Objective Traffic
Repeatedly when discussing the posts on this blog, the last refuge of the theist is that without a God, there can be no objective morals. If all we are is bags of chemicals or, in my favorite Star Trek quote, "Ugly, ugly bags of mostly water," then what is the source of our morality? How can we be objective when we are accusing the fictive God of immorality?
Jim Holman, not to be confused with Joe Holman, asks at one point:
It seems to me that the concept of morality depends on all sorts of metaphysical concepts that would have no place in a strictly scientific worldview. These include concepts such as a "person" who has "free will" to do things both "good" and "evil." It depends on the idea that actions can be "right" or "wrong."
But in a scientific worldview, where everything is ultimately reduced to physical components, electrical and chemical interactions, and so on, how would any of these metaphysical concepts have a place?
To me the key answer is in checking what our premises are. Concepts exist in brains. They don't exist anywhere else. So any explanation of metaphysical concepts has to understand that they exist in brains and manifest themselves in the world as communication from one brain to other brains.
When I tell you I have a car, you know what I mean. This is true even though the myriad varieties of car make it very unlikely that the car you are imagining as "car" when I talk to you about my car is actually what my car is. When we walk outside to get in my car, you then change your concept of "my car" to fit the data that looking at my greenish, dusty Mazda 3 hatchback impresses on your brain. If you are blind, you don't make that transition until you get in the car.
Once we start driving I then have a plethora of driving choices I can make. The rules regarding driving are sometimes quite detailed and sometimes quite vague, but they are generally agreed upon within one locality and violations of the local rules regarding driving are frequently commented on by other drivers and occasionally result in punishment ranging from citation to jailing and sometimes to execution.
The rules regarding driving are indeed and in every way objective. They are man-made and they don't relate to anything of any cosmic significance. I drive within a lane that is painted on the road not because it is made of Plexiglas that will destroy my car if I run into it, but because that lane is objectively painted there so it can be my space on the road and other drivers agree to accept it as if it is real. However, I am a fool if I regard the lanes as always real. If one night, on an open road, I see a person stumbling across the street and fail to swerve out of his way because I was obeying the objective facts of the lanes on the road, I am not driving well. In fact I am criminally culpable.
We allow several groups of drivers and other road users to break the rules when they are following instructions or responding to other crises, and we rarely see those who enforce the laws of the road being punished for violations that they punish others for. Yet this does nothing to make the rules of the road any less objective. Just because their enforcement is subjective it does not follow that the rules are.
Therefore, cars exist, traffic rules are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal proper way they must function but because there are a limited number of ways to utilize the variables that come with driving. We obey the traffic laws and regard things like intersections and lanes as "real" because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. Intersections and lanes exist objectively, yet they are totally man-made.
In just the same way, people exist, morals are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal directive but because there are a limited number of ways to make a successful society. We obey the social customs, folkways and moral codes of our society because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. This doesn't require natural selection. It only requires a group of like beings who view each other as possibly helpful.
Now the objection I imagine that will come from a theist is that traffic laws are simply a subspecies of morality and that Yahweh not only gave us universal objective morals and instructions on what fabrics can and cannot be mixed, but he also planned out the objective rules of traffic laws before the foundations of the earth had been laid.
Yet I think this fails too, because of the variation of rules throughout the world and according to local custom. Traffic laws are in no way universal, even though they are objective, and the only ones that are somewhat universal are those that safeguard people from violence deliberately inflicted with a vehicle, and this again has obviously positive benefits for any society that chooses to enshrine it in law.
Jim Holman, not to be confused with Joe Holman, asks at one point:
It seems to me that the concept of morality depends on all sorts of metaphysical concepts that would have no place in a strictly scientific worldview. These include concepts such as a "person" who has "free will" to do things both "good" and "evil." It depends on the idea that actions can be "right" or "wrong."
But in a scientific worldview, where everything is ultimately reduced to physical components, electrical and chemical interactions, and so on, how would any of these metaphysical concepts have a place?
To me the key answer is in checking what our premises are. Concepts exist in brains. They don't exist anywhere else. So any explanation of metaphysical concepts has to understand that they exist in brains and manifest themselves in the world as communication from one brain to other brains.
When I tell you I have a car, you know what I mean. This is true even though the myriad varieties of car make it very unlikely that the car you are imagining as "car" when I talk to you about my car is actually what my car is. When we walk outside to get in my car, you then change your concept of "my car" to fit the data that looking at my greenish, dusty Mazda 3 hatchback impresses on your brain. If you are blind, you don't make that transition until you get in the car.
Once we start driving I then have a plethora of driving choices I can make. The rules regarding driving are sometimes quite detailed and sometimes quite vague, but they are generally agreed upon within one locality and violations of the local rules regarding driving are frequently commented on by other drivers and occasionally result in punishment ranging from citation to jailing and sometimes to execution.
The rules regarding driving are indeed and in every way objective. They are man-made and they don't relate to anything of any cosmic significance. I drive within a lane that is painted on the road not because it is made of Plexiglas that will destroy my car if I run into it, but because that lane is objectively painted there so it can be my space on the road and other drivers agree to accept it as if it is real. However, I am a fool if I regard the lanes as always real. If one night, on an open road, I see a person stumbling across the street and fail to swerve out of his way because I was obeying the objective facts of the lanes on the road, I am not driving well. In fact I am criminally culpable.
We allow several groups of drivers and other road users to break the rules when they are following instructions or responding to other crises, and we rarely see those who enforce the laws of the road being punished for violations that they punish others for. Yet this does nothing to make the rules of the road any less objective. Just because their enforcement is subjective it does not follow that the rules are.
Therefore, cars exist, traffic rules are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal proper way they must function but because there are a limited number of ways to utilize the variables that come with driving. We obey the traffic laws and regard things like intersections and lanes as "real" because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. Intersections and lanes exist objectively, yet they are totally man-made.
In just the same way, people exist, morals are objective, and they are all man-made and work not because of some universal directive but because there are a limited number of ways to make a successful society. We obey the social customs, folkways and moral codes of our society because failing to do so is harmful to us and harmful to others. This doesn't require natural selection. It only requires a group of like beings who view each other as possibly helpful.
Now the objection I imagine that will come from a theist is that traffic laws are simply a subspecies of morality and that Yahweh not only gave us universal objective morals and instructions on what fabrics can and cannot be mixed, but he also planned out the objective rules of traffic laws before the foundations of the earth had been laid.
Yet I think this fails too, because of the variation of rules throughout the world and according to local custom. Traffic laws are in no way universal, even though they are objective, and the only ones that are somewhat universal are those that safeguard people from violence deliberately inflicted with a vehicle, and this again has obviously positive benefits for any society that chooses to enshrine it in law.