Wednesday, June 17, 2015

The Subjective Morality of CS Lewis


In The Poison of Subjectivism, CS Lewis blames subjectivism for the evils of totalitarian states.  "Until modern times, no thinker of the first rank ever doubted that our judgments of value were rational judgments, or that what they discovered was objective."  That may be true, but it ignores the fact that those thinkers did not always share the same values and moral judgments.  So Lewis, ironically, states his opinion that value judgments are objective, despite the fact that there is no universal agreement as to what these supposed objective values are.  He calls the idea that men can create value by rational means a "fatal superstition", even as he bases his own values on his religious superstition.

Lewis speaks of having a measuring rod for moral judgments that is independent of the things measured, and without such a rod, there is no ground for making any moral judgments.  There would be no basis, for example, to say that the Nazis were morally inferior or superior to any other society.  But does this objective standard exist?  Was it used by the authors of the Christian bible?  The bible tells us that wearing mixed fabrics is wrong, that adultery is grounds for stoning, that slavery is acceptable.  Most people today disagree with those things, but they were once widely accepted moral judgments, and you would likely be unable to convince someone from that society that their moral values were not objectively correct.  The "objective" measuring rod they used is not the same as the ones most of us use in our current societies.  Perhaps it's really not objective at all.  What is an objective fact is that our moral values and judgments change along with society.

Lewis makes the mistake of claiming the primacy of this own religious-based values, which is a common ploy of Christians, as I described in an earlier post.  He assumes that his own moral judgments are superior, and that he can say with confidence that he knows what is right, and all those others who have a different ideology are wrong, and that this is an objective fact.  That's his opinion, and many people with different ideologies have exactly the same opinion about their own moral judgments.  It is easy for him to look down upon the Nazis and declare that they are morally inferior, because most people other than Nazis share the same opinion.  But that doesn't make it an objective moral fact, any more than the notion that the slaughter of the Canaanites was objectively good.  There are many other cases where Lewis' "objective" values would run counter to the opinions of other people.  For example, can he say his Christian morals are superior to those of a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or an atheist?  On what basis does he make such a claim?  His objective measuring rod doesn't exactly match the objective measuring rods used by people of other societies or other faiths.  So what kind of standard does it actually represent?

I think that it is wrong for Christians to teach young children that they will be tortured for all eternity if they don't swallow the Christian faith.  But that's my opinion.  That's my own moral judgment, and it is probably shared by the majority of people on the planet (other than Christians).  But I understand that people have different opinions.  I don't have the chutzpah to go around making the claim that my own moral judgments are superior to those of anyone who doesn't share my particular ideals and values.  But Lewis has the chutzpah to do just that.  Lewis is correct to say that there is no objective basis to make moral judgments without an objective standard by which to measure them.  But he is wrong to insist that such a standard exists.  It doesn't.  What does exist is his own measuring rod based on his own subjective and societal-based opinions.  Nothing more.

17 comments:

  1. [Lewis] bases his own values on his religious superstition

    He does no such thing. You obviously have not read his The Abolition of Man in which he takes 26 pages to say the exact opposite - that objective morality is not dependent upon any specific religion.

    Lewis speaks of having a measuring rod for moral judgments that is independent of the things measured, and without such a rod, there is no ground for making any moral judgments.

    Indeed he does. I am in 100% agreement with him on this, as are all rational people. If your standard of measurement is dependent upon the thing being measured, then objectivity is impossible.

    The [B]ible tells us that wearing mixed fabrics is wrong

    It does no such thing. It does say that for a Torah-following Hebrew to wear them is impermissible.

    that adultery is grounds for stoning, that slavery is acceptable

    These are not moral judgements, but matters of (Jewish) law.

    they were once widely accepted moral judgments

    See my above comment. They had nothing to do with morality, but rather with legality. Not the same thing.

    He assumes that his own moral judgments are superior ... can he say his Christian morals are superior to those of a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or an atheist?

    You need to bone up on your Lewis before you start putting words into his mouth. Again, in The Abolition of Man he explicitly states that his moral judgements are not superior to those of differing belief systems, and he quite specifically singles out Buddhism and Hinduism.

    But he is wrong to insist that such a[n objective] standard exists.

    So. You think condemning the Nazis is just a matter of opinion? Good luck with that one.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > He does no such thing. You obviously have not read his The Abolition of Man in which he takes 26 pages to say the exact opposite - that objective morality is not dependent upon any specific religion.
      - Lewis was smart enough to understand that objective values could not possibly be based on any particular world view, because that would be self-contradictory. Nevertheless, his values were based on his Christian ideals. He said: "If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."

