Phil Robertsons Eloquent Morality Argument

[drtdrums]

Lewis said "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver."

My problem with this line of thought is that the moral argument seems to presume that all consciences are the same. What my conscience tells me about gay marriage is presumably much different than that of others. It's shaped by culture, observation, age, and so on.

To an atheist, there's no rational basis for objective morality in Christianity either. If the Bible's the source and the atheist believes it was written by men instead of by a god, then what's the difference? To that worldview it wouldn't matter which fallible source you used, neither is objectively moral.

Objective morality simply means that moral truth is wholly objective and not a matter of perception (people disagreeing on moral points), degree (disagreement on "when" something becomes wrong), or circumstance. It does not depend on all people completely agreeing on all aspects of it. Lewis was saying the very concepts of Right and Wrong, and that all men share an innate understanding of those concepts, is a very big hint at the Lawgiver. He wasn't saying that all men agree on what actions are Right and Wrong.

The argument is that if even one act is ALWAYS wrong (for example, child abuse), then morality MUST be objective. The Moral Argument for Theism asserts that the source of that morality must be supra-human since, if the basis of morality was the human mind or even a collection of human minds, any human disagreement would nullify the morality. Your raised objection makes this point -- human definition of morality differs, so we are hardly to be trusted as authorities.

Lewis actually addresses your very point in the next paragraph of Mere Christianity if I am remembering the source of your quote correctly.

The rational basis for objective moral values in Christianity is God's existence and qualities - not the Bible or man's understanding of scripture.

That some think A is fine and B is not isn't the issue. Gay marriage being right or wrong, for example, is not at stake in the Moral Argument. It is that, if it IS right, it is objectively so. That if rape is wrong, it is objectively so.

Put another way: You may disagree with me on a point (like, I say murder is perfectly fine). That we disagree doesn't affect the objective moral law that murder is wrong. Our perceptions don't matter a whit. Regardless of what moral position you take up, you'll still end up arguing right and wrong.

[drtdrums]

Yes, I believe this is exactly what the problem is

I have no gripes with the idea of religion, hell I don't even know what I believe anymore. Like everything else in life, it's the way some people use it

(emphasis on some)

I have many gripes with "religion" (ie, legalistic law-following on a reward/punishment basis). It's one of the things I found so appealing about Christ. Granted, the vast majority of Christianity you run into is pretty "religious", but thankfully Christ wasn't/isn't.

Not that I have everything figured out .

[alexey]

Objective morality simply means that moral truth is wholly objective and not a matter of perception (people disagreeing on moral points), degree (disagreement on "when" something becomes wrong), or circumstance. It does not depend on all people completely agreeing on all aspects of it. Lewis was saying the very concepts of Right and Wrong, and that all men share an innate understanding of those concepts, is a very big hint at the Lawgiver. He wasn't saying that all men agree on what actions are Right and Wrong.

The argument is that if even one act is ALWAYS wrong (for example, child abuse), then morality MUST be objective.

...

...

objective moral law that murder is wrong. ...

Define your terms, and you will see the circular argument. A because of B, B because of C, C because of A.

What does it mean for something to be objectively wrong? What is an objective moral law? What does it mean for something to be right or wrong? What does it mean "always wrong"? What If somebody thinks that child abuse is right?

[drtdrums]

Alexey,

There is no circular argument, and that you perceive one is honestly baffling. It's a time-tested syllogism. Disagree all you wish with the premises. There is no circular reasoning in the argument (the conclusion must be assumed by one of the premises for it to be circular).

1: If there are objective morals, there is an supra-human objective moral authority.

2: There are objective morals.

3: Therefore there is a supra-human objective moral authority.

If you do not know the answers to your questions, nothing I say here can possibly help.

[alexey]

The circle is that you have to assert either existence of objective morals or an objective moral giver.

