About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 9, 2010 7:21am by David Farrar

General Debate 9 May 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment145

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (145)

Login to comment or vote

Ryan Sproull

VirtualMark, you don’t seem to have read what I said at all.

1. There is no God.

(This is the starting assertion for atheism. If you want to take a strict interpretation of atheism – as I’ve seen Chthoniid adopt before – then this is the start and the end of atheism. But the reality is that everyone has a belief system (a set of values) and what we’re talking about is the rational set of atheistic values. So I’ll take this starting point and elaborate it for the “new atheism”, which is the term most today give for the combination of atheism and secular rationalism and humanism popularized by Dawkins, Hitchens etc).

Fine.

3. So we cannot have been “created” by “God”.
4. Instead we, and all the other life on earth, have evolved through a Darwinian process that is totally independent of any “God” or supernatural influence. This evolution was a process of chance and probability on a gigantic scale, and we are the fortunate result.

Assuming those are the two options, yes. Process of chance = matter interacting in accordance with the laws of nature.

(Steps 1 to 4 shouldn’t be controversial to any atheists surely? But here’s where it begins to get hard …)

5. Because there is no God there is no method or principle for all humanity to agree on a universal moral code. Certainly, each of us will have an independent moral code, which defines right and wrong and good and evil for us individually. We may even find other like-minded people who have similar values. But there is no universal absolute moral code that attempts to set out right and wrong for us all collectively. And there is no mechanism for enforcing an absolute moral code even if it were to exist. There is no lawgiver, there is no judge … there is only each of us acting individually.

Sure, though I would take issue with the idea that believing in a universal moral code is somehow conducive to everyone agreeing on what that code is.

(If you can successfully argue that step 5 is wrong then you are a greater philosopher than Nietsche, Russell, Camus etc etc. You should give up your day job, take up a tenured professorship at the university of your choice, and make millions on the after-dinner circuit. Really.)

Anyone who understands Nietzsche and Camus would most likely get the hell out of the academic life immediately.

6. Because we are each just the product of evolutionary random chance there is no sacredness or nobility to life.

(There is no value to any life, human or animal. There is no tragedy when someone dies. There is no tragedy when we ourselves die. It is just Darwinian processes taking their natural course. This is scientific rationalism at its most cold. Note that religion does attribute a sanctity to life. According to, say, Christianity, God created each individual, is interested in each individual, and wishes to have a relationship with them.)

This is where you go off the rails. As I said earlier, saying “There is no absolute value, so there is no value to life” is like saying “There is no absolute taste in food, so no food tastes good.” You have removed the law-giver from the situation without removing the law-giver-based legal system.

7. Because there is no “God” and no nobility to life then there is also no real meaning to life

Again, nonsense. “No God” does not mean “no nobility, no meaning”. It may mean no “absolute nobility” or no “absolute meaning”, whatever those things might mean, but it does not mean no nobility, no meaning.

(So the only rational goal of life then is to get through it as pleasurably as possible.)

Again you say this. It’s totally unsupported. “There are no goals, so this is the rational goal. There are no values, so this is the rational value.” Nonsense. The pursuit of pleasure is no more an absolute value than any other value.

8. And because there is no “God” and no universal moral code there are no effective limits to the steps you take to live out your goals, apart perhaps from fear of retribution from others

Again, this is like saying, “Because there is no God and no universal code in what tastes good, there are no limits to the things you will eat.” The lack of an absolute standard of what tastes good does not make crude oil taste any better to me, nor chocolate taste any worse.

The logic flow I’ve outlined above is terribly contracted vs a full exposition, and I’ll happily expand on any of these steps if you like.

It doesn’t seem any less contracted than the first time you made those giant unwarranted leaps from one statement to the next. Please, explain all the steps that take you from “There is no God, therefore the only rational value is pleasure-seeking.” Explain the steps that take you from, “There is no God, therefore all food tastes just as good.” Because that is what you are doing when you suggest that no God means no morality.

I acknowledge that you are probably all very nice people who I would enjoy drinking a beer with. And I am quite happy if you say that you believe in atheism and don’t believe in Christianity – I am not trying to convert you to anything. But there is nothing “nice” about atheism. If there is no God then it ultimately quickly boils down to the law of the jungle. You may be very fine individuals with lovely manners, but those lovely manners are not rational behavior for atheists.

