Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean all types or rape? Your religion does not say that wife rape is wrong.

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27).

The citation only deals with a girl who is 'engaged' and does not deal with all forms of rape. Try again, because you have failed and the witness of history how the Bible is interpreted did not consider all forms of rape and marital rape against the law of God.

The citations I gave from the Baha'i writings in the 19th century by Baha'u'llah define all violence against women, including all forms of 'zina' as violations of God's Law. It is specific and Universal House of Justice can only determine the 'punishment' for violations of 'zina' other than formification, and must rely on on the writings I provided that forbids all violence against women.

[seer]

The citations I gave from the Baha'i writings in the 19th century by Baha'u'llah define all violence against women, including all forms of 'zina' as violations of God's Law. It is specific and Universal House of Justice can only determine the 'punishment' for violations of 'zina' other than formification, and must rely on on the writings I provided that forbids all violence against women.

Again Shuny, where is the room for violence or rape when we are commanded to love our wives as ourselves. Be specific please.

[mattdamore]

Not sure if I understand all of the terms...but I might diagree if I think this means what I think it means....."There are objective moral values and duties. The values supervene on intrinsically valuable non-normative properties, "
I think there are "objective" values (= "universal") but only because inherent human nature is similar and this makes it appear as if these values are "objective". In this sense this (nature) has to be "normative". This "inherent normal" (?) might serve as "reason" for action---as you say, but reason is not objective....in fact human reasoning is very subjective---our creativity can make a wrong into a right and a right into a wrong. (That is why we have hypocrisy---we do not adhere to claimed values because of inconvenience and use our "reasoning" to justify such conduct)

Thanks for your comments. I'd distinguish between something being objective and something being universal. Something can be objective (the shape of the earth) without being universal (not everyone agrees); and something can be universal (say, the flatness of the earth before scientists and geologists came along with their insights) without being objective (since the earth is a sphere). But I see the flow of your point. Secondly, I agree that people can reason differently, and thus reasoning is subjective. But I don't think that implies that the faculty of reason itself is subjective. A map may or may not represent a geographical terrain accurately; but variability of maps doesn't imply that our capacity for map-making is a chimera. So regarding the model itself, I'd say that while it could still be a feature of the model that reasons serve to ground the objectivity of moral principles being action-guiding (and so are grounds for obligations), the fact that we can "get it wrong" only means the reasons themselves are deficient somewhere, not that Reason itself has to be subjective. It may be the same with mathematics. For any math problem there can be only one right answer: but that wouldn't mean that those who have the wrong answer don't have reasons for why they think their answer is the right one. Let me know if that made sense.

If the human species existed together on earth with another intelligent non-human species whose "inherent normal" (nature) was different---then their "objective" values would necessarily be different---simply because their survival would depend on a different set of conditions/nature.....(Thus, "human moral values" cannot apply to God---nor can they apply to other animal species because they are "not human")

The brings to light a helpful distinction. I think there's a difference between the objective moral values themselves and their application in varying situations. For example, compare Victorian society with a nudist colony in the South Pacific. Both societies may adhere to the objective moral value of decency and abide by the principle, "One ought not be indecent." Thus, both the nudist and the Victorian would agree that decency is superior to indecency. That is, decency is objectively greater or better than indecency. However, there is a relativity of application in the respective societies. The relativity of application wouldn't detract from its objectivity, it seems to me. The objectivity of the value would seem to fork to the right and left relative to the society. In the nudist colony, it is not indecent to be nude; in the Victorian society, it would be very indecent to be nude. The meaning of decency varies; but its objectivity is a constant. So, the intelligent non-human species, God, or animals wouldn't be victims of varying objectivity, but perhaps varying applicability which would relative to a moral reference-frame, you might say.

