Christian Morality

[Peter Holmes]

Again, I understand why you want to pile up factual assertions about your invented god.

Actually, I can see you don't.

You haven't figured out that Theists do not regard God as "invented." It seems like you cannot imagine anybody thinking in any way that you do not, so you are inclined to imagine they are operating in some kind of knowing bad-faith.

Our ancestors invented thousands of gods and other supernatural things - and believed in their existence as fervently as you believe in your god. But, of course, your god is the only real one.

But we are not. We believe what we say.

It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier: a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion.

Not at all. I have already admitted that IF you were right in your ontology, then morality would indeed be dead. I just believe your ontology is completely wrong.

That there are no moral facts doesn't mean morality is dead. And that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion is a logical - not an ontological - issue.

So your argument is: there is objective value, because a god is the creator and assignor of objective value to everything.

Of course. There could be no one else to do it.

This is a bald and perfectly circular assertion that establishes nothing whatsoever.

And, anyway, your use of the expression 'objective value' says it all. There can be no such thing.

That's assumptive on your part. I don't agree.

Not so. As with beauty and the beholder, value is in the eye of the valuer, and is necessarily subjective, even if the valuer is a god.

And I'm certain you'll find out that God doesn't agree with that either.

'This god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, X is morally wrong.'

No, that's not the argument at all.

It goes, "Everything that exists was created by God. He knows what He created things for, and what their actual value is. Nobody else created things, so they're guessing unless He tells them. But what He knows the purpose and value of something He created is, that's it."

Elaborated in any way, the argument remains a non sequitur:

Action X is not consistent with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc; therefore, action X is morally wrong. (Nul point.)

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

We don't know if things are morally right or wrong. We believe they are, and have reasons for doing so that aren't at all arbitrary. Perhaps you can't explain why rape and other atrocities are morally wrong unless a god tells you they are. But I think that's a morally bankrupt state to be in. It's weirdly inhuman.

[Immanuel Can]

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

I argued there are moral facts, i.e. rape, pedophilia, female circumcision, slavery are wrong as a norm.

"As a norm" means nothing more than "as the arbitrary declaration of some society or individual." So that adds no information. And it still leaves humanity with no way of saying that these things are absolutely or unconditionally wrong.

So it's not merely some "religions" that are condoning such things: it's Atheism. Atheism, in fact, "condones" everything, ultimately.

This simply underlines the point (often attributed to Dostoevsky), "If God is dead, everything is permitted."

[Immanuel Can]

Again, I understand why you want to pile up factual assertions about your invented god.

Actually, I can see you don't.

You haven't figured out that Theists do not regard God as "invented." It seems like you cannot imagine anybody thinking in any way that you do not, so you are inclined to imagine they are operating in some kind of knowing bad-faith.

Our ancestors invented thousands of gods and other supernatural things - and believed in their existence as fervently as you believe in your god. But, of course, your god is the only real one.

Of course.

Having any number of fake gods does not imply there is no real one. If there were a thousand fake "Peters," that would not make you not exist.

But we are not. We believe what we say.

It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier

I can see you're not paying close enough attention to what I say.

I said that IF your ontology (or better, theology) was correct, you WOULD BE correct. However, I believe your theology to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then so is your conclusion that nothing can warrant an objective moral truth.

It's interesting that I can fully understand your perspective, even while not agreeing with your suppositions, but you seem to find it impossible to get outside your own suppostions. Most curious.

That there are no moral facts doesn't mean morality is dead.

Actually, it does. If "dead" means "having no real or objective warrant," then indeed, morality is dead.

...value is in the eye of the valuer, and is necessarily subjective, even if the valuer is a god.

Well, nobody here believes in merely "a god," one among many.

But God is the Supreme Being and Creator, by definition. His valuations are objective. There isn't an alternate or equally definitive assessment; and all subjective guesses are only as good as their proximity to the objective truth of why God made what He made, and what He designed it for.

