Fri 20 Nov, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration
2:43 pm Comments (63) Filed under: Deep Social Change, Life and ChoicesTags: Declaration, Manhattan
I am pleased to have had my signature on the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience when it was released today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. I urge you to sign it too.
It is a 4,700 word statement calling for justice and ethics in government and society, especially with respect to the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, and freedom of religion and conscience.
The core declaration reads thus:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.
Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.
From the press release, here is your encouragement to join in as a signer and to spread the word:
We invite you to join with other Christians across the nation who support the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty by endorsing the Manhattan Declaration.
Throughout the centuries, God has graciously provided His people with teachers and prophetic voices who apply His word to the critical issues of the day and who lead their hearers to embrace His life-giving authority and counsel in the midst of cultural madness. The Manhattan Declaration extends and honors that tradition, and we urge you to join us in affirming it. The Manhattan Declaration addresses with urgent eloquence the devaluation of human life, the corruption of marriage, and the erosion of religious liberty. With careful instruction, it brings light and clarity to all who read it. We trust that millions of believers will sign it, that countless others will be drawn or driven to give it fair consideration, and that our society will be changed by its strong yet sweetly reasonable message.
The Manhattan Declaration will be released this Friday, November 20, 2009, at a press conference in Washington D.C. It bears the signatures of many religious leaders, but this is just the beginning. The list of supporters will grow dramatically in a short time and those who most need to hear this word will not be able to escape or downplay it. So please endorse this document by your signature and spread the word to others who might endorse it as well. Thank you.
[...] night I deleted a comment placed on the Manhattan Declaration thread The commenter subsequently complained to me by email, including this: Obviously you’re not a [...]
From the core declaration:
What does this refer to?
Later in the declaration it says,
In other words, people should be forced to live, even when they face irremediable and unbearable suffering; fully sentient, adult women should take a backseat to clumps of cells; and, the government should deny the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. All because it says so (maybe, depending on who you ask) in a barely coherent hodgepodge of ancient religious texts.
I think I’ll pass.
I’ll agree with you to this extent, Jordan (previewing a near-future blog post):
It comes down to whether there is a God, and whether he has spoken, and what he says. If there is no God, then I’m as wrong and you’re as right as those words would make sense signifying in that case.
I look forward to that future post, although I don’t agree with your implied relativism (i.e., morality changes depending to whether or not God exists). Morality is morality. God has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.
There may be legitimate disagreements over abortion, marriage and assisted suicide, but claiming that the lives of the elderly and disabled are “severely threatened” because individuals that have experienced brain death can be removed from life-support without their consent threatens to make a mockery of the whole thing, in my opinion.
Woodchuck64, Americans are being fed some deceptive pablum about health care. Socialized medicine is no panecea. It’s not about ripping the plug out. It’s a bit more subtle than that. The bottom line is that resources are finite and when markets are not free neither are entrepreneurs likely to do much innovating much less risk taking. For another view of the coming problem:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/19/government_control_leads_to_denial_of_health_care_98776.html
Jordan,
You’re disagreeing with something Christianity doesn’t teach. Morality doesn’t simply change from one thing to another with/without God, it fails to exist without God. That’s the Christian view.
If God’s necessary, immutable character grounds morality, then that’s a fact of reality that your opinion can’t change.
I would say that going from existence to nonexistence is a form of change, wouldn’t you?
This is pastor-talk: Words, devoid of content (pretty typical in discussions about morality, actually). How exactly does God’s “immutable character” (I won’t even open that can of worms) “ground” morality? What do you mean by “ground”? Why does morality need to be “grounded,” and not God’s “immutable character”?
How can the grounding of morality be properly addressed if a reductionist view of reality itself animates a disordered view of what both a human being is and and what a person is? If one claims (quite unscientifically and pseudo-philosophically) that a person is a “lump of cells,” that must–at some level–be preceded by the reductionist view that a house is merely “a pile of brick and boards.”
