<<I think it depends on what one believes is "murder".>>
Sigh. Must we spend time reconstructing an entire moral system? This wasn't
the point--the point was about absolute standards, of which "thou shalt not
murder" is one. Naturalists don't have them; theists do. We can play
definition games ad nauseum, but it isn't very helpful, is it?
Responding to my request for a naturalist moral argument, Tim wrote:
<<I thought Bertrand Russell or other philosophers might have tried.
Have you checked them? One justification could be operational or
practical: Murder tends to be repaid in kind. I suspect there would
be others.>>
F. C. Copelston took up this very question with Russell in a 1948 debate.
Russell: I feel that some things are good and that other things are bade. I
love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things
that I think are bad.
Copelston: Yes, but what's your justifcation for distinguishing between good
and bad?
Russell: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I
distinguish between blue and yellow.
Copelston: So you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?
Russell: By my feelings.
The debate proceeded along these lines, with Copelston asking for an outside
criterion, and Russell asserting he needed no more than majority decision, as
in the case of color perception.
I don't find Russell's logic very compelling. The majority used to think
blacks were only 3/5 human.
And to your own operational system, with the exemplar "murder tends to be
repaid in kind," I would answer that murder tends NOT to be repaid in kind.
Dead people usually don't kill their murderers.
But let's accept it for the sake of argument. So what? In a world where murder
is repaid in kind, my goal should be to be the best murderer I can be.
There's a wonderful line in -On The Waterfront- where Brando is explaining his
outlook to Eva Marie Saint. "Know what my philosophy of life is?" he says,
making a fist. "Do it to them before they do it to you."
He's as right as anyone in the world of the naturalist.
Another favorite writer of mine, Jack London, explored this very theme in
-The Sea Wolf-. Wolf Larsen, the amoral skipper, says:
"One man cannot wrong another man. He can only wrong himself. As I see it, I
do wrong always when I consider the interest of others. Don't you see? How can
two particles of yeast wrong each other by striving to devour each other? It
is their inborn heritage to strive to devour, and to strive not to be
devoured. When they depart from this they sin."
Bertrand Russell would counter this by singing, "Feelings...nothing more than
feelings..." Wolf Larsen would have thrown Russell to the sharks and been done
with it.
Re: Russell. It is interesting to chart his moral course. Paul Johnson does
this in -Intellectuals-, a wonderful book about many of the leading "lights"
who rejected objective morality. Russell spent his dotage chasing young
skirts, deflowering chambermaids, and generally making a pest of himself. So
much for moral feelings.
<<Why would one have to use a moral counterargument or threats of eternal
damnation? Why not suggest that playing "by the agreed rules" reduces
friction and makes things run better for a group as a whole. >>
What do you mean by "better"?
<<There are
certainly instances where atheists and agnostics lead and supported
various "moral" causes before many of the theists followed.>>
For example?
<< Any set of beliefs, whether they are supernaturally
derived or developed ad hoc can be examined for logical consistency.
The theist can say "These standards came from God so we've got to
accept them" and the relativist can say "These standards came from
observations or trial & error, and I think they work well, so I'll
accept them even if I can't prove them.">>
The second set can only be tested for consistency vis-a-vis a result. But it
cannot tell us which results are better than others. That is the point.
As I asked you before, tell me why killing Jews is a bad thing. Explain to me
why this END is bad.
<<I fear that a growing segment of the population is needlessly handicapped
by a break in the "chain of civilization". That is, it only takes a
break in one generation to lose years of gain. >>
And Western civilization has been forged by the Judeo-Christian worldview.
You're right about it being lost in a generation. Take a look at England.
For centuries our society operated on the standards of Christian morality,
either explicitly or by "borrowing." For example, it used to be taught that
cheating was wrong. Cheaters were treated with scorn. Today, cheating is seen
as a right. "Everybody does it to get ahead, why shouldn't I?" One could
create a long, long list of such examples.
<<Perhaps I am odd, but I think that the source of standards is not
so important to a society as the standards themselves and the
interpretations of the standards.>>
The only "odd" thing is that you have not given any justification for ANY
standards. Consensus doesn't do it. Nazis can become a majority. "Standards
themselves" is a meaningless term. Source, it turns out, is everything.
<<Do you mean to suggest that an agnostic cannot mourn the loss
of diversity, talent, potential, and human resources? That they
cannot feel any sympathy, empathy or any other deep human emotion
when confronted with mass murder? Or fear that it could easily
happen to them or their friends?>>
They ought to explore the implications of those feelings. Given their
universality, what does that imply? Where does the moral sense come from? The
teachings of the herd? Doubtful. Survival instinct? No, there are exceptions
which disprove that. What then? Hmmm....
<< Do all theists agree
on the same moral standards or are there differences in beliefs?
How do they differ? How do you identify and absolute moral
standard?>>
On the important standards, there is much more agreement than not--and
certainly more agreement than there is among the atheists. For example, the
theists would say it is wrong to murder, to steal, to commit adultery, etc.
There are atheists who have no problem with adultery, and others who do
(usually, the ones who have been victimized). Now how are they going to
resolve their differences? They have no umpire, no rule book.
On the details of application, there is, and always will be, room for
argument. Some arguments are better than others. But at least theists are in
the same ballpark (it's the one with the Umpire).
<<This is a good point (I have often exceed highway speed limits and
will do so again. I've also pulled a few illegal U-turns in my time).>>
You're a piker. Why not steal something? Better yet, why not kill someone and
THEN steal something? If you know the chances are you'll get away with it, why
not? This was Ted Bundy's reasoning, and it worked well up through 40 victims
or so.
<<You are correct that cost-benefit analyses can influence one's actions.
However, it does tend to help society if its members follow the
rules and if rule-breakers are punished.>>
What do I care for society? Why SHOULD I care? Once again, can you formulate
an argument to convince me?
You see, the naturalist always falls victim to "the grand Sez Who?"
<<If God will let you escape
the consequences of doing something even though He says it is
"wrong", what is to prevent a theist from doing it if it benefits
them? >>
I don't know which God you are talking about. Certainly not any God I've
encountered in world religions. But yes, this kind of God would be like Homer
Simpson when Bart was caught stealing. "All right, Bart, you're grounded. And
no stealing for three months!"
I wrote:
<<Define "hurt." Define "betrayed." In naturalist syntax, of course.>>
Tim replied:
<<It is the same in any syntax.>>
No, it is not. Please define "hurt" for me.
There are several requests in this post to "put legs" on your opinions. Let's
give that a try, so we don't just go around in circles, eh what?
Jim