Action X is not consistent with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc; therefore, action X is morally wrong. (Nul point.)

Show that: why do you think it's a "nul point"? It's no good simply asserting that without reasons.

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

We don't know if things are morally right or wrong. We believe they are,

No, that won't work. "Believe" there has to mean "believe it's true," meaning "objective."

If I say "I believe it's raining," the objective facts will prove or disprove my "belief." To the extent that my "belief" conforms to the objective facts, it will be a good guess...to the extent it does not, it will merely be fallacious and illusory.

When you say that something actually IS a thing, and that you BELIEVE that it is, you can only be saying, "This is my subjective estimation of what is objectively true in this case." Otherwise, "is" means no more than "is a wild guess at something that has no answer": so what's the meaning of the "guess" then?

What are you "guessing" at, or "subjectively assessing," when you've already insisted there is, and can be, no answer?

[RCSaunders]

Actually, I can see you don't.

You haven't figured out that Theists do not regard God as "invented." It seems like you cannot imagine anybody thinking in any way that you do not, so you are inclined to imagine they are operating in some kind of knowing bad-faith.

Our ancestors invented thousands of gods and other supernatural things - and believed in their existence as fervently as you believe in your god. But, of course, your god is the only real one.

Of course.

Having any number of fake gods does not imply there is no real one. If there were a thousand fake "Peters," that would not make you not exist.

But we are not. We believe what we say.

It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier

I can see you're not paying close enough attention to what I say.

I said that IF your ontology (or better, theology) was correct, you WOULD BE correct. However, I believe your theology to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then so is your conclusion that nothing can warrant an objective moral truth.

It's interesting that I can fully understand your perspective, even while not agreeing with your suppositions, but you seem to find it impossible to get outside your own suppostions. Most curious.

That there are no moral facts doesn't mean morality is dead.

Actually, it does. If "dead" means "having no real or objective warrant," then indeed, morality is dead.

...value is in the eye of the valuer, and is necessarily subjective, even if the valuer is a god.

Well, nobody here believes in merely "a god," one among many.

But God is the Supreme Being and Creator, by definition. His valuations are objective. There isn't an alternate or equally definitive assessment; and all subjective guesses are only as good as their proximity to the objective truth of why God made what He made, and what He designed it for.

Action X is not consistent with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc; therefore, action X is morally wrong. (Nul point.)

Show that: why do you think it's a "nul point"? It's no good simply asserting that without reasons.

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

We don't know if things are morally right or wrong. We believe they are,

No, that won't work. "Believe" there has to mean "believe it's true," meaning "objective."

If I say "I believe it's raining," the objective facts will prove or disprove my "belief." To the extent that my "belief" conforms to the objective facts, it will be a good guess...to the extent it does not, it will merely be fallacious and illusory.

When you say that something actually IS a thing, and that you BELIEVE that it is, you can only be saying, "This is my subjective estimation of what is objectively true in this case." Otherwise, "is" means no more than "is a wild guess at something that has no answer": so what's the meaning of the "guess" then?

What are you "guessing" at, or "subjectively assessing," when you've already insisted there is, and can be, no answer?

You're only guessing that.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't know if things are morally right or wrong. We believe they are,

No, that won't work. "Believe" there has to mean "believe it's true," meaning "objective."

If I say "I believe it's raining," the objective facts will prove or disprove my "belief." To the extent that my "belief" conforms to the objective facts, it will be a good guess...to the extent it does not, it will merely be fallacious and illusory.

When you say that something actually IS a thing, and that you BELIEVE that it is, you can only be saying, "This is my subjective estimation of what is objectively true in this case." Otherwise, "is" means no more than "is a wild guess at something that has no answer": so what's the meaning of the "guess" then?

What are you "guessing" at, or "subjectively assessing," when you've already insisted there is, and can be, no answer?

You're only guessing that.

Heh.

