Morality: Who Needs God?

God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."

At first glance, this statement may not make sense. Everything is permitted? Can't there be a morality without an infinite God?

Perhaps some of the confusion is due to a murky definition of morality we owe to moral relativism. Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong existing separate and independent from humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her subjective ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.

The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Since all moral issues are subjective, right and wrong are reduced to matters of opinion and personal taste. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that sticks whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels like by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good." Adultery, embezzlement, and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone from taking pleasure in them if that is what they enjoy.

Is having an intimate relationship with a 12-year-old objectively wrong just because you don't like it?

Perhaps murder makes a serial killer feel powerful and alive. A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Hannibal, the Cannibal, is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.

Popularity has nothing to do with determining absolute morality; it just makes it commonplace, like the color navy.

"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate ice cream with lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's.

Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a consistent moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may only be that it is wrong to hurt others, or that there are no absolutes. The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most of us, it seems, are not moral relativists.

Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste that can change according to whim. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval.

An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?

When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. Absolute means unchangeable, not unchanging.

My dislike for olives is unchanging. I'll never start liking them. That doesn't mean it is impossible for my taste to change, even though it's highly unlikely. Since it could change, it is not absolute. It is changeable.

The term "absolute" means without the ability to change. It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.

Think of something absolute. Take for example an icon of permanence and stability -- the Rock of Gibraltar. "Get a piece of the rock" -- it lasts forever!

The nature of absolute is a bit tricky to grasp because we find ourselves running into the same problem of our finite selves attempting to perceive the infinite, a topic we have discussed in a previous article in this series. Everything that exists within time undergoes change. That's what time is -- a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, "change."

If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change -- since it exists within time -- where can we find the quality of absolute?

Its source cannot be in time, which is constantly undergoing change. It must be beyond time, in the infinite dimension. Only God, the infinite being that exists beyond time, is absolute and unchangeable.

Therefore an absolute standard of morality can exist only if it stems from an infinite dimension -- a realm that is eternal, beyond time, with no beginning and no end.

In addition to the demise of morality, moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered -- and I am all the more impoverished with its absence.

If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts -- since there is no possibility of ever being wrong.

A common argument often heard for supporting relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue all cultures universally agree to!

Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity.

The plethora of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we arguing about?

Imagine walking down the street and you hear a ferocious argument taking place behind a door. People are yelling at each other in a fit of rage. You ask a bystander what the commotion is all about. He tells you this is a Ben & Jerry's ice cream store and they're fighting over what is the best flavor of ice cream.

Real debates and disagreements occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences of flavors. Think of a time you experienced moral outrage. The force behind that anger is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of preference, like music and interior design, do not provoke moral outrage.

What provokes our moral outrage? Injustice? Cruelty? Oppression? There is the sense that an absolute standard of morality is being violated, an objective standard that transcends humanity, that stems from an infinite and absolute Being.

Ok, if you concede free will (which, again: I thought Calvinists held the idea of predestination, but silly me),

Calvinists do hold to the idea of Predestination. Gosh, a Christian must believe in Predestination -- it is a BIBLE WORD, like "Salvation" or "Glorification".

However, Predestination and Free Will are not incompatible. Matthew 11:21-23:

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Nobody is denying that Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom -- in the absence of the Salvific Miracles -- freely chose to NOT Repent. And Jesus here declares that, if God had chosen to perform the Salvific Miracles, they would have freely chosen to Repent.

In either scenario, their choice was freely made. However, alone in Eternity, God -- by HIS Election as to the conditions into which they would be placed with full Omniscience as to what Choice they would choose under what conditions -- pre-determined just which Choice they would actually make. Thus we see that Free Will (contained within Creation) is not incomensurate with Predestination (Elective Sovereignty over all Creation).

By your anti-Predestinarian tone, it is evident that you do not believe in Predestination. That's fine, in America we have Religious Freedom, and you are not required to be a Christian if you don't want to.

STOP.

don't

within the word itself

causal predetermination

and I do not believe it.

Moving along...

and you believe that there are absolute moral values, then I have no idea what we are arguing about. My point is that ethics are non-derivable from atheism; you say that "enlightened self-interest" may propel men towards understanding a transcendent moral code -- well, "enlightened self-interest" may entail killing your business partner to get his share of the business, or making your workers toil away in a factory without any safety equipment and so on and so forth.

No, it wouldn't. That would be naked self-interest, uninformed by rational consideration of the outcomes. Enlightened Self-Interest would alert one to the fact that due to the Social Contract of other free actors who desire to Not Be Murdered, killing your business partner will get you thrown in jail (or preferably, executed).

As to "safety equipment" -- Workers have the right to accept, or refuse, to offer their Labor in any environment they please. There is no "absolute" standard of Safety in anything -- SkyDive Instructor will always be more dangerous than Accountant.

