How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by Mark , Thursday, June 12, 2008, 17:06 (5791 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I would question your basic premise. It presupposes that reality is only to be found outside the human mind. - Philosophers use the word "real" in this way. I did not make up the terms "moral realism" and "moral anti-realism". I used these labels as they are used in philosophy. However, I can understand your objection. If someone is in pain they would not take kindly to me saying that their pain is not real because it does not exist outside of their mind. This quibble with the word "real" doesn't change my argument though. Invent a word which means "existing independently of human minds" and substitute. - dhw: If there were no humans, there would be no wrong. - If you mean there would be no acts of wrong then, excepting any other moral life forms, I would agree. If you mean that there would not be such a thing as wrong (or right), then I assume you are aware that I cannot accept this. I just want to check that you are not asserting this to be self-evident. As a Christian I believe that there are such things as right and wrong independently of whether humans exist. I believe that God is the ultimate good and that his being depends on nothing apart from himself. - dhw: But "Murder is wrong" remains a common human judgment and ... to answer part of your question ... this is what provides the foundation for its authority, and it is the smooth running of society that constitutes its purpose. - I take it from this and the rest of your post that you do not believe that morality has any existence outside of human minds ... that you are a moral anti-realist (if I may risk using the term just one more time, by way of reference to my previous post). - As you have said in your reply to Cary:
"I know my moral code is not objective. It is based on humanism, human dignity, social functioning and love, and I try to conform to what I think it is." - It is helpful that you have made yourself clear on this. It seems that it is not in itself a difficulty to you that morals are all subjective. I still would say that I find the moral claim on me to be unselfish to be something more than an opinion within me or the opinion of others. - A minor point on language ... when you say that your moral code is "based... on human dignity", you must really be saying no more than that you believe, as a starting point, and with no reason, that humans have dignity or value. You will make it a basis for moral calculation that humans have value. You do not accept that humans objectively have value. Ask a humanist why he believes humans have dignity and I think all he can say is "because we do, it just so happens that most of us think that way intuitively." - I'll try to push further. You speak of "the smooth running of society" as the purpose of law, and "social functioning". I'll now try to show why to a Christian the good of humanity is not the ultimate purpose, and that many others may feel the same pressure. - Imagine if a desperate situation developed whereby the only way to save the world from destruction was if you horribly tortured an innocent child. Let's say you then also had to kill the child. Let's say also that you died whatever the outcome, and if the world was saved it knew nothing of the torture, thinking only that you had gloriously sacrificed your life, so that humanity is left with no destructive sense of guilt. What would you do? I would allow the world to end, not because I was going to die anyway, but because I believe it would be the morally right decision. - Now you could object that this is an extreme and totally unrealistic case, not worth thinking about. It is extreme, but the principle is one that we apply in lesser cases ... that we should not use a human person as a means to an end. It demonstrates that maximizing human happiness or valuing human life are not adequate bases for morality. - Just what is being valued here? What makes the torture such an offence in comparison with the sum of human life lost? I would say that as I meet my neighbour the moral claim upon me is God in my neighbour. Any offence against my neighbour is directly an offence against God. - What would a humanist think? If he would torture the child, then this would confirm my suspicion that humanism is more free to slide down the slippery slope. If not, then I would ask why not? What principle is being applied? It cannot be the valuing of human life. It cannot be for the sake of some ideal, for ideals only exist in human minds which are all to be destroyed.