No, it's analytically true. By using the word "believe," one can only be aspiring to be approximating the objective truth. "I believe you are right" means, "I assess that your claim will correspond to the actual facts," and "I believe you are wrong" means, "I am estimating that your claim will not correspond to the objective facts of the situation."

When I go outside, I see whether or not my "belief it is raining" was warranted.

[RCSaunders]

No, that won't work. "Believe" there has to mean "believe it's true," meaning "objective."

If I say "I believe it's raining," the objective facts will prove or disprove my "belief." To the extent that my "belief" conforms to the objective facts, it will be a good guess...to the extent it does not, it will merely be fallacious and illusory.

When you say that something actually IS a thing, and that you BELIEVE that it is, you can only be saying, "This is my subjective estimation of what is objectively true in this case." Otherwise, "is" means no more than "is a wild guess at something that has no answer": so what's the meaning of the "guess" then?

What are you "guessing" at, or "subjectively assessing," when you've already insisted there is, and can be, no answer?

You're only guessing that.

Heh.

No, it's analytically true. By using the word "believe," one can only be aspiring to be approximating the objective truth. "I believe you are right" means, "I assess that your claim will correspond to the actual facts," and "I believe you are wrong" means, "I am estimating that your claim will not correspond to the objective facts of the situation."

When I go outside, I see whether or not my "belief it is raining" was warranted.

So, it's what you see that determines if your belief is warranted?

What do you call a belief that is warranted?

[Immanuel Can]

So, it's what you see that determines if your belief is warranted?

No, not necessarily. Nobody said that. But in the case of "I believe it's raining," that's usually an adequate test; that, or sticking your head out in it, of course.

It's more like, "what the facts, carefully assessed disclose, you are warranted in believing."

[RCSaunders]

So, it's what you see that determines if your belief is warranted?

No, not necessarily. Nobody said that. But in the case of "I believe it's raining," that's usually an adequate test; that, or sticking your head out in it, of course.

It's more like, "what the facts, carefully assessed disclose, you are warranted in believing."

Whatever! You did not answer the second question:

"What do you call a belief that is warranted?"

Of course you don't have to answer it. I'm not an inquisitor, just curious.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

I argued there are moral facts, i.e. rape, pedophilia, female circumcision, slavery are wrong as a norm.

"As a norm" means nothing more than "as the arbitrary declaration of some society or individual." So that adds no information. And it still leaves humanity with no way of saying that these things are absolutely or unconditionally wrong.

So it's not merely some "religions" that are condoning such things: it's Atheism. Atheism, in fact, "condones" everything, ultimately.

This simply underlines the point (often attributed to Dostoevsky), "If God is dead, everything is permitted."

You are too hasty with "arbitrary" in this case.

What I proposed can be justified empirically.

First a hypothesis that is very probable.
Out of the ~8 billion people, how many would volunteer to be killed, rape, enslaved and the likes? Note "volunteer" not forced or coerced.
From the field of psychology and psychiatric, it is a only a rare % of people who will agree to be killed and maybe a bit more with rape and enslavement.
Even if we have 100,000 people, that is 0.00125% of the population.
Show me evidence to refute the above?

The above is represented by the inherent Moral Potential as a moral fact which is verified via neurosciences with psychology, psychiatry.

The above moral fact is the opposite of the evil fact or say sexual fact that there are a % of people who are driven to rape, kill or enslave.
Can you refute this drive is not a fact within humans?

[Peter Holmes]

Actually, I can see you don't.

You haven't figured out that Theists do not regard God as "invented." It seems like you cannot imagine anybody thinking in any way that you do not, so you are inclined to imagine they are operating in some kind of knowing bad-faith.

Our ancestors invented thousands of gods and other supernatural things - and believed in their existence as fervently as you believe in your god. But, of course, your god is the only real one.

Of course.

Having any number of fake gods does not imply there is no real one. If there were a thousand fake "Peters," that would not make you not exist.

