The Presuppositions (a response to comments by Daniel Morgan)
If you read the comments to the previous post you will see that Daniel Morgan is interested in looking at some of the issues that are actually important.
Daniel wrote:
I have no doubt that evolution has produced in us empathetic devices, because animals display empathy just as we do. Furthermore, evolution has produced in us a degree of consciousness of the pain of others that these very mechanisms are the “conviction meters†that we so often talked about as Christians.
This demonstrates for us Daniel’s presuppositon regarding morality. His presupposition may be summed up:
Morality is a function of evolution.
Animals feel empathy.
Humans (being animals) likewise feel empathy.
Humans can recognize pain not only in themselves but in others too.
Therefore, humans consider actions that cause pain to be wrong.
Naturally, I disagree with this presupposition. However, before we address it, let me put mine forth.
The God of the Christian religion exists.
He has given certain laws that His created beings ought to obey.
These laws are based on His nature (thus they are not arbitrary, but they are likewise not based on something higher than God).
People who obey God’s laws are “righteous.”
People who disobey God’s laws are “unrighteous.”
(Note: these are not properly basic presuppositions, as certain points in them depend on further presuppositions; however for the sake of this argument it is sufficient to start with these as if they were both basic presuppositions.)Â
Now let us look at two specific moral concepts here. The first moral concept: Murder is wrong. The second is different although similar: God’s allowing a murder to occur is wrong. I, of course, agree with the first but reject the second; based on his comments, I assume that Daniel agrees with both of the above moral concepts.
So: Murder is wrong.
My view has a very easy way to hold that moral statement. The Bible says: “You shall not murder” in the Ten Commandments. That suffices for the Christian, but the Bible also further explains why the command is in effect: because humans are created in the image of God.
Thus we can see that the moral idea: “Murder is wrong” is consistent with the Christian presuppositions that I have set forth.
Likewise, the second moral point is shown to be contrary to the Christian presuppositions because 1) God’s law is for man, not God and thus God is not under the same commands that He gives us; 2) God is the potter and we are the clay, and thus He has the right as creator to determine the length of our lives; 3) in the case of murder, God is not the active participant anyway (rather other people engage in the act of murder, God is simply allowing the action to occur).
So accepting the first moral idea and rejecting the second definitely fits with my Christian presuppositions. Thus, holding my presuppositions, I act consistent in making my claims that murder is wrong but it is not wrong for God to allow murders to occur.
What, then, if we look at Daniel’s presuppositions. Let’s start with the first one: Murder is wrong. Is this consistent with Daniel’s beliefs.
We see in Daniel’s system that pain is the determining factor in morality. Thus, we see immediately that it would not be wrong for someone to cause a painless death.
Daniel may immediately argue that such a death is not painless to the loved ones of the one who dies. But we are left with the possibility that there is someone who has no loved ones (e.g. someone who is the sole survivor in his family, etc.). Thus, in his case, it is not wrong for murder to occur.
But there is something more fundamental to consider. Life itself is painful. People stub their toes; people lose their loved ones to natural death; people get old and their joints ache. But in death, no one feels any pain at all. Therefore, death ought to be preferable to life in a system of morality based on pain avoidance, and murder can be viewed as a mercy instead of a crime.
In fact, the best way to avoid pain for any creature is to simply destroy all life. So, blowing up the entire Earth would be the greatest act of mercy, especially if it could be done instantaneously so no one felt pain in the process.
This idea is of course extreme–yet it is perfectly consistent with Daniel’s presuppositions regarding morality. Thus, the concept of “Murder is wrong” does not follow from his presuppositions, for his presuppositions could just as easily justify the murder of everyone.
Interestingly enough, it is possible that his presuppositions would result in God being condemned for allowing some murders, but only for those people who end up in hell. In other words, God would be perfectly just in allowing the murder of individuals who end up in heaven for they would no longer experience pain.
The discussion of hell is, of course, a different topic, but for this argument I’ll grant that the atheist’s mischaracterization of it as God’s torture room as accurate. We still see that God is not unjust for allowing some murders since not everyone goes to hell, even if He is unjust in allowing other murders since some do go to hell.
Therefore, it is not the case that all murders are wrong of God to allow. We therefore see that the moral concepts that “Murder is wrong” and “God’s allowing murders to occur is wrong” are both unsupported as universal claims. Daniel’s presuppositions do not allow these statements to be taken universally. There are some murders that would not be wrong, and there are some murders that God allows that would not be wrong either.
Daniel’s presuppositions, therefore, presuppose another hidden presupposition in order to be consistent. Daniel seems to recognize this, however, since he mentions: “I myself tend to disbelieve all claims of ‘absolute, universal’ anything…” The problem is that if he is not arguing for an absolute, universal morality he must demonstrate how his morality applies to God. In other words, if it is not universal then there must be a reason why God would need to follow it. Otherwise, the entire argument is moot.