But before we proceed, Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that the Mind of Man is ABLE to comprehend the Moral Laws, or not? If you believe that the Mind of Man IS able to comprehend the Moral Laws, then why do you suppose that an Atheist would NOT be able to deduce the Moral Law by observation and experimentation, like unto the Physical Laws?

Yes, or No -- Do you believe that the Mind of Man is ABLE to comprehend the Moral Laws, or not?

If I was a little sharp with you,

No offense, I couldn't care less. Personal affronts don't bother me -- except when they are substituted for germane Arguments, as they too-often are.

I don't mind a heated discussion, it's only the banal ones which annoy me.

it was because I believe you stated on another thread that anyone who didn't believe in libertarianism was a "spiritual idiot" or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps, like my debate with ThinkDifferent (he hasn't replied to my final post), we're talking around each other. So, lets use an example. Let's say that your ideal Christian-libertarian society has a problem with owners of businesses exploiting their workers -- i.e. they are refusing to provide adequate working conditions and safety protections for their employees. I could cite you passages in the Bible that states that employers should treat their bondservants with due care (I won't, not because I can't look them up -- anyone can -- but when you start quoting Scripture here, smarty-pants atheists will start quoting it as well, but distorting it and taking it out of context). So, in your Christian-libertarian society, does the state have the right to demand that these workers have a basic level of protection from occupational injury?

No, no, NO, absolutely NOT.

In the first place, Free Laborers are not "bondservants". A Bondservant cannot refuse his Master's orders and cannot leave until his term of indentured service is complete; as such, he is a "ward" of his Master, in the legal position of a Child -- not enjoying Full Rights, thus entitled to certain Protections.

A Free Laborer on the other hand, may refuse to offer his labor in the first place and may leave at any time (subject to contract completion, assuming he has signed a binding contract; most workers are employed on a non-binding "at will" basis). So let us take an example:

YOU

$1,000 per hour

IF you choose to accept, then how have your Rights been violated? You know the risks, you are entitled to the rewards, and your Agreement was freely contracted. WHY does the State have ANY right to alter the Terms of a freely-contracted agreement?

In fact, such "Regulations" constitute a fascistic violation of the Tenth Commandment, as surely as do the communists violate the Eighth.

The Communist is a Thief. He flagrantly violates the Eighth Commandment (and using the State as his agent does not change the fact that it is Theft).
The Fascist, on the other hand, does not attempt to steal your property outright. What is the Fascist in and of himself -- what is his nature? He COVETS. He does not seek to steal your property, but instead seeks to force you to employ your property in service of his designs.

The Communist puts a gun to your head, and takes your property so that he may grow soybeans thereupon.
The Fascist puts a gun to your head, and tells you that you must grow soybeans thereupon.

One violates the Eighth Commandment.
One violates the Tenth Commandment.

Both are Criminals against God.

Catholic social-justice teaching would answer with an emphatic "YES".

Catholic social-justice teaching is also emphatically wrong.

Now, don't get in a huff and accuse me of anti-Catholicism just because I dare to critique your ivory towers.

I'm making an Argument here. Have the decency to do the same.

As a Private Citizen, I contract with a lumberjack to chop down trees on my property.
I offer to pay him $100 per hour. he freely agrees.
Do you have the right, as a Private Citizen, to place a gun to my head and command me to provide him with a helmet?

If you do not have the Right to commit this Covetous violation of the Tenth Commandment (i.e., forcing others to employ their Property in service of objectives which you decide for them), how does it "sanctify" such a Crime against God if you employ the State to such ends?

That which is Immoral for a Private Citizen, is equally Immoral for the State.

In the 19th Century, industrialists treated workers like dirt -- treated them as nothing more than one more factor of production and nothing else. And they had the money to buy the political system to make sure things like anti-child labor laws didn't get passed and so on.

In the 19th Century, the workers who were "treated like dirt" enjoyed one advantage which many, many, many of their forebears did not enjoy: Food.

Of the following two choices, select one:

Being "treated like dirt" with your consent (you can quit at any time).
Starving to death -- you and your family.

As to "child labor laws", I'll stipulate that a libertarian argument can be made in their favor on grounds that they are not adults of responsible age in full possession of their Rights. So I don't feel the need to argue the point, as many a Libertarian would be in favor of "child labor laws".

I, personally, am not. I am in favor of "Child Abuse" laws to protect their basic Rights from predation, but many "child labor" laws would, if they were actually applied as written, tend to outlaw the father-son "learning on the job" tradesmanship which characterized Civilized society for centuries ("Saint Joseph, how old is young Jesus there? Alright, bub, I'm afraid you'll have to come with us...")