It’s the same disordered “reasoning” that believes we are merely piles of 10^28 atoms that are the sum of sensory-accessible properties. If one claims the that anti-fecundal homosexual “relations” are allegedly denied dignity because such “marriages” aren’t sanctioned, doesn’t that beg a number of questions: of whether or not homosexuality is inherently disordered by its very nature (that homosexual acts are acted out by brute animals doesn’t qualify it as being as being a “good” just because it occurs in nature any more than genetic diseases or murder are “goods” simply because it occurs in nature), or whether the definition of marriage can be manipulated by votes (i.e., might makes right), or whether people can be coerced to pay (hiding behind taxes) for the sanctioning of inherently immoral acts.
And, this is all–quite hypocritically–under the rubric that most atheists who support such nonsense are… moral relativists. Talk about imposing absolute moral sanctions when one decries moral objectivity in the first place! This is why atheism can correctly be characterized as “dignity degrading” (why not “reduce the surplus population” or those humans that inconvenience our lives?): it reduces an understanding of the human person (and all that entails) to the whims of the strong rather than to the truth of reality.
You get this kind of reaction from hostile atheists. Immutable character is not inscrutable to anyone with a dictionary and a willingness to minimally ponder the words. It is a reference to God not changing his moral values. Nothing would surprise him, make him more knowledgeable than he already is, or make him want to change his bedrock values to become more trendy or respond to social pressures. You would not expect this of someone with limited understanding, abilities and knowledge. External circumstances could induce a change of our point of view. Not so with God.
Ideally morality would be immutable. Killing except to defend oneself or someone else would be immoral. It should not become moral because the leader of a local gang desires that some people be killed and wants to make me an instrument of that policy. It should not become moral because the medical treatment for that elderly person entails “wasting” resources that are not plentiful. He’s 80 years old and will likely die within a short time anyway.
The shoe should be on the other foot. If your moral compass is set to respond to political or social forces or is shaped by the attitude of colleagues, family members or acquaintances, your either have a weak set of values or perhaps none at all. Right and wrong matter. It impacts our personal decisions and shapes the society we live in. Of course you can retreat to the “I just don’t believe in God anyway” position. But if that’s the complaint then you might as well stop wasting everyone’s time. Or is the bile so thick that you can’t resist opportunities to show believers your opinion of them and their beliefs?
William Bradford wrote:
Ideally? Would be? What about the real world? Is the Christian morality absolute and immutable?
Yes.
Interesting. So what is God’s take on divorce?
God does not favor divorce.
But does He allow it?
We make choices. They may not accord with God’s will.
William,
You are weaseling out of my question and I think I understand why. Different Christian denominations hold different positions on the morality of divorce. Some allow it, some don’t. So apparently there are no absolute moral standards in this regard.
Am I wrong?
I’m guided by scriptural accounts. Two things are clear. God hates divorce. That is true whether or not couples get divorced or certain denominations allow it. Second, the scriptural allowances for divorce are very limited.
olegt,
“Absolute moral standards” do not mean, “absolutely agreed by every Christian,” nor do they mean, “applied in absolutely the same way in every circumstance.” God hates divorce. That’s an absolute. God does not approve it for just any reason at all. That’s an absolute. God nevertheless loves people even when we do things he does not approve of. That’s an absolute. Christians are called to love people who do things God disapproves of. That’s an absolute.
Now, within a set of absolutes including parameters like those, there may be difficulty in determining things like, just what are the full set of circumstances in which divorce is permissible? Generally speaking, the views on this could be divided into two partially overlapping ones: It’s permissible when it’s undertaken in recognition of the marriage already being broken, and it’s permissible when it’s the lesser of two evils.
The first case would be most obviously instantiated when one spouse moves out to live with another partner and is unrepentant; but of course it need not always be that obvious. The second case might be one in which a partner’s life, or the children’s, life is endangered by continuing in the marriage. Again, it’s not always that cut-and-dried, and there can be difficulty determining the right answer in a specific circumstance.
So what does “absolute moral standard” actually mean? I prefer to think of it by the term, “moral realism.” There are certain things that are really right and others that are really wrong, regardless of what any person on earth thinks about them, or even if every person on earth had the opposite view. There are moral standards that transcend human opinion. They inhere in the character of God, and thus are absolute.
