She summarises his argument:
‘Democratic Mandate’ gives Government the power to do whatever it wants and it’s up to us to comply or leave - very Labour.Err .... which democratic mandate would that be, precisely?
Monday, 3 August 2009
Pardon?
Charlotte Gore hs written a well-reasoned piece about the defence of civil liberties. She describes meeting a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter who regards ID cards (etc) as part of the social contract - these are the terms of living in the UK; accept them or leave.
She summarises his argument:
She summarises his argument:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Charlotte Gore writes "Once again I came back to the basic principle that civil liberties are an inherent good (without really being able to explain why)...The question now is whether or not we can ever find a hard argument in favour of civil liberties as an inherent good...Until then, civil liberties are little more than a minor annoyance for legislators who wish such a concept did not exist."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it time those who believe in civil liberties, human rights etc. realised that philosophers have been discussing this question for ages? You cannot have inherent goods without metaphysics and metaphysical discourse is not allowed within the positivistic secularist culture we current inhabit. Therefore (if the rest of Gore's argument is sound) we cannot secure civil liberties against government until we overthrow the hegemony of positivistic secularism (which shouldn't be much of a challenge since positivism usually dissolves in its own acid).
Quite, although I personally would use somewhat shorter words ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed the case that if we cast aside a formerly agreed set of basic moral codes, we acquire the ability to do anything we want - if we can exercise sufficient sophistry to justify it. And there lies the harm in secularisation in combination with multiculturalism in combination with the lack of a written constitution.
Government of the sophists, by the sophists, for the sophists, then. And , as eloquently put by Charlotte's conversation partner, the rest of us can just leave.
"if we cast aside a formerly agreed set of basic moral codes."
ReplyDeleteJust wondering what you mean by "agreed" here. If civil liberty is to be an "inherent good" as Charlotte Gore wants, it cannot logically be grounded only on our consent or agreement; it must be grounded in something prior to that. That's why you cannot avoid metaphysics if you want to an inviolable grounding for civil liberties.
I mean "agreed" in the sense of "generally accepted as being so". (I'm obviously a bit slow starting again after my break...)
ReplyDeleteSuch codes do not have the actual consent of all the population, as proven by the existence of the criminal courts. Nor do they have or need consent (as such) from anyone; merely their acceptance as being unquestionably right.
Sadly, such "forces of conservatism" are no longer in vogue.
Thanks for the clarification, I thought you probably did mean that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "forces of conservatism" do you think such forces are in vogue even in the conservative party at the moment? The more I see David Cameron, the more I doubt it, but that might just by my prejudice because he so often appears without a tie...
I'm reserving my opinion on that subject, for now.
ReplyDeleteI'll let you know after I've spoken to him, if that helps me make my mind up...
Excuse me for being a bit of a Burke, but when the calibre of those at the top diminishes, "forces of conservatism" wane and therefore safeguards are required.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, many think not only is the HRA a modern form of colonialisation but codifying rights also inhibits them as violations to our individual rights can readily occur if 'justified.' What is now occurring is an extension of the HRA movement but it does make actions more accountable.
Nice point on 'democratic mandate.' I think Charlotte meant in a general sense, rather than a generally accepted sense, but she is perfectly capable of speaking up for herself.
Hello Measured,
ReplyDelete"When the calibre of those at the top diminishes, "forces of conservatism" wane and therefore safeguards are required."
If you mean (as I think you do) there should be safeguards requiring Cameron and others to wear ties, then I agree with you.
"we cannot secure civil liberties against government until we overthrow the hegemony of positivistic secularism"
ReplyDeleteSo those who desire to defend and advance the cause of liberty need to turn their guns on postivistic secularism?
Good! How do you think we should go about that?
Hello Albert,
ReplyDeleteKeeping me on your toes, you are; I had to look up a word in your first comment. That does not happen often but I thought you may used it in a political context, rather than a secular or an ecclesiastical way. Not much gets passed Patently though.
No, no safeguards to wear ties so we do not agree there, but yes, where does this safeguarding of conventions end? Must eat with a knife and fork?
