Re: logic makes a comeback

Brian D Harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:27:43 -0400

At 12:19 PM 6/12/97 +1000, Peter wrote:
>Peter Grice>>
>>>I would go so far as to say that by the Christian Theist CONSISTENT
>>>worldview, an "objective, universal, eternal" moral standard exists, and by
>>>the Atheist CONSISTENT (that is, taken to its logical conclusion)
>>>worldview, the moral standard is subjective. It comes down to his or her
>>>opinion.
>
>Russell Stewart>>
>>And it also comes down to empathy, a vital factor which you and everyone
>>else conveniently ignore. It should be blindingly obvious that an empathy-
>>based moral system *works*.
>
>I include empathy when I say 'opinion.' Empathy is feelings-based, and how
>we act upon empathy is logic-based. Feelings are subjective. You're
>speaking about an inner sense of morality which we do indeed have, a sense
>of right and wrong, of fairness - conscience if you will. But it's
>intangible. We can't agree on everything - things such as capital
>punishment, abortion, euthenasia and human cloning to name just a few. So
>it *works* inwardly for the individual sure enough, at least to our
>satisfaction. Yet we find disagreement when we compare our moral standard
>to that of others, as I've pointed out. I might feel empathy towards a
>family whose pet cat had just been run over and killed, but another person
>might think it humorous. The empathy-based system is subjective because
>the standard comes from within the individual.
>
>Now before you respond to this in the manner you have so many times in the
>past (by turning it on its head and charging the Christian theist with the
>same thing), let me make this point to qualify: An atheist cannot point to
>anything within their own worldview that is a transcendent and objective
>standard of morality, whereas a Christian theist can. If you cannot accept
>that statement after being certain of what I mean by it, then we may as
>well cease discussing the matter. Two things to bear in mind -
>'transcendent' and 'objective' refer to something *outside* of ourselves,
>something above and beyond human beings, and 'Christian theist' as a
>worldview is not the same as 'theist.'
>

This reminded me of something I've been thinking about the last
few days. C.S. Lewis has been mentioned by many as a kind of
model for this Moral Law business (the Law of Human Nature,
or Natural Law to use Lewis' terminology). But Lewis approach
is really quite different than that being used by most people
here. Lewis does not start with the premise "God exists" and then
apply logical consistency or whatever. Instead he begins at the
level of observation and personal experience and tries to work
his way up (an approach also used by Pascal). But your argument
above seems to undo Lewis. Unless one finds at the observational,
experiential level a universal sense and agreement on what is
right and wrong (broadly anyway) then Lewis's argument fails.

But, if one does find this universal Law of Human Nature at
the observational level of experience then your argument is
undone since this law is obviously both objective and transcendent
wrt the individual. So the question is, does the knowledge of
this Law of Human Nature [without knowing the source, i.e.
having the "fact" without understanding the "theory"] provide
sufficient grounds for judging whether another persons behavior
is moral or immoral?

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately ;-), I'll be going out of
town tommorrow evening and won't be back until June 23rd or
thereabouts. Please cc: any replies you want me to see.

Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University

"Quantum physicist and Jungian analyst, when dropped from
a great height, fall at the same rate of speed, their
descent unaffected by speech or creed" -- David Berlinski