We don’t have perfect access to knowledge of every application of those standards, but still they exist, and they exist truly, surely, and absolutely. That’s what it means that there are absolute moral standards.
That’s a non sequitur fallacy. A colloquial description of fallacious reasoning is “weaseling out of the truth.”
Who’s espousing a reductionist view of reality?
Who made that claim? Persons are not lumps of cells; and, just as importantly, mere lumps of cells are not persons.
Do you have a problem with “anti-fecundal” relationships? Even heterosexual ones (i.e., infertile couples)?
Yes, I know what “God’s immutable character” means, I just don’t see why it is needed to “ground” morality. Why can’t we just say that morality, per se, is immutable and eternal?
Jordan:
You can say it but what is your rationale for that position? Practically speaking those who discount a connection between morality and God show a tendency to adapt their morality to changing societal trends. If moral principles are immutable there should be evidence for this reflected in immutable behavioral standards. Concepts like living, breathing constitutions run counter to immutability. Laws have an underlying moral component
What’s your rationale for saying the same of God?
Everyone shows that tendency, regardless of what they believe about the connection between morality and God. And it’s often a good thing, too (see: abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, etc.). As we mature as a species, we’re honing in on moral truth (just as we’re honing in on scientific truth) and shedding the often repugnant, antiquated moral misconceptions of our ancestors.
So you’re saying that morality isn’t immutable? You’re a relativist?
Jordan:
YOU made the REDUCTIONIST claim (comment #4 above November 21, 2009 at 2:19 pm) and just above as well. Would you mind backing up—with scientific evidence—your assertion that a “[c]lump of cells is not a person,” or that this [c]lump of cells is not a human being?
“Fecundity” is a term that refers to the potential to reproduce based on the natures of the couple considered (assuming higher animals). There is NO such natural “potential” in any homosexual couple, and there never can be because by its very nature a homosexual act is biologically pathological. In fact, the disordered homosexual act poses grave psychological and physiological risks and well-documented actual damage to practicing homosexuals (www.narth.org).
In contrast, one or both partners of an infertile couple are in a pathological state not of their choice, i.e., there is no moral responsibility that can be assigned and the lack of fertility is not a moral evil but a physical evil (in the same way that it is a physical evil for a man to be born blind but it is not evil that a man doesn’t have wings)… unless, of course, a person intentionally sought out and made themselves sterile, which would be a grave moral evil.
J: What’s your rationale for saying the same of God?
B: His attributes. Omniscience trumps limitations and ignorance.
Practically speaking those who discount a connection between morality and God show a tendency to adapt their morality to changing societal trends.
J: Everyone shows that tendency, regardless of what they believe about the connection between morality and God.
B: Untrue. My underlying values are not changing.
J: And it’s often a good thing, too (see: abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, etc.). As we mature as a species, we’re honing in on moral truth (just as we’re honing in on scientific truth) and shedding the often repugnant, antiquated moral misconceptions of our ancestors.
B: This is contemporary mythology and refuted on a daily basis by news reports. Slavery still exists in parts of the world. So does famine, tyranny, poverty and a host of other ills. Positive changes are counterbalanced by new and innovative ways to kill, expanded terrorism, piracy on the high seas, economic difficulties and much more. More people were killed in the 20th century than in all prior history and scientific breakthroughs added to the arsenal of killers. Science and technology are but tools that can be used for ill as well as good. Holocaust deniers in possession of nuclear weapons is not an advancement for humanity.
If moral principles are immutable there should be evidence for this reflected in immutable behavioral standards.
J: So you’re saying that morality isn’t immutable? You’re a relativist?
Why did you not include the living, breathing constitution concept that statement referenced? Is quote mining your hobby?
Seriously, I’m not trying to be rude, but do you have reading comprehension difficulties? Because the statement, “Mere lumps of cells are not persons,” is very different from the statement, “Persons are lumps of cells.” In fact, the former is pretty much antithetical to the latter. At any rate, personhood isn’t really the issue, is it? It’s about sentience and the ability to suffer.