It depends on the convention, doesn't it? Who decides which conventions as these politicians all have to justify their positions? But to safeguard conventions entrenches them which rather misses the point. It has to be done sensitively to maintain the flexibility and ability to adapt, if at all. ;-)
I currently favour a Libertarian view of a light but firm touch if there is an effective media to highlight unacceptable trangressions.
I think it is a sad day that Burke's principles are undermined because our representatives do not do their jobs properly. I hope the next lot are better but I am not convinced having a democratic mandate will determine this. It will just provide justification for what they do - back to the HRA again. We wait for P to hear DC. When is that scheduled?
When is that scheduled?
ReplyDeleteSeptember.
Really?
ReplyDeleteMr B.,
ReplyDeleteIt’s a big task. As Archbishop Peter Smith pointed out last week “senior positions in public life are increasingly being held by people who have grown up profoundly ignorant about what religion is, [and] how it operates”. Then there are those who are pure and simple hostile to religion and wish to exclude it from the public sphere. I don’t for a moment think I’ve got an answer to this, but I think one can make a start by helping those in the first category to understand what they’ve misunderstood and pointing out how undemocratic and self-contradictory those in the second category often are.
Then I think there’s a lot to be said for pointing out that secularists often like to have their cake and eat it. For example, they want to exclude anything metaphysical but they still want to speak of the inherent value of human life, or of the inherent good of civil liberties etc. Charlotte Gore’s embarrassment at being unable to defend in any reasonable way her most cherished belief discloses the problem. Since people wish to retain their values, they must give up positivistic secularism or remain unreasonable.
I guess many people are slow to give up positivistic secularism because they think that you can’t reinstate metaphysics without religion, and they think that religion will take away their freedom (which of course it doesn’t necessarily Jn.8.32). I recently had a conversation with an atheist who said he couldn’t be religious because he wanted to be able to think for himself. Meanwhile he trotted out all the boring old politically correct views determined for him by the positivistic secular society which of which he was so unquestioningly and even blindly a subscriber.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteI think you're probably right, and I'll just have to face the fact the DC doesn't always wear a tie.
Actually I don't usually wear a tie either, but I think in a politician not wearing a tie makes one look a bit slippery, as if one is more concerned with presentation than substance, more interested in being "modern" (whatever that means) than the what P calls the "forces of conservatism."
But perhaps I do him an injustice, we shall see (hopefully).
Albert,
ReplyDeleteDo you think P wears a tie? I don't think he is that strait-laced, but he may be becoming philisophical in his old age.
(Forgive me for this but in September P could quietly drop 'Rubbish' from the title of his blog. This does rankle me, not because it might not be true but because it demeans the intelligence of his readers.)
oops...philosophical. That's what happens when you use long words.
ReplyDeleteP wears a tie, that's for certain, except when he's on holiday, having time off etc. Do you think wearing a tie goes with being philosophical?
ReplyDeleteWhy does "Rubbish" demean our intelligence?
Albert,
ReplyDeleteHe probably wears a tie when it is appropriate. Older men do wear ties more in my opinion. When you get older, you probably become philosophical. Er, but no, I am not going to try to construct an argument between the two.
"Rubbish" patronises us as it appears to dictate what we will think of what we are reading. It is patently not true. The title must also discourage potential browsers. I would moot that it is superfluous. Just 'Patently' will do and then in his posts, he may decide to add....'Obvious' 'Rubbish' 'Predictable'
'Obtuse.' The list is endless. This is his blog though and a very fine one at that. :-)
I hope DC knows he will be talking to a well- known influential blogger. I should add aspiring to keep P's toes on the ground. ;-)
I think Charlotte Gore is wrong that the goodness of civil liberties is not explainable. Authoritartianism can only work for those who agree with the prevailing authority. The beauty of civil liberties is the freedom to say "actually no I disagree" and argue your point and see whether other people agree.
ReplyDeleteAlthough those who propose that things like having a law against murder and theft are "authoritarians" are running rather further ahead than the pack, so I suppose you could argue that any society has its element of authoritarianism and that it just depends on degree.
I think I am becoming incoherent now.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteActually, I think it's quite a good argument for connecting wearing a tie with being philosophical - though I doubt P thinks of himself as an older man! As I don't usually wear a tie does that make me younger or less philosophical? Or is there some fallacious reasoning in there somewhere?
