Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The uncompromising compromiser


By calling me a moral subjectivist, Hays and Chan are identifying me with the position that objective moral facts do not exist. But as I pointed out, this is false. I have always argued in ethical matters based on a robust ethical objectivism. For example, in my article “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive” (Philosophia Christi, 2009) I critique moral defenses of biblical genocide by appealing to the intuition that you ought never ever bludgeon babies (the NEBB intuition). I argued that the NEBB principle is an objective fact which is known synthetic a priori: “It is not simply that I cannot see how bludgeoning a baby could be a morally praiseworthy act; rather, I can see that it cannot be.” (34)
 
Given that I am an uncompromising moral objectivist, why would Steve be saddling me with moral subjectivism?

i) Rauser can distinguish between ethical subjectivism and ethical objectivism on paper, but in practice his position is purely subjective.

ii) His Philosophia Christi paper is a perfect illustration. In that paper he makes no effort to argue for the intrinsic evil of certain OT injunctions. Rather, he simply declares them to be in violation of universal absolute moral axioms.

It’s one thing to say something is axiomatically wrong, quite another thing to show it. Rauser’s position on this and other moral issues reduces to his personal feelings. He invokes moral intuition to rubberstamp his radical chic opinions. And much of that time there’s nothing very “universal” about his intuitions. Rather, they are strikingly culturebound and ethnocentric.

Second, Steve fails to recognize that he is hoist with his own petard. You see, we all have moral intuitions. And the Christian tradition has explained those intuitions as our grasping of a natural moral law through a form of general revelation (see, for example, Romans 2:14-15).

i) Rom 2:14-15 is, indeed, the locus classicus for natural law. However, that interpretation has been challenged by scholars like Jewett, Cranfield, Wright, Gathercole, and Zahn. Therefore, Rauser’s prooftext is not a given. He needs to do the exegetical spadework before he can lay claim to that passage.

ii) Moreover, even assuming the locus classicus, St. Paul would never cite natural law to say certain OT injunctions were intrinsically evil.

iii) Furthermore, a paradigmatic natural theologian like Aquinas would never cite natural law to say certain OT injunctions were intrinsically evil.

iv) For that matter, given Rauser’s notion of “inspired errors,” why does he even bother to cite Scripture? That’s the point of using one Scripture to disprove another Scripture? What’s the standard of comparison? Not Scripture.

Steve might look to C.S. Lewis’s famous appendix to The Abolition of Man for a succinct statement of what Lewis called “The Tao of Religious Morality”. In that appendix Lewis provides ample evidence for the universal recognition of moral norms through culturally formed intuitions.

The commonality is deceptive. For instance, you can say Hindus disapprove of murder. Yet that didn’t hinder them from burning widows alive (until Christian missionaries intervened). That’s because they didn’t classify sati as murder.

Likewise, you can say Muslims disapprove of murder. Yet that doesn’t prevent them from massacring the “infidel” or executing rape victims. That’s because they don’t classify jihad or honor-killings as murder.

This leaves Steve Hays on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he could continue to insist that he has no innate moral intuitions at all, in which case he finds himself on the horn of psychopathology. On the other hand, he could admit that he does have moral intuitions and they play a role in his moral reflection, in which case he finds himself in the same boat as the rest of us.
 
It’s your choice Steve. Are you a morally deficient psychopath or do you also reason ethically in part based on a moral intuition of the natural law?

i) I don’t have an antecedent objection to moral intuition or natural law. What I object to are Rauser’s purely promissory appeals to natural law and moral intuition. He doesn’t do the hard work of actually making a case for his ascriptions.

ii) And one of the problems with his flaccid appeal is that it cuts both ways. Proponents of abortion (to take one example) also use intuitive appeals.

iii) To the extent that I think moral intuition or natural law is sometimes valid, that’s only because I can embed that in the revealed doctrines of Scripture. If the Biblical God exists; if he designed man to function is certain ways, in harmony with his environment; if he endowed man with some tacit moral knowledge, then we at least have the underpinnings for ethical objectivism or natural law ethics.

Mind you, even that is purely programmatic.

iv) By contrast, Rauser is treating natural law or moral intuition as a free-floating criterion, sheared from revelatory foundations, to evaluate revelation. Not only does it lack the necessary grounding, but it actively uproots the only grounding it could possible have. 

Rauser flies by the seat of his pants, but his airplane is on fire.

10 comments:

  1. Steve, your criticism of Rauser on this issue has still failed. That Rauser holds that morality is objective is a completely separate matter from whether or not he can prove that it is so. By your reasoning, no one can rightly claim to be a Christian unless he/she can prove that the so-called core doctrines of Christianity are correct.

    So, can you? Can you prove to me that the resurrection is true, other than by appealing to your own spiritual intuitions?

    And by the way, to say that Rauser's NEBB principle is "radical chic" "culturebound" and "ethnocentric" is, frankly, disgusting. NEBB is on far more solid epistemological footing than inerrancy, it certainly seems to me. I would challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeff said...

