A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Charlemagne_III]

See what I did there? I have asked a question about a moral matter that contains no conditions. It has no regard for circumstances. It is devoid of context. And I’d like an answer please. Which puts anyone who holds that absolute morality exists in something of a quandary in attempting to answer it. Because for it to be a statement of absolute morality, you cannot, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT ABSOLUTE MORALITY MEANS, add anything to it. No conditions. No particular circumstances. No context. The answer can be YES or NO, either of which will do to prove your point.

This is an arbitrary and capricious statement of why there is no absolute morality.

Adding a condition to an act does not make it relatively right or wrong.

It is absolutely wrong to sexually abuse a child. There is no condition under which it would be right.

It is absolutely wrong to steal your neighbor’s property, even when you add the condition that he will never miss it.

It is absolutely wrong to enslave others, even when they submit to enslavement.

It is absolutely wrong to deny God (for the simple reason that you cannot be absolutely certain there is no God).

Add all the conditions you like. There are many things that are absolutely wrong, some even more wrong than others under any condition you can imagine.

 

[edwest2]

But of course you are absolutely certain of this.

Which is why there are no moral absolutes.

Which is why today America has devolved in a moral sewer.

The media is in the sewer. People just need to stop rolling in the gunk with them. Turn off the TV, the radio and get away from internet “social” media if you can. Ignore the magazines. At the first sign of profanity, dump it.

There CAN"T be ANY moral absolutes, so I, meaning all who believe this, can do ANYTHING. JUSTIFY ANYTHING. That leads to a dictatorship of claiming to not KNOW the difference between killing a chicken and a human being. Don’t like it? We have a camp for people like you.

We’ll call it the National Socialist Dictatorship’s Working Policy. They say they can’t decide but they decide all the time.

They decide all the time.

Ed

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. Not without regard for them.

We evaluate all moral questions with regard to circumstances.

We always “regard” circumstances.

Sometimes, however, they are irrelevant.

But, let’s be quite clear about this: it’s never permissible to disregard the circumstances.

This is utterly ridiculous.

No one has ever asserted that we don’t give context to a moral situation.

Except the Catholic Church. The “intrinsically evil” actions are ALWAYS evil, no matter what the circumstances might be.

I guess your understanding of the Catholic teachings is seriously “impoverished”. Masturbation (after the age of reason) is ALWAYS evil, whatever the circumstances might be. Sex with artificial contraception is ALWAYS evil, no matter what the circumstances might be. Homosexual sex is ALWAY evil, whatever the circumstances might be.

Of course, these utterances are NOT directed toward you. (I could not care less what your incorrect answers might be.) They are simply an à-propos for showing how incorrect and “impoverished” YOUR understanding of the Catholic teaching is.

 

[Aloysium]

FYI for anyone interested in understanding the Catholic position, this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, part of a larger section on chastity. For the “lawyers” looking for loopholes, check out the very reasonable qualifications in the last sentence.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

Not sure how the post I was responding to ended up below mine.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. Not without regard for them.

We evaluate all moral questions with regard to circumstances.

We always “regard” circumstances.

Sometimes, however, they are irrelevant.

But, let’s be quite clear about this: it’s never permissible to disregard the circumstances.

This is utterly ridiculous.

No one has ever asserted that we don’t give context to a moral situation.

Except the Catholic Church. The “intrinsically evil” actions are ALWAYS evil, no matter what the circumstances might be.

I guess your understanding of the Catholic teachings is seriously “impoverished”. Masturbation (after the age of reason) is ALWAYS evil, whatever the circumstances might be. Sex with artificial contraception is ALWAYS evil, no matter what the circumstances might be. Homosexual sex is ALWAY evil, whatever the circumstances might be.

Of course, these utterances are NOT directed toward you. (I could not care less what your incorrect answers might be.) They are simply an à-propos for showing how incorrect and “impoverished” YOUR understanding of the Catholic teaching is.

 

[PseuTonym]

Note the requirement that an absolute statement is one devoid of context and has no regard for circumstances. It is unconditional. That is, a statement about morality that is absolute is independent of the conditions. It is morally right or wrong in itself with no conditional clauses. Because that would make it…? Yes, at the back there? A relative statement. That’s right. That is, one that is relative to the circumstances.

Specifying the topic “about morality” isn’t enough to provide a clear explanation of your alleged distinction between “absolute” and “conditional” statements. The alleged distinction – if it is a genuine distinction – should be possible to analyze in a context that allows for greater clarity and less controversy. However, this discussion already occurred, and you abandoned it without providing answers:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12816486&postcount=97

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12822706&postcount=100

 

[Bradski]

Specifying the topic “about morality” isn’t enough to provide a clear explanation of your alleged distinction between “absolute” and “conditional” statements. The alleged distinction – if it is a genuine distinction – should be possible to analyze in a context that allows for greater clarity and less controversy. However, this discussion already occurred, and you abandoned it without providing answers:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12816486&postcount=97

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12822706&postcount=100

Thanks, buddy. But if I want to discuss maths I’ll join a maths forum.