Finally, Daniel points out:
The real problem I see with nearly all of your arguments is that if you base your argument of morality upon divine command theory, we beg the question of knowing what God has commanded. In presupposing the truth of the Bible, you simply avoid this problem all together.
This is true. Presupposing the Bible true does avoid the problem.
The real problem is not that there is a presupposition, though. All arguments must at some point become circular. They all rely on their unproven axioms that people take for granted. Even the laws of logic recognize this. You can’t get more circular than the Law of Identity: A is A.
But naturally people are able to presuppose something contradictory to what another person presupposes. This is why people disagree. How, then, do we determine which presuppositions are correct?
The only real way is by the internal critique of those views. Are your beliefs consistent with your presuppositions. If so, you have no reason to reject your presuppositions; if they do, you must either modify your beliefs or modify your presuppositions.
Thus, my disagreement with atheism is fundamentally due to my presuppositions. My presuppositions are, as far as I can tell, consistent. But even if they ultimately are not consistent at some point, I know for a fact that atheism does not have beliefs consistent with atheistic presuppositions. So even if at some point I abandon Christianity, I know it is impossible for me to become an atheist since that would require me to accept inconsistency as truth.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
You have built a ivory castle in the sky. Bring it down to earth. Let it touch down our history and science. Sure you take the Bible to be Gods’ word. So? Can you show us why you believe the Bible? Can you do that? Why do you believe the Bible?
May 20th, 2006 at 6:07 am
We see in Daniel’s system that pain is the determining factor in morality. Thus, we see immediately that it would not be wrong for someone to cause a painless death.
That is not true. Empathy prevents me from killing a homeless man with no family…because I empathize with his freedom over his own life. Furthermore, we have to sort of stratify our moral code into what is 1) obligatory, 2) permissible, 3) forbidden. Infringing in an asymmetric upon the freedoms of others (and thus violating their rights) is forbidden. We are able to place ourselves in their minds, and see that they are free to live, and we are infringing upon that freedom.
Many permissible behaviors fall along cultural/state/society-enforced rules which facilitate daily living as guides, whether or not they are absolute and universal, within that society/culture/state.
One thing to think about here is unmarried sex among young persons. Obviously, in this age of contraception and disease prevention, if those two concerns could be perfectly avoided, the issue would just become one of “how old ought kids be before they incorporate sex into relationships?” Which would obviously be a relative/subjective issue. In nature, we see even in babies (like my 4 month old St Bernard puppy) the tendency to begin humping long before conception is possible. If kids aren’t in a social environment where sex is discouraged, they will naturally have sex. It’s a biological part of what we are. It’s not the same with murder. Animals only kill out of the instinct of defense and fear and food. Animals with more empathy (higher mammals, eg ) tend to put on more of a show to discourage a fight (out of fear, not necessarily fights over territory or mates, than animals with less empathy (eg reptiles).
Socialization [I should say, the tendency to form social networks] is impossible without empathy, and within every social structure in nature, we see measures of justice, reward, punishment, and stability results.
In our own society, we give mercy to psychopaths (those without empathy) because we know that they do not have the same capacity to know wrong from right as ourselves. No exceptions are anywhere to be found in the Torah for those who would classify as socio/psychopaths.
Obligatory morality is something we don’t see a lot of in the OT, what I mean by that is, “a person is drowning and you have the obligation to save them”. I know there are a few commands about forgiving loans and slavery, but the slavery laws, in particular, are hardly flattering — I recall one, but don’t remember the “address” that says that so long as the slave is not permanently injured, it’s okay, [correct me if I'm wrong].
Long story short, this was a brief, somewhat rambling response. I’m going to post on empathy and morality at some point in the near future, but empathy is about more than just pain consciousness. It is the recognition of other minds, rights, freedoms, and pain.
May 20th, 2006 at 6:09 am
I meant “infringing in an asymmetric manner upon…”
The concept of justice revolves around symmetric freedoms/rights–”all men have been endowed by their Creator [or Nature] with inalienable rights…”
…justice and liberty for all. It kind of sums it all up. If we want justice for anyone, it has to apply to everyone, and this is the basis of all social structures–symmetry.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Okay, I’ll wait until you post more on empathy and morality before commenting too much on it.
Interestingly enough, your comment in your second post–”The concept of justice revolves around symmetric freedoms/rights”–is pretty much the exact position of the Bible, which explains the “Eye for an eye” thing. It’s a matter of symmetry. Someone is punished by A) paying back whatever they did and B) enduring the same action they intended for the other person. Thus, in Scripture, we see that if someone steals a sheep, he has to give back the sheep and a second sheep so that he pays back what he took and feels the same pain that he inflicted on others. If the sheep dies, he has to pay back four-fold since he cannot give back the original sheep. Capital punishment for murder works the same way, with the obvious exception that the murderer cannot raise the victim to life again, which pure symmetry would require.
Anyway, that’s kind of an aside. I’ll write more indepth once you get your post finished, since I’d rather not respond to something that ends up not being your argument anyway :-)