Rationality has nothing to do with determining foundational principles. In the absence of a presupposed value framework, it is not “rational” to be nicer or nastier, any more than in the absence of taste buds it is more “rational” to prefer chocolate to asparagus.

You still go only half the way, VirtualMark. You take away the ruler and then declare everything to be exactly zero inches long. You take away the thermometer and then declare everything to be exactly zero degrees Celsius. You take away the dictionary and declare every word to mean the same thing.

You have to follow the logic to its conclusion. “There is no absolute worth” does not mean “everything is absolutely worthless” – to say so requires a standard of “absolute worth” for its intelligibility.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:12pm
virtualmark

Luc … “We must resist, resist, resist, while respecting everyone’s civil rights”. Why must we respect everyone’s civil rights? By all means it’s a noble idea. But, from a moral and philosophical view, why must we?

And if there is no “religion” and so there is no sanctity of human life then just what are “civil rights”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:13pm
virtualmark

Ryan. Let’s just start with the first step we disagree at. Step 6 “Because we are each just the product of evolutionary random chance there is no sacredness or nobility to life”.

Remember, we’re being rational here, not sentimental. If life is just some evolutionary chance then how is it sacred? It’s just the outcome of a big roulette wheel. Darwinism says that the strong will out, the weak will die, that this is not “evil”, it’s just the way thing are.

Certainly the Christian worldview that each of us has inevitably soaked in during our Western lives holds at its core that life is sacred. But how does a secular rationalist atheist philosophically arrive at that point?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:17pm
Yvette

Virtualmark –
“… Because there is no God there is no method or principle for all humanity to agree on a universal moral code …
there are no effective limits to the steps you take to live out your goals, apart perhaps from fear of retribution from others.”

“some … will argue about non-religious basis for altruism. Except they’re very weak.”

This is where it falls apart. You can satisfy your own needs but the moment they encroach on some else’s needs you are compromised. Current social conditions won’t allow you to get very far. Try it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:18pm
philu

“..As for veganism … I’m glad that you think it induces you to care for animals…”

um..!..no..it dosen’t ‘induce’ me…it is just part and parcel of that belief-system..

“.. You may believe that…”

believe what..?..that it ‘induces’ me..?

“.. Others don’t…”…’don’t’ what..?..don’t believe i care for animals..and don’t eat them..?

“.. It is a code that some adopt individually ..”

um..isn’t any ‘code’ adopted ‘individually’…?..w.t.f.are you talking about..?

“.. but it doesn’t – and I doubt can – claim it deserves universal observance..”

of course it does..and can..claim universal observance…

..but..well done for consistancy there…eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:25pm
virtualmark

Yvette. Stalin tried it and 10 million people died and Stalin died in his own bed of old age. On what moral basis derived from atheistic philosophy was Stalin “wrong” or “evil”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:25pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan. Let’s just start with the first step we disagree at. Step 6 “Because we are each just the product of evolutionary random chance there is no sacredness or nobility to life”.

Remember, we’re being rational here, not sentimental. If life is just some evolutionary chance then how is it sacred? It’s just the outcome of a big roulette wheel. Darwinism says that the strong will out, the weak will die, that this is not “evil”, it’s just the way thing are.

Certainly the Christian worldview that each of us has inevitably soaked in during our Western lives holds at its core that life is sacred. But how does a secular rationalist atheist philosophically arrive at that point?

How does a secular rationalist atheist philosophically arrive at the notion that chocolate tastes good? Remember, we’re being rational, not sentimental. If life is just some evolutionary chance, then how can things taste good? It’s just the outcome of a big roulette wheel. Without God as the standard for what tastes good and what doesn’t, how can anything taste good?

Does that make any sense to you?

Would it go off on too much of a tangent if I asked you to define what on earth “sacred” means?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:26pm
Hurf Durf

Sarah Palin, the USA’s very own Joh Bjelke-Petersen, wants US law to be based on the bible and the 10 commandments.

And Bonkers calls the birthers conspiratorial!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:27pm
virtualmark

Phil. At the core of nearly all religions is the concept that an external party, more powerful and enduring than any person, has set out a moral code which humanity should live by, and that if they don’t live by that moral code they will be “judged” and “punished” in some way.

That’s not to say that everyone will then obediently fall into line and behave as instructed. But it does give those religions a philosophical consistency that atheism lacks.

In simple terms, religion tends to say “Do this or else”, while atheism effectively says “Do anything you like, who’s to say if it’s right or wrong”.