I rather like "Rubbish", it has a rather humble tone that invites contradiction (though as I discovered a few weeks back it doesn't guarantee that a contradiction will be warmly received).
Hello Blue Eyes,
ReplyDeleteNot quite sure if I follow. Are you defending civil liberties as an inherent good on aesthetic grounds? I certainly think we encounter the dignity of others in this sort of way, but I'm not sure we can really explain it that way. But perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, or perhaps you will show me what I'm missing here.
Is "aesthetic" a philosophical term or are you using it in the common-or-garden sense?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that there are very good practical reasons for allowing a bit of behavioural diversity in a society. I don't mean that there should not be criminal offences. I mean that a society which is used to being told how to live might not innovate culturally or technologically. Authoritarianism implies that the entity at the top of the pyramid knows enough to know what is best for everyone underneath. This is rarely the case.
"Excuse me for being a bit of a Burke, but when the calibre of those at the top diminishes, "forces of conservatism" wane and therefore safeguards are required."
ReplyDeleteIt's not merely a case of the calibre of those at the top diminishing - their influence does, as well, when so much of our legislation is now directed from Brussels...
Blue Eyes,
ReplyDeleteI was aiming to use 'aesthetic' in whatever sense you were using beauty when you said "The beauty of civil liberties". But I think you were just using a figure of speech!
I agree that there are good practical reasons for "behavioural diversity in a society", but I think Charlotte Gore is seeking something more than that. She speaks of "civil liberties as an inherent good" and a pragmatic argument won't give her that. Moreover, a pragmatic argument could be trumped by another pragmatic argument. Joe (CG's interlocutor), clearly thinks he has a better pragmatic argument, so CG now wants an argument to show civil liberties are inviolable so that Joe can't trump her with pragmatism. She cannot do that I think without accepting some metaphysical categories.
Ah right, I get it but have lost it simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to have considered three main issues:
ReplyDelete(i) Do I wear a tie, and what does that signify?
(ii) Should I change the name of the blog?
and
(iii) Is it possible for mankind to consider certain socio-constitutional concepts to be inviolable ex hypothesi without appeal to an external higher authority?
I feel qualified to deal with the first two, but may take a stab at no. 3....
Blue Eyes,
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of clarity, let’s change the scenario to a more extreme one than Charlotte Gore’s.
Supposing a libertarian is having a discussion with a Nazi. The libertarian says that society works best when the civil liberties of all are preserved. The Nazi says society works best when you kill all the Jews. How does the libertarian reply? She could say that the Nazi is wrong and that the Nazi’s arguments notwithstanding, society will still work best if you don’t kill the Jews. What’s wrong with the libertarian’s reply?
The problem is that she’s arguing that the Jews can live only because they are useful to society. That is simply offensive and she is susceptible to being convinced of the rightness of killing Jews by an even better argument from the Nazi.
To avoid this shocking consequence, the libertarian needs to reply that regardless of the greater good of society, it is absolutely wrong to kill Jews because every human life has an inherent good and therefore inviolable. At which point the Nazi says “What do you mean by ‘inherent good’ and how do you show human beings have this ‘inherent good’?” The moral of CG’s article is that at this point the libertarian says “Dunno”, and so the Nazi carries on killing, and he does so with a good conscience if he thinks he’s serving some greater good.
I think secular society finds itself in the libertarian's dilemma. It likes to talk of human rights and civil liberties, but can provide no account of what these words mean and why they apply. This is for the simple reason that expressions like “inherent good” are probably only meaningful in a metaphysical context, and are therefore meaningless in a positivistic secular context which disallows metaphysics.
Albert, when I said "I get it" I meant I now understand what you mean by an "inherent" good. But thanks for the explanation anyway. I now agree with those who say what the hell is "inherent" in moral terms?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was confused by you saying you had lost it simultaneously, but I realise what you mean now.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think the word "inherent" (CG's word, not mine) means anything then you can't think the holocaust was inherently wrong either (in which case you'd be sharing the company of Bertrand Russell). Neither would any violation of your human rights, civil liberties etc. be inherently wrong. But if that is the case then I'm wondering whether the word "moral" means anything at all. Is that fair, or have I miunderstood again?
