Peanut Gallery for Tanager & Wiploc on the Moral Argumen

[wiploc]

This is the peanut gallery thread for those who wish to comment on Tanager and wiploc's one-on-one discussion of the question of whether objective morality requires the existence of a god.

I couldn't fit all that in the title, above, so I just called it the moral argument.

Tanager and I won't post here until after our one-on-one thread closes. But we may respond to comments here in our one-on-one thread.

Exception: Once our one-on-one thread exists, one of us will come back here one time to post a link.

[peterk]

For instance, would our conversation be any different if we switched the focus from morality to justice?

From my perspective it would be extremely different. I feel that justice is definitely a useful concept to discuss. Justice does not even require a concept of morality at all. I would have very many thoughts to offer concerning a concept of 'justice'.

Ahh, well that is very illuminating. So the real position we are in is that we are using the same words, but with very different meanings.

When I use the terms, morality and justice are both general category words to describe the overall topic of right and wrong, good and evil. So to me they are essentially the same. In my opening post, if I had replaced all references to 'morality' with 'justice' I would have still been happy to post it, and the line of reasoning would have been the same - for me at least.

Now you are saying that these words mean very different things. That's fine; I'm happy to try and use key words as you understand them. But I suggest that you start by carefully laying out a definition of each word, so that we know where we stand.

You made some other interesting points that I'm happy to explore, but I'll do that once the definitions thing is clarified.

[Divine Insight]

You made some other interesting points that I'm happy to explore, but I'll do that once the definitions thing is clarified.

Are you suggesting that morality and justice are the same thing?

Let's take a look at some dictionary definitions:

Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (also) a doctrine or system of moral conduct.

Ethics - a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

Justice - the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out.

I see morality and justice as being two entirely different concepts. The first, deals with deciding what is right or wrong. Notice that I included the term "Ethics" just to point out that ethics is defined in the same way as morality. One big difference is that religious people tend to associate moral principles with the doctrine of their religion, whereas the term ethics tends to be used in a more secular fashion.

In this regard I favor ethics over morality. Simply because ethics typically isn't used by religion dogmas, whilst the term morality is. I have no problem with constructing social standards for what a society deems to be good or bad behavior. All I suggest is that such a system should be seen for what it is (i.e. a human construct) rather than viewing it as though it come from some higher power (i.e. morality defined in terms of an authoritarian God or religion)

Finally we come to 'justice' which has to do with how we should handle violations of ethical or moral codes.

So 'justice' is a totally different concept from morality. Justice is concerned with what should be done when moral or ethical codes have been violated.

In fact, the dictionary already suggests that "punishments" are one possible result of 'justice'. I totally disagree with that mentality. In fact, I hold that this mentality that justice is somehow served by punishing someone actually comes from these ancient barbaric religious dogmas.

In fact, this is also a major reason why I reject the Biblical picture of God. His entire mentality toward 'justice' appears to be that someone needs to be punished. Like as if that's going to make something better?

Take the previous example I brought of the recent Parkland School shooting. Can any 'justice' be had in this situation?

I suggest that no justice can be had. Justice would be to remedy the wrongs. But that can't be done. So no justice can even be had in this case. No matter what fate we might choose for Nicholas Cruz, that fate will not be 'justice'.

We could execute him.
Is that justice served?
Not as far as I'm concerned.

We could give him life imprisonment and make him live his entire life behind bars.
Is that justice served?
Not as far as I'm concerned.

We could hand him over to people who would gladly torture him in extreme ways for the rest of his life.
Is that justice served?
Not as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing we could do to Nicholas Cruz that would result in 'justice'. Justice is simply not something that can be had in this case. The people who have died are dead forever. The only justice would be if they could be restored to life again in perfect health unharmed. So no justice is possible in this case.

So now we come back to the concept of ethics?

Has ethics been violated? Sure. Our society agrees that killing innocent unarmed school children is extremely unethical. So we can conclude that the act that had taken place was indeed unethical by pure definition. No God required. And no judgement is even required. Not even a judgment of character on Nicholas Cruz. That judgement wouldn't do anyone any good anyway.

But what about morality? Now the question becomes whether or not we should judge Nicholas Cruz as being an immoral person. But why should anyone even care about that? What good will it do anyone to judge Nicholas Crux to have been an immoral person? It does no one any good at all. It's a totally useless and unnecessary concept.

Now some religious people might feel good about believing that some God will "punish" Nicholas Crux in an afterlife. But again, what good does that do? Who gains anything from punishing Nicholas Crux? The only people who might gain would be people who somehow feel better knowing that "vengeance" as been served.

But of what value is vengeance? All vengeance amounts to is a desire to satiate an emotion of hatred toward someone. And that's a pretty sick concept anyway, wouldn't you agree?

