Non-Existence Of Morality

[Guest mcduderson]

mcduderson:

 

I disagree with your position that there is such a thing as "objective truth". I also disagree with your position that there is no innate knowledge. You seem to be referring to the word "knowledge" in a rather restricted way.

 

Feel free to provide a better definition to work with. If knowledge is not true beliefs about the outside world then I'm not really sure how to proceed. I'm ultimately skeptical of the definition of the word but its clear that it has some sort of communicable meaning as opposed to some gibberish word invented on the fly. So it must have meaning. Same with the word true and I'm content to say that a belief is true if it corresponds to reality.

 

I'd also like to hear what you believe objective truth to be. My understand is a belief is objectively true if its truth does not depend on our simply believing it to be true. So the belief that some roses are red would still be true even if there were no humans around to believe it. The contradiction I pointed out isn't a word game or semantics. The belief 'there is no objective truth' is either subjectively true, objectively true or false. If its subjectively true then its only true if you believe it. If its objectively true then its contradictory so there must be some objective truth.

[dagnarus]

I don't know why you bothered replying to my post. I state quite clearly in the beginning that this post is about a friend of mine who stopped believing in God because, as he claims, he came to be disgusted with the morality of the Old Testament. I argued that if you're concerned with being a rational person these are not rational reasons for leaving the faith. I was talking specifically about giving up beliefs not ending your attendance at church. I don't know why you think evolutionary origins of morality have anything to do with whether or not beliefs about morality are true. In fact, if the feelings predated reason and are demonstrated to be the source of irrational beliefs then I suppose moving towards spock would be evolutionary progress. I don't anyone could really say that with certainty though. I'm not saying we should never have emotions or feelings but that they are not sources of knowledge. I personally don't see anything wrong with that last sentence but I'll take a stab at re-phrasing: To have rational moral beliefs one must define morality using logic and/or empirical science and also use logic and/or empirical science to ground an obligation to be moral.

 

Did he have a rational reason for believing in god in the first place?

 

In all likelihood you're correct he didn't stop believing for rational reason's he just no longer had a rational reason for wanting to believe anymore.

[Guest mcduderson]

McDuderson I am having difficulty understanding your point.

 

Something like... it is invalid to reject Christianity on the grounds that the Old Testament God was immoral. It is invalid because we have no rational basis for claiming that our morals are somehow better than this God’s morals.

 

Is that about right?

 

Sort of

 

it is irrational to reject Christianity on the grounds that the Old Testament God was immoral. It is irrational because we have no rational basis for morality.

[Legion]

it is irrational to reject Christianity on the grounds that the Old Testament God was immoral. It is irrational because we have no rational basis for morality.

Okay, I was fairly close McDuderson, thanks.

 

I really don’t know what to think of morality these days. I know that I feel deeply that some things are immoral and some things are moral. And I wouldn’t claim that these feelings are entirely rational. But then I didn’t reject Christianity because I thought the OT God was immoral.

 

But in any case, I am sensing with greater urgency these days that I need to take a closer look morality in general. I suppose this will entail looking into some philosophy.

[Skankboy]

The contradiction I pointed out isn't a word game or semantics. The belief 'there is no objective truth' is either subjectively true, objectively true or false. If its subjectively true then its only true if you believe it. If its objectively true then its contradictory so there must be some objective truth.

 

You are trying to derive something objective using a subjective process about an abstract ideal. And again, you use an objective reality example (the roses) to compare to an abstract ideal. I really don't believe this is appropriate. You use "truth" the same as you would "chair". The difference is, I could have 3 people compare what they subjectively observe about the chair and arrive at a conscensus. Good luck doing with "truth". Now the consensus they arrive at would still be subjective, but it would be as close to a description of objective reality as the group would be able to produce.

 

By your own definition of "objective", "truth" could never be objective because it wouldn't exist without humans to talk about it.

[chefranden]

1.I don't know why you bothered replying to my post.

 

2.I state quite clearly in the beginning that this post is about a friend of mine who stopped believing in God because, as he claims, he came to be disgusted with the morality of the Old Testament. I argued that if you're concerned with being a rational person these are not rational reasons for leaving the faith. I was talking specifically about giving up beliefs not ending your attendance at church. 3. I don't know why you think evolutionary origins of morality have anything to do with whether or not beliefs about morality are true. In fact, if the feelings predated reason and are demonstrated to be the source of irrational beliefs then I suppose moving towards spock would be evolutionary progress. I don't anyone could really say that with certainty though. 4. I'm not saying we should never have emotions or feelings but that they are not sources of knowledge. I personally don't see anything wrong with that last sentence but I'll take a stab at re-phrasing: 5a. To have rational moral beliefs one must define morality using logic and/or empirical science, 5b and also use logic and/or empirical science to ground an obligation to be moral.

