This is my reply to an article by Cole James entitled
I took a philosophy class while I was in college. The topic
of this class was on contemporary moral issues, so you know we got into some
heated topics. I heard every objection under the sun to objective morality.
No you didn't. You didn't hear my objections. You likely also didn't hear the professor ask you whether your refusal to support burning teenage prostitutes alive arises from the moral relativity of the culture you were born and raised in, or if it arises from morals put into your heart by the same God who ordered this atrocity in Leviticus 21:9.
Everything from it was not very “tolerant,” to different cultures act
differently so therefore there cannot be objective morality. I was the minority
in this class to say the least!
I think a moral relativist is stupid if they are pushing "toleration" as strongly as you imply. There are purely naturalistic justifications for refusing to be tolerant of the practices of other cultures. I have a naturalistic desire to see my children live and grow into adulthood, this doesn't need to imply any more spirituality than is implied from the fact that lower life forms also desire to see their young survive...lest you end up taking the position that the only reason the insects care about their offspring is because they were made in the image of god?
Objections Objective Morality
Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder
is bad” is independent of the person saying it.
So go ahead, prove that "murder is bad" is objectively true, and prove it
independently of the person saying it. That is, prove it
without relying on anything else that person says.
Objective morality means that
there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgements.
Would that be the morality of the god who ordered teenage prostitutes to be burned to death in Leviticus 21:9? Would it be the morality of the god who "stirs up" the Medes to rape Babylonian women in Isaiah 13:13-17 (i.e., the horrific morality of the OT god is not limited to the Hebrews, God also applies it to Gentile nations)?
Morals are not invented, they are discovered.
That's right. Little johnny thinks nothing of hurting his baby brother in a toy-war, and doesn't "discover" it is "wrong" until mommy or daddy impose their morals on his impressionable barbaric brain.
Now that our society has
seemingly transformed into a “post-truth” society, objective morals have come
under attack. A “post-truth” society is a society which is not concerned with
objective facts, but rather, right and wrong are based on personal subjective
feelings, tastes, and personal belief.
Then Christian apologists take part in such post-truth society. God clearly approves of men raping women, today's apologists don't. Everybody changes with the times.
As Christians, one of the best arguments we have for God is
the moral argument.
Then it sure is funny that the bible nowhere indicates approval of using such argument to prove god. Methinks you are so lacking in the Holy Spirit, you care more about all the bells and whistles you can invent to help God do apologetics, than you care about the truthfulness of your own witness in the "power of the Holy Spirit". The biblical standard of truth takes a direct hit from it's own defenders.
Of all the attacks on Christianity and God, a Christian
will most likely hear the most attacks on this subject. Why? Because everyone
can relate to this topic. Each one of us every day makes moral judgements and
decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping
someone who just got in a car wreck.
Since you claim such matters involve morals, go ahead: demonstrate that the Christian who refuses to open a door for someone, or the Christian who refuses to help somebody who just got into a car wreck, is
objectively immoral for such omission. Or you can save yourself a lot of headaches by admitting that many moral situations aren't governed by an absolute moral standard.
Just so we can have a basis for what the
argument actually is, it goes as follows:
Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then
God exists
Premise 2: Objective morals values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exits
Ok, so since the dictionary defines "objective" as
"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.true for reasons independent of human opinion", you should be able to demonstrate any particular objective moral truth you wish, and do so
without needing to hear any human being state their feelings or opinions on the subject.
You think rape is "objectively" immoral? Go ahead, prove it
without considering what any human being thinks or feels about it. Just like you can prove the objective existence of trees without needing to depend on what other human beings think or feel about trees.
With the argument in mind, consider four objections:
There are so many
different cultures with different values, there can’t be objective morals! Look
how different we are!
Off the bat, I agree with this objection. There are many
different cultures appearing to be morally different on the surface. However,
as one reads between the lines it becomes apparent that these different
cultures are not really that different.
Then because you morally approve of male genital mutilation (circumcision), explain the basis upon which you think
female genital mutilation (clitordectomy) is "objectively" immoral. Wouldn't subjecting female children to a procedure that inhibits the libido they will have as adults, prevent a certain amount of lust/sexual sin? How can preventing sin be objectively bad?
It is important as we read between the
lines to keep in mind that when looking at cultural diversity we need to
determine whether differences are really about core morals or instead about
application of that core moral truth. For example, what constitutes murder?
