Fairness?

[Adrift]

Seems a strange question... it's like asking "if scientists will eventually run out of things to discover, will they eventually stop being scientists?" Will liberals stop trying to improve the world once they run out of things to improve...?

What a bizarre comparison.

That's a comparison I meant to make to you on the other thread, where I was pointing out that progressivism inherently cannot really lead to the social and moral apocalypse that conservatives love predicting. Just as science is about improving our knowledge of the world through trying different things, measuring what works, and keeping what works; so too progressivism is about a similar process towards improving society based on empirical study. So to predict that progressivism is going to make society worse (and that we should just follow the bible) is about as kooky as saying that science makes us all more ignorant (and that we should just follow the bible). Sure in the short term, scientists or progressives might indeed come up with some bad ideas and believe them widely, but in the long term their empirical-based process means knowledge should improve over time and society likewise.

So, if in a hundred years from now, unchecked progressivism led to a eugenics-based, Gattica type world, modern-day you would be in favor of that future ethic?

You're speaking out both sides of your mouth. You say that you believe in an objective moral system, but you suggest that a future super-scientific people may come into a better moral system. If your morals are entirely based on a scientific consensus, I'm sorry to say that you've based your morality on shifting sand. We've already seen within the 20th century that science and morals don't always make the best bedfellows. That isn't to downplay the benefits of science, but science needs to be tempered with other forms of knowledge.

Some people like to use to the word "morality" to refer to a religious approach to "ethics". So everyone can do "ethics" but only religious people have "morality". Generally there is a slight disdain for 'morality' implied in such usage.

Personally, I just use 'morality' for everything and barely ever use the word 'ethics'.

Uh, ok.

[Adrift]

*whose

The question of "what is just" is a highly complicated one that I'm not nearly equipped to answer completely, but I can say, to start, that in the Catholic moral tradition, justice is a virtue, not just a set of principles or criteria.

Our own efforts to understand what is just are necessarily connected with the divine perspective, since we are made in God's image and likeness and have God's law inscribed in our hearts.

I'll mark you down for "In God's eyes".

[Adrift]

Traditional images of justice were of a woman blindfolded, holding scales. That would seem to indicate that people generally thought that whose eyes it's in is irrelevant since the eyes are blindfolded, and that people thought of justice as something objective that could be measured empirically (on 'scales').

Way to overstate symbolism. You can't objectively measure justice without seeing the scales. Of course, justice carries a sword in the other hand. Probably wouldn't want to be on the other hand of that.

[Starlight]

Curious, what do you base this on?

Life experience and observation, and I've seen various other people comment on the same trend. Offhand I'm not aware of any empirical data on the subject though.

After a bit of googling, looking for some empirical data on the subject, I found this 2008 Pew study which asked whether people agreed there were "absolute standards of right and wrong", and 58% of atheists surveyed in 2008 said yes, which they note was indeed lower than Christians (~80% overall) and the average (78%). But 58% is a significant majority. (Although it's not quite as strong a majority as I was expecting... possibly in my more secular country the numbers are higher, or possibly my personal observation are biased towards millennials (see below))

While I can't find any more recent (or earlier) data to assess the validity of my own observation that this number appears to be increasing, I do note this 2010 Pew article on 'Religion Among the Millennials' which says "Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. ....At the same time, Millennials are no less convinced than their elders that there are absolute standards of right and wrong." So as the younger generation ages, we'll be getting less religion but no lessening in the total rate of endorsement of the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, which must mean that the atheist millennials are endorsing those views at a much higher rate than previous generations of atheists.

[Adrift]

After a bit of googling, looking for some empirical data on the subject, I found this 2008 Pew study which asked whether people agreed there were "absolute standards of right and wrong", and 58% of atheists surveyed in 2008 said yes, which they note was indeed lower than Christians (~80% overall) and the average (78%). But 58% is a significant majority. (Although it's not quite as strong a majority as I was expecting... possibly in my more secular country the numbers are higher, or possibly my personal observation are biased towards millennials (see below))

While I can't find any more recent (or earlier) data to assess the validity of my own observation that this number appears to be increasing, I do note this 2010 Pew article on 'Religion Among the Millennials' which says "Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. ....At the same time, Millennials are no less convinced than their elders that there are absolute standards of right and wrong." So as the younger generation ages, we'll be getting less religion but no less in the total rate of endorsement of the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, which must mean that the atheist millennials are endorse those views at a much higher rate than previous generations of atheists.

Color me unimpressed.

[Sam]

Would that not mean that, long term, they would eventually become social conservatives?

All the best liberals are conservatives. They're just conservative in the traditional sense of the word, rather than the fare we get these days.

It's a legit question.

It is a tired question that seer has been "asking" for longer than I can keep track. And it keeps getting conflated and confused with things that it ain't, almost certainly in an effort to over-simplify.

Aren't ethics based on morality?

They can be. But they are not necessarily. An ethicist needs to ask "What promotes value?" while a moralist needs to ask "What is right?" ... the two questions are not the same. So while the moralist looks to "objective morality" and asks whether an action adheres to that or not, the ethicist looks to subjective values and asks whether an action promotes or hinders that value.