So, in your ideal libertarian society

There is no such thing as an "ideal libertarian society". Libertarians are probably the only political group who don't have a utopian dream for the future (well, some Libertarians do; but most do not). Conservatives have their visions of "The Way Things Oughtta Be" and Liberals have their visions of "The Great Society" -- and each proposes that the Employment of Coercive Force can help to bring their respective visions to pass; Libertarians just want the Government to punish the Violation of Rights, and to otherwise stay out of your way and leave you alone. There is no "ideal society" proposed -- just an understanding that the Role of Government is the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law (Commandments VI - X), and that's it. Employments of Force which would be immoral for a Private Citizen, are immoral for the State.

does the state have the right to intervene to protect workers, when the state is the only thing that can redress their greivances?

The State has the Moral Duty to protect anyone whose Rights are violated (loosely speaking, anyone who is the victim of Force, Fraud, or Coercion; which essentially covers the definition of Civil Harms given by Apostle Paul in Romans 13:8-10).

HOWEVER, the State has neither the duty nor even the right to interfere with the Terms of a freely negotiated Contract, or to Order a Property-Owner to use his Property for a specified purpose.

Such State Coercions violate the Ninth and Tenth Commandments, by making Liars of Men in their contracts, and subverting their Property to the covetous control of the State.

Roman Catholic social-justice theory may justify such Fraud and Covetousness.
The Ten Commandments, however, do not.

OP I'm on another heavy-duty abortion thread,

May God bless.

so I'll have to look over your post in full tonight. You are right...the Catholic Church accepts some degree of predestination;

It's even more convoluted than that. The "Roman Catholic Church" accepts at least three entirely and intrinsically different degrees of Predestination. Egads....

This is the Brief of Benedict XIV (13 July, 1748) which declares that the three schools - Thomist, Augustinian, and Molinist - have full right to defend their theories. The Brief concludes with these words: "This Apostolic See favours the liberty of the schools; none of the systems proposed to reconcile the liberty of man with the omnipotence of God has been thus far condemned (op. cit., co1. 2555).

You have the Molinists (Self-Electionists who essentially deny Predestination in all but name -- by far and away the most common among Roman Laypersons)
You have the Thomists (more common among Roman Intellectuals; a sort of "partial predestination" in which God chooses the Elect commensurate with the Sacraments of the Church, and the Reprobate are passed over; but the Elect are rewarded according to their Good Works)
And you have the Augustinians (the least common of all, though fairly well-represented among professional Roman Apologists, given that most of them are ex-Presbyterians anyway; these are old school Augustinians who seek to incorporate the the absolute-predestinarian Augustinian system of Doctrine within the Romanistic framework. At the risk of doing Dr. Akin a dis-service, I happen to think that James Akin's A Tiptoe through TULIP represents a fine example of the Augustinian Catholic argument).

So regarding "Roman Predestination", you've got at least three entirely and intrinsically different Schools to choose from.

But choose wisely. As per the Brief of Benedict XIV, "none of the systems proposed... has been thus far condemned."

After all, my own elder brother married into the celebrated Arnauld Family. In their day, their spirited defense of Catholic Augustinianism made them the foremost spokesmen against the French Calvinists, winning the praise and benedictions of both the Sun King Louis XIV and Pope Clement IX.

Unfortunately for old Antoine Arnauld, the Jesuit Molinists succeeded in labelling him a "Jansenist" (a "Catholic Calvinist", ohhh perish the thought); Arnauld died in Exile, his theological Books (and those of his disciple -- only the greatest Mathematician in history, a faithful Jansenist Catholic {at least he thought he was faithful} by the name of Blaise Pascal) ordered to be shredded and burned.

As per the Brief of Benedict XIV, "none of the systems proposed... has been thus far condemned." Better walk a fine line...

however, I've had arguments here on FR with Calvinists (who shall remain nameless) who believe that God predestines people to hell, even children (I know a number of people in the LCMS, and I checked their website, and even they don't believe that).

For what it is worth -- given his belief in Baptismal Regeneration (see the "Thomist" and "Augustinian" positions above, specifically with regard to "God chooses the Elect commensurate with the Sacraments of the Church") -- Saint Augustine believed that God condemned un-baptized infants to Hell. Or at least, the "Ante-Room of Hell" -- the "sub-beatific Paradise" of Limbo, a cornucopia of God's merciful Favor but not His Communion.

Re-read your Dante Alighieri. He was not engaging in imaginative Fiction. In Roman Catholic terms, he was entirely orthodox, for his time.

OTOH, John Calvin dispensed entirely with the idea of "Baptismal Regeneration". One critical difference between Orthodox Lutherans and Orthodox Calvinists is that, while Orthodox Lutherans hold to the Roman Catholic idea of "baptismal regeneration", Orthodox Calvinists don't. For the Orthodox Calvinist, "Baptism" is an outward sign of the Inward Regeneration which is worked by God Alone.

And God saves whom He will, with or without the Outward Sign.

And since John Calvin taught that "Election confirmed by the calling of God. The Reprobate bring upon themselves the righteous destruction to which they are doomed" (Institutes, Book III, ch. 24), most Calvinists have followed in his stead, affirming that...

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death, is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Which is to say that Calvinists believe that God saves whom He will, with or without the Outward Sign.