"Making-relation" may appear sufficient grounding for moral values/principles---but because human reason can be subjective---such principles can become relative and utilitarian. Such a situation will eventually lead to moral bankruptcy. In order to have long-term consistency of moral values/principles it is better to make them "objective" in a metaphysical (abstract) sense so as to give such values the quality of wisdom/truth (Wisdom = knowledge that remains true/correct over time) A metaphysical paradigm need not have "God" in it---but it does need to have a narrative that explains human purpose and the meaning of our existence, one that will remain consistent over a very long period of time.

All valid points. First, I hope I've pointed out that non-theistic moral realism is committed to objective moral values. Second, I hope I've shown that the subjectivity of reasoning doesn't imply the subjectivity of Reason, just as getting a math problem wrong for what we thought to be good reasons doesn't mean the math problem doesn't have a right answer for actually good reasons. Third, as for purpose and meaning, I don't want to get into this right now. But I will say that the non-theistic moral realist could be committed to meaning and purpose without being committed to cosmic meaning and purpose.

I appreciate the video. Unfortunately, I can't promise that I'll have enough time to listen to it. I've logged it into my youtube account for future viewing though. Thank you!

[Adrift]

First, False, the Universal House of Justice does not determine the interpretation of 'zina.' It only determines the punishment for violations of 'zina' other than fornication. Read again. The Universal House of Justice must rely on the interpretation of Abdu-l'baha, and all of Baha'u'llah writings for the interpretation of "zina," and cannot make that interpretation by Baha'i Law.

In Islam 'zina' does not include rape, but this decidedly was changed in the writings of Baha'u'llah and abdu'l-Baha in the nineteenth century.

Second, as with all Baha'i writings the other citations form Baha'u'llah, not in the Katib-i-Akdas, and clarification by Abdu'l-Baha in the 19th century forbid all forms of violence against women and provide the interpretation of 'zina' as cited, and not the Universal House of Justice. Read again the references are specific in the interpretation by Abdu'l-baha to include ALL violence against women.

The very note that you cited for the passage it's referring back to states that Baha'u'lla was referring in that instance to fornication. Not to rape. "is for those who commit fornication". Show me specifically where Baha'u'llah uses the word zina in context to mean "marital rape" or even just regular "rape" and not "adultery" or "fornication". That is what you were asking us to do, is it not?

Zina is an Islamic Arabic loanword, the definition of which is "extramarital sex and premarital sex, such as adultery (consensual sexual relations outside marriage), fornication (consensual sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons), and homosexuality (consensual sexual relations between same-sex partners)."

The Universal House of Justice even admits that it's an Arabic/Persian loanword here where they state,

adultery is generally and mainly intended

But their statement about zina's larger meaning is not entirely accurate as sources here and here argue. Zina, they argue, is never defined as rape. There is a different word for rape in Islamic law which is ightisab

[guacamole]

I think the best way to assert non-theistic moral realism is to argue that moral law comes logically from biological reality. For example, if we go to six qualities of living things (i.e., metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, etc.) then we might assert that moral actions do not infringe on a living thing's ability to maintain those attributes, and that immoral actions do infringe on a living thing's ability to maintain those attributes. Using reason, we should be able to expound a good deal of moral law. Objections from moral anthropology aside (e.g., "But Guaca, not all people agree on these things!"), that would give us a non-theistic basis for morality.

fwiw,
guacamole

[mattdamore]

Right, but how does that stop a Stalin, or curb his behavior? A bullet in the head would do a much better job. Again, nothing really happens if he ignores these objective moral standards. It all seems like a rhetorical exercise with no teeth.

Hello seer. I thought about your question. I don't think - if I understand you - any account of morality is designed to "stop" a behavior. Short of external compulsion - from God, an individual, or group of individuals - I don't think any ethical theory stops action. As for "curbing", outside of a nature conditioned by virtuous habits, the presence or absence of moral principles are not going to do anything, unless she sees that whimsical obedience satisfies prudential self-interest, egoistic impulse, or perhaps even a cold, utilitarian calculus. Morality's function, it seems to me, may have more to do with assigning alignment with or dislocation from goodness. For example, suppose my job is to honestly calculate the payroll of employees in an accounting department. I'm given a continuity-binder prescribing correct, step-by-step instructions on how to perform various job-related tasks. The instructions themselves, though they prescribe what I ought to do to be a successful payroll technician, they are impotent to "stop" me from making a mistake (or from slacking off all day), or "curb" similar tendencies. The instructions simply reveal how various job-related tasks ought to be done. But they don't keep me from making mistakes, looking for short-cuts, or even quitting the job.

