A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[PRmerger]

Comparing apples and oranges is an age-old, but still deplorable tactics to evade hard hitting questions.

Fine.

Let’s not make a comparison.

Let’s just answer the question, ok?

Do you think that this activity is morally permissible–killing your daughter for being raped?

 

[PRmerger]

Fine.

Let’s not make a comparison.

Let’s just answer the question, ok?

Do you think that this activity is morally permissible–killing your daughter for being raped?

Also, Vera, I am interested in knowing if you endorse this:

“I would never kill my daughter for being raped, but I could never tell someone else that he shouldn’t do this”.

Yes?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Fine.

Let’s not make a comparison.

Let’s just answer the question, ok?

Do you think that this activity is morally permissible–killing your daughter for being raped?

Can’t you read? I already answered your question in my previous post.
from previous post:

What could be more horrible than dragging down the honor of the family by allowing oneself to be raped? The bare minimum required to wash off the stigma is to kill the vile and disgusting woman who allowed this to happen! Maybe she even encouraged the rapist by having some indecent clothing, like not to cover herself completely. No rational person would disagree that simple killing is not a sufficient punishment for such a deed. More like burning her or burying her alive is more appropriate.

The honor of the family supersedes the life of the woman; any semi-rational person would agree with that! Don’t you agree? If so, then your sense of honor and justice is seriously deformed, and you deserve all the scorn the civilized people can pile upon you!

Also, Vera, I am interested in knowing if you endorse this:

“I would never kill my daughter for being raped, but I could never tell someone else that he shouldn’t do this”.

Yes?

Why wouldn’t I kill her? It is the “absolute and objective moral law inscribed on every person’s heart”. Yours, too. You just want to deny it, due to your warped sense of “morality”. The honor of God comes first. The heretics and atheists must be burned. The honor of the tribe comes next. The violators will be put to the sword. The honor of the family is the next one. The “whores” who allow themselves to be raped, must be killed (or maybe mutilated). That is the “moral law” inscribed onto your heart. Don’t deny it, embrace it.

By the way, your incessant attempts to evade the questions is getting rather boring and pathetic. Before you get the right to ask questions, you are obliged to answer the questions presented to you. That is not a moral obligation, rather elementary courtesy.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Fair point. Maybe a better analogy might be maths and absolute morality. Because that what seems to be argued from your side of the fence. That just as there are mathematical truths (the square on the hypotenuse etc), then there are moral truths ‘out there’ waiting for us to find them. Just as it is more the case that we discover these mathematical truths and we can’t individually decide what they should be, then absolute truth is there for us to discover. Somehow.

Yes.

Also, I, too, think that morality is innate on some level. But, I don’t think admitting that is necessary to the specific point I am trying to illustrate, hence my comment to Vera.

 

[goout]

First you establish that morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good. Otherwise you end up going round in circles about what is prohibited, and there’s always a wild-hair exception to prohibitions. We see this all the time in these discussions.

Is it a wrong question: “should one walk stark naked on the beach in broad daylight”? In many western societies public nudity is “indecent” and therefore “immoral”. In other societies it is simply: “ho-hum”… “who cares”?

Thank you for the demonstration.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, if someone tries to argue that a father who kills his daughter for having the audacity of being raped does so because, hey, “Isn’t the moral law inscribed on every person’s heart”?

I would respond with: this demonstrates a rather impoverished view of Scripture. Or, it limns a rather fundamentalist view of Romans. Or, at the very least, it shows that the critic has not actually read the verse she’s referencing.

Here’s what the verse in Romans says:

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them

That is, WHEN a person endorses the correct moral view, even if she’s not a Christian, (that is, even if she is an atheist, Sikh, Muslim, Pastafarian), she demonstrates that she has, indeed, the law in her heart.

That little 4 letter word ought not be missed.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Do you think that this activity is morally permissible–killing your daughter for being raped?

By whose ethical/moral system? I hope you don’t think that there is only ONE ethical system.

I would respond with: this demonstrates a rather impoverished view of Scripture. Or, it limns a rather fundamentalist view of Romans. Or, at the very least, it shows that the critic has not actually read the verse she’s referencing.

Or s/he is being sarcastic.

That is, WHEN a person endorses the correct moral view, even if she’s not a Christian, (that is, even if she is an atheist, Sikh, Muslim, Pastafarian), she demonstrates that she has, indeed, the law in her heart.

And that “correct moral view” somehow, magically coincides with your interpretation. Who wouldof thunk it? By the way… Pastafarian is NOT the same as Rastafarian.

Now after this long and unnecessary evasion let’s hear what does your “correct moral view” say about taking a stroll on a public beach stark naked in broad daylight. This is a direct question to you. What is your non-evasive, direct answer - if any?

Or, was your proposition: “Let’s just answer the question, ok?” only applicable to others, while you are exempt?

