Dawkins and Morality
May 12th, 2008 by JohnO
Over on the He Lives blog David takes a look at one of the counter-points made by Dawkins in his book ‘The God Delusion’. Specifically, Dawkins apparently loves it when people of faith ask him how morality exists without God. In fact, this is one of William Lane Craig’s main arguments for the existence of God – the existence of morality. It is also a big part of the foundation of CS Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’ work. To Dawkins:
my [Dawkins’s] immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge: ‘Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple polishing [etc.]’ The God Delusion, p. 259.
The standard reply goes along these lines:
The answer to Dawkins’s errant critique is simple: Professor Dawkins, you have missed the boat. No, it has nothing to do with seeking to obtain reward or avoid punishment. No, it has nothing to do, as your counter-argument assumes, with the fact that we are under 24/7 surveillance from a lidless-eyed God. It has everything to do with the fact that the source of my moral compass and the source of your moral compass is God. The question is not, as you conveniently assume, “If you think God is not watching you, why should you, as an atheist, do anything good?” The question is “If there is no God, then why should any of us doing anything good?” It has to do with something we are born with, a congenital morality of right and wrong provided by God, not a trivial reaction to being watched from above. David @ He Lives
I must admit I’ve not read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or any of the ‘New Athiesm’ movement. But from what I have heard from all sides is nothing new at all. The force of the arguments is not compelling enough, especially if we can take this as an example. The innate ability of people to discern what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, across all cultural boundaries, and across all times is a huge example that both Craig and Lewis use in their apologetic works of the Christian faith. They both see it as a finger pointing to the existence of God.
“The innate ability of people to discern what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, across all cultural boundaries, and across all times is a huge example that both Craig and Lewis use in their apologetic works of the Christian faith.”
But it’s not, because morals and what people discern of as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ change over time, from very simple morality like those of some animal species to what we have now.
Ahh,
Dawkins fall back is just to say Christians are idiots. I think the argument of morality is strong. If there is no supreme lawgiver, than who’s to say that Hitler was bad? On what standard? He’s only being true to his animalistic nature. Survival if the fittest right? Besides Dawkins talks about the selfish gene, again, then everything that society looks down on is just us trying to advance and survive as technologically advanced primates.
Animals aren’t included here. And we’re not talking about the right or wrong of detailed infractions that might be legal or illegal in certain countries. We’re talking about the basics of responsibility. Every culture condones murder (some might glorify war), every culture respects property ownership whether personal or corporate, the list could go on. Read CS Lewis on it, and listen to William Lane Craig in his arguments for God. I’m not the expert here, I’m just bringing the experts to bear.
“If there is no supreme lawgiver, than who’s to say that Hitler was bad?”
Humanity.
“On what standard?”
Human standards.
“He’s only being true to his animalistic nature. Survival if the fittest right?”
Incorrect. You assume “survival of the fittest” means strongest and killer of the most. “Fittest” can mean anything that assists in survival. It’s like saying tall strong people are obviously more fit…but a smaller, faster person can more easily evade predators.
A person with sickle-cell anemia is obvious less fit than a healthy person, right? Except when they’re living in a place infested with malaria, which the sickle-cell anemic person is resistant to.
“Besides Dawkins talks about the selfish gene”
Have you read the book? And I mean that seriously. (It actually is quite a good read.)
The ‘selfish gene’ is not about a gene that makes us selfish. It’s about the fact that genes drive our evolution, and will do anything to be passed on…such as the moral acts of saving our offspring and living in cooperative societies to more easily survive. The genes themselves are being referred to as ‘selfish’.
“Every culture condones murder”
Do you mean that every culture doesn’t condone murder?
If so, then look at our history and all the cultures that have performed human sacrifices. And some current cultures that condone murder as long as their particular ideology supports it.
“every culture respects property ownership whether personal or corporate”
Except for the communists.
I’m not trying to argue every point here.
I just want to point out that I generally agree that humans share a great deal of their morality intrinsically with other humans. We just differ on our explanation of that fact. You say god, I say evolution (biological and social).
Either way, I’m glad it’s so.
Communists = corporate ownership
Sacrifice != murder
I don’t know of any culture that affirms and supports murder.
