"Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason. This is the essence of morality. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments."
"Almost every theory of morality includes the idea of impartiality. This is the idea that each individual's interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment."
Where to begin? Let's say that morally right thing to do is always best supported by the arguments. But how are we to decide which argument is better than another? We must be impartial, fair, and neutral.
This certainly sounds like a noble thing to do. Yes, let's elevate the autonomous human mind and get rid of all preconceptions and become completely neutral to all things. Then we will certainly find the truth!
But there's a problem. A huge one. If it were possible to become absolutely neutral in all matters, then where would we begin in order to start making choices? Complete neutrality, if possible, would be like a painter in front of a blank canvas. But the thing is that painter has no idea where to begin! Even if the painter should choose to begin somewhere he would have no idea whether or not he is painting correctly!
If we were to become completely neutral in ethical/moral matters where would we start? Wouldn't wherever we started just be a completely arbitrary starting point? Who would be able to say that we're wrong? Wouldn't a critic be starting from an arbitrary place as well? Some ethical decision may be supported by arguments that one person considers 'best', but one person's 'best' argument may NOT be the 'best' for someone else. Who is to say that a third party will be able to judge correctly as to which one is REALLY best?
Neutrality is just impossible. No one can do it. Everyone has a worldview (a core network of presuppositions through which all information is filtered) and will make decisions based on it. The more central the presupposition to your worldview, the less likely you are to change it.
Then how do we judge what is best? If you have no ultimate standard, then there is no way to judge what arguments are best and which are not. But because God exists, there IS and ultimate standard. While our reason is a God-given tool and we strive to have our reasoning match God's, we have absolutely NO right to think that we can arrive at the truth by our own autonomous abilities.
Since "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom..." (Proverbs 9:10) any reasoning that does not start with God will ALWAYS have contradictions downstream. God is rational. Anything that does not begin with him MUST be irrational. God is purposeful in His decisions. Therefore, anything claim that does not include him must be arbitrary.
(sigh) It's only page eleven of the book. This is going to be a long quarter.
Posts
Is your instructor going to start cringing when you raise your hand?
ReplyDeleteI've always assumed atheists have some ready answer for the question of where absolutes come from, but I don't know what it is. Let me know if you figure that out. So far it sounds pretty wishy-washy. Reason? Equality? That's it?
No, he hasn't started cringing... yet. :)
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of ways that people can try to explain the existence of absolutes, but the problem is that people have only had experience with particulars. What is the rational basis for thinking that there is some law (be it moral, scientific, or logical) that exists universally? Unless you take it on someone's authority (God), you have no rational basis for depending on absolutes.