The Wit of Dr. Craig - Part 14 "Fairness in a world of moral relativism"

[darrylsloan]

Here's the problem: where is this standard of moral absolutism to be found? The Bible? Would that be the Bible interpreted by a modern Christian, or a Christian from the turn of the 20th century, or a medieval Christian? Because the ethical standards differ. Work that one out, Christians. You're stuck with a changing, evolving morality, whether you like it or not.

[OneEyedJack1970]

@darrylsloan Listen to your conscience. It's always right.

[peteface24]

@darrylsloan To reject relativism you have to be a realist, an objectivist. You don't have to be (and shouldn't be) an absolutist. This is a very common confusion.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

Not at all. First off, Craig isn't arguing that our belief in God is required, in order for us to be moral. He is arguing that "morality" has no objective meaning, if there is no God. He argues this successfully.

As to the idea that Christian ethics have evolved, I would make one counter: The ethics of those *claiming* to be Christian has changed. The ethics of the Bible itself are unchanged. Likewise, the ethics of atheists now are quite different from Stalin's ethics.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 What Craig fails to understand is that ethics don't have to be objective to be useful, they only have to be useful to be useful. That's why we use them. Any fool can see that a civilised world is preferable to a barbaric one. "But it's not objective!" cries Craig. "Why does it need to be?" I reply.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

Because if it isn't objective, then the Nazis did nothing wrong. They're worldview was very "useful" to them, and it could have accomplished much good, by their estimations of "good". Morals become an utterly subjective concept, like fashion sense or cultural norms, and one cannot judge the actions of rapists, genocidal dictators, or philanthropists as being in any way morally different.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 You have to perceive the forward motion of civilisation. The world is better than it was 1000 years ago. It will be better than today in another 1000 years. Ethics evolve, often painfully. Where are the Nazis now? The basis for declaring the Nazi mentality wrong is its failure. Likewise, the future may look back on today's maltreatment of animals, etc., with a justified frown. Who can tell?

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

That's just absurd. To judge moral rightness or betterment in terms of how long it lasts would make the Dark Ages of greater moral fortitude than the Rennaisance or the Classical Greek Age. What if the Nazis had won? They really could have. If they'd lasted for thousands of years, would that make them morally right?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 Your argument is absurd. Does a dog need to consult a Bible before it understands the value of cooperating with its own species? We are kind to each other when we understand the mutual benefit of what this arrangement brings to life. We do not need instruction from "on high" to tell us what good. We are not drooling idiots unable to reason.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

You compare us to dogs and then say we're not drooling idiots unable to reason? LOL. Sorry, I couldn't pass that one up. I know what you mean. And, it's a common objection that people raise when they've misunderstood the Moral Argument for God's existence. I'm not saying we need God to tell us right from wrong. And I'm not saying only believers behave well (indeed, many unbelievers behave just as well).

cont...

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 You think dogs don't reason? The question of whether human beings merely advanced mammals, or whether are in a special category of their own, is massively important to this ethics questions. I take the former view, and this makes great sense of ethical behaviour, because it is observable in animals.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

So, when a male shark forcibly copulates with a female shark, is he raping her?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 Yes. The shark's brain development is not sufficiently advanced that he is able to think and feel in any more complex terms about reproduction. We are, and so we do. The capacity for empathy isn't an illusion. It's part of our brain development. (And that's not some made-up pseudo-science.)

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

I fully respect that empathy and other moral values really do exist, and that our brains are develop to appreciate them. But, you should think about what you are saying about the sharks. You are saying that a shark is commiting a morally reprehensible action in order to propogate the only way a shark can. You are saying that lions commit murder, when they kill other animals, even though that is their only food source.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 "You are saying that a shark is commiting a morally reprehensible action." Man, this is getting more absurd by the second. Are you trying to present a real argument, or merely trap me in my words? You chose the word "rape." Obviously we can't judge a shark as if it's a human with advanced cognitive and empathic functions.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

No no, that was the whole point of my using the word "rape". I said "forcibly copulates" before, because that is a morally neutral word. But I asked you, point-blank if that amounts to rape, which is a morally reprehensible action. You said "yes". Which is it?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 Well, now that you've clarified the amount of baggage you intended to attach to the term "rape" in this context, I will say no, the shark does not rape.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

Then why is it "rape" when humans do it?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 If you were just willing to think about this from my perspective, the answers would come to you. Humans have the ability to think, feel and communicate at a more advanced level. This is what creates culture, with all the rules of culture. Rules that are there because we want them, because we prefer a civilised world to a barbaric one. Do I prefer a world where it's relatively safe for my teenage daughter, or one where she's continually at risk of being raped?