Sal’s point is that humanity has no standard to affirm to. From a relativistic standpoint no human has any right to infringe upon another. If there is no absolute authority (other than humanity) then no one can say one human is wrong and one human is right, justifiably. This is brought out more formally in Craig’s lectures – have a listen.
Well, Craig is wrong.
Your rights end when they infringe on me. Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. As simple as that.
Society says who is right and who is wrong. That’s always been how it is. It’s one of the reasons societies have formed in the first place…a group of people that like owning things and don’t want to get killed join up and agree to protect each other.
And if there is an absolute moral lawgiver, then no one is really moral. You’re just following orders.
First of all, the idea that the Christian morality stems from fear of punishment and “sucking up” is only one of Dawkin’s arguments. I’m not saying its a bad one, but that the totality of his argument is much more involved.
“The innate ability of people to discern what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, across all cultural boundaries is a huge example…”
There are certainly moral guidelines that exist across cultural boundaries. These guidelines are rooted in everyones sub-consciousness. The usual Atheist position, fundamentally speaking, is simple: these innate moral rules are a product of evolution, not God.
But, at the same time, with the development of language and culture, there has been social “evolution” and many diverse moral codes developed. For instance, some cultures have “honor killings”: if someone takes your crops, you have the moral obligation to kill them. These rules evolved because they benefited the societies where those people lived…food may have been scarce. Then it led to the practice of killing adulterers.
There are still several fairly universal moral principals: such as “reciprocity”: which is the same as the golden rule : do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. It is seen in many animal species. The idea is that you help others, with the expectation that they will help you when you have a time of need. However, for this to work, it is usually limited to a certain group (“kin”). I won’t get into the details, but I think this has been fairly well established scientifically.
Anyways, this reminded me of an article that appeared in Discover on the subject
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_print
Also this article is very interesting as well,
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save/article_print
Morse,
as much as you’ve implored us to read Dawkins – go listen to Craig, instead of asserting he is wrong. And listen to the atheists entirely fail to deal with his argumentation. Your argument essentially says “whoever has more people agreeing with them is righter.” Because the claim that my rights end when they infringe yours is also based on your humanity. Any other humanity can claim the opposite – and you are in no position to deny that, because you can’t infringe on his right either.
Delton,
You wrote:
“These guidelines are rooted in everyones sub-consciousness”
As evolution controls genetics, the synthesis of proteins in the organism – I am unaware that they’ve mapped the genes for “this controls your sub-consciousness”. There is no scientific basis, we haven’t even been able to crack the ice as to how the brain *actually* works (hence the massive studies into autism and mental disorders), to say that any combination of proteins determines what one *believes* in as “right” or “wrong”.
“as much as you’ve implored us to read Dawkins”
Did I implore? I believe I merely asked if you read the book that you were speaking about, as it appeared that you hadn’t.
“Your argument essentially says “whoever has more people agreeing with them is righter.””
Wrong. I was speaking how morality amongst societies form, not about what is or isn’t moral. It is completely possible for a society to form around what I would view as immoral rules.
My morality is personal. “Do no harm. When doing harm is unavoidable, attempt to do the least harm possible.”. And, happily, it seems to work.
“Any other humanity can claim the opposite – and you are in no position to deny that, because you can’t infringe on his right either.”
This is where many Christians get it wrong. When I see you beating someone over the head with a stick, and I take away your stick, I’m not infringing on your rights. I’m protecting the rights of the victim you’ve been attacking.
You don’t have the right to take anothers’ rights away. It doesn’t work otherwise.
We have already talked about this before. You are just asserting your morality. On what basis do you get to define what is right and wrong? You say that it is based on society. Well society, at least yours and mine, is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic contained in Scripture. Thus, you are merely arguing that this ethic (that of Scripture) is right because society works on it. But this is absurd.
Atheists have no moral absolutes nor can they judge other people as doing something that is morally bad because they have no objective standard.
“Atheists have no moral absolutes”
Correct. But neither do Christians. They just think they do.
“nor can they judge other people as doing something that is morally bad because they have no objective standard.”
Sure can. Science can objectively tell us what harm and benefit are, which both assist in determining morality.
“Well society, at least yours and mine, is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic contained in Scripture.”
Not entirely. Although I would never say that your religion didn’t have a large effect on the general morality. But very few, if any, of the ethics in your religion are original to your religion.
