TRUMP AHEAD?

[commonsense]

Breaking a law—a just law—is immoral.

Why?

Because it’s wrong. Why else?

[Harbal]

Well, are we both convinced that slavery is actually wrong? Or are you just saying, "I feel it is, but it might be just fine for the other Africans, or the Arabs, or for sex traffickers..." what are we agreeing here?

You see, if I have just sentiment, and you have just sentiment, then what I told you about Subjectivism applies. There's no such thing as morality. And slavery isn't wrong at all. I wouldn't agree to that...but you are essentially making that claim inevitable, by saying there's nothing more than sentiment in play. And we haven't found our starting point yet.

So try something you really DO believe is unimpeachably immoral...or moral...I don't care which or what you choose.

I genuinely believe that slavery is wrong, but I can't give you a rational explanation for that belief.

The reason for that is simple. Subjectivism gives you no basis to do so at all. So you're realizing the truth of that.

I can give you a rational explanation as to why I don't want to be enslaved, but I can't give one for why it is wrong for anyone else to be.

Then slavery is not wrong, in your world. It's just...unpalatable for the moment, but not wrong in any real or durable way.

Again you arrive at Nihilism. Why don't you live there, if that's what you believe? Wouldn't that be at least consistent?

So are you going to rationalise the moral wrongness of slavery, or what?

[Immanuel Can]

As an agnostic, I have an open mind on the matter of God’s existence. I am looking for a rational proof and/or empirical evidence that God in fact does exist.

Are you?

Well, then, I can point you to a great quantity of literature where you can find all the demonstrations of it you may ever need. What level of thing would you like? Academic? Popular? Literary? Video? Apologetics is one huge field...if you're really looking, as you say, you will find lots.

[Immanuel Can]

I genuinely believe that slavery is wrong, but I can't give you a rational explanation for that belief.

The reason for that is simple. Subjectivism gives you no basis to do so at all. So you're realizing the truth of that.

I can give you a rational explanation as to why I don't want to be enslaved, but I can't give one for why it is wrong for anyone else to be.

Then slavery is not wrong, in your world. It's just...unpalatable for the moment, but not wrong in any real or durable way.

Again you arrive at Nihilism. Why don't you live there, if that's what you believe? Wouldn't that be at least consistent?

So are you going to rationalise the moral wrongness of slavery, or what?

Me? It's you who stands in need of it. I'm already convinced, and based on good reasons. God exists, man is created in His image, and to abuse a fellow human being who rightfully belongs to God is, of course, immoral. But you won't share my assumptions, and can't even tell me what you'd accept as evidence for God...so I'm in a bit of a pickle when it comes to convincing you. You've already declared that nothing will work.

Not my fault. Not God's. So whose is it?

[commonsense]

Morality doesn’t exist. What does exist is dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest, which has existed since the time of prehistoric humans.

I commend you on your logic...perhaps not so much on the ensuing morality.

You have a good grasp of the logic of people like Nietzsche and Spencer also, in some ways, of Rand, Heidegger, Foucault... and certainly of all the eugenicists, as well. It's simple, and it's winsome: if surival-of-the-fittest is how we got to "progress" to where we are now, then survival-of-the-fittest is the way forward. And man, all being animals, why should we think that any different rule applies? Natural selection. Death to the weak. Triumph to the strong. And long live the master race. The same natural processes that produced modern man would surely be those that would expedite us to postmodern man, and beyond. Anybody thinking otherwise would surely need to prove it to us.

And if the facts are, as you suggest, incompatible with morality, then there are no obligations to anybody to behave morally. Better to behave purely strategically, and thus maximize one's own chances of survival and procreation. Nothing else makes sense. Even the advancement of the human race as a whole (if we care about it; but why should we?) is going to be best and most surely promoted not by some misguided sense of duty or altruism, but by each member acting most in accord with survival-of-the-fittest, or dog-eat-dog, as you put it.

However, that's an "if." If survival-of-the-fittest is NOT how we got here, and we are not "progressing," then there's no particular reason to attach special significance to a rule we only think, if it applies at all, applies to lower animals, not to man.

So here's a cornerstone of morality, from a Christian and Jewish perspective: that man is not just an animal. He and she are unique creations, a separate creation from all the lower animals, and he/she alone is the image-bearer of the Creator, uniquely placed in stewardship trust over the world God has created. As such, as God's steward, he/she is not permitted to behave just any old way he/she wants, but is rather tasked with reflecting the character and nature of God Himself. And that nature is moral.

Might-is-right will forever favor the fittest and most evolved humans. It is a sad world in which one can commit an evil deed without consequence or repercussion as long as one’s legal representative is effective in getting individuals acquitted. And that is the case in the world today.

[commonsense]

As an agnostic, I have an open mind on the matter of God’s existence. I am looking for a rational proof and/or empirical evidence that God in fact does exist.

Are you?

Well, then, I can point you to a great quantity of literature where you can find all the demonstrations of it you may ever need. What level of thing would you like? Academic? Popular? Literary? Video? Apologetics is one huge field...if you're really looking, as you say, you will find lots.

Point me to the academic arguments.

[Immanuel Can]

Might-is-right will forever favor the fittest and most evolved humans.

This is what the guy with the little toothbrush mustache believed. It was also an astonishingly popular view back in the US, where they were sterilizing "inferior races" and promoting aborting minority children, before the guy with the toothbrush mustache gave eugenics a bad name. Before that, and by some after, it was simply considered "science." It's also what's meant by "the Master Race": that some humans are genetically superior by way of Evolution, and some "races" are less-evolved, and merely pollute the gene pool of the "pure" races. So I understand that view. But I don't agree, of course. It's consequences seem to me hideously immoral -- but I can't fault the logic, if the premises upon which it is based were true.

It is a sad world in which one can commit an evil deed without consequence or repercussion as long as one’s legal representative is effective in getting individuals acquitted. And that is the case in the world today.

Wait a minute. "Sad"? What can be "sad" about a world that works dog-eat-dog, always did, and is destined always to do so? Is that not the road of "progress"? Is that not "Evolution"? Is that not "the path of the rise of the species?" If so, how can it be "sad"?

It's almost as if you're thinking things ought to be better. But both "ought" and "better" are moral concepts, not naturalistic ones...so that can't be right.

Help me reconcile your two statements above, if you would be so kind.

[Immanuel Can]

As an agnostic, I have an open mind on the matter of God’s existence. I am looking for a rational proof and/or empirical evidence that God in fact does exist.

Are you?

Well, then, I can point you to a great quantity of literature where you can find all the demonstrations of it you may ever need. What level of thing would you like? Academic? Popular? Literary? Video? Apologetics is one huge field...if you're really looking, as you say, you will find lots.

Point me to the academic arguments.

Well, the tome I'd recommend most highly would be "The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology." In fact, it contains all the major current arguments for the existence of God, all written by some of the world's most exceptional current scholars, all in academic papers. It's not easy reading for the unacademic, I admit, and challenging even for the scholarly; but you might appreciate it as something genuinely challenging. I would think you're capable of it.

[commonsense]

Might-is-right will forever favor the fittest and most evolved humans.

This is what the guy with the little toothbrush mustache believed. It was also an astonishingly popular view back in the US, where they were sterilizing "inferior races" and promoting aborting minority children, before the guy with the toothbrush mustache gave eugenics a bad name. Before that, and by some after, it was simply considered "science." It's also what's meant by "the Master Race": that some humans are genetically superior by way of Evolution, and some "races" are less-evolved, and merely pollute the gene pool of the "pure" races. So I understand that view. But I don't agree, of course. It's consequences seem to me hideously immoral -- but I can't fault the logic, if the premises upon which it is based were true.

It is a sad world in which one can commit an evil deed without consequence or repercussion as long as one’s legal representative is effective in getting individuals acquitted. And that is the case in the world today.

Wait a minute. "Sad"? What can be "sad" about a world that works dog-eat-dog, always did, and is destined always to do so? Is that not the road of "progress"? Is that not "Evolution"? Is that not "the path of the rise of the species?" If so, how can it be "sad"?

It's almost as if you're thinking things ought to be better. But both "ought" and "better" are moral concepts, not naturalistic ones...so that can't be right.

Help me reconcile your two statements above, if you would be so kind.

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

[commonsense]

Might-is-right will forever favor the fittest and most evolved humans.

This is what the guy with the little toothbrush mustache believed. It was also an astonishingly popular view back in the US, where they were sterilizing "inferior races" and promoting aborting minority children, before the guy with the toothbrush mustache gave eugenics a bad name. Before that, and by some after, it was simply considered "science." It's also what's meant by "the Master Race": that some humans are genetically superior by way of Evolution, and some "races" are less-evolved, and merely pollute the gene pool of the "pure" races. So I understand that view. But I don't agree, of course. It's consequences seem to me hideously immoral -- but I can't fault the logic, if the premises upon which it is based were true.

It is a sad world in which one can commit an evil deed without consequence or repercussion as long as one’s legal representative is effective in getting individuals acquitted. And that is the case in the world today.

Wait a minute. "Sad"? What can be "sad" about a world that works dog-eat-dog, always did, and is destined always to do so? Is that not the road of "progress"? Is that not "Evolution"? Is that not "the path of the rise of the species?" If so, how can it be "sad"?

It's almost as if you're thinking things ought to be better. But both "ought" and "better" are moral concepts, not naturalistic ones...so that can't be right.

Help me reconcile your two statements above, if you would be so kind.

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

[Harbal]

The reason for that is simple. Subjectivism gives you no basis to do so at all. So you're realizing the truth of that.

Then slavery is not wrong, in your world. It's just...unpalatable for the moment, but not wrong in any real or durable way.

Again you arrive at Nihilism. Why don't you live there, if that's what you believe? Wouldn't that be at least consistent?

So are you going to rationalise the moral wrongness of slavery, or what?

Me? It's you who stands in need of it. I'm already convinced, and based on good reasons. God exists, man is created in His image, and to abuse a fellow human being who rightfully belongs to God is, of course, immoral. But you won't share my assumptions, and can't even tell me what you'd accept as evidence for God...so I'm in a bit of a pickle when it comes to convincing you. You've already declared that nothing will work.

Not my fault. Not God's. So whose is it?

Well, if you are in a pickle, and I am somehow responsible for it, that is at least some consolation.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s sad—at least it saddens me—that the world is a might-makes-right environment. The effective attorney is one who has legal might.

I agree. It's very sad.

But if the world is "survival-of-the-fittest," then the one who has the most effective attorney is the "most fit" in the context of court. And the right outcome is happening, because the "most fit" is obtaining the advantage. The "Law of Nature" ("red in tooth and claw," -- Tennyson) is being upheld.

If that's how it is, then your sadness and mine are merely self -erving delusions. No actual "injustice" is happening, not only because the fittest is surviving, but also because there's no such thing as "justice" to be had. So you and I had better just get over it, because the world of survival-of-the-fittest" does not owe us happiness, far less justice and fairness, nor does it care if we do not have it.

[Immanuel Can]

So are you going to rationalise the moral wrongness of slavery, or what?

Me? It's you who stands in need of it. I'm already convinced, and based on good reasons. God exists, man is created in His image, and to abuse a fellow human being who rightfully belongs to God is, of course, immoral. But you won't share my assumptions, and can't even tell me what you'd accept as evidence for God...so I'm in a bit of a pickle when it comes to convincing you. You've already declared that nothing will work.

Not my fault. Not God's. So whose is it?

Well, if you are in a pickle, and I am somehow responsible for it, that is at least some consolation.

I'm gratified to bring you joy.

[Alexiev]

Well, that's an empirical question. If God exists, then as the Supreme Being and Creator of all, then obviously he's the basis of everything that's real. So the only question is the empirical one: does God actually exist.

And that question will not even be touched by somebody just claiming, "Well, I refuse to believe in Him." He'll exist whether you say He does, or not; just as His existence will not depend on my say-so either. It will be, if it is. End of story, really.

That's why Robertson Davies, the Canadian novelist, so famously said, "The question is not whether you believe in God, but whether God believes in you."

IC's distinction of objective and subjective morality is a distinction without a difference. Let's look at objective v. subjective:

Use subjective when you’re talking about an opinion or feeling that is based on an individual’s perspective or preferences. Use objective when you’re talking about something—like an assessment, decision, or report—that’s unbiased and based solely on the observable or verifiable facts.

Now, even if we assume the existence of an omni God (a questionable assumption, that is not "objective"), where does that get us? Even if we assume that in his omniscience, he is aware of a perfect morality, how does that help us? As Paul wrote to the Romans:

33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord?

If, then, we are not privy to the perfect, objective, ethical designs of such a God, mustn't we use our own judgement? And if we do, aren't we using subjective judgement to guess at and interpret His strictures?

This is only too obvious. Does the Quran or the Bible represent God's "objective" morality? How do we judge seeming contradictions in the Bible?

How is our access to the Lord's morality attained? Through words written by (you guessed it) puny humans? Aren't they, of necessity, using their own subjective judgements in their writings? Is our access through personal revelation? Shouldn't objective facts be shared and communal?

These endless arguments are meaningless. Even if the True Morality derives from God, our access to it, as it clearly states in the Bible, is subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

IC's distinction of objective and subjective morality is a distinction without a difference.

You should talk to Peter Holmes, then. He thinks it's a real distinction, and of some importance.

As do I, of course.

Use subjective when you’re talking about an opinion or feeling that is based on an individual’s perspective or preferences. Use objective when you’re talking about something—like an assessment, decision, or report—that’s unbiased and based solely on the observable or verifiable facts.

"Objective" has different definitions, you'll find. It is sometimes a synonym for "impartial," as in definition you clipped. But it also is a synonym, in other contexts, for "real." It's context that makes it clear which is intended, and in regard to morality, it's not "partiality" that is in question, but the "real" and "perspective-independent" existence of morality that's in view.

Even if we assume that in his omniscience, he is aware of a perfect morality, how does that help us?

Very easily, if He told us what morality is. He told us the truth about what morality really, perspective-independently is.