Farrell Till on morality

[Captain Ochre]

Farrell Till:

"If you agree that there is no "objective morality" that
simply exists, independently of human thought, then in my opinion, you are
misusing the word "objective" when you refer to "objective morality." At
any rate, if you agree that there is no morality that is independent of
mind, then you agree with my position. I have said all along that morality
is a product of human thinking; therefore, it is impossible for OSM or you
or anyone else to argue that morality is absolute. I do assume that you
will agree that human thinking can err."


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=37175b87.340996163%40news.idir.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Mr. Till invited me to check out his arguments on the topic of morality at alt.bible.errancy. I have a few observations regarding the above, but I'd like to see what a few others think prior to posting them.
Comments?

Here's another post on the topic to mine for quotations (representative of Mr. Till's opinions, we hope):
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=366039e9.11497585%40news.kc.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Here are the quotes with my comments.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=37175b87.340996163%40news.idir.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

GOOGLE:
TILL:
Look, Johnny, it should be obvious to everyone by now that you consider yourself the final authority on philosophy, but you don't impress me. The problem with philosophy is that it is philosophy, and philosophical opinions are about as diverse as the number of philosophers. If you have followed this discussion, then you should know that I have said that I don't believe that objective morality exists, because (1) that which is objective is independent of mind and emotion, (2) morality is simply a moral abstraction, and (3) abstractions are formulated in minds. Therefore, those who argue that objective morality exists are arguing that abstractions can exist independent of mind. All I am asking is for someone to explain how that would be possible. Perhaps you would like to try.

DE GOES:
Why would I attempt to explain something I consider ABSURD? I stated that objective morality as I am using the term is *not* a moral code that exists independently of mind, and then proceeded to define what I meant by "objective". OSM subsequently affirmed my definition. You are arguing against a straw person constructed by your own mind, not against anything anyone here is claiming.

Since you cannot get over the hurdle of using the word "objective" to mean anything other than "independent of mind", I will dispense with using this word. Instead, I will create two comprehensive and contradictory views that I define as follows:


TILL:
Well, if you want to define away "objective" in the sense that objective moralists use it when they argue that there is an objective morality that is binding on all people, then I really have no interest in discussing this subject with you. If you agree that there is no "objective morality" that simply exists, independently of human thought, then in my opinion, you are misusing the word "objective" when you refer to "objective morality." At any rate, if you agree that there is no morality that is independent of mind, then you agree with my position. I have said all along that morality is a product of human thinking; therefore, it is impossible for OSM or you or anyone else to argue that morality is absolute. I do assume that you will agree that human thinking can err.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net


POWELL:
I'm not sure what the problem for Capn Ochre is here. Perhaps it has to do with Farrell's assertion that there is no objective morality in the way "objective moralists" claim there to be, namely independent of human thought, binding on all people.

Evidently, DE GOES was redefining the term "objective" when he spoke of "objective morality" and Farrell didn't realize that initially, so he felt a need to disagree. Farrell favors using the word "objective" in the way most theologicial apologists use the term.

I might also want to redefine the word "objective" in "objective morality" if it currently refers to nothing. What use is a definition for a perfectly good word if the definition means the word doesn't refer to anything? It's sort of like trying to compel the word "omnipotent" to mean "can do anything, even that which is logically impossible."

Here's the other reference. I've edited it somewhat.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=366039e9.11497585%40news.kc.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

GOOGLE:
TIM {TAYLOR?}:
Gotta love those OT {Old Testament} objective morals OS {MATTHEW}! Notice Yahweh didn't have a negative word to say about all this. When your wife can't get pregnant, just sleep with the maid. Keep digging OS, the hole is getting deeper.

OS MATTHEW:
You say God didn't say anything negative, where did he assert anything about this behavior. The passage as you give it is pretty much descriptive and not prescriptive. What exactly is the problem? Multiple wives were permitted in OT times - and that is what this case involves. This allowance was removed in the new covenant. Still, the objective principle remains that cheating on a lawful spouse is adultery.

TILL:
You do dig your hole a bit deeper with each posting, don't you, OSM? If multiple wives (polygamy) were "permitted" in OT times but "removed" in the new covenant, then morality cannot be objective.

OS MATTHEW:
Your assertion doesn't follow (any more than saying a parent's changing of curfew times a child disproves objective morality or the objectivity of the parent). The objective moral norm has always been that adultery for the polygamist or the monogamist is evil, and that marriage must involve members of the opposite sex. Monogamy as the universal norm was reinstated by Christ after polygamy was apparently allowed for a period of time.