Assuming atheism is true (which it is not) you are correct. But if there is a God, a well attested fact demonstrated through many different arguments for many centuries by many cultures then it follows that the Creator would have a clue on what is good and bad for his creation.
I repeat, you have no objective criteria to determine if an act is good or bad. Science does not contain moral truth. It is outside of its reach. You can classify harm and benefit, but still you need a standard. Are you the standard? I hope not. God is much more qualified to give us the basis for our deeds.
Since Christianity is true, I would say, that other pre-Christian religions had some things right which were then confirmed to be true through the life and teaching of Jesus. Regardless, you have to admit that your ideas about morality were given to you from a society that got its ideas about morality from the Bible.
“then it follows that the Creator would have a clue on what is good and bad for his creation”
I present to you the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something moral because god wills it, or does god will it because it is moral? If the latter, then absolute morality exists without god. If the former, then you don’t have absolute morality…you just follow the subjective morality of the strongest being.
“Are you the standard?”
The standard is harm and benefit. You can deny that, and continually tell me that I have no standard. But your constant assertions do not make it true.
“Regardless, you have to admit that your ideas about morality were given to you from a society that got its ideas about morality from the Bible.”
No. I have some of my ideas about morality from the bible. Many I’ve gotten from investigation. And many ideas from morality that have come from the bible I have thrown out as being, frankly, silly and useless.
God wills it because it is right and he cannot do otherwise, he is the Creator of right, so both. He is the giver of moral law and he also wills that we keep it. But the question to ask is, can God make an objective reality? We believe God made gravity and invested mass with this property. Does that make gravity subjective? I don’t think so, it acts indiscriminately on all matter (unless God intervenes)
I wonder, do you believe in miracles? I know Delton doesn’t. But, if you don’t then all I have to do is produce sufficient evidence for one single miracle and your naturalistic worldview would implode. If you do believe in miracles then you are not a naturalist and admit to “super”natural phenomena.
“I wonder, do you believe in miracles? I know Delton doesn’t. But, if you don’t then all I have to do is produce sufficient evidence for one single miracle and your naturalistic worldview would implode.”
You are 100% correct. Produce sufficient evidence for a single miracle, and I’ll gladly reexamine my worldview. I’ve changed it before, I can change it again if given evidence.
Define clearly what you mean by “miracle”, and I’ll gladly tell you if I believe in them.
For example, if a miracle is just something that is very very unlikely, then sure. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I have a feeling you don’t mean it in that way. But I could be wrong.
I mean by miracle when God intervenes in the natural laws to cause unlikely, and in some instances impossible, events to happen.
Also, for anyone interested, William Craig has just done a lecture entitled Can We Be Good Without God?, which deals with the exact question we have been looking at here: do atheists have any objective ground for making moral judgments or is it just a societal creation or individual preference? I highly recommend listening to this audio if you are at all intrigued by the subject of God and morality.
Then no, I don’t believe in miracles.
In order to be proven wrong, we first need evidence that these unlikely or impossible things happened, and then evidence that these things were caused by the Christian God. (Unless you mean just miracles in general, in which case any god or supernatural creature will do.)
Do that and, as I said, I’ll gladly reconsider my worldview.
“Your rights end when they infringe on me. Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. As simple as that.”
Says who though? If evolution is correct, then you have no rights. The only rights you have, have been made up by Animals of a high class. It’s an idea that’s only in our heads, think about it. Lions sometimes eat there cub, what about the cub’s right to live a long life? Since we’ve just evolved we’re just plain animals and when I swing my arm it can connect to your face because there is no such thing as rights. As simple as that.
“If evolution is correct, then you have no rights.”
Evolution is correct, and it has no basis on our laws beyond it’s effect on our biological proclivities.
“when I swing my arm it can connect to your face because there is no such thing as rights.”
Except I belong to a society that will arrest you for doing so. And I’m glad for it.
If you think that, without a belief in god, you would go about hitting people, then by all means keep believing. Most people, I think, don’t need that crutch.
I’m not saying I need a “crutch or an excuse” to not go on hitting people.
And yes, we belong to society that does not condone hitting people.
I’m simply making a point that if you strip away society and organized government then you are left simply with what? We’re again just animals, and rights and morals are man made.
