Of course I disagree. But I still don’t see where I have misunderstood you.

You have NOT given me a true third alternative to Absolute morals Vs. Relative dichotomy. You have just moved it up a level.

There are two ways in which absolute vs. relative morals is a false dichotomy (and the intersubjective approach is a viable third option).

First, there are no “absolute morals”–or to put this a better way, there is no evidence that they exist. There are certainly claims about which morals are “absolute.” And we can certainly talk about generalities regarding certain moral claims, such as, for instance, the notion that murder is wrong, which seems to exist in some form in every society. These generalities might hint at a biological basis for moral intuitions (though, as I have emphasised, that tells us nothing about whether those intuitions are correct or why they should be followed). But, I repeat, there is no evidence that claims about “absolute morality,” whoever is making them–be they the Catholic Church, Muslims, Hindus, Christopher Hitchens, etc.–are true. Nor has it been demonstrated that any of these groups or individuals has the authority or the expertise to determine which morals are the “absolute” ones. Of course, a Catholic may choose to defer to Catholic teaching on absolute morality, but why should a non-Catholic or non-theist recognise the Church’s authority in this area?

Second, what the relativist and absolutist approaches have in common is that both abandon the need to defend a position on morality with reasoned argument and evidence. Absolutists simply argue by fiat, or, if they are theists, make fallacious ad baculum appeals regarding divine rewards and punishments (sufficient evidence for the existence of which is never provided) for following a given set of rules. The relativist position (and this may be a bit of a strawman) is that all moral systems are of equal merit, and thus there is no point arguing in favour of or against any of them. The intersubjective approach, by contrast, recognises that if you’re going to make claims about morality, you need to argue for them. You need to substantiate them, in a language we all–theist and non-theist alike–can access. In fact, this is just about the only practical alternative open to you, since you’re going to have a very difficult time converting people to your religion before they accept your ideas on morals. I think Barack Obama puts the intersubjective approach very eloquently:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Isn’t that better than shouting at each other?

I reply: Early sneak preview then.

You said
>You misunderstand me. I did say that an intersubjective approach to morality involved people seeking tentative solutions to moral problems through rational dialogue and inquiry. People (like you and me), not “ecumenical councils” or “synods.” Tentative solutions, not so-called (and they can only be so-called) “absolutes.” Rational dialogue, persuasion and inquiry, not eschatological/metaphysical blackmail and arguments by fiat.

I reply: I understand you all too well & my answer stands. I don’t think you have really given a third alternative to the alleged fallacy of a false dichotomy.

>The intersubjective approach doesn’t guarantee, of course, that everyone will agree.

I reply: Neither FYI do ecumenical councils. The Council of Trent did NOT answer the question of material sufficiency of Scripture vs part in Scripture, Part in Tradition of the content of revelation & Catholics STILL have differing opinions among themselves to this day. Call it a Council, Congress, Parlement or Coffee club I don’t really care. My point remains. You have NOT given me a true third alternative to Absolute morals Vs. Relative dichotomy. You have just moved it up a level.

The analogy was simply that an analogy. I certainly have no belief such a group would be Infallible in matters of Faith or morals or that it is exactly like an ecumenical council.

END

Well that was some of the notes I made. I may stop by your blog Av. Cheers then, Cheers to you too Matt.

Nevertheless, our discussion has dragged this thread way, way, off-topic. We’re probably talking on borrowed time, and Matt may wish to direct the discussion back on topic, or bring it to a close. (I wouldn’t blame him for doing so–I have a similar policy at my blog.)

I may make a post more directly related to our discussion at my blog, as it could probably benefit from the input of others.

In any case, I’m curious as to how I may have misrepresented or misunderstood you. It wasn’t deliberate.

I’m open to suggestions on how tol solve this immediate dilemma?

I have written some stuff already especially in regards to your colorful kick hank’s ass thingy & I don’t misunderstand you on your appeal to an intersubjective approach to morality rather you misunderstand what I am saying & I think your are not dealing directly with my response.

Well stay tuned.

Gimme a week or more. You will be here right?

This requires elaboration on what you mean by “morals.” If you mean “ideas about morals”–such as, for instance, “Murder is wrong”–then these ideas might occur naturally (in the sense of being hardwired). Or they might be cultural in origin and acquired through education. The argument that if moral ideas are not inborn, then they come from a deity, is a false dichotomy.

The second question I think falls into the fallacy of question begging. It assumes the categories of good & evil.

