Not all of these questions will be relevant to every advocate of homosexual marriage, since different individuals use different arguments. And you may think of some better questions than mine. But these questions are quick, easy ways to redirect conversations and get people to rethink their position on the issue. Depending on who you're interacting with, you may have to go into more depth.
If homosexuals have a right to marriage, don't bisexuals have a right to polygamy? People often bring up something like polygamy in general or incestuous marriage, but I think that connecting polygamy with bisexuality has some advantages. For one thing, bisexuality is closely related to homosexuality, so raising bisexuality makes people think of the dangers of expanding marriage in a context closely related to one in which they've already accepted an expansion. And bisexuality doesn't carry the sort of social stigma that something like polygamy or incest does. If you present people with a bridge between something they accept, homosexuality, and something they don't accept, polygamy, it may cause them to rethink their position and be more cautious and rational about it.
How is it secular to do something like base our system of government on the notion that we're endowed by our Creator with rights or print "In God We Trust" on our currency? Proponents of homosexual marriage often claim that only secular arguments should be considered when the issue is under dispute. Often, an appeal is made to separation of church and state or the people involved in the discussion are assuming such a concept from the start, as part of the background of their discussion. But societies like the United States aren't secular, nor should they be. The government often operates in explicitly religious ways, or more subtly with religious motives, and voters frequently decide how to vote based on religious grounds. When societies legislate against something like murder or theft, their motives often involve what would sometimes be classified as secular arguments, but religious motivations are involved as well. In the United States, most states currently don't recognize homosexual marriage. Do they have some motives that could be categorized as secular? Yes, and they have some religious motivations. The idea that governments and voters can't make judgments and act on matters of public policy based on religious grounds is irrational, unlivable, unconstitutional, and contrary to how our nation has always operated and continues to operate.
Sometimes people will try to get around what I've outlined above by shifting the focus from secularism to religious pluralism. Supposedly, it's acceptable to do something religious, like base our system of government on the notion that we're endowed by our Creator with rights or print "In God We Trust" on our currency, because such actions are religiously pluralistic. But religious pluralism isn't the same as secularism. By changing the subject to religious pluralism, the previous argument is being abandoned. And in what way is something like printing "In God We Trust" on our currency religiously pluralistic? Not all religious belief systems involve God or a God active in human affairs, in whom we'd trust. If all that's required is that a governmental action be religiously pluralistic in the sense that it reflects the beliefs of more than one religion, then opposition to homosexual marriage qualifies. It's not as though Christianity is the only religious belief system that opposes homosexual marriage.
But other people will argue that while secularism isn't required, it's beneficial from a practical standpoint when arguing over an issue like homosexual marriage. If you get into a dispute on the subject with an atheist or liberal Protestant, for example, that person won't agree with your religious arguments. But why would he have to agree with those arguments upfront? I can make a case for my view of Christianity, then make a case for the view of homosexual marriage that follows from my Christianity. It's not as though I have to limit myself to whatever my opponent already agrees with me about at the beginning of the discussion. An opponent of homosexual marriage may choose to limit himself to arguments of a more secular nature in some contexts. That could make sense. But there's no requirement that he do so in every context.
Christians can essentially approach this subject much the same way Jesus approached the issue of taxing in Matthew 22:15-22. Show me a dime. What does it say on it? I'll make my case against homosexual marriage just as secular as the government's currency. As long as we're printing "In God We Trust" on our currency (among other religious activities by the government), don't talk to me about secularism.
"In God We Trust" should not be on our money, but "E Pluribus Unum" which I think would be better. We are not a Christian country. You could say we are a secular nation with religious believers and founded upon virtually secular documents, I think. And personally, I wish marriage would go away entirely. It's mostly a religious and cultural construct that is not necessarily synonymous with personal love and commitment (more of a financial contract, really, in our nation). But even my more liberal friends don't agree with me on this.
ReplyDeleteByron Smith wrote:
Delete"'In God We Trust' should not be on our money, but 'E Pluribus Unum' which I think would be better. We are not a Christian country. You could say we are a secular nation with religious believers and founded upon virtually secular documents, I think."
Your desire to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency doesn't prevent its presence there from being an obstacle to your claim that "we are a secular nation". You refer to "secular" founding documents, but ignore my citation of the religious content of the Declaration of Independence. Steve Hays has given other examples of the historical problems with your assessment. More examples could be cited (e.g., the opening of many of our sessions of government with prayer). Read the religious proclamations issued by our earliest presidents for days of prayer and thanksgiving and such. Some of those proclamations were explicitly Christian.
And my argument doesn't depend on whether we're "a Christian country". As I explained above, religious opposition to homosexual marriage at the governmental level could be justified on the grounds of religious pluralism, even if there were no exclusively Christian motivation involved. Christianity isn't the only religious belief system that opposes homosexual marriage.
Byron Smith
Delete"And personally, I wish marriage would go away entirely. It's mostly a religious and cultural construct that is not necessarily synonymous with personal love and commitment (more of a financial contract, really, in our nation). But even my more liberal friends don't agree with me on this."
From a secular standpoint, your view of marriage makes sense. However, the fact that so many unbelievers continue to marry and remarry exposes the inadequacy of secularism to address the deepest yearnings and aspirations of the human heart.
Byron Smith
ReplyDelete"You could say we are a secular nation with religious believers and founded upon virtually secular documents, I think."
You're confusing the role of the Federal gov't with state gov't. The point of the establishment clause and free exercise clause was to ensure the religious autonomy of the states. To take one historical example: the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in Georgia by an act of that state's legislature. That's not secular, even at the political level.
Also, on the Federal plane, the early Republic patronized Christianity. For historical background:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0472_0038_ZD2.html
"so raising bisexuality makes people think of the dangers of expanding marriage in a context closely related to one in which they've already accepted an expansion."
ReplyDeleteIf members of the same gender can enter into the spousal relation with one another, then homosexual marriage doesn't constitute an expansion of what counts as a valid marriage. At most, it'd be an expansion of what many recognize to be a valid marriage. Thus, this strikes me as question begging. I.e. it seems to assume same-sex marriage is an expansion of what is a valid marriage.
But, how would legally honoring certain homosexual relationships as marriages lead to legally honoring certain polygamous relationships as marriages? It seems most people oppose polygamy because they think the marital relationship is supposed to be monogamous. But, that seems entirely irrelevant to homosexuality.
Because I fail to see any link between homosexuality and polygamy, I'm inclined to parody your question: if homosexuals don't have a right to marry, why do heteroracials? Denying homosexual marriage is a potentially dangerous restriction. etc. Perhaps that's disanalogous, but I don't see how.
Philothumper wrote:
Delete"If members of the same gender can enter into the spousal relation with one another, then homosexual marriage doesn't constitute an expansion of what counts as a valid marriage."
Whether the expansion is an expansion from my definition of marriage or somebody else's makes no significant difference to the point I was focused on. My argument doesn't depend on the issue you're raising.
Furthermore, we shouldn't just ask whether homosexual marriage is consistent with previous wording or concepts under the definitions that homosexual marriage advocates are now reading back into those contexts. Rather, we should ask what definitions were originally intended. When people framed marriage laws for various states in earlier centuries, for example, are we to believe that they were leaving their definitions so wide open that homosexual marriage would be able to fit through? That's dubious. It's far more likely that they intended heterosexuality to be assumed at the outset, even where they didn't spell it out. In that sense, homosexual marriage advocates aren't just expanding marriage from my viewpoint. They're also expanding it from the standpoint of lawmakers of the past, as well as from the standpoint of individuals who communicated their view of marriage in other contexts, including people who left their terminology vague enough for homosexual marriage advocates to now read homosexual marriage into the text.