Second, it may depend on your ethical theory if you think "nothing really happens" if the standards are ignored. It may be reminiscent of the Ring of Gyges in Book 2 of The Republic. Socrates thought the just man (who appeared unjust) was superior to the unjust man (who appeared just). His point was that even if the unjust man is never caught ("nothing really happens") and he goes to his grave with Greek society praising his apparently unblemished character, it is still better to be just. In other words, it may not matter (from the perspective of morality) whether "something happens". Injustice is its own punishment; justice its own reward. This may be because injustice disorganizes the soul and prevents lasting happiness. But this gets into other areas of ethics besides the objective moral values themselves. I think the main idea I'd want to talk about is the possibility of their objectivity apart from God.

But cultures have generally have considered rape evil without consideration to these objective standards. Of course many cultures did on religious grounds. Then I would have to ask, when did rape suddenly become objectively evil? I mean we find it in the animal kingdom even with higher primates - is it evil for them too? Or it's not because they just can't grasp the concepts?

A couple things. First, moral realism wouldn't imply that considering rape evil means considering the objective standards that undergird it. Moral realism is moral ontology; considering rape evil is moral judgment. Second, moral realism wouldn't be committed to the idea that rape became objectively evil, since the adverb "objectively" excludes the verb "became", in this context. Rape's evil is independent of human opinion and society's appraisal. Third, I don't think the animal kingdom is populated by moral agents; they are due moral respects, not intrinsic to them, but intrinsic to us in relation to them. I'm not exactly sure what it would look like if a mere animal grasped a concept, since the grasping of a concept is symptomatic of rationality, a property that would raise it from the level of being a mere animal. I apologize if I missed your points.

[mattdamore]

Back to the subject of the thread in respect to mattdamore.

There is a difference between the human perception of a difference between a (NMN) morality and a Divine objective morality than what would be a logical defense of an 'objective morality' to argue for the existence of God. I believe there is a foundation of Divine Law and the Created nature of humanity in the image of the attributes of God that is Divine ultimate nature of humanity, but arguing that logically on the necessity of a Divine objective Source based on the objective evidence this fails.

Thanks Shunyadragon,

However, I'm having trouble understanding you. Let me know if I'm representing you properly:
a. There is a different between NMN and theistic moral reality.
b. I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "perception of a difference".
c. You're committed to theistic moral realism, since the "foundation" of morality is "Divine Law" and the "created nature of humanity".
d. I didn't understand what you meant by "in the image of the attributes that is Divine ultimate nature of humanity"; is it that the "Divine ultimate nature of humanity" is God? Does that mean that God is the "Divine ultimate nature of humanity"? If so, I'm not sure what this means.
e. Also, I'm having trouble understanding "arguing that logically [does 'that' refer to "d"?] on the necessity of a Divine objective Source based on objective evidence [are you talking about the objective evidence of moral realism simpliciter being evidence for God?] this fails."

Thank you for any clarifications you can supply.