Note: I’m not pushing religion on you here. I’m just pointing out the philosophical consistency that religions incorporate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:29pm
philu

i see hurf is making as much sense as usual…

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:30pm
virtualmark

Ryan. Whether you believe in God or not I don’t know of any instruction that all must like chocolate. We’re each free to decide if we like it or not.

But if you believe in, for example, Christianity, there is a clear instruction “Do not murder”. And philosophically this is backed up by a God who will supposedly punish you if do murder. (and, by the way, won’t punish you if you like chocolate or not).

Meanwhile most atheists will probably agree that murder is undesirable. But there’s no one with the moral authority to say it is “wrong”. And there is no philosophical basis for saying that those that do murder are “evil”.

As for what does “sacred” mean. I used it in the context of writing about Christianity and meant it in the Christian context that, off the top of my head, would mean that it is precious to God and that if you disrespect it then God will be pissed at you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:33pm
eszett

Remember, we’re being rational here, not sentimental. If life is just some evolutionary chance then how is it sacred? It’s just the outcome of a big roulette wheel. Darwinism says that the strong will out, the weak will die, that this is not “evil”, it’s just the way thing are.

It isn’t. Life isn’t sacred. Even if the religion teaches that, they quite often act to the contrary.

And your understanding of evolution is quite rudimentary. It’s nothing about weak or strong, and certainly nothing about chance, but natural selection.

Given that evolution is a fact and proved, life can still have a value. We value our own life and thereby can value other peoples lives without the need to go into such terms as sacred.

The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you need an absolutism, yet at the same time you claim to be unsure (agnostic) of that absolutism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:33pm
Ryan Sproull

In simple terms, religion tends to say “Do this or else”, while atheism effectively says “Do anything you like, who’s to say if it’s right or wrong”.

Religion may say “do this”, but atheism says nothing but “there are no gods”. “Do this” or “do that” requires something further the claim about reality that there are no gods, whether it’s what you like or what you don’t like.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:34pm
Yvette

Yvette. Stalin tried it and 10 million people died and Stalin died in his own bed of old age. On what moral basis derived from atheistic philosophy was Stalin “wrong” or “evil”?
I guess there is no argument – you can’t ask ten million dead people about anything.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:34pm
eszett

# virtualmark (957) Says:
May 9th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

Yvette. Stalin tried it and 10 million people died and Stalin died in his own bed of old age. On what moral basis derived from atheistic philosophy was Stalin “wrong” or “evil”?

Very easy. On the basis that he caused the suffering of those people.

But let me ask you back? On what moral basis derived from agnostic philosophy was Stalin “wrong” or “evil”?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:38pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan. Whether you believe in God or not I don’t know of any instruction that all must like chocolate. We’re each free to decide if we like it or not.

Do you recall ever deciding whether or not to like chocolate? Do you think you could decide not to?

But if you believe in, for example, Christianity, there is a clear instruction “Do not murder”. And philosophically this is backed up by a God who will supposedly punish you if do murder. (and, by the way, won’t punish you if you like chocolate or not).

That does not mean life is valued, it means not getting punished is valued.

Meanwhile most atheists will probably agree that murder is undesirable. But there’s no one with the moral authority to say it is “wrong”. And there is no philosophical basis for saying that those that do murder are “evil”.

Do I have authority to say that chocolate tastes good? That crude oil tastes bad?

As for what does “sacred” mean. I used it in the context of writing about Christianity and meant it in the Christian context that, off the top of my head, would mean that it is precious to God and that if you disrespect it then God will be pissed at you.

And we’re back to valuing not getting beaten up by God. Which is indeed a value.

Listen to what I’m saying about taste.

Anything you say about morality, to understand how nonsensical your statements are from the perspective of contextual morality, replace “morally good” with “tasting good”.

“Without God, there is no right and wrong” – “Without God, there is no taste in food.”

“Without God, who has the authority to say that murder is wrong?” – “Without God, who has the authority to say that chocolate tastes good?”

“Without God, there’s no reason not to rape.” – “Without God, there’s no reason not to drink crude oil.” (Ignoring any health problems with drinking crude oil. It tastes bad, so you don’t want to drink it. You don’t need God to exist in order to avoid drinking crude oil, and you don’t need God to exist in order to avoid raping people.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:40pm
Chthoniid

Remember, we’re being rational here, not sentimental. If life is just some evolutionary chance then how is it sacred? It’s just the outcome of a big roulette wheel. Darwinism says that the strong will out, the weak will die, that this is not “evil”, it’s just the way thing are.

