"How do you know your morality is valid then?" - Response to TheCartesianTheist

In attempting to defend the bible, some theists prefer to attack the meta-ethical foundation of their atheist interlocutor, rather than defend the passage in contention directly. Probably these Christians think this is a quick and easy way to answer any challenges to their position.

Usually, what happens is that the theist attacks the meta-ethics of the atheist directly. The line of reasoning is - if the atheist does not have objective morality, no criticism against the bible can stand. (Let’s call this the direct meta-ethical evasion.)

Why is this argument dishonest? A better question to ask is 'when would it not be dishonest?' When would it be acceptable to defend apparently immoral writings with a sudden adoption of moral skepticism? It is highly convenient, to say the least. 

In any case, the direct meta-ethical evasion is unworkable, since regardless of what moral ontology the atheist accepts, it is a matter of scripture contradicting god's omnibenevolence. Meta-ethics is irrelevant.

During his debate with EssenceofThought, TheCartesianTheist asked the question 'are we in agreement that rape is objectively wrong?' At no point did he try to undercut EoT's claims to objective morality – and not simply because EoT didn’t make any. CT's method seems to have evolved slightly. He does not (to my knowledge) use the moral argument for god’s existence, and he seems to have discontinued using meta-ethics as a direct defence of the bible. While he used to do this, (he has a video called ‘The atheistic moral problem’) he seems to have realized that it is unnecessary to argue the atheist into a subjective moral ontology, because they are often willing to admit this themselves. CT's approach is to milk this fact for emotional effect. (Let’s call this the indirect meta-ethical evasion; since it does not rule out criticism of scripture, it is simply a way to cast doubt on the critic.) I find this tactic to be manipulative and dishonest, and also not exactly a paradigm of good philosophy. *Shock horror, 'you don't think rape is objectively wrong?', as though beliefs about moral ontology necessarily said anything about an individual's normative ethics. I imagine professional philosophers don't find this a good way to argue for moral realism. It is the sort of thing one would expect only from a religious apologist.

So in response to his blog, yes, my video was made with CT in mind. But it was also made with various other theistic meta-ethical evasions in mind too; the direct meta-ethical evasions which CT seems to have jettisoned, and also CT’s own indirect ways of using meta-ethics to poison the well. 

But since CT responded to that video, I might as well spell out in more detail what I think is dishonest about his approach in particular. (And why I'm able to point this out). CT begins his blog post:

“I'm quite happy to stand corrected but from the feedback I have received from atheists on YT so far, since my discussion with EssenceofThought (EOT), I am yet to hear an atheist tell me they disagree with EOT and they wish to also affirm that rape is something which is morally wrong beyond a personal denouncement.”

So CT begins by doing the very thing I was arguing against. He also did this during the debate, in his 'teaser' video, and here and there throughout his blog. He is poisoning the well.

I also think personal denouncements go a long way. Even if they are not objective in every sense, that doesn't make them arbitrary, unfounded, or futile. ‘Personal denouncement’ is simply a way of deflating the moral judgments people make. I have videos on this, so I will set it aside for now.

“CV tries to suggest that theists are being underhanded by asking atheists about their metaethics (ohhh-ahhh - how dare they?). Clearly on this point he failed to even listen to my discussion with EOT since I made it very clear I was only asking EOT out of interest and that it would not be part of my defence of Deuteronomy. I made it quite clear what my own view was and, if you listen carefully you will hear EOT claim this is highly significant to the discussion.”

It is underhanded. As I said in my video, it is an attempt to stack the deck against the atheist. CT's subscribers can instantly switch off, since the atheist doesn't have objective morality. There was at least one comment to this effect, which had been thumbed up quite a bit. It's also a nice fail-safe for CT. If he can't defend the passage, he can make meta-ethical evasions.

Again, when would it be acceptable to raise meta-ethics? When would it be acceptable, in trying to defend a set of apparently immoral writings, to even gesture towards meta-ethics? Simply switch the bible with any other questionable set of writings to see why this sort of thing doesn't and shouldn't fly. It's nothing but a smokescreen.

Were Stalin’s purges really bad, or is that just your worthless opinion? No, I'm not saying you can't have your opinion, if you believe killing millions of people isn't objectively wrong than that's up to you. But while we're on the topic, I actually affirm that killing people is objectively wrong. Unlike you. Notice how the person who should be defending their own writings is using the very content of those writings to assert a moral advantage over the critic.

The moral ontology of both CT and EoT is neither here nor there in this argument. All that matters is that if an instance of immorality can be shown in the text, the text is not inerrant and the theist has a contradiction on their hands. I'm not concerned with showing that such a passage exists. I'm interested in what needs to be shown.