That is *exactly* what I am saying. It was YOU who said that there is no such thing as an inherent good when you said that my explanation of why civil liberties might be a good thing was "pragmatic" rather than philosophically sound. You are correct: right and wrong are constructs of our morals. For example some might think that sex before marriage is "good" and some might think it is "bad". We are arguing the same point and going around in circles, I think.
ReplyDeleteI did not say there is no such thing as an inherent good and I certainly don't think right and wrong are *constructs* of our morals. I said that for the concept of inherent good to have any meaning you need metaphysics, and that without metaphysics you cannot have realist or binding conceptions of human rights or civil liberties. And since some people seem to want to keep conceptions of such things, they need to abandon positivistic secularism.
ReplyDeleteBut if you're happy with saying the holocaust isn't *necessarily* wrong, or that it wouldn't be *necessarily* wrong to expel those who reject ID cards, there's no problem for you. But Patently and Charlotte Gore seem to be wanting to say more than that. They seem to want to say such actions aren't just pragmatically wrong, but wrong in themselves.
Albert is right in his characterisation of my approach; that there are certain steps which are wrong, no matter what the benefits. Hence, no amount of argument over whether or not ID cards will stop terrorists is fruitful; the Government should not pass a law stating that I am under house arrest unless I take their magic card with me.
ReplyDelete(The holocaust is of course a convenient (if somewhat extreme) example. But its use is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I feel. And like a sledgehammer, its use in argument can have collateral damage. Do take care when citing it, therefore!)
Albert has convinced me of something, this time – that there are problems inherent in appealing to core principles without a common metaphysical basis. Which leads to the obvious question – where do we find that basis? Maybe that is why the US Declaration of Independence starts “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”, to avoid that problem?
We are arguing the same point and going around in circles, I think.
Don't worry Blue - that's quite easy with Albert ;-)
The reason for using the holocaust is precisely that it is an extreme example. It enables us to see whether or not we believe in moral absolutes in a way that 'softer' examples (e.g. telling lies) don't. People often deny moral absolutes until you use the holocaust example, then they often change their minds.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the question of self-evidence, we need to be careful not to confuse the ontological with the epistemelogical. I think some moral absolutes are self-evident - or at least that the value that they protect is. But the questions we're currently discussing are Does the concept of moral absolute mean anything? and Are there such things as moral absolutes?" My contention would be that the sentence in the Declaration is meaningless in a positivistic secular context. Presumably, Amercian positivistic secularists remain faithful to the British crown.
Yes, I can see why you cite the holocaust; it is useful for that purpose. The problem is that its use can shut down a discussion; it is difficult to continue arguing with someone when they have constructed a narrative whereby you either agree with them or (appear to) say that the holocaust was a good thing. So there are dangers in using it. That's all I wanted to say.
ReplyDeleteBased on your critique of positivistic secularism, I'm surprised you think that positivistic secularists can reach any kind of valid opinion at all .... :o)
I accept what you say about the holocaust, but to deny that the holocaust was *absolutely* wrong is not at all the same thing as saying it was right, acceptable or agreeable. It is simply to say there are limits to one's opposition to it. I used it without reference to anyone to illustrate why pragmatic arguments fail to defend Charlotte Gore's belief in inherent goods. I wasn't arguing it against anyone.
ReplyDeleteAs to positivistic secularists reaching valid opinions, you're right, I think they they often help themselves to moral categories they don't believe exist. Even moral-absolute denying utilitarian moral systems tend to dissolve ultimately into moral absolutes: e.g. always do the greatest good to the greatest number. Resting on such incoherence, they easily descend into raw power bids which is arguably what's happening in our society.
'I think they they often help themselves to moral categories they don't believe exist.' Please can you clarify if we are on to the ontological or the epistemological debate here because I want to be careful not to confuse the two.
ReplyDeleteAlbert, people are not unworthy because they are positivistic secularists and their views are not inferior either. Tensions are created by communities thinking they are superior to others and therefore do not integrate with society allowing prejudices to grow eg Hasidic Judaism or Hasidism. Inherent rights must be all inclusive and if they are 'self evident,' are they not indisputable? Can these be distinguished from moral absolutes? I am not sure that is relevant to be honest.
