"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
This is a most excellent question. If Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive today how would you answer his question?
Well, that's easy. The point is to create a better world for yourself and others to live in. Because without a loving deity looking over us and an infinitely long afterlife to look forward to, this world is all we have.
"Because society will punish you." Even a crazy sociopath like Dahmer could understand that answer.
If that's too blunt for your taste, there's a multitude of arguments for morality that don't depend on the existence of God. Many, many smart people have thought about this question.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
This is a most excellent question. If Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive today how would you answer his question?
It's not an excellent question, it's from a crazed sociopath to help justify himself. God doesn't enforce human behavior on Earth, other humans do. Whether or not you believe in God, it's the rest of humanity you're responsible to on Earth.
If Dahmer were alive, I would explain to him that the rest of society would imprison and/or execute him for his breach of 'acceptable ranges'.
Jeffrey Dahmer was captured, tried, and incarcerated by human authorities. If you are a psychopath like Dahmer and the only reason you can think of for being good is that you will be held accountable for your misdeeds, then our society has that covered with or without a God.
Those of us who are not psychopaths have other reasons as well.
You are far from the first Christian to advance this kind of argument, and I say the same thing to you guys every time: whenever you imply that only the fear of God is holding you back from being a Jeffrey Dahmer, that is freaking terrifying to non-Christians. You do your position no good and a lot of harm by aligning yourself psychologically with notorious serial killers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You are far from the first Christian to advance this kind of argument, and I say the same thing to you guys every time: whenever you imply that only the fear of God is holding you back from being a Jeffrey Dahmer, that is freaking terrifying to non-Christians. You do your position no good and a lot of harm by aligning yourself psychologically with notorious serial killers.
The reason Dahmer doesn't know the answer to that question is because he's a psychopath. What's your excuse?
I agree the argument being advanced in this thread is very weak, but these rebuttals always struck me as lazy and borderline ad hominem. The Christian advancing this argument isn't saying "the only thing keeping me from committing murder is God." He's concerned about the notion that morality might be subjective rather than objective.
The Christian argument is saying something more like this:
1. Two things keep me from committing murder: God and my conscience.
2. Even if God doesn't exist I still wouldn't murder people because my conscience wouldn't let me. My conscience makes me subjectively hate the idea of killing someone.
3. But if the only thing standing between me and murder is a subjective feeling I have, how can I convince anyone else that murder is wrong? "I don't like killing people, therefore you shouldn't either" carries as much weight as "I don't like Lima beans, therefore you shouldn't like them either." What makes my preferences better than other people's preferences?
4. If someone like Dahmer came up to me and said "I subjectively do like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to prison over" how do I convince him he's wrong? Isn't that a perfectly logical (albiet despicable) way of thinking?
4. If someone like Dahmer came up to me and said "I subjectively do like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to prison over" how do I convince him he's wrong? Isn't that a perfectly logical (albiet despicable) way of thinking?
The way you've phrased it, Dahmer isn't wrong. He's reporting a fact about his preferences, and presumably doing so accurately - although I suspect he might not rationally value murder over freedom so much as fall afoul of poor risk assessment and future discounting biases, from which psychopaths seem to suffer even more than the rest of us. Anyway, persuading him not to have those preferences is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy; you can't be logically argued into liking lima beans, either. But for our purposes here, it's most critical that we notice that the presence of God would do absolutely nothing to resolve this difficulty. Well, I suppose God could miraculously cure Dahmer's mind long before anyone got hurt, but he apparently chose not to do that. So setting that aside, if all we're talking about is the threat of divine punishment, then Dahmer could discount it in exactly the same way he discounts the threat of earthly punishment: "I subjectively like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to Hell over."
This has always been the flaw in this DCT argumentative strategy of sympathetically advancing a subjectivist or nihilist argument and then stating that God is the only solution: subjectivist and nihilist arguments apply just as well to "God says so" as "the king says so" or "society says so" or anything else. (Well, one of the flaws. The other flaw is that even if God were a solution this would just be an appeal to consequences.)
The way you've phrased it, Dahmer isn't wrong. He's reporting a fact about his preferences, and presumably doing so accurately ... it's most critical that we notice that the presence of God would do absolutely nothing to resolve this difficulty ... Dahmer could discount it in exactly the same way he discounts the threat of earthly punishment: "I subjectively like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to Hell over."