“I’m simply making a point that if you strip away society and organized government then you are left simply with what? We’re again just animals, and rights and morals are man made.”
Exactly. That’s what separates us from the animals, we’ve made rights and morals because we see the benefits of following them.
Then, what is the origin of morals/conscience? The Maxims of Ptah-Hotep? Pythagoras? Socrates? God?
Did it evolve? When did man decide hitting each other in the face was wrong? Were there laws in Jaam, Indus, Nam, Sumer(or whatever name wins the crown as the earliest human civilization.) My point is, Somewhere we run out of evidence for the origin of moral law. Somewhere we have to start taking things ‘on faith’. I’m not any type of expert so I’ll just re-direct to a better discussion:
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/02/24/the-new-athiesm/
“Did it evolve?”
Yes.
“When did man decide hitting each other in the face was wrong?”
When the man he hit turned and hit him back. Man decided he did not like getting hit, and the best way to avoid that was not hitting others.
Sean wrote:
“nor can they judge other people as doing something that is morally bad because they have no objective standard.”
Mores replied:
“Sure can. Science can objectively tell us what harm and benefit are, which both assist in determining morality.”
Morse, you are assuming that morality is determined by objective scientifically determined definitions of harm and benefit. Why are you assuming this?
This is simply a presupposition you have as a product of your own social culture. This is what you have been told to believe is right, so you believe it’s right. If you lived in a different social culture with a different view, you would believe that view was right. I see nothing objective here.
Morse,
“Man decided he did not like getting hit, and the best way to avoid that was not hitting others.”
It may have escaped your notice, but that’s not the best way to avoid that. Most people who are hit have never hit anyone.
“Morse, you are assuming that morality is determined by objective scientifically determined definitions of harm and benefit. Why are you assuming this?”
Because that’s where I get my morality, and judging by most of our laws, it’s where our society got its morality.
“I see nothing objective here.”
Harm and benefit can scientifically be determined objectively. Morality, I agree with you, cannot. But that doesn’t mean all moralities are equal.
Morse,
‘Because that’s where I get my morality, and judging by most of our laws, it’s where our society got its morality.’
This is circular reasoning, ‘I get true morality from X, and I know it’s true because I get my morality from X’.
‘Harm and benefit can scientifically be determined objectively.’
Yes.
‘Morality, I agree with you, cannot.’
Exactly.
‘But that doesn’t mean all moralities are equal.’
I agree. It does mean that attempting to use scientifically determined harm and benefit as assessments of morality is subjective and no guarantee of discerning ‘true’ morality.
“This is circular reasoning, ‘I get true morality from X, and I know it’s true because I get my morality from X’.”
I’m not trying to say my morality or society’s morality is true. I’m just trying to explain where it comes from.
You seem to be assuming there is a true morality. I do not.
I don’t even presume to think that my morality is ‘true’. I just think my morality happens to be the best one I have come across. And so, I will promote it. If I come across a better morality, I will embrace that one.
Morse,
‘I’m not trying to say my morality or society’s morality is true. I’m just trying to explain where it comes from.’
If it’s not true, then what’s the point of it?
‘You seem to be assuming there is a true morality. I do not.’
Actually I thought that you assumed there is a true morality. If you don’t think there is, then why go to the bother of attempting to determine morality objectively, through scientific observation? If there isn’t a true morality, then you can do what you like, and nothing matters.
‘I don’t even presume to think that my morality is ‘true’. I just think my morality happens to be the best one I have come across. And so, I will promote it. If I come across a better morality, I will embrace that one.’
Well here you go using a term which sounds like you think you’ve found something which is right. What do you mean by ‘best’? I suspect that you don’t really mean ‘best’, you really mean ‘The one which I think is the most right’. It’s all subjective, as I said.
As soon as someone puts together a sentence with ‘scientific’, ‘objectively’, and ‘morality’, I know that what they’re doing is trying to justify a totally subjective decision.