Are ID cards pernicious to our inherent rights? If so, then no way should we have them but if they help the distribution of resouces more fairly, maybe they will safeguard our rights. I am not sure house arrest is in order if you are not carrying your ID card. Is that not another extreme argument?
I would just like to say that I do not think that there is any argument for saying that the holocaust was not wrong. All I was saying was that the very concept of a crime needs a moral basis. I am not a philosopher or a reader of philosophical works so I plead ignorance of the need for metaphysical bases because quite simply I have no idea what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is it for me on this discussion because I am well out of my depth.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteOntological not epistemelogical.
I would never think that positivistic secularists are unworthy and I agree about integration. The danger though is that one easily slips into saying either (a) no moral belief system may be regarded as superior to any other (which apart from anything else makes *that* moral belief system superior to others) or (b) minority groups (Hasidic Jews etc.) must be coerced into integration.
Charlotte Gore's example indicates how easily it is for a government to slip into coercion when there are manifest incoherences in its moral position.
I think something that is self-evident can still be disputed. Certain mathematical truths are self-evident to mathematicians without being so to the rest of us.
Blue Eyes, it's clear you didn't mean the holocaust was not wrong. I'd be amazed if any reader here accused you of that. The metaphysics come in when we ask what makes it wrong? Is it wrong in itself or only because we (chose to) think it wrong?
Blue Eyes - I fear that makes two of us!
ReplyDeleteMeasured; I don't think he said they were unworthy - that must surely contradict one of his own moral absolutes! I read his comment as implying that positivistic secularists (we really must get a definition of this sometime) arrive at opinions that are unworthy.
An ID card system does descend into a form of house arrest. If it is merely optional to carry the card, then it is pointless. So an effective system requires that carrying the card when outdoors is mandatory. If that is mandatory, then there must be a sanction for failing to do so. Hence there is a legal sanction for leaving one's house without the card; i.e. a form of house arrest; a mild form, but house arrest nevertheless.
Yes, I admit that the terminology is deliberately emotive, but it is not inaccurate.
Just to clarify, I'm not even saying their opinions are necessarily unworthy (though some may be - but that's true of every group). When they defend just human rights and civil liberties then I am right with them.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that if you accept certain moral ideas, you need to accept the categories into which those ideas fit, and you then need to see what else follows from allowing those categories. When you don't do that, you become inconsistent in your thought and sometimes arbitrary in the way you legislate on human rights. Which seems to me to be part of the chaos of the present time.
Just to clarify (II), no more descending in raw power bids. I have heard the mathematician argument before, which presumably is a reason for education and why we depend on the advice of experts.
ReplyDeleteI hope it is recognised that an expert in morality and inherent rights could be a positivistic secularist. No longer does the religion have a monopoly on these issues and neither does the Government but all experts can be wrong so a mechanism for correction must be present, such as the General Election!!
If I do not have an ID card, will they not replace it and fine me or deport me? Is it a modern version of the poll tax? More worrying is that it gives a government a mechanism for future misuse which may not be easily detected. Yes, I understand, Patently.
Finally, Albert, thank you for furthering my thinking. I am not sure I followed it all the way through either, BE. Albert, I think your final paragraph sums up the situation very well but I am not sure what the categories are.....no, no, enough! Patently has other things to think about, such as to tie or not to tie. :-D
Just to say, I do recognise what you say about religion and monopolies. In fact, the Catholic Church has never taught she has had a monopoly on moral issues, since she believes that moral truths are accessible to reason. As Pope John Paul II said in his great Encyclical Fides et Ratio "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Accordingly, the Catholic Church has borrowed heavily from secular philosophy, particularly Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason I've tried to speak of metaphysics rather than religion and categories rather than commandments. How well you can do metaphysics and morality without God is another question, as is whether P wears a tie or not? what sort of tie? what colour? and what any of that signifies about his age, philosophy or anything else?
Uh-oh, Albert is quoting again.
ReplyDeleteChrist. How on Earth did I miss this debate?!
ReplyDeleteOh well. I think I would probably have just got way too involved, and nobody wants that...
Anyway, Albert is wrong. :-)
Oh yeah? Come on then!
ReplyDeleteAlbert and Patently seem rather well-versed on this topic, Stu, so, not daunted, I read up briefly on Aristotle, Aquinas, natural law leading to natural rights, Libertarianism supporting the HRA, Rawls and positivism. I have only scratched the surface. I stopped at Hayek; it was enough for one night, but should I have?