[PF Chang]

The argument is that if even one act is ALWAYS wrong (for example, child abuse), then morality MUST be objective. The Moral Argument for Theism asserts that the source of that morality must be supra-human since, if the basis of morality was the human mind or even a collection of human minds, any human disagreement would nullify the morality. Your raised objection makes this point -- human definition of morality differs, so we are hardly to be trusted as authorities.

 

Interesting, thanks. Think I understand the argument better now. 

[alexey]

Alexey,

There is no circular argument, and that you perceive one is honestly baffling. It's a time-tested syllogism. Disagree all you wish with the premises. There is no circular reasoning in the argument (the conclusion must be assumed by one of the premises for it to be circular).

1: If there are objective morals, there is an supra-human objective moral authority.

2: There are objective morals.

3: Therefore there is a supra-human objective moral authority.

If you do not know the answers to your questions, nothing I say here can possibly help.

If there are objective morals, there must be an objective moral authority.

If there is an objective moral authority, there must be objective morals.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

" Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

[drtdrums]

The circle is that you have to assert either existence of objective morals or an objective moral giver.

With respect, you are misunderstanding logic if you think Premise 2 is circular. It makes an assertion that you can disagree with or not. That's how syllogisms work.

Your version of the moral argument is most certainly circular.

The centuries-old syllogism I presented is not.

[Bang]

Other species do exist within the same "morals" as we do.

Other species live in communities that may not be as complex as ours, but they are communities just the same.

While most of us live within our community structure not killing and stealing and raping, so do they. Wolves do not kill each other in the pack, lions in the same pride work together, as do most species.

occasionally there's fights over this or that and occasionally there's a killer in the midst, but mostly it can be boiled down to the same instincts and the offender is typically cast out. (Unless it's a fight for dominance, then they become king. sort of like we used to do until we decided it'd be better to cast ballots and such. Some of the world still doesn't do this, and the strong survive until taken down, just like in the wild.)

You do not require a superhuman entity to bestow these laws on us.. they're everywhere, and more prevalent as you rise through the food chain. We as humans have written them down. We have created sub-texts to them, given them 'reasons' for their existence. Maybe to mask our own animal roots.. who knows. As usual, we try to explain.

But basically; don't kill, don't take, don't harm others of your kind is very evident throughout life.

 

And as is also very evident, we human beings do not follow these rules for a lot of reasons. An animal may kill a rival, or take females, or take a larger portion of food and thus move up in the heirarchy..   but here in human kind we do it for fun, for thrills, for myths and for shiny glittery rocks.

 

If anything is un"natural".. it's the reasons we kill, take and harm others of our own kind., as opposed to the 'natural' world, which, while savage, is usually perfectly reasonable.

 

~Bang

[alexey]

With respect, you are misunderstanding logic if you think Premise 2 is circular. It makes an assertion that you can disagree with or not. That's how syllogisms work.

Your version of the moral argument is most certainly circular.

The centuries-old syllogism I presented is not.

Existence of objective morals flows out of existence of an objective moral authority, and vice versa. I see those as just different ways of saying the same thing.

Interesting arguments have to do with establishing that either exists... And I'm being generous with the word "interesting" here because I'm still to see a good one.

[drtdrums]

Bang,

Just for clarity, do you believe morality is objective or relative? Generally those who argue from an evolutionary morality perspective do affirm relativism, but I wanted to make sure before responding.

[Bang]

Bang,

Just for clarity, do you believe morality is objective or relative? Generally those who argue from an evolutionary morality perspective do affirm relativism, but I wanted to make sure before responding.

 I really haven't got the slightest idea. i don't think that deeply into it.

It's instinct polished by reason and natural empathy.

we just have a higher ability to reason, and thus, have a higher, more complex sense of right and wrong.

Whatever that label is, so be it.

 

~Bang

[Burgold]

Bang,

Just for clarity, do you believe morality is objective or relative? Generally those who argue from an evolutionary morality perspective do affirm relativism, but I wanted to make sure before responding.

Morality is multi-faceted. Some it stems from self-interest and survival, some from a social instinct, but it develops from traditions, teachings, learned responses, and for me I think there is an understood good/evil whether that comes from G-d, a collective unconscious, or some other source I don't know.

 

I do believe in relativism, personally in many areas. I think it's very difficult to find areas of absolute. Even the easy stuff like killing or theft has areas of gray. Kidnapping could even be gray (if you know a father is constantly beating a child, burning them, breaking their bones, is removing them a better lesser evil if you can't get the system to cooperate.  Rape is pretty absolute. I can't think of any good reason for rape.

[Zguy28]

Other species do exist within the same "morals" as we do.

Other species live in communities that may not be as complex as ours, but they are communities just the same.

While most of us live within our community structure not killing and stealing and raping, so do they. Wolves do not kill each other in the pack, lions in the same pride work together, as do most species.

occasionally there's fights over this or that and occasionally there's a killer in the midst, but mostly it can be boiled down to the same instincts and the offender is typically cast out. (Unless it's a fight for dominance, then they become king. sort of like we used to do until we decided it'd be better to cast ballots and such. Some of the world still doesn't do this, and the strong survive until taken down, just like in the wild.)

You do not require a superhuman entity to bestow these laws on us.. they're everywhere, and more prevalent as you rise through the food chain. We as humans have written them down. We have created sub-texts to them, given them 'reasons' for their existence. Maybe to mask our own animal roots.. who knows. As usual, we try to explain.

But basically; don't kill, don't take, don't harm others of your kind is very evident throughout life.

 

And as is also very evident, we human beings do not follow these rules for a lot of reasons. An animal may kill a rival, or take females, or take a larger portion of food and thus move up in the heirarchy..   but here in human kind we do it for fun, for thrills, for myths and for shiny glittery rocks.

 

If anything is un"natural".. it's the reasons we kill, take and harm others of our own kind., as opposed to the 'natural' world, which, while savage, is usually perfectly reasonable.

 

~Bang

You've just described the reality of sin. A truly human problem.

[Zguy28]

Existence of objective morals flows out of existence of an objective moral authority, and vice versa. I see those as just different ways of saying the same thing.

Interesting arguments have to do with establishing that either exists... And I'm being generous with the word "interesting" here because I'm still to see a good one.

Alexey, do you believe the Holocaust or child abuse or rape are always immoral (AKA wrong)?

Alexey,

There is no circular argument, and that you perceive one is honestly baffling. It's a time-tested syllogism. Disagree all you wish with the premises. There is no circular reasoning in the argument (the conclusion must be assumed by one of the premises for it to be circular).

1: If there are objective morals, there is an supra-human objective moral authority.

2: There are objective morals.

3: Therefore there is a supra-human objective moral authority.

If you do not know the answers to your questions, nothing I say here can possibly help.

The way I've always heard it is:

 

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

 

[mistertim]

If the morals we have and accept today are actually the true objective morals imbued by god then god hasn't been doing it for very long. That or god changes its mind quite a bit about what is acceptable and what isn't. Maybe god's imbuing machine was buggy for a long time but software patches made it better.  *shrug*

[Springfield]

Totally over people making dumb comments like this and the outraged comments that follow. Anyone else with me?

Yes 100%.

It's a shame that so many people let someone so insignificant create such an uproar.

Every. Single. Time.

[No Excuses]

Where's the uproar? This is a particularly interesting thread.

[alexey]

Alexey, do you believe the Holocaust or child abuse or rape are always immoral (AKA wrong)?

What do you mean by "always immoral"?

In all situations? Yes I think those are immoral in all situations.

For all people? Yes I think those are immoral for all people.

Would all people agree with me on this? No, I think some messed up people would disagree with me on this.

The way I've always heard it is:

 

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

I am curious how you would address my objection to this.

It is easy to get objective morals from an objective moral giver or an objective moral giver from objective morals. How do you establish that one of these exists?

[Zguy28]

What do you mean by "always immoral"?

In all situations? Yes I think those are immoral in all situations.

For all people? Yes I think those are immoral for all people.

Would all people agree with me on this? No, I think some messed up people would disagree with me on this.

I am curious how you would address my objection to this.

It is easy to get objective morals from an objective moral giver or an objective moral giver from objective morals. How do you establish that one of these exists?

You affirmed that they exist in your statements above. Or you are lying when you say "Yes I think those are immoral in all situations."

[alexey]

You affirmed that they exist in your statements above. Or you are lying when you say "Yes I think those are immoral in all situations."

Are you suggesting that only objective morality allows me to have a personal opinion that some actions are immoral in all situations?

[Rskins06]

Ok, so I am a Christian (not a perfect one.....only one was perfect) and read the comments.  I wish he would have used a different example as that one is extreme but I understand the reasoning behind it.

 

It seems everyone here may be caught up in the Morality argument, however, moral objectivity or morals were not mentioned at all and I don't believe that was the ultimate message.  I am sure someone will come in here and tell me how wrong I am and how write they are but whatever.  Here is my reasoning:

 

Every Christian believes their is a judgement when you die, you will stand in front of GOD and be judged for everything you have done in your lifetime (good and bad),  Christians believe this and fear this and even though we believe, we still have free will and are not above sin.  Therefore, if I truly believe I will be judged for all the sins I have done I may not act upon some things I know are evil or against GOD even though I want to (Morality).  We are ALL sinners and no one is above this judgement.

 

In his statement (very extreme), his basic statement was if you are an atheist and you do not believe in a GOD who judges, then you will look upon this knowing the people committing these acts (if not caught) will live their lives without fear of ANY judgement, whether on this earth or after death and (if possible) live every day as nothing happened (Immorality).  However, if you are a christian and have faith in GOD, you will believe there will come a day for these people to be judged by GOD, there will be a day of reckoning, a day where they will be judged for their actions, if not here on earth, then in front of GOD.

 

Yes, we also believe there have morals established by GOD, Christians are just as capable of sin and immoral acts as anyone else is, however, because we know of the day of judgment, we may choose to walk away or move away from that sin (murder, pornography, adultery, stealing, etc.)

 

That being said, I do not believe if you are an atheist, you are without morals as you have been brought up to have morals.  I would also be willing to bet that EVERY atheist has in their family tree a previous strong family history of faith who established these morals (could be hundreds of years ago depending on your tree) which have lived on from generations to generations which have guided your moral beliefs.

 

Some will probably disagree, but this was how I took the story.  Again, there would be a MUCH better way to illustrate it and Phil doesn't speak for most Christians.

[Zguy28]

Are you suggesting that only objective morality allows me to have a personal opinion that some actions are immoral in all situations?

I'm not suggesting anything. You affirmed that those actions are always immoral. Therefore you affirmed they exist. Personal opinion is an untenable position when you affirm the absolute. So, either you don't really believe they are always immoral (and therefore are either ignorant or lying), or you do and by necessity affirm the existence of objective morality.

[PeterMP]

If I believe that 2+2 always is 4, then I believe that is an objective fact.

 

I can hold that position while simultaneously recognizing that some people might believe that 2+2 is 5.

 

I'd hold those people are wrong and as long as I'm not willing to accept the proposition that they are right, I believe in objective facts.

[alexey]

I'm not suggesting anything. You affirmed that those actions are always immoral. Therefore you affirmed they exist. Personal opinion is an untenable position when you affirm the absolute. So, either you don't really believe they are always immoral (and therefore are either ignorant or lying), or you do and by necessity affirm the existence of objective morality.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

Having rules/principles is different from affirming that they are objectively grounded.

If I believe that 2+2 always is 4, then I believe that is an objective fact.

I can hold that position while simultaneously recognizing that some people might believe that 2+2 is 5.

I'd hold those people are wrong and as long as I'm not willing to accept the proposition that they are right, I believe in objective facts.

This would require that mathematical facts and moral facts are the same kind of facts.