You’re asking me to provide “scientific evidence” as the basis of a definition?
Nor in infertile heterosexual couples. Is infertility a sin? Let’s say, for example, that my girlfriend has had a hysterectomy, and I lost my testicles in a tragic porcupine throwing contest. Would it be immoral for us to get married?
People like you are the ultimate cause of most the psychological problems homosexuals face, because you create a hostile environment for homosexuals with your bigoted rhetoric. As to the physiological risks, that is a personal choice, and heterosexual relationships involve similar risks (again, personal choice). “Risky” doesn’t necessarily mean “immoral.”
Ah, now I understand your position better. And I completely disagree with it. I don’t think it’s wrong to choose infertility. It’s as simple as that.
But let me ask you this: If homosexuality is not a choice (i.e., if it is a “physical evil”), then will you support gay marriage?
I asked what your rationale was for saying that God is immutable and eternal (I assume you believe he is eternal). I’m wondering if you have a better reason for thinking God is eternal & immutable than I do for thinking the same about morality.
Well, ok, everyone except you… because you’re perfect.
Women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery are myths? Who knew…
Seriously, though, I didn’t say slavery had ceased to exist (although, it’s on its death bed) or that our society doesn’t have its share of problems. What I said was that moral progress has been made, and I gave two examples, not realizing that they were, according to Dr. William Bradford, modern myths.
Why didn’t you answer my question? I’ll ask again: Is morality immutable. The alternative is relativism.
But first, another episode of Guess That Worldview. Our first contestant, William Bradford, moral realist:
And our next contestant, William Bradford, moral relativist:
Jordan:
I understand asserting (“It’s as simple as that”) for you is easier than reasoning to such a position, but please don’t think critical thinkers will take you seriously.
You just answered the question for me: if it’s a physical evil then why would any reasonable person support it? Moreover, even if it’s shown (it hasn’t been) that homosexuality has a possibly genetic precursor, then it’s a fallacy to jump to considering it a “good.” After all, some genetic defects occur naturally and there may be a genetic precursor to alcoholism. Do we accept them as “good”?
To employ your tactics: Seriously, I’m not trying to be rude, but the rest of your response seems to betray reasoning difficulties. And your bigoted anti-faith rhetoric clearly reflects the atheism which animates it.
And where did you “reason to the position” that it is wrong to choose infertility?
Well, you support the right of infertile heterosexual couples to get married, in spite of the “physical evil” of their infertility. Why not do the same for homosexuals (assuming homosexuality is not a choice)?
And, by the way, homosexuality is almost certainly not a choice (although that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s genetic, either). You can verify this with an experiment (and, unlike most experiments, you can observe the results directly): Try to be a homosexual. Go ahead. Grab a magazine and look at some Calvin Klein ads. Is it working? I didn’t think so. That’s because you can’t choose to be a homosexual any more than you can choose to like onions or Radiohead.
Man, this is a time sink. And to what end?
Jordan, you wrote,
The issue is being in the image of God, and what that means. “Sentience” and “the ability to suffer” are what I would call “nice tries,” attempted by those who are trying to determine where moral worth comes from apart from a worth-giving transcendent God. Nice tries that don’t produce enough definition to do the job they’re being called on for.
I’m not sure about Holopupenko, but I’d be willing to hear any evidential basis to support your definition at all.
Didn’t you notice he already addressed that?
Please provide the scientific evidence for that. That ought to be supportable with sociological data.
No. They don’t.
It is still an evil. It’s not the only evil toward which persons are prone. If alcoholism or coke addiction is not a choice, would you support the state condoning people ruining their lives with those substances?
Christian doctrine does not say that evil is condoned on account of its being unavoidable. It says that it can be redeemed, and that God desires persons to mature toward righteousness even if it’s a struggle.
God is the sort of being that can have the property of immutability and eternality. Morality is not. Was killing immoral before the Big Bang? What could that have possible even meant? Did killing become immoral at some point in history? Then morality changed; it is not immutable (apart from God).
Global abolition is a myth. Global women’s rights are still a myth.