In short, there simply is no need to pass moral judgements on anyone. We can certainly recognize that ethics have been broken. Laws have been broken. And the perpetrator must be either incarcerated or executed (not as a punishment) but simply to remove the danger from society. It certainly doesn't make any sense to allow known killers to just continue to roam our streets freely without taking steps to protect society. So incarceration or even execution may be in order. But why call it a 'punishment', in fact, why even call it 'justice'. Why not just call it 'a necessarily solution to the problem of violence in our society'

Morality, and especially religious morality, and 'justice' is really nothing more than a hope by religious people that their God will give those who commit atrocities the most horrific and agonizing spanking possible.

That's really the theme behind Christianity. Either behave yourself, or God will give you the most horrific spanking you could ever imagine. And one that will never end for the rest of eternity.

Not only this, but according to Christianity all someone like Nicholas Cruz needs to do is turn to Jesus and ask for forgiveness and he'll be forgiven and granted eternal life in heaven with everyone else.

What happened to justice in that case?

I just don't see where there are any Christian arguments for something like 'justice' when Jesus is offering everyone free amnesty from justice anyway.

[peterk]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

So what is your personal definition of the terms 'justice' and 'morality'? You've given some dictionary definitions. You've also given me a lot of other stuff. The result is that I am still not sure what you mean when you personally use those words in a sentence.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but this is important. Yes, to answer your question I am using those two words as synonyms. I'm not even claiming that my usage is correct. Maybe I've got a completely distorted understanding. But arguing or debating at this moment is unhelpful. The important point is that I need to understand you, and you need to understand me. So far I feel that every critique you have made about my posts has missed the mark, purely because you are assuming that I'm saying certain things when I'm not at all.

I'm willing to make any changes to my usage of these key terms. Your freedom to state the definitions.

[Divine Insight]

The important point is that I need to understand you, and you need to understand me.

Agreed. I only gave dictionary definitions for the purpose of showing that even dictionaries define the terms morality and justice differently. So I'm not alone in this.

However, it's not my intention to try to push dictionary definitions onto you. To the contrary I'm totally open to allowing everyone to define their own terms. As you point out the important thing is that we understand what each other means. The purpose of language is to communicate, and if it fails that purpose then it's not much use to us.

So you are free to define your terms with respect to how you use them, and I'll define them in terms of how I use them, and in this way we can understand what each other's views are.

So far I feel that every critique you have made about my posts has missed the mark, purely because you are assuming that I'm saying certain things when I'm not at all.

I totally disagree with you here because you made it clear what you meant. And my disagreement was not on the topic of morality, but rather I simply pointed out that your logical reasoning was flawed.

For example you had stated in your post #14:

Ultimately it's not a question of agreement anyway. It's a question of whether we discuss moral issues in a way that shows there is indeed a right and wrong out there somewhere, independent of what you or I might subjectively believe. And if that's the case, it has huge implications for the nature of the world we live in.

My point here is that just because humans discuss morality as if there is an objective right or wrong that doesn't mean that there must then be an objective right or wrong.

I have also suggested that it's not even correct to say that everyone feels this way, as clearly I do not. And I know that there are many others who feel the same way.

You then went on in the same post to say the following:

Now my view is that (for reasons I explained above) there is an independence to morality that suggests it is more than just the sum of your and my thoughts/feelings on the matter. Personally I don't see how naturalistic processes could produce that fact, so it is one of the reasons why I believe in a deity.

I simply pointed out that the reasons you had explained above were not sound reasons to reach the conclusion you had jumped to. And I noticed also that in the quote above you are already referring to the erroneous conclusion that you had illogically jumped to as a "fact". Like as if you had already established an indisputable fact.

At this point concepts of morality don't even come into the picture. I was merely pointing out that your reasoning is not logically sound already.

So I'm not rejecting your ideas of morality. I'm just pointing out that you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions and then referring to those unwarranted conclusions as though they represent established facts, which they don't.

I'm willing to make any changes to my usage of these key terms. Your freedom to state the definitions.

When it comes to the concept of morality, ethics and justice, you are more than welcome to provide your own meaning for those terms. I am totally open to people having the freedom to define their own concepts. As I have pointed out, language is a tool for communication and shouldn't be used as a weapon.

Also, if you embrace that 'punishing' someone in some brutal physical way represents 'justice' then I certainly can't argue with that because the dictionary itself allows for 'punishment' to be considered as 'justice'. In fact, a God who delves out horrific physical punishments for disobedience of his commandments is what Christianity is totally founded on. So the idea of punishing people as justice, is clearly an ideal that fits in with Christianity seamlessly.

So from a cultural perspective if you embrace physical punishments as serving 'justice' I can't argue against that. This idea is rooted in Christianity.

All I can say to that is that I personally see that idea as being ignorant as well as being utterly useless in terms of serving any productive or constructive purpose. And so this is one very good reason why I reject Christianity. I simply don't believe that a supposedly all-wise intelligent God could be that ignorant.

Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that in Christianity Jesus offers amnesty from justice to anyone who asks for it anyway. So there goes any justice that Christianity could have tried to lay claim to anyway.

Christianity most certainly can't stand for justice when Jesus is offering people free amnesty from justice.

[dakoski]

I'm a rule utilitarian. Since rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy, there is a rule against it.

