Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Bradski]

And how does an outcome devoid of recognizable harm ensure morality of the act? And what is harm in your worldview other than what you define it to be?

You are bending what I am writing to make it fit what you think you want to read.

I haven’t said that anything that does no harm is therefore moral. Some things are entirely amoral. Me making a cup of tea is neither moral or immoral. But if I boil the water on the burning body of your child, then it becomes immoral. Because ( no surprise here) harm is being done.

But I have said, and will keep saying, that anything that does no harm cannot be considered immoral. Again, give me an example of anything at all where no harm is done where you would consider it to be an immoral act.

 

[Rau]

You are bending what I am writing to make it fit what you think you want to read.

Not knowingly…

But I have said, and will keep saying, that anything that does no harm cannot be considered immoral.

As long as you understand there is no deep insight here - that statement simply reflects your view on the nature of morality.

Again, give me an example of anything at all where no harm is done where you would consider it to be an immoral act.

The actual production of harm is not relevant since the morality of an act cannot depend on the unknowable. Acts may be immoral, even where good results (let alone no harm), if either:

• they are done with ill intent;
• the thing done itself is directed to a “wrong” end, ie. one that is contrary to love of God, self or neighbour.

This is my concept of morality - I accept it may not be yours.

Again - God enters into the debate (though you may disagree about His place, given your worldview) with the result that morality (in the Catholic worldview) is tied to a source beyond ourselves.

 

[Bradski]

Acts may be immoral, even where good results (let alone no harm), if either:

• they are done with ill intent;
• the thing done itself is directed to a “wrong” end, ie. one that is contrary to love of God, self or neighbour.

I think we are fine tuning here.

Yes, I agree that something can be immoral if no harm is done but if the act is done will ill intent. For example, it is immoral to shoot at an innocent person with the intent to do harm even if you miss.

In your second example I will ignore the reference to God. It is irrelevant when considering harm. But you are taking on my point in saying that it may be immoral if directed to a ‘wrong’ end.

If you won’t accept my reasonable definition of ‘harm’ as being representative of an immoral act then why should I accept your definition of ‘wrong’? If you don’t want a circular argument, then how do you describe ‘wrong’ as being something other than that which is defined by God?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The solution is easy, as usual. “Harm” can only be done to a living being. (Now this brings along a problem of “what” constitutes a living being, but that is a different discussion.) If one takes a piece of stone and chips away parts of it, it will be neither harmful nor beneficial to that stone. The act is “amoral”. You cannot “hurt” the water by separating its molecules to their constituent atoms.

For the time being all the living entities are biologically active. (There might be exceptions to this, but as of now we only know about biologically active beings.) This means that biology must be the FIRST deciding factor, while “ethics” is waiting on the sidelines to be contemplated.

Definition: Harm is done to a biologically alive being when its activity is disrupted. For example, starting a forest fire causes harm to all sorts of living creatures.

The next step in the process is separating the two kinds of living entities, the ones with a nervous system (animals), and the one without nervous systems (vegetation). The ones with a nervous system have a “pain” center in their system. They experience pleasure or pain, depending upon the stimulus. Pleasure is something that all entities with a nervous system try to achieve and maintain, while pain is something that they all try to avoid.

We still deal with simple biology here, no philosophical considerations are required. With or without a reference to some nebulous god (or God) we can objectively define what “harm” is. The opposite of “harm” is to allow the living entities to grow and prosper. Again, no “God” is required.

But there is still no “moral” aspect of this existence. A tree can cast a shadow and prevent other vegetation to grow there. Animals routinely eat other animals, thereby causing pain and disrupting their lifecycle. Physical harm is present, but no “malice” is involved. The problem is still complicated since actions usually have multiple effects, some might be beneficial, others might be harmful.

The next step is the consciousness and the higher level brain functions (which are unnecessarily attributed to some undefined, nebulous “soul”). Actions can have a “moral” aspect only when they are performed knowingly and intentionally. A small child or a mentally retarded adult are not “moral” agents, since they do not know what they are doing.

When there is consciousness, there is some level of “fear”, “anguish”, “anticipation” or “mental suffering”. Animals routinely exhibit these and their opposites, too. Just observe the happy anticipation of a puppy when a loving master is about to come home. Or the fear of a dog, which has been mistreated.

So the final definition of “immoral” action is: “volitionally and knowingly causing (or attempting to cause) harm which is not compensated by the beneficial aspects of the action”. Conversely, a “moral” action is simply “volitionally and knowingly causing a beneficial outcome”. Everything else is “amoral”. What could be simpler?

Observe, still no need to mention “God”.