      > Indeed he does. I am in 100% agreement with him on this, as are all rational people. If your standard of measurement is dependent upon the thing being measured, then objectivity is impossible.
      - And I agree with that statement, too. But Lewis is wrong in believing that objectivity is possible, at least in terms of defining moral values. As I said, there is no objective measuring rod for moral judgments. If you think there is, show it to me. Or at least spell out what these objective standards are.

      > It does no such thing. It does say that for a Torah-following Hebrew to wear them is impermissible.
      - That was the cultural-based standard for the Hebrews, as noted by Tom Gilson. But their Torah lives on in Christianity. Are you admitting that your modern societal mores should overrule what is written in your Christian holy book?

      > These are not moral judgements, but matters of (Jewish) law. ... They had nothing to do with morality, but rather with legality. Not the same thing.
      - They most certainly are laws that reflect moral judgments.

      > You need to bone up on your Lewis before you start putting words into his mouth. Again, in The Abolition of Man he explicitly states that his moral judgements are not superior to those of differing belief systems, and he quite specifically singles out Buddhism and Hinduism.
      - Lewis was quite insistent on the idea that God is the source of morality. While it may be true that he didn't take issue with the moral culture of Buddhists or Hindus, he nevertheless attributed his morality to his Christian God. And it is also true that he did take issue with any cultural morality the didn't agree with his own.

      > So. You think condemning the Nazis is just a matter of opinion? Good luck with that one.
      - It's not a question of whether I agree that a particular society is good or bad. The point is that there is no objective standard to which all of humanity can appeal in all times and places. It just doesn't exist.

      Delete
  2. Are you admitting that your modern societal mores should overrule what is written in your Christian holy book?

    Of course not! What ever gave you that ridiculous idea?

    But even you ought to be aware that Christians are not subject to The [Jewish] Law. Heck, that's Gospel 101.

    They most certainly are laws that reflect moral judgments.

    And right you are. I happen to agree with those moral judgements. Adultery is a grave sin - against society, against one' s partner, and against one's own self. Our laws for dealing with it have, of course, mutated a bit over time (and in recent years, not at all for the better) And the OT laws concerning slavery were astonishingly enlightened for their time. They actually granted rights to the enslaved. Try finding that idea elsewhere in the Ancient World.

    And don't try to smugly pat yourself on the back for living in a post-Emancipation Proclamation (which nobody alive today had a thing to do with) era. There are tens, if not hundreds of millions of people in the world today who would gladly trade their current circumstances for the those of a 5th Century B.C. Israelite slave, including nearly everyone involved with stocking the shelves of Walmart with the junk Americans buy.

    Lewis was quite insistent on the idea that God is the source of morality.

    No argument there. So am I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > But even you ought to be aware that Christians are not subject to The [Jewish] Law. Heck, that's Gospel 101.
      - Why not? Jesus was.

      > And right you are. I happen to agree with those moral judgements.
      - You just got done telling me that they had nothing to do with morality.

      > And the OT laws concerning slavery were astonishingly enlightened...
      - Yes, their "enlightened slavery" applied to slaves from their own tribe. However, when it came to their slaves acquired from outside, that was a different story, wasn't it?

      > And don't try to smugly pat yourself on the back for living in a post-Emancipation Proclamation (which nobody alive today had a thing to do with) era.
      - I don't. My whole point was that our values are subject to change, because they are not objective in the first place.

      > No argument there. So am I. [insistent on the idea that God is the source of morality]
      - So much for the idea that your "objective" morals are independent of your religious superstitions.

      Delete
  3. You just got done telling me that they had nothing to do with morality.

    And they don't. But I was referring to the punishments, which indeed have nothing to do with morality, but are rather legal statutes. Singling out adultery or mistreatment of slaves is of course a matter for moral judgement, but the specificities of how these judgements are translated into law is something entirely distinct. Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough, but I was aiming for brevity. For a full treatment of the matter, I refer you to The Talmud. (It's summer, and you'll need something for the beach.)

    So much for the idea that your "objective" morals are independent of your religious [beliefs].

    I never said they were. I insist on their dependence. Here's what I wrote: "[Lewis] does no such thing. You obviously have not read his The Abolition of Man in which he takes 26 pages to say the exact opposite - that objective morality is not dependent upon any specific religion."