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

But why does what "we" want matter in any objective way (scare-quotes, because I'm not sure if you include the Nazis and such in the "we")? I mean, the very fact that the shark has to *forcibly* copulate indicates that the female shark would avoid him, if she could. Why isn't what she wants as important as what you want for your daughter?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 Okay, this is the last dumb question I'm going to answer, and then I'm done: "Why does what "we" want matter in any objective way?" It doesn't. Haven't I been arguing all along that is isn't objective and doesn't need to be? It seems you can only conceive of objectively ethics, and you insist that I MUST see it your way, for no reason at all. When the whole point is, I don't need them. YOU even admitted that empathy was in the brain. As for the shark, THINK about it.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

I understand your opinion. I have stated very clearly why I think it needs to be objective (or else it isn't real at all). The reason is that we need a basis to judge the Nazis, and other such horrible people who believe they are doing what is right, but are instead inflicting needless suffering. If you are right, and ethics are subjective, then you and I are no more moral than the Nazis.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 "[If] ethics are subjective, then you and I are no more moral than the Nazis." What do you mean by "no more moral"? Outside of religion (where "good" is a sort of prize to be attained), it loses all meaning. My only concern is living in a better world than an alternative (such as the Nazi one). My desire is practical, not spiritual. All you really said was: "If ethics are subjective, then they're not objective."

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

That is a very fascinating way to put it. Your desire does indeed seem practical. However, you should be able to see the logical and rational problems that arise, if we adopt it. If you cannot judge that an action (or series of actions) is *better* morally than some other action, then you cannot punish criminals. Indeed, how is the world we have "better" than the Nazi world? If you were blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and devoted to the state, you might have a GREAT life.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 You say I cannot judge an action, but from my perspective, is there an "objective" law that says I can't or shouldn't punish a criminal? No. Criminals are punished because it is the consensus desire of the masses to have a civilisation that functions in this way (somewhat analogus to the immune system in the body). As for the Nazis, surely the whole point is that the ideology failed to survive. Civilisation moved forward without it, and it will eventually move on again.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

And yet you seem to think there is something objectively wrong with humiliating children or stoning women. Or is that subjective too? What happens when that gets turned on you, and a completely unfair trial lead to your completely unfair tortured and death?

So you confirm that rapists, Nazis, etc are not "right" or "wrong"; merely "successful" or "unsuccessful", yes? And what about when they rape or wrongfully imprison a relative of yours?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 "Or is that subjective too?" Yes! Now let me clarify: saying that something is merely successful or unsuccessful is too dispassionate. We do have natural feelings: empathy towards children in particular. So my view that killing children is subjectively wrong is not likely to ever change. Here's the thing: if you think that killing children is objectively wrong, why did God command it in 1 Sam 15? And where is this empathy? Absent! That's why we call such acts "inhumane."

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

1) Who cares what your view is, if it's all subjective? The criminal may get great delight from raping and killing your relative, and how can we say he is wrong? What about his view? On your view "successful" vs. "unsuccessful" is precisely what we're left with. But that is not what we perceive with our moral sense (just as clearly as we perceive sight or sound).

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

2) You didn't read my earlier post did you. If He has the power to resurrect (and promises to do so), then he really just temporarily knocked these children unconscious; and the world He will re-awaken them into will be infinitely better, and there lives infinitely longer. How can you look at an event in the Bible through atheistic (i.e. no resurrection, no eternal life, no Paradise) eyes, and not realize you're begging the question?

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 You equate the brutal and bloody mass murder of children with being temporarily knocked unconscious. Would you want to die as a three-year-old being rammed through the belly with a sword? Or lying in a cradle feeling a cold blade against your neck, while hot blood rushes out and you screech in terror? I rest my case. I know many a Christian who would be horrified by your stance.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

You're back to the surgeon. I wouldn't want to be cut open, and see my insides either, but some surgeries require it. I wouldn't want a bone to be re-broken, so that it can heal correctly, but it is necessary. Their pain ended very quickly, and they will awaken into a world where they will never experience pain again. Had He left them alone, they would have experienced much pain for a few decades and then died (probably at the tip of a sword anyway), and that would be it.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 It was better that they were murdered than had they lived? Have you any idea how insane you sound right now?

