Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Then you are denying the definition.

I actually responded to the definition point by point. Two "no's" and one "yes," they yes being about "enforcement." The "no's" have it, especially since I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework.

Weren't you the one arguing that we need to accept common definitions?

We should, if we wish to successfully communicate. Communication is difficult if we all redefine the common words we use.

In any case by definition God's moral law would have authority over you, conforming to your personal moral framework, or not, does not even play into the definition.

No, for the reasons cited. The only sense in which god has "authority" is with respect to power to punish/reward (which is no different in kind than what a sufficiently power society/group/individual can do - a point you continually ignore). If that is what you consider to be a moral "authority," then you are advocating for "might makes right." If that is how you arrive at your moral framework, so be it. It's not how I arrive at mine.

BTW: you might want to look up the definition of "moral authority," since that is the specific form of authority we are discussing. You can find one of these definitions here.

[Jim B.]

I'm coming late to this discussion, so I haven't followed everything that's gone on. So are you, carpedm, a moral subjectivist? That's the impression I get from these quotes:

Correct - I did. There is nothing convoluted about the answer. If your god exists and has a moral framework - it is the moral framework of that sentient being. It is not mine, and has no authority over mine. I also gave you two parallel scenarios showing how the principle that applies to a society also applies to a god. You called them interesting and then ignored them to go on a rant about "might makes right." You might want to try actually responding to that argument.



You cannot show how this is so - except to argue that this god can punish/reward me. ANY agency more powerful than I can punish/reward me for differing/aligning to their moral framework see above-referenced scenarios). That does not give them "authority" over me. It just means they are more powerful than I am. I am an independent moral agent. If you think otherwise, then you need to make the case for how the moral framework of one moral agent is binding on a completely different moral agent.

And if you're a subjectivist, I take it your subjectivism is based on a society and not on an individual? Either version of subjectivism is hard to defend, imo!

If God has a moral framework, that doesn't necessarily mean that that would be the subjective moral framework of that sentient being. And it also doesn't mean that that moral framework's 'authority' would be wielded over you externally like a civil law through threat of penalty. The moral law is written on the heart; it's internal to our nature as rational, social beings. Also, you're assuming God is just a big powerful guy who can only wield authority by exacting punishment. But we could even leave God out of it if you'd rather. And I may be misreading your position.

[seer]

I actually responded to the definition point by point. Two "no's" and one "yes," they yes being about "enforcement." The "no's" have it, especially since I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework.

It doesn't work that way Carp, the definition of authority has nothing do with your agreement or not. It is about the power to enforce. And it has nothing to do with whether you pay attention or not. You are adding qualifications that have nothing to do with the definition.

We do, if we wish to successfully communicate.

Good I'm glad you agree with the definition of authority: again: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

No, for the reasons cited. The only sense in which god has "authority" is with respect to power to punish/reward (which is no different in kind than what a sufficiently power society/group/individual can do - a point you continually ignore). If that is what you consider to be a moral "authority," then you are advocating for "might makes right." If that is how you arrive at your moral framework, so be it. It's not how I arrive at mine.

But that is in the very definition of authority - the power to enforce. And your might makes right argument is just silly. If society enforces laws that you don't agree with does that too equal "might makes right?"

BTW: you might want to look up the definition of "moral authority," since that is the specific form of authority we are discussing. You can find one of these definitions here.

Not once did I say moral authority, I said the God's moral law had authority over you, and all men. In any case:

moral authority

: trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good

How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?

[Adrift]

Also, you're assuming God is just a big powerful guy who can only wield authority by exacting punishment.

I was just about to make that point to seer. In his discussion, carpe clearly sees God as something like a big powerful old man rather than an omniscient spirit. A sort of William Blake conception God or something. He's not interacting with the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. The peak of all perfection. The creator of all that exists, and from which everything has its being. The wellspring from which all that is moral and good flows from. That God's very nature is the good, and that humanity is created in God's image. We are, in a sense, image bearers of the creator of the universe. Not to get too pantheistic, but carpe's complaint is like the puzzle piece that has decided that the shape it has in mind is actually better than the perfect fitting shape it was created for.

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't work that way Carp, the definition of authority has nothing do with your agreement or not. It is about the power to enforce.

No - the definition had THREE points in it coupled with an "and." You cannot ignore two and focus solely on the third because it meets your needs. Well - you can if you want to - but it's not much of an argument.