Because success for some species doesn’t mean the strong survive, it can mean that the more socially organised species survive. You begin with a crude caricature of what evolution is.

There are many creatures stronger and more powerful than the ant. Yet it is one of the most successful groups of animals. Why? Because selection pressure has ended up promoting social behaviours that are successful.

We’re also social, gregarious animals. We derive pleasure from various social behaviours- friendship, families etc. That’s the evolutionary reward for following a wide range of social rules.

In other social species- ants, bees, termites- murder & theft is rare. There is no belief in the divine by ants.
Why if social rules can evolve to be ‘stable’ in every other social species, why is it suddenly problematic to extend the same argument to people?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:41pm
malcolm

Yeah but God created the ants. He pre-programmed them not to murder and steal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:47pm
nickb

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3674184/Jim-Anderton-won-t-give-up-seat-if-elected-mayor

What a surprise!!!

The troughmaster confirms he will have is snout in multiple troughs shortly
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:50pm
virtualmark

eszett.

your understanding of evolution is quite rudimentary. It’s nothing about weak or strong, and certainly nothing about chance, but natural selection.

Mmm, that would be the natural selection of the best-adapted (the “strong”) over the less-well-adapted (the “weak”). That would be evolutionary theory which, if I can summarise, says that there is a massive ongoing process of random mutation which – by chance – every now and then throws up an valuation mutation which better fits that organism for survival. The process that Dawkins said “I think ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably”.

I’m interested in the philosophical basis for why you value your own life. I don’t disagree with you, I’m sure you do value it. But I’m interested to hear how you can argue a philosophy that goes from that to “all life has value”.

What I am arguing is that the absence of an absolutism leads to a nihilistic worldview. That fact, as much as any, leads me to have a lot of sympathy for the Christian worldview. But – probably like many here – there are aspects of that worldview I struggle with.

As for on what moral basis derived from agnostic philosophy was Stalin “wrong” or “evil” … I don’t think you can argue it. Stalin did what he did. I think it was wrong. He thought it was right. If there is no God then there is no one to judge whether he was right or wrong. again, I agree, from a moral point of view that’s not an attractive conclusion to reach but it is the rational one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:51pm
virtualmark

Ryan your “taste as an analogy for morals” argument is weak. Religious philosophy quite clearly sets out that there are a wide range of decisions and values that we are free to decide ourselves – like whether we like chocolate or not. But then it also sets out a limited range of decisions and values that are supposedly universal absolutes – like do not murder.

The logical error with your chocolate analogy is that you are comparing religious & atheist philosophy via one of the points where both agree each of us is free to decide. But the real philosophical problem is on what basis can atheist philosophy match religious philosophy’s injunctures not to do certain things.

Let me repeat …

Do I like chocolate? Both religious philosophy and atheist philosophy say I am free to decide for myself.

Do I murder? Religious philosophy says “Absolutely not”. Atheist philosophy says I am free to decide for myself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 8:57pm
virtualmark

Chthoniid … the “ants don’t murder or rape, so why can’t people evolve to do the same” is an interesting question.

I suspect the religious philosophy response would be that people are inherently selfish, which they would claim to be the major hurdle to us all playing nicely with each other. and that God gave us “free will”, but didn’t extend the same privilege to the ants.

From a rational philosophy point of view I guess the response might be that “Well, you can’t rule out that we might one day crack that like the ants have”. But then you’re in to the less-than-rational open-ended arguments that you can neither prove or disprove. Like the argument that there is/isn’t a God.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:02pm
eszett

virtualmark, you have to admit, from what you are arguing, that it is not agnostic at all, but in fact quite religious.
You need a God for your arguments to stick up.

Maybe you don’t subscribe to an organised religion, but nevertheless, you can only justify an absolutism with the existence of God. That is not agnostic. That is not even deist, but quite a theist position (God judges)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:09pm
Chthoniid

So religion begins by presuming people are flawed, than says, ‘but hey, guess what we’ve got to sell you!” 🙂

But I think at a philosophical level, you keep evading the contractarian case for moral values. This comes out of the moral tradition of Hobbes, and has been continued by Rawls & later philosophers. Any proposed moral rules could be justified in some game-theory test, as the result of bargaining behind a ‘veil of ignorance’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:14pm
virtualmark

eszett … I’m not arguing for or against a God. Go back to my original post at (scrolls up) 4:34 which was a response to your post at 1:41 on Habermas.