True. But I do (at least appear to) exist. By contrast, to my knowledge there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of even one god. And, given the priors, the probablity that your god is not an invention - like the thousands of others - is extremely small, if not infinitesimal.

But we are not. We believe what we say.

It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier

I can see you're not paying close enough attention to what I say.

I said that IF your ontology (or better, theology) was correct, you WOULD BE correct. However, I believe your theology to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then so is your conclusion that nothing can warrant an objective moral truth.

It's interesting that I can fully understand your perspective, even while not agreeing with your suppositions, but you seem to find it impossible to get outside your own suppostions. Most curious.

This has nothing to do with ontology - what actually exists. As I've pointed out, even if a god exactly as you describe it exists, and even if we know clearly what it wants - its purpose for us - that still wouldn't mean there are moral facts. The claim 'this god wants X for us' is a factual assertion which logically can't entail the conclusion 'therefore X is morally right'. There's no way around the is/ought barrier.

That there are no moral facts doesn't mean morality is dead.

Actually, it does. If "dead" means "having no real or objective warrant," then indeed, morality is dead.

Actually, it doesn't. Your explanation, 'having no real or objective warrant', is circular, or begs the question.

...value is in the eye of the valuer, and is necessarily subjective, even if the valuer is a god.

Well, nobody here believes in merely "a god," one among many.

Makes no difference. Value is in the eye of the valuer. Suppose - heaven forfend - a god disvalues homosexuals and witches and wants them to be killed. That's a matter of opinion with which others can disagree. There's no such thing as objective value. The expression is incoherent.

But God is the Supreme Being and Creator, by definition. His valuations are objective. There isn't an alternate or equally definitive assessment; and all subjective guesses are only as good as their proximity to the objective truth of why God made what He made, and what He designed it for.

Nope. You can define your god till you're blue in the face, and it makes absolutely no difference. Its valuations are and must be its own valuations, which are subjective. You can cravenly submit to its valuations, of course, even if they're wicked. Up to you.

Action X is not consistent with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc; therefore, action X is morally wrong. (Nul point.)

Show that: why do you think it's a "nul point"? It's no good simply asserting that without reasons.

I've explained why it's a non sequitur many times - but here's why again. If a premise doesn't make a moral assertion - using 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', 'ought to' or 'should' - then a moral conclusion can't follow, because a conclusion can't introduce information not contained in the premise or premises. So an 'is' can't entail an 'ought'. The only way your conclusion can follow is if you assume inconsistency with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc is morally wrong, which begs the question. Sorry, but there's no way around the non sequitur fallacy.

But your alternative is this: Nobody created the universe, and nobody ever knows if or why rape, pedophelia, female circumcision or slavery are wrong, beyond the arbitrary declaration of some particular society or individual.

And that is why you've twice avoided answering the question about how you know these things are wrong. If your theory is correct, you actually have NO way of knowing that.

We don't know if things are morally right or wrong. We believe they are,

No, that won't work. "Believe" there has to mean "believe it's true," meaning "objective."

If I say "I believe it's raining," the objective facts will prove or disprove my "belief." To the extent that my "belief" conforms to the objective facts, it will be a good guess...to the extent it does not, it will merely be fallacious and illusory.

When you say that something actually IS a thing, and that you BELIEVE that it is, you can only be saying, "This is my subjective estimation of what is objectively true in this case." Otherwise, "is" means no more than "is a wild guess at something that has no answer": so what's the meaning of the "guess" then?

What are you "guessing" at, or "subjectively assessing," when you've already insisted there is, and can be, no answer?

Your analysis is incorrect. We often use 'believe' non-factually. For example, to say 'I believe X is beautiful' is not to say there is some factual or objective standard of beauty to which X conforms - that the aesthetic assertion 'X is beautiful' has a factual truth-value. And that's why there can be and are rational disagreements as to the ugliness or beauty of things.