 

1. This is a debate forum, if you didn't want comments why did you bother to post.

 

2. No it is not clear. What do you mean by Non-Existence of Morality? Your title suggests that you are replying to something that no one on this forum has claimed. Then the text of your OP doesn't mention the Non-Existence of Morality at all. Then there is only some vague blathering about being irrational for turning away from disgusting moral behavior. I tried to give you the courtesy of supposing that you intended to say something, and started asking you clarifying questions.

 

3. What do you mean by beliefs being true?

 

Evolution is the source of all behavior, so if you want to discuss behavior evolution is pertinent.

 

4. Certainly emotions are sources of knowledge. Everything that exists is a source of knowledge. Emotion specifically informs you about the state of your relationship to another human, a group of humans, or even sometimes to other animals. If you mean that emotion is not the source of knowledge about the nature of water you are partly right. Only partly right because you first need the desire to know the nature of water before you will expend the effort to study the nature of water.

 

5a. I think I agree that definition requires logic, but I don't think it requires science. We can define "pink unicorn" without benefit of empirical science. 5b. Empirical science is not the ground for anything. It only describes what is there with more accuracy than speculation. Obligation resides in your moral feeling. If you don't feel an obligation then you don't have an obligation. Most people have the emotional construction to feel similar moral obligations. Positive obligations are normally directed towards one's in group, and negative obligations are usually directed towards one's out groups. See Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

 

Certainly you and/or your in group can insist that an outsider ought to feel a certain obligation, but you can't make the outsider feel the obligation even if you have the force to make the outsider comply. The feeling that everyone ought to have the same feelings of obligation that you have is not evidence of some external and absolute obligation if that is what you are getting at.

[oddbird1963]

mcduderson,

 

You never really answered my question.

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

 

It seems like you are deflecting. My point was that rational people make rational decisions to leave the church all the time. Their reasons are well laid out and logical.

 

The "other possibilities" have been taken into consideration and I still conclude that the bible morally contradicts itself. It is not illogical to reject christianity based on the moral climate of today, whether that climate be reflective of the church of today or today's society in general. It is totally rational for an individual to say, "the god of the bible violates my moral beliefs, therefore I reject the god of christianity" regardless of the source of that morality.

 

If you are saying that morality can only be established because of societal enforcement and emotional appeals, then I agree. That is the way I believe morality has always worked. To say "there is no morality" is false, because, in fact, all humans think and behave within a matrix of moral reasoning.

 

If you are saying that morality must be based on scripture, then you commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is not that the church not following scripture is a problem with scripture. The problem would be IF the church followed the moral teaching of scripture in all cases. That would be the problem. Thankfully, though the church supports some practices which I find morally objectionable, they do not stone people for committing adultery or raid villages and murder women and children (this century anyway ).

 

What I'm objecting to is you saying that people who reject christianity on moral grounds are being emotional rather than logical. I just don't think your case holds up. I have shown you how a thinking person can come to the conclusion that they should reject christianity without an appeal to emotion. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

 

Now, please, answer my question.

 

I didn't answer your question because its not an important one. Lots of people of all educational backgrounds have myriads of beliefs that can be rational or irrational. Just because a group of people believe something doesn't mean its true and just because a smart person believes something doesn't mean its true. I've laid down good deductive arguments against objective morality. If a PhD disagrees s/he can give a counter argument or such but simple opinion is worthless. Take Noam Chomsky whom I'm a big fan of. Theres a video where someone just asks him flat out why don't we just invade countries and take their oil? And Noam says 'fine, lets just admit that we're Nazis.' Chomsky and everyone around him knows that this is an appeal to emotion or ad hominem or what have you and that its not rational but thats not the discussion their having, they're assuming that nations should try to avoid being Nazis. Rational well respected intellectuals make mistakes all the time, it doesn't matter if they simply disagree they have to present arguments and evidence.

 

Being capable of moral reasoning doesn't prove the existence of morality any more then being capable of numerological reasoning proves the existence of numerology. The moral climate is of literally zero consequence. Entire peoples can have moral beliefs of any kind and it means nothing to the truth of those beliefs. Groups of people having the same belief does not make that belief true.

 

Its not that the possibilities have to be considered or kind of thought about they have to be ruled out. Example: If my car is wet then either: A. it rained B. it was hit by the sprinkler C. someone sprayed it with a hose. The task now is to consider each possibility to see if it results in a logical contradiction or in this case if the answers can be ruled out through empirical investigation. Theres also the possibility of missing or left out possibilities and/or combinations of possibilities.

