Please, I beg of you.
Don't use the moral argument for God to argue for God's existence. One may ask, "Hmm, moral argument for God? What is that all about?"
Well I'll tell you. Moral laws exist. Moral laws couldn't exist without a law maker. Therefore, there must be a lawmaker that exists and creates these laws. Humans can't be the creators of these laws because the moral laws transcend human laws. Sometimes, humans can be mistaken with regard to which laws are right or wrong. If God doesn't exist, humans are the only beings left who will make the laws. If one disagrees with a law made by humans, they have no higher standard to appeal to. So, they can't object to the human laws at all. So, if God doesn't exist, human laws are the top of the line, they are all we have. But clearly, moral relativism, the view that if a majority of humans agree on a law, then it's real is wrong. So is subjectivism, the view that morality is nothing more than a personal preference, nothing more than preferring turkey over ham on your sandwich. If God doesn't exist, it is either the individual or the society one lives in that gets to make the rules. Since this is false, there are rules outside of these systems, God must exist.
So, that's the argument. Where does it go wrong?
1. God can't make up any laws he wants and still be a good being. If God made up the law, "Everyone rape as much as possible" then that wouldn't make the law good, that would make God bad. So, it seems the laws must even transcend any God that may exist. Therefore, the "moral laws" cannot rely on any being.
2. What does it mean to say that God's laws are "better" or constitute a "higher standard" than human laws? One may saw that God is all-good, so his laws must be better. However, what does "all-good" mean? It must mean something other than "whatever God's laws dictate" otherwise, if God commanded rape, rape would become good. One must use a standard of good apart from God to state meaningfully that God is all-good. One may say that God is omniscient so in that way, his standard is better or higher. However, God merely exists as a signpost for morality, he is not then the creator of morality. So, this response fails to establish the argument. One may say that God is all-powerful, so his standard is better. However, the amount of power you have doesn't affect how good your laws are. What matters is that they allign with what is good, not that you have the power to enforce them.
With these two fundamental problems, one may wonder who uses this argument? Many people. One example is from the book titled I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. In chapter 7, the writers defend this argument as sound. They spend pretty much the entire chapter proving that the moral law exists. They however spend no time at all linking the premise "the moral law exists" to the conclusion that "God exists." They surely don't respond to the Euthyphro Dilemma which is a 2,000 year old response to this argument and is basically a reformulation of point #1.
Here is another example of someone using the argument.
The writer defines something as moral if it adheres to a standard given by a legitimate authority. However, this runs into the same problems mentioned. What makes an authority legitimate? Because it's commands are good? And why are they good? And so on.
Here is his supposed solution to the Euthyphro dilemma.
"The Solution
The general strategy used to defeat a dilemma is to show that it's a false one. There are not two options, but three.
The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.
The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? "No," the Christian answers, "God would never do that." It's not a matter of command. It's a matter of character.""
However, if something is good because it agrees with God's character, we still have the same problem. If God's character were different, if God's character was such that he liked rape and as a result commanded it, then God would be evil. That wouldn't make rape good. Also, it isn't explained what it means for God's character to be "good." Does it mean that God's character is God's?
Also a related subject, some theists argue that if morality doesn't depend on God, then God must somehow be less powerful as a result. However, I find this to be a mirror image of a similar objection. Some people argue the same result would follow if logic doesn't depend on God. If God can't make false the law of noncontradiction, then God must be bounded by the rules of logic. So, this makes God trapped and forced to obey the rules of logic.
This idea is silly. What would it mean for God to make something exist and not exist at the same time? Is God any less powerful for not being able to do this? What would it mean for God to disobey the rules of logic? Or change them?
I think a similar consideration applies to God's inability to make rape good. Given certain facts about humans, it follows necessarily that rape is wrong. Much in the same way that it's necessarily false that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Given the fact that people don't like rape, it scars its victims for life, and so on, that necessarily makes rape wrong.
God can't make it so that the same things are true of rape that are true of it now, but make rape right. God can't hold the amount of pain and agony rape causes constant, but change how he feels about it and it would magically become right. This is because these facts cause rape to be wrong (obviously).