The difference is that earthly punishment is finite, whereas divine punishment is presumably infinite; you burn in hell for eternity. Dahmer could rationally decide that he values whatever finite benefit he gets out of murder more than he values the finite harm from human punishment. He could not rationally value a finite benefit over an infinite harm. Therefore in the latter case we can conclude it is objectively wrong for Dahmer to choose to commit murder. If Dahmer is rational I can point out the error in his reasoning and convince him not to kill. In the former case it's a matter of subjective preferences.
The Christian advancing this argument isn't saying "the only thing keeping me from committing murder is God."
Actually, I've experienced Christians advance the argument in those terms. "The only thing keeping me from doing X is fear of God's wrath, so if there's no God's wrath, why should I not do X?"
Needless to say, it's profoundly disturbing.
1. Two things keep me from committing murder: God and my conscience.
Well you just answered the question. Your conscience prevents you from doing so.
And what is conscience? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as, "the part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong."
So your sense of what is right and what is wrong keeps you from committing murder. In other words, you don't commit murder because you know it's wrong.
Which really gets us to the heart of the matter. When someone asks, "If there's no God, why not commit a morally wrong action," what they are essentially asking is, "Without a cosmic disciplinarian, why not commit a morally wrong action?" Right?
Well, as both Blinking and you pointed out, first of all, we have earthly disciplinarians.
But more than that, the REAL issue, and the reason why the question is really disturbing, is that it carries the implication that whether an action is right or wrong doesn't actually matter, and the only thing that matters is whether or not you are punished for it. In other words: the only thing that matters is what happens to me, and other people don't mean anything.
And that's something we expect out of sociopaths and very young children. You know, people characterized by a lack of developed empathy towards other people. A framework of moral thinking that is purely concerned with individual reward and punishment, profit and detriment, with no regard for any other factor, is entirely self-centered.
And it's particularly jarring to hear that from a Christian because the whole point of being Christian is to love your neighbor as yourself. This is repeated over and over again. Loving others is the bedrock of Christianity. Notice that in the Gospels, Jesus gives TWO commandments to love others, not only to love one's neighbor as oneself, but to love one another as Jesus loved you. This is to really underscore the importance of loving others.
So it's jarring when someone who self-identifies as a member of a belief system that preaches the loving of others as a very important thing asks, "Why give a ***** about people if there's no one to punish me for not doing so?"
3. But if the only thing standing between me and murder is a subjective feeling I have, how can I convince anyone else that murder is wrong?
Why do you have that subjective feeling?
"I don't like killing people, therefore you shouldn't either" carries as much weight as "I don't like Lima beans, therefore you shouldn't like them either." What makes my preferences better than other people's preferences?
Well the foundation of ethics is just that: There is a huge difference between a moral statement and a statement of preference.
A statement of preference is a simple assertion about you. In this case, "I don't like lima beans" asserts a basic fact about what you like or do not like: in this case, not lima beans. This is all a statement about preference states. It does not say anything about whether or not anyone else likes lima beans, or whether it is moral or immoral to enjoy lima beans. It merely states that you, individually, do not like lima beans.
A moral statement is completely different. "Murder is wrong" is not the same kind of statement as "I don't like lima beans." It is not even the same kind of statement as "I don't like murder."
First of all, "Murder is wrong" does not say anything about preference. "Murder is wrong" does not say anything about whether or not you like murder. You might not like murder (I'm hoping that's the case...), but whether or not murder is morally correct or incorrect has nothing to do with whether or not you like it. Case in point: you can like something that is morally wrong. I could really like stealing cars, but whether or not I enjoy stealing cars has nothing to do with whether or not it is morally correct. Alternatively, you could really dislike something that is not morally wrong. An example of this is what we said above: bitterroot disliking lima beans says nothing at all about whether it is morally right or wrong to eat lima beans.
Second, "Murder is wrong" does not exclusively apply to you. When I say "Murder is wrong," I am not saying the same thing as "It is wrong for me to murder." I am saying "It is wrong for anyone to murder." A statement of personal preference is just that, personal. Your statement of "I dislike lima beans" says only something about you. It says nothing about anyone else's preferences. But a moral statement applies to more than one person. When you say "Murder is wrong," it applies to everyone, and certainly more than just you.