 

If the morality of the Old Testament and the morality of the New Testament contradict there are more possibilities then just God does not exist. Those other possibilities have to be demonstrated to be false.

 

Heres the point I was making about morality; consider moral nihilism, the belief that there is no morality. This belief does not entail a logical contradiction and there is no way to empirically falsify the belief. For any moral belief to be true it is assumed that moral nihilism must be false. So someone could not simultaneously believe that it is immoral to kill innocent people and believe that moral nihilism is true. Since moral nihilism can't be falsified moral beliefs are therefore impossible. So when you see morality of God or Zeus or anyone and you disagree it can't possibly be for rational reasons. So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

mcduderson,

 

I think you should have the courtesy to answer questions that you may not think important. It's not a trivial question nor was it asked rhetorically. Once again you deflected. I see a pattern here.

 

You make the point that nihlism is the belief that there is no morality. Here we have a case of an unprovable since you cannot prove a negative. Rather, you must try to prove or disprove the statement "Morality exists."

 

Right now, what you are doing amounts to word games. I don't think there is an inadequacy in the thought processes of the person holding moral objections to the god of a religion. I think your criteria of falsifiability is either incomplete or you definition of nihlism is inadequate.

 

What do you mean when you say "morality exists" anyway? In one sense, morality doesn't exist because it is not a physical concept. On the other hand it exists as a component of human interaction. Human behavior is limited on a decision by decision basis due in part to moral reasoning. People make decisions along a matrix of definable moral criteria. That statement is falsifiable and it is provable. It has been proven. So when you deny the existence of morality, I don't know what you think you are denying.

 

This excerpt is a little confusing in light of what you just wrote:

 

So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

 

What could still be true? Morality? I thought you just said that morality cannot exist because nihlism cannot be falsified. According to what you've been saying, morality of any kind cannot be true because morality of any kind cannot exist. So why did you even bother to say that "these beliefs could still be true?"

 

Now, what I have been discussing is not the rejection of OT morality as rational proof that god does not exist. I cited it as a rational basis for leaving christianity. Even with your friend whom you mentioned, you said he left the faith but didn't say what you meant by that. Did he leave initially maintaining a belief in a god in some fashion other than the god of christianity only to later come to a position that god does not exist? Did he have a selection of other reasons in addition to his moral objections that together lead him to a position that god does not exist?

 

Because, once again, moral grounds is a rational reason to reject the christian faith. But you are right that it does not in and of itself prove that no gods of any kind exist. But, that is not even what you started out saying. You said: "its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel" and "But if you're concerned with being a rational person you can't use these feelings are reasons for not believing any more."

 

Once again, I think you make a mistake by saying either you're being rational or emotional. For some emotions played a big part, but giving up one's faith for another faith or no faith on moral grounds is not in and of itself emotional.

 

But morality does exist. And when one system of morality violates your own, then it is rational to say, "System A is better than system B, so I reject system B."

 

Also disturbing is the reference to people's view of the old testament, "little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament."

 

I hope is isn't the case that you have little respect for the people who have painstakingly reconsidered their faith and rejected christianity. You seem to minimize their experience. Hopefully it is not the case that you feel superior to them intellectually and cannot connect to others emotionally.

[Guest mcduderson]

The contradiction I pointed out isn't a word game or semantics. The belief 'there is no objective truth' is either subjectively true, objectively true or false. If its subjectively true then its only true if you believe it. If its objectively true then its contradictory so there must be some objective truth.

 

You are trying to derive something objective using a subjective process about an abstract ideal. And again, you use an objective reality example (the roses) to compare to an abstract ideal. I really don't believe this is appropriate. You use "truth" the same as you would "chair". The difference is, I could have 3 people compare what they subjectively observe about the chair and arrive at a conscensus. Good luck doing with "truth". Now the consensus they arrive at would still be subjective, but it would be as close to a description of objective reality as the group would be able to produce.

 

By your own definition of "objective", "truth" could never be objective because it wouldn't exist without humans to talk about it.

 

The law of non-contradiction is not a subjective process. We don't arbitrarily decide whats contradictory and what isn't. I don't buy that truth is an abstract ideal. Truth, in the way I'm using it, refers to how much or how little a belief corresponds to reality. It doesn't matter that someone may have a different definition of truth the point is when I say 'there is objective truth' its shorter then saying 'there are beliefs that objectively describe reality.' All words do is either point to other words or point to things in the real world. Words are essentially names. In this case, the name for that state of affairs when a sentence accurately describes reality is true or truth. Abstract it may be, its still a real thing.