In fact, the atheist should not allow himself or herself to use such words as “good” and “bad” since these words imply a standard by which these moral judgments can be made. Everything should be couched in relative terminology (i.e. something is better or worse). But even then we are comparing things and what is it that tells us what is better and worse? our society? Well, then that is a tacit endorsement of Christian morality anyhow because our societal moral consciousness is largely derived from Christianity. So then we agree, God and his Scriptures are our standard for morality. If not, then we need an objective criterion (or criteria) by which to make moral judgments. And saying harm/benefit doesn’t help because that is just asserting something. Why not say love? You have to demonstrate why harm/benefit is objectively the right standard of moral judgment. Furthermore, whose benefit? The creature? If so, then all self sacrificial acts of compassion are immoral. Are you prepared to say that those who give their lives for the benefit of others are immoral? I is true that being a fireman is an immoral profession?
“If there isn’t a true morality, then you can do what you like, and nothing matters.”
I still have to live on this planet with 6 billion other people. That most certainly matters. If for no other reason than the people who think it doesn’t matter end up either doing horrible things or end up dead, which is something I’d like to keep from happening as long as possible.
“True” morality suggests some sort of transcendent, objective, absolute morality. Which I don’t believe in. I think harm and benefit can be viewed objectively, but that doesn’t lead to an objective morality. It leads to situational morality. Which is what I have.
And again, it seems to be the best morality that I’ve seen out there. If there is a better one, I’ll be glad to find it.
“What do you mean by ‘best’?”
I mean it keeps me alive and flourishing and it harms the least amount of people. As opposed to moralities that say ‘killing is okay given x’, for example.
“I suspect that you don’t really mean ‘best’, you really mean ‘The one which I think is the most right’. It’s all subjective, as I said.”
Sure. The best I can see using my subjective view, using the objective scientific understanding of harm and benefit.
“As soon as someone puts together a sentence with ’scientific’, ‘objectively’, and ‘morality’, I know that what they’re doing is trying to justify a totally subjective decision.”
You just have to be sure that you know which of those words apply to which subjects in the sentence.
“In fact, the atheist should not allow himself or herself to use such words as “good” and “bad” since these words imply a standard by which these moral judgments can be made.”
You’re assuming the only moral standard is an absolute one. I don’t recognize that. Our moral standard is humanity, and the history of human morals.
“So then we agree, God and his Scriptures are our standard for morality.”
No.
What we agree on is this: Some of the rules that were written down in your scriptures were good ideas then (don’t kill, don’t steal), were good ideas before your scriptures were written (see the code of Hammurabi), and remain good ideas now.
Others (don’t blaspheme, don’t work on sunday, looking at a woman in lust is adultery) are outmoded and wrong.
Still others (don’t eat shellfish, don’t wear multi-fiber clothes, don’t cut your hair, get circumcised) are just plain silly.
I have no problem taking from your religion the few good ideas it has. And taking from other religions their good ideas. I recognize that men created them all, and so are subject to the judgment of other men and women.
“Furthermore, whose benefit? The creature? If so, then all self sacrificial acts of compassion are immoral.”
Benefit as a whole. Now we’re getting into evolutionary instinct, which we can discuss if you like. Self sacrifice is bred, for lack of a better term, into humans. And into other animals. Not always rational, not always intelligent, but it is what we do. And I’d say it is usually either moral or amoral.
Morse:
‘I still have to live on this planet with 6 billion other people. That most certainly matters. If for no other reason than the people who think it doesn’t matter end up either doing horrible things or end up dead, which is something I’d like to keep from happening as long as possible.’
Most certainly. But this has little to do with morality, it’s simply a matter of survival.
‘“True” morality suggests some sort of transcendent, objective, absolute morality. Which I don’t believe in. I think harm and benefit can be viewed objectively, but that doesn’t lead to an objective morality. It leads to situational morality. Which is what I have.’
Yes, I certainly agree. Situational morality is exactly what you have. Of course, harm and benefit have their own problems, and can’t always be defined objectively.
‘I mean it keeps me alive and flourishing and it harms the least amount of people.’
The first part makes sense. The second only makes sense in terms of the first. Otherwise, it’s simply a salve to your precultured conscience.
‘The best I can see using my subjective view, using the objective scientific understanding of harm and benefit.’
Harm and benefit are not always able to be determined objectively. Since in this case you really mean ‘harm and benefit from my personal point of view’, then your definitions of harm and benefit are subjective. Science has nothing to do with this.
‘You just have to be sure that you know which of those words apply to which subjects in the sentence.’