[seer]

Hello seer. I thought about your question. I don't think - if I understand you - any account of morality is designed to "stop" a behavior. Short of external compulsion - from God, an individual, or group of individuals - I don't think any ethical theory stops action. As for "curbing", outside of a nature conditioned by virtuous habits, the presence or absence of moral principles are not going to do anything, unless she sees that whimsical obedience satisfies prudential self-interest, egoistic impulse, or perhaps even a cold, utilitarian calculus. Morality's function, it seems to me, may have more to do with assigning alignment with or dislocation from with goodness. For example, suppose my job is to honestly calculate the payroll of employees in an accounting department. I'm given a continuity-binder prescribing correct, step-by-step instructions on how to perform various job-related tasks. The instructions themselves, though they prescribe what I ought to do to be a successful payroll technician, the instructions are impotent to "stop" me from making a mistake (or from slacking off all day), or "curb" similar tendencies. The instructions simply reveal how various job-related tasks ought to be done. But they don't keep me from making mistakes, looking for short-cuts, or even quitting the job.

Second, it may depend on your ethical theory if you think "nothing really happens" if the standards are ignored. It may be reminiscent of the Ring of Gyges in Book 2 of The Republic. Socrates thought the just man (who appeared unjust) was superior to the unjust man (who appeared just). His point was that even if the unjust man is never caught ("nothing really happens") and he goes to his grave with Greek society praising his apparently unblemished character, it is still better to be just. In other words, it may not matter (from the perspective of morality) whether "something happens". Injustice is its own punishment; justice its own reward. This may be because injustice disorganizes the soul and prevents lasting happiness. But this gets into other areas of ethics besides the objective moral values themselves. I think the main idea I'd want to talk about is the possibility of their objectivity apart from God.

Matt, that is all very high sounding "Injustice is its own punishment; justice its own reward." But that is not reality, to quote Pascal, Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical. Obviously what ever anxiety a Stalin or Mao may have experienced while murdering millions it was worth it to them for a greater goal. It seems to me that this is merely an academic exercise with no real world application.

Rape's evil is independent of human opinion and society's appraisal.

I would like to focus here, let say all cultures held that wife rape was perfectly acceptable, then where does this contrary opinion exist? How do we come by it? One of the reasons why I brought up the animal kingdom was to show that rape is a natural act, and most likely adds to the survival of the species. So if this moral theory does not aide survival what does it aid? You spoke of dislocation from goodness, but what about our dislocation from cruelty? Perhaps our nature requires selfishness and dominance, as well as altruism. Why should we divorce from one part of our nature and not the other?

[mattdamore]

Matt, that is all very high sounding "Injustice is its own punishment; justice its own reward." But that is not reality, to quote Pascal, Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical. Obviously what ever anxiety a Stalin or Mao may have experienced while murdering millions it was worth it to them for a greater goal. It seems to me that this is merely an academic exercise with no real world application.

Hey seer. I don't share your opinion that it's a mere academic exercise. This might be a clash of intuitions so I won't press you on the point. Call the Ring of Gyges point I was making RoG. I don't think RoG is committed to saying that Stalin or Moa would have to feel anxiety while carrying out their heinous deeds. As C.S. Lewis said somewhere in The Problem of Pain, there could be black pleasures in Hell, pleasures that its inhabitants wouldn't interpret as anxious, meaningless, or cosmically wretched. What's going on here is something more insidious than conscious suffering. Soren Kierkegaard talks about it in Sickness Unto Death: a form of despair which is the most to be pitied since it hasn't been noticed. It has affinities with how Pink Floyd might have described it: being comfortably numb. I have an intuition that the soul is capable of subjugating itself, and finally of destroying itself, even if its consciousness is overwhelmed by Lewis' "black pleasures".

I would like to focus here, let say all cultures held that wife rape was perfectly acceptable, then where does this contrary opinion exist? How do we come by it? One of the reasons why I brought up the animal kingdom was to show that rape is a natural act, and most likely adds to the survival of the species. So if this moral theory does not aide survival what does it aid? You spoke of dislocation from goodness, but what about our dislocation from cruelty? Perhaps our nature requires selfishness and dominance, as well as altruism. Why should we divorce from one part of our nature and not the other?