Certainly much depends upon how “good” and “evil” are defined, so perhaps my question should be reworded to: “Why ought we to do x, and refrain from doing y?” The distinction I am drawing still stands, however. There is a difference between asserting what we ought to do, and substantiating it.

A Theistic Evolutionist or any other Theistic Christian would conclude this is evidence of “God writing his Law in Our Hearts” as it says in Holy Writ.

They would be wrong, of course: there would be no reason to infer, from the discovery that certain moral intuitions are hardwired, that a supernatural being did the hardwiring.

I still ask “Why should I conform myself to this “hardwired” morality since I can always act against it if I believe it is in my self-interest.

You might as well ask: why should a Catholic conform to Catholic moral teachings since he can always act against it if he believes it is in his self-interest? There is a difference between having an awareness of a set of moral ideas, and acting upon them (or against them).

In any case, I didn’t make any claim to the effect that, if certain moral ideas are hardwired, those are the moral ideas that must be observed. To do so would be to commit the is-ought fallacy.

I am using the term “reasonable” more or less as a synonym for “good” largely in the sense I perceive Atheists to be using it.

Atheism neither prescribe nor proscribes the belief that “reasonable” is a synonym for “good.”

I am defining Selfish as a person who is willing to seek their own self interest even if it is at the expense of the self-interests or rights of others.

But why could such a person not employ reason in the pursuit of his own self-interest? Also do you think it impossible that a person’s self-interest might be promoted, at least in the longer term, by behaving altruistically?

That goes as well for the opposite thesis “People are basically reasonable” or “people are neutral”etc..

Of course, but if you’re going to make the claim that people are basically selfish, and you want me to accept it, you should provide supporting evidence.

This idea of intersubjective morality (if I may use this analogy) of creating some type of secular ecumenical council or synod so that individuals may compare notes & agree on a common moral code (or however you will do it this is after all an analogy) only moves the problem up a level.

You misunderstand me. I did say that an intersubjective approach to morality involved people seeking tentative solutions to moral problems through rational dialogue and inquiry. People (like you and me), not “ecumenical councils” or “synods.” Tentative solutions, not so-called (and they can only be so-called) “absolutes.” Rational dialogue, persuasion and inquiry, not eschatological/metaphysical blackmail and arguments by fiat.

The intersubjective approach doesn’t guarantee, of course, that everyone will agree. My hypothesis is that this approach will have a greater likelihood of success than authoritarian scare-tactics, which depends too much on whether people recognise the authority. When that authority is a supernatural entity, the stakes are even higher. What happens when people stop believing in the supernatural law-giver? Do these people immediately indulge in murderous rampages, having never understood why they shouldn’t?

Thus the values neutral relativism remains.

And it’s a strawman if you are going to apply it to anyone who doesn’t have a god-belief.

You have to for the sake of argument assume the existence or non-existence of God when appropriate so you can compare the systems effectively.

How about this as a way of comparing the authoritarian and intersubjective/rational approaches to ethics effectively:

“We should be allowed to keep slaves, and if you disagree with me, I’ll punch you in the face. If you agree with me, I’ll give you a million dollars.”

That should tell you all you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the authoritarian approach.

I confess not to know at this time if Catholic Theologians or Church Fathers ever gave a “justification” for God’s moral commands

What does it matter what they thought? Surely what matters is what you think?

(also as far as I know God via the Book of Job, doesn’t have to Justify Himself to us & as a cognate I argued since He is by nature the Ultimate Perfect Expert on Everything then why not grant him the presumption of deference or presumptive authority in these matters?)

How are you going to convince the person who doesn’t believe in your God? Why would you expect someone who doesn’t believe in your God to “grant him the presumption of deference or presumptive authority?”

I can argue God’s Laws are reasonable & give reasons informed by revelation why they are good.

Why is God’s Law regarding murder reasonable?

God is just acting according to His Nature.

So God is good because it is in his nature to be good. In other words, God is good because God is good. That’s a circular argument.

Either God is the standard by which good is measured, and therefore anything that God says is good is good (so if God decides one day that murder is good, then murder is good), or there is some external standard of good against which God is being measured.

Thus it is no more capricious than bird flying or having the darn thing poop on you car would make the bird capricious.

That’s an unfortunate comparison. The bird can’t account for why it flies or poops on cars. Are you suggesting that God can’t account for his moral rules. He doesn’t know why we ought not to murder each other? Or, if he does know, he’s not going to tell us, and so for us it must remain, to all intents and purposes, a complete mystery?

I reply: Can you guarantee the intersubjective morality committee will do any better?

Yes, insofar as the intersubjective approach at least tries to find answers to and consensus on moral questions, whereas the authoritarian approach does not seem interested in this kind of inquiry.

