Monday, May 25, 2015

Homosexuality and Romans 1

Home > Christianity > General

In this post I’ll be considering the claim that Paul says in Romans 1 that if you are a homosexual you are deserving of death. But first I’d like to start with what inspired this post.

“Sam Harris gets Humiliated on TV by Hugh Hewitt.”



While wasting time on the internet I saw this YouTube video entitled, “Sam Harris gets Humiliated on TV by Hugh Hewitt.”



In the name of rationality I’d like to share my thoughts on this, because although I’m a Christian I don’t agree with the title of the video; by my lights neither side quite humiliated the other.

Hugh Hewitt lambastes Sam Harris's book but tends to be fuzzy on the details of what specific facts he gets wrong. At 2:18 Hewitt says it's "poorly grounded in history" but which specific historical facts does Harris get wrong? Mind you I'm not saying Harris didn't make any mistakes on history, but when you make accusations of this sort it behooves the rational Christian to at least give a specific example. At 2:22 Hewitt says Harris doesn't "deal with most of the evidence that runs counter to his case." Again, a specific example should be cited. When you make accusations without evidence you don't embarrass the other side.

This is not to say Hewitt doesn't make any good points though. At 3:32 Hewitt points out that while some religious beliefs justify cruelty, this is not the case for his faith--but he could also have noted this is not the case for a lot of people's faith (see my article Religion’s Social Influence for more on this), and by my lights Hewitt should have hammered this point more because Harris doesn't seem to quite address it.

At 7:57 Hewitt says Sam's book is an "invitation to religious oppression" as well as intolerance and cruelty--not because the book itself endorses cruelty and religious oppression, but because one could misuse the ideas in that book to justify said oppression. But this, of course, is true of religion! Hewitt seems to be making the same sort of mistake that Harris is guilty of.

In one sense Sam Harris humiliated himself saying at 1:46 that people are "flying planes into our buildings because they think God wrote their book and that they're going to get to paradise by dying in the right circumstances." All Muslims accept "God wrote their book and that they're going to get to paradise by dying in the right circumstances" but the vast majority condemn the 9/11 attacks as evil and believe that God forbids such actions. Harris seems to be committing a gross oversimplification.

Paul and Romans 1



At 10:41 Sam claims that in Romans, Paul says homosexuals deserve to die. He does? Where? Maybe he's thinking of Romans 1, but that would be another oversimplification. Here Paul is speaking of people who are “filled with all manner of unrighteousness” and full of "full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.” These are the people who deserve to die. Paul isn't saying or implying that having a homosexual orientation is sufficient to be deserving of death, though he does say that God let certain evil people (evil in the sense being full of murder, deceit, maliciousness etc.) have dishonorable passions, among them homosexuality. Let’s quote Romans 1:18 to Romans 1:32 for full context:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [My emphasis]
So who does Paul say are deserving of death? Paul says the following group of people, people who are filed with “all manner of unrighteousness” having these characteristics are deserving of death:
  1. Filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice (verse 29); and
  2. full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness (verse 29); and are
  3. gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless (verse 30 to 31); and
  4. they know of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die (verse 32).
Paul implies that those who practice such things mentioned in (1) through (5) are deserving of death, and I think many Christians likewise agree that a person who engages in the practices described in (1) through (5) is thoroughly degenerate enough to be deserving of death. Paul also implies there are a group of unrighteous people who engage in (1) through (5) who are homosexuals, a homosexual orientation being a “dishonorable passion” (verses 26-27), though these particular people Paul is speaking of are also apparently those who worship idols (verse 23) and few homosexuals today fit that category. One might criticize Paul for thinking homosexuality is a dishonorable passion, but Paul having this belief doesn't imply that Paul believes that merely having the orientation is deserving of death even if Paul believes God let some evil people have this orientation. It's as if Harris is reasoning like this:
  1. Paul believes that if you are a member of group X (certain people who are full of murder, maliciousness, etc.), then you are homosexual.
  2. Therefore, Paul believes if you are a homosexual, then you are in group X.
That's just as illogical as thinking:
  1. Bob believes that if you are a Minnesotan murderer, then you are a Minnesotan.
  2. Therefore, Bob believes that if you are a Minnesotan, then you are in Minnesotan murderer.
And then reasoning, “Since Bob believes all Minnesotan murderers deserve death, Bob is saying that all Minnesotans deserve death!” Such reasoning is clearly fallacious, but then we should recognize that the style of reasoning is equally fallacious when applied to Paul in Romans 1.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Moral relativism