TILL:
Universal norm? We aren't talking about universal norms; we're talking about objective or absolute morality. You are the one arguing that morality is objective or absolute. If you are right in your position, then an act cannot be declared acceptable (moral) for a period of time and then made unacceptable (immoral). To say that it can is to admit that morality is relative, not absolute. Thus, if polygamy is immoral today, it had to be immoral in the time of Jacob. If Jacob could have more than one wife without breaking an objective moral standard, then I could do the same today; otherwise, morality is not objective or absolute. If not, why not?

I think your problem is that you don't know what the term "objective morality" means, either that or you recognize that your position on objective morality cannot be rationally harmonized with the Bible, and so you resort to theological doublethink to try to circumvent an inconsistency. This is done when you argue that abortion is morally (absolutely) wrong but then bend yourself into a pretzel to try to explain how that God could have destroyed embryos in a universal flood without violating the objective moral standard or could have commanded that an entire nation of people be utterly destroyed, including women, children, infants, and by necessary inference the unborn children of pregnant women without violating the objective moral standard that makes the destruction of the unborn immoral. If it is objectively true that the purposeful destruction of embryos is morally wrong, then this moral principle cannot be set aside by anyone, including God, in any situation. Otherwise, morality is not absolute.

Why don't you learn what "objective morality" is and then try to argue your case?

TILL (earlier):
That which is objectively wrong is wrong. If X was right in OT times, then it could not be wrong now and morality still be objective. Or do you even know what "objective morality" means?

OS MATTHEW:
I do...but do you?


TILL:
You do? One would never suppose that you do from just reading your postings.

OS MATTHEW:
Laws of God may involve immutable laws for men and those which are disciplinary - perhaps serving a temporary purpose.


TILL:
Laws of God? We aren't talking about "laws of God"; we're talking about absolute (objective) morality. Even if we assume the truth of the Bible, surely, not even you, would argue that everything that God "commanded" concerned moral principles. In Exodus 35-40, Yahweh gave detailed instructions on how to build the tabernacle. As I said before, we are supposed to believe that of all things the creator of the universe could have told humanity in his divine revelation, he thought that intricate details about how to make a tent took precedence over the millions of facts that could have benefited us had we known about them earlier. At any rate, this section of Exodus records the intricate details about the commandments that Yahweh gave to Moses concerning how the tabernacle was to be made. Among many other intricate details, Yahweh ordered that the boards of the tabernacle were to be made of acacia wood and were to be 10 cubits long and a cubit and a half wide (36:20), but surely no objective moralist would argue that God gave this commandment to Moses because there is just some inherent property in acacia wood boards 10 cubits long and a cubit and a half wide that made it morally right that they meet these specifications, because boards 9 and a half cubits long and only a cubit wide would have
been morally wrong. OSM's problem seems to be that he doesn't recognize the distinction in what were purely ceremonial laws (assuming that the Bible is true) and what were moral laws. Moral laws are moral laws because they involve concepts of right and wrong, and ultimately they are rooted in the principle that what injures another person is morally wrong and what
benefits or helps another person is morally right. Stealing from someone harms another person, so morality is involved, but making a board of a certain kind of wood and making it 10 cubits long and a cubit and a half wide neither harms nor benefits anyone. It is purely a matter of whim and does not involve morality.

Now does OSM want to put polygamy into the same class of "God's laws" as making a tent or does he want to put it into a class of moral principles. If he puts it into the latter, then he cannot say that God could have for a period of time made polygamy morally right but later make it morally wrong. To do so would be to make morality a matter of divine whim and not objectiveness.

OS MATTHEW:
Let us take the example of the Jewish dietary laws. Their imposition on the Jews by God doesn't mean the prohibited foods were intrinsically evil. Parents, for example, prohibit certain foods to children for various reasons (e.g. health). These restrictions may be removed once the child matures and understands the purpose of the original prohibition. By analogy, the Christian views many of the laws or rules of the OT as foreshadowing the new covenant. Now fulfilled, the laws have served there usefulness. For example, baptism replaces circumcision.


TILL:
So, then, dietary laws, circumcision, and such like involved ceremonial matters and not moral matters. If circumcision was a moral law, then it could not have been changed; otherwise, morality is relative and not absolute. Now do you want to make polygamy merely a matter of divine whim or a matter of morality? If the latter and if morality is objective or absolute, then polygamy would by necessity be wrong at all times. If not, why not?

OS MATTHEW:
The sinfulness related to violations of the dietary laws has to do with >violating a positive command of God (perhaps imposed for transitory purposes), rather than the eating of something which is in and of itself evil. Once the command is withdrawn, as it has been, no sin is attached to eating formerly prohibited foods. You need better examples Till.


TILL:
Then you are equating polygamy with the "transitory," whimsical rules that God made? If so, then whether a man has one wife or 10 would not be a matter of morality but whether he conforms to what is God's whim at a particular time.

TILL (earlier):
By the way, when are you going to resolve the moral problem of frozen zygotes whose mothers have died?