You write:
"But, how would legally honoring certain homosexual relationships as marriages lead to legally honoring certain polygamous relationships as marriages?"
It depends on the arguments being used by advocates of homosexual marriage. See the opening of my initial post, where I explained that different points I'm making will have different levels of applicability in different contexts.
You write:
"It seems most people oppose polygamy because they think the marital relationship is supposed to be monogamous. But, that seems entirely irrelevant to homosexuality."
People oppose polygamy for a variety of reasons, and some of those would be applicable to homosexuality (e.g., the sort of religious argumentation I addressed above).
The issue here isn't whether the reasons for opposing polygamy are the same as the reasons for opposing homosexuality. Rather, the issue is whether some arguments used by homosexual marriage advocates imply an acceptance of polygamy. You can find examples of a homosexual marriage advocate using such arguments in the archives of this blog. See the thread here, for example.
You write:
"Because I fail to see any link between homosexuality and polygamy, I'm inclined to parody your question: if homosexuals don't have a right to marry, why do heteroracials?"
You'll have to explain how your question is analogous to the question I raised, in light of what I've said about my question above.
Jason Engwer"
Delete"Furthermore, we shouldn't just ask whether homosexual marriage is consistent with previous wording or concepts under the definitions that homosexual marriage advocates are now reading back into those contexts. Rather, we should ask what definitions were originally intended. When people framed marriage laws for various states in earlier centuries, for example, are we to believe that they were leaving their definitions so wide open that homosexual marriage would be able to fit through? That's dubious. It's far more likely that they intended heterosexuality to be assumed at the outset, even where they didn't spell it out."
To corroborate Jason's point:
"Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Philothumper:
Delete“If members of the same gender can enter into the spousal relation with one another, then homosexual marriage doesn't constitute an expansion of what counts as a valid marriage.”
It constitutes an expansion of the status quo ante.
“At most, it'd be an expansion of what many recognize to be a valid marriage.”
Jason’s argument takes that for granted, then proposes an argument from analogy which ought to cause some who “recognize” homosexual marriage to be a valid marriage to reconsider their facile assumptions.
“Thus, this strikes me as question begging. I.e. it seems to assume same-sex marriage is an expansion of what is a valid marriage.”
At this stage of the argument, I believe Jason is speaking in de facto terms rather than de jure terms.
“But, how would legally honoring certain homosexual relationships as marriages lead to legally honoring certain polygamous relationships as marriages? It seems most people oppose polygamy because they think the marital relationship is supposed to be monogamous. But, that seems entirely irrelevant to homosexuality.”
Of course, most folks used to think the marital relationship was supposed to be heterosexual. So Jason is using polygamy as a wedge issue. How can they consistently support homosexual marriage but oppose polygamous marriage?
“Because I fail to see any link between homosexuality and polygamy…”
The question is whether some who support homosexual marriage oppose polygamous marriage. If so, the onus lies on them to explain the difference.
“I'm inclined to parody your question: if homosexuals don't have a right to marry, why do heteroracials?”
If you’re comparing homosexual marriage to interracial marriage, you need to explain how that’s analogous.
“Denying homosexual marriage is a potentially dangerous restriction.”
In what respect?
>>"But, how would legally honoring certain homosexual relationships as marriages lead to legally honoring certain polygamous relationships as marriages? It seems most people oppose polygamy because they think the marital relationship is supposed to be monogamous. But, that seems entirely irrelevant to homosexuality."
ReplyDeleteIt looks like you're pointing out that most people oppose polygamous marriages because most people oppose non-monogamous (polygamous) marriages. How is that a justification for opposing polygamous marriages? Notice that most people oppose homosexual marriage because they think the marital relationship is supposed to be heterosexual.
The reasons people often offer for homosexual marriages also work for polygamous marriages. So saying they oppose polygamy because they oppose polygamy doesn't look like a very good reason to continue opposing polygamy when they already have reasons for supporting (the same reasons they support homosexual marriage).
>>"If members of the same gender can enter into the spousal relation with one another, then homosexual marriage doesn't constitute an expansion of what counts as a valid marriage."
ReplyDeleteSo you believe marriage is a natural institution that is not defined by a group of persons, society or government, but rather described?
Many people who support same-sex marriage don't take that route. They believe marriage is a social construct, something humans defined into existence. But in that case then it is the case that that homosexual marriage constitutes an expansion of what counts as a valid marriage, because only what fits the current definition counts as a valid instance.
And I'm skeptical that you could make the case that marriage is a natural institution--e.g., in the way Girgis, Anderson, and George do or in the way Blankenhorn does--that can include homosexuality while making sense of the institution as it has existed throughout human cultures.
As a matter of empirical reality, polygamy is more prevalent in countries that are the most anti-homosexual. For example, polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Northern Sudan and Somalia. In all these countries all homosexuality is punishable by death, or by an extremely heavy penalty. In contrast, in all the countries where same-sex marriage is legal, polygamy is fully outlawed and illegal e.g. Canada, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, France etc. So the correlation between legalised polygamy and legalised same-sex marriage is strongly negative, rather than positive.
ReplyDeletePolygamy is a feature of oppressive, backward societies with very poor human rights records. Same-sex marriage is a feature of decent, progressive societies with very good human rights records.
Brian Barrington writes:
Delete"Polygamy is a feature of oppressive, backward societies with very poor human rights records. Same-sex marriage is a feature of decent, progressive societies with very good human rights records."
The United States is arguably the best force for good in the modern world, as far as nations are concerned, and homosexual marriage still isn't recognized in most states here. Some polling shows acceptance of homosexual marriage by a small majority or plurality of Americans, but that polling is a recent development. The United States had a leading role in the world for many years before that development of support for homosexual marriage.
One of the major factors in differentiating the nations you mentioned is the contrast between Islam and Christianity. Other factors are involved as well, such as political philosophies and traditional ethical standards. The "decent, progressive societies" you refer to were such before the rise of homosexual marriage. And homosexual marriage isn't a product of what's good in those societies. Rather, it's a leech, much like pornography, atheist organizations, and other corruptions that are allowed to flourish in such societies. There are tradeoffs involved. We allow one thing in exchange for another. It doesn't follow that everything that's allowed is good in itself or represents the culture as a whole.
Brian Barrington said:
DeleteAs a matter of empirical reality...
I hate to break it to you, Brian, but "empirical reality" doesn't necessarily correlate with morality.
Brian Barrington:
Delete"Polygamy is a feature of oppressive, backward societies with very poor human rights records. Same-sex marriage is a feature of decent, progressive societies with very good human rights records."
As an atheist, how do you ground your moral assertions?
Brian Barrington
Delete"As a matter of empirical reality, polygamy is more prevalent in countries that are the most anti-homosexual."
Irrelevant. Jason's argument is keyed to American/Western culture rather than Islamic culture.
Brian Barrington
Delete"Polygamy is a feature of oppressive, backward societies with very poor human rights records. Same-sex marriage is a feature of decent, progressive societies with very good human rights records."
i) That begs the question.
ii) Same-sex marriage is morally retrograde.
iii) Same-sex marriage is a feature of societies that also promote abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, organ-harvesting, &c. That's a pretty poor human rights record.
In addition to what Jason said, a lot in these societies that you have in mind would argue you against their being decent progress of societies. Take abortion as just one example. Any society that has murder-on-demand of children can hardly be said to be decent and progressive.
ReplyDeleteWell, my main point is that the whole attempt to make some sort of connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy is bogus.