That doesn't matter to you, your problems are bigger than that. The bible makes God's participation in all murders mandatory and unavoidable with the following texts:
39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)
5 "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass. (Job 14:5 NAU)
Suppose a man murders the cashier at a gas station. Did God set a limit to the number of days this cashier was to live? If so, how can god "set" that number of days, without himself being intimately involved in the immediate cause of their death (i.e., murder)?
How can you call murder objectively immoral, when God himself has equally as much involvement in murders as do the humans pulling the trigger?
What my classmates did not realize is that these difference
were in how morals were applied, not a difference in morals. Peter Kreeft says
this,
“No culture has ever existed which believed and taught what
Nietzsche called for: a transvaluation of all values. There have been
differences in emphasis, for instance, our ancestors valued courage more than
we do, while we value compassion more than they did. But there has never been
anything like the relativism of opinions about values that the relativist
teaches as factual history. Just imagine what that would be like. Try to
imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and
self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice,
lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a
society is never found on Earth. If it exists anywhere, it is only in Hell and
its colonies. Only Satan and his worshippers say ‘evil be thou my good.’”
Kreeft and you are wasting time pretending that the absurd extremes some moral relativists take, constitutes the best which the moral relativism camp has to say. Relativity of morals does not mandate that nobody give a fuck about anything except themselves.
Turek is an idiot to insist that all human beings become sociopaths when and if God's existence be denied. If several sociopaths share a common goal and can see that they can attain it more efficiently by working together and making certain sacrifices for each other, they will. The phenomena of one life-form cooperating with another to achieve a common goal has nothing about it mandating that God exist or that morals are objective.
It really comes down to a case-by-case basis. For instance,
in the Hindu religion, they believe in reincarnation. Some of these people will
starve themselves because they will not eat a cow. Why? Because they believe
their great uncle died and reincarnated into a cow. Looking on the surface at
this, it may look like there are differences in morals, but we need to read
between the lines. As we read between the lines we see that the morals of our
culture and their culture are the same. They think it is wrong to eat the cow because
they believe that is their great uncle, we also believe it is wrong to eat our
great uncle. As we can see, this really is not an objection, it is just a
matter of not digging deeper.
Then how do you explain your differences with cultures that embrace endocannibalism? How much reading between the lines must we accomplish before we find out that we and they agree about morality?
How do you explain our disagreement with
cultures that eat their enemies? If we read between the lines long enough, will we discover that we and they agree on the morality of it?
If we can avoid the stigma of what they do, by pretending its significance is limited to the
reason why they do it, then why would you object to cannibalism? That's just their way of dominating their enemy, and even modern American Christians generally support a military that obviously finds it morally good to dominate our enemies.
Objective morality
is not very tolerant! Relativism is much more tolerant of people’s opinions and
beliefs.
This objection is entirely problematic. First, it is a
self-refuting statement! By someone telling a person that his/her beliefs are
not very tolerant, they in turn are being intolerant of the other person’s
views. Moreover, this objection assumes that tolerance is really objectively
good.
A second answer to this objection is, if relativism were
true, why not be intolerant? Why should I be tolerant?
The new age fools who advocate absolute tolerance are indeed stupid, because there's at least one thing they don't tolerate; intolerance itself. But too much tolerance would go against what the majority of Americans believe in, that is, that our society should be intolerant of certain practices. This moral is itself relative, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bunches of people with shared moral values have been grouping together for centuries, nothing about this requires implying "god".
Do you see where I am
going with this?
Relativism is the view that morality is culturally based,
therefore being subject to a person’s individual choice. With this view, there
is no objective standard that a relativist can point to, to say that someone
should be tolerant.
At root, this is merely an emotional objection. The person
who puts out this objection probably does not want objective morality to be
true because it will change their lifestyle. So called, “tolerance” feels
better to them, and indeed it is a good quality (Paul thought so), but again,
just because it feels good does not mean I ought to be that way.
I don't object to objective morality that way, so, those concerns are dismissed.
There are so many
different understanding of morals, there cannot be objective morality.
Just because there is widespread disagreement about a
particular moral issue, does not mean that truth does not exist.
But the widespread disagreement makes it reasonable to presume that there is no moral "truth" about it, it is nothing but human opinion. Just because you've never seen the tooth-fairy doesn't mean she doesn't exist, but what fool would rest their skeptical case on this trifling technicality?
