A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

(Borrowing from the late, great, Archbishop Fulton Sheen):

The above quote was not from Sheen but rather from Cardinal Newman.

Apologies to all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Excellent.

So I must conclude that you reject the view that one can be moral and disobey her (well formed) conscience.

IOW: a moral person must obey her conscience.

Now in #396 I explained the ambiguity of the word “must” that I see in this rather prescriptive statement.

If I shifted to a descriptive statement, “people that obey their conscience are moral people” I’m not sure that I can completely agree (though I can generally agree).

There are many situations in life for which there may be conflicting values. A person that values openess might follow their conscience to violate a confidentiality. Further examination might show the person is aware of their actions and their possible ramifications, feel justified, and feel to be acting moral. Situationally I might or might not agree with the person. (Real world example: was Edward Snowden acting moral? How do you think he evaluates the morality of his disclosures).

 

[PRmerger]

Now in #396 I explained the ambiguity of the word “must” that I see in this rather prescriptive statement.

So please explain your position on this assertion: a moral person must do good and avoid evil.

Do you agree with this statement? If so, how do you apply the word “must”?

If you disagree with this statement, how do you define a moral person?

 

[PRmerger]

(4) might fit what you’ve got in mind. But if it does then there may be another part of your assertion that someone “must obey her conscience” that hasn’t been shared that would identify this condition.

I don’t know what this means in bold. Could you please explain?

 

[PRmerger]

There are many situations in life for which there may be conflicting values. A person that values openess might follow their conscience to violate a confidentiality. Further examination might show the person is aware of their actions and their possible ramifications, feel justified, and feel to be acting moral. Situationally I might or might not agree with the person.

I don’t disagree with any of the above.

It is quite Catholic!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So please explain your position on this assertion: a moral person must do good and avoid evil.

That will depend on the intended usage of the word “must” here. If you are asserting that God (Yahweh) prescribes it, then it’s not something with which I agree.

Do you agree with this statement? If so, how do you apply the word “must”?

It’s a word I generally avoid using. I understand its to be as I’ve described in #396.

If you disagree with this statement, how do you define a moral person?

Depends. Like many other words and phrases there are multiple usages. It could be a person that has concern for the acceptability of various behaviours and conclusions. It could also be used to label a person whose apparent sense of what’s acceptable or not is compatible or similar with those of the person speaking (or being spoken to).

I asked a few of my associates this question earlier today. They said that unless the two people communication have significant overlap in their moral systems than to describe a person as “moral” might not carry much meaning. I have to agree with them. I can think of several people who would described as honorable, moral, and all around “Good” in their communities but not in other communities. I’m thinking about a guy that lived not far from me that owned a pizza shop (Chaudhry Rashid). In his religion marriage can only be dissolved in death. His daughter wanted to divorce to escape the arranged marriage she had with her cousin. So he did the “right” thing and killed her before she could divorce. The community that he is from before he came to the USA might describe him as an honorable and moralperson that saved his family from shame.

I don’t know what this means in bold. Could you please explain?

Take it to mean that there may be additional contextual information that you’ve got in mind that , if I knew it, might clear up to me exactly what your usage of the word “must” is.

 

[Bradski]

Incidentally, if you’re going with the “it doesn’t have to hurt a person to be wrong. A concept or idea or other entity can be hurt”…then…

Contraception: “The relationship is harmed”.
Homosexuality: “Society is harmed”.
Cheating on a test: “The school system is harmed”.
Masturbation: “The psyche is harmed”.

If contraception is going to damage your relationship, then don’t use it. If you think that people of the same sex falling in love with each other is harmful to society then I (and, as it stands at the moment, an increasing majority of people) will disagree. You got one right regarding the cheating. That is, if you gain an unfair advantage over someone. And personally speaking, my psyche is fine, thanks for asking.

Regardless of how you complete this sentence above from your viewpoint, "it’s wrong to kill someone because ___ ", in the end, you will only have an opinion. Someone else can have an opposite opinion.

You think that you couldn’t give any reasons why someone shouldn’t kill? If you kill someone, Porky, then they’ll be dead. Bereft of life. They will cease to exist. I can’t believe that you don’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion (‘well, you might say he’s dead, but that’s just your opinion!’). Are you a Python fan by any chance…?

Some morality is indeed relative. But that doesn’t mean all morality is relative.

I guess the objective ones are those declared to be as such by your particular denomination. We’ll agree to disagree.

Earlier I said this, referring to questioning everything (my emphasis):

But those things are up for debate. They have to be. We cannot and must not accept anything without questioning it.

To which you agreed:

Very Catholic, this!

But later, this (my emphasis again):

Because some things are debatable, Brad.

I’d just like to clear that up. Is everything debatable, or just some things?

 

[PRmerger]

I’d just like to clear that up. Is everything debatable, or just some things?

You are conflating two different concepts, Brad. “Up for questioning” and “debatable”.

We are not compelled to blindly accept anything. Everything can be “up for questioning”. We can scrutinize, ruminate, debate and discuss the issues presented before us.

But regarding the “everything is debatable”–well, no. You would agree that we wouldn’t debate whether female circumcision for the purpose of preventing a woman from sexual pleasure is right or wrong. The answer is clear, right?

 

[PRmerger]

That will depend on the intended usage of the word “must” here. If you are asserting that God (Yahweh) prescribes it, then it’s not something with which I agree.

No. I never assert, when in dialogue with atheists, that morality is prescribed by God.

So let’s dismiss that concept of God compelling the human person to do moral acts.

I ask you if you believe as an atheist that moral agents must do good and avoid evil.

Yes? Or no?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a word I generally avoid using. I understand its to be as I’ve described in #396.

