Discussion Grounds

Tom,

Let us continue our search for common ground:

1. I said we can agree that “Moral values exist, and they are objectively true in that their truth value does not depend on human beliefs about them.” You wondered if I thought moral values would remain if there were no humans. I do. To me, morality is about a universal consideration of reasons for action. As it happens, desires are the only reasons for action that exist. But humans are not the only things with desires. So reasons for action would exist without humans. Therefore morality would exist without humans.
2. Sure, we can agree that “Most humans have an inner sensation that objective moral values exist, and many believe they are responsible to those values.“
3. We agreed on this.
4. I think we agree that “Most humans accept metaphysical libertarianism.“
5. We agreed on this.
6. Ditto.
7. We agree that “Most humans believe there is something ‘wrong’ with the world. They think it could be ‘better.’” I saw this merely as a summary of what you had written, not a weakening of it.
8. You want me to agree that “no animal has anything even distantly approximating a human-like cognitive experience” of moral beliefs. But “distantly approximating” is pretty vague. And while this might be true, I’m not so sure. So I’m not going to agree, but I’m not going to disagree, either.
9. …is a repeat of #7 and #8.
10. Let me address this below…

Concerning #10,  the claim that there has been “very little” moral progress in the “past several millennia,” you write:

…there are certainly pockets of increasing moral rightness, but the 20th century was by far the most murderous in history, slavery still abounds in major parts of the world, there’s no evidence that persons are more honest today than they were in the days of Plato or the Buddha, and there’s not much evidence… that persons are any less self-serving now than then.

This is not a main topic of our debate. It’s just not going to be one of the things we agree on. But I’d like to explain why I reject your view that we’ve seen very little moral progress in the past several millennia.

First, it should not surprise either of us that much of the world has not experienced much moral progress. Saudia Arabia, for example, is a horrifically immoral place – full of discrimination, oppression, female genital mutilation, violent radicalism, and inequality – precisely because its leaders have the same values they did 1300 years ago.

In contrast, the nations that are considered to be the most “progressive” – and also, incidentally, the least religious – are triumphant beacons of moral progress. These societies are among the most well-developed, most free, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the world. (See here.) And I think that’s moral progress, even if much of the rest of the world still practices Dark Ages morality.

Now, as to your specific claims:

“the 20th century was by far the most murderous in history”

It depends how you measure it. If you measure by sheer numbers then, yes this century was the most murderous in history, because there were more people around to murder than ever before, and because for the very first time we had weapons that could kill hundreds of millions in a single stroke.

But I don’t think that’s the relevant measurement. I think the relevant measurement is the murder rate. And I suspect rates of murder – and violence in general – have been falling steadily over the millennia. We don’t have good data on ancient murder rates, but here is the historical argument (video).

“slavery still abounds in major parts of the world”

Ah, but slavery is far less common than ever before in human history, and dropping. The world is not perfect, but I only said it was getting better.

“there’s no evidence that persons are more honest today than they were in the days of Plato or the Buddha”

Yes, there’s no evidence either way. I think it’s likely we’ve made great moral progress in some areas and almost none in others. But that’s still moral progress.

“and there’s not much evidence… that persons are any less self-serving now than then”

Charity rates, like rates of deceit or murder, are hard to come by for the ancient world. But I think the following story is at least plausible, given what we know of history:

It seems we have become more loving toward more and more people. At the beginning of our species it was every tribe for itself. These tribes got bigger and the moral became every kingdom for itself or every nation for itself. But gradually, many of us learned compassion for our fellow beings, and we learned to care for and support everyone of our own race. And now racial boundaries are beginning to fall, and many of us care for our entire species. We even send money and food to people on the other side of the planet we will never meet, and who can never help us in return. And some of us are even starting to care about the welfare of other species. Great Apes now have certain rights in Spain, and other nations will eventually follow. This is what Peter Singer calls the expanding circle. I think more humans are more charitable to a greater array of beings than ever before.

Past eras had their Jains and their Francis of Assissi, but there is now a worldwide movement for complete human brotherhood and charity. There is even a worldwide movement for animal rights, and never before have so many people treated their pets so charitably.

In summary, I see lots of moral progress.

We may disagree about moral progress, but we have found a great many things to agree about, and I am happy for it.

Moving on…

We were going to argue about: “Which worldview offers the best explanation of our world: Christianity or atheism?” But it is much fairer to argue about this:

Which worldview offers the best explanation of our world: Christianity or naturalism?

Originally, I had proposed we mostly avoid the usual arguments for and against supernaturalism. In considering the above question, the usual arguments will be unavoidable. But I think that’s okay. Our discussion has already developed a very different character than most theist-atheist debates have, and that was my purpose for avoiding the usual theist-atheist arguments.

Tom, you told me why you believe Christianity is true:

I believe because of the convergence of a whole constellation of reasons, ranging from my experience of God, to my experience of myself and other humans, to philosophical arguments and to historical evidences.

Well, I believe naturalism is true because of the convergence of a whole constellation of reasons, ranging from the unbroken history of successful natural explanations and failed supernatural explanations to the failure and near-incoherence of major supernatural worldviews, as well as philosophical arguments and scientific evidences.

So I think the ground is set! Where shall we begin? I leave it up to you.

Luke