Think of it
this way, just because eight students have different answers to a math problem
does not mean that a right answer does not exist.
Fallacy of false analogy, answers to math problems are governed by mathematical principles that are universally recognized. Answers to moral problems are usually controversial because the underlying principles are the subject of widespread disagreement.
Otherwise, you invite the criticism that you can resolve moral disagreements among Christians with the kind of finality with which mathematical problems are resolved. Wanna go there? If not, then drop the math-analogy, Einstein.
Philosopher Dave DeSonier
says it best,
“Finally, even if one believes that morals (not just facts
or practices) do actually differ between cultures, it does not logically follow
that there must be no absolute, objective moral standards that transcend
cultures.
It doesn't have to
logically follow. It is
reasonable, even if not
logically necessary, to assume moral disagreements between cultures imply that morality is ultimately relative. Your above examples were carefully selected; apparently, you were aware of the harm to your case if you had cited suicide bombing or gang violence or torture of prisoners or what crimes deserve the death penalty, since different cultures disagree with each other about those matters too, yet no amount of reading between the lines is going to indicate other cultures agree with America on basic morals.
Just because five independent observers of an automobile accident
give very different accounts of the event, it would be false to conclude that
there is not an accurate, objective, and true description of what actually
occurred.”
Fallacy of false analogy: the reasons why Christians find Leviticus 21:9 objectively immoral have nothing in common with the situation of witnesses to an automobile accident. All DeSonier is doing at this point is blindly assume that moral truths are just like empirical truths.
Even the skeptic David Hume understood this much. He points
out,
“the fact that different cultures have different practices
no more refutes ethical objectivism than the fact that water flows in different
directions in different places refutes the law of gravity.”
Same answer: Hume's popularity with skeptics doesn't mean every view he held is considered gospel by skeptics. My reasons for rejecting ethical objectivism continue to bulldoze your idealistic pipe dreams, whether you can find other atheists who disagree with me or not. You need to worry more about the specific arguments and less about finding enemies who agree with some of what you believe. I can find Christians who think god will never send anybody to hell, but why should you give a shit about that? Then I don't give a shit about you finding atheists who espouse ethical objectivism.
I am very happy to disagree with atheist Dan Barker's arguments for moral objectivity. Our recoiling from pain obviously doesn't prove anything, otherwise, we should avoid every situation that produces pain, such as visits to the doctor/dentist, and we should never attempt to reset a dislocated shoulder for someone if doing so would case them pain. The home intruder recoils in pain when we shoot him dead, but what fool would argue that such recoil from pain made it immoral to shoot him? If some pain can be reasonably said to achieve a higher subjective moral good, Barker's arguments for objective morality fail.
So we can see, that even though common objective morals
might sometimes be hard to find or discover, it does not logically follow that
therefore, there are no common objective moral values and duties.
Great. When you plan to actually do what you are required to do, and fulfill your burden to cite an objective moral
and the reasons why you think it is mandatory upon all human beings at all times, let me know. But I'm an asshole, I won't be distracted by your technical trifles about how lack of evidence doesn't mean the tooth-fairy doesn't live on Pluto. If you claim x, you have the burden to prove x. We have no obligation to view you as God, view your opinions as gospel, and then worry about how to prove you wrong. Get to work.
I do not believe
in God and I am a moral person. So you are saying that atheists cannot be moral
people?
You must be a sorry apologist if the only way you can attack ethical relativism is by pretending these stupid amateur skeptical excuses represent the most powerful guns relativists can bring to the fight. You couldn't prove the objective immorality of torturing babies, to save your life. All you could do is
insist such torture is objectively immoral, and then insist, equally blindly, that anybody who disagrees with you is therefore too mentally unstable to be worthy of reasoning with. But that's hardly "argument". Go ask Matthew Flannagan. Every time I asked him what moral standard he is using to justify his belief that some human act is objectively immoral, he either disappeared, or his website conveniently decided, right at that point, to ban me for suspected but non-existent spam. He denied in private email that he caused this, but he also didn't indicate he'd be trying to rectify this, and, shock, surprise, I
still cannot post on his blog. His apathy toward my inability to post at his website sure is convenient toward achieving the goal of ducking the bullet.
When you are faced with an adversary you cannot refute, just stop communicating. It works for Matthew Flannagan, so it will also work for you and anybody else who prioritize the need to sell books above the need to be accurate.
This is NOT at all what objective morality means! Of course,
an atheist can be a good moral person.