Home > Philosophy > Ethics and Morality

In this article I’ll be talking about moral relativism, the idea that moral truths are relative to some human opinion frame of reference (as to an individual’s opinion or society’s opinion) as opposed to moral objectivism which says there are moral truths that hold independently of human opinion. Moral relativism recognizes the existence of moral obligations but denies that moral obligations are objective. I’ll argue that moral relativism faces severe rationality problems.

Moral Objectivism



One way to argue for moral objectivism is to point out at least one objective moral truth, e.g. at least one example of a morally wrong thing, whereby an action is morally wrong for someone only if they have a moral obligation not to do it. Ask yourself this question: is it morally wrong for a man to torture infants just for fun and would it remain morally wrong even if some baby torturer thought otherwise and killed everyone who disagreed with him (assuming infants were not yet capable of forming moral beliefs)? If so, then it seems you embrace moral objectivism, because that would be a case where something is morally wrong even when all human opinion says otherwise (since the baby torturer killed all who disagreed with him). So if torturing infants just for fun would be morally wrong in that scenario where all human opinion says it is not morally wrong, this suggests that moral objectivism is true.

Examples of objective moral truths could be multiplied; e.g. suppose some homophobic bigot liked to torture innocent lesbians just because of their sexual orientation and he killed or brainwashed all who disagreed with him; would his violent homophobic bigotry be morally wrong? If so, then we have another example of an objective moral truth, since the torturer’s homophobic bigotry would remain wrong even in the situation where all human opinion says otherwise. One could adopt a “bite the bullet” approach and say that e.g. there’s nothing wrong with torturing infants just for fun as long as you think so and kill everyone who thinks otherwise, but this view seems horrendously implausible (at least by my lights). Even apart from the arguments for moral objectivism though, moral relativism has serious problems.

Coherent Moral Relativism



First I’ll start with the coherent forms of moral relativism; these are the forms of relativism that, while they are mistaken, at least have the benefit of being logically coherent. Moral relativism says that moral truths, including those of moral obligations, are relative to some frame of reference.

One view of moral relativism which I’ll call cultural relativism (which goes by various other names, such as conventional ethical relativism and conventionalism) says the frame of reference is the culture, such that if a given culture believes a moral truth (say, an action being morally good, bad, right, wrong, etc.) makes it true for them, but their belief in the truth is not binding on other cultures who think differently. For example, if culture N believe that exterminating the Jews is morally permissible, then it becomes morally permissible for that culture to do it. If our culture says it is not permissible, then it is not permissible for people in our culture to do it, but this judgment is not binding on culture N, and so as long as culture N believes it is morally permissible, then they’re not doing anything morally wrong in trying to exterminate the Jews as long as they believe there is nothing morally wrong with it. Yet, it seems that a society committing anti-Semitic genocide would be doing something morally shouldn’t do even if they thought otherwise, and if that’s the case, then cultural relativism is false.

Another version of moral relativism called ethical subjectivism (which also goes by various names, e.g. subjective ethical relativism) places the frame of reference on the individual, and says that the individual believing an action to be morally right/wrong/good/bad/etc. makes that action morally right/wrong/good/bad/etc. for that person. So if Adolph thinks that killing Jews is morally obligatory, then Adolph is morally obligated to do it. If Oskar believes killing Jews is morally wrong, then it is wrong for Oskar to do it. Under ethical subjectivism, Oskar can believe it is wrong for Adolph to kill Jews, but that belief would be mistaken because Adolph thinks otherwise, and so on ethical subjectivism Adolph has a moral duty to kill Jews. Yet it seems Adolph would indeed be doing something morally wrong in torturing infants just for fun, and if that’s the case then ethical subjectivism is false.