You argued (at 1:41) that Fletch had misquoted Habermas. I argued in agreement with Habermas that:

the ideals of freedom … the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy … is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage.

I completely agree with Habermas. Our ideals of freedom, morality, conscience, human rights and democracy are the direct outflow and legacy of Judaism and Christianity. And that to this day no competing philosophy has set out a workable alternative. Particularly atheism and secular rationalism.

In arguing with Habermas that this is the only workable set of values then yes I inevitably am setting out a religious worldview. It’s a worldview I have some sympathy for, but can’t with any integrity say that I live to. You mentioned earlier that I – like nearly all of us – want to observe just commandments 4 through 10. (I’d facetiously argue against 7 and 10 as well)

Truth is though, I think it’d be preferable to believe all 10 than to adopt the rational outflow of atheism. That’s an uncomfortable truth but I do think that’s how things are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:19pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan your “taste as an analogy for morals” argument is weak. Religious philosophy quite clearly sets out that there are a wide range of decisions and values that we are free to decide ourselves – like whether we like chocolate or not. But then it also sets out a limited range of decisions and values that are supposedly universal absolutes – like do not murder.

That doesn’t matter. We’re not talking about religious philosophy. We’re talking about morality outside of a God context. If you are going to make statements about an atheistic perspective, you can’t go around judging it from a religious one.

Moral decisions are analogous to decisions in what to eat. Valuing life is analogous to valuing sweet-tasting things. Your statements about God being necessary for morality make sense only from the perspective of God existing. You can’t apply them to a perspective that doesn’t find the notion of God even intelligible in the first place.

The logical error with your chocolate analogy is that you are comparing religious & atheist philosophy via one of the points where both agree each of us is free to decide. But the real philosophical problem is on what basis can atheist philosophy match religious philosophy’s injunctures not to do certain things.

We are not free to decide our tastes any more than we are free to decide our values. On what would we base such a decision? To decide between one value and another presupposes a value system by which each can be evaluated. Atheists don’t need philosophy to tell them not to drink crude oil – it tastes bad (to most of them). Atheists don’t need philosophy to tell them not to kill people – it’s morally distasteful (to most of them).

Let me repeat …

Do I like chocolate? Both religious philosophy and atheist philosophy say I am free to decide for myself.

Nonsense.

Do I murder? Religious philosophy says “Absolutely not”. Atheist philosophy says I am free to decide for myself.

Nonsense.

Firstly, “atheist philosophy” says nothing beyond “there are no gods”. It’s someone else’s job to come up with moral imperatives.

Secondly, you can’t choose to be okay with murder any more than you can choose to enjoy the taste of crude oil.

How would you make such a decision. “Hmmm, shall I find murder morally good or morally bad? Hmmm. I will decide to find murder morally bad.” Okay – why? If it’s a decision, the options must be evaluated. On what basis have they been evaluated?

If there is an answer, there is a pre-existing value framework informing the decision. Was that chosen? Or was it provided to the agent by their context?

If it was chosen, you’re back to asking on what basis it was chosen, and so on, in infinite regression.

If it was not chosen, then we’re back to the sane standpoint: we do not ultimately choose what our values are.

Your approach to atheism and to contextual morality is a religious approach, with religious presuppositions. You need to break out of that paradigm in order to understand that moral statements and sentiments can have meaning and weight without reference to some “absolute standard”.

And the best way to do that is to consider how statements and sentiments of taste in food (or music or whatever) can have meaning and weight without reference to an “absolute standard”.

Do you think people can have a meaningful preference in food or music without God existing?

If so, why so?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:19pm
virtualmark

Chthoniid … I have some interest in what Hobbes (you’re talking about the tiger in the cartoon right?) said about contractarianism. Hobbes set out that life without a paternal authority of some form would be unattractive anarchy. I agree. He said that as a result there were rational pressures for people to contract with each other to form a government or structure. I agree.

What he didn’t really canvas though was what values would that civil government or structure develop, and whether they would be “good” or “evil”. The Third Reich was a Hobbes-ian contractarian government. So was England. But within that Hobbes-ian framework each government could still decide on their own unique set of values. Ultimately it’s the same philosophical challenge, just aggregated up at the government level rather than the individual level.