Presenting God as the arbiter of “moral” and “immoral” actions does not help. It brings forth the age old Euthyphro dilemma, which has no solution, no matter how some people attempt to explain it away.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Yet is there not a reason that the dessert might be served only after the vegetable have been finished? For in skipping ahead to dessert is not the appetite for healthier fare reduced? Given that individuals are generally anxious to accumulate experiences, are not some things to be considered worthy of the wait? Should not some appetites be tempered in favor of arriving at the best possible result? For is the wine to be consumed immediately upon the crushing or should one not at least defer until its proper time to be able to properly enjoy its full flavor…?

Sure, but not universally. Using your example, in some cultures the dessert comes first, the main course comes afterwards and all the leftovers are poured into the soup, which is the last dish to be served. Each 'is own.

Aside from a quiet sense of completion and commitment? Yet I am willing to concede that a long-term relationship is likely sufficiently synonymous with marriage so as to reduce our disagreement to little more than semantics.

Yes, I agree at least 100 percent!

If this is to be considered a fair argument then so equally should be any example which might demonstrate a cultural preference in favor of its opposite…

I have no quarrel with this. Different cultures, different anticipations. As long as they do not cause “harm” - read above - it is their business.

Ah, well it was my impression we were after potential harm, and not the guaranteed variety…for where might one guarantee harm outside of setting one’s self on fire?

Potential is fine. But the probability of the negative outcome cannot be left unresolved. I met someone who said: The chance of winning the jackpot on the Powerball is 50 percent… it will either happen or not. Very irrational attitude.

Well this is a fair example…yet in knowing one’s current partner by way of a comparison of previous exploits, might one not equally be presented with a double-edged sword? For is it not possible to have discovered that one’s preferred model had in actual fact been the fourth relationship rather than one’s current prospect?

Of course. As the old saying goes: “Guano happens”. But if the relationship is extended into a long term one, it is far better to get over with the testing phase before the long term commitment is made.

The practical side of well practiced sex seemingly pales in comparison to the deeper aspects of being well versed in conversation, attaining common activities and passions, and cultivating mutual respect. Much of which might seemingly be set aside in favor of a more consistent pressure to progress from base to base in pursuit of the home run…

No, they are ALL very important. Another wise saying is that one should marry one’s best friend.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s start with what generally causes harm. Physical and/or psychological. What you are actually saying to me is that you could not, without reference to God, come up with a reasonable argument that says that burning children is wrong. I don’t believe that for one minute. It’s as simple as me asking you if you think it’s wrong to cause someone physical harm for your own pleasure.

If you agree that it’s wrong, then we have a basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong. If you disagree, then the technical term for you would be a psychopath.

I strongly suspect that what you are doing here is burying your argument in the assumptions of those who hold a view opposite to yours.

Time to unravel your grounds for believing something to be “wrong” or, even, “harmful,” since that is where you choose to ground your case.

If God does not exist and, the implication surely follows, the mindless, unguided vexations of atomic and subatomic particles are all that are left to us to ground whatever “deep” thinking is left to us, that means there is NO ground in the purely physical universe to moor or substantiate the meaning of “harm.” Sure some reactions in the material universe of violent and those reactions often engender the disintegration or dissolution of entities, but also in the originating of new entities. The strictly material universe does not recognize “harm,” even when what appear to be profoundly beautiful or valuable entities are irreparably terminated.

To meaningfully apply the word “harm” positively requires the presumption that the entity that was “harmed” OUGHT not to have been and there is something profoundly wrong in that “harm” being brought about.

In a an eliminative and materialistic universe, there are NO grounds for a claim of harm other than from a tenuous position of “relative” to some subject or other. This, however, creates another problem. There are some subjects who feel or think that harming others greatly benefits them - ergo, they presume that the violent dissolution of others, materialistically speaking, is nothing more than the kind of disintegration or termination of entities that occurs chronically in the larger universe. The fact that you want to insist such individuals are psychopaths or deranged is really of no consequence to them, since their ground for committing what you feel are heinous acts is found in the very nature of the material universe - things go out of and come into existence all the time with nary a notice on the part of the atomic and subatomic particles that are the ultimate constituents and governors of the universe itself - if atheism is true.

In other words, you have NO grounds in materialism to claim your view of “harm” to be any more a grounding moral principle than a less scrupulous materialist has for dismissing morality altogether. Whereas you arbitrarily choose to recognize “harm” as an idea you wish to invoke to prevent yourself from engaging in certain behaviors, the less inhibited materialist could - with just as much justification in materialism - claim that is merely a hangup of yours (your disparaging references to psychopathology notwithstanding.

