Freedomain Radio

I'm currently having a debate with someone on the topic of whether or not Morality is objective.  There's a few points I would like a little help with, like perhaps identifiying any contradictions, self-detonating arguments, and understanding how to approach these types of arguments, before I consider responding to them.  I've encountered these types of arguments quite regularly, and I find myself struggling to respond to them adequately, so I would appreciate any insight the great minds here can offer me.. 

 This is more of an exercise for my own mind, than an attempt to change someone else's mind, although the curious observer is always up for grabs in a public forum. :)

I said (in respose to him claiming there is no objective basis for morality): 

Yes, there is. That's why we call it "rape" and not "love-making". There is an objective reason that we differentiate between such concepts, and that reason is the initiation of force.It isn't just the difference between rape and sex, it is the difference between theft and trade, slavery and employment, etc. etc. etc.

He responded:

Here is the weakness with your argument: You are saying that just because we call forced sex "rape", then it is also bad. I agree that sex without consent is not making love, it is rape. But you can't prove to be my rape is wrong! 

Let's say you find a primitive tribe somewhere in the jungle, and the chief says "we believe that no woman should enjoy sex. In fact, if a woman consents to sex, it is wrong. We believe that all sex should be rape." How can you rationally argue that that guy is wrong? You can say "well, its wrong because it makes the woman suffer," and he'll say "women should suffer because they are inferior," and you'll say "no they're not." You guys can argue all day, but at the end of the day, you are basing your argument on some unprovable assumption. 

The above argument he made, is very similiar to the type of argument I get from Christians on this topic.  I tend stumble a little bit at this point, and am not sure how to best approach it.  He's clearly admitting that there is an objective difference between rape and sex, that is, the non-aggresion principle, but he's failing to recognize that distinguishing between concepts like rape and sex, is the entire purpose of morality, or am I mistaken somehow here?  Need advice. 

I Said:

Truth is not dependant on the subjective opinions of men. With regards to the concept of morality, something like slavery was immoral 300 years ago, for the EXACT same reasons it is immoral now (initiation of force).

He responded:

Jesus fucking Christ.  Do you not the weakness in your argument??  You are just assuming that initiation of force is immoral.  Where do you get that assumption?  You can assume things out of thin air, but you can't call those assumptions "rational."  If you talked to a slaveowner 300 years ago, he would have said "Your so-called morality where any initiation of force is wrong is bullshit.  Prove me wrong."  And you couldn't.  Because at the end of the day, morality is just based on arbitrary assumptions.

 

I said:

My point is, There are self-evident and objectively true statements (axioms) that can be made about human nature which have profound implications when we apply them consistently to social concepts like morality, government, god, etc.

He responded:

Haha - this is the crux of our disagreement.  Modern day philosophers have basically disproved the idea of self-evident truths or axioms.  Science does not accept the idea of axioms - you constantly test your hypotheses against the facts and if the facts disprove your hypotheses you adjust your hypotheses - you never just accept something as true.  

A true philosopher or scientist would never just accept anything as 100% true with no justification.  Any proposition is more or less likely to be true, but it is wrong to say that something is "self-evident."

I said:

So, is it fair of me to say, that you can't think of a single reason, other than faith and emotion, to explain as to why rape is immoral?

He responded:

That's exactly what I'm saying. 

You could make a practical argument and say "no matter what you thought about rape, a society that allowed rape would turn into anarchy." But then I could say "what's wrong with anarchy? Men live happier, fuller lives when they are free to do whatever they want, even if that means raping women. Also rape is good for women - it toughens them up." That may seem like a dumb argument to you, but a lot of real, actual philosophers have actually said things like that. People like Hegel and Nietzsche have basically praised things like war and domination 

And Finally, here is his concluding sentence from his post.:

Reason is a tool, just like logic. Given the facts we know about the world, reason can help us make statements about the world. But reason can't create new facts for us. 

One way to look at it is by David Hume. Hume believed that reason was a calculator that could help us achieve our goals. But reason could not CREATE our goals for us! So let's say I wanted to rape somebody. Reason could help me figure out where's the best place to go to rape people; how to not get caught, where to buy duct tape, etc... But reason can't tell me that rape is wrong.

 

It has, unfortunately, turned into one of those debates where we're respoding to like 20 of eachothers arguments per post.  I would like to get it narrowed down to the crux, and I'm assuming he would, as well.  So, I'm seeking advice on how best to approach that.

Thanks in advanced for any advice!

This is part of why debating morality in forums is a bad idea. If you aren't looking them in the eye, or you can't at least hear the other person's voice, they can summon up tremendous amounts of internet courage to make the most astounding claims about morality.

The problem with his arguments do not lie in the content, they lie in the assumptions he's making to debate this with you.

If he truly believed that the initiation of violence was not immoral, why is he even on a chat room having a debate?