Then you apparently have never read your bible, which says nobody is good:
18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good?
No one is good except God alone. (Mk. 10:18 NAU)
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Rom. 3:12 NAU)
What’s ironic is that I know some
atheists who are actually more moral than many Christians!
That's not ironic, a person's morality arises from a combination of their genetic predispositions and their environmental conditioning. And since god doesn't exist, seeing no moral improvement in the lives of those who claim to have "accepted Jesus" is nothing new. All they did was join a club and sign the local creed, which had about as much spirituality to it as joining the cub scouts does.
A person does not
have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of
epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, but they
cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.
Sure we can. I require my son to take out the garbage because
a. the garbage needs to be taken out, because I personally don't like a dirty smelly house;
b. his obeying me keeps chaos out of the house, and keeping chaos at bay is required if we are to live happily with each other;.
c. his obeying me instills in him an appreciation that obeying an employer leads to the productive job-retention we all need in order to pay rent/mortgage and keep a stable place to live.
Why would you think a reasonable atheist needs anything more than this to justify saying it is morally good to ask their child to take out the garbage and for the child to obey?
From the Christian worldview, we believe God fabricated a
moral code into our DNA (Romans 2:15), other people think we know morality
because of evolution. Again, this is a question of how we know something,
not why I ought to do something.
Again, that's technically true, but if morality
does come from evolution, then that leaves you in the lurch, with nobody having any reason to link morality to anything higher, like god.
This objection confuses ontology (is there a
moral reality) with epistemology (how do we know morality). On the naturalistic
atheist worldview, they cannot justify why someone ought to be moral.
And moral relativism is a good explanation for why Christians often fail to convince
other Christians on moral issues like age of consent, death penalty, military service, assisted suicide, abortion etc, even if relativism isn't the only possible explanation.
There is
no objective standard for the naturalistic atheist to point to.
There's no objective standard for the Christian to point to either. Your moral disagreement with Leviticus 21:9 proves the point, as does your inability to convince other Christians that their specific morals are wrong.
This objection
is just a common misunderstanding of the argument. A simple clarification of
what you mean by the moral argument will handle this objection.
As I mentioned earlier, in our “post-truth” society it is
inevitable that a Christian will run into one of these objections.
But if I have any say in it, Christians will routinely run into MY objections, and they will need to up their game, or concede defeat, the way Matthew Flannagan did with his dishonestly preventing me from posting further at his blogs after I asked the question moral objectivists cannot answer.
As
Christians, we have to be prepared to answer these objections and to show that
belief in God is rational and reasoned (1 Peter 3:15).
You are also commanded to avoid wrangling words (2nd Timothy 2:14) and it wouldn't be very difficult to show how the ceaseless back and forth bantering required when Christian moral objectivists debate atheist moral relativists, is a fine illustration of said prohibited "wrangling". See how I hammered the ever-mouthy female Christian apologist Lydia McGrew with that verse
here.
What I have seen in
dealing with the students in my class who opposed objective morality is that it
is more of an emotional problem.
Then you need to get out of class more often. I've steamrolled moral objectivity several times at this blog, and
none of my objections are as simpleminded as the stupefied drunks you prop up here.
As I mentioned in objection three, the
students in my class did not want objective morality to exist because it would
have to demand a change in their way if living.
Maybe so, but your argument sucks because all you are doing is refuting two-year olds. When you learn enough of this topic to play with the big boys, let me know.
Hopefully, after reading this,
you will be prepared to give a defense of one of the most relatable and
fundamental arguments for the existence of God.
Sure...if your Christian readers anticipate that their only opponents will be atheists
who have a very superficial understanding of these issues. But you only do your students much harm if you are trying to prepare them to ward off my own attacks. You gave them precisely nothing to take on me.
I now reply to some of the replies that article generated:
Andy Ryan says:
July 21, 2017 at
3:14 am
“Premise 1: If
objective moral values and duties exist then God exists”
That’s a non
sequitur. What’s the connection between objective morality existing and Gid
existing?
Second, never mind
swatting objections, where’s your evidence that OM actually exists?
“Therefore, God
exits”
That’s a funny
typo!