Hobbes was also quite an epicurean. He would have totally agreed with my earlier assertion that the rational goal of an atheistic life is just to get through it as pleasurably as possible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:30pm
Yvette

That the rational goal of an atheistic life is just to get through it as pleasurably as possible, is why I still suspect there would be 10 million points of view that would have suggested Stalin was wrong in his actions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:39pm
virtualmark

Ryan. Breathe through your nose for a moment.

Me: Do I like chocolate? Both religious philosophy and atheist philosophy say I am free to decide for myself.
You: Nonsense.

Me: Do I murder? Religious philosophy says “Absolutely not”. Atheist philosophy says I am free to decide for myself.
You: Nonsense.

If you don’t agree with me then it would be helpful to set out more of an argument than “Nonsense”. And (sigh) yes “atheism with a little a” says just that “there is no God(s)”. Go back to my post at 7:52 and you’ll see I agree that. But that statement in and of itself is not particularly informing is it? What we’re talking about is the rational outflow of that statement. Atheism with a capital A. The “new atheism” if you prefer that tag.

So … in the first quote … tell me where does religious philosophy say that I must like or not like chocolate? Why is what I wrote a nonsense? Surely in both worldviews each individual is free to choose? Or do you believe the Pope has that level of direction?

And … in the second quote … let me re-phrase it in terms I posed to Philu earlier this evening. In New Zealand an atheist might love their neighbour. In Papua New Guinea they might eat their neighbour? Which, if any, of those is wrong? And why?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:43pm
Chthoniid

Then you need to start looking at Rawls & the various forms of tacit, implicit, explicit or hypothetical contractarian philosophies.
I could for instance, argue that my moral rules are determined by acceptance of the hypothetical ‘veil of ignorance’. Agreeing that murder is wrong would suit all players, as none of us would know if we might be a victim. That would also make Stalin ‘evil’ as he would appear to be cheating on such a rational, social rule.

Epicurean philosophy went well beyond simple pleasure however. You also find a strong emphasis on friendship & admonitions against excess.

To an extent, I do adopt an Epicurean stance- one that says life is to be boldly experienced. That’s why I like playing with crocodiles, or getting arrested by the Chinese army etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:46pm
virtualmark

Yvette. Stalin was powerful enough to impose his decisions on those people.

Christianity would say that although Stalin was able to do that – in other words Christianity itself couldn’t stop him – that it was “evil”, and that ultimately Stalin would stand before God to be judged. And Christians would have a moral basis for their outrage.

Individual atheists could say that by their individual standards Stalin was evil. But Stalin would laugh at them.

Collectively atheist society couldn’t judge if it was “evil” or not (what is “evil”?) and would have no moral basis for their outrage. Maybe Stalin was just better adapted for survival?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:47pm
virtualmark

Chthoniid … the weakness of the Hobbesian and Rawlian approaches is that they rely on people playing nicely and that the individual interests of many are all evenly enough balanced that they have equal influence on the end result.

But – to steal from a separate thread with Yvette – Stalin as an example was able to subvert an entire form of government and direct it to his own end. Dictatorships prove that Hobbesian and Rawlian contracts are not robust.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:50pm
virtualmark

Chthoniid … just to clarify something. At 9:50 I said that dictatorships do prove the limitations of Hobbesian & Rawlian governments.

When, at 9:30, I said the Third Reich was a Hobbes-ian contractarian government I was referring to it in the 1933 sense. When there was a democratic election and people chose Hitler. Before it turned into a dictatorship.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 9:55pm
Chthoniid

No, you’re conflating two separate things. One is how we might decide some action is moral. The second is how such social rules would be enforced against cheaters.

Religion doesn’t generate a unique solution to the first, and it doesn’t prevent ‘cheaters’ either. Grahame Capill is sitting in prison for molesting children. Jesse Jackson & Ira Robinson have been guilty of adultery. The sadistic treatment of children, some disabled, by Catholic ministers has been hard to avoid. Jim Bakker stole money. Xtinaity has in its past, murdered people without qualm for hersy, for apostasy, for blasphemy and for witchcraft.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:01pm
Luc Hansen

VM I think you will find Hitler didn’t take power through an election win, although he and his party was the largest party (but not a majority) in Parliament. Hitler had already been appointed Chancellor, as a reflection of his popularity, and was handed power in what was effectively a bloodless coup in a country going downhill fast, thanks mainly to the Treaty of Versailles.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:04pm
virtualmark

Chthoniid … I agree that Christianity cannot guarantee people will comply with its moral code. But Christianity can clearly point to an absolute moral code, and point to exactly where those people fell short of it. And it can argue just how those people will be judged & punished for their offences.