There may be some exceptions, who believe that God condemns dying Infants to Hell; and in a Republic wherein we enjoy Religious Freedom, they are entitled to their views.

But I would reserve that, while they may be Calvinists, they do not happen to agree with John Calvin on this matter.

As for myself, I happen to agree with John Calvin on this matter.

I will look it over, looks long.

In the main, I actually wasn't looking to get into a long Predestination discussion (though it is always welcome!!)

I was mainly asserting that "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" is largely wrong. (As a Roman Catholic, you are permitted to entertain this possibility. To the best of my knowledge, most "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" has not been pronounced Ex Cathedra. You are permitted to question it).

IMHO, "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" needs to be a lot more Capitalistic. Heck, if you will respect no other terminology, at least believe me that "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" needs to be a lot more "FREE WILL"!! (Surely you will respect that Idea).

"Roman Catholic social-justice theory" needs to respect the Responsibilities of Free Agents and the Rights of Free Contract. "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" needs to be a lot more Libertarian!! (just ask Lew Rockwell, a ferociously-devout practicing Conservative Roman Catholic; and Murray Rothbard, who was a lot closer to Roman Catholicism than am I).

IMHO, most "Roman Catholic social-justice theory" is overly influenced by the Capitalist-Marxist philosophical divides of the Nineteenth Century.

"Roman Catholic social-justice theory" attempts to invent a "middle ground" between Capitalism and Marxism.
But I say to you, if Marx was a Satanist and Moses was a Capitalist, then there is no "middle ground" for the Pope to invent!! You side with Moses, it's that bloody simple!!

I am not an "Anarcho-Capitalist" like Lew Rockwell. Perhaps Rockwell may trust so devoutly in the Divine Providence of the Roman Catholic Church that he is prepared to let the State wither away entirely; but I do not. I believe that the State has a mandatory Biblical Ordination.

I believe that the State is a necessary Institution.
I believe that the State is commissioned with mandatory duties, per Romans 13: 1-5.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

And I believe that we should pay legitimate Taxes to the State to support its execution of its appointed Duties, per Romans 13: 6-7.

Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

HOWEVER... and here is a thought that will blow your mind... I do not believe that Paul has left us in the dark as to what he means by "Civil Good" and "Civil Evil" in regards to the Duties of the State. And here is another thought that will blow your mind -- I'm going to suggest that "Civil Good" and "Civil Evil" are not whatever the State wants to say they are.

Oh Be Still, your trembling heart, I am actually going to suggest that Paul did not leave the definition of "Civil Good" and "Civil Evil" up to the arbitrary dispensation od Caesar, but that he actually defined his terms -- in the very same passage, and in the immediately subsequent verses.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

The Fulfilling of the Law.

A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free. That is an essential characteristic of brotherly and neighborly love. All this, we believe, is very clear from Scripture. Now what other power or coercions does a government have? Is a government bound by the limitations set by the law of neighborly love, or does a government get some extra rights through alleged direct power lines from God? What statements in Scripture indicate such an extra portion of power, or right of coercion, is made available by God to governments?
Maybe we have failed. Maybe we are incompetent readers of Scripture. But we have searched the Scriptures in vain for any indication that any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any authority whatever to do more than an individual may do. If any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any such power, where is the text that supports that proposition?

In fact, if there were any text in Scripture of such a kind then the definition of brotherly love would be different for a group than for an individual. That, we believe, would be a damnable situation and an outrageous inconsistency. (Frederick Nymyer, "The Powers that be are Ordained of God", Progressive Calvinism)

God has defined "Civil Good" and "Civil Evil".

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The Fulfilling of the Law.

The Civil Law, is "that which is Caesar's". That which IS NOT Caesar's...
It is Crime against God, and a usurpation against the Holy Mother Church...

...to Render unto Caesar.

There are a few fallacious arguments you make in your post(s).

First off, I firmly believe that if you can't make your point in a few paragraphs, you're stretching. No offense, but I believe in KISS. I can quote Scripture and historical figures with the best of them, and if I can't then I can always cut and paste. Let's stick to the underlying issues. We can touch the quick of any discussion rapidly that way.

Anyway, you didn't answer the crux of my question, and of the line of argument I was pursuing earlier: under atheistic libertarianism (and atheism in general), absolute moral values are unavailable because of the fact-value gap (if you need an explanation of this, I'd be happy to supply one). Therefore, Randian libertarianism is based, like all atheistic philosophies, on arbitrariness, and thus the eventual initiation of force to choose one arbitrary moral value over another, thereby confuting it. (I can also make the strong case that libertarianism demands the initiation of fraud, but that goes beyond the scope of the discussion).

You, as a Christian, hold that there are eternal moral verities, but on the other hand, you--as a libertarian--would not impose them on others do not subscribe to these truths. In other words, there are eternal absolutes, but only for those who subscribe to them. This is self-refuting. This results in many inconsistencies in your reasoning. For instance, your comments on child labor.