    Catch that? Lewis, not me. Lewis never claimed that objective morality was dependent upon one's religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lewis didn't claim that objective morality was dependent upon one's religion. But he did claim that his morality was dependent on God. Seems rather confused. And what I read in your responses is a significant confusion over where you stand, just as Lewis was inconsistent on his own stance.

      Delete
  4. Oh, and just to make myself crystal clear. Lewis (as do I) does say that God (not "religion") is the ultimate source of objective morality. Big difference. That's why you're totally correct in writing, "Lewis was quite insistent on the idea that God is the source of morality," while you are off the mark when you write "So much for the idea that your "objective" morals are independent of your religious [beliefs]."

    Even an atheist's morality has its ultimate source in God (not religion). You'll find this clearly expressed by Saint Paul (both in his Letter to the Romans and in his speech to the Athenians in Acts).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you say that morality is based in God, then for you, it clearly is dependent on your religious beliefs. God is a religious concept, not an objective truth. As I said, you are confused.

      Delete
  5. Striving mightily to keep this civil here, but if you cannot grasp the difference between God and religion, then you are the confused party here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to get upset. Of course I grasp the difference. Belief in God is a religious belief. That's just as simple fact, as described in wiki. For the believer, God's existence may seem to be an objective fact, but for everyone else, belief in God's existence is dependent on religion, and is certainly not an objective fact.

      Delete
  6. How one views these things is not the issue here. The two statements "God is the source of objective morality" and "Religion is the source of objective morality" are fundamentally different regardless of one's belief or non-belief in God. The first states that morality originates outside of humanity, and the second from within. You cannot equate the two ideas.

    what I read in your responses is a significant confusion over where you stand

    If that's what you saw, then the fault is with how I expressed myself. Because there is certainly no confusion in my own mind about what is the source of objective morality. But this whole conversation began with my correcting your misrepresentation of Lewis' views, not mine. And Lewis was quite clear in stating that one's religious thinking had minimal (if not no) bearing on what has been universally (i.e., across all times and cultures) regarded as moral truth.

    My own views are far less nuanced than those of Lewis. I personally have no qualms whatsoever about proclaiming that morality originates within the Godhead, and has been revealed to Mankind by our being created in His image. Regardless of one's religion (or lack of one), every human being has God's Law imprinted on his heart (Romans, Chapter One). The fundamental, rock-bottom, source of all sources of morality lies in God's Trinitarian nature, in His being a Loving Community of three distinct Persons. That is the basic fact of reality and existence itself, and all else springs from that - to include the creation of "all things visible and invisible" (which, of course, would include morality).

    There. Can I make myself any clearer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that I am the one who wasn't clear. I see Lewis' position as "having his cake and eating it, too".

      Yes, I agree that to say moral values are objective implies that they come from outside the individual. To say that they come from God is consistent with that only to the extent that God's existence is itself an objective fact. If God's existence is not an objective fact, then how could one claim that anything deriving from God is an objective fact?

      The truth is that the existence of God is a religious belief. This is a fact that I documented earlier. Here is more substantiation for it. That being the case, belief in anything that is supposed to derive from this God is also a religious belief. The Godly basis of morality is a religious belief, ant the fact that you cite the bible as evidence for it only helps to make my case.

      Religious beliefs are subjective. There is no empirical way to verify the reality of God. If there were, it would be within the realm of science. We all know that the last thing a Christian wants to do is to subject his beliefs to scientific examination, or even to admit that such a thing is reasonable. OK, but you can't have it both ways. If you claim that something is an objective fact, then let's put it on the table for objective scientific examination. If you insist that that can't be done, then you must admit that your belief is not objective.

      Delete
  7. There is no empirical way to verify the reality of God.

    Absolutely correct. Anything you can empirically verify is part of the created universe. God is not "a being" Who can be pinned down and verified. He is "being itself" (Exodus 3:14).

    We all know that the last thing a Christian wants to do is to subject his beliefs to scientific examination

    Aww, now you've gone a bridge too far. It's not a case of the Christian wanting (or not wanting) his beliefs to be subject to scientific examination, but rather that he knows what I said above - that it can't be done. The realm of science is the natural world. It is limited to that sub-set of the Fullness of Reality, which includes both the natural world and the supernatural world which enfolds it (and maintains it in being).

    but you can't have it both ways

    You're the one wanting it both ways, in your insistence upon using scientific examination in areas totally inappropriate to it. A hammer is used with nails; a screwdriver with screws. You want everything to be a nail, and deny the very possibility of there being screws.