 

Could you also explain what you mean by subjectively observe? We know how the senses work and how our biology works to great extent. We can explain in detail exactly what it is in the external world thats causing you to experience certain things. We can also test the reliability of the senses. We know for example that the senses are imperfect and can produce incorrect information like watching railroad tracks get smaller and connect in the distance. Its true that some language has become obsolete because its reference and meaning is part of an outdated framework but all we have to do us update the things the names refer to. Red doesn't have to refer to some property that is exemplified in substance. It can refer to a specific frequency of electromagnetic energy. So it may not be true that the external world is identical to how it is represented in the brain as experiences but theres still underlying objective phenomenon behind those experiences and my language can be accurate.

[Legion]

McDuderson you strike me as being a reasonably intelligent guy. This is off topic, but I feel compelled to ask.

 

Why do you still adhere to Christianity?

[Deva]

Feel free to provide a better definition to work with. If knowledge is not true beliefs about the outside world then I'm not really sure how to proceed.

 

The problem is that there are different types of knowledge. I was trying to illustrate this fact with examples, but you have evidently dismissed them.

 

 

I'd also like to hear what you believe objective truth to be. My understand is a belief is objectively true if its truth does not depend on our simply believing it to be true. So the belief that some roses are red would still be true even if there were no humans around to believe it. The contradiction I pointed out isn't a word game or semantics. The belief 'there is no objective truth' is either subjectively true, objectively true or false. If its subjectively true then its only true if you believe it. If its objectively true then its contradictory so there must be some objective truth.

 

Humans have invented this word "truth" and "objective" truth. To me, objective truth would be something true for everyone, all observers, for all time. To me, it does not exist and no one has proved it does. There are some facts, such as the law of gravity, that are widely accepted as true. I still would not call it objective truth. All truth, and our ability to determine it, is dependent on our senses and a filtering process for determination and is subject to change. I have already explained my position in sufficient detail. As for your last sentence, Skankboy explained why its just semantics. I agree with him.

 

Why would the roses be believed to be red if there were no humans around? If there were no beings around with the sensitivity to pick up the color "red", to them there would be no such concept as "red". To me, this makes no sense. They would not know it was red.

[Vigile]

McDuderson you strike me as being a reasonably intelligent guy. This is off topic, but I feel compelled to ask.

 

Why do you still adhere to Christianity?

 

I would agree, he appears to be head and shoulders above the vast majority of xians that come here in terms of intelligence and education. I'm guessing he believes because he wants to believe and because it meets his emotional needs.

 

That said, I don't see evidence as of yet that he has applied his brain power and true scrutiny to the claims he still accepts. Perhaps it's just a matter of time as he appears to have questioned and discounted most of the claims.

[buffettphan]

McDude's quote on the "Hi New Here. Still Have Beliefs, But Disgusted" thread:

 

I'm mainly posting here because I don't want to talk to people at my work about this stuff.

[Guest mcduderson]

mcduderson,

 

You never really answered my question.

Now, there are millions of brilliant, well-trained , self-disciplined thinkers out there. Many may agree with you. Still more will disagree with you along a wide range of positions. Do you believe that only the ones who agree with you are the logical ones?

 

It seems like you are deflecting. My point was that rational people make rational decisions to leave the church all the time. Their reasons are well laid out and logical.

 

The "other possibilities" have been taken into consideration and I still conclude that the bible morally contradicts itself. It is not illogical to reject christianity based on the moral climate of today, whether that climate be reflective of the church of today or today's society in general. It is totally rational for an individual to say, "the god of the bible violates my moral beliefs, therefore I reject the god of christianity" regardless of the source of that morality.

 

If you are saying that morality can only be established because of societal enforcement and emotional appeals, then I agree. That is the way I believe morality has always worked. To say "there is no morality" is false, because, in fact, all humans think and behave within a matrix of moral reasoning.

 

If you are saying that morality must be based on scripture, then you commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is not that the church not following scripture is a problem with scripture. The problem would be IF the church followed the moral teaching of scripture in all cases. That would be the problem. Thankfully, though the church supports some practices which I find morally objectionable, they do not stone people for committing adultery or raid villages and murder women and children (this century anyway ).

 

What I'm objecting to is you saying that people who reject christianity on moral grounds are being emotional rather than logical. I just don't think your case holds up. I have shown you how a thinking person can come to the conclusion that they should reject christianity without an appeal to emotion. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

 

Now, please, answer my question.