“So if I am stating my view clearly up front from the beginning it is surely a matter of interest what EOT's views are? But even so I made it painfully clear that a counter metaethical attack was not going to happen once we got onto the biblical passages and it did not. CV fails on this criticism therefore.”

In the context of a debate about scripture, it doesn't matter what EoT's views on meta-ethics are. Not only because he hasn't studied it, or made videos about it, but because it has no bearing on the question of scripture. It doesn’t matter what anyone’s views are on this. A counter meta-ethical attack was unnecessary anyway, because EoT did not affirm objective morality. He simply pointed out that his and CT's definitions have not always matched and that it was a red herring. He was correct to do this. But CT insisted on waving around his poorly explained ontology and then crying foul when EoT didn’t affirm it.

“At around 1 minute CV states that "objective oughts are a very difficult notion" which is a very interesting thing to note given that he is lecturing his audience on the oughts of proper discourse. That sounds very much like giving instructions in ethical behaviour to me. Is CV simply stating his preference for discussion etiquette then? Well his language certainly sounds otherwise. He appears to be suggesting the theist is doing something objectively wrong and that they OUGHT not ask the atheist their view even out of interest.”

CT seems to be under the impression that this is some sort of brilliant refutation. It isn't. First of all, the question "how can a meta-ethical subjectivist make moral pronouncements?" has been answered by atheist heavy-hitters like QualiaSoup and TheoreticalBullshit. It's also been answered by Aletheia216 in a video response to CT. This response has been up for ten months. I even repeated Aletheia’s response in the video CT is supposed to be addressing. And I've offered my own answers to this question in many of my videos, and I know CT has watched them. This ‘gotcha’ question has been dealt with. But CT is still trying to show I am contradicting myself by loading my position with his presuppositions which I've repeatedly and explicitly rejected. Perhaps it's clear now why I chose the title I did for my video.

I'm sure CT finds these answers problematic, but no amount of partially understood quotations from philosophers can help him gloss over the fact that he's systematically ignored the answers offered, and then acted as if it was I who was ignoring some glaring contradiction. 

As someone who loudly proclaims his own philosophical learnedness, the repeated and insistent use of this cavil is quite amusing. The argument really runs itself. "You believe morality is subjective. You can't use moral language." Simple and easy to remember. This line of arguing is no different in either style or substance from Sye Ten Bruggencate's repetitious question "and how do you know your reasoning is valid?" And just like Stephen Law recommends turning this question on its head and asking 'how do I know you haven't been hit over the head with a rock?' I recommend an analogous approach to CT's egregiously dishonest and malformed inquiry. 

But CT has just given me everything I need, as someone who thinks meta-ethics is not completely objective, to answer him. 'The oughts of proper discourse'. In an agreed upon and specified context, it is possible to give objective answers. Perhaps CT is wondering why he should accept the oughts of proper discourse in the first place. Well I don't think he should. To do so would make pushing his religion rather difficult. My video was not intended to persuade him, but to start a discussion about how rational people should deal with the apologetic slime he so prolifically excretes. I am appealing to common goals in order to achieve an end. No objective moral ontology is required here. This has all been explained before of course. 

Also, even if I were a closet moral realist, as CT seems to imply, I could still think objective oughts are a very difficult notion. Difficult problems are not insoluble. And I would still take issue with CT's devious methods. So CT just bungled a line of argument that normally runs itself. He should stop running on automatic and listen to the people he is engaging.

 “[A small aside. Whilst I accept that the atheist might cause a problem by pointing to an internal inconsistency in the theist's worldview, please note that this is atheistic presuppositional apologetics of the very kind they so often complain about when done to them. They stand back and insist they have a null hypothesis whilst the other person must defend their worldview. This is using the kind of Hovind basterdized presuppositional method in many ways. Notice the advice given in the blurb to his video:

"Turn any challenge to your moral ontology on its head. Don't try to discuss honestly with propagandists, as your explanations will be ignored."

Does that not sound like the very tactics employed by the likes of Hovindites?]”

I'm glad CT quoted that line, given that I've just shown a case of him very resolutely ignoring explanations. I'll stick with my advice. If someone is trying to distract you with meta-ethical hand-waving or other non sequiturs, don't go to the trouble of trying to explain yourself. 

If someone is genuinely trying to have a discussion with you, then that is a different matter. In that case, have a discussion. 

What's more Hovindy, trying to catch people out with loaded ‘gotcha’ questions and repeating sound bites back at them to throw egg on their face, or not bothering to explain yourself to those who use these methods?

