Absolute truth

Originally posted by vivify
I think your post was meant for fetchmyjunk?

Not necessarily. However the phrase in your post to which I did reply tricked me into thinking I was on the different thread in which he is expounding his fascinating theory about absolute morality. I should be on "The evolution of the Coca Cola can" or better still just give up and do something else.

Originally posted by finnegan
Some people in some contexts have tortured babies for fun - they just have.

We can share a moral standard that will always judge such behaviour to be wrong. For us that standard seems absolute.

Some people in some contexts would disagree. People can find all sorts of arguments to defend the most perverse behaviours, including the proposition that t ...[text shortened]... absolute moral standard because it fails to gain universal acceptance. I wish it were otherwise.

We can agree that these people are mistaken. We can probably further agree that they are perverse or evil or both. But we cannot dispute that they exist and they disagree with us.

But the basis for their disagreement is wrong and that still makes their actions wrong.

Your crazy example does not manage to fit my definition of an absolute moral standard because it fails to gain universal acceptance

It doesn't have to gain universal acceptance for it to be an absolute moral standard. If you cannot logically argue why it is not morally wrong, then it is morally wrong regardless of whether people accept it or not.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I note your lack of reply to the biblical part of my post. Too close to the bone?

I have dealt with that in another thread.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I have dealt with that in another thread.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html

Sorry, but that doesn't answer my question at all.

You provided the example that genocide was 'absolutely' wrong. (Apologies that these are not your exact words). Now even if you argue that God was justified in the biblical examples of genocide, you are nevertheless destroying your own argument that genocide is 'absolutely' wrong.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]We can agree that these people are mistaken. We can probably further agree that they are perverse or evil or both. But we cannot dispute that they exist and they disagree with us.

But the basis for their disagreement is wrong and that still makes their actions wrong.

Your crazy example does not manage to fit my definition of an absolu ...[text shortened]... t is not morally wrong, then it is morally wrong regardless of whether people accept it or not.

" If you cannot logically argue why it is not morally wrong, then it is morally wrong regardless of whether people accept it or not"

Fair enough: so in your mind the test is the ability to argue logically?

Also you believe that an absolute morality can be set out as a logical argument that must be persuasive even to people who do not share your premises?

You are in a minority. An endless list of people simply do not agree that morality can be established by logical argument. Even those who think it can are obliged to base their logical argument on axioms that are not universally accepted.

Originally posted by finnegan
" If you cannot logically argue why it is not morally wrong, then it is morally wrong regardless of whether people accept it or not"

Fair enough: so in your mind the test is the ability to argue logically?

Also you believe that an absolute morality can be set out as a logical argument that must be persuasive even to people who do not share your pre ...[text shortened]... k it can are obliged to base their logical argument on axioms that are not universally accepted.

Ok let's take my example, do you personally believe it is always wrong to torture babies for fun? If so how did you reach that conclusion? If not, why not?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok let's take my example, do you personally believe it is always wrong to torture babies for fun? If so how did you reach that conclusion? If not, why not?

I am an atheist. I make no appeal to God.

I consider it is morally wrong to torture children for fun. Your belief that an atheist cannot hold moral positions is false.

I do not require a logical argument to hold that opinion, to act on it and to judge others according to it.

Your belief that describing a moral judgement or standard as God given represents any kind of reasonable argument or logical proposition is nonsense on stilts. That is simply an appeal to dogma.

I think Abraham was morally wrong to set about sacrificing his son on an altar. Whatever God (acccording to the Bible) had in mind when setting him on this path, morality and faith were in direct conflict and Abraham was choosing an immoral act in the name of his religious faith. Religion has a capacity to provoke immoral actions on a terrifying scale. History confirms this. For example, in America, within the past hundred years, white communities would emerge from church to watch or take part in brutal lynchings of black neighbours. Not enough people of faith are interrupted in their evil behaviour by a convenient burning bush. If we wait around for a burning bush to talk to us, we will wait a hell of a long time.

Your suggestion that morality requires a logical argument is false. That is because it is not primarily an intellectual statement. It derives largely from feelings: my emotional empathy with other humans, my natural instinct to protect and value children. Anyone who did not share my values in this specific regard I would consider deranged, either through mental illness or fanatical bigotry. I suppose I would agree they were evil too, but the term is only a descriptive label.

Say what you will about the Golden Rule, I suggest that if people lack or lose empathy, then the Golden Rule will have no impact whatever. Nobody lives by intellectual criteria alone.

Intellectual moral principles are like the rules of grammar - we already speak fluently and we already behave morally, we just lack a good intellectual description for either morality or grammar. If that were really needed, then only an educated elite could ever aspire to be moral or to speak the language. Scientists have yet to develop an "absolute" system of grammar and moralists have yet to devise an "absolute" system of morality.

You may hold to the Platonic belief that there is, out there, somewhere, an absolute grammar or an absolute morality. but as mortal humans, we must live within our own resources, which do not extend to the absolute.

