Creationism: Why not call a spade a spade?

[Conservian]

@DrFidelius

Moral equivalent? No. I am just trying to get some guidance from our (currently missing) new friend Intrinsicvalue. He (or she) seemed to believe that the sense of morality which condemns that torture of an innocent child had to have been imposed from the outside. My question was whether the imposer of morality in his (or her) world is the same entity as the God of the Bible.

Also, I felt that our discussion of a “naturalistic” basis for considerations of the morality of torturing an innocent child had gone off-topic, as many of us were conflating murder with torture. If the imposer of morality is equivalent to the God of the Bible, then we must recognize that the murder of children is acceptable to that Being, at least under certain circumstances.

For the record, I do not support or endorse torture or murder of any person, regardless of their age or state of innocence.

Thank you for that elaboration.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@tomndebb

Point 1 is a gratuitous assertion that you have failed to demonstrate or support except through repetition of the point. You are the one who has persistently evaded answering the question of how you claim that it is “objective morality.”

Not so. The torture of an innocent child is considered abhorrent by all civilised cultures, and by all sane people. Or are you suggesting you can demonstrate, with argumentation, that it is acceptable?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@iiandyiiii

How can we answer this if we disagree with the premise? Statement 1 is incorrect. Even so, there have been several attempts to answer 2- to show how this could be considered morally wrong in a “purely naturalistic universe”.

Perhaps, but none are particularly robust. Can you name a circumstance in which the torture of an innocent child would be morally acceptable?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@iiandyiiii

This is a false understanding of how evolution (and naturalism) work. A natural inclination against harming children could easily evolve, even if that child “is part of a village competing with my village for scarce resources”, if this trait was more helpful in general (in terms of providing for kin children) than harmful (in terms of giving resources to non-related children). In addition, this could evolve as a cultural trait (as opposed to genetic)- if the tribe adopts and cares for stray children, and teaches the children to care for other children, then this idea could easily spread from generation to generation by teaching (Dawkins’ “meme”).

There’s also the point, of course, that there have been cultures in human history that did not value unrelated (outside-the-tribe) children, and would have seen nothing wrong with capturing them and harming them- even harming (torturing) them for their amusement.

Let’s keep evolution out of the discussion, because this is about naturalism, not evolution. The question is whether an objective moral law could develop in a purely naturalistic context. Now the picture you paint of one society adopting the child of another as a developing cultural trait implies a notion of that society determining that there is a common good in so doing. Competing against that common good is competition for resources. How do you reconcile that?

There have indeed been cultures that have done heinous things, including a 20th century nation that set out to systematically exterminate an entire people group. Yet we have an inate view that those actions were wrong.

Here’s another way of looking at this. I sponsor to a young black african child. I gain nothing financially, in fact it is a sacrifice. I gain nothing emotionally, because I have no idea who the child is, or even if that child even exists. Why do I do it?

[Mangetout]

@Intrinsicvalue

There have indeed been cultures that have done heinous things, including a 20th century nation that set out to systematically exterminate an entire people group. Yet we have an inate view that those actions were wrong.

We have such a view, because we were on the opposing side. If this view is innate, why didn’t the perpetrators have it?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@DrFidelius

Is the torture of a guilty child wrong? Is the mistreatment of an innocent child short of torture wrong? Is the torture of an adult wrong, and does guilt or innocence enter into the question? How is guilt or innocence determined? Do we use a jury system or can we depend on spiritual advice?

We may be arguing past each other. Please define the terms of your statement to ensure that we are on the same page.

Sure. The child is 3 years old. The child is beaten with sticks and raped. The child has not done anything wrong other than the usual childhood pranks.

[Mangetout]

@Intrinsicvalue

Here’s another way of looking at this. I sponsor to a young black african child. I gain nothing financially, in fact it is a sacrifice. I gain nothing emotionally, because I have no idea who the child is, or even if that child even exists. Why do I do it?

Do you feel good about doing it? Why do you think you do it?

If you’re doing it because it’s some kind of innate programmed behaviour, that devalues it, IMO.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Your argument is negated. Some cultures have deemed it acceptable to torture children.

Absolutely not! That some people and cultures have tortured innocent children does not make the torture of innocent any less objectively morally wrong. Humanity is full of aberrations. Objective morality is “the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person’s subjective opinion, but factually true.”

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Czarcasm

Nonsense answer. The question was “how”, not “who” or “what”.

Actually, the question was from ‘where’. My answer stands.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@SirGalahad

You have a problem in your assessment of objective morality. It’s an understandable hurdle you’ve failed to clear, as undoubtedly, you’ve been raised to believe “God told us what’s right and wrong, so that’s how we know.” Now, whether the Deity, who arguably killed nearly all of humanity in a flood, wiped out all the firstborn Egyptians, tortured Job, mentally tortured Abraham, as well as Moses, obliterated a couple of large cities,and commanded the massacres of numerous Bronze Age tribes, the enslavement of their children and the forcible rape of their women, is actually in a position to dispense rules of moral behavior (Do as I say, not as I do) is, to me, up for debate.

A better explanation for the revulsion we feel at the thought of harming a child is related to the subject of Neotany, or paedomorphosis. Child-like features trigger a nurturing mechanism in not only humans, but many animal species as well. However, it’s not like harming children is always universally taboo. The practice of infanticide is not limited to ancient Rome and Sparta … it’s alive and well in India and China.

Female infanticide in India and China - Gendercide

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/female-infanticide

Trash Bin Babies: India's Female Infanticide Crisis - The Atlantic

I know it’s comforting to think that our most noble traits are the result of divine creation and influence, and that something as base and random as nature, where physical laws somehow manages to make sense out of chaos, couldn’t result in behaviors like tenderness, honesty, and courage … but they did. Now, if God, in all His wisdom, foresaw this and is proud of it, that’s a plus.

A couple of points in response.

1. Your comments about the actions of ‘God’ are irrelevant. I haven’t posited any particular God, I have posited only an external agency.
2. Your comments on paedomorphosis assume this inclination is stronger than a survival instinct when resources are competed for. Why should e believe this?
3. For morality to be objective does not mean it has to be universally observed.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Czarcasm

Do you have any evidence to refute this?

It depends what you mean by evidence. If you are looking for physical proof, then clearly, no. If you are looking for sound argumentation, then follow the debate.

But here is a question. Is there anything you accept as true for which you have no physical proof?

[Mangetout]

@Intrinsicvalue

3. For morality to be objective does not mean it has to be universally observed.

For something to be common or even nearly unanimous, it doesn’t need to be objective. Why then do you think this is the case with morality?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Voyager

I’m not sure there have been many societies which would benefit in any way from torturing a child. There certainly have been societies which abandon sickly children, and manhood ordeals no doubt led to the death of some of the participants.

As for why children are considered special, they share our dna, therefore parents have a genetic investment in their children (though perhaps not to those who cost too much) and so want to protect them. Purely natural.

That only accounts of our own children. It does not account for our abhorence at the mistreatment of other peoples.

[Mangetout]

You have so far established that morality exists (which I think we already knew). Please show how you determined it to be objective.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Trinopus

It has been answered, but here we go again:

A society where children get murdered is less happy than one where this is effectively banned. The sight of dead children makes most people unhappy. Children are our future; it’s bad public policy to destroy a major investment. We like children because of our physical instincts; we don’t like murder for the same reason. We remember being children ourselves, and have the power of empathy. We like kids and want them to be happy. We extend, via the slippery slope: what’s next? Murdering adults? (Whether or not fallacious, it is how many people reason.)

All purely materialistic and naturalistic reasons.

The problem with the answers that have been given is that they are speculative, they are not supported by anything other than conjecture.

Let’s look at this through a purely naturalistic lens.

My children are my future, but yours are not my future. The children of the smith family in Africa are not my future. If your children compete with mine for scarce resources, particularly given the popular notion that the world is overpopulated, without anything other than natural impulses, my actions will be driven by a survival instinct.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@DrFidelius

Wait- are we asking about murdering children or torturing them? These are two different questions.

Torturing children has no upside. It is, as I have said, a waste of time and resources. But slaying your enemy’s offspring makes sense in a resource-limited situation. If you cannot afford to adopt the children of your defeated foes, then it is more humane to kill them outright (while you are destroying their cities or whatever).

If you don’t adopt or kill them, you have left your tribe open to vengeance attacks by whichever of those children survived to adulthood. Nits make lice.

You make a good point, however I originated the torture example so I’ll be consistent and work with that for now. When you say that torturing a child has no upside, I tend to disagree. If naturalism rules, then torturing the offspring of my enemy could make a statement about my territorial ambitions, for example. It may be used to send a message that incursion into my natural property will not be tolerated.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Mangetout

The point is:

If God says killing kids is wrong purely because he decided it is so, then he could just as easily have decided that killing kids is not wrong, therefore morality is arbitrary.
However, if killing kids is wrong because of some kind of universal morality to which God is beholden, then he’s not omnipotent (and perhaps not even necessary in the equation).

This is a really good question, and I will respond by replying to your first post, which was:

“How did the external agent decide what the moral code would be? Was it not actually wrong to torture children until the external agent said so?”

The external agent is absolutely morally good. Moral goodness derives from the external agents very nature. The EA does not need to ‘say’ anything, nor ‘decide’ anything’. The objective moral code that emanates from the EA did not have a beginning, because the EA did not have a beginning.

[Mangetout]

@Intrinsicvalue

This is a really good question, and I will respond by replying to your first post, which was:

“How did the external agent decide what the moral code would be? Was it not actually wrong to torture children until the external agent said so?”

The external agent is absolutely morally good. Moral goodness derives from the external agents very nature. The EA does not need to ‘say’ anything, nor ‘decide’ anything’. The objective moral code that emanates from the EA did not have a beginning, because the EA did not have a beginning.

That’s great. And the evidence supporting all of this?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Mangetout

We have such a view, because we were on the opposing side. If this view is innate, why didn’t the perpetrators have it?

Most likely because they were objectivists. They rejected the value of the individual life in exchange for another world view. Remember too that many, many people on their own side shared our inate disgust at the actions of the perpetrators.

Because some humans abandon the law doesn’t invalidate that law.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Mangetout

Do you feel good about doing it? Why do you think you do it?

If you’re doing it because it’s some kind of innate programmed behaviour, that devalues it, IMO.

I do it because I recognise need. I gain nothing from it. That doesn’t devalue it, but it makes it very hard to explain in a purely naturalistic world.