Third, "Murder is wrong" is a position you are advancing that can be justified with reasons. It is an argument that you back up with facts, and the facts behind it determine the strength of the argument. "I dislike lima beans" is just an observation. You cannot argue whether or not bitterroot likes lima beans, he doesn't. It's like saying, "That color is blue." It's a basic observation. Meanwhile, "Murder is wrong" is a moral position that requires evidence and factual basis in order to justify.
Somehow I, an atheist, find myself a "devil's advocate" on behalf of a Christian argument against Highroller, who is an actual Christian. Strange days in the debate forum.
1. Two things keep me from committing murder: God and my conscience.
Well you just answered the question. Your conscience prevents you from doing so.
And what is conscience? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as, "the part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong."
So your sense of what is right and what is wrong keeps you from committing murder. In other words, you don't commit murder because you know it's wrong.
This is begging the question. The Christian is asking how to get from "I personally dislike murder very much" to "murder is objectively wrong."
Well, as Blinking pointed out, first of all, we have earthly disciplinarians.
This is begging the question. The Christian is asking how to get from "I personally dislike murder very much" to "murder is objectively wrong."
No, that's exactly the opposite of what he's doing. I wrote a long thing about how an ethical statement is different from a personal preference.
I saw that, and I agree an ethical statement is different from a personal preference. It's still begging the question.
My hypothetical Christian doesn't commit murder because (1) God says not to, and (2) he personally dislikes murder. If God doesn't exist, all he has left is "I personally dislike murder." How does he get from that statement to "murder is objectively wrong."
Your argument tries to bridge the gap by asserting that one's conscience deals in ethical truths, not in personal preferences. But why is that necessarily true (other than "Merriam-Webster says so")? And couldn't your conscience be wrong sometimes?
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
This is a most excellent question. If Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive today how would you answer his question?
I think this is a good point. And for those of you arguing that Dahmer is a psychopath, let me counter argue by appealing to my authority, Christ on High, the Lord Jesus Almighty savior to the world.
Oh I'm sorry did you all disagree with that last part?
It doesn't matter whether the argument comes from a psychopath or not. Neither should it matter that I put forth arguments from the pope, jesus, bill clinton, whoever. What matters is the rationale itself.
I am shocked at those of you who are swayed by the logic of "well it comes from a psychopath" as if it should have any force at all.
That Dahmer is a psychopath should have equal persuasive force as a common appeal to authority which is NIL. No persuasive force at all.
I think this is a good point. And for those of you arguing that Dahmer is a psychopath, let me counter argue by appealing to my authority, Christ on High, the Lord Jesus Almighty savior to the world.
Oh I'm sorry did you all disagree with that last part?
It doesn't matter whether the argument comes from a psychopath or not. Neither should it matter that I put forth arguments from the pope, jesus, bill clinton, whoever. What matters is the rationale itself.
I am shocked at those of you who are swayed by the logic of "well it comes from a psychopath" as if it should have any force at all.
That Dahmer is a psychopath should have equal persuasive force as a common appeal to authority which is NIL. No persuasive force at all.
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying that the question is invalid because Dahmer is a psychopath.
I think this is a good point. And for those of you arguing that Dahmer is a psychopath, let me counter argue by appealing to my authority, Christ on High, the Lord Jesus Almighty savior to the world.
Oh I'm sorry did you all disagree with that last part?
It doesn't matter whether the argument comes from a psychopath or not. Neither should it matter that I put forth arguments from the pope, jesus, bill clinton, whoever. What matters is the rationale itself.
I am shocked at those of you who are swayed by the logic of "well it comes from a psychopath" as if it should have any force at all.
That Dahmer is a psychopath should have equal persuasive force as a common appeal to authority which is NIL. No persuasive force at all.
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying that the question is invalid because Dahmer is a psychopath.
I agree TomCat is slightly missing the point, but people are trying to attack question with variations on the theme: "you're as bad as Dahmer if you're asking that."
I think that could be characterized as a reverse appeal to authority or an ad hominem. People are saying the question is invalid because of what it ostensibly says about the OP's character.
I agree TomCat is slightly missing the point, but people are trying to attack question with variations on the theme: "you're as bad as Dahmer if you're asking that."
I think that could be characterized as a reverse appeal to authority or an ad hominem. People are saying the question is invalid because of what it ostensibly says about the OP's character.
I think it's the opposite direction - because the question is easily answered by most normal people, it says worrying things about the character of those who feel the need to ask it.
It doesn't matter whether the argument comes from a psychopath or not. Neither should it matter that I put forth arguments from the pope, jesus, bill clinton, whoever. What matters is the rationale itself.
