…Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual
http://www.theguardian.com/global/live/2015/may/23/counting-underway-for-irelands-referendum-on-marriage-equality
Ireland becomes first country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote
Irish voters have decisively voted in favour of marriage equality, making Ireland the first country to do so through the ballot box. Only one of the 43 constituencies voted against the proposal – Roscommon-South Leitrim – while the yes vote exceeded 70% in many parts of Dublin. The no campaigners have paid tribute to their opponents, and the archbishop of Dublin has said the result should be a wake-up call for the Catholic church in Ireland.
[title shortened by Lizzie]
No, but I see no reason that people who wish to should not live together in an arrangement that suits them all and receive the appropriate legal protection regarding shared assets. I would imagine parental rights could be an issue. There seems to be little (well, none really) demand from polygamists in my neck of the woods for equal rights.
Well, I’ll give you this. You are consistent in your ability to provide baffling statements. You say, “It makes no practical difference if we assume morality is objective or not”, then I say “It makes no practical difference because nobody actually acts as if it is subjective, we all act as if it is objective”, and you think that I’m conceding a point in your favor.
I mean, honestly … I can’t even understand how you think this is rational at all.
No, the objective morality is the soup (the implicit or explicit assumption that underlies all moral arguments and actions regardless of what one calls themselves); the rock is the view that morality is subjective. You cannot eat the rock, just as you cannot even act as if subjective morality was true. You might believe you can get the soup (morality) out of the rock (atheism/materialism), but you can only do so if you add objective-morality ingredients, even if you don’t know that is what you are doing.
How they arrive at their moral proclamations is entirely irrelevant to the fact that whatever any particular individual or consensus in power decides, either to legalize same-sex marriage or lobotomize gays and lesbians, is by definition morally good because they say so.
It is the principle of because we/I say so that is the same in both instances. It is morality dictated by power – by the one, if he has the power, over the many, or by the many, if they have the power, over the few. It is might-makes-right, because I/we feel like it morality.
No, I have not. Note my words “in practice”. I don’t even accept that your word “objective” as applied to a “morality” that is totally unobservable even makes sense. For me, the only thing “objective” about a set of moral principles is the degree to which independent thinkers and societies can converge upon it. So far from “snuck” ing in your kind of useless “objective morality” I’m saying that, in practice, societies tend to converge on a domain for morality that governs the minimisation of harm and the maximisation of well-being. Some societies have some weird definitions of “harm” and “well-being” of course, and they also, notoriously, exclude certain people from membership. And some are objectively unsuccessful (the people starve; the leaders are overthrown). Nonetheless, human society rolls on towards peace and good government, and we can rejoice at step Ireland has taken here: the first country to have endorsed gay marriage by plebiscite.
Ooh hoo! Wonderful stuff you’ve got there. Eggs and sperm, therefore, what? Therefore, god wants you to only have sex which can (potentially) combine them during your sex act? Hee hee. As if a god capable of creating an entire universe would ever be interested in your tiny bollocks or your tiny ovaries or what you do with them.
If your god exists to begin with, it lets child-raping priests and ministers live and lets their popes and church leaders protect the abusers with no regard for the victims, so obviously god doesn’t care all that goddamned much. In fact, it’s the “Media and the Neo Marxists of the New World Order” who demonstrated the only real concern for child victims, and forced the issue into view so the religious tyrants could no longer hide their abuse. You do care about stopping child rape, don’t you? Then you should be on your knees thanking the Media.
You were fed lies by some pederastic priest or by h8er talk radio. Too bad for you if you believed them. You’d be a much better person if you disentangled yourself from the spiteful side of your own nature. You should try a little harder to emulate the god you say exists, that unconditional-loving entity which (you think) told you “Don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want done unto you”.
In case you’ve never thought about it before, you would NOT want some gay man telling you who you are allowed to marry and who you are not allowed to marry. So guess what, you SHOULD NOT DO THAT UNTO THEM, either. You should NOT try to legislate who they love and marry, because you don’t want that done unto you.
