Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
|
If there is an absolute standard of morality, then there must be a God. Disagree? Consider the alternative. |
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.
 |
|
| Random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone? | |
|
|
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. INCONSISTENT VALUES
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.
Bertrand Russell wrote:
I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.
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. THE INFINITE SOURCE
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.
What's the difference?
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!
But does it really? Is it absolute?
No. It is undergoing change every second. It is getting older, it is eroding.
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, where can we find the quality of absolute? | |
|
|
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.
'I am God, I do not change.' (Malachi 3:6)
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. THE DEATH OF EDUCATION
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.
Professor Alan Bloom writes in his book "The Closing of the American Mind,"
It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews.
All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life...
...out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life...
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!
Professor Bloom addresses this contention:
History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative ... the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth ... the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.
Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity. THE NATURE OF DEBATE
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.
Impossible.
|
|
| Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions. | |
|
|
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.
What "reasoning" is that? The Golden Rule doesn't say do onto others whatever serves your self-interest.
What "reasoning" is that?
Read the thread from where I first mentioned the 'rule'. Rebut my comments, if you can. Make an actual argument. Two bits you cannot.
The Golden Rule doesn't say do onto others whatever serves your self-interest.
Who said it did? - How utterly daft.
Ghengis Khan certainly controlled his own destiny.
You contend your God gave you that freedom. - I contend it doesn't matter how we got it, its how we use it. - Constitutionally, with reason.
High-sounding words, all right. But if your reason can't tell me why Ghengis Khan was wrong, then they're pretty much useless words.
Why don't you demonstrate for one and all why Ghengis Khan and his ilk need to be stopped?
What's to rebut? You engaged in no reasoning or argumentation, you simply made a bunch of unsupported assertions.
Make an actual argument. Two bits you cannot.
It would be awfully refreshing to see you make an actual argument for once.
Who said it did? - How utterly daft.
Well ... you said it did, tippy. But I do agree that it's a daft comment.
It's not at all "obvious" that you can demonstrate it without an appeal to a Higher Power. All I know is that I've been asking you for over a year to demonstrate this "obvious" point, and you've failed to do it.
One might almost conclude that you cannot demonstrate it.
Still waiting......
[The Golden Rule doesn't say do onto others whatever serves your self-interest.]
2. Who said it did?
You.
Are you this dense? Do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon? Answer me that...do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon?
That is entirely different from a statement of "ought", which is a statement of Moral Value. OWK is not assigning any Moral Value to his desire to not be murdered; he is just acknowledging that this is his desire.
I know why you won't admit this. Because if you do, your libertarian ideology (again, you're not a Christian, you're a libertarian--I know that now by your tolerance of public displays of simulated child pornography.)
Ok, the guy who murdered the other guy to eat him...forget about that. Let's just say that a guy wants to eat another human. He pays someone who is terminally ill $5,000 dollars to let him eat him after he dies of natural causes. Ok? There's no coercion or initiation of force. The guy voluntarily agrees to be eaten, after he dies of natural causes.
You've already conceded that your belief system would tolerate the public display of simulated child pornography--hey, why not cannibalism?
Is voluntarily contracted cannibalism O.K. with you? How about ownership of nuclear weapons?
There's no end to the fun you can have with libertarians...
Thank you r9...again, there is no way to derive a value from a fact and vice-versa.
To wit: there is no such thing as a "virtuous" tack hammer; similarly, you cannot pound a tack into a wall with "virtue".
Sheesh, how hard is this?
I'm going to keep hammering you with the question you don't dare answer, because it clearly demonstrates that you are implacably opposed to the Law of God:
Alcohol, Hashish, Opium, and other powerful Intoxicating Drugs were well-known and commonly-used in the ancient Near East. When God wrote the Civil Law for Israel, however, Intoxication was not specified as a Civil Crime and there was NO Civil Penalty whatsoever for Private Intoxication.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?
This is the third time I have asked this question.
I answer all of your questions; yet you are incapable of answering mine.
Why? Because if you do, you know you'll lose.
Are you this dense? Do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon? Answer me that...do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon?
Suppose Bill Gates renounces his citizenship. He purchases from France an island in French Polynesia, hundreds of miles from any other human -- full renunciation of Sovereignty by France, full transfer of Sovereignty to "Gates-Land". Bill Gates declares "Gates-Land" to be a Nation without a Government -- i.e., an Anarcho-Capitalist Nation -- and not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "Gates-Land" is recognized as a Sovereign Nation by all countries in the world. Bill Gates then proceeds to build a nuclear weapon, as a Private Citizen of "Gates-Land", a Sovereign Nation of which he is the sole Citizen.
Does Bill Gates not have the right, as a Private Citizen, to ownership of his own personal nuclear weapon? Why or why not?
I say that under such conditions Bill Gates has the Right to own a nuclear weapon, because he has taken adequate safeguards to Fence in his Externalities -- he's not going to blow up his neighbors.
If you say that under such conditions Bill Gates has NO Right to own a nuclear weapon, explain your reasoning. Also, explain exactly what criteria must be satisfied, in your mind, for any Party (including a Government) to enjoy the Moral Right to own a nuclear weapon. What are the moral criteria?? Can you answer that??
I know why you won't admit this. Because if you do, your libertarian ideology (again, you're not a Christian, you're a libertarian--I know that now by your tolerance of public displays of simulated child pornography.)
You didn't finish your second sentence, but that's okay. You didn't have anything to say anyway.
And to reiterate -- a display is not "Public" if it should be kept behind a Fence high enough to hide it from the street. If I own a couple-acre spread, and I fence in my lawn with a 20-foot-high solid-wall fence, you're just being silly if you claim my lawn is "public".
Ok, the guy who murdered the other guy to eat him...forget about that. Let's just say that a guy wants to eat another human. He pays someone who is terminally ill $5,000 dollars to let him eat him after he dies of natural causes. Ok? There's no coercion or initiation of force. The guy voluntarily agrees to be eaten, after he dies of natural causes. You've already conceded that your belief system would tolerate the public display of simulated child pornography--hey, why not cannibalism? Is voluntarily contracted cannibalism O.K. with you?
Voluntarily contracted cannibalism... hmmm... before I answer that, I'm going to have to ask you to define your Moral terms. To wit: should it be legal for Roman Catholics to eat real human flesh and drink real human blood, if that is the real substance underneath the "accidents" of the elements?
If it is real human flesh and real human blood, should Roman Catholics be allowed to eat and drink it?
Just curious...
How about ownership of nuclear weapons?
You never did answer my questions about the two gentlemen who each lkived alone with a ton of nitro-glycerin in leaky barrels -- one in a house by himself 30 miles from his nearest neighbor, the other in an apartment at the base of an occupied 2-story apartment building.
I suppose you couldn't answer it. So I'll just posit to you the core philosophical question, without the hypothetical:
I hate it when people can't even explain there own positions -- which is all too typical of unthinking clods these days.
Explain yours on this matter -- with precision.
There's no end to the fun you can have with libertarians...
Sure -- especially when you can't bear to answer their questions.
Better to try to bluster your way through, than admit your own hatred against the Law of God.
So, just to remind you, you still have a Question to answer:
Alcohol, Hashish, Opium, and other powerful Intoxicating Drugs were well-known and commonly-used in the ancient Near East. When God wrote the Civil Law for Israel, however, Intoxication was not specified as a Civil Crime and there was NO Civil Penalty whatsoever for Private Intoxication.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?
Right now, you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God. But you can Repent and become a Christian even yet.
No, that is NOT why a Behavioral Maxim is Absolute. A Behavioral Maxim can be Absolute even if other Behavioral Maxims would also accomplish the Objective in question.
It's not going to be worth my bother to deal with the rest of your post until you understand WHY a Behavioral Maxim would be Absolute.
Here's a hint: it has to do with Necessity of Consistency, not Necessity of Exclusivity. If you re-read my post and correct your misunderstanding, I'll proceed. If not, it's not even going to be worth my time to argue with the functionally illiterate.
(Sigh)
I do understand what you're saying. The problem is that in order for us to accept your derivation of "Absolute Behavioral Maxims," we must first accept a huge pile of a priori assumptions and pre-conditions. There's no point in accepting your reasoning if we don't agree on the terms under which your reasoning is conducted.
In your mountain climbing example, you've arbitrarily disallowed any other means of reaching the top of the mountain. IF there are no other means, and IF I want to get to the top, THEN I have to climb. Of Course it's an absolute behavioral maxim in that case, but so what? In defining your conditions, you've dodged the Objective Fact that there are still many other methods for me to reach the top. Your behavioral maxim is therefore not "absolute" in the real sense of the term. It's only "absolute" within the arbitrary constraints you've placed on the problem. You've merely assumed away the underlying "moral problem," which is to decide which among of the many available solutions are truly available to us.
In the same way, you've explicitly disallowed Mr. OWK from undertaking any other actions to keep from being murdered. It's a stacked deck that pretty much demands your conclusion: 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.
The reasoning leading to this conclusion is simply wrong, on several counts.
First, you arrived at this conclusion by a priori assuming that none of the other existing options were acceptable. You've provided no justification for this.
Second, when we acknowledge the availability of other options, it is quite clearly not an Objective Fact that Mr. OWK must, of reflexive necessity, join this Absolute Social Compact. Rather, he may simply choose to join this compact -- or to choose some other approach. He's not required to join at all, unless there's a real and absolute reason for him to reject all other options.
This is where God comes in. As the Rabbi pointed out, only God can exclude those other alternatives. (And, of course, the alternative that God allows is not the one that informs Mr. OWK's maxims....)
Without God, the only basis for choosing for or against the options is what we can observe and derive from observation. Mr. OWK's "absolute behavioral maxim" is observably not the only viable alternative -- and in those circumstances, a moral system that claims to derive the "Absolute Behavioral Maxims" you derived, is quite simply fraudulent. (Ayn Rand's philosophy is fraudulent for precisely this reason.)
No, you are still presuming that an Absolute Behavioral Maxim depends upon Necessity of Exclusivity. I already told you that it doesn't. It depends upon Necessity of Consistency (i.e., whether or not adherence to the Maxim must be absolute in order to accomplish the Objective).
I already told you that I was skeptical as to the value of my Time if you couldn't grasp that point. It's pretty explicit in my Writings thus far, and I (quite reasonably, IMHO) asked you to re-read them with a little more attention to detail.
But I'm feeling charitable. I will give it one more shot. The "absolute" quality of a Fact-derived Behavioral Maxim does not depend upon the Necessity of Exclusivity, but upon the Necessity of Consistency. Look, I'll illustrate -- Here goes.
Now assume that there are two wide, easy, clearly-marked paths to the top of the Mountain, each measuring 1000 paces exactly -- one from the North face, and one from the South face.
Now, we'll allow each of our Free Agents to choose their starting point, whether from the base of the North face or the base of the South face (call their starting points their "assumed basic premises", or some such). For the sake of the example, we'll assume that one (Mr.A) chooses the North base and the other (Mr.B) chooses the South base.
Now, at this point, we have established that there are two entirely different Paths to the Top of the Mountain -- as objectively different as proceeding south is an objectively different behavior than proceeding north.
And yet, in either case, our Free Agents in question must absolutely adhere to their chosen Path if they want to reach the Top of the Mountain.
Thus we see that the "absoluteness" of a Behavioral Maxim does not depend upon the Necessity of Exclusivity, but upon the Necessity of Consistency. There are two entirely different Paths to the Top of the Mountain (i.e., not an Exclusively-mandatory course of action); but whether he proceeds from the North base or the South base, the Free Agent in question deduces as a matter of Objective Fact that he must adhere with ABSOLUTE Consistency to the appropriate Behavioral Maxim for reaching the Top of the Mountain.
And in either case, there is not necessarily any transcendent moral value assigned to reaching the Top of the Mountain -- it is simply the desired objective of the Free Agent. And there are two entirely-different starting points and two entirely-different Paths which our Free Agent may choose. But once he selects his starting point, he rationally deduces that he must adhere with ABSOLUTE Consistency to the appropriate Behavioral Maxim for reaching the Top of the Mountain.
As I said -- Thus we see that the "absoluteness" of a Behavioral Maxim does not depend upon the Necessity of Exclusivity, but upon the Necessity of Consistency.
Does that make sense yet, or (meaning no offense) should I just throw up my hands and despair of your understanding the point?
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.