Well, sort of there is.

Eh.

No, there's not — I hate to get all Nietzsche here but there's nothing inconsistent with filling up a moral framework and demanding that others adhere to it, if for no other reason than you (and your group) are the stronger.

It's not a good moral system to have, I would strongly argue, but it's not inconsistent.

[Starlight]

So, if in a hundred years from now, unchecked progressivism led to a eugenics-based, Gattica type world, modern-day you would be in favor of that future ethic?

What weird question. You're basically asking "if something terrible turns out to be best for everyone, would you be in favor of it?"

You're speaking out both sides of your mouth. You say that you believe in an objective moral system, but you suggest that a future super-scientific people may come into a better moral system.

No, the distinction is that I want what's best for everyone, but in my current state of knowledge I don't necessarily know what's best and I can learn more on that subject. It's similar to how you want to obey God, but in your current state of knowledge you don't necessarily know all God's will and you can learn more on that subject. In both cases our knowledge can improve and we will change our behavior accordingly, but our core values won't change.

If your morals are entirely based on a scientific consensus, I'm sorry to say that you've based your morality on shifting sand.

My morals, ie my core moral values, are not based on a scientific consensus, but my knowledge of the outcomes of different actions can always be improved.

We've already seen within the 20th century that science and morals don't always make the best bedfellows.

[Adrift]

What weird question. You're basically asking "if something terrible turns out to be best for everyone, would you be in favor of it?"

Oh yeah, you're right. We've never been presented this dilemma before...

No, the distinction is that I want what's best for everyone, but in my current state of knowledge I don't necessarily know what's best and I can learn more on that subject. It's similar to how you want to obey God, but in your current state of knowledge you don't necessarily know all God's will and you can learn more on that subject. In both cases our knowledge can improve and we will change our behavior accordingly, but our core values won't change.

So, do you agree that it's possible that what you currently hold today is the best for everyone, may not be the best for everyone tomorrow?

My morals, ie my core moral values, are not based on a scientific consensus, but my knowledge of the outcomes of different actions can always be improved.

Based on what?

You, uh, honestly don't know what I'm referring to? Well that explains a lot.

[Adrift]

All the best liberals are conservatives. They're just conservative in the traditional sense of the word, rather than the fare we get these days.

How do you define the "conservative" in the traditional sense?

It is a tired question that seer has been "asking" for longer than I can keep track. And it keeps getting conflated and confused with things that it ain't, almost certainly in an effort to over-simplify.

Perhaps he's not satisfied with the over-complicated definitions. Can't say I really blame him.

They can be. But they are not necessarily. An ethicist needs to ask "What promotes value?" while a moralist needs to ask "What is right?" ... the two questions are not the same. So while the moralist looks to "objective morality" and asks whether an action adheres to that or not, the ethicist looks to subjective values and asks whether an action promotes or hinders that value.

I guess I'm in the same quandary as seer is then. How can you equate subjective values with objective morals? Do you believe that values (say, the value of human life) is subjective?

No, there's not — I hate to get all Nietzsche here but there's nothing inconsistent with filling up a moral framework and demanding that others adhere to it, if for no other reason than you (and your group) are the stronger.

Who is mightier, God or man?

It's not a good moral system to have, I would strongly argue, but it's not inconsistent.

If God exist, then I'd argue that it is inconsistent, and I'd hope that, as a Christian, you'd agree.

[Sam]

How do you define the "conservative" in the traditional sense?

Maintaining the fundamental traditional values and structures that create stable societies while allowing them to change incrementally with changing values and societal norms. A conservative, for example, would seek to prioritize family stability when dealing with same-sex marriage or welfare policies. Unlike the Conservatives who are happy to prevent more perfect family units when dealing with same-sex partners and were more than happy passing "head of household" policies in the 1990s that contributed to breaking apart poverty-level families.

Perhaps he's not satisfied with the over-complicated definitions. Can't say I really blame him.

It's a complicated topic. If people want morality or ethics to be simple, they are setting themselves up for disappointment or delusion. It's complicated.

I guess I'm in the same quandary as seer is then. How can you equate subjective values with objective morals? Do you believe that values (say, the value of human life) is subjective?

I don't equate them. I've been very careful and clear in differentiating them! Values can be subjective (very easily they can be subjective -- "I prefer vanilla"). Valuing human life can be subjective (but still foundational and deeply-held), yes. One can value human life for any reason at all. It's something that can be either a moral value or an ethical value, objective or subjective.

Who is mightier, God or man?

If God exist, then I'd argue that it is inconsistent, and I'd hope that, as a Christian, you'd agree.

No, it's not inconsistent. That word means something and it's not being used properly here. If someone develops a moral framework based on subjective foundations (e.g., the well-being of societies or persons) then that person can advocate the expansion of that morality without being the least bit inconsistent. She can say "This moral framework is better" ... if for no other reason than it's her framework.

That might be sociopathic, sure. But it's not inconsistent!

[Adrift]

Maintaining the fundamental traditional values and structures that create stable societies while allowing them to change incrementally with changing values and societal norms. A conservative, for example, would seek to prioritize family stability when dealing with same-sex marriage or welfare policies.