Yes, and in this case I can’t see any justifiable reason for including the words ‘scientific’ or ‘objective’ in your statement. It’s just sleight of hand in an attempt to differentiate your basis for morality from that which you consider illegitimate.
Morse:
‘Self sacrifice is bred, for lack of a better term, into humans. And into other animals. Not always rational, not always intelligent, but it is what we do. And I’d say it is usually either moral or amoral.’
No, self sacrifice is not bred into humans. It is inculcated through social pressure. It is also sometimes immoral.
“No, self sacrifice is not bred into humans. It is inculcated through social pressure.”
So I guess all those women who instinctively protect their children are just inculcated. There’s nothing in nature to indicate that it could be instinctive.
You know…except for all those animal mothers that protect their children, eggs or nest to the death…but you know, other than THAT.
As far as harm is concerned, I look at things like mental and physical harm. What I like to call “actual” harm. Which is why, for example, I consider blasphemy to be a victimless crime. Not even a crime, as it is legal in this country. No harm is caused by it.
Now, you may subjectively view the existence of atheists as harmful. But unless you have some sort of study that demonstrates that, people like me won’t take those claims seriously.
Morse,
>
So I guess all those women who instinctively protect their children are just inculcated.
>
Pretty much. There are millions of other women who dispose of their babies without any concern whatsoever, simply because they’re inconvenient. Historically leaving babies to die of exposure was a standard female practice for disposing of unwanted children.
>
There’s nothing in nature to indicate that it could be instinctive.
>
Among non-human animals perhaps, not among humans. These days females are conditioned to protect their young by a combination of positive reinforcement (inculcating care values), and negative reinforcement (punishment of illicit abandonment of care), though certain legal provisions have been made for women who wish to dispose of their children and feel no need to care for them (these provisions typically involve others caring for the child).
>
You know…except for all those animal mothers that protect their children, eggs or nest to the death…but you know, other than THAT.
>
We’re not talking about non-human animals.
>
As far as harm is concerned, I look at things like mental and physical harm. What I like to call “actual” harm.
>
So that’s ‘mental and physical harm’ as defined by whom? How about this for a picture. One guy stands in front of another guy insisting that he carry out, repeatedly, a series of actions which are progressively weakening his body and damaging his muscular tissues, over an hour. How’s that for mental and physical harm?
>
Which is why, for example, I consider blasphemy to be a victimless crime. Not even a crime, as it is legal in this country. No harm is caused by it.
>
Well there you go, it’s all about ‘I consider’. Totally subjective.
>
Now, you may subjectively view the existence of atheists as harmful.
>
I don’t actually.
“Pretty much. There are millions of other women who dispose of their babies without any concern whatsoever, simply because they’re inconvenient. Historically leaving babies to die of exposure was a standard female practice for disposing of unwanted children.”
Millions? Really? Care to show any documentation to back that up?
Certainly there are occasions when mothers will abandon their children. It happens in nature as well. That doesn’t change the fact that mammalian mothers will, in general, instinctively protect their young.
I don’t like calling people liars, but I think you pulled ‘millions’ out of the air.
“We’re not talking about non-human animals.”
We’re talking about animals. Specifically mammals, that is animals who give birth to live young. Of which homo sapiens sapiens are a subset.
“One guy stands in front of another guy insisting that he carry out, repeatedly, a series of actions which are progressively weakening his body and damaging his muscular tissues, over an hour. How’s that for mental and physical harm?”
Exercising with a trainer? Not harm. Primarily because there is benefit (becoming stronger), and the fact that these people are doing it consensually.
Actual harm is harm determined by the tool that has most consistently shown us things that are true…the scientific method.
“Well there you go, it’s all about ‘I consider’. Totally subjective.”
Not totally. It is subjectively amoral in this country, not just to me. It is also, objectively, not harmful. If you have actual evidence that it is harmful, by all means bring it forward and I’ll change my mind.
Morse,
‘Millions? Really? Care to show any documentation to back that up?’
I don’t think I need to. I’m sure you’re as aware as I am of the millions of mothers around the world who put their children up for adoption (most common in the West), sell them (more common in Africa and the Far East), or late abort them (mainly in the West).
