I've always been meaning to read some C.S. Lewis, out of curiosity if nothing
else. Perhaps this summer I will have time to.
>1. An objective moral code exists.
> a. Such a rule is the basis for disputes and moral discussions.
> b. There is an amazing amount of agreement withing different
> nations and cultures over major crimes of force (e.g., murder,
> rape, etc.)
Exactly! Not just within different natures, but among different cultures,
over vast periods of time. Take, for example, the ancient pagan religion of
Wicca (which has an older history than Christianity). One of the central
tenets of that religion (and a common chant among Wiccans) translates into
English as "do as you will, but harm no one."
> c. Moral judgment has been passed on certain cultures from the
> outside, as when much of the civilized world condemend Hitler.
>
>2. To give reasons for denying the existence of moral absolutes and/or hold
>that others ought to do the same is self-refuting.
But you see, I have not tried to deny the existence of moral absolutes. I
know that human society needs a certain level of moral cohesion, if for no
other reason than that complete anarchy is not at all healthy or productive.
I simply don't see any reason why our moral absolutes have to be Judeo-Christian
in origin.
>3. The moral code cannot be explained by natural or human means.
This is where you are wrong. I have just laid out a detailed moral code that
is explained by natural and human means. Millions of people, whether they
realize it or not, live by this code every day and pass it along to their
children. Think about the following phrase: "Billy, don't hit your brother!
How would you feel if he did that to you?" How many times have we heard parents
say something like this to their children? Of course, children are selfish by
nature and are not likely to stop and realize the wisdom of this statement right
away, but if they are exposed to this attitude throughout their formative years,
it will eventually make an impression on them.
> a. The code is not a law of nature, for nature makes no ethical
> judgments, nor distinguish between inanimate objects and life.
This I agree with. The laws of nature say nothing about morality, and attempts
to derive morality from such laws have always been disastrous. Morality, as
humans define it, is based on *emotion*.
> b. The code was not created by a human being or by society as a whole
> for it cannot:
> (1) answer 1-2, above, (esp. 1c and 2)
> (2) explain why we sometimes decide on options that are NOT
> in our best interests, or which may NOT preserve our lives
> (3) do the best job of explaining why, individually and
> corporately, we usually realize we have failed to fulfill
> this moral code.
This is simply a claim of one person's opinion. Even the Christian moral code
has not been logically proven to have arisen from a higher power than the
human species.
>4. The creator of the moral code must be a personal moral Legislator beyond
>man.
Even this has often failed, however. Since this "personal moral Legislator
beyond man" is supernatural and not proven to exist, He/She/It can be
envisioned to support almost any morality, or lack thereof. Hence we have
the Crusades, the KKK, Joseph McCarthy, witch burnings, etc.
>All of these points are developed in detail in various books (but see Lewis
>first), which provides a rational basis for believing in objective moral
>reality rooted in an objective moral legislator.
I have read many, many arguments that try to "prove" the existence of God,
and I will be very impressed if Lewis manages to do it. However, I'll reserve
judgement until such time as I'm able to read his works.
><<Now, I also know that other human beings (as well as certain other species
>of animals) exhibit behaviors that are overwhelmingly indicative that they,
>also, possess consciousness, feelings, and emotions like (or at least very
>similar to) myself. Do I know this with absolute certainty? No, I don't know
>anything with absolute certainty. But it is about as compelling as anything
>can possibly be, so I can safely treat it as a fact.>>
>
>So far so good.
>
><<So I cannot deny that there is a thing called "hurt" that I don't like to
>have inflicted on me. And, since I know that other people appear in every way
>to have feelings much like myself, I know that to inflict hurt on them would
>be to do the same thing to them as is done to me when I am hurt. And, since I
>know without a shadow of a doubt what *that* feels like, I don't want to do it
>to another person.>>
>
>Well, now we have established that you have feelings called "empathy" or
>"sympathy" which you CHOOSE to honor. And that's wonderful. It makes you safe
>to be around.
>
>HOWEVER, that does not prove that anyone else SHOULD act this way.
Of course not. There are a small percentage of people, known as sociopaths, who
are incapable of having feelings for another human being. However, people
suffering
from such a severe disorder are pretty much beyond hope; I doubt that even a
rigid
church upbringing would help them. And if it would, great. I'm willing to accept
that some people are so amoral that they *need* that kind of rigid, externally-
enforced morality to keep them honest. But most people are not so limited.