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

Do you have any idea how illiterate you seem right now? Read the whole post; don't just re-interpret a few words however you wish.

Better that they have a chance to live forever in Paradise, than that they be left to a few decades of sickness, misery, self-mutilating worship, and death in battle. Yes. Better that they live, than that they have a few miserable years and then become fertilizer.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

And, btw, these very unfortunate, sad occasions saddened God Himself (2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 33:11), and He will undo the effects (Acts 24:15; Psalm 37:10, 11, 29)?

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

BTW, if you can't see that a temporary death (with a subsequent chance to live forever in happiness) is essentially akin to being knocked unconscious until all the badness has passed, and then awakened in an infinitely better world, where you might live forever.... Well, I guess you just aren't even trying to be reasonable. You see, you look at these accounts through an atheistic lense, as if the resurrection is any less true than these events. That is your error.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

cont...

The Moral Argument just says that the moral values and duties which we perceive as being objectively true (just as surely as we perceive anything with our physical senses) are only actually, objectively true if God exists. If He doesn't, then we have made up useful illusions, nothing more. Our moral sense would be akin to our fashion sense, and the Nazis would basically have been the equivalent of Lady Gaga.

Btw, being kind doesn't always bring forseeable rewards.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 On the contrary, the illusion is on the religious side. You pretend that your so-called objective precepts are handed to you from God, whereas they are really the products of man-made religion. Even if you deny that, you cannot stabilise your interpretation of these rules from century to century (or sect to sect), but they keep changing. I, on the other hand, base my values on a consideration of the consequences of my actions.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

You commit a Bare Assertion Fallacy by saying that they are only man-made religions. Am I supposed to just accept they are all man-made because you say so?

And the values in the Bible have no changed. People have been socially pressured to ignore it more and more, and that's fine. That's their choice. But the precepts laid out in the Scriptures remain. And I base my values on the consequences as well; I just include the Creator's displeasure as a potential consequence.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 No fallacy. The onus is on you to prove that Christianity is not man-made. A thing is not "inspired by God" until someone proves it isn't. It's the other way around. So make your case. Furthermore, the values in the Bible HAVE changed. In 1 Samuel 15, God commands his people to slaugher children & babies for racial reasons. While in the NT, Jesus blesses the little children, caring for them as individuals. Could there be any greater difference in character?

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

There are reasons to believe that the Bible was not purely a human invention. Fulfilled prophecy, accuracy about facts that people in general would not understand for centuries, internal harmony despite being written by 40 different writers over 1600 years, etc. You assert that it is man-made, but that is a bare assertion.

It wasn't racial, it was because of choices the Amalekites had made before. And they warned many to leave before the destruction. They should have run.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 These assertions hold no water and can be debunked. I have lived almost 2 decades as a Christian, read the Bible in its entirety, studied great portions of it in depth, and read the majority of Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." And in my estimation, Christianity is false.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

I respect your opinion.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 On the Amalek slaughter: the killing of the children WAS racial. God ordered the murder of infants because they were unlucky enough to have Amalekite parents. This is stated explicity in the text. He explicity ordered that not a single life be spared. This is the God of "love" you believe in.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

God will resurrect any of those children that was killed, as is made clear at Acts 24:15. He took children who were going to have finite lifespans anyway, but will soon give them a chance at an infinite lifespan of peace and happiness.

You shouldn't look at these accounts in the Bible through atheistic eyes. It begs the question.

[darrylsloan]

@Mentat1231 How you justified genocide is horrible, and shows only how far gone your mind is that you can accept this.

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

I didn't justify genocide. If it has been genocide, there would have been no Amalekites spared. But the Kenites are told to run, because of their good dealings with God's people in the past. Same race, but not destroyed. No genocide was committed.

I appreciate and respect that you dislike this event. No doubt God hated it too, but if it was necessary in the long run, then He made the right choice. And only He is in a position to know what is "necessary in the long run".

[Mentat1231]

@darrylsloan

And the problem with that is that we as humans do perceive a realm of moral value and duties. We perceive it just as clearly as anything we perceive through our senses. So why should we deny its objective existence?

[xkillaman]

Good!!