And, pari passu, with moral assertions. No one thinks that the moral rightness or wrongness of, say, abortion is a factual matter that more knowledge can resolve. And moral objectivism collapses right there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But I also cannot help but see your mind is closed, and your grasp of Hume is sadly limited. So discussing it seems pointless: you don't even have a handle on the basic subject matter of the is-ought problem, it would seem.

So I'm content to let stand what has already been said. To say more, one would have to be dealing with somebody better informed.

IC, note this;

The Limit of Hume's Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34693

It is tedious having to reread the whole of Hume's work but I am slowing doing it to dig out more of the statement relevant to the above point.

Actually it is you who have a limited grasp of Hume and I don't believe you have even read his books other than echoing blindly what others had quoted re the 'is-ought' issue.

As I had stated earlier, you relied upon Hume No Ought From Is [NOFI] but is ignorant Hume is actually directing his condemnation of NOFI more strongly to theists, note this and mentioning God first;

I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with,
I have always remark’d, that
the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning,
and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not,
I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

Hume: Treatise
Book III: PART I.: of virtue and vice in general. SECTION I:
Moral Distinctions not deriv’d from Reason.

So don't try to use NOFI as a strong defense of your points when Hume is actually Thumping you at the back!

[Immanuel Can]

So, it's what you see that determines if your belief is warranted?

No, not necessarily. Nobody said that. But in the case of "I believe it's raining," that's usually an adequate test; that, or sticking your head out in it, of course.

It's more like, "what the facts, carefully assessed disclose, you are warranted in believing."

Whatever! You did not answer the second question:

"What do you call a belief that is warranted?"

Yeah, I sort of did: it's a belief that is the most appropriate interpretation of such empirical facts. Was that not obvious?

[Immanuel Can]

It is tedious having to reread the whole of Hume's work but I am slowing doing it to dig out more of the statement relevant to the above point.

Hume is actually directing his condemnation of NOFI more strongly to theists

What Hume thought he was doing, and what Hume's logic compels are two different questions.

Hume thought he was attacking Christianity, and other kinds of moralizing generally. What he was actually doing was undermining the possibility of secular morality.

What he never saw, but subsequent ethicists certainly have, was that his criticism had bigger consequences for the possibility of secular morality than it ever could for Christians.

Sorry. That's the truth. That you don't know it merely bespeaks your narrow focus on criticizing what you don't like, but ignoring the even bigger problems with what you do like. But maybe that's just human nature, so it's understandable.

Still, you should think about it. For what Hume says doesn't just question secular morality; if he was right, it renders is implausible entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

Having any number of fake gods does not imply there is no real one. If there were a thousand fake "Peters," that would not make you not exist.

True. But I do (at least appear to) exist. By contrast, to my knowledge there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of even one god.

I don't deny that you are telling the truth about that: you don't know any evidence for God, you say.

Well, who am I to doubt that you know no such evidence, if you say that's how it is?

That, however, falls short of being a fact of any consequence to anybody but you. You're surely not going to insist that just because you don't know something, nobody else can, are you?

I didn't think so.

But we are not. We believe what we say.

It's because you can't afford to recognise the blank fact of the is/ought barrier

I can see you're not paying close enough attention to what I say.

I said that IF your ontology (or better, theology) was correct, you WOULD BE correct. However, I believe your theology to be incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then so is your conclusion that nothing can warrant an objective moral truth.

It's interesting that I can fully understand your perspective, even while not agreeing with your suppositions, but you seem to find it impossible to get outside your own suppostions. Most curious.

This has nothing to do with ontology - what actually exists.

Yes, it does. Ontology precedes all. You can't say anything about what is true until you've already ruled on what exists to be considered as possibly true.

The claim 'this god wants X for us' is a factual assertion which logically can't entail the conclusion 'therefore X is morally right'.

Yes, it can.

Just as you are free to say what is the intended meaning of your own words, or what is the purpose of something you, yourself, create, so too God is the Master Arbiter of the meaning and value of everything He creates.

The only way the "is-ought" problem is even a problem is if that which exists is not a deliberate Creation of God, but some sort of accidental "happening," instead, as say Materialism has to imply.