If there is not God then the Judeo-Christian moral system is ultimately man made.

Of course.

You claim you don’t know the reason why God has proscribed some things & compelled others. You won’t trust God’s Moral Law because he hasn’t given you a reason for the Laws. How does that make them True or False, good or evil, reasonable or Selfish etc?

All I’m suggesting is that claims about morality, like any kind of claim, should be justified, argued for, and not merely asserted.

A doctor tells you to take a specific medicine & you are no expert should you not grant him a certain level of deference & presumption of Authority? Now granted human doctors can make mistakes & medicine isn’t incomprehensible to the human mind so you wouldn’t put absolute faith in a human doctor but why doubt a Perfect Physician?

False analogy. The existence of doctors is demonstrable; the existence of supernatural deities is not. The expertise of doctors is subject to the scrutiny of their peers; there is no such scrutiny regarding God’s knowledge. Medical knowledge is subject to change and development upon the discovery of new evidence; religious dogma and claims about “absolute” morality are not.

Of course I’m arguing Faith here & you don’t believe in God but the belief is clearly IMHO internally logical, reasonable & consistent.

But, given that I don’t share your belief in God, how are you going to persuade me to share your beliefs regarding morality. Also, how do you account for the fact that I am not a murderer, even though I don’t believe in God?

How does the hypothetical intersubjectivist committee explain why we ought to not murder?

There is no hypothetical intersubjectivist committee. That’s a strawman. Nor does the intersubjective approach pre-ordain a particular answer to the question “why ought we not murder?” The claim that an intersubjective approach to the solution of moral questions leads to some kind of absolute morality is a strawman, also. It is not a claim I ever made.

Especially when the Selfish person might do so in a situation where it furthers his self interest.

This selfish person might do so regardless of whether he believes in God or not. Indeed, if he believes in a God who forgives sins, he might be far more dangerous than the non-believing selfish person (since he would see no ultimate consequences for his actions).

Also how will your hypothetical intersubjective morality group impose the morals they come up with if they don’t inflict adverse consequences on those who transgress them?

The “hypothetical intersubjective morality group” is a strawman, as I have pointed out, so I’m not going to address it. There is a distinction to be made between (i) claiming, or having the intuition that we ought not to do x, (ii) providing a relevant (i.e. non-ad-baculum) justification for why we ought not to do x, and (iii) deciding what measures, if any, should be taken against those who do x. These are, I repeat, separate issues.

(i) and (ii) you can sort out by yourself, if you wish, in accordance with religious dogma or any ethical system you wish to apply (e.g. virtue ethics, utilitarianism, deontological approaches, ethics of care, etc.). Given the fact that we live in societies, however, you are eventually going to bump into (iii). There is, after all, a difference between living in accordance with your own personal moral convictions–whatever their source–and wishing to see your morality imposed upon everyone else. Here, I think, you’re forced to adopt the intersubjective approach, by which I mean simply that a private level you’re obliged to employ rational argument to persuade others to share your moral beliefs, and at a public level we need the machinery of representative democracy (rational dialogue in the parliament and elsewhere in the public sphere) to help decide the extent to which morality is enshrined in public policy and in law. The alternative, to simply assert your moral beliefs, and appeal to religious dogma as justification, will leave you absolutely all at sea when you encounter those who do not share your theological presuppositions.

OTOH if the premises of Religion & God are true & I accept them in the end I won’t get away with it.

The notion that sins can be forgiven would seem to refute this. (Or are there sins which can never be forgiven?)

Like I said doing good out of fear is a good thing as far as it goes.

But how do you know that it is good? All you know is that if you don’t do it, you’re going to get your ass kicked.

With out consequences Law is ineffective. But obeying the Law out of fear at least is a good starting point.
It’s not a fallacy rather it is a self evident fact of life.

It’s a nonsequitur. Obeying the law out of fear tells you nothing about whether the law is a good thing. In Nazi-occupied Holland, it was illegal to harbour Jews, and transgressors faced the death sentence. Would you call that a good law, because it would have been obeyed out of fear?

Of course without God everything is permitted. You can follow it. But some people are going to conclude God doesn’t exist and choose differently that you in that manner.

That wasn’t my point. I was merely observing that here is a biblical ethic that requires no belief in a deity, no belief in the supernatural of any kind, and no belief in the bible as being in any way “inspired,” in order to be observed.