You argue, correctly, that child labor brought children out of poverty. So much so that Marx (who, by the way has nothing to do with Catholic theology, unless of course you're talking liberation theology, which you're not) had to revise Das Kapital in 1881 to state that capitalism was only apparently succeeding, but was still destined to fail because of its internal inconsistencies. So, child labor was certainly extending the lives of children (and everyone for that matter). But again, because of the fact/value gap, you cannot state that this empirical fact explicitly translates into a nomative good (value). We can posit that extended life spans are a normative good (and it almost certainly is, but this fact is simply not logically derivable), but given the hellacious working conditions for children of the time, a powerful counter-argument can be made that the state should have at least stepped in to ameliorate, (if not abolish) the practice (a counter-argument could be made that extended life spans are not a good thing, but it wouldn't get far, I fear).

You 'stipulate' that you'd be against child labor because it involves the exploitatition of children, but why? The thrust of your first argument was that it was increasing children's lifespans, which is a pragmatic argument, not a moral argument. Then you condemn the practice because children are not of an age to rationally contract out their labor, which is a moral judgement (children ought not work). You seal the deal by saying that "many" libertarians would agree that child labor is wrong.

I think you'll find that when libertarianism is rigorously challenged, you'll be coming up with all kinds of "stipulations" and "exceptions" and trying to justify them. First off, by stating that "many" libertarians would agree with you, you've conceded that there would be disagreement among libertarians on this issue. This is telling. To wit: Let's just say that one group of purist libertarians has no problem with child labor on the grounds that they believe extended lifespans to be a normative good, while another group of theistic libertarians like yourself think it should be banned because working small children to the bone for filthy lucre is immoral. If you're all going to live in the same society, then guess what--one view is going to have to prevail. And that's where the problems start.

Again, because values are not purely derivable from facts, you're going to have disagreements like this, over all kinds of normative issues, and everyone is going to have an equally valuable point of view. The atheists and secularists are going to have their point of view, you're going to have the Bible, etc. But at the end of the day, someone's point of view is going to have to prevail. And that decision--whether it's arrived at by vote or by decree--is going to have to be backed up by force. And in many, many cases the initiation of force. For instance, in the case of the child labor dispute above, lets just say industry loses and the Christians win. If the industry persists in using child labor--something that they believe to be morally just, but you do not--force must be initiated to end the practice. Ipso facto, libertarianism, whether theistic or atheistic, is self-refuting.

Finally, I'll illustrate this in a different way. If you hold that liberty and non-initiation of force are absolutes, then does a private citizen have a right to own a nuclear weapon? It's on his property, and he's not hurting anyone with it (he says he's "very careful"). And if the state has a problem with his ownership of said H-Bomb, does the state have a right to "initiate force" against him to remove it? This flushes the whole issue out. The answers, as anyone can see, are no and emphatically yes. But if you're a libertarian, this is a problematic question. It generally leads to a "stipulation", which is an arbitrary decision, which must be backed up by force, etc.

Finally, on the doctrine of predestination, I will give a general response in my next post about the logical icompatibility of hard determinism and free will. I do not want to publicly misrepresent Catholic doctrine, so I'll take a little longer to formulate that one.

But anyway, I'll submit that you'll be more than busy with my refutation of libertarianism.

you didn't answer the crux of my question, and of the line of argument I was pursuing earlier: under atheistic libertarianism (and atheism in general), absolute moral values are unavailable because of the fact-value gap (if you need an explanation of this, I'd be happy to supply one).

No explanation is necessary; you're still engaging in a "stacking the deck" argument against Atheistic Absolutism.

By employing the term "Value", you are still attempting to import Moral Judgments into an Equation which can be resolved as a simple matter of Objective Fact.

In essence, you are telling OWK, "Without a Transcendent Morality, You cannot make a Moral Judgement, and therefore cannot affirm any Absolute Values!!" Well, this is true enough; but you are just glossing over the fact that OWK is capable of affirming Objective Facts.

Example:

Atheist Mr. OWK is in a room with four other Free Agents (we'll call them Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, and Mr. D).
Mr. OWK observes as a matter of Objective Fact, "I am Alive; and I desire to continue Living". He does not assign any Moral Value to his existence or his desire to continue existing; he simply recognizes his existence and his desire for continued existence to be an Objective Fact.
Mr. OWK observes as a matter of Objective Fact, "In order that I may continue Living, it will be necessary to establish a Social Compact with Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, and Mr. D that I shall not Murder any one of them, in return for their agreement to not Murder me."
Mr. OWK observes as a matter of Objective Fact, "In order that this Social Compact should provide me with an definitive assurance of Not Being Murdered, it is necessary that this Social Compact should admit of no alteration nor exception; for if I permit myself the exception of Murdering Mr. B, then in like manner Mr. C may permit the exception of Murdering me." Thus, Mr. OWK deduces that it is an Objective Reflexive Necessity that the Social Compact must be Absolute (admitting of neither alteration nor exception).
At this point, Mr. OWK has not assigned any Moral Value Judgments to his existence, his desire to continue existing, or the Objective Reflexive Necessity of contracting an Absolute Social Compact in order to secure his Objectives. However, he has reasonably deduced that the Social Compact, in order to be efficacious, must of Reflexive Necessity be Absolute.