I am shocked at those of you who are swayed by the logic of "well it comes from a psychopath" as if it should have any force at all.
Dahmer's psychopathy is relevant here because a lack of the normal internal moral/prosocial motivations is precisely what psychopathy is. That quote is the disorder in a nutshell. It's like a depressive saying life is empty and pointless.
Also, the name of the fallacy you're looking for is the ad hominem, not the appeal to authority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I saw that, and I agree an ethical statement is different from a personal preference. It's still begging the question.
My hypothetical Christian doesn't commit murder because (1) God says not to, and (2) he personally dislikes murder.
Wait, what? No. You said you agreed with me that there's a difference, and then said something that's totally the opposite of what I said.
No, I'm saying that someone believing that "murder is wrong" is not saying "I dislike murder," but is saying, "People should not murder." The statements are not equivalent. He might also dislike murder (you'd hope...) but that's not the same as saying, "Murder is wrong."
Thus, the hypothetical Christian is not committing murder because God says not to and because he believes murder is morally wrong.
If God doesn't exist, all he has left is "I personally dislike murder." How does he get from that statement to "murder is objectively wrong."
Your argument tries to bridge the gap by asserting that one's conscience deals in ethical truths, not in personal preferences.
Perhaps I'm not explaining this right.
Once again, a statement that "murder is wrong" is not the same thing as "I don't like murder." It's a totally different statement. It means "people should not murder."
A person might also dislike murder, but that's not the same thing. Once again, I could just LOVE stealing things, but that doesn't mean people should steal, and bitterroot can just HATE lima beans, but that doesn't make eating them morally wrong.
Thus, saying the conscience deals purely in likes is incorrect.
If someone is making a moral statement on something, they're not necessarily saying anything about their preferences, they're talking about the way they believe people should behave. Preferences are factual statements about an individuals likes and dislikes. "I don't like lima beans" means you don't like lima beans, but says nothing about anyone else.
However, a moral statement is a statement about how people should behave. The operative words here are "should" — because a preference is an observational statement about what is, while a statement about morality is a question how people ought to act — and also "people," because unlike a statement of personal preference, which is personal, a statement about how people ought to act applies to more people than just you.
In conclusion, the problem is you insist that the conscience is merely pointing out preference. Except, as we stated earlier, statements about morality — which is what the conscience deals with — aren't statements of preference. They're statements of morality.
But why is that necessarily true (other than "Merriam-Webster says so")? And couldn't your conscience be wrong sometimes?
Of course, people can certainly make incorrect moral statements or perform morally incorrect actions. We see it all the time.
But that's the thing: As opposed to a personal preference, which is a statement of basic fact ("bitterroot does not like lima beans"), when someone makes a moral statement, they're making an argument about what is morally correct or morally incorrect. This argument must then be justified with facts.
The strength of the moral position depends on the strength of its justification. For instance, if someone were to, say, argue that lying is morally wrong, that person must justify this argument with evidence, and provide WHY lying is morally wrong. Otherwise, it's just an empty statement.
It's in the justification that we find the strength of the argument. If a person's moral statement is grounded in a well-reasoned argument, we find that moral to have a strong basis. If a person's moral statement is grounded in little to no evidence or reason, we question the foundation of his position.
In other words, when you're saying someone's argument is wrong, you're not saying you don't like his argument. You can dislike an argument whether it's true or false. When you're saying it's wrong, you're saying it does not have factual basis.
I agree TomCat is slightly missing the point, but people are trying to attack question with variations on the theme: "you're as bad as Dahmer if you're asking that."
I think that could be characterized as a reverse appeal to authority or an ad hominem. People are saying the question is invalid because of what it ostensibly says about the OP's character.
I think you're conflating two different fallacies. The first is guilt by association, except that's not what's going on here. No one's saying "you're guilty of mass murder if you agree with this." Or even, "you're a sociopath if you agree with this."
Rather, it's, "Why the **** are you agreeing with a sociopath on issues of morality?"
And yes, saying that he was a sociopath is an ad hominem argument, but people miss that an ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy. An ad hominem means you're attacking a person's character and using that to detract from the argument he is making. If a person's character is completely relevant to the topic at hand, then it's a valid statement, and this is one such instance. The fact that he's a psychopath is very relevant, because we're talking about issues of morality and how to treat other people, and a psychopath is defined by his lack of empathy for another person.
