Torturing Toddlers
How do you help someone who claims that there are no objective moral values and obligations? I have found that when specific examples of morally abhorrent behavior, like torturing toddlers for sport, are brought to their attention, most people’s moral intuitions are brought to the surface and they recognize that they do believe in objective moral values and obligations after all.
Some people get the wrong idea though about what I’m doing and think it is an appeal to a ‘majority is right’ type of argument. But this is a misunderstanding. I’m not claiming that since most people think torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong, that therefore that makes it morally wrong. My approach is not only not the ‘majority is right’ argument, it is not even an argument at all.
I am not trying to ‘show’ or persuade people through evidence and argument. Rather I am employing a strategy to help people experience a direct awareness of the truth so that they will ‘know’ that torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong and that everyone should agree. But what about those who still disagree?
I know you are out there. I can hear you!
Not too long ago, I had a few particularly persistent questioners following a couple of lectures I gave on university campuses on arguments for the existence of God. Even though I gave three arguments, and two of them included some very interesting features about the early universe, almost all the questions were about the moral argument. In particular they questioned how I know that objective moral values and obligations exist.
After prompting them to think about atrocities like the Holocaust, and Apartheid, and horrible actions like raping little girls or torturing toddlers for sport, these students still were not persuaded that objective moral values and obligations existed.
I decided to use an illustration. I said, “What if a bunch of guys walke
d into our lecture hall and said, ‘You people might think torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong but me and my buddies think it is great fun!’ How should we respond to that? Should we throw our hands up and conclude, ‘Oh, no, I guess morality is relative to subjective opinions after all?’
No, of course not. We should think that there is something wrong with those guys! They are not functioning properly. In fact what do we call people who do not think torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong?” After a moment of silence the answer came back from a few students – “Psychopaths!” “Right”, I said. “Anyone who claims torturing children for sport is not objectively wrong is not functioning properly morally. We rightly call someone like that a psychopath.”
That seemed to make a difference. The remaining few doubters seemed to realize that their choice was to accept that torturing toddlers for sport was an example of an objective moral value and obligation that was being violated, or to put themselves in the same moral category as psychopaths. My point all along of course was not that they were psychopaths, but that they weren’t actually relativists after all!
I don’t know for sure if they were fully persuaded, but I do know that their questions stopped. By the looks on their faces, I suspect that maybe their moral intuitions had finally broken through to the surface and they were beginning to recognize that they did believe in some objective moral values and obligations after all – especially that torturing toddlers for sport was morally wrong.
What do you think of my approach to helping people see that they aren’t moral relativists as much as they think they are? Did it help you?
These last series have all been about one part of the moral argument for God’s existence – the premise that objective moral values and obligations exist, and how we know this is the case. In the process I have argued for our ability to directly experience some moral truths through our moral sense. This is counter to the empiricist assumptions of our culture, but I believe it is true nevertheless.
Next time I will be switching gears to some new topics. If you have any suggestions for topics let me know. I will take them into consideration.
7 Responses to “Torturing Toddlers”
Leave a Reply
Talk to Someone
Latest Tweets by @michaelhorner3
Archives
- 2013 (28)
- 2012 (28)
- November (2)
- October (2)
- September (1)
- August (1)
- July (3)
- June (4)
- May (5)
- April (4)
- March (5)
- February (1)
Regarding the two true math equations of 2 + 2 = 11, and 2 + 2 = 4: the point is that 2 + 2 = 4 is not the only truth.
Can you figure out the validation to allow 2 + 2 = 11 to be true?
A few observations:
On objective morality:
Since a objective moral law can be objected to by all humans and still be correct, perhaps a good test would be to find an objective moral law that every human objects to instead of an issue that seems extremely repulsive and try to impress that it is an objective moral law. Perhaps it is moral to always lie? What morality could all humans object to but still be morally correct?
On math:
2 + 2 = 11 is valid and true and it is just as valid as 2 + 2 = 4.
2 + 2 = 5 is never valid unless one allows introduction of outside forces (the addition of 1 outside of the control of the equation. Example: I add two rocks to an empty jar, then I add two more rocks to a the same jar. After I have added my two sets of rocks, there are indeed five rocks in the jar. This is due to another person adding a single rock between my additions. It is a legal move, but outside of the equation.)