 

[PseuTonym]

Here’s a blazingly simple question:

Is a statement conditional?

See what I did there? I have asked a question about the nature of an unspecified statement, and I provided no information whatsoever about the statement. The question has no regard for distinguishing between different statements. It is devoid of context. And I’d like an answer please. Which puts anyone who holds that we can categorize any given statement as either conditional or absolute in something of a quandary in attempting to answer it.

The answer can be YES (any given statement is conditional) or NO (any given statement isn’t conditional), either of which will do to prove the point.

Perhaps someone thinks: I‘ll just change ‘statement’ to ‘conditional statement’ and I can get around this, because everyone knows that a conditional statement is always conditional. Except that what you have then done is create a new conjecture that, although plausible, is conditional, and relative, and non-absolute. That is you have created the following conjecture: ‘Yes, a statement is conditional – if the statement being examined is a conditional statement.’ However, because we used the word “if” to introduce a qualification, we are forced to put the plausible conjecture into the junk heap of what is merely relative.

Any resemblance of the above to the following may or may not be a coincidence:
Rhetorical tactics on display

 

[o_mlly]

… I‘ll just change ‘killing’ to ‘murdering’ and I can get around this, because everyone knows that murder is always wrong. Except that what you have then done is make the statement conditional. That is: ‘Yes, killing a person is wrong – if it is unlawful and premeditated.’ Which is…? Yes at the back again? A relative statement? Correct. Well done.

To understand “intrinsically evil” acts, one may call to mind a verb which describes a morally neutral human act, e.g. eating. Now invent a word which qualifies that action to have an immoral or evil objective, e.g. gluttony. Gluttony becomes an intrinsically evil act. The same qualification can be used with any neutral human act: speaking (lying), procreating (fornicating), taking (stealing), wanting (lusting), killing (murder), etc.

Intrinsically evil acts are always subsets or qualified acts of a larger set of otherwise descriptively morally neutral human acts in which an evaluative circumstance exists that renders the act evil in its object.

 

[Mort_Alz]

To deny natural rights, a natural moral law, and natural justice leads to a corollary that only might makes right or he who has the gold makes the rules. Society either exiles, medicates, or imprisons such sociopaths. If the sociopath has political power or gold then: “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Not unless it is in fact A FACT that it is wrong to contribute to society’s demise in such a way. But, if it is only factual because we declare it to be factual, then it is not objectively true and our position is no better than the psychopath’s position; except the psychopath can actual write a reasonable argument for his position.

One cannot design a moral code for the psychopath. Do we reason with infants? No, nor does society argue with psychos rather society exiles, medicates or imprisons them.

That is precisely my point. Unless we are objectively right about our morals over and against the psychopath, then we are just as unreasonable as infants, too. Moral truths must get their truth from a higher source than from a portion of humanity’s arbitrary opinion or it is no more true than another. That is where my argument comes in that it is irrational to behave with a moral sense and to deny anything which would give that sense validity. If morality comes exclusively from nature; if nature, by itself, produced morality, then that morality could be valid since nature can be considered higher than two disagreeing people groups. But only a nature that had a personality could actually produce a valid morality. If nature is just as irrational as two bodies colliding because of the laws of physics, then morality is an illusion. But we certainly behave as if it is no illusion.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Our instincts are guides. We naturally disagree about who, for example, we should help. And if we should indeed help. And to what extent.

I completely agree. Our instincts help inform us about what is morally correct but they do not determine it. So, then, that moral sense that informs us of what is the moral course of action whenever our instincts compete with one another cannot itself also be an instinct; especially since it is often the case that our moral sense will indicate that we ought to take the course of action that will involve suppressing the stronger competing instinct. It is in that sense that morality cannot get its origin from nature exclusively unless nature has a personality or an intelligence over and above our own; because only something with personality or intelligence can instruct with authority that action X is wrong in this instance or that action X is right. Mere unintelligent matter coming together in any possible way can never produce moral truths.

 

[Mort_Alz]

We can’t discuss ethics with a psycopath, but we can with each other. And argue about it because we will both have different opinions how we should act upon those natural instincts.

Yes, and often those disagreements come from placing a different amount of value on each of the things which we do value; or placing a different amount of importance on one instinct over another. In that sense, you really can argue with a psychopath over morals because they are only doing the same thing. A psychopath can at least perceive the moral truth that their own well-being is good and they act accordingly. Where we would argue with them is when their actions promoting their own well-being compromise another’s. We would say “You can’t do that, it’s wrong.” And they would reply, “How can it be? It’s helping me.” We would say “because it hurts so-and-so.” They would say “and?” And we can only say at that point “And it’s WRONG to put your own well-being at the expense of another if you can do it another way.” And they would simply disagree with us. They would disagree about the amount of importance others’ well-being should have in moral considerations. If we are right only because we possess a feeling that a psychopath doesn’t, then we aren’t really more in the right than them unless our feelings are validated by something higher.than the both of us.