I think its reasonable to argue utilitarianism can provide a fairly coherent foundation for a system of morality. However its something quite different to argue that the principle of utilitarianism, and the moral judgments derived from this system, are objectively true.

To illustrate this, let's compare utilitarianism with other non-theistic moral systems, such as egalitarianism where the good is maximizing equality. Economists have multitudes of examples where maximizing utility conflicts with maximizing equality. For example, many public health interventions are more often taken up by richer and better educated sectors of the population- who are already more healthy than those in a lower socio-economic position. So although such interventions may improve overall utility in the population they often also increase inequality.

For the rule utilitarian then an intervention that increased utility but also reduced equality would be fine, as its not reducing overall utility for the population, it would therefore be morally right. However the egalitarian, with a different starting point for determining right and wrong, would argue the strategy reduces equality and is therefore morally wrong.

Now wiploc could argue he/she is objectively right and the egalitarian is objectively wrong, since the good is maximizing utility or happiness. But that would just be making a circular argument that would not be persuasive to the egalitarian as they do not share that starting assumption.

I don't see how wiploc would be able to show that the egalitarian was objectively wrong, the conclusions of whether this is morally right or wrong depends on whether they start with utilitarian or egalitarian assumptions - which is to say its subjective.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

In this regard I favor ethics over morality. Simply because ethics typically isn't used by religion dogmas, whilst the term morality is.

That being the case, would you be able to answer my previous question to you if I replaced the word 'morality' with 'ethics'?

My Question:

The example I gave about my not purposefully causing you harm and you not purposefully causing me harm.

Q: Would you consider that true ethics?

Or would you still consider that to be simply opinion?

[William]

The question:

"Does Objective Morality Require a God?"

Seems to suggest that objective morality exists.

Wouldn't it be important to ascertain whether that is actually the case before asking that last part of the question?

[William]

Whether a GOD is 'required' or not is a purely subjective decision. based upon ones personal preferences and subjective experience and interpretation of said experiences.

As to 'morality' or 'ethics', some appear to require an idea of GOD as a means of authority and/or a way to determine what is 'good' and what is not. Others simple follow the authority of human made laws, and these laws are sometimes established with an idea of GOD as the background authority.

Most seem to have what might be referred to as instinctual ethic when it comes to basically living ones life not intentionally harming others but won't take that to the extremes of investigating intimately how ones lawful actions might still be indirectly causing harm to others.

All in all this is precisely why I see the world as a massive prison, because this is exactly what one would expect to see re behavior, justifications, endless argument about right and wrong, deferring/referring to authority, ignoring instinctual ethics for the sake of self...the opportunity the law allows for one to rip others off in order to get a leg up into a seemingly more secure social position etc et al.

Basic prison mentality.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

In this regard I favor ethics over morality. Simply because ethics typically isn't used by religion dogmas, whilst the term morality is.

That being the case, would you be able to answer my previous question to you if I replaced the word 'morality' with 'ethics'?

My Question:

The example I gave about my not purposefully causing you harm and you not purposefully causing me harm.

Q: Would you consider that true ethics?

Or would you still consider that to be simply opinion?

I don't know what you mean by 'true ethics'.

Yes, it would indeed be the subjective opinion of most humans thankfully. Clearly, and unfortunately, it's not the opinion of all humans.

So I have no clue what you mean by 'true ethics'. Do you equate a majority of subjective opinions of humans to be 'true ethics'?

Until you define what you mean by 'true ethics', I can hardly comment on the concept. I can't comment on something when I have no clue what you even mean by it.

[Divine Insight]

Whether a GOD is 'required' or not is a purely subjective decision. based upon ones personal preferences and subjective experience and interpretation of said experiences.

As to 'morality' or 'ethics', some appear to require an idea of GOD as a means of authority and/or a way to determine what is 'good' and what is not. Others simple follow the authority of human made laws, and these laws are sometimes established with an idea of GOD as the background authority.

Most seem to have what might be referred to as instinctual ethic when it comes to basically living ones life not intentionally harming others but won't take that to the extremes of investigating intimately how ones lawful actions might still be indirectly causing harm to others.

All in all this is precisely why I see the world as a massive prison, because this is exactly what one would expect to see re behavior, justifications, endless argument about right and wrong, deferring/referring to authority, ignoring instinctual ethics for the sake of self...the opportunity the law allows for one to rip others off in order to get a leg up into a seemingly more secure social position etc et al.

Basic prison mentality.

And so how does changing the semantics from "objective morality" to "true ethics" change the situation?

Especially when you are proposing a new semantics without even offering a clear and unambiguous definition for it?

Usually when someone offers a new concept they typically offer a definition or explanation of what they actually mean. "True Ethics" doesn't mean much if you aren't telling us how we can determine whether something is or isn't "True Ethics".

In fact, you have just suggested that humans are constantly arguing over the ideals of what constitutes right or wrong.

Can your concept of "True Ethics" settle that question without ambiguity so that all humans are forced to bow down and accept your "True Ethics" as the only credible answer to all their arguments concerning what is right or wrong?