Thus, the defect in his character and the defect in the argument are one in the same: both are defined by a complete lack of empathy toward other human beings.
Well, that's easy. The point is to create a better world for yourself and others to live in. Because without a loving deity looking over us and an infinitely long afterlife to look forward to, this world is all we have.
What if Jeffrey Dahmer's actions made the world a happier place for him? Isn't that what drove Jeffrey Dahmer to do what he did in the first place?
Somehow I, an atheist, find myself a "devil's advocate" on behalf of a Christian argument against Highroller, who is an actual Christian. Strange days in the debate forum.
1. Two things keep me from committing murder: God and my conscience.
Well you just answered the question. Your conscience prevents you from doing so.
And what is conscience? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as, "the part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong."
So your sense of what is right and what is wrong keeps you from committing murder. In other words, you don't commit murder because you know it's wrong.
This is begging the question. The Christian is asking how to get from "I personally dislike murder very much" to "murder is objectively wrong."
Well, as Blinking pointed out, first of all, we have earthly disciplinarians.
Actually, I also pointed that out.
If I were to believe that God doesn't exist, I'd pretty much immediately adopt a Randian/Objectivist philosophy of morality. That seems to be the most logical way to view a world without God if you ask me. If God does not exist, then selfishness is the ultimate virtue. In a world without the existence of God the idea of making any sort of sacrifice for others is illogical.
It is a negative appeal to authority being broached here. Yes it is an ad hominem attack, but no matter what you call it, it is an attempt to discredit the logic or the force of one's argument by unpopular association. It is the opposite of bolstering an argument by positive association--appeal to authority.
In either scenario it has absolutely no place in discrediting one's logic, making it irrelevant.
Should I entertain the thoughts of someone who is a perverter? An adulterer? A homosexual? Why should we listen to such people? Ought we listen to sinners? Idolators? To women? Heretics? We have been down this road so many times in human history.
It should not make one iota of difference, even on the issues of morality.
Should we listen to homosexuals on issues of morality? To people who have sinned before? We perhaps should only listen to good christian men on issues of morality. Who gets to be good enough? Do I need to keep going? Let a person's rationale stand on its own without regard to its source.
If the reason and logic are unsound, then it ought to be refuted on those grounds.
I happen to agree with the quote in a generalized sense. To me, whether you believe in God or your own sense of morality--it's all equally pie in the sky, irrational illogical unproven. One man's morality is no more correct than Jesus Christ or Flying Spaghetti Monster from a logical perspective.
No matter what is the source, one has to end up declaring that their God/Idol/Morality system binds them.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
Replace God with personal convictions/morality/feelings/even social norms and you get the same result.
If I were to believe that God doesn't exist, I'd pretty much immediately adopt a Randian/Objectivist philosophy of morality. That seems to be the most logical way to view a world without God if you ask me. If God does not exist, then selfishness is the ultimate virtue. In a world without the existence of God the idea of making any sort of sacrifice for others is illogical.
I also know a few children who would misbehave if it weren't for the Elf on the Shelf watching them. Luckily, once they grow up a bit, they'll move past the need for elf-based ethics. The same generally happens to admirers of Rand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
This is a most excellent question. If Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive today how would you answer his question?
If that's too blunt for your taste, there's a multitude of arguments for morality that don't depend on the existence of God. Many, many smart people have thought about this question.
It's not an excellent question, it's from a crazed sociopath to help justify himself. God doesn't enforce human behavior on Earth, other humans do. Whether or not you believe in God, it's the rest of humanity you're responsible to on Earth.
If Dahmer were alive, I would explain to him that the rest of society would imprison and/or execute him for his breach of 'acceptable ranges'.
... But we already did that.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Those of us who are not psychopaths have other reasons as well.
You are far from the first Christian to advance this kind of argument, and I say the same thing to you guys every time: whenever you imply that only the fear of God is holding you back from being a Jeffrey Dahmer, that is freaking terrifying to non-Christians. You do your position no good and a lot of harm by aligning yourself psychologically with notorious serial killers.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree the argument being advanced in this thread is very weak, but these rebuttals always struck me as lazy and borderline ad hominem. The Christian advancing this argument isn't saying "the only thing keeping me from committing murder is God." He's concerned about the notion that morality might be subjective rather than objective.