    "And by the way, to say that Rauser's NEBB principle is 'radical chic' 'culturebound' and 'ethnocentric' is, frankly, disgusting."

    Frankly, it would behoove you not to act like a twit. Did I say his principle was "radical chic"? No. I said he uses his principle to rubberstamp radical chic causes.

    Try to master that elementary distinction before you huff and puff the next time around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeff said...

    "Steve, your criticism of Rauser on this issue has still failed. That Rauser holds that morality is objective is a completely separate matter from whether or not he can prove that it is so."

    This isn't just an abstract question concerning the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, Rauser constantly invokes his "intuitive" sense of "absolute moral axioms" to justify concrete moral claims, viz. his Philosophia Christi article.

    So, yes, if he's going to apply the general rubric of moral intuition and/or natural law to specific ethical questions, then he needs to provide a connecting argument.

    "Can you prove to me that the resurrection is true, other than by appealing to your own spiritual intuitions?"

    Since when have I appealed to "my spiritual intuitions" to prove the Resurrection?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Did I say his principle was 'radical chic'? No."

    Splendid! So you agree with Dr. Rauser and myself that NEBB is valid, and therefore that the biblical genocide narratives are morally repugnant?

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the NEEB, why is Rauser so opposed to this? Have you read his comments on abortion in his You're Not as Crazy as I Think? Rauser isn't as "understanding" about NEEBBWSS (never ever ever burn babies with saline solution) as he is about NEEB. Moreover, he paints his cherry picked burger eating, BMW driving, fundy with intolerance for having hang ups about the liberal church allowing abortion doctors to be members. Would Rauser allow practicing Israelite baby bashers (granting the euphemisms) as a member of his church?

    Also note here his criticism of Kreeft in a pro-life debate

    http://randalrauser.com/2011/08/while-were-on-the-topic-of-abortion-heres-a-great-debate-and-the-prochoice-guy-wins/

    Perhaps Kreeft should have came in and critiqued abortion by "appealing to the intuition that you ought never ever burn babies with saline solution?" Then would he have won?

    In any case, I believe Rauser's a moral realist. But as the SEP article on moral realism says, this term is basically useless. There's TONS of moral realisms out there. The question shouldn't be "are you a moral realist," it should be, "what's your view of moral realism."

    ReplyDelete
  6. JEFF SAID:

    "Splendid! So you agree with Dr. Rauser and myself that NEBB is valid, and therefore that the biblical genocide narratives are morally repugnant?"

    i) That illustrates my point. The fallacy of jumping from a programmatic principle to a concrete application without any semblance of a connecting argument.

    ii) You also disregard my point about the groundless character of Rauser's appeal.

    I'm not going to waste time on commenters who are too lazy or dishonest to argue in good faith. Either step up your game or go away.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There, there, Steve. I was trying my best impression of the "funny Calvinist" thing you seem to be into.

    Of course I can't speak for Rauser, but I would be very surprised if he believes that all of his "radical chic" intuitions align perfectly with objective morality, whatever that may be (it's certainly not synonymous with biblical morality, whatever that may be). I think Rauser might say that he believes there are objective moral absolutes, and that an example of one of those absolutes is NEBB. So he believes objective moral absolutes exist, even if he can't discern all of them.

    But if you really wish to continue to slap the "ethical subjectivist" label on Rauser, it seems to me you must slap it on yourself as well. Your basic criticism relates to his moral epistemology, and I can't see how your own moral epistemology is any better, strongly tied as it is to the failed (and in principle non-demonstrable, in any event) construct of biblical inerrancy.

    Just to clarify: Do you accept NEBB, or not?

    And if you're wondering, I'm certainly not an atheist. Even worse: I'm one of those dreaded "John Spong type of Christian[s]."

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I'm giving my biography, I suppose I might add, for whatever it's worth, that I was raised a very conservative evangelical. It wasn't happily that I abandoned many of my former beliefs, but eventually I grew very tired of lying for God. And finally I realized that if I was lying, it wasn't for God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JEFF SAID:

    "...I can't see how your own moral epistemology is any better, strongly tied as it is to the failed (and in principle non-demonstrable, in any event) construct of biblical inerrancy."

    I've been defending inerrancy for years. The fact that you're an impressionable young guy who's swept away by hacks like Stark says more about you than Scripture.

    "While I'm giving my biography, I suppose I might add, for whatever it's worth, that I was raised a very conservative evangelical."

    I wasn't.

    "It wasn't happily that I abandoned many of my former beliefs, but eventually I grew very tired of lying for God. And finally I realized that if I was lying, it wasn't for God."

    That's a stereotypical narrative for many apostates.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "hacks like Stark"?

    As they say, put up, or shut up.

    Sorry, I'll admit that was a tad rude of me, just now.

    "That's a stereotypical narrative for many apostates."

    So, what should my narrative be, in your opinion? That I developed a hatred for God in my heart?

    I think I'll check out of hotel Triablogue. My attempts at witty, sarcastic banter are devolving into rudeness. But--and I mean this quite sincerely--I wish you the very best.

    ReplyDelete