What I’m arguing – in support of Habermas, who was the original spark to this whole conversation here – is that Christianity has a coherent and internally consistent means to develop concepts like good, evil, morality, conscience, human rights, democracy etc.

And what I’m also arguing – again in agreement with Habermas – is that alternative philosophies such as atheism do not have a coherent or internally consistent means to develop those concepts. By all means individual atheists might adopt them because it suits those individuals. But collectively the philosophy cannot coherently argue for those concepts.

And I would argue that as an atheist I would feel hypocritical adopting a set of morals that only have legitimacy within a philosophical structure which I explicitly reject.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:09pm
virtualmark

Luc, agreed. And Hitler was appointed Chancellor really only as a last resort after all the other possible contenders had been tried and found wanting.

But as you say his was the largest bloc in the Reichstag. The largest portion of voters wanted him to lead their civil government.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:10pm
Luc Hansen

VM also said: Why must we respect everyone’s civil rights? By all means it’s a noble idea. But, from a moral and philosophical view, why must we?

The short answer is because it is the right thing to do. Noble or not, we should treat all humans equally.

And a second reason is that if we are selective about to whom we allow civil rights, others may select us out of the civil rights loop because of that.

It’s like the McCain argument against torture: if we do it to them, it justifies them doing it to us. Although they may do it anyway, that’s not the point – it’s one reason why we have war crimes tribunals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:12pm
Luc Hansen

And VM, Hitler was always honest about his dislike of democracy and made no secret of his wish to become the supreme, unchallenged ruler, free form elections. Those who voted for him knew what they were getting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:15pm
virtualmark

Luc … kind-of agreed … those who voted for him knew roughly what they were getting, although arguably many didn’t quite understand just how far he was prepared to go.

But my point from earlier is that they were prepared to make a Hobbes-ish contract with him to run their society, knowing that would be based on a certain set of values. meanwhile voters in England were making a similar contract with a different government with a different set of values.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 10:19pm
krazykiwi

Does every second thread on this blog have to end up being a pitched battle between the bible bashers and the non believers?

hey bruv, I’m one of the bible bashers.. and I agree with you!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2010 11:09pm
Viking2

Climate deal long way off, says Groser
By KATE NEWTON – The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 10/05/2010
Global climate change talks at the end of this year will not produce a binding international treaty, Climate Minister Tim Groser says.

Negotiators from 194 countries will gather in Cancun, Mexico, in November to try to build on the Copenhagen accord signed in December, with the ultimate aim still a legally binding emissions agreement.

Returning from a Beijing conference of ministers and environmental organisations, Mr Groser said yesterday that a basis for agreement existed “but it’s not going to be easy to capture”.

“We will not get a full agreement in place by Cancun.”

His remarks echoed China’s top climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, who told the conference there was still a lot of work to be done before a deal was secured. “Climate change negotiations have already made gradual progress, but there is still a relatively long way to go to reach a legally binding agreement.”

New Zealand was one of six countries to attend the conference, along with India, Indonesia, Mexico, Algeria and Grenada. Mr Groser told the conference that incremental progress was the best way forward.

“What we are looking for is not a repetition of the same old mistake of putting everything together and expecting a full and comprehensive negotiated result.”

He told The Dominion Post that China – which was accused of wrecking a binding deal at Copenhagen – had not dramatically changed its stance since December.

“I don’t think it’s changed significantly, but then again the people in the West had an exaggerated and incorrect view of China’s stance in this.”

Large developing countries’ reluctance to commit to binding targets was driven by concern they would not be able to meet them without compromising their ability to develop their economies in even basic ways, Mr Groser said. “That fear is still there. What they don’t want is to be trapped by some internationally binding agreement.”

Any agreement should seek to slow the rate of emissions growth in countries such as China and India, rather than demanding a complete halt, he said.

New Zealand’s presence at the conference was “remarkable”.

“I would like to think that the reason why New Zealand was invited was because I believe we have an extraordinarily productive relationship with China.”