The Christian argument is saying something more like this:
1. Two things keep me from committing murder: God and my conscience.
2. Even if God doesn't exist I still wouldn't murder people because my conscience wouldn't let me. My conscience makes me subjectively hate the idea of killing someone.
3. But if the only thing standing between me and murder is a subjective feeling I have, how can I convince anyone else that murder is wrong? "I don't like killing people, therefore you shouldn't either" carries as much weight as "I don't like Lima beans, therefore you shouldn't like them either." What makes my preferences better than other people's preferences?
4. If someone like Dahmer came up to me and said "I subjectively do like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to prison over" how do I convince him he's wrong? Isn't that a perfectly logical (albiet despicable) way of thinking?
The way you've phrased it, Dahmer isn't wrong. He's reporting a fact about his preferences, and presumably doing so accurately - although I suspect he might not rationally value murder over freedom so much as fall afoul of poor risk assessment and future discounting biases, from which psychopaths seem to suffer even more than the rest of us. Anyway, persuading him not to have those preferences is a matter for psychiatry, not philosophy; you can't be logically argued into liking lima beans, either. But for our purposes here, it's most critical that we notice that the presence of God would do absolutely nothing to resolve this difficulty. Well, I suppose God could miraculously cure Dahmer's mind long before anyone got hurt, but he apparently chose not to do that. So setting that aside, if all we're talking about is the threat of divine punishment, then Dahmer could discount it in exactly the same way he discounts the threat of earthly punishment: "I subjectively like killing people, and I like it so much I think it's worth going to Hell over."
This has always been the flaw in this DCT argumentative strategy of sympathetically advancing a subjectivist or nihilist argument and then stating that God is the only solution: subjectivist and nihilist arguments apply just as well to "God says so" as "the king says so" or "society says so" or anything else. (Well, one of the flaws. The other flaw is that even if God were a solution this would just be an appeal to consequences.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The difference is that earthly punishment is finite, whereas divine punishment is presumably infinite; you burn in hell for eternity. Dahmer could rationally decide that he values whatever finite benefit he gets out of murder more than he values the finite harm from human punishment. He could not rationally value a finite benefit over an infinite harm. Therefore in the latter case we can conclude it is objectively wrong for Dahmer to choose to commit murder. If Dahmer is rational I can point out the error in his reasoning and convince him not to kill. In the former case it's a matter of subjective preferences.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A mathematically true statement, but its connection to the debate is not apparent to me.
Needless to say, it's profoundly disturbing.
Well you just answered the question. Your conscience prevents you from doing so.
And what is conscience? Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as, "the part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong."
So your sense of what is right and what is wrong keeps you from committing murder. In other words, you don't commit murder because you know it's wrong.
Which really gets us to the heart of the matter. When someone asks, "If there's no God, why not commit a morally wrong action," what they are essentially asking is, "Without a cosmic disciplinarian, why not commit a morally wrong action?" Right?
Well, as both Blinking and you pointed out, first of all, we have earthly disciplinarians.
But more than that, the REAL issue, and the reason why the question is really disturbing, is that it carries the implication that whether an action is right or wrong doesn't actually matter, and the only thing that matters is whether or not you are punished for it. In other words: the only thing that matters is what happens to me, and other people don't mean anything.
And that's something we expect out of sociopaths and very young children. You know, people characterized by a lack of developed empathy towards other people. A framework of moral thinking that is purely concerned with individual reward and punishment, profit and detriment, with no regard for any other factor, is entirely self-centered.
And it's particularly jarring to hear that from a Christian because the whole point of being Christian is to love your neighbor as yourself. This is repeated over and over again. Loving others is the bedrock of Christianity. Notice that in the Gospels, Jesus gives TWO commandments to love others, not only to love one's neighbor as oneself, but to love one another as Jesus loved you. This is to really underscore the importance of loving others.
So it's jarring when someone who self-identifies as a member of a belief system that preaches the loving of others as a very important thing asks, "Why give a ***** about people if there's no one to punish me for not doing so?"
Why do you have that subjective feeling?
Well the foundation of ethics is just that: There is a huge difference between a moral statement and a statement of preference.
A statement of preference is a simple assertion about you. In this case, "I don't like lima beans" asserts a basic fact about what you like or do not like: in this case, not lima beans. This is all a statement about preference states. It does not say anything about whether or not anyone else likes lima beans, or whether it is moral or immoral to enjoy lima beans. It merely states that you, individually, do not like lima beans.