ReplyDeleteMore generally, it’s difficult to see what all the fuss is about concerning same-sex marraige – it means some homosexuals can now get married, and heterosexuals can continue getting married as before. Legalising same-sex marriage is no big deal. My guess is it will continue to be legalised more and more and in time to come people will look back and be baffled that it was once controversial at all – in the same way we are now baffled that legalising homoosexuality was once a controversial idea, or that votes for women was once a controversial idea, or that inter-racial marriage was once a controversial idea, or that abolishing slavery was once a controversial idea, and so on.
Brian Barrington"
Delete"Well, my main point is that the whole attempt to make some sort of connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy is bogus."
Do you oppose polygamous marriage?
Actually your appeal to the empirical data is the only thing shown to be bogus here.
ReplyDeleteArguments have been made showing what all the fuss is about both on this website and other places. You just ignore that and and then imply some parallel to othersocial issues without argument. Are you serious or are you just trying to troll Triablogue?
More generally, it’s difficult to see what all the fuss is about concerning same-sex marraige – it means some homosexuals can now get married,
ReplyDeleteWas there ever a law against it?
Was there ever a law against treating circles as if they were squares?
DeleteNo, I'm serious - I genuinely think same-sex marriage is no big deal and that in years to come people will be baffled that it was at all controversial.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, in places where polygamy is legal, homosexually tends to be punishable by death or some other heavy penalty, whereas in all the places where same-sex marriage is legal, polygamy is illegal and abolished. I don't see how pointing this out is bogus.
Brian Barrington said:
DeleteThe fact is, in places where polygamy is legal, homosexually tends to be punishable by death or some other heavy penalty, whereas in all the places where same-sex marriage is legal, polygamy is illegal and abolished.
For starters, you're equivocating. Homosexuality isn't identical to same-sex marriage.
You're pointing that out isn't what was shown to be bogus. Your trying to make some connection to decent, progressive societies, same-sex marriage, and undercut the point about pro-same-sex marriage reasoning and polygamy is what was shown to be bogus. Why should I have to spell that out for you? Did you honestly not see that and think we we only discussing polygamous societies in the abstract? It seems your not willing to engage this honestly so I'll not waste any more time.
ReplyDeleteI am discussing polygamous societies in the CONCRETE, not in the abstract, and those polygamous societies viciously persecute homosexuals. Similarly, if we look at same-sex marriage societies in the concrete, rather than in the abstract, we see that without exception polygamy is illegal in those places. So you are the one who is being abstract and who is basing your opposition to same-sex marriage on mere abstractions, rather than on anything concrete.
ReplyDeleteBrian Barrington said:
Deletepolygamous societies viciously persecute homosexuals
So did Nazi Germany.
Likewise an atheistic society like Stalin's Soviet Union (e.g. Article 21). I guess we should infer something about atheism then.
So you are the one who is being abstract and who is basing your opposition to same-sex marriage on mere abstractions, rather than on anything concrete.
We could turn the question around and ask you why you're basing your support of same-sex marriage on "empirical data" in lieu of objective morality.
As an atheist, why do you care whether some societies "viciously persecute" homosexuals? We're all just a bunch of animals. And the animal kingdom is pretty vicious.
DeleteIndeed, why do you bother to comment on these posts? Do you believe in moral absolutes?
Besides, as an atheist, what objective moral grounds do you stand on in order to criticize others?
DeleteI'm referring to it as in the abstract because it's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Haddon had given reasons why, i added one of my own. How could you be so dense?
ReplyDeleteHaddon = Jason. A liberal must have programmed my autocorrect, because it's logic is BS.
ReplyDeleteBrian Barrington,
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems here is that you keep ignoring the details of our counterarguments. Instead of interacting with the details, you repeat what you said earlier or make other claims that don't do much to interact with our responses.
Given how recent of a phenomenon legalized homosexual marriage is, it doesn't make sense to expect all of the ramifications of it to be in place already. Changes often occur incrementally. And some of the arguments used to support homosexual marriage could also be applied to polygamy, as well as incestuous marriage, marriage between children, etc. The unwillingness of nations to consistently apply their reasoning so far isn't much of an assurance that they won't be more consistent in the future.
You tell us that homosexual marriage is "no big deal", without interacting with the counterarguments. You draw analogies between opposition to homosexual marriage and opposition to women's rights, interracial marriage, etc., without arguing for their allegedly analogous nature. The fact that we're opposing a change that's been proposed (homosexual marriage) doesn't prove that we're opposing a change that's comparable to the changes you've cited (women being allowed to vote, etc.). Not all change is good. Just as you're citing good changes, we could cite others that are bad. Whether homosexual marriage is a good or bad change is something that has to be argued, not just assumed.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage is a pretty minor social change – much more minor than legalising homosexuality, giving women votes, legalising inter-racial marriage etc. Legalising same-sex marriage does no harm to society and has a modest benefit because it helps improve the lives of some homosexuals and reduces their marginalisation. What harm does same-sex marriage do? Heterosexuals can continue to get married as they did previously. The societies where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed. The states in the US where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed. Nor is there any sign of them collapsing due to same-sex marriage – the overwhelming sense is that it is no big deal.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument opponents to same-sex marriage use is this: legalising it might lead to legalising other practices that would be harmful to society. This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that the case against same-sex marriage is based almost entirely on the slippery slope fallacy is a sure sign that the argument has been lost. Opponents can’t make the case against same-sex marriage itself so they come up with a bunch of red herrings about grannies marrying their grandchildren or their pet dogs, or something irrelevant like that. Well, if legalising these other practices (the ones allegedly down the proverbial “slippery slope”) would be harmful to society then they should not be legalised – but same-sex marriage itself is not harmful to society, so it is right to legalise it.
Brian Barrington
Delete“Legalising same-sex marriage does no harm to society and has a modest benefit because it helps improve the lives of some homosexuals and reduces their marginalisation.”
Homosexuals ought to be marginalized. A socially dysfunctional, self-destructive behavior ought to be stigmatized. That’s a salutary deterrent.
“What harm does same-sex marriage do?”
It harms adopted children.
It harms businesses which are forced to cater to homosexual “couples” on pain of fines, lawsuits, &c.
It harms students and employees who will be suspended, expelled, or fired unless they express public approval of SSM.
“The main argument opponents to same-sex marriage use is this: legalising it might lead to legalising other practices that would be harmful to society. This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that the case against same-sex marriage is based almost entirely on the slippery slope fallacy is a sure sign that the argument has been lost.”
i) I just gave examples that aren’t based on the slippery slope argument.
ii) Opponents of SSM aren’t using a slippery slope argument. Rather, they are using arguments from analogy. They are pointing out that reasons given for SSM are analogous to other types of “marriage,” viz. polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, pedophilic marriage, pederastic marriage.
iii) Even if opponents of SSM were using a slippery slope argument, that would be justifiable.
a) To begin with, social radicals lie about their true intentions. They employ an incrementalist strategy. They deny that normalizing a taboo practice will lead to normalizing another taboo practice. They discount that as “alarmist rhetoric.” Yet, in fact, they do use normalizing one taboo practice as a foothold to normalizing other taboo practices.
b) Likewise, it is rational to take prudential considerations into account when assessing proposed changes in social policy. It is rational to consider likely resultant harms.
If we cut funding for routine bridge inspection, it’s not inevitable that bridges will collapse. Yet it would be imprudent to disregard that potential consequence.
iv) Finally, you’re ducking the question of why, as an atheist, you’re entitled to moralize about SSM. Unless atheism can underwrite objective moral norms, you’ve disqualified yourself from rendering value judgments about public policy.