It is ALWAYS worth anyone’s time and effort to strive toward a non-proximate END–the truth: truth does not need justification or “proof”–it is a transcendental and therefore its pursuit is inherently justified. Keep your eye on the true, the good, and the beautiful instead of defining these contingently based on your own personal whims. The truth is, well, to die for…
B: Untrue. My underlying values are not changing.
J: Well, ok, everyone except you… because you’re perfect.
Retaining an immutable value system provides a measuring stick by which behavior can be judged. It does not make one perfect. Neither does changing one’s values imply moral betterment.
J: What I said was that moral progress has been made, and I gave two examples, not realizing that they were, according to Dr. William Bradford, modern myths.
The examples are not the myth. The myth lies in the belief that humanity displays better moral behavior over time. The reason I cited the counter examples you ignored was to paint the bigger picture.
B: My underlying values are not changing.
And our next contestant, William Bradford, moral relativist:
B: If moral principles are immutable there should be evidence for this reflected in immutable behavioral standards.
The evidence is the moral standard Tom, I and other Christians share. It’s immoral to steal even if the victim stole from you first. That’s an example if an immutable position. It’s immoral to cheat on your wife even if you have the opportunity to do so with an attractive woman. No pop psych studies will change that POV.
How does “being in the image of God” produce more definition than “sentience and the ability to suffer”? Granted, the latter is not comprehensive, but at least its a start. We know what sentience is, and we know it should be valued and protected. We also know what suffering is, and we know it’s something that should be alleviated if possible. How can we possibly know what God is?
Let’s get back to my original claim: That a clump of cells is not a person. Persons have sentience (according to the definition of personhood that I subscribe to). A mere clump of cells doesn’t. If you disagree with my definition, then I guess we’re at an impasse.
Ok, it’s a hypothesis. I know, I know… It’s pretty “out there,” the notion that, all else being equal, an atmosphere of hate and bigotry causes psychological problems.
Really? Heterosexual relationships don’t involve similar risks? Like STDs? I’ll admit that heterosexual relationships do involve at least one dissimilar risk: Unwanted pregnancy.
I disagree.
Let’s leave choice out of it. I only brought it up because it was part of Holopupenko’s argument against homosexuality. You don’t seem to be basing your opposition to homosexuality on whether it’s a choice.
Regarding alcoholism and other forms of addiction, they are bad by definition. Homosexuality isn’t. Actually, I’m glad you used that analogy. Let me extend it a bit: Do you favor prohibition? Is alcohol, even in moderation, evil?
That depends. Did time begin at the big bang? If it did, then your question makes no sense, since there would be no such time as “before the big bang”; if it didn’t, then yes, in the sense that the proposition “unjustified killing is wrong” would have be true.
Can we not split hairs? Life is too short. Abolition and suffrage are not myths. Most slavery has been abolished, and many women have gained the right to vote. We, as a species, have made progress. That is my claim.
Is your measuring stick perfect? If not, then I would suggest that changing your measuring stick to more closely approximate moral truth does, in fact, imply moral betterment.
Those weren’t really counter examples, though. You yourself admitted that technology has made us better at killing. Our willingness to kill seems to have decreased, while, unfortunately, our ability to kill has grown exponentially. In a way, we’ve shown real restraint compared to our ancestors. If stone age warlods had had access to nuclear warheads, we probably wouldn’t even exist.
In civilized society, you can’t own slaves, you can’t burn witches or lynch thieves, you can’t wipe out rival tribes, women aren’t treated like objects (at least, not the the same extent that they once were), people are allowed to speak their minds, etc. I think you’re taking alot for granted when you deny our moral progress.
Let’s review: I said that morality was immutable. You countered that, if that were true, we should expect to see “immutable behavioral standards,” the implication being that, since we don’t see immutable behavioral standards, morality must not be immutable. If morality is not immutable, then it is mutable — i.e., it can change. That’s relativism, and its what you were implying.
Now, you’re saying that you and your fellow Christians exhibit “immutable behavioral standards” (to which I respond: HA!), and that this counts as evidence for the immutability of morality.
Arguing with you is like catching a greased pig… over, and over, and over again.
