This is a response to a post by Randy on his blog, on my views on morality:
Thank you for your comments and questions.
It should be noted that I've published an update to my views on morality at this location. You might look over that and see if it changes anything in your response. The main revision is that I've conceded that my view of morality is in fact subjective, but then, by the same criteria I'm using, so's everyone's. This includes you; since you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which ones to reject, your morality is no more objective than mine.
Followers of the Bible like to hold it up as an infallible moral guide for all humanity for all time, written by an all-knowing, all-powerful deity. However, if this were true, every follower of the Bible would have the same view of morality, which they clearly don't.
I can hear you now: It's because we're imperfect humans who, with our limited capacities, are unable to discern with complete precision what God expects from us. But if God were all-powerful, he could have made these expectations crystal-clear in such a way that even the most imperfect human could understand them. The fact that he didn't do that is a failing on the part of God (or would be, if he existed).
So until you get God's instructions right, your morality is no more objective than mine is. Let me know if there's anyone you think has it perfect, so we can examine their beliefs.
On the points you've made:
"Suffering is kind of the basic bad thing."
"Where did we get the idea that respect for private property is a moral principle? "
"Shiftless bums, fundamentalist Christians, NY Yankee fans, do we really care about all their suffering the same way?"
To all of these points, I say: You don't agree? Please explain how your view of morality differs.
"We hate sexual morality because it might cause somebody somewhere to suffer by denying themselves certain pleasures."
I should have been more clear that I meant inflicting suffering on others. If you want to suffer yourself, go for it; I have no problem with that.
"Is this really a moral dilemma? That would see to be a weakness of a moral system if that is really true. Defending your wife is clearly the moral thing to do."
Is it fair to say, then, that you believe pacifism is immoral? Doesn't that put you into conflict with Jesus's "turn the other cheek" teaching?
"Why isn't he asking whether legal pot or illegal pot causes less suffering?"
I have; it doesn't. Suffering hasn't increased in any area that's legalized it.
"If a majority feel something is so immoral it should be illegal then that is enough whether their opinion comes from the majority religion or not. I do feel respecting minority rights is important but there is a limit. Where that limit should be set is something that should be decided democratically."
I only agree to a point. I've heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Part of the beauty of the American system is that the courts protect the rights of minorities.
Since I've taken the position that morality is subjective, I expect that you will probably come back with a defense of objective morality. If so, please establish that such a thing exists in the first place; then we'll have something to compare with the subjective morality I believe everyone has.
Hi DVD,
ReplyDeleteYou still don't have the definitions of subjective and objective straight.
The main revision is that I've conceded that my view of morality is in fact subjective, but then, by the same criteria I'm using, so's everyone's. This includes you; since you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which ones to reject, your morality is no more objective than mine.
This is not true. Subjective means what is immoral for me might not be immoral for you. It does not mean what I think is immoral might not be what you think is immoral. That is always going to be the case.
Objective morality says what people think is immoral is not the most important thing. What is actually immoral is what matters. That is completely independent of anyone's opinion.
Why does it matter? If morality is a matter of opinion then who's opinion should count? The majority? Whoever is in charge? For example, should we go to a Muslim nation and pressure them to educate their girls as well as their boys? Is our moral outrage at girls being denied schooling just our opinion or is it objective? Does it apply to Muslims who don't agree?
To all of these points, I say: You don't agree? Please explain how your view of morality differs.
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point again. I agree with your conclusions. I just want to know how you arrived at them. How would you defend these ideas when they are challenged? If someone argues that society would be better off without a certain ethnic or religious group then what is the principle that says they cannot do that? I mean we are already imprisoning Muslims in Gitmo and killing them with drone attacks all without trial.
BTW, I hate you comment section. Too much security. I prefer to talk on my blog where it is wide open.
I would defend the ideas exactly the way I have: ask if the other person disagrees and find the reasons for the disagreement, and address those.
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say that killing certain ethnic groups violates the consciences of most civilized people. If I'm wrong, I'd again want to know the reasons people felt that way. I certainly believe that such a thing would be wrong, because I don't view any ethnic group as inferior to any other.
Now let me ask you the same question. In the Old Testament, God orders the eradication of a number of ethnic groups, and his followers to happy to comply. Were they morally justified in doing so? If not, what principle are you applying to say they were not?
Sorry about the security on the comments section. I'd love to have it be wide open as well, but abuse by your fellow Christians has forced my hand.
I agree that we differ somewhat on the definitions of objective and subjective, so let me ask you about the ones you're using. Again, I refer you to the Old Testament, specifically Numbers 31. Was it morally right for God's followers to wipe out a civilization, kill its male children and take its female virgins as sex slaves (I know it doesn't say that specifically, but come on, did God expect them to hook virgin girls up to plows and make the work the fields?) If so, is it morally right for us to do the same in today's world? If the answer is no, then morality is subjective by the definition you've offered (it was right for them but not for us).
ReplyDeleteIf there is such a thing as objective morality, what are the criteria for determining what is objectively moral, since we've seen that the Bible contains widely conflicting moral instructions?
"Why does it matter? If morality is a matter of opinion then who's opinion should count? The majority? Whoever is in charge?"
To live together in societies, we have to come up with ways of working these questions out. I personally like the American system (it's not perfect, but it's better than any other I've seen), in which the majority decides on the rules and the courts protect the rights of minorities.
"For example, should we go to a Muslim nation and pressure them to educate their girls as well as their boys? Is our moral outrage at girls being denied schooling just our opinion or is it objective? Does it apply to Muslims who don't agree?"
I personally think we should not. If that's how they want to run their society, then great. If enough people within that society want a change, they'll rise up and make that happen, as we've seen in Muslim nations over the last couple of years.