Over at Massimo Pigliucci's place, a conversation has started on the subject of morals, and how philosophers can decide for once and all what our moral rulings should be, if any. The comments are a hoot, with only one questioning the outright rejection of absolute morals. Massimo makes the common error which he has made before – using Einstein’s Special Relativity theory as support for moral relativism, two concepts which are diametrically opposite. When he is finally cornered on this he does the usual no-responsibility dance. Massimo is not good at being shown up and taking it graciously, and by "not good" I mean it just hasn’t happened while I’ve been there.
It is a very interesting read, especially the comments. Many commenters have their own ethical mule to beat, and the whole discourse, taken as a whole, demonstrates philosophy at its best, which is a pot full of egos trying to dominate a no-win game.
The overall conclusion can’t be avoided: ethics and moral rules are totally relative when not absolute. Each philosopher has a set which he likes best, and it is so unlikely that the entire community can agree on a single “reasoned” set that it is obvious upon inspection that ethical relativity is here to stay, because no other ethic will ever gain total agreement.
And within the conversation on ethics arose the term “mental masturbation” which Massimo used to describe Nihilism (in the comments, when he fights to defend his position for not considering Nihilism in his list of possible ethical outcomes). Because he thinks Moral Nihilism is ridiculous, he ridicules it as Mental Masturbation. At this point the conversation gets a little rocky, as it is obvious that the philosopher has arbitrarily eliminated an ethical outcome which he doesn’t care much for: Mental Masturbation, he defines it. At one point in the conversation Massimo asserts that it's his blog, he can do whatever he wants. He hears positive or neutral comments and rankles at negative criticism.
From an outsider’s perspective there is little reason to declare future agreement for entire exercise of a group of “thinkers” who believe that they can dictate ethical precepts by merely thinking them through and coming to a rational agreement amongst their elitist selves. The bottom line is still the same: if absolute moral rules are rejected, then those who reject the absolutes are absolutely free to make up their own morals. And it is virtually guaranteed that there will be no agreement amongst the elites, except that absolutes are rejected.
And what remains really is Mental Masturbation, by all parties who participate in redefining ethics to suit their own tastes. For example, Massimo favors the following:
"Moral reasonism (for lack of a better term): If assumptions {W,Z} are accepted, then X is right / wrong.
The problem here, of course, is with the assumptions {W,Z} which are not absolute and therefore are relative to the ethicist, who might change his mind at any time with any mood swing. So W and Z are products of Mental Masturbation.
21 comments:
if absolute moral rules are rejected...
Can you give us some examples of these absolute moral rules?
--said,
I was wondering if you viewed Martin's "Aquinas' First Way".
I'm curious to hear your response.
Absolute Moral Rules include:
Do Not Lie
Do Not Murder
Do Not Steal
Do Not Commit Adultry
Do Not Blaspheme
It is always morally wrong to disobey these rules.
No Other Name,
Where did you get these moral rules?
Can you make a positive case? What actions are absolutely morally correct?
Do you think "murder" might be a tautology since the word means "wrongful killing"?
Do you think theft might be a tautology since the word means "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another"?
If a rule is absolute, it is not arguable with semantic nit picking. The real question is whether an Atheist can justify his rejection of any and or all absolutes. When an Atheist attacks the semantics or other details of specific absolutes, he is ignoring the fact that they are considered absolute and therefore beyond question. So his job is to provide an unassailable case which proves without any doubt that absolutism cannot be the case.
Therefore, attacking the particulars is a demonstration only of the subjective relativity within which the Atheist lives and the slippery, relativistic logic with which he is encumbered. It is the concept of “absolute” which the Atheist must deal, because that is actually what he cannot accept.
Perhaps the Atheist will resort to the idea of “which absolutes” do we accept and which can we reject. For the Atheist, this is an impossible conundrum. However, for the Theist, discernment of false ideologies vs. truth is based on the absolute foundations (axioms) of logic and rationality – which Atheists in general also reject (Massimo has written on this). This rejection leads to relativity in logic as well as in ethics. In fact, the relativity in Atheist logic is absolutely guaranteed, because they agree to no absolutes.
The Moral Rules are from GOD. He didn't only tell you in the Bible but wrote them on your heart.
You know that telling a lie is always wrong. You know to not steal. You know wrong to murder. And everything.