J: If not, then I would suggest that changing your measuring stick to more closely approximate moral truth does, in fact, imply moral betterment.
What moral truth would that be- contemporary standards? Let me guess. Bigger government is good. Christianity bad. Gay marriage good. It’s opponents intolerant. Bush was a #**$#&# and Obama is leading us to the promised land of having less (jobs?) and (enjoying it more???). How am I doing so far?
J: Our willingness to kill seems to have decreased, while…
You need to travel around the world and find out that this is yet another myth. Modern history did not begin with your life. The 20th century was last week in historic time frames. Read the history. Deaths were measured in the scores of millions. Not a decrease. Try increase instead. And not just Europe. Biafra, Rwanda, Cambodian killing fields… Your core beliefs are myths.
J: You countered that, if that were true, we should expect to see “immutable behavioral standards,” the implication being that, since we don’t see immutable behavioral standards, morality must not be immutable.
Going back to what I actually said, key concepts marking this era such a living, breathing constitution are evidence that moral relativism has become institutionalized and attracts followers like you. It stands in contrast to standards like the Ten Commandments which do not change to comply with fleeting fads.
It isn’t about what you personally “subscribe to” or your personal opinions. That’s why your commitment to truth can certainly be questioned. Also, brute animals are sentient, but they cannot reason abstractly (try to convince a hungry animal to wait one hour to get twice the food reward): humans reason are capable of reasoning about things that are not accessible to the senses. A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.
We as a species have made moral progress? Perhaps. But doesn’t “progress” presuppose a direction toward something, i.e., a goal, i.e., a telos? Hmmm… but Richard “boy am I philosophically challenged” Dawkins and his fellow travelers resoundingly assert NO! No purpose, no good, no evil, no free will, no moral objectivity, no substantive natures, etc., etc. Admitted question-begging notwithstanding (but which can be answered) if that isn’t dignity degrading I don’t know what is.
And, in any event, let’s talk about atheism’s contribution to “progress”: what about atheism’s sole substantive contribution to human civilization, i.e., genocide? More persons have been killed as a result of atheism in the 20th century than than have been killed as a result of religious faith throughout history. If such choices were reducible to accounting practices, I’ll go with religious faith. Oh, you mean those weren’t “real” atheists? Can you say “special pleading”?
Perhaps the “greasy pig” is the one who brings presuppositional personal opinions into the discussion and then tries to redefine reality to fit their egos–shape-shifting every time something doesn’t go their way… like having to follow evidence to where it leads.
Again you imply relativism? There is only one moral truth.
Go read the part of my post that you conveniently left out. You know, the part where I acknowledge that technology has made us better at killing? Willingness and ability are two different things.
Are you serious? You think I’m a relativist? Have you even read my posts!? I am the one who’s been arguing for moral realism.
When did this become an argument about the 10 Commandments vs. the Constitution? At any rate, the fact that the 10 Commandments doesn’t change only means that those parts of it that are wrong will always be wrong. The Constitution, on the other hand, acknowledges human fallibility and allows amendment in response to moral progress — i.e., the parts of it that are wrong can be made right as we hone in on the moral truth.
There are degress of sentience. Of all the animals, humans are sentient to the highest degree (as far as we know). And there is evidence that certain mammals are capable of abstract reasoning.
Atheism does not entail moral relativism, and theism does not entail moral realism. I’m an atheist, and a moral realist.
Actually, I think it was the mustaches. The vast majority of evil dictators have had them.
On a serious note, show me how atheism, per se, encourages genocide.
Oh, and how do you think humanity would have fared if modern warfare technology had been available during the Crusades?
Yes, but you shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
Let’s leave aside the question of whether you understand what realism is about, could you please provide a basis for your alleged, moral objectivity?
Ummm… whatever.
I (imperfectly) perceive morality with my moral sense. What is the basis of your “alleged moral objectivity”? I imagine it will be long-winded and incoherent. Or maybe you’ll save us both some time with a good old-fashioned, “Goddidit!”
J: Go read the part of my post that you conveniently left out. You know, the part where I acknowledge that technology has made us better at killing? Willingness and ability are two different things.