ReplyDeleteIt is galling to realise that what I was thinking about has been thought about by philosophers for days, weeks, years and even longer. Basically it appears everyone was talking sense in this debate even if I couldn't keep up, but it is all rather theoretical. People have to discuss and determine rights which is why I support positivistic secularists who seem to be social scientists? When you have defined them, you can find them. They should be able to offer a practical approach about what has or has not worked in the past without bias. I think it is poignant that the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 shows us the way, but there again, I doubt America has worked out as they envisaged.
The fact is that rights which are decided in a social contract/ ID cards/ mandates should be able to withstand all challenges which means that they must be accepted by individuals who have no religious beliefs. Therefore, metaphysics is not crucial in the argument in my view, albeit this is the origin of much of what was discussed, but I may be wrong. So the answer to (iii) is yes, but I am not yet able to tell you why, but hopefully at a later date I will be able to.
There were only two quotes in the debate. There was I thinking that there would no interesting people in heaven. It must be worth aiming for. :-D
Now, on to ties..........
Personally I don't give a damn about what old farts said in millennia gone past. I'm only interested in what I can figure out for myself. Anyway...
ReplyDeleteFirst off, we do not need to accept moral absolutes in order to show that social contracts are an unacceptable way of thinking about or ruling society
The most convincing eventual approach to the 'social contract' problem over on the libertarian blogs was to show logically that the social contract approach works against freedom, and that the social contract is unable to either explain our political realities nor deliver a cohesive society. The 'intractable' problem was solved quite easily in the end by Costigan Quist, who simply pointed out that if we accept 'social contracts' as being the driving force behind out society, that leaves no room for non-violent protests, violent protests, conscientious objection or a wealth of other realities of our political system.
The logical argument for liberty is sufficient for us to be able to say that more liberty is better than less liberty, without invoking any absolute moral position. The logical argument against social contracts is sufficient for us to accept that they cannot be a guiding principle of government.
This makes compulsory ID cards a logically bad thing. As measured just said, such restrictions on freedom 'should be able to withstand all challenges'
The other thing you are wrong about, though, Albert - and seemingly misguided on - is what you're calling 'metaphysical morality' and 'positivistic secularism'. I'm assuming by that you mean absolute 'divine' morality as opposed to relativist morality. Unfortunately Blogger is restricting my character count, so I'll have to split this into two comments...
Objective morality is an oxymoron. The reason for this is kind of simple: if any moral code were truly objective, we couldn't possibly disagree about it. If we were born with an innate moral code, there's no possibility that we could argue over exactly what that code is.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for God, really: if I disagree that God exists, and I cannot be convinced of his existence without evidence, then in the absence of objective proof*, neither his power nor his morality can possibly be objective. If they were, surely I would believe in him. God, or any other metaphysical construct, is therefore no more an arbiter of morals than man - his existence, and his influence, is confined solely to the faith of those who believe in him. Your 'metaphysical' moral position, then, has no greater bearing on me than my 'positivist' moral position has on you. How can you say, objectively that I am wrong? How can you presume that your opinion on the existence of a divine morality is more valid than mine? You can't.
What's more, the idea (from your first comment) that moral relativism could prevent us from attaining liberty is just contradictory - how can defining a single moral code for an entire society of people, to which they must always conform and adhere, possibly increase their liberty? How can you claim that taking away the freedom to decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong will make us more free?
Besides, relative morality is the only theory we have which actually explains historical events in a meaningful way. It's the only explanation we have for Hitler and those who worked for him to have felt it morally obligatory to exterminate so many Jews. It's the only explanation we have for the fact that we used to, but no longer, stone adulterers and hang homosexuals. Its the only explanation we have for how human societies could have existed before Moses, and how they can continue to exist after the decline of organised religion. Divine, objective morality cannot explain these things, and much ink has been spilt in futile attempts. How can you explain where God was, essentially, when his followers were burning 'witches' and heretics in his name?
Moral relativism isn't actually a matter of faith. It isn't something you can believe in or disbelieve. Like evolution, it is simply a fact of the universe. You may choose to deny it rather than to recognise it, but your denial will not prevent it from continuing to happen.
