong. Having any position at all on an issue entails preference, yes? You can arrive at that preference out of prejudice and ignorance, or from a well informed and reasonable perspective, but you can’t even want to resolve a moral question unless you have a desire to do so. Again, you can’t have morality without desire.

You seem stuck on believing that non-absolutist morality is either solely based on heartless logic and reason, or capricious desire alone. Emotion provides the impetus to make moral decisions, reason tempers emotion’s ability to cause human beings to act without considering consequences. No matter how many times I’ve explained it, you can’t seem to get your head around the idea of employing both logic and emotion in decision making. Which, by the way, is exactly what I think you actually do in practice, despite your seeming insistence that you’re some kind of faith-based robot who can’t make his own decisions.

With that, I’m done posting in this thread (I swear!). I’ve appreciated your responses as they’ve helped me explore my own thoughts on morality according to Lord Acton’s aphorism: “Learn as much by writing as by reading.”

Unfortunately, I’m still not sure what to think about your professed moral stance(s), and I doubt further discussion will clarify it for me. I can only conclude that I’ve either completely misunderstood you, that you’ve been totally disingenuous about what you actually believe and do, or you do believe what you say and are therefore a confused and untrustworthy individual.