Normalizing same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage itself by obscuring it. This makes it harder to achieve the goods that marriage achieves. If marriage is redefined along the lines of some other relationship (e.g., deep friendship) it also ends up obscuring and harming that relationship.
DeleteThis argument is further developed by Girgis, Anderson, and George in the book What is Marriage?
Brian Barrington said:
DeleteThe legalisation of same-sex marriage is a pretty minor social change
That's an opinion.
much more minor than legalising homosexuality, giving women votes, legalising inter-racial marriage etc.
As we've pointed out to you on several occasions now, you haven't argued how these are analogous. You just keep repeating yourself.
Why do you keep repeating yourself? Do you have deficient reading comprehension? Does what others say go in one ear and come out the other? Is interaction with others a foreign concept to you? Are you some sort of spambot?
Legalising same-sex marriage does no harm to society
That begs the question.
and has a modest benefit because it helps improve the lives of some homosexuals and reduces their marginalisation.
I would think legalizing pedophilia would help improve the lives of some pedophiles and reduce their marginalization.
I would think legalizing rape would help improve the lives of some rapists and reduce their marginalization.
I would think legalizing murder would help improve the lives of some serial killers and reduce their marginalization.
By your lights, we should legalize pedophilia, rape, and murder "because it helps improve the lives of some [pedophiles, rapists, and murderers] and reduces their marginalisation."
What harm does same-sex marriage do?
DeleteAt the risk of stating the obvious, a same-sex marriage would not be able to conceive their own children. They'd have to use medical science and technology or adoption to obtain a child. If many or most marriages were same-sex marriages, there'd be no children conceived in these marriages without outside assistance (e.g. IVF). That has harmful implications for society.
Insertive anal sex is a common method of intercourse in male-male same-sex marriages. Insertive anal sex (particulary uncircumcised) carries medical risks and harms. For example, the CDC notes: "In fact, unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus. In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis."
Plus, it's quite arguable homosexual behavior is a form of self-destructive behavior (e.g. there's rampant promiscuity among many homosexuals, likewise homosexuals are at a significantly elevated risk of substance abuse including drugs and alcohol in contrast to heterosexuals as they often abuse substances to heighten their homosexual experiences, major depression is common among homosexuals, the risk of suicide is double in homosexuals if we want to be conservative but some estimates are as high as six times). If homosexual behavior is a form of self-destructive behavior, then it'd be best to steer people clear of it.
The societies where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed. The states in the US where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed. Nor is there any sign of them collapsing due to same-sex marriage – the overwhelming sense is that it is no big deal.
Say we legalize rape and pedophilia. Say the nation does not collapse as a result of legalizing rape and pedophilia. Say in fact the nation thrives. How would the uptick in the welfare and prosperity of the nation morally justify rape and pedophilia?
The main argument opponents to same-sex marriage use is this: legalising it might lead to legalising other practices that would be harmful to society. This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that the case against same-sex marriage is based almost entirely on the slippery slope fallacy is a sure sign that the argument has been lost.
A slippery slope fallacy is when it has not been established to be true that B inevitably follows A. However, if it is true that B inevitably follows A, then how is it fallacious to say B inevitably follows A?
Opponents can’t make the case against same-sex marriage itself so they come up with a bunch of red herrings about grannies marrying their grandchildren or their pet dogs, or something irrelevant like that.
What's ironic is your atheism undermines and arguably overturns your case for same-sex marriage. If your atheism is true, then there are no objective moral rights or wrongs. Given your atheism, it's fine for you to discriminate against homosexuals if not far worse. Given your atheism, there's no significant moral difference between the person who loves homosexuals and the person who hates homosexuals.
Homosexuals are human beings who are not necessarily harming anyone or causing anyone suffering, so there is no good reason to marginalise them or persecute them. So unlike you, I am against marginalising and persecuting homosexuals because I do not desire to see other human beings suffer for no good reason.
ReplyDeleteThe question of moral objectivity is so massive it would deserve a separate thread since discussing it will take us away from the topic at hand, but we can discuss it if you wish. For starters, here are some issues you need to address when trying to base objective morality on God or some religious text, which is what you presumably try to do:
In order to base your morality on God you have to first demonstrate that God exists. If God does not exist then you can’t base your morality on God.
In order to base your morality on God you have to first demonstrate that God (i.e. the supernatural being you believe exists) is good. If God exists and is not good, then you can’t base your morality on God.
In order to base your morality on what God says, you have to know for sure what God says concerning what is good and bad, and to be able to demonstrate that this is what God actually said, and that it was not just made up by humans, as could easily be the case. There are many religious texts which purport to tell us what God says about morality – how do we know which, if any of them, actually tell us what God says about morality? Or if someone claims that God has told them what is morally good and morally bad, how do we know that this is what has really happened? You would need to demonstrate that your particular moral beliefs actually come from God.
In order to base your morality on God, you have to explain why, if God really has declared something is good, that means it is good, and why if God says something is wrong, why that means it is wrong. You would need to explain why we should let this being decide what we believe, assuming this being exists at all. Maybe this being is wrong - we still need to evaluate what the being says, do we not, in order to find out whether the being is good or not, or whether their commands are good or not?
Religious texts frequently make contradictory moral claims (“turn the other cheek” versus “an eye for an eye”) and people have to choose between the two claims - that requires human reasoning and human interpretation.
Even the commands themselves require interpretation e.g. thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder. What qualifies as murder? Who decides that? On what basis is the decision made?
(continued in next post)
Brian Barrington
Delete“Homosexuals are human beings who are not necessarily harming anyone or causing anyone suffering, so there is no good reason to marginalise them or persecute them.”
Why not? According to you, humans are just animals. There’s often a pecking order within species, viz. alphas, betas, omegas.
“For starters, here are some issues you need to address when trying to base objective morality on God or some religious text, which is what you presumably try to do.”
For starters, Brian, you have your cue card objections to Christianity. You act as if Christians don’t have answers to those objections. Are you just monumentally ignorant?
I’ve been blogging since 2004, mostly on apologetics. I’ve debated many atheists. Whipping out your cue card objections won’t work on me.
“In order to base your morality on God you have to first demonstrate that God exists.”
That’s the stock-n-trade of Christian apologetics and philosophical theology. Try again.
“If God does not exist then you can’t base your morality on God.”
If God doesn’t exist, then morality has no objective basis.
“In order to base your morality on God you have to first demonstrate that God (i.e. the supernatural being you believe exists) is good. If God exists and is not good, then you can’t base your morality on God.”
That’s circular, Brian. How can you evaluate the goodness of God unless you have a moral standard? Where does that come from? How is that grounded?
“In order to base your morality on what God says, you have to know for sure what God says concerning what is good and bad, and to be able to demonstrate that this is what God actually said, and that it was not just made up by humans, as could easily be the case. There are many religious texts which purport to tell us what God says about morality – how do we know which, if any of them, actually tell us what God says about morality? Or if someone claims that God has told them what is morally good and morally bad, how do we know that this is what has really happened? You would need to demonstrate that your particular moral beliefs actually come from God.”
Once again, Brian, you’re posing objections that have been dealt with in Christian apologetics. Try again.
“In order to base your morality on God, you have to explain why, if God really has declared something is good, that means it is good, and why if God says something is wrong, why that means it is wrong.”
If you’re alluding to the Euthyphro dilemma, I’ve dealt with that before, as have others. Try again.
“You would need to explain why we should let this being decide what we believe, assuming this being exists at all.”
