Quote:
By clearly inferior, I mean that the morality of the Old Testament is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior.
Do you mean to say that all and every case of the use of the phrase, 'clearly inferior', is equivalent to saying that for any x, x is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior? In other words, do you maintain that it is analytic to assert that:
Any system of morality which is in direct opposition to our modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior, is clearly inferior.
Or do you maintain that some uses of, 'clearly inferior', do not mean, 'in direct opposition to modern understanding of morally acceptable behavior'?
If you maintain that 'clearly inferior' and ,'in direct opposition...' are not equivalent, then you statement as quoted, can only be true by virtue of fact(synthetic), ie. observation, as opposed to by virtue of meaning(analytic).
Since it is logically impossible to determine whether any act is moral or immoral, by observation,(and you have not rebutted my argument as to this point as yet), then it is impossible to determine whether any system of morality is 'clearly' inferior' to modern ethics.
Quote:
True morality corresponds to our human experiences. As much we must derive moral laws from the actual consequences that actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures who exist in an objective world.
It seems you believe morality is based on utilitarian principles, 'the well-being of conscious creatures who exist in an objective world'.
This is not how Christians determine whether something is moral or not. Please provide good reasons why this is true, rather than arbitrary or meaningless.
Quote:
Thus, we can understand that child rape is morally wrong for reasons which are founded in experience, as it relates to human flourishing for both the individual and the collective society,
It looks to me that your argument can be put in the form of the following syllogism/Sorites:
P1) Humans determine whether an act is moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.
A1, P2)Therefore, we can determine whether an act is objectively moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.
P3) Child rape has a negative impact on conscious creatures.
A2) Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will attempt to show why your argument is logically fallacious, then I will attempt to construct a better argument in your favor, then I will attempt show how any argument supporting your position will always be false, in all possible worlds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P1) Humans determine whether an act is moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.
Because the purpose of the argument is to demonstrate the correct or best way of determining whether an act is moral or not, P1 must be understood as a descriptive proposition of how humans in the real world, actually in day to day life, judge whether an act is moral. It P1 is taken as prescriptive, that is, telling us how we should determine whether something is moral, rather than how we do in fact judge the morality of an act, then P1 would be to beg the question. Remember that the argument is addressing how we should determine morality, and if P1 is a claim as to how we should, then the argument is question-begging from the beginning. Therefore, it is necessary to understand P1 as a descriptive proposition, rather than prescriptive.
It may be true that some humans do in fact judge an act, by it's impact on conscious or sentient beings. But our question involves how do we determine whether how one person judges morality, as opposed to how another person judges morality. There is a possible world in which all humans judge an act in the way as prescribed by modern ethics, but we do not exist in that state of affairs. The very fact that people have different and often conflicting criterion for morality, is sufficient to refute the idea that practice equals rule, or 'is' is equivalent to 'ought'. Simply though, P1 with P2, commits the genetic fallacy.
A1, P2)Therefore, we can determine whether an act is objectively moral, based on it's impact on conscious creatures.
P2, if affirmed, will cause serious philosophical problems as regards to how any act could be objectively moral or immoral. Objectivity and Subjectivity, are related to the Subject-Object distinction. Objectivity from the human or subjects' perspective, has to do with whether a proposition is true, regardless of whether the human or subject affirms it to be true, or not. Subjectivity from the human or subject's perspective, has to do with a proposition being true or not, depending on whether the subject believes it or not. P1 then is analytically, that is by virtue of definition, subjective and not objective. More on this later.
P3) Child rape has a negative impact on conscious creatures.
(I assume that 'negative impact' means increased unhappiness, in this context.I am not attempting to erect a strawman, and therefore would appreciate clarification as to the meaning of 'negative impact').
Because P3 is not analytic to assert, ie. it is not true by virtue of definition, it must be true by virtue of fact. I grant that it is true, for all victims of child rape, including all who know and love the child, and also for the perpetrator who is caught. I also allow for the possibility of increased unhappiness for any persons unaccounted for. P3 will be immoral according to modern ethics, if any of the following options is true:
An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact on all persons who would be negatively impacted by p, where p is child rape.(analytic)
An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact on any existent person, where the sum of all negatively impacted persons is greater than zero.
An act is immoral, if it has a negative impact greater than q, where q is the maximum number of negatively affected persons, of which an act can be considered not immoral.(Or the inverse)
Option 1, if affirmed, will mean that any act which does not affect a person negatively affected by child rape, is not immoral. I don't think seanstrnad is affirming Option 1.
Option 2, if affirmed, entails that any act which which increases suffering for any individual, is immoral. This would include acts of charity where the giver experiences loss or pleasure, or any act which may increase stress in the individual, and acts of discipline. I don't believe seanstrnd affirms Option 2.
Option 3, if affirmed, will cause an incredible amount of difficulty for any individual who can not determine the number of negatively affected persons, as opposed to the number of positively affected persons. However, the burden of proof is on me to provide good reasons why it is impossible to know the number of negatively affected, versus positively affected persons, and/or the impossibility of knowing an objective number by which to measure an act against.