 

I didn't answer your question because its not an important one. Lots of people of all educational backgrounds have myriads of beliefs that can be rational or irrational. Just because a group of people believe something doesn't mean its true and just because a smart person believes something doesn't mean its true. I've laid down good deductive arguments against objective morality. If a PhD disagrees s/he can give a counter argument or such but simple opinion is worthless. Take Noam Chomsky whom I'm a big fan of. Theres a video where someone just asks him flat out why don't we just invade countries and take their oil? And Noam says 'fine, lets just admit that we're Nazis.' Chomsky and everyone around him knows that this is an appeal to emotion or ad hominem or what have you and that its not rational but thats not the discussion their having, they're assuming that nations should try to avoid being Nazis. Rational well respected intellectuals make mistakes all the time, it doesn't matter if they simply disagree they have to present arguments and evidence.

 

Being capable of moral reasoning doesn't prove the existence of morality any more then being capable of numerological reasoning proves the existence of numerology. The moral climate is of literally zero consequence. Entire peoples can have moral beliefs of any kind and it means nothing to the truth of those beliefs. Groups of people having the same belief does not make that belief true.

 

Its not that the possibilities have to be considered or kind of thought about they have to be ruled out. Example: If my car is wet then either: A. it rained B. it was hit by the sprinkler C. someone sprayed it with a hose. The task now is to consider each possibility to see if it results in a logical contradiction or in this case if the answers can be ruled out through empirical investigation. Theres also the possibility of missing or left out possibilities and/or combinations of possibilities.

 

If the morality of the Old Testament and the morality of the New Testament contradict there are more possibilities then just God does not exist. Those other possibilities have to be demonstrated to be false.

 

Heres the point I was making about morality; consider moral nihilism, the belief that there is no morality. This belief does not entail a logical contradiction and there is no way to empirically falsify the belief. For any moral belief to be true it is assumed that moral nihilism must be false. So someone could not simultaneously believe that it is immoral to kill innocent people and believe that moral nihilism is true. Since moral nihilism can't be falsified moral beliefs are therefore impossible. So when you see morality of God or Zeus or anyone and you disagree it can't possibly be for rational reasons. So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

mcduderson,

 

I think you should have the courtesy to answer questions that you may not think important. It's not a trivial question nor was it asked rhetorically. Once again you deflected. I see a pattern here.

 

You make the point that nihlism is the belief that there is no morality. Here we have a case of an unprovable since you cannot prove a negative. Rather, you must try to prove or disprove the statement "Morality exists."

 

Right now, what you are doing amounts to word games. I don't think there is an inadequacy in the thought processes of the person holding moral objections to the god of a religion. I think your criteria of falsifiability is either incomplete or you definition of nihlism is inadequate.

 

What do you mean when you say "morality exists" anyway? In one sense, morality doesn't exist because it is not a physical concept. On the other hand it exists as a component of human interaction. Human behavior is limited on a decision by decision basis due in part to moral reasoning. People make decisions along a matrix of definable moral criteria. That statement is falsifiable and it is provable. It has been proven. So when you deny the existence of morality, I don't know what you think you are denying.

 

This excerpt is a little confusing in light of what you just wrote:

 

So these little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament are not rational reasons for rejecting the Bible because however you may feel about these beliefs they could still be true.

 

What could still be true? Morality? I thought you just said that morality cannot exist because nihlism cannot be falsified. According to what you've been saying, morality of any kind cannot be true because morality of any kind cannot exist. So why did you even bother to say that "these beliefs could still be true?"

 

Now, what I have been discussing is not the rejection of OT morality as rational proof that god does not exist. I cited it as a rational basis for leaving christianity. Even with your friend whom you mentioned, you said he left the faith but didn't say what you meant by that. Did he leave initially maintaining a belief in a god in some fashion other than the god of christianity only to later come to a position that god does not exist? Did he have a selection of other reasons in addition to his moral objections that together lead him to a position that god does not exist?

 

Because, once again, moral grounds is a rational reason to reject the christian faith. But you are right that it does not in and of itself prove that no gods of any kind exist. But, that is not even what you started out saying. You said: "its not rational to give up a belief because of how you feel" and "But if you're concerned with being a rational person you can't use these feelings are reasons for not believing any more."

 

Once again, I think you make a mistake by saying either you're being rational or emotional. For some emotions played a big part, but giving up one's faith for another faith or no faith on moral grounds is not in and of itself emotional.

 

But morality does exist. And when one system of morality violates your own, then it is rational to say, "System A is better than system B, so I reject system B."

 

Also disturbing is the reference to people's view of the old testament, "little outrages and tirades about how evil and vile the old testament."

 

I hope is isn't the case that you have little respect for the people who have painstakingly reconsidered their faith and rejected christianity. You seem to minimize their experience. Hopefully it is not the case that you feel superior to them intellectually and cannot connect to others emotionally.