And if you can’t be nice, at least keep your mouth shut about it.
That’s a morality atheists and theists can all agree with.
So we are having a long argument about which label to attach?
Maybe the real conclusion should be that neither “subjective” nor “objective” is quite right.
Nothing I have said implies that something is “morally good” because somebody else says so.
I think we are getting bogged down here between two meanings of the word “morality”, sometimes distinguished by the words “morals” and “ethics”.
Sometimes “ethics” is used for the second, while “morality” is used for the first, but usage varies. Whatever. Your concept of “objective morality” seems more strongly related to the first than the second. And you appear to be saying (which I could understand, and indeed you sort of agreed I had understood it) that if we cannot say yes to the first, it is irrational attempt to answer the second.
And I am saying that, first of all, I think it is perfectly possible to agree that yes, there are some things we should and should not do, and that the difference is between actions that cause harm and actions that promote good. We do not have to invoke theism to say this: we simply have to observe that that is what we humans do: we place in the domain of “morality” questions in which harms and goods come into conflict and require resolution. It is not “definitional fiat” – it is the reverse – I am noting what humans mean when they talk about the moral domain. No sane person says “the difference between what we should and should not do is the difference between fast actions and slow actions”, or “between public actions and private actions”. I am following usage, not prescribing it. The kinds of actions that we distinguish between on moral grounds are those that cause different balances of harm and good.
Secondly, I am saying that, given either a theistic or non-theistic acceptance that there are things we should and should not do, people will differ as to what those things are. Saying “Yes” to the first question does not get you out of that hole. And saying that “yes because theism” is no better (and can be worse!)
There are no simple answers to what is right and what is wrong because there are no simple ways of evaluating harm and good. But if we regard the domain of right and wrong the domain of what actions cause and prevent harm, then we can at least start to develop a system of ethical principles by which we can objectively come to some kind of provisional conclusion, based on our best information. In this instance: Does gay marriage cause harm? Well, data suggest no net harm. Does preventing gay marriage cause harm? Well, data suggest, yes, it causes real grief and distress. So, on the basis that harm minimisation and good maximisation matter (which we accept, see above) objectively, allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do.
Someone else might say: but gay sex results in eternal damnation, and by preventing gay marriage we can save some people from eternal damnation. That would be a different ethical response, based on the same understanding of the morality (there are things we should and should not do, and that the difference lies the degree to which they cause harm vs good), but using different data (Leviticus, say) to inform the ethical conclusion. And once you have data you have the potential for objectivity – given hard evidence that gay marriage causes many great happiness and none harm, and a complete absence of any evidence other than some ancient scriptures that eternal damnation is even a Thing, then the ethics become an objective no-brainer.
[thread is moving fast]
Of course I agree with that you have to know what the law says.
The point of my question to you was because you’d implied that theism had somethign to do with it. I don’t think theism has anything to do with it whatsoever. I think it what matters is what the law actually says, and whether gay marriage is a net good. As on any objective measure it is (it allows everyone to marry the person they love; it does not destroy anyone else’s marriage; it does not deprive children of parents; the children of gay parents turn out as happy as those from straight parents; it does not destroy anyone’s religion; it does not cause AIDS, whatever) clearly if the law allows it to happen the law is a good thing.
But for some reason, you reject these prima facie objective measures of whether something is a good thing, as objective and, instead, refer to as “objective” an accessible thing called “morality” about which we can know nothing, not even what it consists of.
Anyway, I note with pleasure that William at least concurs that the Irish vote is a Good Thing.
William, if you can make that argument at UD, then we can erode a little further some of the barriers to a just society elsewhere.
phoodoo,
Are you answering questions yet, Phoodoo? We’re hoping the king of opinions on others views might share his own 😉
Catholic priests don’t relinquish priesthood after molesting little boys, but they must leave the priesthood if they get married. Oh well.
Well, we are certainly using it in different ways. I tend to use it as the opposite of “subjective”. William seems to use it in the sense of “real”.
