13 Comments

1. Raenelle  •  Jan 13, 2008 @12:38 pm
   

   The right suddenly seems so concerned about totalitarian impulses. I haven’t heard this much concern from them for individual freedom since “jack-booted thug” days. They really are preparing themselves for a democratic victory, aren’t they.

2. jay  •  Jan 13, 2008 @12:51 pm
   

   As I understand it, an “objective” truth is one that we can all see, and can all know that everyone else sees. So in the absence of a perceptibly commanding God, religion doesn’t give a source of objective morality. Your religion may give a moral code, but not everyone can see that your code is correct. Anticipated verification at the end of time doesn’t count (until the end of time).

   As a skeptic, OTOH, I view morality as the theory and practice of living in a group of humans, and of arranging affairs such that humans can have mutually satisfying interactions with a minimum of violence. In other words, I view ethics as a social science.

3. Red  •  Jan 13, 2008 @12:58 pm
   

   Vox is correct about one point. Any philosophy that is imposed from the top of a social or political hierarchy is, by definition, immoral. In other words, morality depends on each individual’s understanding of what is moral. But what he seems to miss is that this is true not only of secular philosophies, but of religions.

   I think God exists, but no matter how real God is, our understanding is limited to certain concepts by which we measure our assumptions. In the same way that scientists assume certain conditions to test a hypothosis, we evolve our concept of God by close, honest attention to our experience here on earth and drawing out own conclusions. Anything else is dogma.

   Even though I believe in God, most religions seem much more dogmatic than secularists, and more prone to totalitarianism. For example, Governor Huckabee is fond of quoting
   Chapter 3 of the Book of Proverbs: ”Trust in

   the Lord,” he quoted, ”and lean not upon thine own understanding.”
   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

   This is a man, this is a religion, that knows nothing of God.

4. Dan S.  •  Jan 13, 2008 @3:26 pm
   

   “And furthermore, this is precisely why the secular position gravitates so readily and reliably towards totalitarianism, because in the absence of any objective and universal morality, one must be created and imposed.”

   That doesn’t quite work, though. After all, in the (presumed) presence of an objective and universal morality, it’s pretty clear that one major reaction is that this morality must be imposed (although they imagine that they get to skip the ‘created’ part, it’s often clear that there’s a whole lot of creating going on as well). Indeed, one could make a much stronger argument for imposing such a morality by any means necessary, as it is both objective and universal and doubtlessly divinely-created to boot. If one does believes that systems of morality are at least in part subjective and particular, it’s a bit harder to justify getting all totalitarian.

   It’s not just reading comprehension, though – after all, it’s not surprising that Vox leans towards an idea of morality imposed from Above, and has trouble with the idea of any sort of meaningful morality arising from ‘below’, especially from complex interactions (see, as you know, both Altemeyer and Lakoff).

5. Dan S.  •  Jan 13, 2008 @3:41 pm
   

   Also – meant to add,of course actual totalitarian systems tend to be all about claims of objectiveness and universality. Sometimes they’re traditionally religiously-based, sometimes they’re secular, but the underlying dynamic would seem to be the same, sometimes rather blatantly so (ie, the old USSR).

   Although now I see what Voxy’s saying – that a) if there’s no objective&universal etc., b) one has to be made – which rather misses the point; if one believes a)*, b) is pointless by definition.

   * Personally, I think the question is being asked the wrong way, and with the wrong words.

6. moonbat  •  Jan 13, 2008 @9:12 pm
   

   Vox wrote:

   If God does not exist, then no objective and universal morality exists either. This is really not up for debate among anyone who is sufficiently educated and capable of basic logic.
   

   I’m sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, perhaps it’s “the everybody knows” fallacy. I believe in God, but I can readily envision an objective and universal morality in the absence of God.

   There’s the issue of wingnut reading comprehension, but also wingnut logic and imagination.

7. moonbat  •  Jan 13, 2008 @9:17 pm
   

   One more thing – Tristero, over at Digby, now and then closes his posts with a special “Note to conservatives and other functional illiterates” – sounds like he’s seeing the same thing.

8. nickzi  •  Jan 13, 2008 @9:58 pm
   

   Well, let’s be clear on this: all claims about God in the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim, ultimately come down to accepting that a certain book is sacred, and that correct morality is revealed therein. This is far from an “objective” morality, far less a universal one. Rather, it is a subjective morality, based on a claim about a given text and the claims made therein. Consequently, it is easily refuted by anyone who says “Your sacred text is an outdated study of the idiocies that our ancestors once wasted time on. Believe such trash if it pleases you, but do not waste time trying to impose it on me!”. Vox has produced so wretched an argument that one would have to wonder whether he actually understand the nature of religion, or of reason. Sorry, but you can’t base an “objective” claim on a subjective choice.

9. maha  •  Jan 13, 2008 @10:05 pm
   

   moonbat — Yes, what Vox calls “logic” most people would call “limited cognitive ability.” He should rename his site from Vox Populi to Vox Plumbeus (“leaden, made of lead /dull, stupid, heavy”)

10. oldlatinist  •  Jan 13, 2008 @10:10 pm
    

    Perhaps Vox might rename his blog, but “vox plumbeus” is hardly adequate Latin. Vox-vocis is feminine, while plumbeus is masculine. Try vox plumbea – please!

11. moonbat  •  Jan 14, 2008 @2:34 am
    

    Bless you, oldlatinist for straightening us out. One of the great misfortunes of my life was the fact that as I was ready to take high school latin, the dear old woman who taught it retired, and with her, so went latin, in this particular school district. I took French intead.

12. QrazyQat  •  Jan 14, 2008 @10:34 am
    

    I’m sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, perhaps it’s “the everybody knows” fallacy.

    It’s a combination: the first part is begging the question; it asserts something is true without showing that it’s true. The second part is perhaps even less honest ; it’s poisoning the well, a preemptive ad hominem directed toward anyone who dares question the first part (the only people who can possibly disagree with [Vox] are people who are not sufficiently educated and who are incapable of basic logic).

13. paradoctor  •  Jan 14, 2008 @4:59 pm
    

    Vox wrote: “If God does not exist, then no objective or universal morality exists either.” He called this a matter of logic.

    Allow me to propose a contrary proposition: “If a God _does_ exist, then no objective or universal morality exists.” My reasoning is that if there were a god-like entity, from whom a morality derives, then such a morality would be neither objective nor universal, but would instead express the parochial subjectivity of the god-like entity. As a result, the god-like entity’s rules, if universally enforced, will inevitably cause suffering and injustice.

    All of human history supports this analysis. Every single god-like entity we humans have set up over ourselves – a Dear Leader, a Sun King, a People’s Party, a Holy Book, and so on – all without exception have proven incompetent at morality. And the more powerful and god-like we make the damn thing, the worse it acts.

    Now for the contrapositive. “If there is an objective and universal morality, then no God exists.” If there is a true law, then none are above it.