You might have noticed that in the case of ethical subjectivism, Oskar is not allowed to “encroach” upon Adolph’s frame of reference to declare that torturing infants just for fun is wrong for Adolph and not just for Oskar. Instead, Oskar’s belief about it being morally wrong to torture infants just for fun is confined to his own frame of reference: himself. A similar principle holds for cultural relativism; belief’s about moral truths stay within the culture’s frame of reference (the culture) and don’t encroach upon another’s. Now let’s consider a form of moral relativism that allows one to encroach upon another frame of reference: where Oskar thinks is morally wrong for Adolph to torture infants just for fun, Adolph thinks otherwise, and they are both right, with neither side being more valid than the other. Let’s call this encroachment relativism.

Incoherent Moral Relativism



It’s understandable then why someone might want to reject both ethical subjectivism and cultural relativism; who wants to say that e.g. it is morally right for Adolph to torture infants just for fun? That wouldn’t make for a very plausible system of ethics. Ethical subjectivism doesn’t allow you to correctly claim that another individual’s ethical views are mistaken. Likewise, cultural relativism doesn’t allow one to correctly claim that another culture’s ethical views are mistaken. Both forms of moral relativism forbid this sort of encroachment upon people’s views.

Enter encroachment relativism, which does allow one to do this. The problem with this, as I’ll show shortly, is that this form of moral relativism is logically incoherent. To illustrate why, consider the following scenario. Suppose Oskar thinks it is morally wrong for Adolph to torture infants just for fun, whereas Adolph and his culture think Adolph has a moral obligation to torture infants just for fun. Now consider what cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism, and encroachment relativism have to say about this scenario:

ViewMoral obligation exists for Adolph?Should Adolph torture infants just for fun?
Cultural relativismYesYes
Ethical subjectivismYesYes
Encroachment relativismYes*
* In Adolph’s frame of reference, Adolph should not torture infants just for fun is true, and in Oskar’s frame of reference, Adolph should not torture infants just for fun is false (Oskar believes Adolph is morally obligated to not torture infants just for fun), with Oskar’s view being no more valid than Adolph’s and vice versa.

It’s important to remember that on ethical relativism, moral obligations exist, even for Adolph in this example. One objection to cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism is that if this Adolph-and-Oskar scenario occurred, it would not be the case that Adolph should torture infants just for fun, and if so these two forms of ethical relativism are mistaken.

But what about encroachment relativism? If encroachment relativism is true, should Adolph torture infants just for fun? Adolph thinks he should, Oskar thinks Adolph shouldn’t, and, according to encroachment relativism, neither person’s view is more valid than the other’s. But then encroachment relativism, unlike ethical subjectivism, cannot provide any logically coherent answer as to what Adolph should do. Perhaps it can reiterate the beliefs of the people about what Adolph should do but it cannot give a logically coherent answer to the question.

To drive the point home further, imagine that Oskar is an encroachment relativist who is incapable of lying and dodging questions. Now suppose Adolph says this to Oskar:
I think I understand encroachment relativism, but I’m not sure. I believe in encroachment relativism but I am also looking for a meaningful and coherent guide of behavior for me about what I should do. I believe torturing infants just for fun is morally obligatory. But if encroachment relativism is true, should I do it?
What answer can Oskar give to Adolph’s question? Oskar can’t say “Yes” because Oskar believes Adolph shouldn’t do it. Yet Oskar also can’t say “No” because Adolph believes Adolph should do it, and Oskar’s view is no more valid than Adolph’s. Encroachment relativism cannot provide any logically coherent answer for what Adolph ought to do, and if there is no logically coherent answer for what Adolph morally ought to do, then Adolph doesn’t really have any moral obligations, and so encroachment relativism ironically implies that Adolph doesn’t really have any moral obligations. But encroachment relativism says Adolph does have a moral obligation (see the table above), and so encroachment relativism generates a self-contradiction: Adolph both does and does not have a moral obligation. Encroachment relativism is thus logically incoherent. We can structure this line of reasoning as follows:
  1. If encroachment relativism is true, then there is no logically coherent answer for what Adolph morally ought to do.
  2. If there is no logically coherent answer for what Adolph morally ought to do, then Adolph has no moral obligation.
  3. Therefore, if encroachment relativism is true, then Adolph has no moral obligation (from 1 and 2).
  4. But if encroachment relativism is true, Adolph does have a moral obligation.
  5. Therefore, encroachment relativism is false due to being logically incoherent; Adolph both does and does not have a moral obligation if encroachment relativism is true (from 3 and 4).
Because encroachment relativism implies there is no logically coherent answer for what Adolph morally ought to do (Oskar’s answer is no more valid than Adolph’s and vice versa), this implies that Adolph doesn’t really have any moral obligations. This generates a logical incoherency that renders encroachment relativism logically incoherent. I haven’t seen any professional philosophers argue for encroachment relativism, perhaps because its logical incoherency is fairly evident to the philosophically sophisticated and so no philosopher worth her salt would accept it. Still, I’ve seen a number of laypersons accept this kind of logically incoherent moral relativism, and so I thought it worth mentioning.