That said, to quote myself on Twitter "He who can be persuaded into faith by an argument based on logic possesses neither true faith, nor true logic." Internet arguments about religion or morality are invariably fruitless, because of the intractable problem that the religious do not respond to logic, and the logical do not respond to faith. So generally I find it easier keep my mouth shut about this sort of thing.
* In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, such proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
Stu, When I said “Oh yeah? Come on then!” I was joking, but thank you for taking the trouble to reply so fully. In order to justice to your comments I shall embed my responses in your text using square brackets. Inevitably, that will make this spill over into several emails. I hope it’s clear.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
Personally I don't give a damn about what old farts said in millennia gone past. I'm only interested in what I can figure out for myself. Anyway...
...[Didn’t Newton admit that if he saw further than anyone else, it was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants? If it's true for him, might it not be true of you and me too?]...
First off, we do not need to accept moral absolutes in order to show that social contracts are an unacceptable way of thinking about or ruling society.
...[Never said that you did. I said that if you want to defend inherent goods you need metaphysics.]...
The most convincing eventual approach to the 'social contract' problem over on the libertarian blogs was to show logically that the social contract approach works against freedom, and that the social contract is unable to either explain our political realities nor deliver a cohesive society. The 'intractable' problem was solved quite easily in the end by Costigan Quist, who simply pointed out that if we accept 'social contracts' as being the driving force behind out society, that leaves no room for non-violent protests, violent protests, conscientious objection or a wealth of other realities of our political system.
...[Fine]...
The logical argument for liberty is sufficient for us to be able to say that more liberty is better than less liberty, without invoking any absolute moral position.
ReplyDelete...[Sorry, where was the *logical* argument to support that move?]...
The logical argument against social contracts is sufficient for us to accept that they cannot be a guiding principle of government.
This makes compulsory ID cards a logically bad thing. As measured just said, such restrictions on freedom 'should be able to withstand all challenges'
The other thing you are wrong about, though, Albert
...[sorry was all that somehow an answer to me? How?]...
- and seemingly misguided on - is what you're calling 'metaphysical morality' and 'positivistic secularism'. I'm assuming by that you mean absolute 'divine' morality as opposed to relativist morality.
...[Why are you assuming that? I’ve said explicitly that that’s not what I mean on several occasions. I’ve said simply that you cannot have inherent goods without metaphysics.]...
Unfortunately Blogger is restricting my character count, so I'll have to split this into two comments...
Stu said...
ReplyDeleteObjective morality is an oxymoron. ...[In which case, I take it you think an inherent good is an oxymoron, in which case again, I’m wondering why you’re bothering to discuss it.]...
The reason for this is kind of simple: if any moral code were truly objective, we couldn't possibly disagree about it. ...
[To say that something is objective is not to say that everyone will agree to it. But anyway I didn’t use the word ‘objective’ and did not argue for an objective moral code. What do you mean by 'objective'?]...
If we were born with an innate moral code, there's no possibility that we could argue over exactly what that code is.
...[Who’s mentioned an innate moral code? Not I! I don’t believe in such a thing – though I’d be happy to be corrected. For someone who claims to be based on evidence and logic, you’re remarkably quick to attribute to me views I don’t hold and which I don’t think can be entailed from what I’ve said. But in any case, I think you are confusing the epistemological and the ontological.]...
The same goes for God, really: if I disagree that God exists, and I cannot be convinced of his existence without evidence, then in the absence of objective proof*
...[what do you mean by proof?]...,
neither his power nor his morality can possibly be objective.
...[As I’ve said already, God isn’t the issue here, neither is the issue whether you accept moral absolutes or innate goods, or if anyone can show what they are. It is whether or not they exist.]...
If they were, surely I would believe in him. God...[not necessarily]..., or any other metaphysical construct, is therefore no more an arbiter of morals than man - his existence, and his influence, is confined solely to the faith of those who believe in him.
...[There are two non sequitors in this sentence]...
Your 'metaphysical' moral position ...[you mean the position you’ve attributed to me, not the position I defended]...
then, has no greater bearing on me than my 'positivist' moral position has on you. How can you say, objectively that I am wrong? ...