>Someone
>might just as easily CHOOSE to INFLICT hurt because he CHOOSES NOT to honor
>sympathy.
But only a very small percentage of people (even if you just look at hard-core
atheists) make such a choice. And it is for those people that we need to have
laws, police, and jails.
>And as your argument stands now, you are powerless to tell him he is
>wrong.
No I am not. As I said, my argument (that is, that since I know hurt to be
a bad thing when I feel it, then it must logically be a bad thing when another
feels it) is logically compelling. Of course, "logically compelling" is not
sufficient to stop a sociopath, but again, that's why we have laws and the
power to back them up.
>Imagine the criminal with the shotgun about to blow away the 7-11 guy.
>Don't do it! we might yell. It would "hurt" the poor guy. Kill him in fact.
>But the guy with the gun looks at us and says, "So?"
And another guy with a gun says, "so if you don't put down the shotgun, I'll
waste you." Or, alternatively, he commits his murder and is eventually caught
and thrown in jail, because society as a whole makes a choice to honor this
thing we call empathy.
>And if he went to any
>current, fashionable college he might continue, "Life is material only. I'm
>not accountable to anybody. We all die, and that's it. So I don't care what
>you or anybody else 'feels.' I'm gonna blow away this guy because I can get
>the money, and that will make ME feel good. And that's all I care about."
Could you please provide the names of some current, fashionable colleges
that endorse such a view? I haven't seen any.
><<Now, what about those who will argue that others do not really have
>feelings? Is this a logically compelling argument? Of course not, because, as
>I have pointed out, all of the external evidence of human behavior indicates
>that they *do*. So the most rational and moral course of action for me is to
>behave in a way that, shall we say, maximizes the amount of happiness in the
>universe.>>
>
>This is a non-sequitur. Here's why. You at first claim a basis for moral law
>in FEELINGS. But your last statement is a statement of moral ACTION. And
>there is NOTHING you have said that tells my why I should ACT in concert with
>my FEELINGS. Indeed, a convinced materialist may say that his INTELLECT
>overrides his feelings, and tells him that an action which "hurts" another
>might be perfectly fine.
And anyone who would is called a "sociopath". Such people are far in the
minority.
>That is really what is going on in the head of our 7-11 robber. He may at one
>time have had empathy, but somewhere along the line he became convinced
>(intellect) that empathy means nothing in this world. Since there is no
>accountability (so long as one can avoid the law)
Or so long as one can convince oneself that one's God is in favor of one's
actions,
>I can inflict "hurt" for any
>reason I CHOOSE.
Just as the Crusaders did. Or the witch-burners. Or the McCarthyites. Etc.
[Imaginary dialogues with Hitler and the Unabomber].
Fine, let's turn this around, and maybe for once you'll hold your beliefs
to the same standard that you hold mine:
Prove to me, logically and consistently, that your God not only exists,
but strongly disapproves of the actions of the Crusaders, the KKK, the
witch-burners, and other murderous religious zealots. Every argument that you
bring against the subjective portions of my standard apply equally to the
subjective portions of yours: namely, the question of God's existence and
what He really believes. Until you admit this, you are arguing a gross
double-standard.
><<There we go. The smallest details are laid out for everyone to see. No
>"moral capital" has been borrowed from any other belief system. And, more
>importantly, it works.>>
>
>It DOES work, because you choose to act in accordance with it. It DOESN'T work
>for those who reject feelings as a basis for action.
Fortunately, however, such people are very rare, because by and large,
human beings *do* have a natural ability for empathy built into them, as
long as it is encouraged and developed from a young age. This is why it
works, not only for me, but for society as a whole.
>Again, I appreciate your effort.
I don't think that you do. You are still batting furiously against a straw-
man, pointing out all of the subjective portions of my moral standard while
continuing to ignore the subjective portions of your own.
>But your materialist ethics still run into
>the stark wall of non-objectivity.
As do your Christian ethics. The difference is that I recognize the
inevitability
of that wall and take steps to deal with it.
>One philosopher calls this The Grand Sez Who. You can talk till you're blue in
>the face about your feelings, but every time you tell someone an action is
>WRONG, that person can say: Sez Who?
>
>The theist knows the answer to that question. You can argue about the theist's
>own basis for belief, but that's another story.
No, that is the absolute foundation of your argument, and it is as of yet
completely unproven.
>What we have shown here is
>that materialist morality is not logically consistent, while theistic morality
>is.
No, what you have shown here is that you are very good at pointing out the
obvious and applying a double-standard in order to get your way.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.