The other thing is that the way this guy is talking about rape, where the only thing that separates him from a rapist is... opportunity?  He doesn't sound like a person who really gives two shits about morality.

But to answer the title of your post, demonstrating objective morality is to say to the guy, "Look, you're advocating violence against people, including me. I will not pretend that this is a debate," and then just walk away.

Also, with 20 other people on your back, it's no longer a discussion, but a dogpile.  I suspect you have more enjoyable ways of spending your time.

I personally don't think you actually need morality to make a distinction between sex and rape.

All you really need is an observation of the empirical difference between consent and non-consent. Such differences can be scientifically measured in many different ways. For example, a happy couple will show signs of good health after sex, whilst a rape victim will likely show signs of PTSD. It's clear there is a difference between the win/win and the win/lose.

EDIT: Just wanted to add something quickly. The win/lose may actually be more like lose/lose considering the possibility that rape may be traumatizing for both victim and abuser.

Another thing is that he's become clearly exasperated but hasn't bothered to take a step back to ask why this is bothering him so much. He's just attacking you... and that is also enough to walk away from a debate.

JamesP:

Another thing is that he's become clearly exasperated but hasn't bothered to take a step back to ask why this is bothering him so much. He's just attacking you... and that is also enough to walk away from a debate.

I agree. I personally wouldn't engage in a debate with somebody who is so clearly being rude. Not my cup of tea!

Bricks:

I personally don't think you actually need morality to make a distinction between sex and rape.

All you really need is an observation of the empirical difference between consent and non-consent. Such differences can be scientifically measured in many different ways. For example, a happy couple will show signs of good health after sex, whilst a rape victim will likely show signs of PTSD. It's clear there is a difference between the win/win and the win/lose.

I think we can do better when it comes to examining human behavior than digging through the rubble of destructive actions.

CapitalistDog:

He responded:

Here is the weakness with your argument: You are saying that just because we call forced sex "rape", then it is also bad. I agree that sex without consent is not making love, it is rape. But you can't prove to be my rape is wrong! 

Let's say you find a primitive tribe somewhere in the jungle, and the chief says "we believe that no woman should enjoy sex. In fact, if a woman consents to sex, it is wrong. We believe that all sex should be rape." How can you rationally argue that that guy is wrong? You can say "well, its wrong because it makes the woman suffer," and he'll say "women should suffer because they are inferior," and you'll say "no they're not." You guys can argue all day, but at the end of the day, you are basing your argument on some unprovable assumption. 

The above argument he made, is very similiar to the type of argument I get from Christians on this topic.  I tend stumble a little bit at this point, and am not sure how to best approach it.  He's clearly admitting that there is an objective difference between rape and sex, that is, the non-aggresion principle, but he's failing to recognize that distinguishing between concepts like rape and sex, is the entire purpose of morality, or am I mistaken somehow here? 

Stef addresses this EXACT case in UPB. In fact, it is the very first demonstration of the non-universality of rape as virtue. If rape is good, in order for one person to rape, another person must be getting raped, and therefore cannot be good at the same time. In fact, in order for it to be rape, the second person must resist, and in resisting, must necessarily be OPPOSING good. So therefore it is impossible for two people to both be virtuous at the same time and in the same respect, and thus the proposed virtue is a contradiction and cannot stand.

What makes rape invalid as virtue is that it cannot be universalized. It also happens that some people suffer because of it -- but that isn't why it CANNOT be a virtue.

"JUST WALK AWAY..."

CapitalistDog's opponent:

You are just assuming that initiation of force is immoral.  Where do you get that assumption?  You can assume things out of thin air, but you can't call those assumptions "rational."

He's just assuming that you assume things out of thin air. He can just pull assumptions like that out of his ass all day, but that doesn't make them rational.

CapitalistDog's opponent:

Modern day philosophers have basically disproved the idea of self-evident truths or axioms.  Science does not accept the idea of axioms - you constantly test your hypotheses against the facts and if the facts disprove your hypotheses you adjust your hypotheses - you never just accept something as true.

So, this must just be his hypothesis then and he's certainly not strongly invested in any ideas. Or is strongly investing in ideas OK now?

CapitalistDog's opponent:

Reason is a tool, just like logic. Given the facts we know about the world, reason can help us make statements about the world. But reason can't create new facts for us.

He sure does make a lot of very certain assumptions about how things must work, and he's very angry when you disagree. He's gotten a lot of 'facts' out of what these people (modern day philosophers and science personified) have supposedly discovered about the proper use of thought. None of what he does or says lines up with his conclusions at all.

This is not a sane or rational person. Debate is not going to work. It will just frustrate and hurt you.

"If he truly believed that the initiation of violence was not immoral, why is he even on a chat room having a debate?"

Arguementation ethics doesn't prove universal ethics. The ethics people voluntarilly agree to in a debate has nothing to do with real world ethics that no one has the right to disobey. This doesn't count as a perfomative contradiction. You cannot infer from his refrain from violence that he disbelieves completely in the virtue of it. He could just be holding out towards a better time to use violence.