And it has nothing to do with whether you pay attention or not. You are adding qualifications that have nothing to do with the definition.

Specifically what qualification have I added that is not part of the definition?

Good I'm glad you agree with the definition of authority.

I do.

But that is in the very definition of authority - the power to enforce.

See above. And I somehow doubt that you will agree that any agency with more power than you with the ability to enforce their moral view is a moral "authority" for you.

And your might makes right argument is just silly. If society enforces laws that you don't agree with does that too equal "might makes right?"

Calling something "silly" doesn't actually make it silly, Seer.

With respect to society and laws, society's ability to make laws and enforce them arises from the governed - if you will recall. And the granting of this enforcement authority to government does not ensure that the laws that will be enacted will be good ones, so "power to enforce" does not equal "good laws" even in the legal domain.

In the moral domain, at least in my framework, might makes enforcement - not "right." I assumed the same was true of you, but I could have been wrong. You may well think "might makes right." Indeed, you seem to be arguing that position with respect to your god.

Not once did I say moral authority, I said the God's moral law had authority over you, and all men.

And I answered that. I merely pointed you to the definition of "moral authority" because it seems to apply to the discussion. If you do not wish to pursue it, so be it.

In any case:

moral authority

: trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good

How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?

It works the way it works in any world Seer. Someone I have significant respect for and significant trust in may well be someone who's more view I find more "authoritative" then someone I do not respect and do not trust. I might accept their statement without digging deeply behind it. But this is a different definition of "authority." In the Merriam/Webster definition, it's 4c (at the end of the chain of definitions).

I have acknowledged from the outset, Seer, that your hypothetical god would have the power to enforce their moral will on me - rewarding me or punishing me for adhering to or rejecting (respectively) this being's moral position. As I have repeatedly noted, this is no different in kind than what ANY society/group/individual can do if they have more power than I. Your hypothetical god would simply be the biggest power on the block. If your definition of "authority" is 100% about "enforcement" then, by your definition, your god hypothetical god has "authority" over me. But I see you selectively choosing the parts of the definition you like and rejecting the rest. The definition of "authority" is broader than just enforcement. Further, the concept of "authority" in the moral sphere is also about being the determiner of what is right and wrong (more about that 4c definition). We are each free moral agents and we derive that framework individually. Morality is NOT like logic/mathematics/physics. With or without sentient minds - these things remain true. Morality disappears completely without sentient minds. As I have noted multiple times now - you are attempting to draw parallels between things that are not parallel. You do that a lot. It peppers your debate posts.

[carpedm9587]

I'm coming late to this discussion, so I haven't followed everything that's gone on. So are you, carpedm, a moral subjectivist? That's the impression I get from these quotes:

I believe morality is both subjective to the individual and relative to the situation/circumstance/time/place etc.

And if you're a subjectivist, I take it your subjectivism is based on a society and not on an individual?

The ultimate moral authority is the individual. What we think of as social moral norms are nothing more than moral norms held by a significant percentage of the members of a given society.

Either version of subjectivism is hard to defend, imo!

It's not hard to defend something that is evident all around us, Jim. Indeed, I have never heard an argument against moral subjectivism that does not reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it is not objective." If you look at that statement, it's not an argument; it's a restatement of (part of) the definition. It's like saying "that car cannot be red because then it wouldn't be blue."

If God has a moral framework, that doesn't necessarily mean that that would be the subjective moral framework of that sentient being.

Yes - it does. All sentient beings derive a moral framework as a means for determining acts that ought or ought not be done.

And it also doesn't mean that that moral framework's 'authority' would be wielded over you externally like a civil law through threat of penalty.

That is essentially what Seer's arguments reduce to: might makes right. God has moral authority because god can enforce.

The moral law is written on the heart; it's internal to our nature as rational, social beings.

Written on the heart? Jim, the heart pumps blood. It doesn't think. That's what the brain does. And what you describe as "written on the heart" is nothing more than the accumulation of cultural, social, religious, and familial norms - may of which have developed from the very dawn of human sentience.

Also, you're assuming God is just a big powerful guy who can only wield authority by exacting punishment.

I am not assuming anything about "god." I don't believe such a being exists. I am taking the definitions offered by Seer (and others) and working with that.

But we could even leave God out of it if you'd rather. And I may be misreading your position.