OS MATTHEW:
The hypocrisy Till you exhibit is quite amazing! You have yet to respond to the few questions I posed to you about your ethics based on self-interest.


TILL:
There was no hypocrisy at all involved. The moral dilemmas that I presented to you were intended to show your own colossal hypocrisy in that you condemn skeptics and atheists for relying on subjective morality when it is quite obvious that you, as well as everyone else, do the same. You may preach objective morality, but when the chips are down, you can't explain how you can possibly know that objective morality exists or how it would be possible for you or anyone to know what it is. The purpose of my posting was to show you that we are all in the same boat. We have nothing but subjectivity to help us determine morality. Even if you could prove that objective morality exists, you cannot show us how it would be possible for anyone to know what it is. If I'm wrong, then why don't you embarrass me by showing that I'm wrong?

OS MATTHEW:
You dodged my questions which were only based on an article written by you and which appeared on this list. You have dodged my questions while posing a dozen or more of your own with a number of follow up posts.


TILL:
And this was done for the reason explained immediately above. I have no foolproof way of determining what is moral and what isn't, but so what? You don't either and neither does anyone else. As I said, we're all in the same boat.

OS MATTHEW:
You have posed these elaborate moral dilemmas (which is fine), while forgetting the one you raised and "solved" using your system involved a rather straightforward question related to theft. However, you have resisted answering my critique of your article.


TILL:
I answered it by demonstrating that your criticism solves nothing, because you cannot explain to us how anyone can possibly know what is objectively moral or immoral. That's the difference in you and skeptics. We admit that we don't have the answers to everything, but you theists like to think that you do. "Ha, ha, we have objective morality, and you don't." Well, okay, if you have objective morality, then just explain to us what it is and how you know what it is. You can't do that. I asked, for example, if the transfusion of blood is morally right, and your answer was, "Yes." You gave no qualification or explanation of how you know this. You just arbitrarily declared that the transfusion of blood is morally right, and you answered most of the other questions the same way, i.e., with an arbitrary yes or no with no explanation of how you happen to know the solutions to these moral problems. I would predict that if I submitted the same questions to other Catholics, I'd get different answers. I'm sure I would find some who would say that organ transplantation is morally right and others who would say that it is wrong. Do you doubt this? So my response did everything that it needed to do. It showed that you are a case of the pot calling the kettle black by criticizing skeptics and atheists of having no foolproof method of determining morality when the same is obviously true of you and all other theists.

OS MATTHEW:
I can only imagine you seek to divert attention from the deficiencies in your system. Your efforts are quite transparent.


TILL
Not at all. Haven't I admitted that I don't have all the answers to morality? Haven't I admitted that I don't have any foolproof way of determining morality. And haven't I shown that you don't either? I certainly feel no need to divert attention from "deficiencies" in my "system." You're the one who confronts that problem. My position is that it should never be embarrassing to admit that I don't have the answers to all questions on matters like the mystery of existence or the nature of morality. You theists are the ones who seem to think that you must pretend to have all the answers in these matters, and that's why you wind up so often with egg on your faces.

OS MATTHEW:
Still, to answer your question above...I answered this question earlier this evening.


TILL:
Well, okay, if you did, then I'll find your answer as I continue through my mail. I've noticed that e-mail doesn't always come through in the order in which the messages were sent.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net


POWELL:
I seem to be in essential agreement with Farrell here. However, I haven't thought a lot about morality since I became an atheist except to stick with my old Mormon morals as much as they served my needs.

John Powell

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Objectivsm is a term that perhaps entails some ambiguity. It is often confused with absolutism, but the two are not synonymous. A die-hard absolutist thinks that there is only one answer to every moral question and that no absolute moral principle can be overridden by another, but an objectivist may well think otherwise.

It is true that there are different ideas of moral objectivism; one hears a lot of theists arguing for a mind independent morality, but there are viable athesitic perspectives upon objectivism that simply define the morally objective as being derived from universal human needs and interests. In my view, objectivism can be difficult to pin down; even in the case of the theist, moral absolutes reside within the divine intellect and are thus not "mind independent" in the final analysis.

I prefer an eclectic view of morality, where it is allowed that some moral precepts are objective, in one sense or another, but where it is also admitted that other precepts remain relative, culturally, socially, temporally, or otherwise. And one cannot say that many mores are not indeed subjective in the worst sense of the term. Further, from a theistic perspective, not all directions in moral development can be ascribed to God.

I don't think the Bible endorses any definitive ethical position that need be circumscibed by human moral theory, and I doubt that atheists or theists can rightfully discredit one another by an appeal to objectivism or the lack thereof.

Interestingly, we have, in Hebrews 10:1, this assertion:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are to come, and not the very form of things...

What does this mean for objectivism?

The ways of man cannot be encapsulated within the confines of mere theory---and much less the ways of God....