Actually, I presented a case where killing could be justified on
the basis of auxillary absolute standards. The point was whether
the simple fact of having absolute standards necessarily prevents
killing. It can, but there is no guarantee that it won't.
FWIW - For the benefit of the people on this list, I think we can take
this discussion to email after your next reply.
>Responding to my request for a naturalist moral argument, Tim wrote:
>
><<I thought Bertrand Russell or other philosophers might have tried.
>Have you checked them? One justification could be operational or
>practical: Murder tends to be repaid in kind. I suspect there would
>be others.>>
>
>F. C. Copelston took up this very question with Russell in a 1948 debate.
[text removed..]
>The debate proceeded along these lines, with Copelston asking for an
>outside criterion, and Russell asserting he needed no more than majority
>decision, as in the case of color perception.
>
>I don't find Russell's logic very compelling. The majority used to think
>blacks were only 3/5 human.
Should we mention that the majority at the time were not "naturalists"?
Clearly things that were once accepted as moral absolutes in one
period can later vanish. I accept that one might ultimately
converge on the right set of absolute moral standards, but it is
important to realize that we may not be there yet. Perhaps this
is all the more reason for proceeding with extreme caution before
proclaiming absolute moral righteousness.
>And to your own operational system, with the exemplar "murder tends to be
>repaid in kind," I would answer that murder tends NOT to be repaid in kind.
>Dead people usually don't kill their murderers.
>
>But let's accept it for the sake of argument. So what? In a world where
>murder is repaid in kind, my goal should be to be the best murderer I
>can be.
Another alternative is to not murder in the first place. In some
simulations of "tit-for-tat" strategies, it is better to not play
at all. We can examine this by comparing average lifespans in
cultures which accept frequent violence and tribal war to cultures
where violent disputes are rare.
[...]
>Re: Russell. It is interesting to chart his moral course. Paul Johnson
>does this in -Intellectuals-, a wonderful book about many of the leading
>"lights" who rejected objective morality. Russell spent his dotage
>chasing young skirts, deflowering chambermaids, and generally making a
>pest of himself. So much for moral feelings.
Let me state clearly that I do not address ad hominem remarks.
><<Why would one have to use a moral counterargument or threats of eternal
>damnation? Why not suggest that playing "by the agreed rules" reduces
>friction and makes things run better for a group as a whole. >>
>
>What do you mean by "better"?
Increased productivity, decreased "friction" between group members
& etc. There are things which groups can provide that individuals
cannot. Many of these could be quantifiable.
><<There are
>certainly instances where atheists and agnostics lead and supported
>various "moral" causes before many of the theists followed.>>
>
>For example?
>
><< Any set of beliefs, whether they are supernaturally
>derived or developed ad hoc can be examined for logical consistency.
>The theist can say "These standards came from God so we've got to
>accept them" and the relativist can say "These standards came from
>observations or trial & error, and I think they work well, so I'll
>accept them even if I can't prove them.">>
>
>The second set can only be tested for consistency vis-a-vis a result. But
>it cannot tell us which results are better than others. That is the point.
Why can it not tell us which results are better? If we accept a
set of standards then we can evaluate different situations.
>As I asked you before, tell me why killing Jews is a bad thing. Explain
>to me why this END is bad.
I mentioned that "bad" can only be determined with respect to a
given set of criteria. The only criteria you are willing to accept
are ones which you think are absolutely set by God -- Thus, by your
reasoning, if we cannot establish by outside agencies that something
is "absolutely bad", then we can't support anything. Well, here's my
guiding moral axiom for why Jews or anyone else should not be
exterminated - "Do not murder." How do I derive it? Well, I have the
belief that advocating murder diminishes the "contracts" between individuals
in society. This leads to decay and fear, and increases the risks
of being murdered. Further, it pains me to see others hurt and actually,
I derive much pleasure from being able to help others. I do not claim to
know the source of all these feelings; I only acknowledge that they are
there. And I will act on these basis of these feelings even if they
do on rare occassions conflict with other self-interests. In part,
I do hope that my efforts will be repaid if not to myself, then to
the community of which I am a part -- although sometimes, it is
sufficient reward to simply have done something. Given that many
(most?) others share these feelings, I think there are sufficient
grounds to accept these standards by consensus. Further, I think
that my society functions most comfortably when they are in place.