One the fallibility of our senses and our impressions of reality:
Empirical evidence is not evidence of reality. Humans (I am not aware of other species falling victim to this or not) can have hallucinations of many of the senses. We can feel phantom limbs, we can hear voices, see movement, read words, and see faces where none exist. We can build false memories of stories we hear. Our brains are NOT trustworthy archival machines. This is one reason why it is important for science to re-evaluate itself. For example, early research validated homeopathic procedures, but later re-evaluation of the process proved them to be false and without merit. First impressions of empirical data is not always accurate. We must look behind the data and look further. In the end, we only have an impression of reality, it isn’t raw reality that we think we witness.
Inherited morality:
We know from studies of infants that even prior to language skills, babies have the basics of morality down pat. Help is good and goodness gets rewards etc. This is obviously a morality with which we are born with, but why do we have it? Is it evolved or just an objective morality that all beings have upon birth. As ants are social animals, and help others, perhaps they too have the same morality? When an ant’s scent is denatured and the ant is reintroduce to the hive, it is readily attacked and killed. This implies their ‘help’ is merely evolved to assist like, and attack others. It certainly is not an objective morality to kill your own hive mates if they happen to smell different.
Is anti-slavery morality an objective morality (static and unchanging) or a subjective morality (changing)?
Is anti-slavery morality, always true, or is it something we have learned? Is that part of our DNA (like with the babies shown to reward good, and punish evil)? I don’t think so. As an objective moral truth, it would likely be “It is immoral to claim ownership on another living being.” Slavery is not as a big business as it was many years ago, but desperate people still sell their offspring into the slave market (be it a sex slave market, or domestic help slave market) and there are buyers. To be fair, th last few hundred years has seen a remarkable and good decline in the practice of slavery. Much headway has been made in a short time but animals are still not only kept as slaves, but slaughtered for the pleasure of consuming their flesh. So our current morality against slavery (be it full, partial or none) is perhaps merely cultural (perhaps in tandem with greater empathy) which would imply that anti-slavery morality is subjective and not objective. Our anti-slavery morality is steadily getting stronger, and in perhaps another few hundred years or so, it will be considered immoral to slaughter animal slaves for their flesh.
Thanks for your long rebuttal Michael.
No, we did not have a chance to converse after the debate. I did see you whilst your were entrenched in conversation, but I did not join your group of attendees.
In your reply you state: “Deep down I think we all know some objective moral values & obligations do exist.”
This I do not agree with this. This reply will focus on this single idea.
To clarify: I hold “Objective moral values and obligations” to mean that certain moral values and obligations exist without contextual qualifiers, such as species, gender, age, mental capabilities and such. If it is moral to do X, then it is immoral to NOT do X. There can be no special cases where it is moral to be immoral according to contextual qualifiers. An example would be: If it is immoral to hit a girl, it is immoral to hit a boy, old man, handicapped person or someone stronger and more able than you. If it is immoral to hit a girl, it is also moral to not hit a girl. If it immoral to hit a girl, it is also immoral to hit a girl if you don’t like her, if she hate you, or if she is ugly or threatening.
I believe that all morality is purely a product of evolution and culture. If humans did not exist, then human morality would not exist. If chimpanzees did not exist, then chimp morality would not exist. If rats did not exist, rat morality would not exist. Each morality is grown through evolution, and culture of the species. The morality system in say, meerkats, is different from ours, and ours is different than say multi winged beasties on some far flung planet where torturing infants for sport is still a profitable business. There is no objective morality that is applicable to all life on all planets.
I am sure you would agree that if there was objective morality which is always true and valid without human involvement, then that morality is without concern of species, gender, mental capacity or other subjective qualities. If we can claim that it is objectively immoral to beat a child for sport, then it should also be true to beat ANY creature for sport. This being a moral law should be evident throughout all known history of our earth, but it is easy to see that this simple morality is more recent than the human history is long, and indeed humans killing and beating animals for sport is still rampant in many cultures. Indeed, I would suspect that pugnacious sports involving children are not so rare in some cultures, particularly in our short few million years of being on this earth.
We can see evidence that instead of objective moral laws, we have subjective moral values which have come into being through evolutionary advantage (don’t kill your support group) to cultural advantage (don’t kill your neighbour), to even advanced morality (don’t kill other species.)