Value is in the eye of the valuer.

It depends who the Valuer is.

When you and I evaluate something, we do it as fallible. God is not fallible. When He says why He created what He created, and what its ultimate value is, He's always right.

Suppose - heaven forfend - a god disvalues homosexuals and witches and wants them to be killed. That's a matter of opinion with which others can disagree.

There are at least two problems with that objection: one is that "others can disagree" means, according to your own account, that nothing more is happening than that fallible people are subjectively feeling a different way than that. The second is that it does not mean that killing homosexuals and witches is even bad. That is, if, as you say, there is no such thing as an objective moral value.

Action X is not consistent with a creator-god's purpose/nature/etc; therefore, action X is morally wrong. (Nul point.)

Show that: why do you think it's a "nul point"? It's no good simply asserting that without reasons.

I've explained why it's a non sequitur many times - but here's why again. If a premise doesn't make a moral assertion - using 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', 'ought to' or 'should' - then a moral conclusion can't follow, because a conclusion can't introduce information not contained in the premise or premises.

That begs the question of whether or not a truthful premise can be a mere "is." The Materialist assumption has to be that ALL premises are merely "is" premises. But the Christian presupposition is that premises always have a moral dimension, even when Materialists refuse to acknowledge that.

So what we have, again, is a difference of ontology. But what I am conceding to you, Peter, is that you are entirely right IF Materialism is true. However, what you're struggling with is the realization of what follows if Materialism is false, and Creationism is true.

For example, to say 'I believe X is beautiful' is not to say there is some factual or objective standard of beauty to which X conforms - that the aesthetic assertion 'X is beautiful' has a factual truth-value.

You're mixing two cases: aesthetics are a matter of human decision, of course. Find and dandy. But even you would not confuse them with empirical claims -- which you would regard as "is" claims, no?

So you would not, for example, say that the evaluation, "If you jump off the roof, you will break your leg" is an aesthetic claim, would you? And you would not say it was a moral claim either, would you? You would say it was an empirical fact.

So the analogy between aesthetics and facts is incorrect. If you want to believe that moral judgments are merely aesthetic, of course you can. But I think you're wrong. Moral judgments are factual judgments.

And empirically, you and I are going to find out who's right about that.

[Immanuel Can]

I argued there are moral facts, i.e. rape, pedophilia, female circumcision, slavery are wrong as a norm.

"As a norm" means nothing more than "as the arbitrary declaration of some society or individual." So that adds no information. And it still leaves humanity with no way of saying that these things are absolutely or unconditionally wrong.

So it's not merely some "religions" that are condoning such things: it's Atheism. Atheism, in fact, "condones" everything, ultimately.

This simply underlines the point (often attributed to Dostoevsky), "If God is dead, everything is permitted."

You are too hasty with "arbitrary" in this case.

It's not a pejorative. It's an accurate descriptor.

Nothing that is merely made up by individuals (or groups) can fail to be arbitrary. And that's never more clear than if you insist that there is no objective morality to which any of these could be compared.

Out of the ~8 billion people, how many would volunteer to be killed, rape, enslaved and the likes?

Totally irrelevant.

Who is obligated to care what anybody "volunteers" for, if everything is arbitrary anyway? So what if, say, people don't like to be raped or enslaved; there are people who like to DO it. Explain why they are duty-bound to care more about the victim or slave than they do about themselves.

Note "volunteer" not forced or coerced.

It won't matter, unless you can also prove that that which is "voluntary" is always also "the good" or "the right."

Do you have such a proof of the perfect correlation between "volunteer" and "right"?

Can you refute this drive is not a fact within humans?

It doesn't matter. Human beings have many "drives," and unless you can establish a correlation between "drive" and "right," this is also a pointless statement.

Human beings also have "drives" toward sexual rapacity, physical violence, theft, lying...are you going to say all those things are "right" merely because they are "drives"?