Monday, December 08, 2008

A specific account

I might have spoken too soon, honestly.
Jason Streitfeld believes that I have misrepresented his views on the basis of morality in his worldview, and you know what? Maybe I have. I'm not perfect, and I'm big enough to admit that I might have screwed up.
Let me just quote him, as I've done before:

-...morality is a process whereby people justify their actions to one another.

-Morality is a process of deciding what is best for humanity and civilization.

OK, so we agree that on his view morality is a process. So as to understand his view better, I'd like to invite him, whenever he has a chance, to take a concrete example, any example, of a moral question, any moral question, and then write up a semi-brief account of how, on atheism, he thinks the answer to that moral question has been arrived at, by whom, and approximately when and where. I'd like to ask him to be very specific, but I wouldn't insist on the imposition of only large-scale, macroscopic cases here. Feel free, Jason, to make it on a smallish scale, not worldwide necessarily (if you don't want to), but on the other hand not "Jason and his wife" or something like that.

In return, I will answer from my own worldview the exact same issue of morality, as if Christianity were true.

Jason has said that he will be answering the Triabloggers shortly, and I'm in no hurry. If you'd like, Jason, maybe you can find a way to fit this question into your response; if you might be so kind as to link to it in this combox afterward, that would be terrific. Or you can answer on your own blog, or in a comment here, whatever.
Much obliged for the clarification. It is not my goal to misunderstand or misrepresent your view, so hopefully this will help.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

... write up a semi-brief account of how, on atheism, he thinks the answer to that moral question has been arrived at, by whom, and approximately when and where.

He's arguing that it's a process. A process. Do you genuinely not understand what he's arguing? Because at this stage if you don't get it, it seems unlikely that you ever will.

Rhology said...

Yes, and I want him to describe one specific process on one specific question. How did it all go down?
Or, if it is still in process, how has it all gone down so far? And is it ever settled? If not, how can we ever make any pronouncement on moral/immoral?

Anonymous said...

I would humbly suggest that a key part of Jason characterizing morality as a process is that the process does not have an end point. It is difficult to see how this has any impact at all on our capacity to make "pronouncements" (whoops, your assumptions are showing!) on what we consider to be moral.

Rhology said...

How in the world is that of use to anyone? Are we supposed to be heads-up-our-anuses abstract here?
I want to know if, say, murdering a child is right or wrong. How can I know?

That's what I'm getting at.

Anonymous said...

Do you think morality is only relevant if it's 'of use' to you?

Is logic abstract, and does that mean you have your head up your anus when you discuss it?

Rhology said...

Morality is only relevant if it actually guides someone on how to choose one action over another, yes.
What good is a morality that deals only with questions such as whether it's OK to shine ultraviolet light from one's pulsar towards yonder nebula? Or whether it's OK to throw 12 near smelly sleeping purple?

Were you ever planning on making a response to the questions?

Yes, logic is essentially abstract. That is, it's not material.

Jason Streitfeld said...

Rhology,

I appreaciate your openness to the possibility that you have misunderstood my views.

I can't say your invitation here is very promising, however. Instead of asking me to make a whole new argument about some moral question, why not follow through with the discussion we've already been having--a discussion which was quite clearly and specifically focused on one very clear, controversial moral question: that of abortion.

I have explained the reasoning behind my views. My views are supported by the current law, as decided by the Supreme Court. My views also have a lot in common with the Talmud, which did not view a fetus as a full human being.

You have not provided any evidence or reasoning to help us understand your rejection of these arguments. You only say it is "obvious" what a human being is. You have failed to support your views with evidence or reasoning.

Yet, you say that when your views are challenged, you respond with "discussion" and a "search for evidence."

Perhaps that is how you would like to think of yourself, and that is no doubt how you would like all of us to think of you. However, the facts speak for themselves.

When pressed, you refuse to support your views with evidence or reason. Instead, you simply claim that the answer is "obvious."

We use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" to refer to the uncomfortable feeling we try to maintain beliefs which contradict the evidence. Are you feeling anything of that sort at the moment?

With no evidence that you will live up to the standards you set for yourself, why should I ignore our discussion of abortion and waste our time with another discussion of moral questions?

Rhology said...