><<I fear that a growing segment of the population is needlessly handicapped
>by a break in the "chain of civilization". That is, it only takes a
>break in one generation to lose years of gain. >>
>
>And Western civilization has been forged by the Judeo-Christian worldview.
>You're right about it being lost in a generation. Take a look at England.
>
>For centuries our society operated on the standards of Christian morality,
>either explicitly or by "borrowing." For example, it used to be taught that
>cheating was wrong. Cheaters were treated with scorn. Today, cheating is seen
>as a right. "Everybody does it to get ahead, why shouldn't I?" One could
>create a long, long list of such examples.
People have always cheated. Look at the French income tax system.
Not only can civilization be wrecked by the loss of a single generation,
it can also be broken down by 48 hours of hunger or thirst after a
disaster.
One interesting contrast happened in Kobe, Japan after the
earthquake there. Japan is by no means a Judeo-Christian society
and members of the local mafia even contributed aid to the city.
><<Perhaps I am odd, but I think that the source of standards is not
>so important to a society as the standards themselves and the
>interpretations of the standards.>>
>
>The only "odd" thing is that you have not given any justification for
>ANY standards. Consensus doesn't do it. Nazis can become a majority.
Yes, I mentioned that previously. Tyranny by majority is not something
that will always be prevented -- In fact, it has been ever present in
our own (US) government to varying degrees. This majority can be
religiously or politically guided.
I have long since admitted that I cannot give you absolute justification
for moral axioms. And we have agreed that all standards are accepted
on the basis of personal belief. You justify it on your belief in
God and your beliefs about God. You try to maximize God's approval.
I justify my personal beliefs on how I think human societies would
provide an optimal benefit for its members. Note that society
includes not just myself, but family and friends as well and we
are all tied in this web together. You suggest that because
you can claim that your standards are absolute, you can also
claim to say that Jewish extermination is wrong. But you cannot
make this statement until you can confirm the source and the veracity
of the moral standards. Until then, it is belief debating belief.
My justifications are my beliefs about how I think societies
are best organized. Some of these are subject to testing and
revision. Others are unadulterated belief. If you go back over
my posts, I think you might see where some were presented.
>"Standards themselves" is a meaningless term. Source, it turns out,
>is everything.
"Source" is argument by authority. It is not sufficient justification
to performing an action simply because someone or something commands it.
For example it does not follow that the source is necessarily correct.
I asked you previously how one determines which "revealed" moral
standards are correct given that they are accepted on the basis of belief.
I also asked you how one deduces the right moral standards based on a
belief in God.
><<Do you mean to suggest that an agnostic cannot mourn the loss
>of diversity, talent, potential, and human resources? That they
>cannot feel any sympathy, empathy or any other deep human emotion
>when confronted with mass murder? Or fear that it could easily
>happen to them or their friends?>>
>
>They ought to explore the implications of those feelings. Given their
>universality, what does that imply? Where does the moral sense come
>from?
That it is common suggests that humans are relatively similar.
Many organisms can be classified on the basis of their behaviors.
Then again, if "moral sense" is so universal, how is it that we can
lose it in a generation? If it is self-evident, is it not possible
that much of it arises out the common requirements for social living?
>The teachings of the herd? Doubtful.
I'd think it is a combination of hard-wiring and learned behavior.
In fact, part of it must be if we can lose some sense of it or if
it can arise in other cultures. Do you postulate a mind/brain
dualism instead where the mind is preprogrammed by God with moral
codes? If so, how is it that head trauma can severely affect a
person's actions and judgement?
>Survival instinct? No, there are exceptions which disprove that.
>What then? Hmmm....
Oh no! The moral argument for a creator rises again! :^)
Is the requirement that human societies need the appearance of
outside guidance to function evidence for God or is it justification
for inventing God?
I'm open to suggestions about the supernatural origins of standards
but I am not closed to possible lower-order explanations. As you've
mentioned previously, investigating possible material causes for
phenomena is important and worthwhile. Now, some explanations might
be taken as survival instincts gone awry. Organisms are simply not
capable of being fitted to deal with all contingencies. Note that
during our early existence, we were part of much smaller groups with
greater blood ties in common. I'd think it likely that more
"altruistic" acts may happen among people with whom we may have
more in common (Families first, then friends, & etc.).
Then again, some behaviors may arise like emergent properties, where
it is not a simple task to dissect all the contributing factors.
Given the complexity and flexibility of the brain, it may not be so
unreasonable an possibility. Now, I haven't seen Alvin Plantigna's
discussion of this topic, so I'm not sure what explanations have been
attempted or dismissed.