That’s dealt with in natural law theology. Try again.
“Maybe this being is wrong - we still need to evaluate what the being says, do we not, in order to find out whether the being is good or not, or whether their commands are good or not?”
That’s circular, Brian. What’s your moral standard by which you render that value judgment?
“Religious texts frequently make contradictory moral claims (‘turn the other cheek’ versus ‘an eye for an eye’) and people have to choose between the two claims - that requires human reasoning and human interpretation.”
The assertion that Scripture contradicts itself has often been dealt with in the exegetical literature. Try again.
“Even the commands themselves require interpretation e.g. thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder. What qualifies as murder? Who decides that? On what basis is the decision made?”
That’s where OT case law comes into play. Try again.
If it turned out that God does not exist would you really suddenly start murdering, raping and harming people?
ReplyDeleteIf it turned out that God does not exist would you suddenly stop loving your wife and leave her because it would mean that there is no point in being married to her? Do you not think it’s possible that our moral systems derive from human nature, from the fact that we are social beings who must live together? That would explain why every society ever studied by anthropologists has a prohibition against murder and rape.
If God is necessary for what you regard as moral goodness, then how do you explain the fact that so many people who do not believe in God behave just as well (based on your moral beliefs) as those who believe in God? For example, many people who do not believe in God and who do not believe in eternal damnation do not go around murdering and raping people, even though, according to you, these things are bad because God says so, and, according to you, these people have no reason whatsoever not to engage in the behaviour.
(An interesting fact related to this: If The USA kicked out all atheists, it would lose 93% of its scientific community and 0.3% of its prison community).
You would also need to demonstrate that all the moral philosophies that are not based on a personal God are false or untenable, such as Buddhist ethics, Taoist ethics, Confucian ethics, Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, Hume’s moral philosophy, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, pragmatic ethics, virtue ethics, common sense morality and so forth.
Brian Barrington
Delete“If it turned out that God does not exist would you really suddenly start murdering, raping and harming people?”
i) Why do you cite those examples, Brian? Are you admitting that those are instances of wrongdoing? If so, what’s your basis?
ii) Aren’t we just animals? Isn’t rape, “murder,” and harming members of one’s own species commonplace in the animal kingdom?
iii) Whether, as an atheist, I’d murder someone involves a cost/benefit analysis. What’s the risk? Depending on the incentive or provocation, if I thought I could get away with it, why not?
What if the perfect crime is very lucrative? Drug lords murder people to maintain their lavish lifestyle.
“If it turned out that God does not exist would you suddenly stop loving your wife and leave her because it would mean that there is no point in being married to her?”
Brian, that’s just chemistry. Are you saying sexual promiscuity is wrong? If so, why so?
“Do you not think it’s possible that our moral systems derive from human nature, from the fact that we are social beings who must live together? That would explain why every society ever studied by anthropologists has a prohibition against murder and rape.”
That’s not a reason for thinking rape and murder are objectively wrong. Try again.
Moreover, your example backfires. Many societies are warrior cultures which rape and murder members of the out-group without the slightest compunction.
“If God is necessary for what you regard as moral goodness, then how do you explain the fact that so many people who do not believe in God behave just as well (based on your moral beliefs) as those who believe in God?”
That’s confused, Brian. The question at issue isn’t how people behave, but whether there’s a moral warrant for how they behave. A de jure question, not a de facto question. Are you unable to absorb that elementary distinction?
“For example, many people who do not believe in God and who do not believe in eternal damnation do not go around murdering and raping people, even though, according to you, these things are bad because God says so, and, according to you, these people have no reason whatsoever not to engage in the behaviour.”
As a matter of fact, atheists do go around murdering people, viz. abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, Maoism, Stalinism, Cambodia, N. Korea.
“You would also need to demonstrate that all the moral philosophies that are not based on a personal God are false or untenable, such as Buddhist ethics, Taoist ethics, Confucian ethics, Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, Hume’s moral philosophy, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, pragmatic ethics, virtue ethics, common sense morality and so forth.”
Utilitarianism justifies killing for the common good. What about Buddhist ethics? Weren’t the Shogun Buddhists? How did Chinese peasants fare under Confucian ethics? Wasn’t Alexander the Great Aristotle’s star student?
What about Epicureanism? Doesn’t that take the position that death is harmless? If so, why is murder wrong?
You throw these decoys out the window without bothering to ask yourself if they are even consistent with your claims.
Brian Barrington
Delete"You would also need to demonstrate that all the moral philosophies that are not based on a personal God are false or untenable, such as Buddhist ethics, Taoist ethics, Confucian ethics, Aristotle’s ethical philosophy, Hume’s moral philosophy, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, pragmatic ethics, virtue ethics, common sense morality and so forth."
That's a diversionary tactic. I don't need to demonstrate that inasmuch as many secular thinkers admit that atheism entails moral relativism or moral nihilism. You act as if this is my Christian characterization. Are you just ignorant of what your own side is saying?
Brian Barrington
Delete"(An interesting fact related to this: If The USA kicked out all atheists, it would lose 93% of its scientific community and 0.3% of its prison community)."
We could also discuss the incarceration rates for blacks and hispanics. And how does that correlate with atheism?
Furthermore, does Brian think that the local pimps and drug dealers in his area believe in God?
DeleteBrian Barrington
ReplyDelete"(An interesting fact related to this: If The USA kicked out all atheists, it would lose 93% of its scientific community and 0.3% of its prison community)."
Here's another stat:
"The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God...Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent)."
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml
So is it your position that medical science isn't scientific?
Brian Barrington, that prison statistic is incredibly misleading, only counting people who tick the "atheist" box as atheists, when many who tick the "no religion" box (around 30%) are also atheists. They certainly couldn't be described as having a religious code of ethics. Indeed, for the purposes of this thread you could even include agnostics, as they don't think God's existence is knowable so they are also presumably impervious to claimed divine ethical codes.
ReplyDeleteAlso we have atheist scientist like Dawkins and Krauss who hold to atheism for embarrassingly naive philosophical reasons, not scientific reasons. Even if 93% of scientists are atheists that doesn't in itself tell us anything interesting. Maybe scientifically minded people make dumb philosophers who end up rejecting philosophical arguments for God for philosophically dumb reasons.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the (anti-)religious inclinations of the scientific academy only tells us how a provincial, Western, white, wealthy, male-dominated social group selects its members. Nothing about that statistic is useful in evaluating the truth of religion.
DeleteBrian Barrington,
ReplyDeleteYou're a time waster. If you want to keep posting here, change your behavior.
You've repeatedly been asked to give us an objective basis for your moral claims as an atheist, and you still haven't done it. You keep ignoring much of what the opponents of homosexual marriage have argued, in this thread and elsewhere, and instead keep giving us your own tendentious description of what they supposedly believe. You ask questions that have already been answered. You keep using each new post to hit the reset button, stating your beliefs over again, with little or no support, while largely ignoring the counterarguments already offered.
You point out that societies haven't "collapsed" as a result of homosexual marriage. Who said they would? And why would a society have to collapse in order for harm to have been done? Does every societal action you oppose - tax policy you disagree with, court rulings that contradict your views, etc. - cause society to quickly collapse? If not, does it therefore follow that you were wrong to oppose those things? Why don't you interact with what I said earlier about how short a time homosexual marriage has been in place, which means that expecting something like a collapse this soon is absurd? Why don't you interact with research like what's discussed in the article by Dan McLaughlin that I keep citing? Why don't you interact with the many counterarguments you've already been offered by a few different people who have responded to you repeatedly in this thread?