Because the number of persons affect can only be known empirically (by observation), Option 3 can only be possible if there is an answer to Hume's Problem of Induction. What an enormous mountain to climb for the modern-ethicist! Simply put, even if we could count the number of negatively affected, we would have no way of determining that the same number would hold, for the same act in the future. It would be impossible then, to make any objective claim as to any particular act, eg, that child rape is immoral. All one could possibly say, is that given that modern ethics is correct, child rape is immoral in this particular instance. Ofcourse, this is exactly what we find with modern situational ethicists. But directly on the topic of the impossibility of counting, since Heisenberg, we understand that even if we knew all of the physical mechanics and goings-on in the entire universe, it is impossible to predict how any event happening today, will impact all future events. What negative impact we experience today, may very well lead to a great number of positive experiences in the future. But even restricting ourselves to the present, any observation conducted will be susceptible to the same problems of any scientific observation. Apart from the problem of induction, because all observations take time to be done, which is greater than zero units of measurement, since Einstein, we know that it is impossible to measure simultaneity in the physical world. This means that it is impossible to determine if the unhappiness of two or more persons were simultaneous with each other, and were caused by the same event.
A2) Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.
In order for child rape to be objectively immoral, then it must be immoral to commit an act of child rape in every possible case. It must be true, if Option 3 is affirmed, that there are more negatively affected persons than positively affected persons, in the case of a child rape, in every possible world. Since it is not analytic or self-contradictory to deny that child rape negatively impacts more people it than positively impacts, if modern ethics is true, child rape is not objectively immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Reconstruction Of Your Position
Axiom 1)Morality is the system of behaviour, of a society of animals, whereby the individuals ot that society invest in behaviour patterns, in order to attain a perceived greater amount of happiness, in duration and in quality.
Axiom2)Happiness is the desired state of being. 'Happiness' is equivalent to 'desired state of being'. (It is analytic).
Axiom 3)A rational animal is a material entity, with the capacity to affirm propositions and to engage in acts of behaviour.
Axiom 4)The acts of behaviour and the capacity to affirm propositions are the result of the biomechanico-chemical construction of the entity, and the physical world in which it exists.
Axiom 5)In the case of morality, the subject and the object are the same entity.
Child Rape Is Immoral
An animal capable of culpability is any animal with the capacity to prefer a state of affairs, as opposed to another.
Morality is an objective natural phenomenon, or a biologically developed system of behaviour, where the greatest perceivable and feasible amount of happiness is strived after.
There is a possible world where,ie. it is not self-contradictory to assert, that more happiness is experienced if child rape is not committed.
Therefore, child rape is objectively immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This system of morality is objective, because the object is not the subject's desire, but the physical phenomenon of all possible rational animals -- the ability to prefer one state of affairs as opposed to another. Culpability is a more reasonable foundation for morality, as tmorality and culpability can not be separated from each other without undermining both. Rational animals are unique as they are the only entities of which culpability and morality can be attached meaningfully.
Understanding the rational animal(human) as a material entity with this capacity, it is therefore reasonable to affirm that morality is a natural-biological phenomenon,ie. the ability to prefer a state of affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why this variation of ethics does not stand, is because it too is contingent upon our understanding of humans. A society on the verge of destruction may find it very appealing and spend it's last moments engaging in behaviour previously withheld from. Every argument which is not analytic, can only be true by virtue of fact. And the facts are always susceptible to change between societies, and between generations. Objectivity can not be founded upon our understanding of science or the physical world, but only upon necessary truths, ie. analyticity. In my first post, I outlined the fact that there are only two types of propositions: Analytic, and Synthetic.
Modern ethics is not true by virtue of meaning, therefore it is not analytic. Granting that modern ethics is consistent, it can only be true synthetically so. And no proposition which is synthetically true, can possibly be true in all states-of-affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
For you to say that such and such is wrong because you believe it is a divine mandate does not make it any less arbitrary. It does, however, create a completely baseless moral code by which any action can be deemed "moral" so long as the source of such law is "divine." Hence, science can only be the true source by which humans detemine morality, not religious belief.
Christian morality is objective because the character of God is unchanging, and distinct from the imperatives of human-beings. Because God exists necessarily, and God's character and will is unchanging, morality as prescribed by God is objective. Yet it is also subjective from God's perspective. When the object and the subject are the same being, and the being is not subject to change in either will or perogative, then all and any precept derived therefrom is objectively true, and true in all possible worlds. But to make your case easier:
Humans have a telos, or a purpose for which God made them.
Part of that telos is to love God, and to love our neighbour.
An act is immoral where it is not committed in accordance to the purpose of our existence.
God provides us with the information to know whether an act is immoral or not.
God has the capacity to provide us with knowledge unfailingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very fact that your system of morality is based on our understanding of the physical world, makes it philosophically weak. Science has long disregarded the verification and falsification principles. Subjectivism and pragmaticism have replaced them. All attempts to make science an objectively valid endeavour are based upon probability theory, much like the falsification principle was in later stages.
If you could provide a syllogism which argues your position, I would be most appreciative.