A moral statement is completely different. "Murder is wrong" is not the same kind of statement as "I don't like lima beans." It is not even the same kind of statement as "I don't like murder."
First of all, "Murder is wrong" does not say anything about preference. "Murder is wrong" does not say anything about whether or not you like murder. You might not like murder (I'm hoping that's the case...), but whether or not murder is morally correct or incorrect has nothing to do with whether or not you like it. Case in point: you can like something that is morally wrong. I could really like stealing cars, but whether or not I enjoy stealing cars has nothing to do with whether or not it is morally correct. Alternatively, you could really dislike something that is not morally wrong. An example of this is what we said above: bitterroot disliking lima beans says nothing at all about whether it is morally right or wrong to eat lima beans.
Second, "Murder is wrong" does not exclusively apply to you. When I say "Murder is wrong," I am not saying the same thing as "It is wrong for me to murder." I am saying "It is wrong for anyone to murder." A statement of personal preference is just that, personal. Your statement of "I dislike lima beans" says only something about you. It says nothing about anyone else's preferences. But a moral statement applies to more than one person. When you say "Murder is wrong," it applies to everyone, and certainly more than just you.
Third, "Murder is wrong" is a position you are advancing that can be justified with reasons. It is an argument that you back up with facts, and the facts behind it determine the strength of the argument. "I dislike lima beans" is just an observation. You cannot argue whether or not bitterroot likes lima beans, he doesn't. It's like saying, "That color is blue." It's a basic observation. Meanwhile, "Murder is wrong" is a moral position that requires evidence and factual basis in order to justify.
*tips fedora*
Internet Atheists would make Dahmers cry in shame for how poorly his views were being used by them.
Warning for spam. -bLatch
This is begging the question. The Christian is asking how to get from "I personally dislike murder very much" to "murder is objectively wrong."
Actually, I also pointed that out.
Oh, sorry man. Missed that. Edited to give your post acknowledgement.
I saw that, and I agree an ethical statement is different from a personal preference. It's still begging the question.
My hypothetical Christian doesn't commit murder because (1) God says not to, and (2) he personally dislikes murder. If God doesn't exist, all he has left is "I personally dislike murder." How does he get from that statement to "murder is objectively wrong."
Your argument tries to bridge the gap by asserting that one's conscience deals in ethical truths, not in personal preferences. But why is that necessarily true (other than "Merriam-Webster says so")? And couldn't your conscience be wrong sometimes?
I think this is a good point. And for those of you arguing that Dahmer is a psychopath, let me counter argue by appealing to my authority, Christ on High, the Lord Jesus Almighty savior to the world.
Oh I'm sorry did you all disagree with that last part?
It doesn't matter whether the argument comes from a psychopath or not. Neither should it matter that I put forth arguments from the pope, jesus, bill clinton, whoever. What matters is the rationale itself.
I am shocked at those of you who are swayed by the logic of "well it comes from a psychopath" as if it should have any force at all.
That Dahmer is a psychopath should have equal persuasive force as a common appeal to authority which is NIL. No persuasive force at all.
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying that the question is invalid because Dahmer is a psychopath.
I agree TomCat is slightly missing the point, but people are trying to attack question with variations on the theme: "you're as bad as Dahmer if you're asking that."
I think that could be characterized as a reverse appeal to authority or an ad hominem. People are saying the question is invalid because of what it ostensibly says about the OP's character.
I think it's the opposite direction - because the question is easily answered by most normal people, it says worrying things about the character of those who feel the need to ask it.
Dahmer's psychopathy is relevant here because a lack of the normal internal moral/prosocial motivations is precisely what psychopathy is. That quote is the disorder in a nutshell. It's like a depressive saying life is empty and pointless.
Also, the name of the fallacy you're looking for is the ad hominem, not the appeal to authority.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wait, what? No. You said you agreed with me that there's a difference, and then said something that's totally the opposite of what I said.
No, I'm saying that someone believing that "murder is wrong" is not saying "I dislike murder," but is saying, "People should not murder." The statements are not equivalent. He might also dislike murder (you'd hope...) but that's not the same as saying, "Murder is wrong."
Thus, the hypothetical Christian is not committing murder because God says not to and because he believes murder is morally wrong.
Perhaps I'm not explaining this right.
Once again, a statement that "murder is wrong" is not the same thing as "I don't like murder." It's a totally different statement. It means "people should not murder."