So basically, what people who argue in this fashion are saying is the following: God would be more powerful if he could hold all the facts about how much rape hurts its victims but magically change the moral status of rape. This claim, I argue, makes as much sense as saying God would be more powerful if he could create a square circle or a 10-sided triangle. It is logically impossible to do so, so it doesn't make any sense to say that a being can do it.
So, I don't think it handicaps Christianity or any other theistic belief to say that morality doesn't depend on God. Sure, morality may depend on God in an indirect manner. He created us with certain psychological mechanisms which causes us to hate being raped. Then, rape is wrong. He could have created us so that we didn't care about being raped, so in that sense, he causes rape to be wrong. However, this isn't the same as saying that God could have created us with the same psychological facts but instead made rape right. This is what those who say morality depends on God are saying (in some shape or form). It should be fairly obvious that they are wrong.
Posts
Morning
1 hour ago
14 comments:
The Euthyphro Argument as a challenge to Monotheisic Divine Command Theory, is nothing more than philosphical sleight of hand.
I recently wrote an article entitled "The Euthyphro Argument: A philosphical Dinosaur."
If you would like to read the article, email me at moe.david@hotmail.com and I will send you the article as a WORD attachment.
Moshe Averick
The article entitled: The Euthyphro Argument: A philosphical dinosaur, can be viewed at the website:
www.nishma.org
I think you have made a fundamental mistake in your thinking. the only reason you think rape is wrong is because you have been conditioned in a society which has more or less adopted what is commonly called "judeo-christian ehtics". If you lived with the soldiers of ghengis khan, I dont think you would think there is anything at all wrong with raping and pillaging.
You probably take it for granted that lynching black people is a horribly immoral crime( I also feel that way), but if you grew up in Mississippi in the 20's and 30's , not only would you not think it is wrong, but you would vociferously defend the "nobility" of such and act. Look at the pictures of lynchings, you will see people posing with the dead body, even children are smiling and looking like they are at a picnic. They clearly dont think they are doing anything wrong. I suggest to you, that we, in the final analysis, have no internal knowledge whatsoever as to what is moral and what is immoral. The only thing we know, is that there is such a thing. We have no clue as to the details.
The way that most people operate , is that they assume the values they have been raised with, are somehow magically true. Human reason and logic, have very little, if anything at all, to do with moral principles. Every society FEELS certain, that their values are real and true.
What this leads to is the simple fact, that whether or not rape is wrong is not up to you decide, just because you FEEL that way. There may be a time when rape is right, or even killing women and children is good and right.
I urge you to read the article at the nishma.org website. I explained that the mistake many skeptics and atheists make is that they never offer a DEFINITION of good, instead they simply list some actions which they feel are good, and some actions which they feel are bad.
The Euth. argument completely falls apart when you understand that in a monotheistic concept of Gd, "goodness" is not part of Gd; rather Gd himself is THE good.
moshe averick,
You said: "What this leads to is the simple fact, that whether or not rape is wrong is not up to you decide, just because you FEEL that way."
This doesn't follow from what you have said. I may have a feeling that a certain person murdered someone else, but that doesn't mean that my feeling caused that person to have committed the crime. I may have a feeling that God exists, but that doesn't mean my feeling causes God to exist.
You are confusing what causes a person to believe something and what it means for that belief to be true. Simply because people may use their feelings to decide the moral status of acts doesn't mean that their feelings cause an act to be right or wrong.
Simply because people hold different beliefs about morality doesn't mean it's up to them to decide. The same has been true about scientific facts and certainly we don't argue that people get to decide the shape of the earth or the distance from the earth to the sun.
I don't get to decide what acts are right or wrong, they are what they are regardless of what I feel or think.
Fonz,
You didn't address Moshe's point at all. Since you don't think God makes morals, by what standard is rape wrong? Why is it objectively evil?