I'm not sure if you are misreading it or not.

[carpedm9587]

I was just about to make that point to seer. In his discussion, carpe clearly sees God as something like a big powerful old man rather than an omniscient spirit. A sort of William Blake conception God or something. He's not interacting with the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. The peak of all perfection. The creator of all that exists, and from which everything has its being. The wellspring from which all that is moral and good flows from. That God's very nature is the good, and that humanity is created in God's image. We are, in a sense, image bearers of the creator of the universe. Not to get too pantheistic, but carpe's complaint is like the puzzle piece that has decided that the shape it has in mind is actually better than the perfect fitting shape it was created for.

I actually don't have a conception of god beyond whatever the person I'm talking to is presenting. So far, Seer's only argument for god's moral "authority" is about punishment and reward, so that's what I'm working with. As for the rest of your definition of god, it's interesting - but then again all definitions of god are interesting, and there are so MANY of them. I do not believe the supreme being you describe here exists; I believe we have created the notion of god in our own image and likeness - not the reverse.

The puzzle analogy is cute. Unfortunately, lacking an actual god/creator, it isn't very apt.

[seer]

No - the definition had THREE points in it coupled with an "and." You cannot ignore two and focus solely on the third because it meets your needs. Well - you can if you want to - but it's not much of an argument.

Specifically what qualification have I added that is not part of the definition?

Carp what do the two points in question have to do with the actual definition?

Again: Authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Before we move on we need to clear this up. What do your other two ponts have to do with the actual definition? And I'm not focusing on what I need I'm focusing on the DEFINITION.

[Adrift]

Written on the heart? Jim, the heart pumps blood. It doesn't think. That's what the brain does.

[carpedm9587]

Carp what do the two points in question have to do with the actual definition?

Again: Authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Before we move on we need to clear this up. What do your other two ponts have to do with the actual definition? And I'm not focusing on what I need I'm focusing on the DEFINITION.

So the definition you offered has three constituent elements: 1) give orders, 2) make decisions, and 3) and enforce obedience. You seem to want to ignore 1) and 2) and focus only on 3). You apparently want the definition of "authority" to be "the power or right to enforce obedience." You can if you wish - but then you're cherry picking the definition in order to hold your position. Redefining your way to a conclusion is not a very good form of argumentation.

BTW - you are very focused on one definition. Here are a few others:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/authority
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us...lish/authority

Yours selected one is apparently from the Oxford dictionary.

[seer]

So the definition you offered has three constituent elements: 1) give orders, 2) make decisions, and 3) and enforce obedience. You seem to want to ignore 1) and 2) and focus only on 3). You apparently want the definition of "authority" to be "the power or right to enforce obedience." You can if you wish - but then you're cherry picking the definition in order to hold your position. Redefining your way to a conclusion is not a very good form of argumentation.

BTW - you are very focused on one definition. Here are a few others:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/authority
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us...lish/authority

Yours selected one is apparently from the Oxford dictionary.

Carp from one of your links :the power to control or demand obedience from others

And I'm not focusing on number three:

the power or right to give orders and make decisions. That would apply to God and His moral law.


Your two objections have nothing to do with God's power to give orders or His ability to or make decisions.

[carpedm9587]

Carp from one of your links :the power to control or demand obedience from others

And I'm not focusing on number three:

the power or right to give orders and make decisions. That would apply to God and His moral law.

The power - yes. The right? No. I'm a sentient being. Morality is something I work out for myself. You are unilaterally assuming the creator gets to call the shots. Your hypothetical creator would have created a sentient being capable of moralizing. At that point, the creator becomes just another sentient being with its own moral framework.

Your two objections have nothing to do with God's power to give orders or His ability to or make decisions.

Your hypothetical god can give any order it wishes - and make any decision it wishes. It has no authority over me to comply outside of the fact that it has more power and can punish me if I don't. As I have said numerous times, I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" theory of morality. I didn't think you did either, but apparently you do...

[Jim B.]

I believe morality is both subjective to the individual and relative to the situation/circumstance/time/place etc.

How can both of those things be true? They would naturally tend to come into conflict with each other, and when they do, how do you negotiate between them? Which takes precedence and under what circumstances?

The ultimate moral authority is the individual. What we think of as social moral norms are nothing more than moral norms held by a significant percentage of the members of a given society.