Note that the theist has very different - and far more tenable - grounds for invoking harm than you do. For the theist, existents have purpose and their value and meaning is determined by that purpose which is built into the very fabric of existence itself, Being Itself - Ipsum Esse Subsistens.

You can dismiss that notion as mere superstition, but, logically speaking, that dismissal undermines any case you could possibly make for “harm” as grounds for your system of morality.

Your argument relies heavily on an appeal to the consistency of morality as grounded in theism, but fall apart - is irrevocably harmed - by your materialism and atheistic presumptions. In other words, your inconsistency is must remain hidden behind the very premises the theist grants merely by accepting theism but become glaring if viewed from the atheist materialism on which you want your argument from “harm” to stand.

 

[Rau]

I think we are fine tuning here.

Yes, I agree that something can be immoral if no harm is done but if the act is done will ill intent. For example, it is immoral to shoot at an innocent person with the intent to do harm even if you miss.

Or, giving money to the poor so as to attract fame for oneself.

In your second example I will ignore the reference to God. It is irrelevant when considering harm. But you are taking on my point in saying that it may be immoral if directed to a ‘wrong’ end.

If you won’t accept my reasonable definition of ‘harm’ as being representative of an immoral act then why should I accept your definition of ‘wrong’? If you don’t want a circular argument, then how do you describe ‘wrong’ as being something other than that which is defined by God?

The focus on actual, realized harm is your idea. A wrong end (moral object) cannot exclude God, though I appreciate you would require it to do so. Gauging whether an act is contrary to love of God is often clearer than gauging whether it (may) be contrary to love of self/another.

My definition of morality is not such as to prevent you defining your own. I was not seeking to “prove” something that would require you to abandon your model. I don’t imagine that is even possible. It is quite possible to define various models of morality if God and the reference point he provides is discarded.

 

[eddie_too]

disobeying God causes serious harm, most especially to the person doing the defying.

Jesus made it perfectly clear that all sexual activity that occurs outside of a permanent and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman offends God and is contrary to God’s laws.

 

[eddie_too]

very few people have the education and intelligence to know much less understand everything Jesus did and said.

for that reason, it is seldom very productive to spend a great deal of time speaking about concepts and doctrines with which we are basically unfamiliar.

we can recognize when we or others are speaking from ignorance when our or others’ words express opposition to the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of the successors to the Twelve Apostles.

the RCC’s teachings on human sexuality were given to it by Jesus and sustained by the Twelve and their successors.

often interaction and communication between people is useful and productive. however, when such attempts at communicating become mostly one person proclaiming the teachings of Jesus or the RCC to be false or mistaken and challenging others to prove him or her wrong, it is neither useful nor productive.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Let’s start with what generally causes harm. Physical and/or psychological. What you are actually saying to me is that you could not, without reference to God, come up with a reasonable argument that says that burning children is wrong. I don’t believe that for one minute. It’s as simple as me asking you if you think it’s wrong to cause someone physical harm for your own pleasure.

If you agree that it’s wrong, then we have a basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong. If you disagree, then the technical term for you would be a psychopath.

There is no such thing as a psychopath in an amoral universe. You believe you can make a judgment as to the “goodness” or “badness” of someone else’s morality, but that requires a measuring stick where (on one end) you have “absolute good” and on the other “absolute bad” and such a measuring stick can not exist in a Godless Universe for all the reasons covered by myself, Mr. Plato above, Leff and I am sure many others that I have missed out, in this thread and elsewhere.

I will note that the fundamental law in our universe is the law of entropy, sans God, on an infinite timeline the energy of the universe will tend to zero. What that means with respect to you in particular (given your comment above about our “brief time on earth”) is that if we take as a fraction the lifespan of the universe in the denominator, as compared to your time in this universe in the numerator, we find that that fraction is mathematically indistinct from 0 (more formerly the Limit 1/x, as x-> infinity is 0). That is, with respect to an amoral Universe you don’t exist. In a Godcentric Universe, we exist, because our mortal lifetime is not our lifetime with respect to the Entire Universe (in the deeper sense to include both the material Universe as well as Heaven) if we are obedient to God’s Law as expressed by the Catholic Church during our mortal lifetime. (Hermetically: As Above, So Below, Matthew 18:17-18. And if he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as “the heathen and the Publican.” Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall binde upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven." (ODR - original spelling).

Like Fran, I, as a rule, don’t normally argue with atheists, but for different reasons, atheists deny that one can prove that God exists (and then offer variations of FSM arguments). But actually, one can, if one chooses to do so, directly encounter God’s Presence while still on this Earth. Catholic Mystics, since the early times of the Church have, through vows of poverty, chastity and obedience to the Church, through fasting and prayer and meditation, have been graced to experience the presence of God. I myself, don’t have their fortitude but I recognize and respect what they’ve done and the sacrifices it took to have been (not sure of the right word here since it takes humility but I’ll use worthy anyway) worthy of that grace (just as you might appreciate, for example all the hard work, thought and insight that went into Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Weil’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, without understanding Tensor Calculus or Advanced Number Theory).