OK, you chose a specific issue, and that's good, it's what I asked for.
Strangely, though, this example is far from clear, and I have to think that's a black mark for your case.
You speak of morality as a process. In whose minds goes this process? That of society at large? Jason's mind only? Or a specific group of in-between size? Who chose it or who decided which parameters were relevant, and why and how?
At this time, there are plenty of people who disagree about this. Approx 50% of the US population, give or take, do not believe abortion to be moral. Fewer than that but still a significant amount believe it should be illegal.
So, who is right? How do you know, beyond your naked assertion that "morality is a process"? You talk of "evidence and reasoning", but all you've provided is naked assertion that this is what morality is. I want you to prove it, but more than that, in this post's combox, I want you to describe what makes a moral decision.
I am one person and I believe that abortion is never justifiable, and I am in (a very small corner of) the public sphere with this blog. I am thus part of the process that you have posited.

So, it appears the process is still ongoing. So, is there a right answer to the question of abortion right now? How do you know?

You said:
You only say it is "obvious" what a human being is. You have failed to support your views with evidence or reasoning.

1) Once again your failure to take into acct the diff between internal and external critique cripples your argument.
We're talking about YOUR system. YOURS. Clear yet? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR SYSTEM. Defend it, if you please.
2) And of course, the fact that I disagree is a problem that you have to explain - see above.


Anyway, so far you have provided no answer in the slightest to the question. Hopefully this comment will clarify and focus your responses.

Jason Streitfeld said...

Rhology,

First of all, I already said that I'm going to elaborate on my understanding of morality in my response to the Triabloggers. I'm not going to do it in your combox. I don't care if that suits you or not. I'm not your slave.

Second of all, I have explained why I think abortion should be legal, why I value the rights of the mother over the rights of her fetus when it is in the early stages of development.

Your only response to that is that you think my judgment is based on arbitrary standards. Yet, when pressed to make your judgment about the meaning of "human being" anything more than arbitrary, you cannot.

That makes you a hypocrite, Rhology.

Now you say that I have to explain why your disagemeent is a problem for me.

No, Rhology. I don't have to explain that. The fact is, your disagreement is not a problem for me. It would only be a problem for me if your disagreement turned into some kind of action which ran counter to my interests.

At the moment, however, I see nothing by way of a threat from you. So I have no problem with your disagreement. But that doesn't mean I have to respect it.

You offer no reason for me to reconsider my views. You offer no substantive argument or evidence against my understanding of abortion. Why should I value a fetus in its early stages of development over the rights of the mother?

You say because it is "obviously" a human being." Well, unless you can explain how you've come to that conclusion, and why it should be of some consequence to me, I have no reason to place any importance on your disagreement.

Do you understand that?

You have no leverage. Nothing.

Why should I think that you will offer me anything that furthers my understanding of morality in general, or abortion in particular?

You clearly will not. So I bid you farewell.

I'll notify you when I respond to the Triabloggers, because I expect that what I have to say to them might help you better understand the issues here.

And, by the way, as somebody who holds the old Jewish law in such high esteem, it seems you should be concerned that it conflicts with your views on abortion. But that's something for you to worry about. I personally don't put any stock in the Talmud.

Rhology said...

I already said that I'm going to elaborate on my understanding of morality in my response to the Triabloggers. I'm not going to do it in your combox.

Fair enough. I figured you were here to do the deal, but I misinterpreted your intentions.


I have explained why I think abortion should be legal, why I value the rights of the mother over the rights of her fetus when it is in the early stages of development.

Which has nothing to do with the question I'm asking here, but again, we'll wait for the later response. I'm cool with that.


Yet, when pressed to make your judgment about the meaning of "human being" anything more than arbitrary, you cannot.
That makes you a hypocrite, Rhology.


Obviously I don't grant that my definition stems from an arbitrary judgment, so no, I'm not a hypocrite (on this point).


The fact is, your disagreement is not a problem for me.

If your position has to do with "people" engaging in a "process", it does.


It would only be a problem for me if your disagreement turned into some kind of action which ran counter to my interests.

Like, maybe, blogging about it and trying to win people to the side counter to yours?


You offer no reason for me to reconsider my views.

Proof is not the same as persuasion. I don't expect to convert you; I do expect you (perhaps wrongly) to defend your views rationally.


Why should I value a fetus in its early stages of development over the rights of the mother?

I promised I'd answer that, but I didn't promise I'd do so here first.
You have the onus; I asked first.


as somebody who holds the old Jewish law in such high esteem, it seems you should be concerned that it conflicts with your views on abortion.

If you think the Talmud is anywhere near authoritative for me, I don't know whence you get any information about my position. Perhaps you've confused Talmud with Torah. I mean, they're both old, stupid writings by superstitious idiots, they're both Jewish, they both start with "T"... easy to see how one could confuse them.