 

[PseuTonym]

When proposing the argument from morality to an atheist, the most common objection I have encountered is that morality, in fact, is not objective. It is not something that exists independent of human thought because humans have invented it. Morality has to be a human invention because there are different moral systems which exist in humanity that contradict one another. There cannot be an overarching moral law to which all men are bound because not all men agree on the moral law.

Jellybeans are a human invention, and if there is a contest to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, then there are almost certainly going to be a variety of estimates made. However, it would obviously not be legitimate to conclude – based merely on the fact that a variety of different numbers are submitted as estimates – that there is no one quantity that is the number of jellybeans in the jar.

Of course, we could invent a fantasy scenario. The people who submit estimates are omniscient. They know how many jellybeans are in the jar. However, they don’t submit their guesses at the same moment in time, and the contest organizer is omnipotent, directly changing the number of jellybeans in the jar from one moment to the next, without any method other than direct, paranormal mind control.

 

[PRmerger]

However, it would obviously not be legitimate to conclude – based merely on the fact that a variety of different numbers are submitted as estimates – that there is no one quantity that is the number of jellybeans in the jar.

Egg-zactly.

 

[Gorgias]

Then, for heaven’s sake, any determination that you make is RELATIVE to said circumstances. A statement of absolute morality BY DEFINITION contains no context. It contains no relative clause. It is devoid of context.

Killing is wrong.

That is an absolute statement BY DEFINITION. Add any context, add any conditional clause, add anything AT ALL to that statement and it ceases to be an absolute statement. You have to answer Yes or No to the question in the previous post AS IT STANDS because only then you will be making an absolute statement about a moral matter.

We’re going to have a difficult proceeding, then. You’re insisting on a particular definition of ‘absolute’ that doesn’t jive with the way that discussions of morality are framed up.

If you want to say “absolute only means ‘devoid of any context whatsoever’,” then Vera is almost talking about what you’re asserting: this sounds a little bit like – especially in the context of Catholic moral theology – those things we’d call “intrinsic moral evils.” Catholics would assert that they exist, but not that they are the sum total of the categories in play. However, it all comes down to how you frame up the situation. (And, after all, isn’t that the real ‘trick’ in talking about morality? The way you frame it up tends to be an attempt to steer the conclusion, in my experience.)

So, you might ask “is killing morally wrong?” And a Catholic would reply, “that depends.” If the ‘killing’ we’re talking about is the intentional killing of a baby in the womb, then we’d reply “yes – always and in every circumstance!” We would call that an ‘intrinsic evil’ – that is, any circumstances that you add to that discussion do not change the answer, ever. (My guess is, though, that you’d object, "but, you’ve just added circumstances! That’s no longer an ‘absolute’ statement!)

My gut feel is that we could play a game in which any situation we would raise could be abstracted by you sufficiently to make it seem like it’s no longer ‘absolute’ under your definition. So, by those rules, you’ve just constructed a tautology that’s pretty unhelpful to aid us in getting to a solution.

But, since we’ve seen that you have a particular definition of ‘absolute’, lemme ask the question: if you have problems with an ‘absolute’ morality (I would, too, if I defined ‘absolute’ the way you do!), do you have problems with an ‘objective’ morality? That seemed to be the direction you were headed with the ‘reasonable person’ approach, before it veered into this ‘devoid of circumstance’ tangent…

 

[Gorgias]

Of course. Since there is no evidence for any kind of “afterlife”, I would not waste time and energy on hoping for one.

That depends on the standard of evidence you require. If you hold for empirical evidence, then you’re correct: we can’t pick up a ruler or a meter and demonstrate it empirically. Of course, since we’re talking about something outside the physical universe, such a standard is unreasonable.

Nonsense. The “eternal life” as depicted by Christianity is not something I would desire. Either eternal boredom in a frozen, unchanging existence, or eternal suffering of epic proportions. Neither one appeals to me.

It wouldn’t appeal to me, either. The problem is, you’re depicting it inaccurately. Heaven isn’t “eternal boredom”. But, if you convince yourself that it is, then it’s pretty easy to reject it.

Your problem is this obsession with “ultimate” destination. Just because today’s delicious meal will leave us hungry tomorrow it does not make it “meaningless” or “valueless”.

Who would assert that? You’re pretty good at constructing straw men…

 

[Aloysium]

Regarding psychopaths:

There doesn’t seem to be a reliable definition, as the term is commonly used. I believe the psychiatric term for such people is antisocial personality disorder. I would use it to describe someone who has no moral sense, like people who cannot perceive physical pain. Probably there is some area of the brain that is poorly developed resulting in an incapacity to conceptualize the reality of the moral structure to human activity. I’m sure that the social and mental dysfunction could also be related to upbringing.