It’s that last clause which makes me shake my head at theists’ apparent incomprehension. How can they not notice the subjectivity of what they’re doing?
Hey, look, guys, look I found a Book! See, it has gold edges and illuminated pages! What a treasure! So it’s the One True Guide to Objective Morality we’ve been looking for!
or
Hey, dudes, see this. It’s a dumpy little book with a shabby cover. So it’s the Top Secret True File of Objective Morality! And I’m the only one of you smart enough to notice how valuable it is and you doofuses almost missed it! Next time, follow me!
or …
How do they know they’ve really found the secret Golden Book when they “find it”? Why don’t they have enough modesty and self-doubt to wonder whether they really were lucky enough to find the correct one? Especially if it happens to have “Secret Book of True Morality” emblazoned on it. That’s like seeing a book titled “How I Did It … by Jack the Ripper”; it should be a dead giveaway of fraud. (Oh, not that I think the OT and the NT and the Koran are constructed frauds, oh not at all. Ha. Ha.)
Yeah, the one True Book might exist. But they don’t have access to it, no matter if they think they do, or not. They would have no way of knowing it for sure even if they were holding it in their hands, no way beyond subjectively feeling that “it looks right” or “it fits in with what I already thought” or “it makes me feel good”.
We’re all in the same boat. The difference is that non-theists rarely make a claim of access to objective morality, and theists almost always do.
How I Did It … by God.
Hmm, catchy title. Bet it’ll be a best seller!
I woke up this morning with a (rare, for me) compassionate thought for all the young men whose lives were ruined by being sent into the priesthood. Yes, they bear some individual responsibility, so I’m not too sad for them, but in many cases they are essentially forced into seminary by family and social pressures. Their humanity is torn away from them as they are more-or-less-successfully brainwashed into thinking that they’re sinners merely for having a sexual thought about a woman, much less for actually touching a woman. What a dreadful way to have to live, having your every human impulse be labeled a sin. No wonder that so many priests turn out to be corrupt and abusive; they’ve been twisted by the church since childhood.
One of my first lovers was a bisexual man who was forced out of seminary when they found out he had loved a gay man. I eventually lost track of him, but I occasionally wonder if he now gives prayers of thanks that he wasn’t made to end up loveless for the rest of his life, trapped in the catholic horror of clergy celibacy.
EL said:
Of course not. That is because you are not a logically-consistent non-theist/moral subjectivist.You don’t understand the logical ramifications of your worldviews.
Nope. What most humans mean when they talk about “the moral domain” is “whatever god says to do, do, whether it harms people or not, whether it benefits society or not.” You are sneaking in an objective basis for morality by definitional fiat.
No, not on “any” objective measure; only on objective measures consilient with how you have subjectively defined “the good”. Will such a law objectively increase obeyance to Sharia or Christian moral codes? Will such a law objectively deter people from engaging in homosexual relationships? Will such a law objectively increase the number of children being raised by heterosexual couples? Your concept of “what morality is” and what “the good is”, is contradictory to possibly more than half of what the rest of the world bases its moral definitions on.
Hotshoe, if one of your kids insisted on becoming a priest or a nun, would you go to the length of having him or her kidnapped and “deprogrammed” or, would you grant them their desired “autonomy,” say goodbye, and cry a lot as they embark on their likely life-long adventure into nonsensicality?
EL said:
I reject your prima facie objective measures of whether something is a good thing because they rely upon a definitional fiat that serves the purpose of establishing an objective morality. Your definition and prima facie measures directly contradicts what most of the world considers to be “moral”.
Where do you get the idea we can know nothing about objective morality?
Well, I think I do. I think you don’t understand yours.
Well, if that’s what “most people mean” lord help us.
Most definitions of morality refer to an actual code of conduct, which differs from society to society (like my B above). I do not know whether your putative “objective morality” consists of such a code or not – perhaps some ideal code which we must try to discern? I thought, from what you said earlier that by “objective morality” you meant something different – the principle that there are things we should and should not do, as opposed to a code that specifies what they are.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
In which case, please would you clarify what the “objective morality” you refer to consists of?