I don’t see how you can prove that a single morality clause applies in all cultures, in all times in our history, without subjective qualifiers. Even the big moral law that most cultures have adopted is filled with subjective qualifiers. The moral law that it is wrong to kill, is not objectively always wrong. Some cultures allow mercy killings, others not. Some cultures allow honour killing, other not. Some cultures allow suicide and assisted suicide, Some cultures allow killing for sport (mostly in the past, but still, a person killed during sport is not generally deemed immoral if it is an accident). Plus billions of animals are killed each year for sport or for pleasure each and every year. If killing was an objective immorality, then it would apply to all species (because the morality is outside of the human experience), gender, sexual orientation, mental capabilities and such. Even your “torture toddlers” morality is qualified with subjective parts. It is fine to torture adults, but not children? It is fine to torture children for profit instead of sport? It is fine to torture children if we can save another human? It is fine to torture children if we can save time? You see the problem?
There is no objective morality, it is always subjective to the culture and to the circumstances (sometimes it is overwhelmingly repulsive, that it seems objective, but truly, it is still just massively subjective). Not that there is anything wrong with subjective morality. We have been working on our morality for millions of years now, and we are getting better. We still have a long ways to go. You just have to look at the immorality in ours and other cultures to see we have a long way to go to us having a morally correct culture (if it indeed ever could happen).
Equality between gender, ages, colour and other current inequalities are a long way off. If we recognize that morality is viral in nature (that is good and bad morality can be taught through contact) than we can open up discourse and keep morality moving forward and upward.
As you can see, I do not believe that objective morality exists, therefore there is no evidence from morality that god exists. If you said that subjective morality is proof of God (somehow), then I would have NO issue with that, but still would not believe in the Christian God, as the bible does not allow him to exist, but that is another discussion though.
Hey Antony – thanks for your comments. By any chance did we happen to talk with each other at the reception following the debate?
Let me respond to your comment point by point:
1. you wrote: “I didn’t see where objective moral values and obligations are actually proven to exist.”
In the debate all I had time to say on premise 2 was, “Deep down I think we all know some objective moral values & obligations do exist. The judgments we make when ourselves and others are unjustly treated, reveal what we really believe about morality, regardless of what we say we believe. We think that genocide in Rawanda , or the Nazi Holocaust, or raping little girls, or torturing toddlers for fun are moral abominations that people should not do, not just some things that we personally don’t like; not just a flouting of social conventions.”
This article above and 4 earlier ones were written as a direct response to your question because it is a common question I get from people. The links are
http://powertochange.com/blogposts/2012/03/06/i-do-not-like-blue-covers-2/
http://powertochange.com/blogposts/2012/03/12/how-do-you-know-objective-moral-values-and-obligations-exist/
http://powertochange.com/blogposts/2012/03/19/is-direct-awareness-of-reality-just-a-feeling/
http://powertochange.com/blogposts/2012/03/28/are-intuitions-for-real/
I really think that you should wrestle with the points I make in these posts if you sincerely want an answer to your question.
Just because someone cannot prove or show to another the truth of a proposition, it does not follow that they cannot know the truth of that proposition.
In this article above I explicitly make the point “I am not trying to ‘show’ or persuade people through evidence and argument. Rather I am employing a strategy to help people experience a direct awareness of the truth so that they will ‘know’ that torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong and that everyone should agree.”
Wouldn’t you agree that you think torturing toddlers for sport is objectively wrong and that everyone should agree? If so then you agree with premise 2. If not, then reread the ‘psychopath’ story above. Are you really ready to admit that you are on the same moral level as a psychopath? I doubt if you do, and I doubt that you are a psychopath. I think you know torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong. Now if you insist on denying that, then there is not much I can do. This version of the moral argument won’t work for you. But I have found that most people when they are confronted with examples like this, recognize that they do believe in objective moral values and obligations after all, even if they previously thought they were relativists or subjectivists.
2. you wrote: “the designations of toddler and sport bring up the warning bells. This implies that it IS morally correct to torture if not a toddler or not for sport. This would make the morality of torture fully subjective.”
Actually, to say that torturing toddlers for sport is a violation of an objective moral value and obligation in no way implies anything of the sort! I am merely giving one example of an objective moral value and obligation. It says nor implies nothing about whether torturing other people is right or wrong. Your argument is a non-sequitur.
3. you seem to think that for something to be an objective moral value and obligation that it must be held by all people and cultures through all time.
But as I said in the debate “By “objective” we mean true, valid and binding whether anyone believes in them or not; that is, true independent of peoples’ opinions, just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed.” The fact that some people might disagree that torturing toddlers for sport is objectively wrong, does nothing to change the fact that it is objectively wrong. Like I wrote above, ““What if a bunch of guys walked into our lecture hall and said, ‘You people might think torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong but me and my buddies think it is great fun!’ How should we respond to that? Should we throw our hands up and conclude, ‘Oh, no, I guess morality is relative to subjective opinions after all?’