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

The solution is easy, as usual.

What you did was define harm as a subset of the dictionary definition, and then define harm as immoral. At no point do you actually prove that causing harm is immoral. Per Leff, you can not prove that napalaming babies is bad using any system of human logic without doing exactly what you did, inserting in some unprovable axioms.

Presenting God as the arbiter of “moral” and “immoral” actions does not help. It brings forth the age old Euthyphro dilemma, which has no solution, no matter how some people attempt to explain it away.

I’m not sure what you mean by “help”. Per this discussion one can not talk about what is “good” or “bad” or moral or immoral without God. God defines what is good, moral and just. Without God all you do is end up comparing different measuring sticks and arguing for which is best: actually it’s more like comparing different measuring sticks using different measuring systems and arguing which is best: ft-lbs v. Newton-meters.

 

[Rau]

…Presenting God as the arbiter of “moral” and “immoral” actions does not help.

But what it does do (among other things) is disallow your definition of morality - which is one that can declare as moral heinous acts according to a view about the balance of consequences.

Bradski, what say you on this point? Is it ok to murder a few innocent children (say) if you believe that such act will will save a greater number of lives?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What you did was define harm as a subset of the dictionary definition, and then define harm as immoral.

I have no idea what definition you happen to use. Please quote your definition for my edification. Moreover, I did not say that “harm” is “immoral”. I gave the exact line of thought under which a harmful activity is considered immoral.

At no point do you actually prove that causing harm is immoral. Per Leff, you can not prove that napalaming babies is bad using any system of human logic without doing exactly what you did, inserting in some unprovable axioms.

Well, first of all, all axioms are unprovable. In order to “prove” something one needs to reduce the proposition to the mutually accepted axioms. Whatever Leff asserts is of no consequence. My line of argument simply shows that the only foundation we need is physics, chemistry and biology. No need to go any further. You are free to deny the propositions of the natural sciences, but you can only do it at your own peril. No matter which measuring system you subscribe to, jumping off from a high cliff will be harmful to your system.

I’m not sure what you mean by “help”. Per this discussion one can not talk about what is “good” or “bad” or moral or immoral without God.

I don’t accept that starting point. You need to give logical and rational reasons if you wish to introduce it for consideration. And the post I presented above shows my reasons for it. By “help” I meant “explanation”.

God defines what is good, moral and just. Without God all you do is end up comparing different measuring sticks and arguing for which is best: actually it’s more like comparing different measuring sticks using different measuring systems and arguing which is best: ft-lbs v. Newton-meters.

Those physical measuring systems are exactly the same. They are convertible to each other. Whether you call a temperature to be zero Kelvin, or minus 273.16 Celsius, both values describe the absolute zero, where the Brownian motion stops.

No matter what measuring system you take, burning flesh will result in causing irreparable change in the organism. If you don’t see it as a “harm”, please, go and sit down on a white-hot surface. Warning! It will be very painful, if not fatal.

There is only one ethical principle which is needed, the “golden rule” (or live and let live), and its different variants. It is no wonder that all humans societies adhered to it and used it, even those ones which evolved way before the Christian God was invented.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But what it does do (among other things) is disallow your definition of morality - which is one that can declare as moral heinous acts according to a view about the balance of consequences.

There are no “morally heinous acts” apart from the consequences. What my proposed system does, it prevents something to be declared moral, just because you BELIEVE that it was ordered by God. If God drowns all humanity in a flood, it is fine, moral, and dandy… just because God did it. When God orders Abraham to slaughter his child, it is praiseworthy to obey, because God ordered it. When God made a bet with the Adversary, and allowed the torture and killing of Job’s family, it was acceptable even though God was using Job’s family and children as pieces on a chessboard. Killing innocent children is fine, when done or ordered or allowed by God. Sorry, that kind of “ethical” system is unacceptable.

Bradski, what say you on this point? Is it ok to murder a few innocent children (say) if you believe that such act will will save a greater number of lives?

Of course it is. First, do no harm. Second, if doing harm is unavoidable, do as little harm as possible. Nothing could be better as a base principle.

 

[Rau]

There are no “morally heinous acts” apart from the consequences.

Remember, this is your assertion, a premise of your thesis. It is the basis upon which you can say there is no human act which, in some circumstance, can’t be morally committed.