Well, you refuse to tell us how we access this thing. What is it, anyway? Is it a code of conduct? Is set of principles? What are you even talking about when you refer to “objective morality”?
William I would agree with you that unless we accept that there is such a thing as good and bad, then it is pointless to try to figure out which is which.
I think you need to define “objective morality” because right now it seems to me to be a incoherent mess.
Honestly, I don’t know. It’s a question close to my heart. My favorite sibling converted to Catholicism later in life to marry a fellow, a lifelong Catholic, who thought that was important. (He’s a decent guy but he’s Irish, so I don’t expect him to know any better 😉 ) The fact that she supports such an inhumane church, even if it’s nothing more than giving them her attendance — that they count her presence as a vote of approval for their murderous policies — is a terrible sore spot between us. But I won’t cut her out of my life for it, even though I grieve.
So I guess, by that example, that I would probably grant a son his autonomy and say goodbye rather than try to deprogram him. Then again, I see that both myself and my son would have more to lose if he sacrificed his life for the priesthood; the stakes are higher than in the case of me and my sister merely sitting in a pew. So I might believe it’s my moral obligation to interfere for his own good … I don’t know.
On the third hand, I’m not sure that “deprogramming” interventions work reliably, so it might be better to claim that I’m taking the moral high road in respecting his self-determination. What’s that they say about wisdom? Knowing the difference between what can be changed and what cannot.
Interesting question, walto. D’ya mind if I ask if you have personal experience with this?
There’s a good essay on The Definition of Morality at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
It covers both the meanings I referred to: what it calls “descriptive” definitions: an actual code (a set of precepts regarding what is right and what is wrong), which is more or less my second definition; and what it calls “normative” definitions: “normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons”.
I had assumed that when William was referring to “objective morality” he was meant something like the second definition, but I must say, at this stage, I do not know what he means.
Anyway, the article has some good information about various attempts to derive some kind of “normatively” morality from by theological (e.g. Aquinas) and secular (e.g. Hobbes) reasoning.
It concludes:
So at least I’m in good company 🙂
hotshoe_,
Excellent answer (on kidnapping and deprogramming).
It must seem very tragic to see one’s child lost to a cult. Fortunately, my kids grew up without such a misfortune. They seem to be about as non-religious as I.
Hmm, I think one of them married a catholic. However, that was a “lapsed catholic” (i.e. non-religious).
Whether most people do or not, billions think morality means just that. Do you disagree?
No, Liz. Most definitions of morality are something like this, from Merriam-Webster:
The definition of morality contains no explicit or implicit information concerning what moral behavior would look like, or what principles should be used in determining moral behavior. You have inserted your particular, subjective set of principles as if morality definitionally refers to those particular, subjectively-selected principles, and have asserted their supposed majority-consensuality in defiance of how most people actually inform their moral views (Bible, Koran, other scriptures and texts).
Yes, I know. You rarely remember anything I say, even when I repeat it over and over.
What I mean by “objective morality” is that correct morality refers to and is gleaned from a universal, absolute, objectively real commodity of existential good. It is similar to articulating and describing aspects of what we call physical laws. It is a natural law, an innate aspect of god and existence that god cannot change. The principle of such an objective good, whether admitted or not, is what drives all moral thought and debate – that we all have the capacity to recognize it, to assess it rationally, and that there ares specific things that are absolutely wrong and things that are absolutely right whether it is culturally acceptable or not, whether others agree or not, and whether it puts us in harms way or not.
That is what you just did by definitional fiat; that is what the author did in the title of the thread; that is how any such argument matters – that we can rationally converge upon some objective means of discerning whether or not even our basic concept of morality (your game-theory) is actually what morality should be about in the first place. Should it be about game-theory happiness sums? Should it be about obeying scripture? What should it be about in the first place?