I am free to decide my moral standards. That is absolute and a huge responsibility. I have no excuses when I am wrong. You give away your freedom and allow the proponents of your particular sect of your particular religion to dictate your moral choices to you. That is an abdication of responsibility and a moral failure.

Originally posted by finnegan

I am an atheist. I make no appeal to God.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that you possess some things which no other creatures possess.
If you believe God exists - you possess those characteristics.
If you do not believe God exists - you still possess those characteristics.

A sense of moral OUGHT is one of those characteristics.
You don't have to appeal to God's existence to have this.


I consider it is morally wrong to torture children for fun. Your belief that an atheist cannot hold moral positions is false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I won't speak of Fetch. But this would indicate to me that something INTUITIVE informs you that such a thing OUGHT[/b] not be done.

This [i]INTUITIVE conscience is really something that doesn't listen to logical argument. You know that you know that you know this thing OUGHT not be done.

I think you have this regardless of being a theist or an atheist.
I think it is there because you reflect God's moral being in some way.
It doesn't depend upon you recognizing of wanting Him to exist or not.

That's what I believe.


I do not require a logical argument to hold that opinion, to act on it and to judge others according to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that you have something like a deep INTUITIVE something in you which knows that it knows that it knows such OUGHT to happen.
This is part of your God created conscience.

And often it simple does not listen to reason. You cannot bribe it. You cannot silence it. You may try hard. But often will not listen to logical reasons. It just knows that it knows something OUGHT to be or OUGHT not to be.

Whether we can LIVE UP to what it knows, is an entirely different matter.
A man has not existed that has not done things against the strong intuitive knowing of his conscience, at some time.

But that is really another matter.


Your belief that describing a moral judgement or standard as God given represents any kind of reasonable argument or logical proposition is nonsense on stilts. That is simply an appeal to dogma.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think it is much less nonsensial than to describe such a matter as purely physical interactions of atoms and molecules. The consummate materialist has no other explanation.

And this would be strange because even to HAVE such a leaning towards this "truth" would be of no credit to the believer. No thanks to the moral philosopher. He is just fissing and bubbling in his chemistry to hold such a view. It is not because any freedom of will has chosen to believe the truth (if it be truth).

I think Abraham was morally wrong to set about sacrificing his son on an altar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe so. But if a materialist atheist view is right - no credit to you for choosing to believe so. Somehow your chemistry deterministically fissed and bubbled atoms in your grey matter to make you think that.

There is no nobility in your "choosing" to judge Isaac on the altar as morally wrong.
"Good" atoms somehow are prevailing over "bad" atoms along the lines of your central nervous system and brain matter.

It all a material reaction.
isn't that the case with atheism ?


Whatever God (acccording to the Bible) had in mind when setting him on this path, morality and faith were in direct conflict and Abraham was choosing an immoral act in the name of his religious faith.

If materialist atheism is true Abraham was just fissing and bubbling in the chemistry.
No real blame or no real credit is due him at all, one way or another.

And of course your atheism would have it that he was never commanded anything by a deity.


Religion has a capacity to provoke immoral actions on a terrifying scale.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is correct.
Atheism has that tendency also.
You have noticed the last 20th Century.

But if your atheism is true there will be no final accountability.
And if your atheism is true all this was only fissing chemicals.
No real blame and no real praise can be offered either way for the deterministic mechanics of a purely material universe.

History confirms this. For example, in America, within the past hundred years, white communities would emerge from church to watch or take part in brutal lynchings of black neighbours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. With some help from Darwinist naturalists who encouraged whites that blacks were less evolved and closer to animals.

Some help from religion too though - ie blacks don't have souls, God cursed blacks, etc.
That is contrary to Christ's teaching, not because of Him.

With my Christian faith there is a final accounting at least.
With your atheism all the criminal will jump into their graves laughing at what they got away with, looking forward only to peacefully melting into the dust of the earth.

I'll go with the Bible.
It may present some problems. I would not say a biblical Christian accounting of problem free. But I think an atheist, materialist, determinism involves us in more problems.


Not enough people of faith are interrupted in their evil behaviour by a convenient burning bush. If we wait around for a burning bush to talk to us, we will wait a hell of a long time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's dumbing down the Bible to a straw man, simplistic, lowest denominator.
"It all is because of the burning bush in Exodus."

Is that suppose to be taken as a serious adult's attempt to grasp the whole Bible message?


Your suggestion that morality requires a logical argument is false. That is because it is not primarily an intellectual statement. It derives largely from feelings: my emotional empathy with other humans, my natural instinct to protect and value children. Anyone who did not share my values in this specific regard I would consider deranged, either through mental illness or fanatical bigotry. I suppose I would agree they were evil too, but the term is only a descriptive label.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you then say that such a person would not really be evil. But a descriptive label could be used. You said above:

Your belief that an atheist cannot hold moral positions is false.

He may be saying that your authority is weakened. The man you now scold for being labelled evil can turn around and say -

"No I am not evil at all. My chemicals were just determined to do those things. What does your label really mean that I am evil ? There is no evil and no good in any objective sense of truth.

