… from an article on Moral Psychology:
“Giving up on moral realism does not mean giving up on moral values. It is one thing to care about the plight of the poor, and another to think that one’s caring is objectively correct.”
Translation: Care for the poor if you want. It makes no difference either way, though.
“A world full of people who regard their moral convictions as reflections of personal values rather than reflections of ‘the objective moral truth’ might be a happier and more peaceful place than the world we currently inhabit.”
The last 100 years has certainly borne that out, hasn’t it. Give thanks for post-modern permissiveness and the peace tyranny it has brought!
« To be honest, I can’t understand why there’s still debate about abortion. Review: There Is a God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind »
Makes no difference…to whom? To God? Obviously, if He’s not there or is indifferent. To the poor? It makes a huge difference, sometimes the difference between life and death. To you? You should know from the charity work you’ve done through or outside your church that helping the disadvantaged is instantly rewarding on a deep level, and does wonders for your wellbeing in the long term. An act does not have to matter to the whole universe in order to matter at all.
The last 100 years have not seen a world full of people who regard their moral convictions as reflections of personal values. We’ve never seen that. The vast majority still believe in revealed absolute morality. Many of the 20th century’s atrocities were caused by these believers consciously setting it aside, or else interpreting it differently to everyone else. Islam might not instruct its followers to hijack planes, but somebody thought it does. The First Commandment says thou shalt not kill, but a Christian thought abortion doctor George Tiller had to die last month. If the true absolute morals are not actually known, which they aren’t if they even exist, they can be corrupted.
Even in countries like the Communist states where religion was forcibly suppressed, the beliefs of the people changed very little. You know it takes more than coercion to overcome faith. The tyrannical actions of the states were driven by powerful people not interested in following any morality, religious or secular, which didn’t increase their power. This is not unique to the last 100 years.
You’ve argued against the very existence of valid secular morals often, as evidenced if nothing else by your multiple posts about torturing babies. When I reply, as with many subjects, you tend to leave it alone for a while and then come back to it as if the previous exchange had never happened. If all you want to do is preach, say so and I’ll just stop responding. If you’re actually trying to soundly establish a point, you need to face and address the objections instead of using new quotes to take pot shots every month or so.
You’re right, my approach to these discussions hasn’t been a good one.
The demands of life (4 big exams next week, for example) really restrict the amount of time I can spend on here, but I owe you a more thorough response.
Sorry. Consider it on my to-do list, but not at the top right now.
It’s all right, Hayesy, do what you have to do. I’m just glad you see my point about your approach.