I think I have to ask clarification questions before I properly answer. First, when you say "perfectly acceptable", do you mean objectively right? If so, contrary opinion wouldn't matter, since opinion isn't sufficient to subvert objectivity. If not, then I'm not sure that it would apply to NMN. Second, I have read some things that would indicate that morality does have survival value. I'll have to do some research to back that up. It has something to do with some forms of morality being in an individual's best interest, both from the standpoint of cooperation within a community and individual human happiness. Third, I'm not sure that I'd grant that there is "rape" in the animal kingdom, since "rape" has a moral dimension that animals can't participate in. Fourth, I had meant that our "alignment with good" is semantically the same as "dislocation from cruelty", since one implies, and is entailed by, the other. Fifth, NMN would be committed to certain kinds of selfishness and dominance being objectively wrong, and it may distinguish between selfishness (a la Ayn Rand) and prudential self-regard. If you're construing "dominance" in terms of bullying, oppressive regimes, tyrants, domestic abuse, or sexual assault (or some such permutation), NMN would morally denounce it. But I may have to think more about these issues before I provide a better answer. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions!

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, where is the room for violence or rape when we are commanded to love our wives as ourselves. Be specific please.

Specifically there is no prohibition for rape or marital rape anywhere in the Bible. The Christian history of the role of the wife and the husband in the family determined that marital was rejected as illegal in both the USA and England until the 1970 to 1993 period when laws were changed.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)

The views which contributed to rape laws not being applicable in marriage can be traced, at least partially, to 17th century English common law, which was exported to the British American colonies. The 17th-century English jurist, Sir Matthew Hale, stated the position of the common law in The History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736) that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife because the wife "hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she cannot retract". The principle, no record of which is found earlier than Hale's view, would continue to be accepted as a statement of the law in England and Wales until it was overturned by the House of Lords in the case of R. v. R in 1991,[1] where it was described as an anachronistic and offensive legal fiction.

The strong influence of conservative Christianity in the US may have also played a role: the Bible at 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 explains that one has a "conjugal duty" to have sexual relations with one's spouse (in sharp opposition to sex outside marriage which is considered a sin) and states that "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another (...)"[2] - and this is interpreted by some conservative religious figures as rejecting the possibility of marital rape.[3]

In the United States, prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws. The exemption is also found in the 1962 Model Penal Code, which stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if . . .

© Copyright Original Source

These laws were later fortunately changed.

[seer]

Specifically there is no prohibition for rape or marital rape anywhere in the Bible. The Christian history of the role of the wife and the husband in the family determined that marital was rejected as illegal in both the USA and England until the 1970 to 1993 period when laws were changed.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)

The views which contributed to rape laws not being applicable in marriage can be traced, at least partially, to 17th century English common law, which was exported to the British American colonies. The 17th-century English jurist, Sir Matthew Hale, stated the position of the common law in The History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736) that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife because the wife "hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she cannot retract". The principle, no record of which is found earlier than Hale's view, would continue to be accepted as a statement of the law in England and Wales until it was overturned by the House of Lords in the case of R. v. R in 1991,[1] where it was described as an anachronistic and offensive legal fiction.

The strong influence of conservative Christianity in the US may have also played a role: the Bible at 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 explains that one has a "conjugal duty" to have sexual relations with one's spouse (in sharp opposition to sex outside marriage which is considered a sin) and states that "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another (...)"[2] - and this is interpreted by some conservative religious figures as rejecting the possibility of marital rape.[3]

In the United States, prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws. The exemption is also found in the 1962 Model Penal Code, which stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if . . .

© Copyright Original Source

These laws were later fortunately changed.

I don't care what US or English law says, I only care what Scripture says. And the text you quoted says nothing about rape,the wife does not have authority over her own body, neither does the husband - they are not to deny each other. Again, if the husband loves his wife as himself he would not harm or rape her - you know that is the case but you are such a liar you will not admit it. Never mind the fact that Baha'u'llah never said anything about marital rape as Adrift points out.