Thank goodness we didn’t send the Nutter Smith to the talks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2010 6:30am
Viking2

Hearing starts into Ngapuhi’s claims
By MICHAEL FIELD – Stuff
Last updated 05:00 10/05/2010

New Zealand could be “rocked constitutionally” in a Waitangi Tribunal hearing starting today with the country’s largest tribe, Ngapuhi, arguing they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

The Northland iwi of 122,000 people will argue it was and still is a self-governing state within New Zealand.

It is the first time that the standing of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi has been measured against the 1835 Declaration of Independence created by 34 northern chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes. “We didn’t cede our sovereignty, and if we did, we didn’t do it to become paupers in our own land,” Haami Piripi, chairman of the Kaitaia-based Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, said.

Although the biggest tribe, and the original host of the Treaty signing, Ngapuhi is the last to have its day before the tribunal.

“There is more opportunity than danger. I think it must rock the nation constitutionally.”

Nothing existed that showed Ngapuhi ceded sovereignty. “We never ever saw an English version of the treaty and we never signed one.”

Known as Te Paparahi o Te Raki or the Northland Inquiry, the hearings involve more than 1200 claims involving everything unheard north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The tribunal will hear it in two stages with the first part beginning today with four weeks of hearings on the issue of sovereignty, the Declaration and the Treaty.

Hearings on claims are expected to take four to six years, but legal sources say it is likely the tribunal will issue a groundbreaking constitutional interim report by the end of this year.

The witness list includes some of Northland’s most prominent names, including former Maori Council head Sir Graham Latimer, leading members of the powerful Henare family and the Harawiras.

Matriarch Titewhai Harawira and her son MP Hone Harawira are expected to speak at the hearing.

Mr Piripi said Maori had occupied the area for up to 2000 years and had governed themselves for much of the time. The tribunal would allow them to reassert this.

“It is a huge event historically for our sovereign status to be usurped by another. We need to re-examine the process by which this occurred.”

New Zealand could prove to be built on a fairytale.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2010 6:40am
starboard

Nothing existed that showed Ngapuhi ceded sovereignty. “We never ever saw an English version of the treaty and we never signed one.”

…cunning as shithouse rats….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2010 8:06am
Ryan Sproull

If you don’t agree with me then it would be helpful to set out more of an argument than “Nonsense”.

Which is why I spent considerable time in the rest of the post showing how it’s logically impossible that, at the base, we choose our values.

And (sigh) yes “atheism with a little a” says just that “there is no God(s)”. Go back to my post at 7:52 and you’ll see I agree that. But that statement in and of itself is not particularly informing is it? What we’re talking about is the rational outflow of that statement. Atheism with a capital A. The “new atheism” if you prefer that tag.

So … in the first quote … tell me where does religious philosophy say that I must like or not like chocolate? Why is what I wrote a nonsense? Surely in both worldviews each individual is free to choose? Or do you believe the Pope has that level of direction?

We don’t choose our values. Show me how we can, in light of what I said about the prerequisites for making such a decision (prerequisite: values).

Put it this way – describe someone choosing their values.

And … in the second quote … let me re-phrase it in terms I posed to Philu earlier this evening. In New Zealand an atheist might love their neighbour. In Papua New Guinea they might eat their neighbour? Which, if any, of those is wrong? And why?

Wrong to whom? We’ve already established there’s no such thing as absolute morality, so unless you expand the term “wrong” to “wrong-to-someone” (or, more accurately, “wrong-to-someone-in-terms-of-some-value”), the statement is incomplete.

Eating your neighbour is wrong-to-me-in-terms-of-my-value-for-life. It may be right-to-Joe-PNG-in-terms-of-his-cultural-values.

Your question is more likely, “Which, if any, of those is Absolutely Wrong?” The question is unintelligible without a context of absolute morality. It’s not the answer is “both are equally wrong” or “none of them is wrong”. The question is unanswerable from the perspective of contextual morality, because “absolutely wrong” is a meaningless phrase from that perspective. By “wrong”, you mean “incorrect”, but morality is not a truth value.

Again, it’s analogous to asking, “Someone in France might like eating snails. Someone in New Zealand might not. Which, if any, of those is wrong? And why?” Snails taste good-to-Jacques. Snails taste bad-to-me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2010 8:40am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« General Debate 8 May 2010

Woodham on Langley »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Your Cheatin’ Ballot III: Pennsylvania Right Now
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d