They are wrong and always wrong becaus e GOD said so and because they show His Character. He will not lie. If you lie He must punish you. All have fallen short.
No Other Name,
While I appreciate your enthusiasm I don't think that your approach is helpful in the sense that Atheists cannot be persuaded by principles at your level of belief. Your level, wherein the existence of a Theistic Deity is presumed, is far above the level of argumentation that we do here.
Atheists will recoil at the presupposition of the existence of a deity for a number of reasons, none of which are logical but all of which presuppose that a deity does not exist. And if a deity does not exist per their expectations (however irrational), then making declarations for the deity is totally ineffectual.
What this blog does is to address the illogic and irrationality which infests Atheism, and to do that, logical processes need to be shown thoroughly and accurately.
Your type of argument does not serve to provide any path of entry into the Atheist worldview, it merely alienates them even more.
If truth operates at the supernatural level, then it also operates at the natural level. The natural level is the thrust of this conversation, and the blog itself.
No Other Name,
I've got some things for you to think about.
You say it is always wrong to lie. What if that lie saved someone from being murdered? Would the lie still be wrong?
Is doing what is right still right if you are doing it to avoid punishment?
And an old famous question - is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
(---)said,
“You say it is always wrong to lie. What if that lie saved someone from being murdered? Would the lie still be wrong?”
It is actually stated thus: Do not give false witness against your neighbor. Once you have rationalized the misuse of truth, you have wandered off into relativity where each situation warrants only your opinion, no messy rules which inhibit untruthful behaviors. Personal criteria are no substitute for valid rules for behavior.
”Is doing what is right still right if you are doing it to avoid punishment?”
This is a trick question coming from a “thought crime” mentality. The original laws address proper behaviors; subsequent covenants address positive motivations in a positive light.
”And an old famous question - is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
This is the fatally flawed Euthyphro’s Dilemma which falsely poses as having only two choices. The proper answer is here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/Euthyphro%20Dilemma
False dilemmas abound in ethical circles. A favorite is the supposed conundrum, should I sacrifice three old people to save one young person due to the differential in their values to society? Or save three old people rather than just one person even if he is young? This dilemma ignores the other solutions, one of which is to try one's best to save all the lives.
Atheists would do well to research both sides of a problem before submitting them here. At least scan the right column to see if the issue is addressed there before coyly presenting it here as unsolvable.
Anonymous,
I no longer accept comments from anyone named anonymous. Pick a moniker if you wish to comment.
False dilemmas abound in ethical circles. A favorite is the supposed conundrum, should I sacrifice three old people to save one young person due to the differential in their values to society? Or save three old people rather than just one person even if he is young? This dilemma ignores the other solutions, one of which is to try one's best to save all the lives
You've missed the point of ethical dilemmas. They are a method through which we can examine ethics.
I understand false dilemmas quite well. Trying to force an ingenue into a selection that violates his basic morals on both horns, in order to "think" about how to devise antimoral ethics in the absence of either absolutes or rational alternatives that accommodate the basic moral tenets that exist, that is the purpose.
The lifeboat or triage ethic might be a practical issue that one faces in extremely rare or unusual circumstances; it is not a program for daily ethics, and presenting it as that is intellectually dishonest. That is what is being done here, in this case, and in every case I have seen. A two component decision has four possible answers, not the two selected by dilemma pushers: 1,1; 1,0; 0,1; 0,0. Write the full truth table. Dilemma pushers want the victim to believe that only 1,0 and 0,1 are possible answers.
The purpose is to "fool" the victim into considering that his perception of absolutes is false. And that is done with the deception of limiting the choices as shown above.
False dilemmas abound in ethical circles. A favorite is the supposed conundrum, should I sacrifice three old people to save one young person due to the differential in their values to society? Or save three old people rather than just one person even if he is young? This dilemma ignores the other solutions, one of which is to try one's best to save all the lives.
The point of that dilemma is to think about the value of people not to invent scenarios where you don't have to face the dilemma.
And "dilemma pushers" and "victims"?
Get a grip. I can understand that it can be scary but are you honestly that afraid of examining your beliefs?
You remind me of the man is this video:
(Micallef) Hypothetical
triage ethic might be a practical issue that one faces in extremely rare or unusual circumstances; it is not a program for daily ethics, and presenting it as that is intellectually dishonest.
Repeat after me: it's a thought exercise. You make assertions. Don't be afraid to examine them.
In my profession, I often literally have to decide who to save. It often comes down to save one or lose both. But that's not the point. It's a thought exercise. Don't be afraid of thinking. You may come to conclusions that make you feel uncomfortable but don't be afraid to examine your beliefs.
Adam said,
” I can understand that it can be scary but are you honestly that afraid of examining your beliefs?”
I got to this point by examining each, every and all of my beliefs. Have you?
”Repeat after me: it's a thought exercise. You make assertions. Don't be afraid to examine them.”
Bullshit. It is an attack on the mindset of 19 year old students, which is designed to “thought exercise” their values into oblivion by denying them the actual four choices. It makes no difference which of the two choices they make, it places them into the position of playing God, which is the point: you get to play God. Yes. In the name of “examining” their beliefs. It is intellectually dishonest, and I’m sorry that you cannot see that.
”Don't be afraid of thinking. You may come to conclusions that make you feel uncomfortable but don't be afraid to examine your beliefs.”
You know exactly nothing about how I came to reject that sort of crap. I rejected every belief, studied logic and philosophy and only then started over. It took three years. What has been your process for “examining” your beliefs? Taking an “ethics” class?
If you do not do your best to save both individuals, then I don’t want you at my accident scene.
If you do not do your best to save both individuals, then I don’t want you at my accident scene.
He said he is sometimes in situations where attempting to save both would mean losing both. Maybe you think it's more moral that both die but I think it would be good to save a life.
The video was great, Adam. The part with bearing upon the matter at hand is:
Host of Hypothetical: "Brain comes to your house wanting money, he needs to score and if you don't give him the money he's going to break into a house and steal a TV or a VCR. Do you give him the money?"
Guest: "well, look, I live in an apartment with security gates so he wouldn't be able to ask me..."
Host: "Let's say hypothetically he could ask you."
Guest: Says Brain couldn't get past the gate.
Host: "Hypothetically he can in and he can speak to you..."
Guest: "but the security firm I bought the gate from said nothing about people being able to get in..."
Host dismisses him with a hand gesture.
Stan said: "Personal criteria are no substitute for valid rules for behavior."
So what are these valid rules and in what way are they absolute?
”Is doing what is right still right if you are doing it to avoid punishment?”
This is a trick question coming from a “thought crime” mentality. The original laws address proper behaviors; subsequent covenants address positive motivations in a positive light.
So how would you answer the question?
No Other Name,
Have you thought about my questions? Feel free to ask some of your own.
--- (3 Dashes) signing off.
Objective Values, which generated rules for their protection, and which are now under assault by the subjective, relative, value-du-jour crowd, which knows better than everyone else:
Objective Values:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"He said he is sometimes in situations where attempting to save both would mean losing both. Maybe you think it's more moral that both die but I think it would be good to save a life."
I doubt that he really is in that situation; I suspect that (if he does that kind of work) he sends for help and does his best for both - otherwise, I truly don't want him on my accident scene.
Your judgment doesn't move me at all, it just illuminates you a little more.
"So how would you answer the question?"
I answered it above, but here it is again: False Question: 1,1 is the ethical answer.
The video was funny. The moderator turned out to be a jerk to everyone else. And the question, of course, was a loaded one, ignoring the obvious answer by design. That's what made it funny. The subject answered the reality, while the moderator wanted him to fall into the false dichotomy trap.
Har.
Concerning objective morals; how are morals objective? If you've answered this I can't find it. By objective I mean "true and mind-independent". I can't see how an action could be considered right without a mind. Are we going with an appeal to consequences if morality isn't objective?
Objective Values:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The people who wrote that had different values for the words "all".
Anonymouse catcher,
I had considered the term "objective" to refer to non-human mind objects, which would include the mind of a deity. However you are right that the dictionary does not differentiate minds between human and deity. Now if you reject that a source is objective because the source is the mind of a deity, you have presupposed the existence of the deity.
Rather than get caught in the circling of that drain, maybe the proper terminology would be "other than human subjectivity". If that doesn't work, I'll try to more clearly define the concept.
Heh-heh. Stan said "bullshit".
Post a Comment