On Philosophy
James Poulos ·
Jun 19, 2010 at 9:45am
Ricochet member Ted Smith poses a big question suitable for weekend pontificating:
For those thoughtful, non-religious conservatives who reject relativism and believe there is such a thing as objective standards of truth, what is the source they look to for that truth? Western civilization? General civilizational standards of conduct?
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: On Philosophy
My recommendation, paradoxical as it may seem, is that you look to some of the great religious philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas. Because they (like you) reject relativism, they consider the truth to be one, ie, the truths of religion have to be consistent with the truth of physics and metaphysics. When dealing with issues of science, law, or metaphysics, St. Thomas used rigorous logic rather than scripture to prove his point. I'd argue that a committed aetheist can get (almost) as much from St. Thomas, or Maimonides, or Averroes as a committed Catholic, Jew, or Muslim (respectively).
Truth is a characteristic of this-or-that proposition. You can have truth without religion. Whether you can have a civilization without religion is a topic for another thread!
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
In the original thread I pointed out that there are really two questions: Can an atheist accept objective reality, and can an atheist accept objective morality. The first one requires no "source" because it is apparent that the world is mind-independent (unless you're a crazy solipsist). Defining objective morality on the other hand requires an universal definition of "good", which is harder to come by if you don't have a supreme ruler of the universe.
Jun '10
Re: On Philosophy
I'm not certain that objective standards of "truth" can be identified apart from the source. That is, if you hold the view that much of the underlying basis for Western civilization arose out of the confluence of Judeo-Christian mores and Natural Law, then to remove the underpinnings of religion from it is itself an act of relativism. A society may establish for itself a common law or standard, and operate quite well. But if such law or standards derive from inherently religious philosophical roots, the standard itself remains relative, if only to a group rather than the individual.
The question is whether what you seek is Truth, or societal "order." These are two very different things.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
It seems to me that we find truth in our experience, by way of serious inquiry. I mean, we don't need an authoritative text to come to see, for instance, that there is a difference between love and lust; that to tell a lie or to steal is to misuse another person; that "pride goes before a fall", and so on.
Reality is the source of moral truth, just as it is the source of empirical truth.
Great thinkers and classics of art, music and literature can all be great aids and guides in the search--like Socrates was to the young me he dialogued with. He didn't give them a catechism; he taught them to think, to reflect, to consider, to distinguish, to be thoughtful and serious and intelligent and wise.
It's the same for us.
Rule number one: be serious about finding truth
Two: seek out others (dead and alive) who are likewise serious.
Think, discuss, dispute, reflect, and pray for light.
Re: On Philosophy
"Defining objective morality," Not Rocket Science writes above, "requires a universal definition of 'good,' which is harder to come by if you don't have a supreme ruler of the universe."
He's got that right. On Uncommon Knowledge not long ago, I went round and round this question with arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens. Hitch danced lovely verbal circles around me, of course--no one would deny that he's just brilliant. Others may disagree, I suppose--Hitch himself certainly would--but, really, to my mind he never answered the question.
If you've got a moment, see for yourself. This episode of Uncommon Knowledge is titled "The Morals of an Atheist."
Edited on Jun 19, 2010 at 2:02pmMay '10
Re: On Philosophy
But Peter, (LOVE Uncommon Knowledge, BTW!) do you really think a universal definition of the good is required to see that (e.g.) rape is wrong? Or that generosity is virtuous?
Don't we live more from inward contact with real values than by deductions from proposition?
Or am I misunderstanding?
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Katie, seeing that an act is wrong and proving an act is wrong are different. One can discern moral truth without being able to explain it, as everyone does (you're correct). But, however useful intuition maybe (and I would argue that it shouldn't be ignored), the ability to explain a moral position is often necessary.
I touched on this in the other thread. Now that my power is back on (ahh, Texas summers), I'll try to finish that argument.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
It feels a little perverse treating a subject like rape so clinically, but bear with me. Even without the ability to think, we would consider rape to be repulsively evil out of empathy for the victim--it feels evil.
But we can also reason that rape is wrong because we value human dignity, freedom of conscience, self-determination, and independence. We understand that such an act does serious damage to the foundations of human sexuality and love. It is the strong and self-pleasing exerting unjust dominance over and stealing something from the innocent and vulnerable.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Aaron, I agree that these are two different things. But the question on the table is where does a person who doesn't accept Revelation go to find truth, not "how does one convince a denier that there are such things as objective moral norms and values?".