And at the point that the Atheist Mr. OWK deduces by enlightened self-interest as a matter of Objective Fact the Reflexive Necessity of contracting an Absolute Social Compact in order to accomplish his Objective of Not Being Murdered, he has just tossed your Fact-Value Gap out the window. It is true that he has NOT affirmed the Moral Absolute of a Transcendent "Right to Life"; but he HAS affirmed the FACTUAL Absolute of the Reflexive Necessity of an un-altering and un-exceptioned Social Compact.

Thus, by Objective Deduction, he has arrived at a "Out of enlightened Self-Interest, I must not Murder" Factual Observation which is every bit as Factually Absolute as the Moral Judgement "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is Morally Absolute.

From that Factual Observation, all else follows.

If you doubt these things to be...
Then answer me, these Questions three...

1.) Is the Moral Law of God absolute?
2.) Is the Moral Law of God commensurate with Objective Fact?
3.) Is the Atheist capable of observing and deducing Objective Fact?

If your answer to all three questions is a "Yes", you have given me the entire argument.

Therefore, Randian libertarianism is based, like all atheistic philosophies, on arbitrariness, and thus the eventual initiation of force to choose one arbitrary moral value over another, thereby confuting it.

No, it clearly isn't, as my refutation demonstrates.

Merely asserting that it is so, does not make your Case. You actually have to make you Case. "The dog ate my homework" will not be accepted as an excuse.

No selection of arbitrary moral values is required; just the factual observation that "I exist; I desire to continue existing; the accomplishment of that Objective necessitates a reflexive Social Compact with those of like desire." No moral judgment needs be assigned to the Free Agent's existence, nor his desire to continue existing, nor the necessity of a reflexive Social Compact; all these things are a simple matter of Observable Fact.

And by the Observation of Objective Fact, OWK deduces that the "initiation of aggression" is always incommensurate with the necessity of a reflexive Social Compact, and thereby disallows himself the "initiation of aggression" -- purely as a matter of enlightened self-interest, and thereby confuting your claim that "Randian libertarianism is based, like all atheistic philosophies, on arbitrariness, and thus the eventual initiation of force".

(I can also make the strong case that libertarianism demands the initiation of fraud, but that goes beyond the scope of the discussion).

A.) No you can't; and...
B.) Give it your best shot. (You'll lose).

You, as a Christian, hold that there are eternal moral verities, but on the other hand, you -- as a libertarian -- would not impose them on others do not subscribe to these truths. In other words, there are eternal absolutes, but only for those who subscribe to them. This is self-refuting. This results in many inconsistencies in your reasoning. For instance, your comments on child labor.....

Oh, really? Let's see...

You 'stipulate' that you'd be against child labor because it involves the exploitatition of children, but why?

No, I certainly did not. Respectfully, can you even READ?

I “stipulated” that many professing libertarians are in favor of “child labor” laws, so it hardly represents a germane point of political contention between conservatives and libertarians (one problem is, you aren’t defining your terms. By “child labor” laws, exactly what are you proposing to outlaw? Young Jesus hammering together footstools in “Saint Joseph’s carpentry shop, serving Nazareth’s carpentry needs since 5 AD”?)

However, I followed that up by stating that I am personally against “child labor” laws, for exactly the reason I just intimated. I am against any State imposition in the rights of Fathers to engage their Sons in on-the-job training and family tradesmanship, even at very young ages – whether it be Young Jesus hammering together footstools in “Saint Joseph’s carpentry shop”, or Johnny working the cash register at uncle Bob’s five-and-dime, or Jimmy helping Aunt Suzy with the Church Treasury.

I think that you can make a Biblical case for “Child Abuse” laws, given that a Parent can no more right to inflict actual Harm or Criminal Negligence on a child than he may anyone else. However, I don’t think that you can make any such Biblical case in favor of most “child labor” laws.

In fact, you haven’t.

I think you'll find that when libertarianism is rigorously challenged, you'll be coming up with all kinds of "stipulations" and "exceptions" and trying to justify them….If the industry persists in using child labor--something that they believe to be morally just, but you do not--force must be initiated to end the practice. Ipso facto, libertarianism, whether theistic or atheistic, is self-refuting.

Apparently, only if you mis-characterize my position, and attribute to me the opposite sentiments to those which I have actually expressed.

In setting up such a Straw Man and then knocking it down, you have made your own argument self-refuting – not mine.

I continue to oppose any State imposition imposition in the rights of Fathers to engage their Sons in on-the-job training and family tradesmanship, even at very young ages – and you continue to have no Biblical case whatsoever demonstrating that my principled adherence to the Fifth Commandment is in any way unsound.