 

[goout]

By whose ethical/moral system? I hope you don’t think that there is only ONE ethical system.

sarcasm alert

Of course there’s not just one ethical system. It’s all relative.
Killing your daughter is relative.
So is slavery.
Genocide of the inferior races.
Stealing
Forced starvation (food is difficult to produce after all)
Killing helpless and aged

It’s all relative, depending on which system is popular, and whose system it is.
One thing is for sure, your way of thinking makes the evaluations easy.

And I suppose that ethical criteria is just as valid as any other…“how difficult are the evaluations, and how can we make them easier”?
Relativism makes it all very easy,.

 

[PRmerger]

By whose ethical/moral system?

Yours.

 

[Mort_Alz]

You know, this kind of reasoning would be an excellent start, IF ONLY you could follow it through.

There is no burden on me yet to follow it through since I have not tried to assert additional facts from it. Let’s just admit first that morality has to be rooted in a somewhat objective sense and then we can move from there.

You could continue from here. Tell us about that higher standard, and how is it applicable. Because so far you did not offer any argument, except: “we legitimately think…”. And that is not much of an argument. Neither “ethics”, nor “aesthetics” have an objective foundation. Most people agree that rape is “wrong”, just like most people agree that the Ninth Symphony is beautiful. But these are subjective opinions. There is no epistemological method which would separate the “moral” and “immoral” actions, just like there is no method to separate the “beautiful” music from the “mundane”.

I have offered an argument, actually, by a process of eliminating the alternative. I’ll try to refocus again: it is irrational to become morally outraged at anything while also holding that morality is a totally artificial creation of human beings. THERFORE, (if we want to go on saying that our moral outrages are rational), we must admit that our moral positions are rooted in some kind of objective truth. The implications of that are something we have not yet explored in this thread. At least, I have not suggested anything.

Well, saying: “it is not good enough” is just an opinion, UNLESS you provide something better. You see, I am open to suggestions, I am open to arguments and if you can provide a better way, I will be happy to embrace and accept it. But the argument cannot be something like: “show me a society where raping a child was CONSIDERED moral”. First, because it is not an argument, and second, it is easy to find such an example. In some cultures the concept of “marital rape” is simply nonexistent. The idea that the wife can be reluctant to engage in a sexual act simply does not exist. The wife is supposed to accommodate the husband any time, no exceptions. What kind of objective argument can you present against it?

I don’t need to provide a better way to prove that one way is logically inconsistent with our human behavior about morality. That only gives us one other option, really, and I don’t necessarily know what its implications are. Perhaps we can work together to find out.

Regarding your example question, an objective argument against it can be that it is an objective fact that sentient human beings’ bodily autonomy should not ordinarily be infringed upon. We can follow the reasoning, then: therefore, it is immoral for a husband to take sex from his wife without her consent because it violates this principle.

Actually, this is a misunderstanding. I say that the question: “is action X moral” is an irrelevant question, UNLESS you can offer an objective method to separate the “moral” and “immoral” behavior. On the other hand, “is action X legal” is an objective question. Legality has nothing to do with “morality”, and the problem is that no one can provide a good definition of “morality”. At least I have never seen one.

For our purposes, morality can be as simple as the truth or falsehood of statements like “You shouldn’t hit your sister.” or “It is bad to hit your sister.” which are independent of legal considerations. Another way to think about morality is in an example which I gave that you did not address. That is, the minority European group opposing the slave trade on the grounds that it was morally wrong. Legality had nothing to do with it because the established legal system said the slave trade was ok. The minority group was saying it shouldn’t be legal because it is morally wrong. In other words, they were saying that the legal system was wrong according to some objective higher standard. That is morality.

I don’t think the question “is action X moral” is irrelevant. And, I don’t think you do, either, if you really think about it. That’s the only way you can challenge legal systems that are morally wrong (like the slave trade). I hardly think you are indifferent to the idea of slavery. The only way you can challenge a legal system that approves of slavery is to say that it shouldn’t be legal because it is objectively wrong.

On the other hand, do not confuse mathematical truths - which are based upon axioms - with alleged “moral truths”, which are based upon opinions.

Well, this is precisely the point about which we disagree, so…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My mistake, I apologize. I have always been told that there is some “innate moral law”, usually followed by the phrase “inscribed on the heart”. If you wish to distance yourself from this concept, that is fine by me.

On the other hand, do not confuse mathematical truths - which are based upon axioms - with alleged “moral truths”, which are based upon opinions.

So if I understand you correctly, there are no “moral axioms.”

Would you be arguing, for example, that we should do good and avoid evil is not a moral axiom?

If not, why not?

Is that just my opinion?

Would the preference for doing evil and avoiding good be just another opinion?

Exactly how do you distinguish an opinion from an axiom?

 

[PRmerger]

Or s/he is being sarcastic.

Sarcasm, as John Knowles says, is the protest of the weak.

I rarely use it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Vera

If I say “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line,” that is a mathematical axiom because it is self evident and does not require proof.

If I say “We should do good and avoid evil,” that is a moral axiom because it is self evident and does not require proof.

Neither is an opinion.

Anyone who denies mathematical axioms is irrational

Anyone who denies moral axioms is insane (as in the case of the Marquis de Sade, who was imprisoned for moral insanity).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is no burden on me yet to follow it through since I have not tried to assert additional facts from it.

I did not mention any “burden”. I accepted that it might be a good starting point. But until you can define what “moral” and “immoral” might be, and offer an epistemological method to decide if an act is “moral” or “immoral” - there is nothing to talk about. But if you are not interested, it is fine by me.

Would you be arguing, for example, that we should do good and avoid evil is not a moral axiom?

Since the words “good” and “evil” are undefined, your question is meaningless.

If I say “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line,” that is a mathematical axiom because it is self evident and does not require proof.

It is only true on a Euclidean surface. And the Euclidean geometry is NOT absolute. Neither is any “ethical system”.

No wonder that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are not the primary branches of philosophy. The first branch is “metaphysics” (what exists?), the second branch is “epistemology” (how do we know it?). “Ethics” and “aesthetics” can come only after these branches. After all “ethics” does not deal with facts, it deals with “ought”-s.

But since PR is unwilling to answer the question I posited a couple of times, I wonder if you can present an answer? The question is “Is walking naked on a public beach in broad daylight moral or immoral - objectively and absolutely”? Or maybe SOMETIMES it is acceptable, and other times not?

 

[PRmerger]

Now after this long and unnecessary evasion let’s hear what does your “correct moral view” say about taking a stroll on a public beach stark naked in broad daylight. This is a direct question to you. What is your non-evasive, direct answer - if any?

I don’t think there is a correct moral view on whether it’s permissible to take a stroll on a public beach stark naked.

However…let’s be clear: just because there are somethings which have no correct moral answer, doesn’t mean that EVERY thing in the moral universe has no correct moral answer.

To wit: honor killings.

In every single culture, in every single time period, you would say: if a parent kills a daughter because she was raped, this is WRONG.

It’s wrong for YOU to do it.

And it’s wrong for a tribal chieftain to do it.

There is NO SUCH THING in this scenario of: I wouldn’t do it, but if you think it’s the moral thing to do, it’s moral for you.

QED

You believe in moral absolutes.

 

[PRmerger]

You believe in moral absolutes.

I want this to be loud and clear to all readers of this thread: both contributors as well as lurkers:

[SIGN1]Because there are Moral Absolutes does not mean that there are ONLY Moral Absolutes. [/SIGN1]

The inability to think outside of ONLYs is a faculty, weirdly, of both atheists and fundamentalist.

I have heard so many weirdly unnecessary ONLYs that it truly boggles.

Bible ONLY.
Faith ONLY.
The King James Version of the Bible ONLY.
Science ONLY.
Intercessory Prayer should be done in private ONLY (yep, that’s actually a thing with some fundamentalists)
Jesus is Man ONLY.
Jesus is God ONLY.
We should follow the words of Jesus ONLY.
We should follow the words of Paul ONLY.

Why, oh why, we Catholics ask, must an ONLY be inserted where none are necessary!

And be forewarned: someone is going to pose this: yeah, well Catholics believe in [fill in the blank ONLY].

And that will prompt a shrug, because, of course, we Catholics aren’t “There should never be any ONLYs ONLY” folks.

 

[PRmerger]

It is possible that morality is not objective, but, if that is the case, then we really ought to change our behavior IF we want to say that we are truly “rational.”

Right.

And if that’s the case that morality is not objective, then no moral relativist should be protesting ISIS, participating in marches for human rights…or even coming here and arguing with another person that her position (abortion should be legal! women should be paid equally! husbands shouldn’t beat their wives!) should be embraced.

But yet…here they come, arguing for their position.

#theirbehaviorspeaksotheirendorsementofmoralabsolutes

No moral relativists says: you should like the color red! Turnips are the best root vegetable! No one should ski in November!

Those are all…preferences.

 

[Gorgias]

Sarcasm, as John Knowles says, is the protest of the weak.

I rarely use it.

Umm… that itself was sarcasm… right?

 

[Mort_Alz]

I did not mention any “burden”. I accepted that it might be a good starting point. But until you can define what “moral” and “immoral” might be, and offer an epistemological method to decide if an act is “moral” or “immoral” - there is nothing to talk about. But if you are not interested, it is fine by me.

Well, what epistemological method do you suppose the European abolitionists used to determine that the slave trade was wrong and that their society was wrong to legally allow it?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Well, what epistemological method do you suppose the European abolitionists used to determine that the slave trade was wrong and that their society was wrong to legally allow it?

Your question is premature. You need to give a detailed definition of “moral” and “immoral”, and then present an epistemological method to decide about any specific act, whether it is moral or immoral. Without such a preamble we would surely talk past each other.