In some point in our evolution, it's conceivable rape held an evolutionary advantage. This is true for certain animal species now, or at least it appears that way. Was it possible that it was right then and wrong now? How would that work?
Again, why is rape objectively wrong? I know you'd like to think things like that are universally evil, but there's nothing to support that concept.
Fonz,
What skeptic said is true, you did not adress my point at all. I would also say that by the way you commented on what I said about rape, not only did you not understand my point, but you understood it almost in the complete opposite way that I intended. Please read carefully what I wrote. I also urge and challenge you to read my article about the Euthyphro Argument at www.nishma.org website. I say it again, the Euthyphro Argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors as a challenge to a monotheistic concept of divine morality.
Moshe Averick
moe.david@hotmail.com
Moshe averick,
You seem to be under the impression that atheism implies moral relativism or subjectivism. I do not think this is true. There are many atheists who would argue some acts are right or wrong in fact. Some examples are Peter Singer, Theodore Drange, Douglas Krueger, and Alonzo Fyfe.
Peter Singer is not a moral relativist or subjectivist. He is actually a utilitarian. He agrees that there is no such thing as intrinsic value but he would argue that some acts are right, some are wrong, and our opinions do not weigh into the matter. Your quote is a little deceiving the way you are using it in your paper. Have you read any of Singer's works?
As an atheist, one need not think morality comes from evolution, nature, or anything of the sort. There is a pretty simple way to think about it in terms of suffering. A rule can be good if it prevents suffering and tends to promote happiness. It is bad if it doesn't do these things.
As far as a definition of "good," I believe we can easily define it in terms of happiness or to be more precise, desire fulfillment. That which fulfills desires is good, that which thwarts them is bad. You might stop right there and say, "Well if the rapist wants to rape a little girl, then rape must be good because it fulfills his desire."
To that, I would say that morality is not about evaluating actions, at least directly. In the end, we need to ask whether a good person would perform a given act. A good person is one with desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others. A rapist wouldn't be a good person since his desire to rape tends to thwart the desires of others. If he didn't have this desire, no one would be worse off and many people would be better off. That makes the desire to rape a bad desire and the rapist a bad person.
I am not a believer in act-based moral theories. More like rule or desire-based ones.
Because of this, the Euthyphro dilemma works since it is possible for acts to be right or wrong without God existing. This is the assumption you are attacking but I've shown it to be true.
As far as, why is it that if no God exists, life can still be meaningful, I would suggest two different types of meaning. There is the meaning that we give to life, say by loving others and wanting them to be well. There can also be a meaning that God can give to life by commanding us to do certain things. In the end, I think the ultimate meaning that you are looking for must be grounded in the subjective meaning we abscribe to life. What good is eternal life if we don't want it? What good is a God who cares about us if we don't already have needs and desires that we want to see fulfilled?
So, in the end, we still have needs and desires and some of them can be fulfilled whether or not God exists. That's what makes life meaningful without God.
This all can be said and done without a God existing. So, atheism need not imply moral relativism or subjectivism.
In order for your argument to work, you need to stop pretending like all atheists are moral relativists or subjectivists and deal with their moral systems. Until then, your argument has failed and the Euthyphro dilemma succeeds.
Note: I am no longer an atheist but I still don't think God is required to explain this feature of morality.
Skeptic,
You said: "I know you'd like to think things like that are universally evil, but there's nothing to support that concept."
Well, I don't know what you mean by "universally evil." Do you mean "universally held to be evil?" If so, then I would agree, not everyone believes rape to be wrong.
Also, I'm not sure why talking about evolutionary advantage has any relevance. There are two definitions of morality floating around here.
(1) The rules we live by.
(2) The rules we ought to live by.
When I speak of morality, I am using the second definition. Sure, evolution may have given us certain desires to perform a given act or an aversion against it. However, that has nothing to do with the second definition of morality. Simply because we have been given certain dispositions or have been slightly programmed to think acts to be right or wrong doesn't mean we are justified in doing so.
If we evolved a disposition to hate gay people or to kill them on sight, that wouldn't make killing them okay or right. It would still be wrong, we would have to "resist our urges" if possible. There are plenty of examples where evolution hasn't given us the best desires or urges that we must resist at times. Evolutionary advantage can't explain why we should resist some of our urges and not others that have also been given to us by evolution.
When speaking of the rules we follow, I think evolution makes sense to talk about (as long as we're saying how the rule came about). When speaking of the justification of those rules, evolution makes no sense to bring up.
I know that among the atheist scientific community, it's pretty much taken as given that evolutionary advantage and morality (second def.) are linked. I've never seen the persuasiveness of this position and think it is deeply flawed.
You said: "Since you don't think God makes morals, by what standard is rape wrong? Why is it objectively evil?"
What I have said in the previous post should answer these questions. I don't mean "objectively evil" in any other way than "it is wrong and our opinions and thoughts have no relevance here." I don't mean that everyone agrees that the act is right or wrong. No moral philosopher who calls himself a moral objectivist would agree with that. And not all moral objectivists would argue that a mysterious property called "intrinsic value" exists or that there is somehow "value without a valuer."
I also don't think God can just "make whatever rules he wants and they'll magically be right." I think, given that rape causes much suffering, it necessarily must be wrong. Not in the sense that people must recognize it to be wrong. So, if any person didn't recognize it to be wrong, they would be wrong. The act wouldn't magically become right regardless of who we're thinking of. Be it human or God.
God could change certain properties of humans to change the moral status of acts. He could make rape not cause suffering in which case it wouldn't be wrong. However, I don't think that's what people mean when they say "God makes morals."
So, that's what I mean by morality being objective. It's grounded in things that exist like happiness, suffering, desire fulfillment. It has nothing to do with any mysterious object like "intrinsic value" or anything else that's nonexistent.
Dear Fonz,
Perhaps it would make things easier if we would first define the difference between "subjective truth", and "objective truth or reality".
An "objective truth" is a truth that exists in actual reality, and has no relationship at all to opinions, feelings, speculation, etc. The simplest example of an "objective truth" is 2+2 = 4. The truth of this statement is not dependant on anything except its own reality. It does not matter whether we agree or disagree, it does not matter whether billions of people in the world scream in unison that 2+2=5; no matter how you slice it, dice it , fix it or mix it,
two plus two equals 4 (please dont talk about base 9 or 6, you understand what I am talking about.)
It does not matter what word you use to express the concept of "two", nor what word you use to express the concept of "four" or "equals", the concept that is represented by 2+2=4 is an unchangeable objective reality and truth.
Lets move into the realm of philosophy. The objective truth is: either a creator exists or he does not exist. If the creator exists, it does not matter that Peter Singer or Richard Dawkins scream and write books all day long, the objective reality would still be that he exists. On the other hand, if the objective reality is that there is no creator, then the fact that believers like myself pray, and write essays, and reply to blogs will not make Gd magically appear. He still would not exist. That is by definition the nature of an objective reality.
Now lets talk about "Subjective truth and reality". A subjective truth is exactly what the word implies. It is a truth that depends entirely on the "subject" who is expressing the truth.. A simple example of a subjective truth would be: TUNA FISH TASTES GOOD. Is this statement true? Yes, if you like tuna fish. What if I say : TUNA FISH TASTES AWFUL. Is that statement true? Yes, if I dont like tuna fish. When you are asked a question about a subjective truth, there is no right or wrong answer. Whether or not tuna fish tastes good has no inherent reality, it depends ENTIRELY on the person being asked the question. In fact when dealing with a subjective reality, the concepts of right or wrong, true or false, are completely irrelevant. If I like tuna fish and I proclaim to the world that TUNA FISH TASTES GOOD, all that I am saying is that: I LIKE TUNA FISH. The "truth" that tuna fish tastes good, has no meaning or reality beyond my own sense of taste, or outside of my own head.
All I really was saying to you is that if Gd does not exist, there cannot POSSIBLY be any source for an "objective moral truth or reality". Where could it possibly come from? Just because YOU think that "a good person is one with desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others" does not make it the objective truth. All you are telling me is your own subjective feelings about how YOU like people to behave. In other words YOU like it when our desires tend to fulfill the desires of others. But this statement has no reality outside of your own personal feelings. It has no reality outside of your own head. It is as significant as saying that you like tuna fish. Some people like tuna fish, and some dont. Peter Singer likes what he likes, Richard Dawkins likes what he likes, and Joseph Stalin likes what HE likes. None of their personal systems of behaviour are true or false. They are all subjective realities.
My quote from Peter Singer was not deceiving at all.. It is perfectly accurate and true. He does not believe that ANYTHING is inherently right or wrong. In fact no intellectually honest atheist believes that anything is inherently right or wrong.
It is all either personal feelings, pragmatism, or any other word or term you want to us.
Peter Singer and the others use TERMS like "right" and "wrong", "moral" and "immoral", but none of them have any "OBJECTIVE" reality.
EVERY SINGLE MORAL SYSTEM DEVISED BY AN ATHEIST IS BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE. By no stretch of reason or logic does it bind me or obligate me in any way whatsoever. I am entitled to create my own code of behaviour, and it is just as valid as Peter Singers.
Who are you to tell me that I have to promote happiness and prevent suffering? Who is Peter Singer that he can declare for me how I have to behave?! If thats what you like go ahead and do it , but it has nothing to do with me. If you think that because some atheistic professor dreams up some system of behaviour that makes him feel good, and because of that I have to listen to him, ironically enough you are PLAYING GD.
In the world of the atheist, there is only one reality: I DO WHATEVER PLEASES ME. If it pleases me to be kind and compassionate then that is how I will behave. If it pleases me to rape, murder, and pillage, that is how I behave. If you tell me that you will lock me up and put me in jail, that is an argument from pragmatism, it has NOTHING to do with morality.
In my opinion you have not read the statements of atheistic philosophers carefully enough.
In fact I quoted Sigmund Freud in my essay, who said very clearly the simple truth , that whenever we contemplate meaning and purpose we get sick, because objectively neither has any reality.
In a lecture entitled "The moral necessity of Atheism" (a lecture by Christopher Hitchens which can be viewed on You Tube) , Hitchens says explicitly (in part 7) "...the question for me would rather be: this being the case [i.e. that I dont believe that there was a purposeful creator who created the world], then why do I care? why do I bother? Thats a very good question. It also doesnt have any conclusive answer." Here he states very honestly and openly that there is no logical reason why the atheist should care about anything in life at all, and there is certainly no reason why the atheist should care about ethics and morality.
What you need to come to terms with is that atheists are a little bit crazy. In one moment they will state that there is no objective morality, there is no purpose or meaning to existence,(like the quotes I cited in my essay), and then in the next moment they will write volumes and give long winded speeches about meaning of life and moral values. they are simply unable to psychologically and emotionally cope with the implications of their position, namely, that atheism implies that we are glorified bacteria that came from nothing and we are going nowhere. Our ideas siginify nothing, our accomplishments are meaningless, and our dearest loved ones are as significant as the ecoli in our guts. So what they do is in intellectually candid moments admit to this reality, and then immediately start "pretending" as if there really is meaning and purpose to our lives;
I also mentioned this crucial point in my essay. In this sense atheists are like the traitor in the movie "The Matrix". They choose to live in a comfortable illusion( creating fantasies and hallucinatory systems of meaning, value and purpose). instead of facing the harsh realities that are implied by their philosophical views( that in truth; purpose, meaning and moral values dont exist).
Moshe,
What you conveniently leave out in your simple-minded tirade against atheists is the fact that you are a moral relativist as well. As you pointed out, God may or may not exists. In fact, there are a vast array of possible Gods: all with differing moral and value systems.
You have chosen one particular God with one particular set of moral values. You also choose to interpret those values as you wish. At least I hope you do as otherwise you'd be stoning gays and adulterers.
I'll paraphrase what you said:
In the world of the theist, there is only one reality: I'll DO WHATEVER pleases my God, whichever one I chose.
I'd be careful about throwing stones in glass houses made of comfortable illusions if I were you.
Fonz,
You said
"So, that's what I mean by morality being objective. It's grounded in things that exist like happiness, suffering, desire fulfillment."
Who said happiness, desire fulfillment are good and suffering is bad is an objective truth? They may exists as being objective in some sense, but applying labels to them is not grounded in anything objective.
Dear Skeptic,
you should not make ungrounded assumptions.
While it is true that without Gd , the concept of morallity is meaningless (atheism is amoral by definition), I do not believe it is possible for any human being to know what the particulars of morality are without a revelation from Gd. Most religions and value systems (including atheism, in my opinion) require a leap of faith to accept certain fundamental dogmas. A simple example: The mormons claim that Joseph Smith received the book of Mormon from an angel in the hills of Pennsylvania(?, perhaps a different state?) There is no reason why a rational person should believe such a story. How could anyone know if such a thing is true? Especially in light of the fact that a thousand other religions have similar stories of a prophet receiving a message from heaven. Therefore , unless a person has reasonable , verifiable evidence that they have a bona fide message from Gd, there really is no way to know the details of morality.
I personally think that only one religion has a story that could be considered by a rational person, but I am not a missionary. The first step is that people must understand the insanity of atheism , and develop a deep committment to seeking the truth. Then perhaps it is worthwhile to go to the next step
I hope that clarifies my position, at least a little bit.
"Given certain facts about humans, it follows necessarily that rape is wrong. Much in the same way that it's necessarily false that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Given the fact that people don't like rape, it scars its victims for life, and so on, that necessarily makes rape wrong."
a) What are the "facts about humans" that necessitate rape being wrong? From where do these facts come? By chance and time?
b) So if people liked rape it would be right?
c) There are people who like rape, they are called "rapists." On what basis do you condemn their actions just because you don't like what they like? If its all about personal preference how can you make any absolute claim about what is wrong? To go one step further, who cares if it "scars its victims for life"? Maybe that doesn't matter to me ... and if it doesn't matter to me ... who are you to condemn it?
The answer to a lot of these questions can be found in this post.
If one is just arbitrarily labeling things as "good" or "bad", and using that to punish people and make arguments on what legislation should be, then this person is merely creating a fantasy. This person is creating a fiction and using it to guide his life. I find it funny that many atheists will present moral truths, say they are indefensible, and then criticize the theist for doing the same with their god.
"Good" is a word for things that there are a reason to obtain. The only reasons for action are desires (intrinsic value does not exist). Therefore, that which is "good" has the capacity to fulfill the relevant desires.
One may say, "Well then, for the rapist, then rape is good. So is it morally permissible/obligatory for the rapist to rape?" The answer is no. That's because all desires matter, not just the rapists.
It is true that the rape may be good for the rapist (i.e., it may fulfill his desires). However, moral good does not refer to the agent's desires.
One may respond, "Yeah, but why should the rapist care about their victim's suffering?" I would refer you to the post linked to above. The rapist may not have any reason to care about their suffering but that doesn't mean it is not immoral for him to do it. We should give him many reasons to care (for example, punish those who rape).
Ultimately, the desire to rape is not a desire we should encourage in other people. We should be adamant in punishing those who rape since it is a desire that, if we it became stronger and more prevalent, more of our desires will be thwarted. The world would be more dangerous for us. That is what morality is about. What are the best desires for us to praise and which ones are the best for us to punish. Notice here I am not saying "I do not like rape" or that "I like it best when people promote good desires." I am not reporting my own feelings about what I want people to do. There is no way to reduce what I am saying about morality to statements about my feelings.
Ultimately, rape has to hurt somebody. If the person being raped actually enjoyed it, we wouldn't call it rape (forget statutory rape for a moment). The victim being raped is not enjoying rape. Therefore, the desire to rape is not a good desire (it tends to thwart other desires). The more people that have it, the more desires that will be thwarted.
Another one.
Post a Comment