Some atheists believe in right and wrong. That, however, doesn't prevent disagreement over what is right or wrong. Take lifeboat ethics. Is it morally permissible to kill a passenger to up your own chances of survival? The food and water will last twice as long with half the passengers.
Suppose two atheists both believe in right and wrong, but disagree on whether it's permissible to kill another human being in that situation. Both have a moral opinion. But they have conflicting moral opinions.
Here's the rub: given atheism, it's hard to see how a moral opinion is anything more than mere opinion.
Take a comparison: suppose there's a disagreement about the best way to treat a cancer patient. The oncologist recommends conventional cancer therapy (or perhaps an experimental treatment) while a "naturopathic physician" recommence alternative medicine. So you have conflicting opinions.
There is, however, something more than conflicting opinions. In principle, there's evidence that one treatment is more effective than another. Some treatments have a higher success rate than others. There are, of course, complications about the sample group, but it's not just a matter of opinion. There's something above and beyond conflicting opinions to underlie or undercut respective medical opinions.
In secular ethics, by contrast, there's really nothing over and above human opinion itself. You have two conflicting human opinions about what is right or wrong. But there's nothing beyond that. It's just your opinion. There's nothing additional to back it up.
There are objective circumstances and consequences, but both sides can agree on that. The point of contention is what is the right thing to do in that situation, and in secular ethics, it's just one human opinion over against another human opinion. In that case, what makes one opinion correct and the other incorrect? If all we have are human opinions about right and wrong, what makes one moral opinion true and another moral opinion false? In virtue of what is your moral opinion better than mine? Not correspondence to the "facts" of the case, for we may agree on the facts. But what makes your moral opinion a fact?
This is weird. What is there in non-secular ethics that is above human opinion itself?
ReplyDeleteYou might have two or more conflicting claimed "non-human" opinions about what is right or wrong. But there's nothing beyond that. It's just two or more opinions.
To begin with, you've done nothing to disprove the post. You're simply punting to Christians.
DeleteSecond, there are multiple lines of evidence for God existence, which grounds morality (e.g. natural law).
Steve, I didn't try disprove the post.
ReplyDeleteYou said "there are multiple lines of evidence for God existence, which grounds morality", but that is just your opinion, other people disagree. What is there in non-secular ethics that is "above human opinion itself"?
"Steve, I didn't try disprove the post."
ReplyDeleteYou succeeded.
"but that is just your opinion, other people disagree."
You need to learn the difference between mere opinion and opinion that's supported by reason and evidence.
"What is there in non-secular ethics that is 'above human opinion itself'?"
If you have to ask, you've never made a good faith effort to investigate the abundant literature on the subject.
It is only your opinion that your view is "supported by reason and evidence". Your opinion does not make it so, and many disagree with your opinion.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how your run away when asked "What is there in non-secular ethics that is 'above human opinion itself'?" I Really wanted your view on this, not somebody elses opinion in "the abundant literature".
Actually, it's only your opinion that my opinion doesn't make it so.
DeletePerhaps you're just too dim-witted to realize that your facile relativism is self-refuting. For instance, you're very opinionated on whether the NY Post article on Scandinavian countries is accurate. But, hey, that's just your opinion. Your opinion doesn't make it so, and others disagree with your opinion about Scandinavia countries.
And, no, I'm not going to do your research for you. You didn't come here to learn.
Commenters like you are a dime a dozen. You're not important to me. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Take a number, get in line, and wait your turn.
So typical how theist panic react when asked to provide evidence for their views or comments - avoid the question, ask to read "the abundant literature", gets angry and start ad hominem.
DeleteAnd you are rights - commenters like me are a dime a dozen. There are so many people asking questions while apologists run away
"So typical how theist panic react when asked to provide evidence for their views or comments - avoid the question, ask to read "the abundant literature"…
DeleteYou suffer from a childish sense of entitlement, as if you have the right to demand answers from a Christian that you are too lazy to research for yourself. Just for starters, take the moral argument:
Consider the detail exposition by Mark Linville in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Or the book-length monograph by Robert Adams: Finite and Infinite Goods.
Likewise, here's a detailed online exposition:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/
"gets angry…"
How could I get angry when I don't even take you seriously?
"…and start ad hominem."
Actually, I was responding to you on your own grounds (i.e. alethic relativism).
"And you are rights - commenters like me are a dime a dozen. There are so many people asking questions…"
You're not asking questions for information. You're asking questions to pick a fight.
If you really cared about the answers, you'd be prepared to do some elementary research on your own. I don't waste time on frivolous commenters.
"…while apologists run away."
That's such a pig-ignorant statement. I've done thousand of apologetic posts on this blog over the past 11 years. Not to mention many professional Christian apologists and philosophical theologians.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you would like to give us an account of secular ethics? How would you like to ground moral value? Platonic forms? Some form of natural selection? Utilitarian considerations? Aristotelian virtue ethics? Take your pick. I would really appreciate it if a secularist/atheist/agnostic/whatever would educate me. See, I am one of those dumb theists who don't run away, I just look at secular explanations of moral values and scratch my head. Help me out, buddy. Give us a coherent account of ethics that makes them 1) objective 2) non-question begging 3) that gets around the fact/value distinction. When you do that then maybe, just maybe, the stupid theists on here will take you seriously.