Take your label and leave me alone. "

I would say " Sir, you must understand that you will answer to God. There will be no mistakes. His record is infallible. No omissions will be there. No possibility to reason your way with excuses from your blood guiltiness. Every careless word you will give an account to Him for let alone physical acts. Me too!

We need Justification before a Final and Ultimate Creator and Judge.
Have you heard about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of the New Testament ?"

Originally posted by sonship
[b]
History confirms this. For example, in America, within the past hundred years, white communities would emerge from church to watch or take part in brutal lynchings of black neighbours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. With some help from Darwinist naturalists who encouraged whites that blacks w ...[text shortened]... nd Judge.
Have you heard about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of the New Testament ?" [/i][/b]

"No I am not evil at all. My chemicals were just determined to do those things..."

As opposed to?:
"No I am not evil at all. My 'earthly nature' / 'sinful flesh' was just determined to do those things..."

Originally posted by finnegan
I am an atheist. I make no appeal to God.

I consider it is morally wrong to torture children for fun. Your belief that an atheist cannot hold moral positions is false.

I do not require a logical argument to hold that opinion, to act on it and to judge others according to it.

Your belief that describing a moral judgement or standard as God given ...[text shortened]... dictate your moral choices to you. That is an abdication of responsibility and a moral failure.

As an atheist you believe there are NO moral absolutes. Which means you have to believe there are certain circumstances where 'torturing a baby for fun' is NOT wrong. If torturing a baby for fun was always wrong then that would be a moral absolute.

So do you believe that torturing a baby for fun is ALWAYS wrong or NOT?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
As an atheist you believe there are NO moral absolutes. Which means you have to believe there are certain circumstances where 'torturing a baby for fun' is NOT wrong. If torturing a baby for fun was always wrong then that would be a moral absolute.

So do you believe that torturing a baby for fun is ALWAYS wrong or NOT?

As an atheist you believe there are NO moral absolutes.

I guarantee you that some atheists do believe in moral absolutes. I know you've been told before, but it bears repeating; the only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god or gods.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]As an atheist you believe there are NO moral absolutes.

I guarantee you that some atheists do believe in moral absolutes. I know you've been told before, but it bears repeating; the only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god or gods.[/b]

Ok so a theists moral absolute point of reference is God, what is an atheists moral absolute point of reference? Atoms?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
As an atheist you believe there are NO moral absolutes. Which means you have to believe there are certain circumstances where 'torturing a baby for fun' is NOT wrong. If torturing a baby for fun was always wrong then that would be a moral absolute.

So do you believe that torturing a baby for fun is ALWAYS wrong or NOT?

You are mistaken.

As a matter of fact, there is no circumstance in which I would judge or evaluate torturing of babies for fun (let's say TBFF) as morally acceptable - none whatsoever.

When my personal morality is engaged in the matter, I will always make the same moral choice.

It does not follow that this renders my moral judgement "absolute." I do not share your arrogance.

There are two scenarios:

1. For the overwhelming majority of humanity, no discussion would be necessary. That is not because of an absolute moral standard out there in the cosmos. It is because of our shared humanity with all that implies.

2. For the small but actually existent segment of humanity that either do now or have in the past TBFF, assuming the unlikely prospect that we (or more likely some unlucky psychiatrist) were asked to envisage how they see and think about the world, from their point of view, then we would be entering a different world view, a different way of seeing things, one that to us would (I am sure) be repulsive but the one in which such people do live. I like to think that probably they will always prove to be deranged in some fundamental way because I dislike the alternative, which is the realistic proposition that they may not be that far from the normal range of human attitudes and behaviour.

You see, if you consider warfare and extreme, hands on, intimate violence between humans who hate others, the fact is that it is neither uncommon nor difficult to provoke. ISIS has attracted psychos from around the globe, but we know from Abu Ghraib that even the moral crusaders of the US army will cheerfully descend to bestial standards of behaviour and take happy, smiling selfies in the process to show their friends and remember the happy times. In both cases these vicious humans have a lot of serious support and encouragement, in the US case from both the public and their senior commanders: they are really not as unusual as you and I might wish.

You must surely have worked out by now that Auschwitz was something that only happened by chance to be German - perhaps with a distinctive Germanic style that made it their own. Hannah Arendt and others have shown that it would be easily reproduced by any population of normal people under the relevant totalitarian conditions and there is nothing unusual about totalitarianism.

You chose TBFF to make your point and that drives me to offer exotic illustrations to prove you wrong. But I do not even accept that morality is about having an itemised list of standards. Morality is concerned more with the way people think and the choices they make, so that we have if you like a general purpose tool that can be deployed in diverse situations, including entirely novel ones for which nobody has yet set down the approved moral standard. Think about modern medicine - it throws up all sorts of ethical and moral choices that were unimaginable in the past. Of necessity, we are driven to devise new moral standards all the time. Morality is a process, not a list of rules.

If follows that there can be no "absolute" set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.