 

So there are lots of smart people some who would agree but a majority who would disagree with me along a wide range of positions. Now, do I believe that only the ones who agree with me are the logical ones? I don't have a criteria for determining if a person in their totality is logical and I wouldn't make that judgement based on a single issue. It doesn't matter how smart/educated/well trained these people are. What matters is the quality of their argument. Provided I was correct in my reasoning then the ones who agreed with me and recognized my position would be being logical. Don't know what the point of that question was, why it was pressed, why you think its significant.

 

I'm not making a point about nihilism. I described a concept and called it 'moral nihilism' and used it in sentences in place of its full description. 'Physical concept' is a contradiction so far as I know. When I say morality I guess I mean that there exists an objective obligation to engage and/or refrain from specific behaviors in and of themselves. If you're asking about what kind of a thing morality is in some sort of an ontological sense, like what is it made of and where can I find it, I don't really know what to say. Your description is problematic. You haven't said anything in so far as what kind of a thing morality is either just that its definable and used for making decisions. If we really want to we can understand everything I typed in the parenthesis of 'defining morality' and I could change my definition of moral nihilism to the belief that moral definitions are arbitrary and persons are never obliged to follow them. The argument would still hold; to believe that it is true that action x is immoral you'd have to justify the belief that moral nihilism is false. Moral nihilism can't be falsified using logic or empirical science therefore no one is justified in believe action x is immoral.

 

I don't know why people say you can't prove a negative. Proving a negative involves disproving a positive. We can prove big foot doesn't exist because once we have the belief fully cached out we can see what else would be true if big foot existed and see if those corollaries are true. Thats an inductive example of building a cogent case for a negative but in deductive logic all you need is a negative premise to prove a negative conclusion and for every true positive premise there is a negative premise with equivalent truth value. At any rate, my argument demonstrates that moral beliefs can't be justified by proposing the possibility that morality doesn't exist.

 

As far as my friend, he was a garden variety christian fundamentalist who abused people that weren't as fundamentalist as him and now depression (read treatable mental illness) and interesting questions that he has no interest in answering have left him crushed and very hostile to Christianity as a whole. He won't go on specifics about what he doesn't believe but he sympathizes with a lot of the testimony in the ex forums. When asked the bulk of his reasons he's been telling people like me is the old testament teachings and what that says about God, science, and the way people at church treat him.

 

Now I empathize with his pain and respect that. I don't at all respect his reasons and I wish he'd quit blebbering and get meds. Just because someone thought about something for a long time and it was hard doesn't mean their decision should be respected.

[chefranden]

The belief 'there is no objective truth' is either subjectively true, objectively true or false. If its subjectively true then its only true if you believe it. If its objectively true then its contradictory so there must be some objective truth.

 

There is objective truth, i.e. real things and processes. Humans can't accesses it directly. Reality is always mediated. As far as the evolution of the species goes there was no need for direct apprehension of reality in order for individuals to survive to reproduction. Close was good enough. Caveman didn't need to know the universal coordinates of that deer in 11 dimensions to 20 decimal places in order to chuck a spear into it. Caveman only needed to apprehend the deer's position relative to himself.

 

Caveman didn't have to know about DNA or the process of blood circulation in order to eat the deer and share it with friends and relations. In the same way he didn't have to know why he felt he should share it with his friends and relations. He could make up something false or foolish like a god or a spirit and it wouldn't effect the general feeling of sharing. Food would get shared and the group would help to move his genes along into the next generation.

 

Science was invented to try to bypass our many misconceptions as much as possible. With science some of us can know with more accuracy the workings of a cell, or quantum fluctuations. Nevertheless the more accurate knowledge is still mediated by what Lakoff and Johnson call body/mind.

 

However you parse it there is a great leap from objective reality to objective morality -- meaning moral rules existing outside of humans in the universe or in a god. Moral behavior and feelings are objective in that they can be observed and felt. That is they are real processes. Nevertheless, they are not objective in the sense that exist apart from moral actors or moral processors. The sun is there whether I exist or not. My morals are not there if I do not exist. The sun is there whether or not the human species exists. Human morality is not there if humans don't exist.

[agnosticator]

Chefranden,

 

I appreciate your posts.

 

I would like to add this for mcduderson: Without emotions (especially empathy) and desires, there can be no thoughts about morality. It is emotion and desire that brings morals up to begin with. We use reason along with them to construct morals. Reason alone can lead to a morality that is destructive and lacking empathy. But what is there for pure reason to discuss without the complete (feelings, desires, and rationality) human animal?

[chefranden]

Chefranden,

 

I appreciate your posts.

 

I would like to add this for mcduderson: Without emotions (especially empathy) and desires, there can be no thoughts about morality. It is emotion and desire that brings morals up to begin with. We use reason along with them to construct morals. Reason alone can lead to a morality that is destructive and lacking empathy. But what is there for pure reason to discuss without the complete (feelings, desires, and rationality) human animal?