[shunyadragon]

I don't care what US or English law says, I only care what Scripture says. And the text you quoted says nothing about rape,the wife does not have authority over her own body, neither does the husband - they are not to deny each other. Again, if the husband loves his wife as himself he would not harm or rape her - you know that is the case but you are such a liar you will not admit it.

Your stone walling and your lying big time. The facts stand marital rape was not illegal in England and the USA until the 1970 - 1990 period, because of scripture and Christian beliefs as cited.

Never mind the fact that Baha'u'llah never said anything about marital rape as Adrift points out.

Baha'i scripture is clear and specific 'zina' applies to rape and all forms of violence against women is prohibited, and you are stone walling with nonsense.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Your stone walling and your lying big time. The facts stand marital rape was not illegal in England and the USA until the 1970 - 1990 period, because of scripture and Christian beliefs as cited.

Where does the the text you quote say that a man can force his wife to have sex?

Baha'i scripture is clear and specific 'zina' applies to rape and all forms of violence against women is prohibited, and you are stone walling with nonsense.

Really where does Baha'u'llah used it for marital rape?

Still waiting . . .

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how loving your wife as yourself leads to rape or violence.

[Adrift]

Your stone walling and your lying big time.

You want the contraction for "you are" for both these "yours". Say it to yourself if you get confused. Does it sound right when you say "You are stone walling and you are lying big time?" If so, then "you're" is the word you're looking for.

you are stone walling with nonsense.

Here you got it right, and if you wanted to you could have even written, "you're stone walling with nonsense."

[seer]

Hey seer. I don't share your opinion that it's a mere academic exercise. This might be a clash of intuitions so I won't press you on the point. Call the Ring of Gyges point I was making RoG. I don't think RoG is committed to saying that Stalin or Moa would have to feel anxiety while carrying out their heinous deeds. As C.S. Lewis said somewhere in The Problem of Pain, there could be black pleasures in Hell, pleasures that its inhabitants wouldn't interpret as anxious, meaningless, or cosmically wretched. What's going on here is something more insidious than conscious suffering. Soren Kierkegaard talks about it in Sickness Unto Death: a form of despair which is the most to be pitied since it hasn't been noticed. It has affinities with how Pink Floyd might have described it: being comfortably numb. I have an intuition that the soul is capable of subjugating itself, and finally of destroying itself, even if its consciousness is overwhelmed by Lewis' "black pleasures".



I think I have to ask clarification questions before I properly answer. First, when you say "perfectly acceptable", do you mean objectively right? If so, contrary opinion wouldn't matter, since opinion isn't sufficient to subvert objectivity. If not, then I'm not sure that it would apply to NMN. Second, I have read some things that would indicate that morality does have survival value. I'll have to do some research to back that up. It has something to do with some forms of morality being in an individual's best interest, both from the standpoint of cooperation within a community and individual human happiness. Third, I'm not sure that I'd grant that there is "rape" in the animal kingdom, since "rape" has a moral dimension that animals can't participate in. Fourth, I had meant that our "alignment with good" is semantically the same as "dislocation from cruelty", since one implies, and is entailed by, the other. Fifth, NMN would be committed to certain kinds of selfishness and dominance being objectively wrong, and it may distinguish between selfishness (a la Ayn Rand) and prudential self-regard. If you're construing "dominance" in terms of bullying, oppressive regimes, tyrants, domestic abuse, or sexual assault (or some such permutation), NMN would morally denounce it. But I may have to think more about these issues before I provide a better answer. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions!

This is the upshot. I think NMN would work if human beings were created for a purpose, if there was an overriding teleology. If there was a soul that was designed to function properly if it followed certain moral principles. But this is exactly what the non-theist must deny. So we are back to nature alone, and nature (as we see in ourselves and the animal kingdom) can be both kind and cruel, selfish and selfless. They are both part of our nature. Now NMN comes along and tells us it is objectively wrong to give way to certain natural impulses - but why? Why deny one aspect of our nature and not another? If there is no teleology for the human person where do these objective standards come from? Certainly not from nature.