I reply: Well morals either occur naturally in nature without God or they are given by God. We disagree on that. The second question I think falls into the fallacy of question begging. It assumes the categories of good & evil. If I choose to see no good beyond my own immediate desires then the second question is answered “It is good if it benefits me & I like it & it is bad if it hurts or vexes me. “ Why should I continue to conform to any moral system if it’s not in my self-interest?

>In the fields of cognitive science and psychology, research is suggesting that certain moral ideas are possibly “hardwired”–see Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds. It’s still highly speculative, of course. But the point is this: even if we find out that the idea that murder is wrong is “hardwired” into us–an evolutionary trait that has been selected for, in other words–this does not address why murder is wrong.

I reply: A Theistic Evolutionist or any other Theistic Christian would conclude this is evidence of “God writing his Law in Our Hearts” as it says in Holy Writ. It’s not a relevant question & as I said before when it really got heated with Matt. I still ask “Why should I conform myself to this “hardwired” morality since I can always act against it if I believe it is in my self-interest.

>>One fundamental philosophical presuposition that must be addressed is do we believe Humans are basically reasonable or Selfish?

>I think this may be a false dichotomy: couldn’t reason be harnessed in the service of selfishness? It would also depend upon whether by “selfish” you mean “self-interested.”

I reply: I should take this time to define my terms better. I am using the term “reasonable” more or less as a synonym for “good” largely in the sense I perceive Atheists to be using it. (ex:It seems you might consider it reasonable for the rest of us to engage in intersubjective morality, get together with others and seek tentative solutions to moral questions through rational dialogue and inquiry. Which is fine). I am defining Selfish as a person who is willing to seek their own self interest even if it is at the expense of the self-interests or rights of others. So I don’t believe it is false dichotomy.

>I think unless we specify what we mean by “good” and “bad,” it is difficult to argue that humans are basically either of these.

I reply: I hope this definition works then.

>>People are basically selfish.

>This needs to be substantiated.

I reply: That goes as well for the opposite thesis “People are basically reasonable” or “people are neutral”etc..

>>Well if all values are relative (ie. What I think is Good might be Good for me but not for you etc. Right & Wrong are relative etc) then how can we on that basis question God’s self chosen morality? Under a values neutral system we are limited in questioning each other & judging each other. Accept by action & only if it hurts us directly.

>>God is at least Our equal in this moral Relativist System so why doesn’t He get that consideration? Hence it’s kind of disengenous to complain when God strikes someone down in th OT.

OTOH if there really is a God who is Eternal, All-Knowing, All-wise & All-understanding etc how then is He not qualified to be the Supreme Author of The Moral System?

>There is another false dichotomy here: absolute morality dictated by a divine lawgiver, on the one hand, or “values-neutral” moral relativism on the other. Surely there is room for at least a third option: intersubjective morality (by analogy with the intersubjective nature of scientific inquiry), by which I mean people seeking tentative solutions to moral questions through rational dialogue and inquiry. (Actually, given that ethics is a major branch of philosophy, there may be many more options than those three.)

I reply: I respectfully submit it is not a false dichotomy but I think your response might be the fallacy of begging the question. This idea of intersubjective morality (if I may use this analogy) of creating some type of secular ecumenical council or synod so that individuals may compare notes & agree on a common moral code (or however you will do it this is after all an analogy) only moves the problem up a level. It doesn’t eliminate this so called “false dichotomy”. I can still ask “Why should I conform to the standards of this intersubjective morality”? What if I don’t agree with them? Especially if I’m Selfish. Thus the values neutral relativism remains.

>>Of course you have to prove or maybe disprove God before you get anywhere.

>Which is completely impractical if you want to convince anyone who doesn’t share your belief in God to accept your views on morals.

I reply: Now that I look at it let me re-phrase. You have to for the sake of argument assume the existence or non-existence of God when appropriate so you can compare the systems effectively.

>The problem with claims about so-called “absolute” or “God-given” morals is that they are never given any justification. No explanations (other than the usual “God will punish you” ad baculums) are given for why these rules should be followed; it is only asserted that they should be followed. Saying that “murder is wrong”, no matter how often it is said, in no matter how large and bold letters, no matter to which divine authority one chooses to appeal, is not the same as explaining why it is wrong, or why we shouldn’t do it. The notion of absolute morality is therefore intellectually bankrupt. Citing divine authority in lieu of proper justification is just laziness, in my view.

I reply: I confess not to know at this time if Catholic Theologians or Church Fathers ever gave a “justification” for God’s moral commands (also as far as I know God via the Book of Job, doesn’t have to Justify Himself to us & as a cognate I argued since He is by nature the Ultimate Perfect Expert on Everything then why not grant him the presumption of deference or presumptive authority in these matters?).