[I didn’t, ‘objective’ was your word. In any case, surely your opinion is that I am objectively wrong, if so (then assuming I concede the use of the term for the sake of argument), what would divide my belief that you are objectively wrong and your belief that I am objectively wrong is that I would be coherent in saying such a thing and you incoherent.]...
How can you presume that your opinion on the existence of a divine morality
...[what is this divine morality you keep attributing to me?]...
is more valid than mine? You can't.
...[But you seem to be managing to presume that your opinion is more valid than mine]...
What's more, the idea (from your first comment) that moral relativism could prevent us from attaining liberty
ReplyDelete...[ Again, I never said that. I said that if you want to use the concept of inherent goods to defend yourself against an oppressor who is denying your liberty, you need metaphysics]...
is just contradictory - how can defining a single moral code for an entire society of people, to which they must always conform and adhere, possibly increase their liberty?
...[Depends on what you mean by liberty really. I generally assume that my liberty to use the roads safely is guaranteed by everyone abiding a single highway code. My liberty to hold private property is guaranteed by the fact that others are not free to deprive it of me.]...
How can you claim that taking away the freedom to decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong will make us more free?
...[I’m not, what I was trying to do was to show the conditions necessary for the idea of ‘inherent good’ to be a defence against those who seek to take away my (or your) freedom to decide for ourselves.]...
Besides, relative morality is the only theory we have which actually explains historical events in a meaningful way. It's the only explanation we have for Hitler and those who worked for him to have felt it morally obligatory to exterminate so many Jews.
...[It isn’t the only explanation at all, I’ve just thought of three, no four alternatives]...
It's the only explanation we have for the fact that we used to, but no longer, stone adulterers and hang homosexuals.
...[Ditto]....
Its the only explanation we have for how human societies could have existed before Moses, and how they can continue to exist after the decline of organised religion.
...[Ditto, only I have more alternatives here]...
Divine, objective morality cannot explain these things, ...[that’s a category mistake I think. Divine morality would not be to explain breaches of divine morality – it would be like using science to explain genuine miracles (if any occurred)]...
and much ink has been spilt in futile attempts.
...[Really? By whom? For someone who claims to be based on evidence, you would be unreasonable not to provide a good number of examples.]...
How can you explain where God was, essentially, when his followers were burning 'witches' and heretics in his name?
...[Perhaps if you could frame that as an argument I would attempt an answer. But in the meantime your fallacy seems to me to be this: To infer from the changing views of morality to the view that therefore there is no objective morality, is like saying because scientific views of the universe change therefore there is no objective universe which science describes. Again, you are confusing the epistemological and ontological I think.]...
Moral relativism isn't actually a matter of faith. It isn't something you can believe in or disbelieve. Like evolution, it is simply a fact of the universe.
ReplyDelete...[A *fact* of the universe?!! What on earth do you mean? In any case, if you make it a fact, you make it objective and your position dissolves in its own acid (like most forms of positivism).]...
You may choose to deny it rather than to recognise it, but your denial will not prevent it from continuing to happen.
...[I don’t doubt that, but I fail to see what this has to do with whether or not there are inherent goods.]...
That said, to quote myself on Twitter "He who can be persuaded into faith by an argument based on logic possesses neither true faith, nor true logic."
...[At the moment you've got some question marks against your logic, so until you’ve answered my points I think it’s you that has the case to answer about being logical. Besides, your Twitter quote, together with your Douglas Adams quote at the bottom suggests you’ve not understood the concept or scope of faith either. That is to say, it appears that your views on faith may be based on false assumptions, not evidence.]...
Internet arguments about religion or morality are invariably fruitless, because of the intractable problem that the religious do not respond to logic, and the logical do not respond to faith
...[Logically, I’ve think I’ve made a pretty good showing thus far, we’ll see how you fare.]...
So generally I find it easier keep my mouth shut about this sort of thing.
...[Which rather raises the question why you’re discussing it, especially as I wasn’t.]...
* In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, such proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.
...[I can’t resist asking you to defend that statement. (Tip: you might like research some Catholic theology before you do.)]...
Sorry, Albert, I hope you weren't expecting a response to that - I think you proved my final point rather neatly ;-)
ReplyDelete