Conclusion



A good example supports moral objectivism: it is morally wrong for a man to torture infants just for fun and would it remain morally wrong even if some baby torturer thought otherwise and killed everyone who disagreed with him. In that scenario all human opinion says it isn’t morally wrong to torture infants just for fun, and so if such torture would remain morally wrong even in that scenario, this suggests moral objectivism is true. The baby torturers should not torture infants just for fun even if they think otherwise and even if they kill everyone who disagrees with them. Moral objectivism is thus quite plausible.

In contrast, moral relativism is highly implausible. Cultural relativism (morality is relative to the culture) implies that genocidal anti-Semitism is morally obligatory if the culture believes it; ethical subjectivism implies that torturing infants just for fun is morally obligatory if the baby torturer believes it. Neither variety of ethical relativism is plausible.

Encroachment relativism isn’t merely implausible, it is logically incoherent. Encroachment relativism says e.g. Oskar thinks is morally wrong for Adolph to torture infants just for fun, Adolph thinks otherwise, and they are both right, with neither side being more valid than the other. Encroachment relativism implies there is no logically coherent answer for what Adolph morally ought to do (Oskar’s answer is no more valid than Adolph’s and vice versa), this implies that Adolph doesn’t really have any moral obligations, even though encroachment relativism does say a moral obligation exists for Adolph. This generates a logical incoherency that renders encroachment relativism logically incoherent.

If one is to be a moral relativist, one should at least avoid forms of moral relativism that are logically incoherent. Also if one is to be a moral relativist, one ought to be aware of the intellectual ramifications of their view, e.g. a cultural relativist should be aware that a society believing genocidal anti-Semitism to be morally right makes it morally right for that culture, even if the cultural relativist thinks such genocide is morally abhorrent. Yet it seems to me that the implications of moral relativism render moral relativism horrendously implausible, and I think moral objectivism is the only viable, rational option.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Denying Both Premises of the Moral Argument

Behold the deductive moral argument (or at least one variety of it):
  1. If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
  2. Objective morality does exist.
I’ve seen a number of atheists claim both premises to be false. In this article I’ll give an informal proof to explain why that is impossible.

In a way this article is redundant, since I gave a formal proof for the falsity of both premises being logically impossible in part 2 of my introductory logic series, with part 2 also explaining the basic symbolic logic and various rules of logic needed to understand the proof (thus it isn’t necessary to read introductory logic part 1 to understand the proof, though it wouldn’t hurt either). So what inspired me to write this article to present a more informal proof?

Inspiration



In one Facebook dialogue somebody denied both premises. I said it was logically impossible for both premises to be false, and gave a link that had the proof of this in symbolic logic while noting, “If you’re not well-versed in formal logic, not to worry, because the article gives a crash course of some symbolic logic rules.” His first response to this was to ignore the proof entirely while saying there is “no reason” why one can’t reject both premises. I pressed further to get him to respond to the logical argument against both premises being false, but he seemed to have little motivation to learn the logic and understand the objection (judging from e.g. him saying “I will attempt to go back over this at some point, but I really have very little motivation to do so”). It’s this sort of behavior that temps me to embrace the stereotype of atheists being irrational and giving lip service to logic while in reality having little real interest in learning it (at least when they discover it might be used against them).