With all due respect, carp, that makes no sense. First, you're saying that morality is subjective, the ultimate moral authority being the individual's, but that makes morality a useless concept. Morality isn't about what I personally want but what anyone in the same situation ought to do. It's a judgment that is at least in principle universalizable. Subjectivism reduces morality to a matter of personal taste. Subjective morality, if that term even makes sense, would cease to have interpersonal evaluative meaning. It couldn't be used to resolve interpersonal conflict.

But then you say that it's a matter of what a significant percentage of the members of a given society hold. That contradicts the first assertion that it's a matter of personal judgment.

First of all, how do you define what a 'society' or a 'culture' is? I belong to several different cultural groups. Which group's code takes precedence? Let's say one of my cultures is the Mafia. I have every right, even a duty, under your scenario, to be a good mafioso.

Secondly, is it majoritarian rule that decides what's 'right' and wrong'? When 50% of the population of a given society, assuming you can define that society, plus one person, comes to think that action A is permissible, then it's okay, but when it slips down to 50% minus 1 person it becomes morally wrong again? Surely you see that this is nuts.

Your idea also rules out the possibility that a 'society' can simply be mistaken, as in Nazi Germany or the antebellum South. Truth would always be with the crowd and error with the minority and the individual, which seems to be in tension with your first subjectivist thesis. Also, moral reformers would always be wrong. Even the possibility of moral critique across cultures or even within a single culture would be impossible. There would be no recourse or protection for persecuted or oppressed minorities within a culture.

It's not hard to defend something that is evident all around us, Jim. Indeed, I have never heard an argument against moral subjectivism that does not reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it is not objective." If you look at that statement, it's not an argument; it's a restatement of (part of) the definition. It's like saying "that car cannot be red because then it wouldn't be blue."

My main argument is that subjectivism is not morality by any standard definition of morality but taste and personal preference. It doesn't meet any of the stadard criteria of moral systems.

Yes - it does. All sentient beings derive a moral framework as a means for determining acts that ought or ought not be done.

You're begging the question. We're debating whether or not subjectivism is true regarding morality. You cannot assume it regarding God or anyone else.

That is essentially what Seer's arguments reduce to: might makes right. God has moral authority because god can enforce.

Maybe that's seer's position. I'm not that familiar with all of his positions. It's not my position.

Written on the heart? Jim, the heart pumps blood. It doesn't think. That's what the brain does. And what you describe as "written on the heart" is nothing more than the accumulation of cultural, social, religious, and familial norms - may of which have developed from the very dawn of human sentience.

You're familiar with what a metaphor is? The "heart" means the intuition, what one knows instinctively as part of being a social rational creature. Like sentence formation. Moral norms are pretty universal across cultures. Language acquisition like morality has to be triggered through acculturation, but doesn't seem to be reducible to it. Otherwise we wouldn't see the commonalities we do.

I am not assuming anything about "god." I don't believe such a being exists. I am taking the definitions offered by Seer (and others) and working with that.

Yeah, I know you're an atheist. I meant 'God' as in the concept. Again I'm not overly familiar with seer's definitions, and I guess you have to work with who you're responding to.

[Tassman]

If God has a moral framework, that doesn't necessarily mean that that would be the subjective moral framework of that sentient being. And it also doesn't mean that that moral framework's 'authority' would be wielded over you externally like a civil law through threat of penalty. The moral law is written on the heart; it's internal to our nature as rational, social beings. Also, you're assuming God is just a big powerful guy who can only wield authority by exacting punishment. But we could even leave God out of it if you'd rather. And I may be misreading your position.

I actually agree that “the moral law is written on the heart”, but for different reasons than you. It’s not written by a deity; whose very existence is open to question. It’s “written”, i.e. programmed, by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.

[Tassman]

OK - it appears we are more in agreement than disagreement. It is possible that I have left the impression that I think all of us are "free as birds" with respect to moral choice. Your posts have definitely left me with the impression that you think moral positions are determined by evolution and society. Perhaps the truth, for both of us, is closer to the middle.

You’d be right to a degree. Every animal, including us is an assemblage of genetic algorithms shaped largely by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. They take their decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely other than as a sort of feed-back loop which has a degree of impact in the decision-making process. This "feed-back" loop" is what Dennett refers to as our "elbow-room".

How could it be otherwise?