Regarding atheism and science, see Paul Manata's comments on pages 42-44 of The Infidel Delusion.
ReplyDeleteSteve, there is a lot here, so I will just need to limit myself to a few observations.
ReplyDeleteNearly all human beings, regardless of their religious beliefs, have by nature the moral emotions of empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, altruism, a concern for the well-being of other human beings, a desire not to see others suffer for no reason and so on. These emotions come from human nature, because we are social beings who live together and who must co-operate with each other in order to flourish.
Something like 2 to 4 percent of men are sociopaths who do not have the normal moral emotions. There is no point in trying to reason morally with these people since they lack the moral faculties present in other humans. For the same reason, there is no point in appealing to religiously based morality to try and change them either - they either do not believe in God or they think that God has commanded them to do what they are doing – so all the rest of us can do is protect ourselves from such people by locking them up and so on.
Regarding the question of how you would behave if it turned out that God does not exist, as far as I can gather you are saying that if this turned out to be the case you would start murdering and raping people, and you would leave your wife. Fair enough – you are probably better off believing in God so!
It is not a “diversionary tactic” to point out that there are many non-relativist moral systems that are not God-based.
The “diversionary tactic” came from you, since it was you who changed the topic from a pragmatic (and possibly useful) discussion about SSM to an abstract (and probably fruitless) discussion about metaethics.
Marxists were not moral relativists. They were moral absolutists.
Arguably moral absolutists, who are certain they know what is right and convinced of their moral rectitude, cause more human suffering than moral relativists.
Some atheists are moral relativists and others are not. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they do not believe in God.
"Exegesis" is human interpretation and human reasoning, and this is the point – our moral views are the result of human interpretation and human reasoning.
The circularity comes from saying that what God says is good because God says it.
All of this assumes we know with any certainty what God thinks, and this is really where the whole argument falls down, since we do not know with any certainty what God thinks (despite your pretence that this has been conclusively “dealt with” somewhere), even if we assume that God exists, which is also something we don't know with certainty.
“We could also discuss the incarceration rates for blacks and hispanics. And how does that correlate with atheism?”
I am not sure what you are getting at here. As far as I understand it, blacks and hispanics are at least as likely to be theists as whites.
“Is it your position that medical science isn't scientific?” No. I don’t see how you would conclude that. The medical science that doctors practice is based on scientific research, not on the Bible or on prayer or whatever.
Brian Barrington
Delete“Nearly all human beings, regardless of their religious beliefs, have by nature the moral emotions of empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, altruism, a concern for the well-being of other human beings, a desire not to see others suffer for no reason and so on. These emotions come from human nature, because we are social beings who live together and who must co-operate with each other in order to flourish.”
Do you lack the intellectual aptitude to grasp the real issue? To say that nearly all human beings naturally have moral emotions does nothing to demonstrate that their moral emotions correspond to objective right and wrong. According to atheism, human nature is the product of social conditioning and a mindless, amoral evolutionary process.
“Regarding the question of how you would behave if it turned out that God does not exist, as far as I can gather you are saying that if this turned out to be the case you would start murdering and raping people, and you would leave your wife. Fair enough – you are probably better off believing in God so!”
Are you going out of your way to misrepresent what I said? Is there some reason you ignore the qualifications I built into my answer?
Your response is just rhetorical bluster.
“It is not a ‘diversionary tactic’ to point out that there are many non-relativist moral systems that are not God-based.”
i) You haven’t shown that these are non-relativist moral systems.
ii) You yourself don’t subscribe to all these moral systems.
iii) The question at issue is not whether there are secular “moral systems,” but whether these secular “moral systems” can ground objective moral norms.
“Marxists were not moral relativists. They were moral absolutists. Arguably moral absolutists, who are certain they know what is right and convinced of their moral rectitude, cause more human suffering than moral relativists.”
Once again, you apparently lack the intellectual aptitude to grasp the real issue. The question at issue isn’t whether some atheists feel moral certitude, but whether their secular worldview is sufficient to underwrite objective moral norms.
“Some atheists are moral relativists and others are not.”
And atheists like Richard Joyce, Joel Marks, Michael Ruse, Alex Rosenberg, Quentin Smith, J. L. Mackie, Massimo Pigliucci, Keith Burgess-Jackson, Paul Pardi and Steven Pinker (to name a few) deny objective morality. Where does that leave you?
“The circularity comes from saying that what God says is good because God says it.”
A simple-minded caricature.
“All of this assumes we know with any certainty what God thinks, and this is really where the whole argument falls down, since we do not know with any certainty what God thinks (despite your pretence that this has been conclusively ‘dealt with’ somewhere), even if we assume that God exists, which is also something we don't know with certainty.”
There’s no evidence that you’ve studied the relevant literature. What Christian philosophers have you read? What Christian apologists have you read? What Christian ethicists have you read? What evangelical Bible scholars have you read?
“I am not sure what you are getting at here. As far as I understand it, blacks and Hispanics are at least as likely to be theists as whites.”
Yet you indicated that atheists are incarcerated at far lower rates than theists, even though blacks and Hispanics are incarcerated at far higher rates than whites and Asians. So where does that leave your statistical correlation?
“No. I don’t see how you would conclude that.”
From the high percentage of medical doctors who are theists, whereas you indicated that most scientists are atheists.
“The medical science that doctors practice is based on scientific research, not on the Bible or on prayer or whatever.”
You know for a fact that doctors in general don’t practice prayer?
Jason, “If you want to keep posting here, change your behavior”
ReplyDeleteI will not change my behaviour, which has been perfectly polite. If you want to bar me from commenting on the site or whatever, then go ahead.
They're not looking to ban you because of your manners, but because you continue to be obtuse and dodge the questions that are being asked of you. Take for example, this gem:
Delete"Regarding the question of how you would behave if it turned out that God does not exist, as far as I can gather you are saying that if this turned out to be the case you would start murdering and raping people, and you would leave your wife. Fair enough – you are probably better off believing in God so!"
How you can get that from anything Steve said is beyond inept. I shouldn't have to point out that at no point did he say that he would murder and rape if there were no God, but rather that on secular principles, what makes you think that such things are bad? And you still dodge the question by making a passing reference to humanity's "moral emotions." But none of that is prescriptive or proscriptive. Are empathy and compassion good things? Is shame good or bad? How do you know? That, among other things are the questions that you keep avoiding.
Barrington,
DeleteYou have been nothing but robotic, repeating the same old ill-thought-out drivel in the face of all objections put your way. You clearly possess either an inability or an unwillingness to comprehend and/or interact with anything substantial put in front of you. But don't kid yourself that you're being 'polite', for your behaviour has been anything but!
Mathetes,
ReplyDeleteIn general things don’t turn out well for people who go around the place murdering and raping – they often end up in prison or dead. Nor do things tend to turn out too well for people who are unfaithful to their spouses – they often end up lonely and miserable, without any real love in their lives. Nor do things tend to work out very well for people who deal drugs – their life expectancy is terrible, and much of it is spent in jail, and most of them are so poor they live with their mothers. In general, people who are faithfully married and who do not murder and rape, and who do not deal drugs, have happier and more fruitful lives than people who do not. So from the perspective of self-interest, I would say someone is better off believing in God if that is the only thing that is prevents from engaging in foolish, irrational, self-destructive behaviour. For my own part, even though I am an atheist, I am happily married, I do not sell drugs and I have not murdered or raped anyone, because those are stupid, irrational things to do if you want to lead a happy life.