><< Do all theists agree
>on the same moral standards or are there differences in beliefs?
>How do they differ? How do you identify and absolute moral
>standard?>>
>
>On the important standards, there is much more agreement than not--and
>certainly more agreement than there is among the atheists. For example, the
>theists would say it is wrong to murder, to steal, to commit adultery, etc.
>There are atheists who have no problem with adultery, and others who do
>(usually, the ones who have been victimized). Now how are they going to
>resolve their differences? They have no umpire, no rule book.
Myself, I too think it is wrong to steal, murder or commit adultery
but I think that the umpire is ourselves and our communities.
As for rule books, one can't even begin to play the game (live
in a society) without one, even if it is established ad hoc.
However, in some cultures, adultery (or swapping) is encouraged and so
I'd suspect that this particular issue would be a borderline case
(Abortion as well). How would you resolve these disputes between
God-given moral standards?
>On the details of application, there is, and always will be, room for
>argument. Some arguments are better than others. But at least theists
>are in the same ballpark (it's the one with the Umpire).
Could this lead to tyranny by majority? Remember, it's not the
number of believers that is important but the validity of the
belief. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the number of common
beliefs is not something to consider, just that majorities
can be wrong.
Also, when is that umpire going to call foul? After all, some of
these participants have been engaged in killing each other, in part,
over religious differences. As I mentioned previously, observing
accountability happening in this lifetime would go a long
way to convincing some that moral judgments are meted out by God.
><<This is a good point (I have often exceed highway speed limits and
>will do so again. I've also pulled a few illegal U-turns in my time).>>
>
>You're a piker.
That's me, the renegade biochemist.
>Why not steal something? Better yet, why not kill someone and THEN
>steal something? If you know the chances are you'll get away with it,
>why not? This was Ted Bundy's reasoning, and it worked well up through
>40 victims or so.
Hmm... The "slippery slope" argument (ie. "I smoked pot once; it made
me want to rape and kill"). If agnostics and atheists are so dangerous,
how can we let them run free?
><<You are correct that cost-benefit analyses can influence one's actions.
>However, it does tend to help society if its members follow the
>rules and if rule-breakers are punished.>>
>
>What do I care for society? Why SHOULD I care? Once again, can you
>formulate an argument to convince me?
I doubt it. It's possible that you'd only accept an universal absolute.
You can say "so what?" forever. I guess this goes back to the
question I asked several letters ago: What evidence would convince
you that a supernatural cause had no influence on an event?
However, let me suggest that only an idiot indulges in every desire
or impulsive thought. Think about it. If you don't accept that
then I do not feel that a continued discussion would be
fruitful. Going on... In fact, given that I live in society
and experience many benefits from it, I feel it is in my best
interests to support it. Further, I feel it is in my best
interests to protect it where necessary.
>You see, the naturalist always falls victim to "the grand Sez Who?"
Oh yes, that is a real problem and that is where consensus (though
imperfect), must play a mediating role. You admit that mediation
is even problem for different theistic beliefs, but then sidestep
the issue, claiming that "at least they're in the same ballpark".
As if no one else might be.
Of course, the theist has the same problem with "sez who?" since
belief in a deity is largely personal. If we cannot agree on that
belief then there is little reason for continued discussion.
><<If God will let you escape
>the consequences of doing something even though He says it is
>"wrong", what is to prevent a theist from doing it if it benefits
>them? >>
>
>I don't know which God you are talking about. Certainly not any God I've
>encountered in world religions.[...]
Loki? Some of the Greek and Roman gods? Isn't some of this
embodied in the principles of confession/redemption?
>I wrote:
>
><<Define "hurt." Define "betrayed." In naturalist syntax, of course.>>
>
>Tim replied:
>
><<It is the same in any syntax.>>
>
>No, it is not. Please define "hurt" for me.
Wound, injure, damage. Physicians have numerous methods of classifying
the severity of injuries so I would suppose we could establish a
mutually acceptable set of physical criteria. "Hurt" is so basic
and universal that we can easily recognize it in many organisms.
>There are several requests in this post to "put legs" on your opinions.
>Let's give that a try, so we don't just go around in circles, eh what?
I can appreciate your frustration. We do not seem to directly
answer each other's questions sometimes.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)
PS - You asked if I knew of any particular atheists/agnostics that
might be considered vanguards of social "justice". I will try
to identify a few over the next few days.