The point was presented above that one could argue with a psychopath about morality. I don’t think so. It’s my sense of certain types of people that they care as little about their future self as they do others. Hence the substance abuse and involvement with the law. There’s also a disconnect between what they say and what is. The value of a statement is not in how it approximates the truth but rather the impact it makes in the situation. You can have no honest discussion, never get to an understanding because what is being said is strategic rather than an honest opinion. They will lie to themselves as readily as they will lie to others. Actually, it may not even be lying, but simply hogwash, meant to sway or irritate you and having no basis whatsoever in reality.

 

[PseuTonym]

It’s my sense of certain types of people that they care as little about their future self as they do others.

More interesting are those who do care about the future, but who have the other characteristics quoted below …

You can have no honest discussion, never get to an understanding because what is being said is strategic rather than an honest opinion. It may not even be lying, but simply hogwash, meant to sway or irritate you and having no basis whatsoever in reality.

Some such people are capable of inventing systems of morality, or at least of systems of attitudes, tactics, and ideology that look as though they are systems of morality. As a consequence, there will inevitably exist a variety of different and conflicting things that look as though they are systems of morality.

It is a simple analogy: there is obviously such a thing as counterfeit money. Why not counterfeit morality?

We again see a counter-example to the reasoning in the Original Post of this thread. Does the existence of a variety of different kinds of counterfeit money prove that no money is real? I hope that the answer is an obvious “No.”

Perhaps somebody could attempt an experiment, trying to see how many people can be persuaded that chemists conspired to list an element called “gold” in the periodic table, and that there is actually no such substance. Gold is a hoax! You don’t believe me? Okay, there is a well-documented substance known popularly as “fool’s gold.” QED.

 

[PRmerger]

Some such people are capable of inventing systems of morality, or at least of systems of attitudes, tactics, and ideology that look as though they are systems of morality. As a consequence, there will inevitably exist a variety of different and conflicting things that look as though they are systems of morality.

It is a simple analogy: there is obviously such a thing as counterfeit money. Why not counterfeit morality?

We again see a counter-example to the reasoning in the Original Post of this thread. Does the existence of a variety of different kinds of counterfeit money prove that no money is real? I hope that the answer is an obvious “No.”

Perhaps somebody could attempt an experiment, trying to see how many people can be persuaded that chemists conspired to list an element called “gold” in the periodic table, and that there is actually no such substance. Gold is a hoax! You don’t believe me? Okay, there is a well-documented substance known popularly as “fool’s gold.” QED.

Yep.

It’s bemusing to me to think that logical, reasonable people argue “Because there’s disagreement on [X] that means we can’t really know if [X] is true”.

In all of life’s experiences we know that there’s oh-so-very-often disagreement on [X], but most of the time that doesn’t cause us to deny that [X] is true.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That depends on the standard of evidence you require. If you hold for empirical evidence, then you’re correct: we can’t pick up a ruler or a meter and demonstrate it empirically. Of course, since we’re talking about something outside the physical universe, such a standard is unreasonable.

Not unreasonable at all, since the realm where this afterlife is supposed to exist also interferes with our physical universe, and as such it is subject to the interface problem. We could detect it, if it existed. As a matter of fact, the interface goes both ways - people pray for something, and - supposedly, once in a blue moon - they receive a positive result. Except when it does not happen. In these cases you asked for the wrong thing. Or God purposefully fudged the result, because you wanted to test his existence.

I have no a-priori request to provide physical evidence, but what else is there? Revelation? That is supposed to happen within our physical realm. Testimonials? What differentiates testimonials from invented stories? The only “evidence” you can provide is some ancient writ, loaded with physical and logical errors. When one points out these errors, the answer is: “but the Bible is NOT a science book”. Why not? If it is inspired by God (what the heck is an “inspiration”?) there should be no errors, there would be no need for interpretation.

It wouldn’t appeal to me, either. The problem is, you’re depicting it inaccurately. Heaven isn’t “eternal boredom”. But, if you convince yourself that it is, then it’s pretty easy to reject it.

Ok, let is be eternal “joy”. Equally horrifying prospect. Not that anyone can say anything actual about it. The only conjecture is that God dwells in heaven, where there is no time and change. And existence without change is stasis… eternal joy or eternal suffering are equally horrifying. “Varietas delectat” - variety is the spice of life.

Who would assert that? You’re pretty good at constructing straw men…

You (not personally “you”) do every time when you assert that only the “ultimate”, “final” end result matters, whatever happens here is of practically no importance. Who cares about the immeasurably short suffering here and now, when infinite bliss awaits on the other side? No, not a straw man at all.