Also, I don't claim a null hypothesis. I do claim that Christianity has vastly more philosophical baggage than atheism, because it does. Atheists do not defend any ancient scribblings, or posit a plethora of unfalsifiable phenomena. Theism does both of these. CT knows what I think about this, because he's given my video on it a glowing review.

“CV then complains that the theist fails to appreciate that a subjective or quasi-subjective moral ontology cannot be "meaningful" [c.1:30] but this is not relevant to the discussion I was having with EOT in the slightest and I never suggested one could not have a meaningful ethic if it is not a morally realist one. So why CV brings this in I don't know.”

It might have something to do with CT's incessant repetition of the question 'so is rape objectively wrong?', as though objectivity was the only workable option, and his repeating answers back at people in a shocked and horrified manner, in an attempt to shame them. Also, didn't CT just say that I was contradicting myself in my use of moral language in his blog?

“He appears to be suggesting the theist is doing something objectively wrong and that they OUGHT not ask the atheist their view even out of interest.”

This is strong evidence that CT does think that an objective moral ontology is the only workable one. Even though I didn't really have CT in mind at this point in my video, it does apply to him.

“At around the 1:40 mark CV complains about appeals to emotion (oh the irony) but this does not happen in the discussion and so my head scratching continues.”

Of course it did. CT's debate with EoT was a good example of this sort of appeal to emotion. 'Oh, so you don't think rape is objectively wrong then? That's quite disturbing.' This is also the sort of thing I've been getting from CT and from other theists generally for quite some time. I thought CT would at least be wise enough not to try to pull this during a debate on scripture. 

But also look at CT's 'teaser' for the debate. He also included the segment on meta-ethics there. I think it's clear why CT uses these tactics, which would be forgivable if they were simply unconsidered remarks. But this is CT's considered strategy - to use rape as a way to try to rhetorically beat his atheist interlocutors into accepting moral realism and/or to make them look bad, because saying 'rape isn't objectively wrong' sounds ugly. Even having 'so you don't think rape is entirely objectively wrong?' repeated at you is probably quite annoying too. And it undoubtedly helps CT keep his flock asleep. I think CT's conscious and deliberated use of a something like rape in order to make this point is rather poor form. 

A quick aside, how about an argument for moral realism? We all share the intuition that rape is objectively wrong. But not all of us accept that our moral intuitions are good evidence of anything more. I suspect most people would like to believe in moral realism. All CT has to do is provide a cogent argument for it, but his choice of tactics suggests that hasn’t yet thought of one. 

“CV then chides anyone who dares question the metaethics of people who do not "make pretentions" to have philosophical knowledge! (3:30 ish) Surely CV cannot be talking about his mate EOT at this stage? Not the same EOT who made a four part series on morality entitled respectively:

1. The Morality Of The Godless: Episode 1 - The Development of Morals, Values and Social Norms.
2. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 2 - The Biological & Evolutional Explanations behind Society.
3. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 3 - The Socio/Psychological Explanations behind Society.
4. The Morality Of The Godless : Episode 4 - Explanations For Social Conflicts & Wars.”

I don't see an Episode 5. Meta-ethics. There are aspects to morality other than moral ontology, and it is possible to touch on these without being committed to moral realism. In an analogous way, you can do mathematics while being an anti-realist about the ontological status of numbers. (This is the answer Aletheia gave).

“Ironically the previous 'Therefore God' show had been on the very subject of metaethics as well. Suddenly, when rape is the issue, metaethics is now not allowed to be talked about! When it was an atheist on the show that was different.”

Meta-ethics deserves serious study. It shouldn't be used as a smokescreen to deflect criticism and poison the well against critics. I invited CT on to discuss this, but he went on to talk about the bible. Stay on topic, and don't castigate those who ask you to. This is not an outrageous demand.  

“CV then makes the ridiculous claim that I was repeating "You think rape isn't objectively wrong" for emotional effect. The reason this is ridiculous is that he could not personally know my motive for doing that in the first place. Secondly it would mean not taking me at my word during the discussion where I explicitly said the purpose was to find out if we were both in agreement on the matter. Ignoring what people actually say in a discussion and attempting to project motives on them there is no evidence for is not good form. How ironic that CV continues to take the tone of a moral sermon at this juncture.”

I'd like to know what CT thinks he's doing, if not appealing to emotion. Appeals to emotion are completely in place when discussing oughts. You ought to give to charity. But they are out of place when discussing what is. You ought to accept an objective moral ontology. Probably most of us would like to, but it's not clear what this even means. How can an ‘ought’ be completely objective?