[eclipsesonic]

Lol, so funny!! :)

[AceofDlamonds]

owned

[hexusziggurat]

@theGreenGoblin i think the teacher "in the eyes of society" would be established as a wise man.

[theGreenGoblin]

@hexusziggurat REally? He just comes off as a instigating asshole for me, with no real basis for his argument.

[hexusziggurat]

@theGreenGoblin how is there no basis for his arguement?

[darketernal3]

There's a difference between moral relativism vs set structured evaluation.

Unfortunately unlike structured evaluation, morals are not imposed by the institution of my choice, Life. To my knowledge, there is no set structures that is universal and definitely not from a holy book.

[hexusziggurat]

@darketernal3 "To my knowledge" "definitely not from a holy book"

has your knowledge ever been wrong?

[ChingfordSpur]

Deliciously ironic.

[v33punk]

@theGreenGoblin i think you are over analyzing the situation. the professor was clearly trying to teach the student a lesson. the fact that he immediatly changed his grade was proof of that.

[supermurloc64]

if one of these happended to you: rape, murder, theft, lie, adultery,

you'd proberly be quite upset. but it doesn't matter if You do it right?

[hutchings000]

Wait, so the student was able to write a research paper that beautifully covered the topic, but when confronted with the topic, the student suddenly changes his mind and submits to the professor? I would imagine he could have come up with a response after doing the research... hmm...

Is this a case of misrepresentation? Or lies...

[hexusziggurat]

@hutchings000 i think its a case of sound logic.

[hutchings000]

@hexusziggurat It doesn't show that morality isn't relative now does it ;)

We see that "Morality" is in fact relative to the time or era. Slavery is a great example of this, polygamy is another, public stoning, cutting off human hands for petty crimes, and acts that we would consider an infringement on human rights. Were all considered Lawful and acceptable in the past, yet are considered immoral today. Changing morality? Relative Perspectives?

The logic is Flawed perhaps...

[steve0281]

@hutchings000 All that is going on in Islam at this very moment. AND, reading the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam where all 56 nations of the OIC desire to have the entire world under that system. All the while Shariah is creeping in to the West and people are not worried about it.

[hexusziggurat]

@hutchings000 I thnk humanity inherently knows extreme moral infringments. How is public stoning different than lethal injection or electrocution or hanging (we could be so bold to call them semantics since the end result is the same)...stoning would take more time to do the job...but does it weigh heavy on the hearts of those who partake? A quicker death appears more merciful...but is not mercy the granting of redemption or forgiveness?

[TheMateus01]

@hutchings000 Don't mistaken morality with law. Remember Jesus said when asked about marriage that God allowed through the law of Moses for divorce to be legal even though it wasn't his original intent but did so because of the hardness of mans heart. So law can be immoral, but formed to a certain people or time. Morality comes from the hearts and minds of man, law often comes from those morals, but not always. So morality can be nonrelative but absolute.

[lockdown260]

Does it really matter? if the professor had tenure then he wouldn't have been meaningfully punished for his actions whether society cared or not. The problem with subjective morality is that it makes people like stalin, mao, and hitler morality justified. Common sense says they are not. Social morality is foundationless and meaningless.

[theGreenGoblin]

@lockdown260. Thanks for invoking Godwin's Law. In anycase, yes, that means that Hitler, Stalin and Mao established their own social morality. Clearly, it didn't last. That's what happens to a bad social morality. It dies over time and is replaced by better ones. If morality was truly objective, then there'd be a set standard that literally EVERYONE on earth would agree upon. As it stands, there isn't.

[v33punk]

@theGreenGoblin it didnt last because the side with the "good morality" had a superior military force.

[EarendilTheBright]

@theGreenGoblin Social norms aren't a synonum for objective morality. What the professor did wasn't truly wrong, it just went against social norms.

[fmu93]

Was the professor JP Moreland?

[EarendilTheBright]

If there is no objective morality and all there is is social norms, then the worse the professor did was commit a taboo. What he did wasn't wrong. The anecdote still holds up.

[lockdown260]

so if a society establishes that it is beneficial to kill Jews then it's moral?

[lockdown260]

Then there is no morality.

[lucasdasilvamaria]

Thats what i call F-ing the student for his sake.

[idrewamark]

oh man haha

[ViciousAnimus]

Lol, pwnage.

[SavedTru8]

Good stuff !