The induced starvation of Biafrans and the Cambodian mass exterminations were not the consequence of advanced weaponry. The evidence of moral invariance is extensive. We’re not witnessing human moral upgrades; modern mythology notwithstanding.
That sort of behavior has been around since the the beginning, whereas the examples I gave of moral progress are unique to our age.
Analogy: Does the fact that people still get sick imply that we haven’t made progress in medicine?
Nice display of intellectual rigor there, Jordan. Just answer the question (the onus is on you): what is the basis for your alleged, moral objectivity… and, while you’re at it, what does your “moral sense” mean? Is it something akin to your physical “visual sense,” or is it another throw-away phrase you hope won’t be pursued? Is it something as incoherent as woodchuck’s claim (from his naturalist perspective) that there are non-physical things that affect the physical? At this point, I think it’s way beyond grease that makes you so slippery…
J: That sort of behavior has been around since the the beginning, whereas the examples I gave of moral progress are unique to our age.
Our age? The Civil War began in 1861. The right of women to vote- early 20th century. Cambodia and Biafra are latter 20th century. Moral regress. A sign of the last century.
Oh, and the Pol Pot et al did have advanced weaponry (in a broader history context) — i.e., guns, tanks, bombs, etc.
And the killing of 1.4 million unborn children in the U.S. alone are so efficiently carried out by remarkably “progressive” technologies… thanks to the will-to-power (oops, I forgot: there’s no free will) reduction of persons to untermenchen “clumps of cells”.
William,
I strongly suggest you watch this with an open mind:
Pinker on the myth of violence
It’s only 20 minutes.
Thanks to moral & technological progress, countless women have been able to avoid the life-destroying burden of an unwanted child.
I did.
Yes, similar. If you see a child getting beaten, do you have to consult your Bible or formulate a logical argument to know its wrong? No. You perceive the wrongness with your moral sense.
Holo,
Oh, and why don’t you answer my question? What is the “basis” of your moral realism?
William Bradford wrote:
That’s a convenient half truth, William. The world’s population in the 20th century was far greater than in any previous century. Look at the numbers:
2000 6.0 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1800 1.0 billion
Look at this graph.
If you want to compare the cruelty of men living in different times you have to normalize by the population numbers. If you do that, the 20th century does not stand out.
Look at the French Wars of Religion of the late 16th century (Catholics vs. Protestants). The population of France, 16-18 million, went down by 2-4 million.
Look at Thirty Years’ War that reduced the population of German states by 15 to 30%.
Olegt, do you have convincing historic evidence that humanity is evolving to become increasingly moral in their behavior. That’s the claim. Where’s the beef? We’re not “honing in on moral truth” If we are we’re sure contradicting this with our behavior. Does anyone read the news?
Pol Pot did not need tanks to commit mass murder. What he needed was a blatent disregard for decent moral standards. So much for “honing in on moral truth.”
Right… And, prior to Pol Pot, nobody had a blatant disregard for decent moral standards. *sigh* I’m done with you. You’re just arguing for arguments sake.
Jordan, that’s a strange throw-your-hands-in-the-air response to a relevant argument. The claim was made that the twentieth century did not exhibit great moral progress, as witnessed by the mass murderers of the century. You answered that it was because of technology that they were able to do that. This answer says no, that’s not how Pol Pot did it. Now you say, “you’re just arguing for arguments (sic) sake.” No, he was responding to an arguable claim on your part.
But that is how Pol Pot did it! He wouldn’t have been able to do what he did without a modern military (again, by “modern,” I’m talking tanks, guns, bombs, etc.). Also, let’s not forget the population factor. More people = more death.
At any rate, did you watch Pinker’s TED talk about the myth of violence? I linked to it above.
I’ve read Pinker on that topic, so I did not take the 20 minutes to view the video.
Did Pol Pot really use tanks as a main method of killing? Did the Hutus in Rwanda? Is that the explanation for Darfur?
He couldn’t have done what he did without the combination of modern warfare technology + population. I don’t think that’s under dispute. Atheism didn’t invent evil dictatorships.