Without assuming an objective (absolute, existentially true) answer, there is no answer, and any subjective answer will do.
EL said:
Only if you assume that what three and a half billion christians and muslims mean by “evil” and “harm” is the same thing as what your game-theory max-happiness morality considers to be “evil” and “harm”.
EL said:
No, I haven’t. I’ve explicitly outlined it here at TSZ and at UD several times. You access it via conscience (which is held as a sensory capacity) and evaluate that information via logic (which is assumed to be an objective arbiter of correct thought). You begin by identifying self-evident true moral statements (those which, if contradicted, would render morality absurd), such as “it is wrong to gratuitously torture children”, and moving from there to necessarily true moral statements, conditionally true moral statements, and generally true moral statements, keeping in mind that there are other necessary assumptions one must accommodate in their worldview in order to establish a sound foundation for good progress towards understanding/interpreting the objective moral good.
Well, if that’s what it is, no wonder I don’t remember it. It looks like word salad to me William.
It’s not even formally sensible. You have referred to something called “objective morality” that you think exists, and you think we don’t. And when asked to define what you mean by the term, instead if saying “what I mean by “objective morality is”…[insert noun phrase here]” you say “…that correct morality [wtf did that come from?] refers to [but I asked what “objective morality” refers, not “correct morality”] and is gleaned from a universal, objectively real commodity [“commodity”?] of existential [“existential”?] good”
So if I can try to parse that into some kind of sense:
“Objective morality”, is also known as “correct morality”, which is correct/objective, if and only if, it is “gleaned from” some “commodity”. hmm. And that “commodity” has to be “universal”, and “objectively real” (what does “objectively real” mean? is it different from non-objectively real?) and “of” “existential” good. Not plain good, but “existential” good.
I’m sorry, William but that makes no sense whatsoever. It still doesn’t tell me whether “objective morality” is an actual moral code (like the Ten Commandments, say) or a key principle (like the Golden Rule, for instance). Or something else.
However, it does tell us that it has something to do with “good”. Good.
We agree on that. We agree that morality, whether “objective” or nor, is something to do with “what is good”.
So how does “objective” morality differ from plain ol’ morality, William?
Because I’m getting a bit irritated, as you can probably tell. You set great store, clearly, by this thing you call “objective morality” but when pressed to define it we get, well, gobbledygook.
Try harder.
Or wait – is the “commodity” God? And so is “morality” only correct when it is “gleaned from” this commodity? And only “objective” when that commodity is “objectively real”?
So “objective morality” is morality gleaned from a real god. A real good god.
OK, assuming I’ve parsed that more or less right: how do we glean it?
I’m satisfied with my explanations.
This sounds like a rather odd way of describing the contents of the empty set.
Back to the OP though: I do think it was sort of deliciously horrible that at least one of the “No” slogans was:, over a picture of a cute toddler “she needs her mother for life, not just for 9 months”, ignoring the thousands of babies forcibly removed for adoption from young single mothers in Ireland, by the very church promoting the No campaign.
Hellooo, any of the theists here ready to show what use it is to claim an objective morality exists if they can’t show what it is?
Well, if you can’t define what you mean by “objective morality” berter than that, then you aren’t going to be very convincing when you try to tell me that it is my logic that is at fault.
Your argument is at best circular, it seems to me, William, and at worst, simply incoherent.
I
Is that what it sounds like? I couldn’t parse it at all.
Also, how was it determined that god really is objectively a good god in the first place?
One thing is to claim god’s nature or commands are the standard of morality, how do we determine that morality is a good one?
The commodity we glean proper moral behavior from is the goodness of god which is manifest as a sort of mental or spiritual landscape. We sense it through conscience and evaluate that information with logic. We begin with self-evident moral truths and work our way out from there, establishing a rational moral system, the objective/universal nature of which renders it observable by others and, using logic, objectively comparable and rationally arguable.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
So, William, let’s say I accept that there “self-evident moral truths” – why should I assume that they are god-given? I mean, it is self-evident that there is a glass of wine in front of me. I have no reason to think that means it is god-given.
Well, you are writing, so I guess you are trying to communicate with someone, even if it isn’t me.
BTW, for keiths, that’s all a description of my model of morality, none of that is to be taken as an assertion of fact.
From the SEP:
Do you disagree with the author’s definition of morality as:
as being:
“the moral code that [all rational persons] would put forward to guide the behaviour of all moral agents”?
Communicating and “trying to convince someone” are not the same thing. I’m describing for you my model of morality because you asked some questions. I’m also pointing out the logical problems of non-objective morality. I’m not trying to convince you into or out of any moral view.
It doesn’t surprise me that you cannot understand much of what I say. I expect you won’t understand much – if any – of what I write. In fact, I’m totally surprised when you show any understanding at all.
Is that because you think I am stupid, or because you think you are inarticulate?
How did you determine god is good in the first place?
What the hell does this even mean? Sounds like new-age mumbojumbo only designed to sound profound while having zero logical or meaningful content.
If they’re self-evident moral thruthes, what does god have to do with it? If human beings have a “self evident” moral nature, god simply isn’t a required part of the picture.
But anyway, the most important question is the first one. How do you know god is good?
EL said:
No, I don’t agree.
Then why are you even here?
EL said:
Neither. I don’t think you understand me because, on some level, you don’t want to. There’s nothing I can do about that.
Rumraket asks:
I didn’t determine it. I assume it.
Belief in god is not required to recognize self-evident moral truths, nor for the conscience to access the objective good, nor for the use of logic to examine that sensory input. However, the existence of at least a classical, aristotlean god is necessary to logically ground the existence of an objective oughts. Oughts can only exist in relation to goals or purpose; only intentional agencies provides goals or purposes.
God, yes, the Catholic church in Ireland has committed such evils that nothing can ever repair.
Of course, they never forcibly removed a baby from a single mother to give it to a pair of gay guys, so I guess that shows the church has some moral standards. I mean, it’s objectively better to enslave young women, beat them, starve them, and steal their babies to give to respectable heterosexually-married couples than it is to enslave young women, beat them, starve them, and steal their babies to give to disrespectable not-married-because-gay-marriage-was-illegal male couples. Right?
I heard another one last night by a frustrated supporter from the NO side, something about how they plan to work in the legislature to pass laws based on the idea that every child “deserves” to be raised by a mother and a father. The arrogance, stupidity, and heartlessness combined are more than I can take. The hysterical bigots would rather see children raised in loveless orphanages, or shuffled from foster home to foster home, or even living in the street, rather than raised by two loving men or two loving women.
But I shouldn’t get into that. For today, I should concentrate on my joy that the Irish people have collectively chosen to become a nation of equals, with love and freedom for all.
EL said:
‘
God-given? Under my natural law objecitive-morality system, god doesn’t “give” moral rules or truths; god personifies good, god is the existential ground of good. God cannot change what is good.
Recognizing a self-evidently true moral statement is like recognizing a self-evidently true mathematical equation: 1+1=2. Would any version of morality make sense if it was possible that gratuitously torturing children was a good thing? Once you understand the nature of the statement, can you expect all rational entities in all possible worlds and situations (unless they are sociopaths) to recognize the validity of the moral statement: gratuitously torturing children is evil?
Now, would the concept of “wine in a glass” be incoherent or absurd if turned out that the wine in front of you was something else you had mistaken for a glass of wine? Of course not. That’s not what a self-evident truth is. A self-evident truth is that by which we judge other things, like A=A or 1+1=2, it is that which, if untrue, absurdity follows.
One needn’t believe in god to be able to recognize self-evidently true moral statements, or to lead a perfectly moral life. However, to logically account for the existence of an objective, universal, absolute ought (a self-evidently true moral good or evil), then objective, universal intention and purpose must be accounted for. A creator god provides a sound logical basis for universal intention/purpose, which generates universal, self-evident oughts.