But that’s a temptation I’m going to resist. I realize my articles introducing logic require a bigger time investment than reading a 100-word Facebook post, and that not everybody is interested in learning formal logic despite the benefits of doing so (e.g. helping one to think more logically). So in this post I’m going to distill some of the reasons of the logical proof in plain English.

Understanding the First Premise



For brevity’s sake I’ll abbreviate “objective morality” as OM. By morality being objective I mean that moral truths hold independently of human belief and perception of them (this matches closely with how “objective morality” is often defined in the context of the moral argument[1]). Behold the first premise:
  1. If God does not exist, then OM does not exist.
Among the bad objections against the moral argument are straw men and red herring fallacies against the first premise. So to help prevent that, I’ll note what the first premise is not saying. It is not saying that God grounds morality—even some atheists agree with the first premise and they don’t believe God grounds anything. Nor is the first premise saying it is impossible for OM to exist in the absence of God; it merely says it isn’t the case that OM exists without God.

If it’s hard to see why that would be true here’s another way to look at the first premise. It is important to understand that whether we should believe an if-then statement often depends on the background information we possess, e.g. If it rained heavily in the last five minutes, then Sam’s car is wet depends on factors like whether Sam’s car is in a garage. Similarly, if you believe this equation is true…
God does not exist + background info = OM does not exist
…then you believe If God does not exist, then OM does not exist and to think otherwise is to misunderstand the meaning of the first premise. The first premise is not saying it is impossible for OM to exist without God, only that given the facts of the real world we are in OM does not exist if God does not exist.

The Proof



Let =entails⇒ signify “entails (by the rules of logic).” For example:
I have a hand and I have a leg =entails⇒ I have a leg
The above is true thanks to a rule of logic known as simplification (which I explain in introductory logic part 1).

A very important fact in the proof is this: if the following is true….
God does not exist + background info =entails⇒ OM does not exist
…then the first premise is true, and to think otherwise is to misunderstand the meaning of the first premise.

Now suppose we know the second premise to be false, i.e. OM does not exist is part of our background info. Then the first premise would be true because we’d get this:
God does not exist + background info

    =entails⇒ God does not exist and OM does not exist

    =entails⇒ OM does not exist
And thus the following entailment would be true:
God does not exist + background info =entails⇒ OM does not exist
Which would mean that the first premise is true. Once we accept OM does not exist as part of our background info, it inevitably leads to the above entailment and thus to the first premise. Thus it is logically impossible for both premises to be false, because the falsity of the second premise (OM does not exist) entails the truth of the first premise.

It is also worth noting that God, as traditionally conceived, entails the existence of objective moral values; God is morally good, and is good independently of whether humans believe him to be so, e.g. God was morally good prior to humans existing. Thus, God entails objective morality existing.

Conclusion



Whether we should believe an if-then statement often depends on the background information we possess, e.g. If it rained heavily in the last five minutes, then Sam’s car is wet depends on factors like whether Sam’s car is in a garage. Similarly, when interpreted correctly the first premise is saying that given the facts of the real world we are in, it is not the case that OM exists if God does not exist. Thus if you believe the following entailment to be true…
God does not exist + background info =entails⇒ OM does not exist
…then you believe If God does not exist, then OM does not exist is true, and to think otherwise is to misunderstand the meaning of the first premise. So if you’re an atheist who denies moral objectivism (and thus has OM does not exist as part of their background info) you accept the first premise, and to think otherwise is to misunderstand what the first premise means. In contrast, if God (a being who is morally good independently of human opinion) exists, objective morality exists.

Once we accept the falsity of the second premise (OM does not exist) as part of our background info, it inevitably leads to the above entailment and thus to the first premise. It is impossible for both premises to be false because the falsity of the second premise entails the truth of the first premise. All that is a bit rough, so if you want a rigorous formal proof for the logical impossibility of both premises I recommend reading part 2 of my introductory logic series.


[1] A few examples:
  1. Adams, Robert M. The Virtue of Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 105.
  2. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith, Third Edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 173.
  3. Peter Byrne’s article on the moral argument that used to be part of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
It is also worth considering that the Oxford Dictionary of English lists this as one of the definitions of objectivism, “[PHILOSOPHY] the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.” Thus on this definition moral objectivism would be the belief that moral truths exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.