>
Certainly there are occasions when mothers will abandon their children. It happens in nature as well. That doesn’t change the fact that mammalian mothers will, in general, instinctively protect their young.
>
When you say ‘mammaliam mothers’, are you including humans in that category? Care to offer hard scientific evidence for the ‘mothering instinct’ in human mothers?
>
I don’t like calling people liars, but I think you pulled ‘millions’ out of the air.
>
I didn’t. But I rather think you wrongly assumed you knew what I meant because you didn’t read my post closely.
>
We’re talking about animals.
>
No, I was never talking about animals. Read my posts, please.
>
Exercising with a trainer? Not harm.
>
Ah, well here’s the rub. You chose to interpret that as exercising with a trainer. But I deliberately made it vague. It could be a prison guard inflicting punishment on an inmate. It could be a a soldier being disciplined in the barracks.
But the situation is irrelevant. The fact is that OBJECTIVE harm is taking place. Muscle tissue is being torn. Fatigue is increasing. The body is being damaged. Objective harm is taking place.
What my example helpfully exposed was the fact that you will willfully ignore OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE AND OBSERVABLE HARM, and reinterpret it as non-harm, given a situation which is favourable to your moral preconceptions. Thank you for helping me out.
>
Primarily because there is benefit (becoming stronger), and the fact that these people are doing it consensually.
>
Here you go again. Whether or not it is consensual doesn’t change the fact that harm is taking place. You mitigate the harm by saying that future benefits will accrue, thus in your view NO harm is taking place in the PRESENT. But this is true of the prison inmate and the disciplined soldier. They’re getting stronger also, whether the action is consensual or not.
Once again you’ve chosen to ignore objectively measurable and observable harm, on the basis of a subjective judgment. Ironically you have used a classic Christian defense in response to the theodicy dilemma, the ‘future benefit’ defense. Of course, such future benefits are almost always entirely subjective.
>
Not totally. It is subjectively amoral in this country, not just to me.
>
It doesn’t matter how many people subjectively view it as amoral, that’s still a subjective view.
>
It is also, objectively, not harmful. If you have actual evidence that it is harmful, by all means bring it forward and I’ll change my mind.
>
I haven’t argued that it is harmful. Please read my posts.
Morse, look at my previous post:
>
Morse:
‘Self sacrifice is bred, for lack of a better term, into humans. And into other animals. Not always rational, not always intelligent, but it is what we do. And I’d say it is usually either moral or amoral.’
No, self sacrifice is not bred into humans. It is inculcated through social pressure. It is also sometimes immoral.
>
Was I talking about humans or animals? Looks like humans to me.
Fortigurn: Your original statement.
“There are millions of other women who dispose of their babies without any concern whatsoever, simply because they’re inconvenient.”
Your REVISED statement.
“I don’t think I need to. I’m sure you’re as aware as I am of the millions of mothers around the world who put their children up for adoption (most common in the West), sell them (more common in Africa and the Far East), or late abort them (mainly in the West).”
It is incredibly disingenuous of you to compare adoption to “disposing of their babies without any concern.” Adoption is one of the best things many mothers and parents can do for their children.
And again, I’d like to see your data for the millions of late abortions (what do you define as ‘late’), and millions of selling children. By all means, if you have the data at your fingertips, share.
“But the situation is irrelevant. The fact is that OBJECTIVE harm is taking place. Muscle tissue is being torn. Fatigue is increasing. The body is being damaged. Objective harm is taking place.”
Except that it’s not objective. That muscle damage, as you call it, is how muscles grow.
If we’re only talking about damage, then it is objective harm. But only objective in that situation.
This is why your vague example works…morals are situational. Sometimes an act can be immoral, sometimes moral, and sometimes amoral. Your vague example is a great demonstration of that. Thank you.
“Here you go again. Whether or not it is consensual doesn’t change the fact that harm is taking place.”
Sure it does. Look at sex. If it’s consensual, no harm. If it’s not consensual, it’s rape, and harmful. Emotionally and psychologically if not always physically.
“Ironically you have used a classic Christian defense in response to the theodicy dilemma, the ‘future benefit’ defense. Of course, such future benefits are almost always entirely subjective.”
My argument is different. Future benefit only works as a defense if the actions taken are consensual with the knowledge of the future benefit by the person doing the action (or having the action done to them).