No, of course not. We should think that there is something wrong with those guys! They are not functioning properly. In fact what do we call people who do not think torturing toddlers for sport is morally wrong?” After a moment of silence the answer came back from a few students – “Psychopaths!” “Right”, I said. “Anyone who claims torturing children for sport is not objectively wrong is not functioning properly morally. We rightly call someone like that a psychopath.”
As anybody who has taken a freshman ethics class knows, cultural relativism as a descriptive thesis (cultures do disagree about some moral principles), says nothing about the prescriptive thesis that culture ought or ought not disagree about moral principles.
Your assertion that “the objective value in question… is made up of subjective parts” makes little sense.
4. What about your claim that the Biblical God violates this objective moral value?
This is irrelevant to the truth of the moral argument for God that you correctly outlined at the beginning of your comment. It does nothing to refute either premise 1 or 2. Of course once one draws the conclusion that God exists then the question will arise what God is the best possible match with the God of this argument’s conclusion.
Much has been written on the subject of God’s moral behavior in the last few years, so since it is irrelevant to the soundness of the moral argument, and this response to your comment is already very long, I will give you some excellent links to material on that subject by philosopher Paul Copan.
http://www.philchristi.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail
http://www.philchristi.org/library/articles.asp?pid=63&mode=detail
5. Finally, your conclusion “Therefore God does not exist” is fallacious reasoning. At very best if your arguments were successful, which they weren’t, you would have only shown that this particular argument for God was not sound. You would not have shown that the other arguments for God that I gave at the debate were not sound. You would not have shown that all the other arguments for God (Plantinga’s famous paper on Two dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments) are not sound. And even if you had done that, it would not follow that God does not exist. That would be to commit the logical fallacy ‘Argument from Ignorance’. My former professor, the atheist Kai Nielsen, put it well,
“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. … All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists.” (Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 143-4.)
I find it particularly interesting that Leah Libresco, the very popular atheist blogger, mentioned her strong belief in objective morality as being very important in her recent conversion to Christian theism. See her CNN interview here – http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/bestoftv/2012/06/24/intv-atheist-catholic.cnn
I hope you can give this moral argument another look Antony, especially premise 2. I’d be glad to try and respond to any other questions or comments you have. Actually I have to respond to another one of your comments on one of my other posts right now.
I was at the Imagine No Religion Conference, and I felt you missed a points to nail down your position. One point was proof that Objective Moral Values actually exist.
Essentially you say that:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & obligations do not exist
2. Objective moral values & obligations exist
3. Therefore, God exists
But I didn’t see where objective moral values and obligations are actually proven to exist.
One supposed objective moral value you mentioned in your debate on May 19, 2012 was: “It is morally wrong to torture a toddler for sport.” (May not be an exact quote, so correct me if I got a word or two wrong.)
This is an interesting “objective moral value”. While it is difficult to think of an evaluation where it would be morally correct to torture a toddler for sport, the designations of toddler and sport bring up the warning bells. This implies that it IS morally correct to torture if not a toddler or not for sport. This would make the morality of torture fully subjective, so lets look at some forms of torture (causing extreme pain or hardship).
Throughout human history (and indeed it still goes on in some cultures) torture for sport has enjoyed by many people. Culturally we put two grown men in an area and watch them beat each other until one is no longer able to stand or remain aware. Another torture for sport could include public executions (still carried out in some countries.) This brings up questions if capital punishment itself is moral (it seems God supports it). Indeed, even in the bible, we find one story of God torturing children. The great biblical flood (a grand mass execution if ever there was one). Was God merciful? No, he made the waters slowly engulf all the children (and everyone else too). That is a torturous way to kill. Perhaps God did it for sport?
We see that torture for sport is not universally held as immoral, nor is children used in sport immoral (indeed there are children who box though they may not go for the knock out…) As we look at the constructs of the objective moral value in question, we see it is merely made up of subjective parts.
Thus we see that “It is morally wrong to torture a toddler for sport” is not an “objective moral value” but a combination of subjective moral values. Which by and large put all together, almost everyone would agree to (except obviously God) that “torturing toddlers for sport” is immoral, but it remains subjective at the core.
Therefore, God does not exist.
That is a great article you wrote Wes and an intriguing comment conversation as well. Thanks for sharing the link
Great post, Michael! Here’s a link to my own in case you’re interested: http://www.wakeupworld.ca/1/post/2012/03/why-murder-isnt-wrong-and-other-moral-conundrums.html