But even on that latter question, I would start with experience. I might, for instance, ask the denier whether he sees anything wrong with rape, or with Auschwitz, or pollution. And then challenge him to articulate the grounds for his conviction.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Katievs, I think one issue that you may be failing to address in your analogy is this: All societies (broad generalization) agree that rape is wrong....as long as you define rape as being against a member of your own tribe. But rape is just fine if it is your soldiers doing it to the enemy soldiers' wives.
The unique contribution of the Judeo-Christian ethical system is to recognize that rape is wrong even against your enemy. For example, Jesus said,"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt.5:43-48)
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
And this is because the hypothetical "we" don't empathize with nor value the human dignity, freedom of conscience, independence, sexuality, love, innocence, and vulnerability of people outside the tribe.
Unless you share some fundamental assumptions that these things are Good, you have a hard time establishing objective morality. I think what that means is that an atheist can't establish the objectivity of morality, but for practical purposes you can at least convince the vast majority of people who share your values to also share your morality.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Point taken, Katie. It seemed too obvious -- I knew I should have bit my tongue. :)
Perhaps a better example of the wide divide between morality and ethics (applied morality) is incest. Yes, incest is considered wrong by virtually all cultures. It's instinctive. But cultures vary widely on where they draw the line. Few modern Americans would consider dating or marrying even a 2nd- or 3rd-cousin, yet marrying a 1st-cousin has been common practice in many cultures throughout history.
I agree that establishing an objective reality is necessary to have an objective morality, because morality is fundamentally about how a person with free will should respond to reality. The most basic morals are universally understood because some perceptions are inevitable simply by being human, but beyond that...
Organized worldviews like Christianity, Confucianism or Marxism offer people basic perceptions of reality from which to base decisions of action. I think nearly everyone who does not believe in the divine ends up latching onto a fundamental principle like class warfare, saving the environment, or whatever "feels right" at the time.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Peter, I think the closest he comes is when he says in the video, "We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape; all societies at all times...have forbidden it."
This is the common values argument. He's not claiming these things are objectively wrong, just that they are universally considered so.
Jun '10
Re: On Philosophy
It's Not Rocket Science
This is the common values argument. He's not claiming these things are objectively wrong, just that they are universally considered so. · Jun 19 at 3:06pm
So when 1,000 criminals get together, they become the judge. Makes sense....
"If there is no God, everything is permitted"
--Dostoevsky
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that murder was not a crime in England until modern times. Killing the King's men was a crime. Killing your neighbor was a private affair.
--
To me, Good and Evil are competing Darwinian strategies. Which produces more grandchildren? JC said, "The meek shall inherit the earth." so I'll bet on Good.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
We seem to struggling with some confusion about what's being discussed here. I see at least 4 separate questions:
1) Whether we can say that there is any such thing as an objective morality apart from religious faith. (To that, I say yes.)
2) Whether the objective demands of morality can be be grasped by a person who does not accept the authority of religion. (Yes again)
2) How to prove moral truths to those who don't accept religious authority. (Here there are lots of possibilities.)
3) Whether atheists can make philosophical sense of their moral convictions. (I think, ultimately, no.)
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Sorry about the bumbled numbering.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
Samwise Gamgee
It's Not Rocket Science
This is the common values argument. He's not claiming these things are objectively wrong, just that they are universally considered so. · Jun 19 at 3:06pm
So when 1,000 criminals get together, they become the judge. Makes sense....
"If there is no God, everything is permitted"
--Dostoevsky · Jun 19 at 7:26pm
Hitchens actually mentions that quotation in the video in order to ridicule it. In my interpretation his point is mainly empirical, showing that irreligious people like himself tend to adhere to a moral code, and that a moral code broadly similar to that the great monotheistic religions existed even before those religions did.
Jun '10
Re: On Philosophy
In my experience, ridiculing is largely a sign of weakness. Once Hitch produces something equal to the Brother's K, I'll put him on par with Dostoevsky on other matters. That's not a proof, but it ought to give us some pause... especially if we give so much credence to common consent.
He claims that such a moral code exists but does he explain why or what perpetuates it? Other than common consent, which shouldn't be taken too seriously.
May '10
Re: On Philosophy
I think you hit it on the head, he would tell you moral perpetuate because we enforce them and pass them on. I don't think that's particularly controversial--even if objective morality exists, it only affects human behavior because we enforce it and teach it to our children. In my opinion Hitchens is not saying anything about objective morality, he's just saying that humans can and do behave morally regardless of their religion.