 

Hey thanks

[dagnarus]

 

I'm not making a point about nihilism. I described a concept and called it 'moral nihilism' and used it in sentences in place of its full description. 'Physical concept' is a contradiction so far as I know. When I say morality I guess I mean that there exists an objective obligation to engage and/or refrain from specific behaviors in and of themselves. If you're asking about what kind of a thing morality is in some sort of an ontological sense, like what is it made of and where can I find it, I don't really know what to say. Your description is problematic. You haven't said anything in so far as what kind of a thing morality is either just that its definable and used for making decisions. If we really want to we can understand everything I typed in the parenthesis of 'defining morality' and I could change my definition of moral nihilism to the belief that moral definitions are arbitrary and persons are never obliged to follow them. The argument would still hold; to believe that it is true that action x is immoral you'd have to justify the belief that moral nihilism is false. Moral nihilism can't be falsified using logic or empirical science therefore no one is justified in believe action x is immoral.

 

I don't know why people say you can't prove a negative. Proving a negative involves disproving a positive. We can prove big foot doesn't exist because once we have the belief fully cached out we can see what else would be true if big foot existed and see if those corollaries are true. Thats an inductive example of building a cogent case for a negative but in deductive logic all you need is a negative premise to prove a negative conclusion and for every true positive premise there is a negative premise with equivalent truth value. At any rate, my argument demonstrates that moral beliefs can't be justified by proposing the possibility that morality doesn't exist.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but my guess is that your argument is that given that their is no grounds for us to state what is objectively moral or not we should just assume that what god is and says is moral by default and we have no grounds to question his morality?

 

As far as my friend, he was a garden variety christian fundamentalist who abused people that weren't as fundamentalist as him and now depression (read treatable mental illness) and interesting questions that he has no interest in answering have left him crushed and very hostile to Christianity as a whole. He won't go on specifics about what he doesn't believe but he sympathizes with a lot of the testimony in the ex forums. When asked the bulk of his reasons he's been telling people like me is the old testament teachings and what that says about God, science, and the way people at church treat him.

 

Now I empathize with his pain and respect that. I don't at all respect his reasons and I wish he'd quit blebbering and get meds. Just because someone thought about something for a long time and it was hard doesn't mean their decision should be respected.

 

I believe you are correct that there is no reason to believe that the Christian god does not exist simply based upon the fact that I believe him to be immoral, any more than I could choose to believe that Hitler didn't exist. That said what rational reason did your friend have for believing that the god of the bible exists? Given that a great degree of the bible contradicts things we know about history. science, and just the way the world works in general it wouldn't be surprising to me that the reason why he would state the immorality of the Old Testament god would be a major reason for his loss of faith. When the primary reason why somebody clings to a believe is emotional attachment it makes sense that they would abandon it, or be made capable of seeing it rationally would be if there emotional reason for believing it was removed.

[oddbird1963]

mcduderson and anyone who wants to contribute,

 

I see what you mean about the 'you can't prove a negative' thing. I will look into that more. But I think I stand corrected on that aspect. If anyone has anything to say in favor of or against 'you can't prove a negative,' it would be good to hear from them.

 

Now about the subject of 'physical concept'

 

'Physical concept' is a contradiction so far as I know. . . You haven't said anything in so far as what kind of a thing morality is either just that its definable and used for making decisions.

 

Title of a scientific article:

The Physical Concept of Force Divided by Area and its Applications

 

Quote from the article:

Pressure is a fundamental physical concept with many applications.

 

It is very easy to see that ‘physical concept’ refers to thoughts and ideas about items that exist in the realm of time, space and matter. It is used in sentences all over the place, especially in scientific texts and treatises. If you do not grasp the notion of physical concept, then perhaps your particular brand of logical positivism is having too high a restrictive effect on how you view and form thoughts about the world. When you want to know what kind of ‘thing’ morality is, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your empiricism has placed blinders around your eyes (metaphorically) and you are missing the point of some important aspects of life.

 

When I said morality ‘is not a physical concept’ it is easy to see that morals and morality, the formal and informal, stated or unstated rules that guide behavior based on what is ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ is not directly related to physical objects. It is not a physical thing. I think you could say that morality is an ‘abstract concept,’ but it is indirectly related to human existence and human society. I believe morality arises out of the innate needs of human beings and the scarcity of resources: 1) food 2) water 3) clothing 4) shelter 5) sex and procreation. The system of rules developed from humanity's ongoing struggle to meet these needs is necessary to ensure that we do not obliterate ourselves. The moral systems developed to control humans in their efforts to acquire the basic 5 overlap at times, vary at other times but can be compared, contrasted, rejected, accepted and amended. But morality exists as long as two or more humans exist.

 

I see morality as an emergent system derived from being higher level primates capable of cooperation and empathy. Recently, I viewed a video which demonstrated that capuchin monkeys also display behavior much akin to moral behavior – a sense of fair play which was demonstrated in a controlled test that was indeed falsifiable. The capuchin monkey shared food with the other monkey in a situation where the animal did not have to and was under no threat for not sharing. (Chefranden posted the "Moral Monkey" link in the Absolute Morality: Does it Exist? thread)

 

Now, when I can show you animals ( and people ) behaving according to a moral system that directs and limits behavior, doesn’t that falsify the statement “there is no morality”?

 

I wonder if you would say that that information does not exist. It seems to me that like morality, the concept of information is not a physical concept but an abstract concept. There is much written that discusses how and when collections of certain facts (another abstract concept) constitutes information. Yet, like morality, information cannot be placed in a test tube or centrifuge, studied with a mass spectrometer or change the color of litmus paper.

 

Let’s start with the concept of informational nihilism = there is no information. There is no contradiction here. It is not falsifiable. To say some information is true, you have to falsify informational nihilism. I guess that proves there is no information. Yet it seems to me that information is also an emergent system that grows out of humans being intelligent, sentient beings able to express concepts in symbolic form. Information exists because human beings exist.

 

You have already mentioned a belief that you think objective truth must necessarily exist. I anticipate that you will say that objective truth is found in God or Jesus Christ. It seems like you are likewise arguing that there must likewise be one valid moral system. Like chefranden, I anticipate that you are going to say that morality is somehow grounded in god and/or Jesus Christ. Otherwise, why you would even bother being a Christian?

 

Let me concede to you, for a moment, your original proof using moral nihilism as 'there is no morality.' Even if there were a god, wouldn't what you say about the non-existence of morality hold true anyway? Even if god is the source of objective truth, wouldn’t it still be irrational to believe in morality? Would that mean god is an irrational god because he sent his son to die for sin, a moral concept? Wouldn’t the bible’s invectives against theft, cheating widows and depriving orphans be just so much senseless babble? Even if 'God said it is so,' wouldn't the proof against the existence of morality always be there to prove that even if god says it is so, it cannot be because I have a logical proof here that morality does not exist? Wouldn't your proof against the existence of morality also serve to prove that god is an irrational being? After all he created a universe where he issues moral imperatives, but your own proof demonstrates morals do not exist. Would you worship an irrational god?

 

Other questions arise. Do you also think information is grounded in god? How is your belief in god different from classical Christian theology (or even fundamentalist theology)?

 

 

Now, I realize you shifted the definition of moral nihilism to:

 

moral definitions are arbitrary and persons are never obliged to follow them.

 

But although you still call this moral nihilism, it is not the same thing. In one sense, I understand that nobody is obliged to follow the rules set up for morality. And people don't follow a moral system until their sense of empathy is accessed. Some have less capability for empathy than others, but humans generally have the ability to empathize with others and say to themselves, "i would not want anyone to deprive me of food/water/clothing/shelter. So I won't do the same thing either.' In this sense we are 'self-obliged' to follow a moral system. We don't always choose too, but it is a moral system nonetheless which most of us follow most of the time. And I'm not sure how arbitrary morality is anyway. There is a degree of overlap in these systems. You can predict the kinds of issues a moral system will be developed to mediate. So arbitrary? I'm not so sure.

 

But saying moral definitions are arbitrary may lead to to the conclusion that there are no morals, but I don't think your newer definition is adequate for any concept of nihilism.

 

I appreciate how you framed the issue - that you cannot reject Christianity based on OT morality because there is no rational basis for morality. But doesn't this say more about a limit to rationalism? Moral systems are verifiable - we can verify if they are in play and even what kind of moral reasoning in which people engage. We can compare and contrast them. We can say "My system has A and their system has not A. I reject their system." We can determine when a moral system contradicts itself. But because you cannot find an almost math-like proof for a given moral system in a restricted set of language criteria, to reject one moral system over another is illogical or irrational? I think if this is the only kind of reasoning you think is available to you for making important decisions, you have a hugely restrictive and deficient worldview. And not one that is without contradiction and dilemma, either.

[chefranden]

If anyone has anything to say in favor of or against 'you can't prove a negative,' it would be good to hear from them.

 

The myth of not proving a negative.

[oddbird1963]

If anyone has anything to say in favor of or against 'you can't prove a negative,' it would be good to hear from them.

 

The myth of not proving a negative.

 

 

Thank you, chef!