 

"The other thing is that the way this guy is talking about rape, where the only thing that separates him from a rapist is... opportunity?  He doesn't sound like a person who really gives two shits about morality."

Red herring and straw man arguement.The fact that he discussed different subjective viewpoints on rape doesn't mean he wants to rape at first oppurtunnity. Even if he did want to rape...so what? What does that have to do with his logic? Every worthwhile philsopher in history had some kinda character flaw whether they were sexists, racists, hermits, etc.

 

"But to answer the title of your post, demonstrating objective morality is to say to the guy, "Look, you're advocating violence against people, including me. I will not pretend that this is a debate," and then just walk away."

So what if he is advocating violence against people......the only reason you think this is some kinda flaw is because you believe in some objective value of non-violence.

Morality is like logic. It's either objective or just some rules by those in power. Thing is, that as Stef pointed out many times, morality was used to control people since the dawn of human race. But it doesn't mean it should be that way. By that, I mean, if those in power get the monopoly to decide what is moral and not, then all sorts of double standards and cognitive dissonance come out of it. And then what is moral for a politician (make laws and force others to follow it) is immoral for ordinary people (they can not make laws and make their neighbours to follow them).

So the only option is to universalize morality. Just like we did with logic. Yes, morality is more of an invention, but still, it's partly rooted in evolution of humans.

MaikUniversum:

Morality is like logic. It's either objective or just some rules by those in power. Thing is, that as Stef pointed out many times, morality was used to control people since the dawn of human race. But it doesn't mean it should be that way. By that, I mean, if those in power get the monopoly to decide what is moral and not, then all sorts of double standards and cognitive dissonance come out of it. And then what is moral for a politician (make laws and force others to follow it) is immoral for ordinary people (they can not make laws and make their neighbours to follow them).

But is it morality that is controlling us?  Or perhaps morality is our defense mechanism or reaction needed to protect us from reality, knowing that violent arbitrary punishment is carried out?    If there was public execution of all people who chew bubble gum on Tuesdays, and the streets were filled with bodies of those found out doing so, then it seems likely that many people would form a mental construct "gee, it must be bad if there's this much enforcement".  Consequently, there is a choice between endangering oneself by protesting and identifying the cause of violence, and building a comforting drug that compels us to accept things that powerful people do.

 

"But is it morality that is controlling us?"

"But is it logic that is controling us?"

We are controlled by our brains. So that question is complete red herring. As to the other part of your post, what you hold this drug is? Morality is only a way to show inconsistent human behavior, it's not a demand how people should act. Because people act the best when they have enough information about the world. Nowdays, that's the very case of whole debate between statists and anarchists. People grew up in a statist society so they act to survive in this system, that doesn't mean that they all are immoral psychopaths etc. By showing them the alternative and rational view of the world, we give them freedom of choice and true knowledge. But I'm sounding like a priest now, sorry.

So in short, morality can be "a defense" mechanism, but only when if it's contradictory (those in power can do immoral things, because of greater good, but my kid can not do the same, because that's... just immoral!).

But the actual objective theory of morality only helps understanding humans and painting the boundaries of moral and immoral action. It has to be logical, rational and universal, otherwise, it can be debunked by simple "might makes right" non-argument.

Maybe that's a newbie argument, but if morality is relative, why do people believing it is relative even debate it ? If it is relative, then nobody can be proven right or wrong in their assumptions.

MaikUniversum:

Morality is only a way to show inconsistent human behavior, it's not a demand how people should act. Because people act the best when they have enough information about the world.

But the actual objective theory of morality only helps understanding humans and painting the boundaries of moral and immoral action. It has to be logical, rational and universal, otherwise, it can be debunked by simple "might makes right" non-argument.

Those are good points.  But just what constitutes "inconsistent" in this context? When you roll a (six-sided) die, it is inconsistent.  You don't roll "3" every time.  But there are definite probabilities of how many times the die will hit a certain number.  The long-range probabilities are consistent.  There is a "demand" how the die should act over many trials.  For me, morality is not a "sure bet", but it's what you should do to guarantee the best long-range gamble in life.  That can be objectively determined, and still connected to how people should act.   Like those "blackjack sheets" that tell you how to bet, morality does not "have to" be followed, but it imposes objective constraint how you win and lose.  In that sense, it is a demand on how we should act.

If morality is simply a rule for identifying inconsistent rules, then you could say "when people chewing gum murder at 3:15:23 UTC on a Tuesday of a leap year, it's wrong".  That rule seems applicable consistently.   Is it the case that the only distinction between a consistent rule and an inconsistent one is how many conditionals we choose to include?    And then it's subjective how many conditionals is a viable threshold.  It seems like you could reject a perfectly good and proven rule just because it's overly complex.  Or you could accept a simple rule, even though it doesn't work in reality.