On morals

I have already written a lot on this topic, but because it is one where there arise a lot of misunderstanding, I will add another post to it.

I am involved in a discussion here and the author writes in a response to one of my comments thus

I am afraid some things are black and white. Rape, for example, is either objectively evil, or subjectively evil. It has to be one or the other (Law of excluded middle) and it can’t be both (law of non-contradiction). If, as you say, things are designated bad by majority, then it means that if the majority decided rape was now good, then it would become good and not evil. Another example would be that if the Nazis had won WW2 and successfully brainwashed anyone who disagreed with them, then the Holocaust would no longer be evil, since the majority thinks the Jews should have been killed. I find that appalling, and I would argue that some things are wrong, regardless of the majority vote. Otherwise, someone like William Wilberforce would become wrong for opposing slavery, since the majority thought it was fine.

Also, notice how you said you don’t “like” people being killed. If God does not exist, and good and evil really are human categories as you say, then the moral value of your statement really would be the same as “like” or “don’t like” in the same way that some people like cookies, and some don’t. You don’t like murder, some people think it’s great. If the majority of the people in your area think it’s great, well then it becomes great. If you think murder is objectively evil, then there must be good. If there is good, then there must be a moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil. But a moral law requires a moral law giver, who is beyond humanity. It is the same thing that convinced CS Lewis to believe in God. I think if you reflect on it a bit, you will at least see that I am not crazy for thinking what I do.

On the face of it, one might think he is making sense and therein lies the problem and I intend to show why this is so. Before I do that, however, I would like to point out that morality is relational. Without reciprocity and people living in society, there would be no talk about morality. As I have often said, it would be useless to talk about morality to a person living an isolated life in some remote island.

With that background, let us examine his comment.

He writes

Rape, for example, is either objectively evil, or subjectively evil.

and while he ignores to answer my question on what is rape, he goes further to try to set up a dilemma. I will say there is one person who thinks rape is a good thing. These Republicans don’t think it is objectively wrong.

He then asks

If, as you say, things are designated bad by majority, then it means that if the majority decided rape was now good, then it would become good and not evil.

and I will answer in the affirmative. Good and evil are human categories. If people would convince themselves that rape isn’t evil- not that I see how this could happen- they would classify it as among good things. It is not to say people vote on what is good or bad. These opinions are such that we adopt from the cumulative experience of humanity up to the time of our birth. Had situations been different and be born at a different time where rape was one of the surest ways of getting a wife, the outlook would be different.

So when he continues to say

Otherwise, someone like William Wilberforce would become wrong for opposing slavery, since the majority thought it was fine.

and I will answer again in the affirmative. At that particular period, to those who he lived around, his actions were wrong. This fellow is making a judgement with the benefit of hindsight and ignores that particular fact. Those who had slaves thought they had support in scripture, that it was right to have others under subjugation. We can say that slavery was/ is wrong because we have the benefit of hindsight.

Yes, I don’t like people being killed. I don’t want to be killed. How is this a wrong thing?

And unfortunately for my interlocutor, he is far off the mark when he writes

If God does not exist, and good and evil really are human categories as you say, then the moral value of your statement really would be the same as “like” or “don’t like” in the same way that some people like cookies, and some don’t.

because what adding his god does to my statement is only to change who does the liking. By grounding mine in human relations, it has more weight than grounding morals in the whims of a god for we can never know, if gods existed, what their whims were or would be. The bible is full of pages where god commands or kills people he doesn’t like. If this fellow thinks that should be the standard of measure, am sorry for him, too sorry.

And it is true that

You don’t like murder, some people think it’s great. If the majority of the people in your area think it’s great, well then it becomes great. If you think murder is objectively evil, then there must be good

with the only consequence that such a society will self destruct. It is therefore inconceivable that murder will be a trend supported by the majority.

And again

If you think murder is objectively evil, then there must be good. If there is good, then there must be a moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil. But a moral law requires a moral law giver, who is beyond humanity. It is the same thing that convinced CS Lewis to believe in God.

as I had said before, good and bad are human categories. Most things have the appearance of objectivity because as human persons, we share a common heritage. The poem of John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

best captures my point. We are all involved in humanity. And I would dare add that C.S Lewis reasoning was faulty. No wonder he came to believe in god.

And lastly,

I think if you reflect on it a bit, you will at least see that I am not crazy for thinking what I do.

not a chance. I have done a lot of reflection on this subject and at present, I am convinced there is no lawgiver. And secondly that if I granted you the chance of saying there was one, we would still be far from deciding which god it was. You would insist it is the Christian god and I will have to ask you to tell me how the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and others lived so exemplary lives before the coming of this particular Jew.