OTOH I can argue God’s Laws are reasonable & give reasons informed by revelation why they are good.

>There is also the Euthyphro dilemma to consider. Is “the good” good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the latter is the case, then the question “what is good?” remains to be answered. If the [Former] is the case, then morality is simply the product of a deity’s caprice, and we can certainly conclude that “With God, everything is permitted.”

I reply: Why the false dichotomy & dilemma? Aquinas taught and Church believes God is universally defined as Perfect, His Divine Substance is Simple, without parts or passions, so therefore He IS His attributes. Thus “goodness” isn’t just a choice of God’s or part of him but it is in fact What He is. If we believe he is Beneficent then He created us for our own benefit. **

Or to put it more simply. God is just acting according to His Nature. Thus it is no more capricious than bird flying or having the darn thing poop on you car would make the bird capricious.

>>I would answer myself that unlike Reformation Protestantism Catholics believe it is a good thing to do good because one has a fear of punisment or a desire of reward.

>This is the appeal to consequences fallacy, and does nothing to explain why we ought to do x or refrain from doing y. “God will punish you if you murder someone” does not explain why murder is wrong, or why God thinks it’s wrong.

I reply: Can you guarantee the intersubjective morality committee will do any better? If there is not God then the Judeo-Christian moral system is ultimately man made. Anyway you might be committing the fallacy of argument by ignorance. You claim you don’t know the reason why God has proscribed some things & compelled others. You won’t trust God’s Moral Law because he hasn’t given you a reason for the Laws. How does that make them True or False, good or evil, reasonable or Selfish etc?
A doctor tells you to take a specific medicine & you are no expert should you not grant him a certain level of deference & presumption of Authority? Now granted human doctors can make mistakes & medicine isn’t incomprehensible to the human mind so you wouldn’t put absolute faith in a human doctor but why doubt a Perfect Physician?

Of course I’m arguing Faith here & you don’t believe in God but the belief is clearly IMHO internally logical, reasonable & consistent. Also I’m assuming Free Will.

>This is the appeal to consequences fallacy, and does nothing to explain why we ought to do x or refrain from doing y. “God will punish you if you murder someone” does not explain why murder is wrong, or why God thinks it’s wrong.

I reply: I can also point out you have the same problem. How does the hypothetical intersubjectivist committee explain why we ought to not murder? Especially when the Selfish person might do so in a situation where it furthers his self interest.

>I should elaborate on this a bit. I think this is a fallacious appeal to consequences because the predicted consequences of doing an action in this case have nothing to do with the morality of those actions. You can see this for yourself if I put it in the following terms:

>(i) Murder is bad because God will punish you.
(ii) Charitable actions are good because God will reward you.

>As you can see, this is just plain vanilla-flavoured nonsequitous reasoning. At best, it’s what psychologists refer to as “extrinsic motivation.” But we still don’t know why God doesn’t like murder. And we still don’t know why God likes charity.

I reply: Why do you like or dislike these things? That is a starting point. Also how will your hypothetical intersubjective morality group impose the morals they come up with if they don’t inflict adverse consequences on those who transgress them?

Of course what it comes down to for me. Where the rubber meets the Road. I MIGHT get away with bucking or defying the morals set down by the intersubjective group(& if I thought the gain was worth the risk I might do it add to that mix them forbidding something I want really badly.). I COULD in theory get away with it. OTOH if the premises of Religion & God are true & I accept them in the end I won’t get away with it. Maybe in the short term I will but in the long term no I won’t get away with it. Like I said doing good out of fear is a good thing as far as it goes. You have to start somewhere.

>As an aside, I find it interesting that Jesus is famous for propounding (though not originating) the ethic of reciprocity (a.k.a. “The Golden Rule”)–”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” However problematic this ethic may be, it is about secular as you can get.

I reply: Of course a Selfish person might simply say “Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.”
With out consequences Law is ineffective. But obeying the Law out of fear at least is a good starting point.
It’s not a fallacy rather it is a self evident fact of life.

>Nobody needs to believe in any kind of deity in order to follow it.

Of course without God everything is permitted. You can follow it. But some people are going to conclude God doesn’t exist and choose differently that you in that manner.
Keep that in mind. Not that is proves God but it is kinda funny how is works out that way. I wonder why that is? Courious.

Anyway I’m gonna take a break from this discussion & read up on philosophy & moral theology. So far my expertise has been in the area of dogmatic theology. But there is always more to learn.

Cheers! Good strong points. I rather enjoyed it