I think CT believes that people tend towards moral realism, and repeating these questions is a good way to bring this out. But it is still an appeal to emotion, as it does not solve the problem; it simply tries to beat the interlocutor into submission with a highly loaded question which is repeated ad nauseum. And regarding CT's series on meta-ethics, this is what's wrong with it. The series has stopped after CT argued from intuition. (Perhaps it will continue, but CT evidently prefers to slap together videos in which he trolls genuine educators like AronRa and Thunderf00t, rather than actually creating any substantial content). What is the point of simply arguing from intuition? Philosophers are supposed to question their intuitions, not use their existence as arguments and leave it at that. Anyone can say what appears to be the case.

“To finish I think it is worth noting that despite all his talk of insisting the job of the theist was to show there is no internal contradiction his video did not once admit I had done that very thing and that the vast majority of the discussion was about this. On such matters he had absolutely nothing to say in his video. EOT completely failed in his burden of demonstrating ANY such contradiction existed in the Christian worldview. A Christian is not contradicting their view on rape as being objectively wrong even when they are conservative in their view of scripture since there is absolutely zero evidence of rape being advocated as something other than a wrong act in the entire Bible. EOT was shown to be using a contentious passage with various possible readings as a proof-texting venture and to be arguing from silence when, in pure desperation, he attempted to use Lot at the end.”

CT seems to have misunderstood me. He’s presenting it as a burden of proof issue. I did not insist that. My contention is that if such a contradiction can be shown, the bible is not inerrant, and any biblical inerrantist has a contradiction on their hands. And this is how the atheist can justifiably set aside meta-ethical questions and get on to discuss the details of the scriptural passage in question. I'm interested in what it is sufficient to show, not in demonstrating that such a passage can actually be found. That's for others. I can't sit through the bible. It's profoundly dull and unimaginative. Someone else will have to show how immoral it is. 

Again, my interest is in how to refute meta-ethical distractions, so he seems to have missed the point. 

And given that he accepts that meta-ethics has no bearing on an atheist's critique of the bible, I find his insistence on using it even more dishonest. Again, I believe it’s because CT knows that the more direct meta-ethical distractions won’t fly that he’s muddying the water in this way. 

Regarding ‘arguments from silence’, I find this to be something of a double standard. When the theist wishes to insert something into the text, 'context'. When EoT rightly points out that there is no prohibition of rape in the bible, 'argument from silence'. I think it matters what god neglected to say, but that's just me.

“I suggest theists keep asking atheists to justify their metaethics. The clear message is they have problems in this area and wish to avoid it by always throwing it back on the theist. The default setting of the You Tube atheist is that he will only want to attack your views.”

This is from the person who insists on getting into meta-ethics when discussing passages in the bible. The whole point of my video is that it is CT who is refusing to stay on topic and discuss honestly. In discussing the bible, he insisted on using meta-ethics, a highly difficult philosophical area, in arguing with a non-philosopher. Of course EoT has difficulty there. Philosophers have difficulty there. Everyone but YouTube Christians (who simply sweep their own problems under the rug) have at least some difficulty here.

“Don't allow the atheist to do that. Ask them to explain what they are proposing. If atheists are finding rape a difficult issue to explain in terms of its wrongness then this is one reason to have doubts about atheist ethics I think.”

I suggest theists keep asking this too. But this discussion should be had for its own sake, not as a distraction or a means of poisoning the well. And I also suggest that the conversation should be reciprocal and not one-way. The theist's moral ontology is not unproblematic either – it’s philosophy, there are always problems. These should not be simply glossed over – as they often are. But if theists do not agree to discuss honestly, then atheists should not go out of their way to try to engage them. And using meta-ethics to distract criticism, or poison the well against critics of scripture is dishonest, and also I hope I have shown, unsuccessful.   

Also, if you want explanations, then listen to them. Also, don’t insist that the atheist must accept the subjective/objective dichotomy. (This is in part why the question is loaded). Part of the problem with CT is that in his attempts to procure sound-bites agreeable to his agenda, he runs on automatic and fails to listen. In his world, it’s either objective or it’s worthless. This is evident throughout his post. 

A question for CT - would he agree that using only meta-ethical scepticism to defend the bible (parenthesizing my accusations of his poisoning the well) is dishonest? Because there are many Christians who do this. Perhaps he would like to correct them. 

EoT debating CT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VJnNaZzjvg

My video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9rZUNN7WAs

CT's response to me: http://thecartesiantheist.blogspot.co.uk/

CT's 'teaser' for the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUuawhwMT2k