Is this a valid naturalistic basis for morality?

[tlewis3348]

I was recently listening to the speech given by Tom Woods on the topic of where rights come from, which can be seen here.

Towards the beginning of the speech, he gives the following definitions of rights:

• • A sphere of action in which you can act and in which it would be morally wrong for anyone to interfere with you violently or with the threat of violence. (4:26)
  • You have the best moral claim to exercise a range of control over your physical body. (17:30) <--- Not an exact quote, but I think it accurately represents what he was saying in that section of the speech.

In short, I think a more concise definition would be that a right is the sphere of action over which you have the moral authority to exercise control.

Starting at 24:25, he explains a fundamental basis for determining how big the sphere of action defining where we have the moral authority to exercise control is. He provides several options (citing Murray Rothbard):

• 1. I don't have the moral authority to exercise control over anyone. Not even myself.
  2. I have the moral authority to exercise control over only a portion of everyone, including myself.
  3. I have the moral authority to exercise control over another group of people.
  4. I have the moral authority to exercise full control over myself and no one else.

Of these options, only option 4 is logically sustainable. If I only have the moral authority to exercise control over myself and no one else, then that clearly leads to the conclusion that rape and murder are immoral among other things.

Now, as a Christian. I've had several discussions with atheists pointing out that they have no fundamental basis upon which they can say that murder and rape are any more wrong than dissolving an Alka-Seltzer tablet in water. However, if they replied with the argument outlined above (which I just came up with as a result of thinking through my beliefs and trying to think of an argument I'd make against them if I were an atheist), I don't know what response I'd have. I say this because this seems to provide a naturalistic basis for morality, which is something that Christian apologists have long argued against.

Can someone explain to me where the logical error is in this line of argument? I would greatly appreciate it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by Defender of Truth]

On what basis can you condemn me if I choose to extend that control over another person (i.e. rape, murder)?

On the basis that this violates (1). Your rape and/or murder victim is supposed to have full control over themselves, and they presumably do not want to be raped and/or murdered.

You only have the moral authority to exercise full control over yourself, so you can't tell me I'm wrong for my actions.

For the sake of argument, you've granted (1). The second you violate someone else's (1), you're in the wrong.

To what standard are you appealing? What is the basis of this standard?

The standard that you just labeled as true.

As soon as you label my actions as "immoral", you're exerting a measure of control over me that you don't possess.

How so? I consider abortion immoral for example, but this doesn't mean that when a woman has an abortion, this is under my control. It's just an opinion I have of a certain action. The woman having the abortion and myself are unconnected.

then there is some external and objective standard by which you're judging me.

Does an objective standard change? Does it act in any way like a subjective standard?

Essentially, this standard is either meaningless (since you can't condemn anyone else) or completely arbitrary (if you condemn someone, it's on the basis of a standard that comes out of thin air).

Did the standard you granted as true, at the start of your reply #10, come out of thin air?

An individual with a Biblical perspective would claim that God is the source of morality, which is neither arbitrary or meaningless since it provides a distinct, superior, and objective measure by which our human actions can be judged.

And we of course reject that claim. Simply claiming something doesn't automatically make it so.

[Defender of Truth]

On what basis can you condemn me if I choose to extend that control over another person (i.e. rape, murder)?

On the basis that this violates (1). Your rape and/or murder victim is supposed to have full control over themselves, and they presumably do not want to be raped and/or murdered.

But take your logic a step further. It is clear that I am violating the code established in (1) when I rape because the other individual does not want to be raped. But what is the reason or the basis for me to abide by this code? As soon as you tell me I should abide by this moral code, then you are extending your control beyond yourself. It's a self-defeating system.

As soon as you label my actions as "immoral", you're exerting a measure of control over me that you don't possess.

How so? I consider abortion immoral for example, but this doesn't mean that when a woman has an abortion, this is under my control. It's just an opinion I have of a certain action. The woman having the abortion and myself are unconnected.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty in this example (admitting that with this system of morality you can't impose your views of abortion on another since you're not connected), but realize this extends to essentially any moral decision (including murder and rape). All moral statements become statements of opinion. If I murder my neighbor, you would say I'm wrong since I'm asserting my control beyond myself. But my actions are not connected to you, so you're telling me that I need to limit my life because of this standard. You're dictating to me what standard I need to follow, even if I choose to ignore this standard.

[bluethread]

The problem with stating a naturalistic morality in such a dichotomous form is that it does not equate to actual primate behavior. One can rationalize it that way and maybe even convince others using such a discussion. However, according to Jordon Peterson, a noted psychologist, naturalistic morality is composed of two competing forces. One is the might makes right principle and the other is the will of the majority principle. These are my terms, but I think I get the principles correct. The strongest sets the rules. However, if the strongest becomes debilitated in establishing authority or does not placate the crowd, it can be overpowered by a well rested inferior, or multiple inferiors. Also, when this latter happens, it is much more violent than the original battle that established the authority in the first place. Therefore, naturalistic morality is not about my rights and your rights. That is a rationalistic morality that allows a relatively stable society to verbally maintain the appearance of stability. A naturalistic morality is actually an ongoing negotiation or series of negotiations balancing the control of resources, interplay with rivals, and the satisfaction of the rest of the tribe.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by Defender of Truth]

All moral statements become statements of opinion.

Does this include ones made from a God?
"I base my morality on God, therefore it's not a mere statement of opinion!"?

[Defender of Truth]

All moral statements become statements of opinion.

Does this include ones made from a God?

According to the naturalistic explanation for morality as provided by the OP, there is no God or Creator and therefore no compulsion to abide by an arbitrary standard. To tell someone else that they are not allowed to extend their authority into anyone else's life, is by definition extending your authority into their life and therefore is a self-defeating system, and irrational.

In a Biblical Worldview, God as Creator provides the objective standard for morality. Regardless of whether or not it is accurate, it certainly provides a logically consistent framework for right and wrong. In other words, the naturalistic worldview cannot account rationally for true right and wrong (there is no explanation for objective morality within that system of thought). The Biblical worldview can account rationally for true right and wrong (there is an explanation for objective morality within that system of thought).

This is also known as a form of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, which uses similar thought processes but can substitute morality for other concepts that have a positive truth value but cannot be affirmed by empiricism. These concepts include the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Law of Non-Contradiction, uniformity in nature, and reliability of the memory.