Most people (including myself) regard empathyand compassion as desirable things since, when acted upon rationally, their existence increases human well-being, human happiness and human flourishing, and most people are concerned for the well-being of others and want people to be as happy as possible.
But of course, a minority of sociopaths and sadists get pleasure from inflicting suffering on others, and have no concern for the well-being of others. I (and most people) do not want to see suffering inflicted on others, so it is up to us to stop the sociopaths and sadists getting their way – but moral appeals will not work with these people. We just need to lock them up, or make laws that prevent them doing what they do. Not all sociopaths are mass-murderers or criminals – a lot of them are high-functioning sociopaths in politics, banking and business – so we also need to make laws that prevent them engaging in behaviour that causes suffering to others.
All of the above would remain the case, regardless of whether there are objective normative moral truths or not. I do not know whether there are objective normative moral truths or not – I have an open mind on the question, but have never found anyone who has been able to satisfactorily answer the question one way or the other. But I’m not sure it matters much from a practical point of view – it is a kind of abstract, seemingly unanswerable question that is occasionally interesting to speculate about but I don’t think it has much impact on finding concrete solutions to the actual problems humans face in the real world.
i) Other objections aside (which I'll get to afterwards), that might work in a part of the world already dominated by centuries of Judeo-Christian ethics, but given a blank slate, atheism is powerless to decide what's right and what's wrong. The world as it is on an atheistic basis comes with no instruction manual. It's fallacious to derive a "should" or "should not" from an "is".
Deleteii) You once again assume that human well-being, happiness, and flourishing are good things, but you're not allowed to take that for granted. So what, on secular grounds if murder, adultery, rape, etc., have unpleasant consequences. Maybe that's the way it should be? You might say that "it's obvious," but you have no real basis for doing so.
iii) There are also numerous counter-examples. Stalin murdered millions of people and stayed in power all his life, and died of natural causes. Mao Tse Tung never really suffered any ill effects for his oppression. Many mafia dons make murder a part of their living and suffer no ill effects. Even the ones who wind up in the clink don't always get life sentences. And if they spend five or ten in prison, they might be willing to accept that for the sake of the piles of money that they make every year. Lying is also often very convenient, and a good fraudster might only get caught on rare occasions. And if a serial killer likes killing people, who are you to tell him that he shouldn't? On secular grounds I can't see how you can tell him that he shouldn't keep murder if he's ok with the fact that he might go to jail.
iv) As well, your position seems to amount to morality by convenience. You avoid what is wrong because it doesn't work out for your best interests. But I think we should expect more from our ethical systems than that. Suppose you found yoursel in a poor village where there's not enough food for everyone. If you discover a cache of food, should you distribute it to the children first? Or should you keep it to yourself? Is it in your best interests to starve to death so that a bunch of children can eat? As well, don't we honour those who go against their self interest to protect others, like someone who jumps on a grenade or goes to fight a war against a tyrant?
Brian Barrington”
Delete“So from the perspective of self-interest, I would say someone is better off believing in God if that is the only thing that is prevents from engaging in foolish, irrational, self-destructive behaviour.”
Why assume murder is necessarily opposed to self-interest? That’s pretty naïve. Many military dictators commit murder to seize power and stay in power. In the meantime, they enjoy a lavish lifestyle. Same thing with drug lords.
“I do not know whether there are objective normative moral truths or not…”
Really? But on another thread you said:
“But for people who think that inflicting eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on anyone would be the biggest sin of all, then it follows that no human being deserves that, and that any being who would inflict eternal punishment, eternal suffering or eternal pain on someone would be the most evil and cruel being of all.”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/catholicism-gone-catholic.html?showComment=1369409512721#c8925719822158891007
How can you call someone “evil” unless there are objective normative moral truths?
“But I’m not sure it matters much from a practical point of view – it is a kind of abstract, seemingly unanswerable question that is occasionally interesting to speculate about but I don’t think it has much impact on finding concrete solutions to the actual problems humans face in the real world.”
Really? Tell that to Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong.
>>"It is not a 'diversionary tactic' to point out that there are many non-relativist moral systems that are not God-based. The 'diversionary tactic' came from you..."
ReplyDeleteActually it is a diversionary tactic and it came from you. Steve and Patrick asked how you can support moral judgments given your atheism. Your response was to (1) throw out a bunch of pseudo-objections to objective morality being based on God, (2) ask irrelevant questions about what Steve would do if there was no God, (3)Vaguely suggest that "it’s possible that our moral systems derive from human nature" as social while not explaining how that gets you objective morality, (3) continue to confuse moral ontology with epistemology, (4) make an "interesting" irrelevant observation about prisoners and scientists, and then (5) pretend Steve has to disprove all non-theistic moral systems!
Amazing. Take your odd claim that Steve has to disprove all non-theistic moral systems. You are suggesting in your own post that theistic moral systems can't be propped up, yet you haven't bothered to interact with and disprove all the various theistic moral systems. For some reason you think if Steve is going to question the ability of atheism to ground morality this means he has to one-by-one debunk every moral system you can think, but you somehow lack the same burden when it comes to dismissing the ability of theism to ground morality...
The only relevant question is how you, Brian, account for objective moral judgments--a question you've tried very hard to dodge. How the Taoist accounts for morality is irrelevant unless you're a Taoist and are prepared to defend it on that grounds. Now if you want to say "This is how I account for objective morality... Now how do you account for it?" that would be legitimate and I'm sure Steve could link you to where he has addressed this issue (or you could take initiative like this: http://tinyurl.com/pgfnd7t)
It's almost like this is the first time you've ventured out of your liberal, atheist bubble to interact with the other side.
>>"All of the above would remain the case, regardless of whether there are objective normative moral truths or not."
ReplyDeleteYou go on about human well-being, human happiness, and human flourishing (most likely buzz words you picked up from Sam Harris). You naively assume that we are all just aiming for these same things regardless of our broader disagreements. But different moral systems will give different content to those "yay!"-sounding words. What it means to flourish as a human will look different for some Buddhist worldview than some utilitarian worldview.
janitorialmusings,
ReplyDeleteWhat it means to flourish as a human will look different to different people, so moral systems vary. That is true. And it is also true that the God-based moral systems differ from each other and contradict each other. So how do we decide between the differing systems? It seem that all we can do is try to investigate them rationally and also investigate human nature to try and find out as best we can what leads to happiness and flourishing for human beings.
Having said that, there is often a fair degree of overlap between the ethical systems that people have found useful and beneficial – for example, some version of the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself) is found in Confucianism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Ancient Greek philosophy, Kantian morality and so forth.
I have never read a book by Sam Harris.
If Steve wants to claim that atheists cannot have objective morality, and that theists can, then he needs to do two things. First, he needs to show that all the non-relativist, non-God-based moral systems are false or untenable. The fact is, there are plenty of atheists who think there is objective morality. Second, he needs to show how God-based objective morality can be truly established, because if theists can’t successfully establish objective morality then their charge that atheists can’t do so becomes a little bit silly.
Brian Barrington said:
DeleteIf Steve wants to claim that atheists cannot have objective morality, and that theists can, then he needs to do two things.
Wrong. For one thing, atheist scholars and professors, among others, have argued "atheists cannot have objective morality." For example, check out this interview with a noted philosopher who is an atheist.
First, he needs to show that all the non-relativist, non-God-based moral systems are false or untenable.
All this is too vague. Why don't you specify which "non-relativist, non-God-based moral systems" you're referring to.
The fact is, there are plenty of atheists who think there is objective morality.
Atheists thinking objective morality exists isn't the same as atheists arguing objective morality exists given atheism. After all, there are atheists who think homeopathy or magnetic field therapy can cure cancer. But that's not the same as arguing homeopathy or magnetic field therapy can indeed cure cancer.