Finally, I'll illustrate this in a different way. If you hold that liberty and non-initiation of force are absolutes, then does a private citizen have a right to own a nuclear weapon?

Hmmm… well, if you are going to Appeal to Hypotheticals as your “strongest” argument… would Adam have had no right to own a Nuclear Device? Hypothetically? Why or why not? See if you can answer that counter-Hypothetical, and explain your reasoning, mmm?

At any rate, Private Citizens do own Nuclear Devices now – they are called “Nuclear Reactors”, and have (at Chernobyl, etc.) been demonstrated to be as potentially dangerous in a melt-down as a purpose-built nuclear weapon. Less localized “boom”, but at least as much wide-spread radiation.

And yet they are privately-owned. In fact, it is the privately-owned reactors which have done less damage to the world than the State-owned ones.

However, you seem to believe that a Private Citizen has no right whatsoever to own a powerful nuclear device. Should all nuclear reactors be Nationalized by the State?

In fact, the answer to the question demands not a “stipulation”, but a simple understanding of Negative Economic Externalities, in keeping with the principles of Exodus 21:28-36, 22:5-9.

I’ll illustrate below…

It's on his property, and he's not hurting anyone with it (he says he's "very careful"). And if the state has a problem with his ownership of said H-Bomb, does the state have a right to "initiate force" against him to remove it? This flushes the whole issue out. The answers, as anyone can see, are no and emphatically yes. But if you're a libertarian, this is a problematic question. It generally leads to a "stipulation", which is an arbitrary decision, which must be backed up by force, etc.

Let me ask you a question:

One man owns a ton of nitro-glycerin which he keeps in leaky barrels his storage room. He lives by himself, 30 miles from his nearest neighbor. Can a Principled case be made for confiscating or even regulating his Property?
Another man owns a ton of nitro-glycerin which he keeps in leaky barrels his storage room. He lives by himself, in an apartment at the base of an occupied 20-story apartment complex. Can a Principled case be made for confiscating or even regulating his Property?

I would argue from Exodus 21 and 22 that the answer to the first is “No”, whereas the answer to the second is “Yes”. But why is this so? As I have hinted, the answer has to do with a simple understanding of Negative Externalities. See if you can figure it out.

For bonus points, see if you can apply it to the question of Private Ownership of Nuclear Devices. Try to think it through – you’re not being very thoughtful about the matter thus far.

Fine, I can wait.

But anyway, I'll submit that you'll be more than busy with my refutation of libertarianism.

I might be, had you provided one.

You haven’t even bothered to do so.

Here is the debate thus far:

You asserted, without any probative argument, that an Atheist is incapable of assembling a Fact-Based system of Rational Absolutes – offering no evidence whatsoever.
You asserted, without any probative argument, that an Atheist is incapable of assembling a Fact-Based system of Absolute Non-Aggression – again, offering no evidence whatsoever.
You asserted that I had made my own argument self-refuting by supporting Child Labor laws. Since this is the opposite of what I actually said, you only managed to make your own arguments self-refuting.
You assert that the Private Citizen has no possible right to the ownership of Nuclear Devices. Should all Nuclear Reactors be nationalized tomorrow? If you say “no”, I rather suspect you will be the one to offer “stipulations” and “exceptions” – which I have not so far had to do, save when you attribute positions to me which I do not hold.

And in the midst of all this, one thing which you certainly have not done is “refuted Libertarianism”.

Here is what you must do, if you want to “refute Libertarianism”:

Objectivist Libertarianism: ” "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."
Christian Libertarianism – ”For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:… For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Romans 13:4,9)
In order to provide a refutation of Christian Libertarianism, you must demonstrate that it is Morally Right for the State to adopt a different definition of “Civil Evil” than that provided by Saint Paul in Romans 13 – for if Paul provided the definition of the Civil Evils which the State is commissioned to Punish (Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, Covetous actions in particular; aggression against Neighbors in general), and Paul labels his definition “the fulfillment of the Law” in reference to Civil Harms, then you must provide an explicit and specific Biblical Case for altering Paul’s definition and extending the Power of Caesar beyond the “fulfillment” of the Civil Law!!
And you still aren’t done yet. You must provide an alternative. Unless you adopt the Totalitarian View that Caesar may usurp unto himself any power he desires whatsoever, you must provide an explicit and specific Biblical Case for the extents of Caesar’s Power, clearly outlining what Caesar may do, and what he may not do, and it must be Biblical in its entirety (as is the Christian Libertarian case). No short-hand dodges like “Caesar may exercise Power in any way not forbidden by God’s Law” will be accepted, for if Paul’s definition of “Civil Evil” in Romans 13:9 is the “fulfillment” of the Civil Law as Paul himself claimed, then it is forbidden by God’s Law for Caesar to usurp any Powers whatsoever beyond that!! (which brings you right beck to Christian Libertarianism)

In short, I’ll busy myself with your “refutation of Libertarianism” when you begin to offer one. You have not even begun to offer a case for the Moral Rightness of the pro-active initiation of aggression; you have not even begun to demonstrate that it is Morally Right for the State to adopt a different definition of “Civil Evil” than that provided by Saint Paul in Romans 13; and you have provided no explicit and coherent Biblical alternative to the Christian Libertarian case at all.