“Was I talking about humans or animals? Looks like humans to me.”
And I state that humans ARE animals, and separating them the way you do makes no sense.
Morse,
You really need to read my posts properly. At present you’re simply reading what you think I would have written.
* ‘Your REVISED statement’: That’s not a revised statement. It’s a clarification of what I meant by my first statement. I stand by my first statement
* ‘Adoption is one of the best things many mothers and parents can do for their children’: In some situations, yes. Not in all situations, no. And handing over your child to an orphanage (which is where the vast majority of unwanted children go), is not the best thing many mothers and parents can do for their children. But .let’s remember, this adoption thing shouldn’t even be happening because of that amazing ‘mothering instinct’ for which you have yet to provide any evidence. You’re attempting to claim that adoption is a manifestation of ‘mothering instinct’? Remember, your original claim was ‘self sacrifice’. It’s self sacrifice to hand your child over to an orphanage?
* ‘I’d like to see your data for the millions of late abortions (what do you define as ‘late’), and millions of selling children’: Wow, what a claim! Quote me directly please. Where did I say that?
* ‘Except that it’s not objective. That muscle damage, as you call it, is how muscles grow’: Ooops, you’ve just contradicted yourself. It IS muscle damage, and that IS how muscles grow. They grow by being damaged. That is an objective fact. You cannot deny that this is objective harm, unlike your subjective notions of harm. You even admitted ‘If we’re only talking about damage, then it is objective harm’. Ta da!
* ‘This is why your vague example works…morals are situational’: Well here you go again, proving my point. Your morals are NOT objectively based, as you previously claimed. You were trying to argue that your morals are based on what is OBJECTIVELY verifiable. In reality they aren’t. They are based on your SUBJECTIVE assessment of different situations. My example proves my point, not yours. I already knew you believed in situational ethics (despite the fact that you previously made claim to an absolutist model), but that wasn’t the point under discussion. The point under discussion was whether or not your ethics were OBJECTIVELY based. You claimed they were, but we’ve just seen they aren’t,
* Consensual: You’ve missed the point completely here. When I said ‘Whether or not it is consensual doesn’t change the fact that harm is taking place’ I was referring specifically to the example I gave, not to any situation at all. The fact that the athlete is consenting to physical harm doesn’t change the fact that physical harm is taking place.
* Future benefit: You claim your argument is different. It isn’t. And you haven’t explained why future benefit ‘only works as a defense’ if consent is given in the manner you describe.
* Humans and animals: You seem to have forgotten the context of this exchange. Your original statement was ‘Self sacrifice is bred, for lack of a better term, into humans. And into other animals’. In this context the choice was between ‘humans’ and ‘other animals’. I made my first comment choosing ‘humans’, saying ‘No, self sacrifice is not bred into humans’. So it’s totally clear that my remarks were specific to humans.
In response to my comments (which were specifically about humans’, you made an argument based on ‘all those animal mothers’. In this phrase you used ‘animal mothers’ as DISTINCT FROM human mothers. Here’s the context, where you first talk about ‘women’ (human mothers), and then turn to talk about ‘nature’ (non-human mothers, whom you call ‘animal mothers’):
‘So I guess all those women who instinctively protect their children are just inculcated. There’s nothing in nature to indicate that it could be instinctive.
You know…except for all those animal mothers that protect their children, eggs or nest to the death…but you know, other than THAT.’
So ironically YOU made here the very separation for which you attempt to fault me. Then I promptly pointed out that I wasn’t talking about ‘all those animal mothers’, that I was only talking about human mothers. In this post I actually used the correct terminology, distinguishing human mothers from other animal mothers:
‘Among non-human animals perhaps, not among humans.’
‘We’re not talking about non-human animals.’
So don’t tell me I was identifying humans as non-animals. My last post (‘Was I talking about humans or animals? Looks like humans to me’), is simply shorthand for ‘human animals or non-human animals’, as I’m sure you were well aware since I had consistently made this distinction (unlike you).
You’re just attempting to sidetrack the discussion by trying to score cheap debating points.
When all the dust has settled, what we end up with is the fact that you have a morality system which is entirely subjective, non-objective, situational, relativist, and which is completely self-validated. Actions are right or wrong because Morse says so.