Which definition? You cited 4.

And you actually never stated which one you use. You simply made references to whether I, PR, was using it in any of those 4 utilities.

Which definition again are you using?

 

[Bradski]

You are conflating two different concepts, Brad. “Up for questioning” and “debatable”.

I’m not seeing enough of a difference that makes any difference. As you say, everything can be up for questioning, and you therefore debate it.

Everything can be “up for questioning”. We can scrutinize, ruminate, debate and discuss the issues presented before us.

Exactly.

But regarding the “everything is debatable”–well, no. You would agree that we wouldn’t debate whether female circumcision for the purpose of preventing a woman from sexual pleasure is right or wrong. The answer is clear, right?

It’s clear to me. And to you. So there wouldn’t be much need for us to debate it with each other, although we obviously have thought about it (had an internal debate if nothing else) and have reasonable and coherent reasons for why we would say that it’s wrong. But it’s not wrong to a lot of people. And unless you physically force someone from doing it, you are going to have to enter into a debate with that person to show him why he shouldn’t be doing it. I’m sure you’d agree that simply saying ‘The church/the pope/the catechism/the bible says it’s wrong’ wouldn’t get you very far. You would have to expand on that and say: The church etc says it’s wrong because…’

That’s what the debate is for. To formulate a reasoned argument why something should be so. Of course, this always assumes that you are debating with a reasonable person who would accept a reasonable argument. If he won’t listen then maybe you could gather together all those who agree with him, then get a few hefty friends to hold him down and remove the end of his penis with a rusty razor blade.

If you could put up with all the screaming, that might work.

And to get the thread back on target, I’m sure that you realise that if we didn’t end up holding him down, the arguments which we’d use to win him over would be the same. You could skip the bit about ‘the church/the pope etc. No requirement to mention religion whatsoever.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Which definition? You cited 4.

And you actually never stated which one you use. You simply made references to whether I, PR, was using it in any of those 4 utilities.

I’ve stated I generally avoid using the word because of the ambiguities that come with using it. My only usage here is in response to some one else using it. The definitions I’ve applied to interpret it’s usage have already been shared and I’ve given responses for all the definitions that I’ve considered as possible being applicable. I don’t have any newer contextually relevant definitions for you.

Which definition again are you using?

Which definition(s) am I using to interpret the statements of others in this thread? It varies from one message to another. Some users have used it in a manner consistent with (4), some with (2), and so on. Not that any of this is relevant to further clarifying how you are using it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I ask you if you believe as an atheist that moral agents must do good and avoid evil.

Yes? Or no?

From my, atheist, POV it would still depend on how a lot of these terms are defined. I’d posit that good and evil have no objective meaning, so in that sense the statement is similar to “a musical agent must seek good music and avoid bad music.”

But if we have an agreed upon moral framework, then I’d still object to the notion that a moral agent is somehow obliged to do the actions labeled “good” and avoid those labeled “bad.”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’d still object to the notion that a moral agent is somehow obliged to do the actions labeled “good” and avoid those labeled “bad.”

You have free will. You can do whatever it is that you want.
I know, I always have. Even in my worst moments of cowardice, pretending otherwise I chose.

Do you believe that what you do has no impact on who you are?

 

[PRmerger]

But if we have an agreed upon moral framework, then I’d still object to the notion that a moral agent is somehow obliged to do the actions labeled “good” and avoid those labeled “bad.”

Why would you object? (Presupposing, of course, that we are talking about how to be a moral person.)

 

[PRmerger]

Which definition(s) am I using to interpret the statements of others in this thread?

No.

Which definition of “must” would you use to answer the question I posed.

Do you agree that a moral person must do good and avoid evil?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not seeing enough of a difference that makes any difference. As you say, everything can be up for questioning, and you therefore debate it.

Yep.

And some things have only one answer: “487 millimoles”. Or “Sunday, or Saturday at sundown”. Or “It is always wrong to rape someone”. Not debatable. But it’s fine to question and ruminate and figure out how the correct answer is 487 millimoles, or why it’s never right to rape someone.

Annnnndddd… some things are…debatable. “We could kill a cow for food or we could set it out to pasture and watch it chew its cud.” Both things are acceptably moral. “We could send our child to college, or we could give the money to a child in Bhutan who desperately wants a college education, given that our son is a laggard”. Both would be morally acceptable.

Not debatable. Debatable. Some things are one or the other.

But not everything is one or the other.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Why would you object? (Presupposing, of course, that we are talking about how to be a moral person.)

Ah, my mistake. Read “moral agent” to mean something like “thing which can make decisions based on morality.” But ya, I’d agree that a moral person must do moral things by definition, just as a triangle must have three sides and a skydiver has to jump out of airplanes.

 

[Bradski]

No.

Which definition of “must” would you use to answer the question I posed.

Do you agree that a moral person must do good and avoid evil?

Who defines good and evil? The person herself?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s clear to me. And to you. So there wouldn’t be much need for us to debate it with each other, although we obviously have thought about it (had an internal debate if nothing else) and have reasonable and coherent reasons for why we would say that it’s wrong.

Correct.

But it’s not wrong to a lot of people.

2 thoughts:

• Just because people debate about an issue doesn’t mean there isn’t one correct answer. IOW: absence of a consensus does not equal absence of truth.
• I think we would agree that even if folks don’t think it’s wrong to circumcise a girl to stop her from sexual pleasure…it is indeed wrong.

Are we agreed? Even if some folks don’t think [A] is wrong…it is indeed wrong.

Even if the adulterer doesn’t think what he’s doing is wrong…(hey! my wife doesn’t love me like I need to be loved so this is the very, very moral thing to do!)…we know that he is…OBJECTIVELY…wrong.