What? How do you differentiate conservative from progressive using that definition?

Unlike the Conservatives who are happy to prevent more perfect family units when dealing with same-sex partners and were more than happy passing "head of household" policies in the 1990s that contributed to breaking apart poverty-level families.

You're not making any sense. You've essentially differentiated between what you personally consider two types of conservative. One that is conservative towards traditional, millennial old traditional values, with some new definition of "conservative" that expresses radically progressive values. Your definition of "conservative" sounds hopelessly unsound.

It's a complicated topic. If people want morality or ethics to be simple, they are setting themselves up for disappointment or delusion. It's complicated.

Says who?

I don't equate them. I've been very careful and clear in differentiating them! Values can be subjective (very easily they can be subjective -- "I prefer vanilla"). Valuing human life can be subjective (but still foundational and deeply-held), yes. One can value human life for any reason at all. It's something that can be either a moral value or an ethical value, objective or subjective.

What? All I'm trying to figure out is whether or not you believe humanity has objective or subjective value. Which is it? If subjective value, how can we reasonably apply ethics? If human value is essentially whim based, then so are ethics. Do you honestly, as a Christian, believe that human value is whim based?

No, it's not inconsistent. That word means something and it's not being used properly here. If someone develops a moral framework based on subjective foundations (e.g., the well-being of societies or persons) then that person can advocate the expansion of that morality without being the least bit inconsistent. She can say "This moral framework is better" ... if for no other reason than it's her framework.

What are you talking about? By the very definition of "inconsistent" a moral framework that can be changed is not consistent.

That might be sociopathic, sure. But it's not inconsistent!

Yes. Yes, it is inconsistent. I...I can't even believe you would suggest otherwise.

[Jedidiah]

Right. Because they see themselves as holding to objective morality. Christian behavior falls short of the moral standards that the liberal atheists hold.

It only looks as though Christian morality falls short from the perspective of these liberal atheists. In fact theirs falls far short of the morality of the Bible.

[Adrift]

Values can be subjective (very easily they can be subjective -- "I prefer vanilla"). Valuing human life can be subjective (but still foundational and deeply-held), yes. One can value human life for any reason at all. It's something that can be either a moral value or an ethical value, objective or subjective.

By the way, when Christians say that humanity has "value" what sort of value do you imagine we're referring to? (vanilla over chocolate?) I can tell you the type of value we're typically referring to, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. As a Christian, I thought this would be obvious, but your latest post makes me wonder.

[Sam]

What? How do you differentiate conservative from progressive using that definition?

I don't; I said the best liberals were conservative.

You're not making any sense. You've essentially differentiated between what you personally consider two types of conservative. One that is conservative towards traditional, millennial old traditional values, with some new definition of "conservative" that expresses radically progressive values. Your definition of "conservative" sounds hopelessly unsound.

<sigh> A product of our times, unfortunately, and symptom of what "movement conservatism" has done to the brand. The old conservatives were not "standing athwart history yelling stop," no matter what the pseudo-conservative Buckley-ites say. A conservative will adapt with the times and incorporate new culture and mores. She'll just do it more slowly and shyly than will a progressive. Hence, a progressive might, on the basis of equality, demand that same-sex partners be allowed to adopt children. A conservative might argue that we need empirical knowledge that such families will not be detrimental to children. So while a progressive may have argued for liberalization of adoption practices in the 1970s without having good data, a conservative would have held off until the early-to-mid 2000s before advocating the same.

Says who?

Read "Nicomachean Ethics" and tell me it's not complicated.

What? All I'm trying to figure out is whether or not you believe humanity has objective or subjective value. Which is it? If subjective value, how can we reasonably apply ethics? If human value is essentially whim based, then so are ethics. Do you honestly, as a Christian, believe that human value is whim based?

It has both. And of course ethics can be reasonably applied if it's subjective. A society can place subjective value on many things (e.g., modesty in dress) and reasonably apply that value in its culture.

And that's part of why this is a complicated topic. Because you've got arguments for objective morality going on one hand, arguments for subjective ethic on the other hand, and a whole lot of inter-lapping and inter-dependencies.

What are you talking about? By the very definition of "inconsistent" a moral framework that can be changed is not consistent.

No, that's not what inconsistent necessarily means. And when we're talking about a person being inconsistent, we're talking about a person who acts contrary to previous actions or in violation of a supposed code. A person who demands $5 for customers to use the bathroom but only actually charges Irish customers is being inconsistent with her rules. A person who believes that bribery is bad and then accepts a bribe is being inconsistent. Subjective and inconsistent are not synonymous.

And given how much Christian morality has changed over the years, you simply cannot point that stick at subjective ethics and not end up poking yourself.

[Sam]

By the way, when Christians say that humanity has "value" what sort of value do you imagine we're referring to? (vanilla over chocolate?) I can tell you the type of value we're typically referring to, but I want to make sure we're on the same page. As a Christian, I thought this would be obvious, but your latest post makes me wonder.

We're saying that humans have worth. We're usually (but not always) saying that humans have inherent worth and that leads to an obligation to promote flourishing.