What my proposed system does, it prevents something to be declared moral, just because you BELIEVE it is ordered by God…

Well, yeah, you desire a system of morality with no God, no God-given law. BTW - it is the negative precepts of the law that are the absolute guide - what you must not do.

I am not disputing the potential to define a system of morality which eschews God. The one you have defined may in fact be rational in such a conjectured existence. But you (we) should not forget that the system is in part a consequence of the starting premise.

 

[Bradski]

If God does not exist and, the implication surely follows, the mindless, unguided vexations of atomic and subatomic particles are all that are left to us to ground whatever “deep” thinking is left to us, that means there is NO ground in the purely physical universe to moor or substantiate the meaning of “harm.”

Ah, I see a different tack here.

It is plainly obvious that the definition of harm is universal. You’d have to bend over backwards to deny that any two reasonable people could not define it without recourse to ‘God wouldn’t like it’. Let’s face it, the answer as to why we shouldn’t pollute a river is not ‘because God wouldn’t like it’ (although He might not) but because a whole raft of eminently rational reasons that relate to harm. No-one needs mention God at all – we just need to agree on what constitutes harm and decide whether it is acceptable (fish will die, loss of food, loss of drinking water, possible illness).

That having, I believe, been put to bed, as I’ve yet to hear any argument that something immoral does not include harm as any reasonable person would describe it, it seems that you now have to resort to the following argument:

Bradski is an atheist. Therefore a materialist. Therefore it is impossible for him to argue that anything has any intrinsic value. Therefore ‘harm’ is a meaningless concept to him and cannot be used as part of his argument.

Well, Peter, if that’s the best you’ve got, then I have to say it’s not very much at all.

All we need to do is agree on what constitutes harm. Whether you think that it is impossible for me to place value on anything (a constant and nonsensical argument from a lot of Christians) is irrelevant. What I class as immoral is what I class as being harmful and our definition of harmful is the same. What you have to do is show me that something immoral does not have to include harm as we both define it. If you can’t do that, then it is plainly obvious that immoral acts must be those that are harmful.

Incidentally, I am getting zero response to the question as to how we know what God wants and doesn’t want. ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ is a completely useless statement as it stands because it doesn’t qualify under what conditions it is immoral to kill.

Can you kill the terrorist because he is killing someone? Can you kill a terrorist because he is going to kill someone? Can you kill a terrorist because he might kill someone? Can you kill a terrorist because he has killed someone? Everyone will have a different answer to that. How do we know what God wants?

You said earlier you are not even worthy enough to class yourself as a Catholic. So who is worthy enough to speak for God in these situations? Tell me to whom I should turn to find out what God wants. If you can’t do that (and we all know that you can’t) then the only recourse we have in matters of morality is for us mere mortals to offer reasonable arguments in favour of, or in objection to, any given scenario.

Because if the answer to every problem is ‘God wouldn’t like it’, my response, to quote Leff, would be ‘Sez who?’

 

[Bradski]

A wrong end (moral object) cannot exclude God, though I appreciate you would require it to do so. Gauging whether an act is contrary to love of God is often clearer than gauging whether it (may) be contrary to love of self/another.

This is like a variation on Euthyphro: ‘If I think it’s immoral, then therefore it offends God’.

If you think it’s easier deciding whether it is contrary to God’s will rather than offering valid reasons as to why something should be allowed or not then you must be able to tell me who makes the decision as to what God’s will is. Should we listen to you? Or Peter? There are an infinite number of moral problems and an enormous variety of beliefs as regarding their solution. So who speaks for God?

C’mon Rau. This is the basis of your argument. It is always God who will decide. We don’t need to refer to harm. We only need God’s guidance. Who speaks for God?

 

[Bradski]

There is no such thing as a psychopath in an amoral universe.

It’s the psychopath’s universe that is amoral. Not mine.

 

[Rau]

…If you think it’s easier deciding whether it is contrary to God’s will rather than offering valid reasons as to why something should be allowed or not then you must be able to tell me who makes the decision as to what God’s will is.

We go to the source (prayer). We go the the Word. And we go to the Church he established. And we do or best.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, what say you on this point? Is it ok to murder a few innocent children (say) if you believe that such act will will save a greater number of lives?

Well, I’d need a hell of a lot more information than that to make a reasonable decision. And putting forward incredibly difficult problems does not render the method of solving them any less valid.

My solution is reasoned debate following the accumulation of all available evidence. What you have spent very many posts arguing is that you would ask God. But I can tell you one thing most definitely. The parents of the children who have to be killed will tell you that God wants them to be saved. The parents of the ones who will be killed will say exactly the same.

So again, who speaks for God?