A person might also dislike murder, but that's not the same thing. Once again, I could just LOVE stealing things, but that doesn't mean people should steal, and bitterroot can just HATE lima beans, but that doesn't make eating them morally wrong.
Thus, saying the conscience deals purely in likes is incorrect.
If someone is making a moral statement on something, they're not necessarily saying anything about their preferences, they're talking about the way they believe people should behave. Preferences are factual statements about an individuals likes and dislikes. "I don't like lima beans" means you don't like lima beans, but says nothing about anyone else.
However, a moral statement is a statement about how people should behave. The operative words here are "should" — because a preference is an observational statement about what is, while a statement about morality is a question how people ought to act — and also "people," because unlike a statement of personal preference, which is personal, a statement about how people ought to act applies to more people than just you.
In conclusion, the problem is you insist that the conscience is merely pointing out preference. Except, as we stated earlier, statements about morality — which is what the conscience deals with — aren't statements of preference. They're statements of morality.
Of course, people can certainly make incorrect moral statements or perform morally incorrect actions. We see it all the time.
But that's the thing: As opposed to a personal preference, which is a statement of basic fact ("bitterroot does not like lima beans"), when someone makes a moral statement, they're making an argument about what is morally correct or morally incorrect. This argument must then be justified with facts.
The strength of the moral position depends on the strength of its justification. For instance, if someone were to, say, argue that lying is morally wrong, that person must justify this argument with evidence, and provide WHY lying is morally wrong. Otherwise, it's just an empty statement.
It's in the justification that we find the strength of the argument. If a person's moral statement is grounded in a well-reasoned argument, we find that moral to have a strong basis. If a person's moral statement is grounded in little to no evidence or reason, we question the foundation of his position.
In other words, when you're saying someone's argument is wrong, you're not saying you don't like his argument. You can dislike an argument whether it's true or false. When you're saying it's wrong, you're saying it does not have factual basis.
I think you're conflating two different fallacies. The first is guilt by association, except that's not what's going on here. No one's saying "you're guilty of mass murder if you agree with this." Or even, "you're a sociopath if you agree with this."
Rather, it's, "Why the **** are you agreeing with a sociopath on issues of morality?"
And yes, saying that he was a sociopath is an ad hominem argument, but people miss that an ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy. An ad hominem means you're attacking a person's character and using that to detract from the argument he is making. If a person's character is completely relevant to the topic at hand, then it's a valid statement, and this is one such instance. The fact that he's a psychopath is very relevant, because we're talking about issues of morality and how to treat other people, and a psychopath is defined by his lack of empathy for another person.
Thus, the defect in his character and the defect in the argument are one in the same: both are defined by a complete lack of empathy toward other human beings.
What if Jeffrey Dahmer's actions made the world a happier place for him? Isn't that what drove Jeffrey Dahmer to do what he did in the first place?
If I were to believe that God doesn't exist, I'd pretty much immediately adopt a Randian/Objectivist philosophy of morality. That seems to be the most logical way to view a world without God if you ask me. If God does not exist, then selfishness is the ultimate virtue. In a world without the existence of God the idea of making any sort of sacrifice for others is illogical.
In either scenario it has absolutely no place in discrediting one's logic, making it irrelevant.
Should I entertain the thoughts of someone who is a perverter? An adulterer? A homosexual? Why should we listen to such people? Ought we listen to sinners? Idolators? To women? Heretics? We have been down this road so many times in human history.
It should not make one iota of difference, even on the issues of morality.
Should we listen to homosexuals on issues of morality? To people who have sinned before? We perhaps should only listen to good christian men on issues of morality. Who gets to be good enough? Do I need to keep going? Let a person's rationale stand on its own without regard to its source.
If the reason and logic are unsound, then it ought to be refuted on those grounds.
I happen to agree with the quote in a generalized sense. To me, whether you believe in God or your own sense of morality--it's all equally pie in the sky, irrational illogical unproven. One man's morality is no more correct than Jesus Christ or Flying Spaghetti Monster from a logical perspective.
No matter what is the source, one has to end up declaring that their God/Idol/Morality system binds them.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" -Jeffrey Dahmer
Replace God with personal convictions/morality/feelings/even social norms and you get the same result.
I also know a few children who would misbehave if it weren't for the Elf on the Shelf watching them. Luckily, once they grow up a bit, they'll move past the need for elf-based ethics. The same generally happens to admirers of Rand.