    If you insist that that can't be done

    Quite right. I do so insist. But that does not make it "not objective". What is clearly not objective is insisting there is one and only one way to arrive at the truth.

    You need to get out of your materialist box and enjoy a bit of fresh air. There's a Big World out there, which you're missing out on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >It's not a case of the Christian wanting (or not wanting) his beliefs to be subject to scientific examination, but rather that he knows what I said above - that it can't be done.
      - OK, so it's not in the realm of objective fact. Perhaps I have been remiss in not providing a working definition of 'objective' for purposes of discussion. Here is Merriam-Webster's relevant definition of 'objective':

      "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind "

      The key element of objectivity is that something must be evident to all observers if it is to be regarded as objective. So, you say that doesn't apply to God or God's morality - that's fine. I don't insist that such beliefs must be objective. That's the claim that people like Lewis make. So belief in God is not objective, and is not subject to scientific examination. I'm happy with that, and you should be as well. But the problem is that Lewis insists there is something objective, which means that we should all be able to see it. It's not me trying to have it both ways. Either this God-based morality is objective or it isn't. But it can't be both objective, and not subject to examination by empirical means. You can't have it both ways.

      >You need to get out of your materialist box and enjoy a bit of fresh air. There's a Big World out there, which you're missing out on.
      - I'm just using basic logic. If getting out of my "materialist box" implies that the rules of logic no longer apply, then I'll pass on that. Perhaps you should consider getting out of your religionismist box and start using logic.

      Delete
    2. having reality independent of the mind

      That is precisely the case with God. His existence is independent of whether or not anyone acknowledges it. Even if every last person on Earth were a hard core atheist, that would not change the fact of His existence. So then I guess both Mirriam-Webster and I are both on board about God's existence being an objective fact.

      you say that doesn't apply to God

      I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that you cannot use science to perceive Him, since the scientific method is limited (and rightly so) to things of the created universe. As you said, "[God] is not subject to scientific examination." No quarrel there - in fact, I've been insisting on that for quite some time. But there are numerous other, more appropriate, ways by which one can perceive God.

      But it can't be both objective, and not subject to examination by empirical means.

      It most certainly can! What you are saying is like, "Since I can't hear a painting, they must not exist. Only music is objectively true." See? Your insistence on limiting yourself to empirical means blinds you to the vast realms of Objective Reality that are not part of the created universe.

      If getting out of my "materialist box" implies that the rules of logic no longer apply

      Oh, no! The rules of logic still apply. Do you think that Thomas Aquinas eschewed logic? Or Copernicus? Or G.K Chesterton? Or Gregor Mendel? Or Augustine? Or Louis Pasteur? Or Dante? Or Georges Lemaitre? Or William of Ockham? Or Giuseppe Piazzi?

      Delete
    3. > That is precisely the case with God. His existence is independent of whether or not anyone acknowledges it. Even if every last person on Earth were a hard core atheist, that would not change the fact of His existence.
      - And how is it that you can determine this "fact"? Is it because you can conjure up some argument in your mind? How is that not mind-independent?

      > So then I guess both Mirriam-Webster and I are both on board about God's existence being an objective fact.
      - Not on your life. How can you completely ignore a crucial part of the definition? In order to be a fact, something has to have a solid epistemological basis. What makes it objective is that it is visible to all. Plantinga's sensus divinitatus is completely subjective. It is a feeling you have in your mind. Aquinas' five ways presuppose the existence of God. They prove nothing. So whence this "objective" fact?

      > As you said, "[God] is not subject to scientific examination." No quarrel there - in fact, I've been insisting on that for quite some time. But there are numerous other, more appropriate, ways by which one can perceive God.
      - There are ways you think you perceive God. The fact that there is so much disagreement about it is prima facie proof that it is not objective.

      > See? Your insistence on limiting yourself to empirical means blinds you to the vast realms of Objective Reality that are not part of the created universe.
      - No, I am bound to the definition of 'objective', and you ignore it. Look at it again.

      > Oh, no! The rules of logic still apply. Do you think that Thomas Aquinas eschewed logic? ...
      - As I have said, his arguments are only as good as his premises, and he definitely presupposes God. His axioms are not accepted as true by all (including most modern philosophers). They are designed to lead to his theistic conclusions. That's theistic logic for you.

      Delete
  8. Apropos of making too much of "science", From the Pope's latest encyclical:

    “…many problems of today’s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life.”

    Reductionism - what a perfect word. Reducing everything to "science" and empiricism is an ever-narrowing spiral (as in "going down the drain").

    ReplyDelete