Good call! I already steamrolled Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan by getting down to business and asking him what standard he uses to justify saying parents have an objective moral duty to avoid harming children. Suddenly, I wasn't able to post there anymore, and Flannagan
didn't reply to that question either
While he denied via private email he had banned me by choice, he also refused to carry on the conversation through my blog or private email. Let's just say Flannagan is nowhere near the moral objectivity warrior he thinks he is. He is also the new father of
conveniently timed accidents
Butch says:
July 28, 2017 at 10:13 am
The connection
is simple and it’s a shame you’re blinded to not see it. Without God it’s just
your opinion.
So what? How does re-characterizing the morals of most Americans as "just opinion" operate to show any deficiency? Yes, morals are absolutely nothing but opinions. So what?
As for your
other question; Why is it only relatively wrong to torture babies for fun?
Because the only highest demonstrable authority for calling it immoral is human opinion.
And you have no business asking that question anyway, since your God could have killed King David's baby quickly, but instead decided to torture the child with a great sickness for 7 days before finally killing it. If your god tortures children, then you cannot cite child-torture as a case of objective immorality:
10 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:10-18 NAU)
Now what? Did you suddenly become an open-theist?
I
think any honest person knows it’s objectively wrong. Not relatively wrong.
In other words, the only people your argument could convince, are people who already accept it. That's the sign of a horrifically weak argument.
If you hold
it’s only relatively wrong then you have a serious problem that needs checked
out!
So apparently god has a problem that needs checked out, since baby torture, being
objectively immoral, doesn't allow for any exceptions?
And can’t say anything is wrong. Including raping your daughter and
torturing her.
Do you think the rapist continued to have sex with his victim after he was forced to marry her in accord with God's will?
28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29 NAU)
Deuteronomy 22 is talking about
the man who seizes the
non-engaged girl (Hebrew: taphas, the
same word used in Deut. 21:19 to describe forceful arrest of a resisting
criminal).
The rape-interpretation of the
“seize and lay with her” of Deut. 22:28 is confirmed by the “he violated her”
in v. 29. The Hebrew word for violated
is ×¢ָ× ָ×”/anah, which
means to be bowed down, afflicted. Every
other time this word is used to describe two people interacting, it is always
describing a man forcing a woman to have sex against her will (i.e., rape):
It shall be, if you are not pleased
with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall
certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have
humbled (Hebrew: anah) her. (Deut. 21:14 NAU, see chapter ? for
detailed exegesis of this passage)
But the men of Gibeah rose up against
me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me;
instead, they ravished (Hebrew: anah)
my concubine so that she died. (Jdg 20:5 NAS)
However, he would not listen to her; since he
was stronger than she, he violated (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2Sa 13:14 NAS)
Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's
brother, responded, "Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all
the young men, the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent
of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated (Hebrew: anah) his sister Tamar. (2 Sam.
13:32 NAU)
They ravished (Hebrew: anah )the women in Zion,
The virgins in the cities of Judah.
(Lam 5:11 NAS)
You can’t claim anything is evil. Including the God you seem to
not believe in.
We can claim something is evil if it is reasonable to use our subjective standard of good and bad. I claim rape is evil, because it interferes with her rights as they exist in this country. I don't need to prove that America's hatred of rape reflects a transcendent morality in order to be reasonable to say rape is evil.
You are merely fallaciously assuming that nothing but an absolute standard of right and wrong will suffice. You couldn't be more wrong. You could never host a garage sale. After all, there's no absolute guide to how much a used dvd player is worth, so that puts you in Shitsville for the rest of your life.
Terry
Lewis says:
August
16, 2017 at 10:46 am
Hey
Andy!
Thinking someone blinded is not an insult; it’s an assessment of their
abilities. Or do you think there’s something insulting about being blind?
“That torture causes suffering is a
fact that is outside myself.”
True
enough… but this is not a moral statement. It says nothing about whether such
suffering should or should not be inflicted on another person. What say you about
that?
I think baby-torture is immoral because it takes away from babies everything that my genetic predospositions and cultural conditioning say babies should be allowed to enjoy. I think this is the part where you say it is objectively unreasonable to go along with one's culture.
KR says:
July 21, 2017 at
6:58 am
Premise 2 is of
course equally problematic. If there are objective moral values, they should be
demonstrable facts – yet I’ve never seen such a demonstration. The question I
keep asking but never get an answer to is: when people disagree on a moral
issue, how do we determine who’s objectively correct?
By asking what Frank Turek's interpretation of the bible is, of course. If you point out that other evangelicals disagree with his morals or theology, then you probably aren't one of the elect and can be conveniently ignored.