Second, he needs to show how God-based objective morality can be truly established, because if theists can’t successfully establish objective morality then their charge that atheists can’t do so becomes a little bit silly.
This is inept. What theists can or cannot do here has nothing to do with what atheists can or cannot do here.
If Christianity is true, then God himself grounds objective morality. So, yes, if Christianity is true, then we can "successfully establish objective morality."
However, what the heck does theism have to do with whether atheists can or cannot ground objective morality given atheism? In other words, the question we've been asking you is as follows. Let us assume atheism is true. If atheism is true, then how would you ground objective morality? In society? In yourself? In evolutionary ethics? Etc. We're still waiting for a good answer.
>>"It seem that all we can do is try to investigate them rationally..."
ReplyDeleteSo apparently you either haven't done this yet or you've done it enough to say you can't decide whether there is objective morality.
>>"...and also investigate human nature to try and find out as best we can what leads to happiness and flourishing for human beings."
Except the content and significance of the answer here turns greatly upon how you answer the first issue of whether there is objective morality. If you are a moral agnostic, the best you can do is to say you think something, 'x', will make someone "flourish" or "happy" and that's what you want so that's what you'll aim at. But you can't seriously criticize others who disagree or disregard your desires at this point since you're not sure these desires aren't arbitrary to begin with.
>>"Having said that, there is often a fair degree of overlap between the ethical systems that people have found useful and beneficial..."
That's not really relevant to the question of grounding objective morality. What will be useful will depend on what you're aiming towards.
>>"I have never read a book by Sam Harris."
One doesn't need to read a book by Sam Harris to pick up his buzz words.
>>"If Steve wants to claim that atheists cannot have objective morality, and that theists can, then he needs to do two things."
Steve and Patrick only asked how you accounted for your seemingly objective moral judgments given your atheism. It's not incumbent on them to do either of the two things you mention for you to answer that question. These two things are indeed diversionary tactics for answering that question.
>>"First, he needs to show that all the non-relativist, non-God-based moral systems are false or untenable."
That's false and I already showed how you don't hold yourself to the same standard when you object to theistic systems of morality. It's appropriate to point out that there seem to be broader issues undercutting the objective-morality-building enterprise that effect all actual and potential atheist systems of ethics.
>>"Second, he needs to show how God-based objective morality can be truly established, because if theists can’t successfully establish objective morality then their charge that atheists can’t do so becomes a little bit silly."
So you need to show that all the non-relativist God-based moral systems are false or untenable. After all, the fact is, there are plenty of theists who think there is God-grounded objective morality.
janitorialmusings,
ReplyDeleteI have explained the thinking behind my views – so going back to the original topic: I favour SSM because I do not want to see humans suffer unnecessarily and I want them to be as happy as it is possible for them to be. I believe that legalising SSM will, on balance, increase human happiness and reduce human suffering, so I want it to be legal. Of course, I could be mistaken about that – maybe it will decrease human happiness and increase human suffering. But the rationale behind my view on the matter is fairly coherent. Someone can disagree with me by a) saying that it will actually increase human suffering and decrease human happiness or b) saying that they do not care about decreasing human suffering and increasing human happiness (that would be the response of a sociopath or sadist, and, as I have pointed out, there is no point in engaging in moral discussion with such people)
“You need to show that all the non-relativist God-based moral systems are false or untenable”
Well, I raised some of the problems there are with establishing objective God-based morality and no one has really addressed the problems I raised, except by implausibly trying to declare that all these problems have been conclusively “dealt with” somewhere by someone.
b) saying that they do not care about decreasing human suffering and increasing human happiness (that would be the response of a sociopath or sadist, and, as I have pointed out, there is no point in engaging in moral discussion with such people)
DeleteAre you sure you haven't read a book by Sam Harris? Because that's a play right out of his book on morality. He didn't have the philosophical resources to argue that pleasure was better than pain, so he just dismissed anyone who thought otherwise as irrelevant. Convenient, if not quite the kind of sophisticated reasoning one would expect of a leading skeptic.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI haven’t read the book, but if that is a point Harris made then it is a fair point. There is no point in telling sociopaths that they “ought” to care about the well-being of other people, since the fact is they do not care about the happiness of other people – they can pretend to care when they decide it is prudent to do so, but actually they don’t care because they do not have the faculties of empathy and compassion that nearly all human beings have by nature. The theory is that sociopaths have evolved as a small minority of moral free-riders who act parasitically on society by exploiting the caring sensibilities that other people have - the moral faculties that make human social life possible.
Having said that, I would argue that even sociopaths be treated as humanely as is possible – but the priority needs to be to prevent them causing too much suffering and to protect the rest of us from them. Once that objective is achieved, they should be treated as humanely as possible where it is practicable to do so.
Harris seems to be arguing a somewhat Aristotleian position, and there is nothing new about the position: Aristotle says that humans by nature desire to be happy, and they become happy and flourish by exercising the faculties that they have been endowed with by nature. He then discusses the things that make people happy: health, safety, friendship, love, acquiring knowledge, the creation and appreciation of beautiful things and so on. On a personal level, Aristotle says that the practice of virtue enables a person to flourish, to lead a happy live and avoid harm (e.g. the practice of virtues like moderation, courage, prudence, wisdom etc). On a societal level, a just society is one that is constructed to enable its decent citizens to flourish as human beings, in accordance with their natures. An unjust society is one that does not enable its citizens to flourish as human beings.
It seems to me quite a reasonable and sensible approach to ethics overall.
Brian Barrington,
ReplyDeleteAs I've already described above, the empirical data note many homosexuals engage in self-destructive behavior. This includes chronic substance abuse and addictions.
Moreover, many homosexuals have neuropsychiatric disorders. This includes personality vulnerabilities and affective disorders like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder. Of course, as far as mental illness, it's arguable correlation is not causation. But that's not what I'm suggesting. Rather I'm suggesting the correlation is hardly negligible if as appears to be the case the rates of mental illness among homosexuals are significantly higher in comparison to the general population.
What's more, such behavioral patterns and mental illnesses keep HIV-infected homosexuals from adhering to medical treatment for HIV (e.g. see here).
If SSM is legalized, then not only does society sanction all this but it risks enabling homosexuals in their self-destructive behavior and more. This is arguably bad for homosexuals as well as society. As such, it wouldn't be consistent with your Aristotelian ethical calculus for human flourishing.
Brian Barrington, your desire to lock up sociopaths is nothing more than a power-play. Unless there is something actually immoral about what they are doing, to lock them up for pragmatic reasons is just a will to power for your own convenience, the stuff of dictators.
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way: sociopaths want to kill people. You want them to be prevented from doing so. Who is to decide between you? The majority? How is that anything more than the tyranny of the majority, the strong oppressing the weak?
So Bri, you're married? Have any kids? Would you feel comfortable having them watch the following?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/05/28/Children-network-transsexual-superhero?utm_source=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link
Brian, are you really so naive as to think that evil like this has nothing to do with the attempt to normalize homosexuality? Or are you to brainwashed to even acknowledge that this might be a concern?
Brian Barrington wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have explained the thinking behind my views – so going back to the original topic: I favour SSM because I do not want to see humans suffer unnecessarily and I want them to be as happy as it is possible for them to be."
So, you hit the reset button yet again. You claim to want to return to the original topic, but then just restate your position, offer no support for it, and ignore the counterarguments you've already been given.
You're wasting everybody's time. You're no longer allowed to post anywhere on this blog.