Let me know when you get started.

Since you haven't replied, there is one last thing I wish to add, and this is not in the spirit of debate, but in friendship.

I Freeped little this weekend. I am back some today.

As I illustrated, libertarianism is self-refuting. However, 'Christian libertarianism' is worse than self-refuting. The fundamental Truth of Judeo-Christian revelation is that man is fallen--naturally depraved--and must be Redeemed. You and I have a Redeemer; for all the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics, we can agree on that. Libertarianism is the doctrine that people are naturally good, the only thing necessary for their 'redemption' is for the government to stop impeding them from acting freely.

No, that is NOT the doctrine of Christian Libertarianism at all!!

Bearing False Witness is a Crime against the Decalogue. You may repent at your leisure.

In fact, the doctrine of Christian Libertarianism is that it is precisely BECAUSE man is Totally Depraved that it is absolute Folly to trust Man with Coercive Power over his fellow Men!! A Powerful State -- is just a bunch of Depraved Sinners with lots of power. That is not a GOOD idea. It is a BAD idea.

We may, out of reverence for the Inspiration of Scripture, accept that Caesar may be commissioned with the Power to punish Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, Covetous Acts, Aggression against the Neighbor – for Paul specifically grants these specific and particular authorities to Caesar in Romans 13:1-10. And indeed, each of these Crimes represent Aggressions against our Persons which we have the Right to resist with defensive Force even as Private Citizens (we have a Right to resist murder, theft, etc) – and so, Paul’s grant of such authority to the State simply represents an affirmation of the Community’s right to defend collectively that which every man enjoys the right to defend individually.

But Paul NOWHERE grants any authority to the State to Punish that which it would be Immoral for a Private Citizen to Punish!! Ask yourself this – as a Private Citizen, assuming that the State were neutral on the issue (as the State was “neutral” on the question of Killing Jews under Haman; the State did not actively kill jews, but neither was killing a jew treated as Legal Murder), would it be a Jesus-like moral action for you as a Private Citizen to place a gun to your neighbor’s head and threaten him with death if he decided to view a “playboy” magazine, or drink intoxicating liquors to excess – on his own property? If he refused your preaching as to the Immorality of such acts, would it be a Jesus-like moral action for you to blow his head off?

would be

may legitimately

But, in case you’re wondering, it would NOT be a moral action for you to blow your neighbor’s head off for viewing a “playboy” magazine or drinking intoxicating liquors to excess, on his own property. And if it would be a private immorality for you to blow your neighbor’s head off for viewing a “playboy” magazine or drinking intoxicating liquors to excess, on his own property – then it is equally immoral for you to hire the State, as a Contract Murderer, to do it for you.

If you are a libertarian, you believe people are naturally good. If you believe people are naturally good, then guess what: You are denying Jesus Christ.

No, my friend. It is YOU who are denying Jesus Christ if you engage in the violent immorality of commissioning the State as your contract-murderer to employ coercion, slavery, and death against Private Vices for which you would NOT have any right to employ Force as a Private Christian.

The devil is very clever my friend. What better way to stop people who consider themselves Christians from outlawing things like pornography, abortion etc. than by making them believe that there are absolute moral values, but it is more immoral--according to the idea of 'libertarianism'--to act to implement those absolutes.

As I said – what is immoral about the implicitly-Satanic powerlust of the Anti-Libertarians, is the violent immorality of commissioning the State as your contract-murderer to employ coercion, slavery, and death against Private Vices for which you would NOT have any right to employ Force as a Private Christian.

You cannot be a 'Christian libertarian'. You are one or the other.

Abortion, like all Murder, falls under the Romans 13:9 authority of the State to punish. One more reason why, politically, a Christian MUST be a Romans 13:9 Libertarian -- For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

To usurp unto Caesar any Powers other than those specifically granted by Paul in his definition of Civil Evil, and to commit the violent immorality of commissioning the State as your contract-murderer to employ coercion, slavery, and death against Private Vices for which you would NOT have any right to employ Force as a Private Christian -- in short, unless you suppose that it is Moral Action for you as a Private Christian to hire a Contract Killer to murder someone who reads “playboy” magazine, or drinks a bit heavily, or smokes a marijuana cigarette, on his own property – then it is the Blasphemy of State-Idolatry in rendering unto Caesar that which is not his.

You cannot be both Christian and Anti-Libertarian.
Anti-Libertarianism is inherently Satanic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


*Random acts of cruelty may not be your* cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone?**


If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, where can we find the quality of absolute?


Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions.