AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
As usual Yolland, your responses are articulate and well thought out. You definitely add value to every thread you post in.
The idea is that if Objective Moral Laws do exist, it is our duty as humans to try and understand them and apply them. The questions of “Whose justice?” and “Whose rationality? Ultimately does have an answer, and it seems we are closer to answering these questions than 4,000 years ago. We will never have the answer 100%, but the alternative seems to be subjectivity – which I think leads to an unlivable situation.
If murder is an objective moral law, and it is not being universally applied – is this because the moral law does not exist – or is it because of a breakdown in perspective, adherence, or ignorance of that law). Pythagoras' theorem is a good example – it was objectively true before I learned about it. I can subjectively decide what to do with it, but that will have no bearing on its truthfulness.
That’s okay if you are convinced. I know I am not the most “convincing” writer or speaker. I like to throw ideas out there and discuss them. Many times I come away from threads like this with a better understanding of other views (and even my own views).
The Holocaust is an extreme case of murder and cruelty – which is why I cite it. The holocaust is recent and most people (outside the Middle East) accept it as a historical event. However, if it makes some people uncomfortable, I don’t mind using another example.
Anybody can find “some” reason for doing what they do. Otherwise, most wouldn’t do it. Connecting a few dots of logic together without trying to understand the greater picture is dangerous in my view. I think that melon and wanderer have connected a few dots, but have not gone on to explain the bigger picture. That stop with human opinion. I may not have put together a compelling argument, but that doesn’t mean the big picture does not exist and that it isn’t useful.
Since your post on the Pharisees a few weeks ago, I’ve done some looking into them. You are right; much of what they taught is very similar to Christianity. And like Christians, they believed that a law would only be a human opinion if was not anchored into an infinite-transcendent being (please coirrect me if I am wrong) I have a similar opinion.
yolland said:
This is what troubles me most about the type of argument you are making. How could an objective moral law be applied without getting into the realm of subjectivity, contingencies, rationalizations and qualifications based on particulars? And if the application requires venturing into this realm...well then, as the ethicist MacIntyre famously asked, Whose justice? Which rationality? You are getting into a potentially infinite regress of authority as to upon which interpretive stance, and which set of facts about the particular situation at hand, you are going to base your application.
The idea is that if Objective Moral Laws do exist, it is our duty as humans to try and understand them and apply them. The questions of “Whose justice?” and “Whose rationality? Ultimately does have an answer, and it seems we are closer to answering these questions than 4,000 years ago. We will never have the answer 100%, but the alternative seems to be subjectivity – which I think leads to an unlivable situation.
yolland said:
Stating that, e.g., "murder is objectively wrong" is not like stating Pythagoras' theorem; that is always and everywhere true in precisely the same way, and does not need to be qualified or contextualized with regard to particular right triangles. By contrast, in order for "murder is wrong" to amount to anything more than an impotent assertion with regard to a particular case, you must first define what murder is, which in turn creates a need to define what innocence is, what homicidal intent looks like, and why any arguments presented in the muderer's defense cannot withstand rational scrutiny. In other words, it seems to me, you will have to rely on precisely the same sorts of thought processes you are criticizing A_W and melon for presenting as authoritative.
If murder is an objective moral law, and it is not being universally applied – is this because the moral law does not exist – or is it because of a breakdown in perspective, adherence, or ignorance of that law). Pythagoras' theorem is a good example – it was objectively true before I learned about it. I can subjectively decide what to do with it, but that will have no bearing on its truthfulness.
The atheist, humanist, or utilitarian have only human authority to rely on in regards to objective moral laws (if they agree there is such a thing). As a Christian, Christ is my starting point. The fact that His laws are not universally applied properly – is a fault of humans not the laws or Law giver.yolland said:
By what authority can an atheist, a humanist, or a utilitarian claim a given thing wrong...well, by what authority can you claim it wrong? By the universal objective moral laws whose proper applications unfortunately cannot be universally objectively known, as evinced by the fact that we cannot agree on how to apply (or even derive) them?
yolland said:
I realize this does not address the question of whether objective moral laws exist one way or the other. But it seems to me that you are not making a very convincing case for why anything particularly meaningful follows from it if they do. You keep citing the Holocaust as an example--what precisely is the hypothetical objective moral law that you would argue it violated?
That’s okay if you are convinced. I know I am not the most “convincing” writer or speaker. I like to throw ideas out there and discuss them. Many times I come away from threads like this with a better understanding of other views (and even my own views).
The Holocaust is an extreme case of murder and cruelty – which is why I cite it. The holocaust is recent and most people (outside the Middle East) accept it as a historical event. However, if it makes some people uncomfortable, I don’t mind using another example.
yolland said:
I cannot readily think of one against which an opposing argument could not be made, on the basis of Nazi ideology, that said law was not violated. Of course you could and would retort that said counterargument--the Dolchstosslegende, eugenics, etc.--cannot withstand rational scrutiny; and you would probably also argue that even if it could, the solution advocated was nonetheless unjustifiably disproportional to the threat thus posed, and sets an unacceptably dangerous and destructive precedent for how to respond to other threats of logically comparable magnitude, etc. But again, I do not see how this is substantially different from the sort of argument A_W or melon might make about why it was wrong, nor do I see how it makes your authority compellingly greater than theirs. In all three cases, I would have to rely on reason to evaluate the argument made, and in no case could I absolutely rule out the influence of subjective or historically contingent biases (partiality towards other Jews; reflexive association of fascism with violence and tyranny; greater and prior familiarity with a very different set of ideas about genetics, WWI-era German history and Jewish history; fear of legal and political systems which prioritize the interests and autonomy of the state over those of individuals; etc.) upon my evaluation.
Anybody can find “some” reason for doing what they do. Otherwise, most wouldn’t do it. Connecting a few dots of logic together without trying to understand the greater picture is dangerous in my view. I think that melon and wanderer have connected a few dots, but have not gone on to explain the bigger picture. That stop with human opinion. I may not have put together a compelling argument, but that doesn’t mean the big picture does not exist and that it isn’t useful.
Since your post on the Pharisees a few weeks ago, I’ve done some looking into them. You are right; much of what they taught is very similar to Christianity. And like Christians, they believed that a law would only be a human opinion if was not anchored into an infinite-transcendent being (please coirrect me if I am wrong) I have a similar opinion.
Last edited: