Are there absolute moral axioms?

[Charlemagne_III]

???
Take a look at post #255. In particular, the second and third sentences.

Do you not understand the difference between making a statement in passing as part of an answer, and turning the thread into a full scale war on infallibility? I will not be answering any more questions or comments on infallibility.

Please maintain the integrity of this thread. Thank you.

Start another thread if you like, and I’ll join you there.

This article may help you get started in that direction.

askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2007_11NOV/2007NovHowAuthoritativeIsTheCatechism.cfm

 

[Oreoracle]

Wikipedia also says this, if that is your best source:

Wikipedia is a good reference for generally agreed upon information and definitions. It is better than citing an obscure philosopher whose opinion is quite unusual.

"Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T.M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights.

But this leaves one in a pretty awkward position when those rights conflict, such as the issue of self-defense. If we say that life is one’s inalienable right, then this would practically reduce us to pacifism. But I’m sure Scanlon would agree that the right to life is good because it tends to preserve the maximum number of lives. So if we are in a situation in which killing in self-defense would save more lives than allowing oneself to die, the right to life, which was justified on the basis of maximizing lives in the first place, would advise against saving more lives.

So the question is: Why not drop the rights and just embrace the consequentialism that was used to justify them in the first place? You lose something in the translation when you try to approximate a consequentialist morality with rules.

What are you doing here at Catholic Answers? Are you looking for ways to figure out “what works and what doesn’t”? That’s good. But as an atheist you are not then an island unto yourself, as so many are who boldly say, “Nobody can tell me how to behave. I can figure it out on my own.” At least when I was an atheist, I heard that claim made by many a fellow atheist. So I’m glad you are not in that category.

You seem to be under the impression that your position is unusual. Many atheists were previously Christians. I used to be a believer too. A lot of us have been there and done that. So while I respect that you have experienced both, don’t presume that your peers haven’t been through the very same.

By the way, I did not say that Utilitarianism is inherently racist. All I said was that it could be adopted by a racist to justify the persecution of a racial minority by a racial majority.

Right, but this is a very naïve application of utilitarianism (which you imply by comparing it to an abuse of a moral code). For one thing, studies were conducted shortly after WWII and, surprisingly enough, most Germans didn’t actually delight in the idea that the Jews were killed. The popular opinion was that they simply preferred not to think about it because it was painful. Secondly, any genuine hatred of Jews that did occur was based on lies, and happiness based on lies is bound to falter eventually. Lastly, utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, not merely increase it in the sloppiest way possible. Thus the first question is always: Is there a better way to bring about your ends? It’s hard for me to believe that genocide is the best way to bring about anything other than death.

As an atheist, do you have an infallible assurance of your morals? I don’t think you would claim that.

Correct, I would never claim such a thing. Claiming that another entity is infallible is just as bad as deeming yourself infallible. To see why, ask yourself whether you are infallible in your judgment that the Church is infallible. After all, they are making the claim, and you don’t have to believe them. Thus the ball is in your court; the choice lies with you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Wikipedia is a good reference for generally agreed upon information and definitions. It is better than citing an obscure philosopher whose opinion is quite unusual.

People are at odds about how reliable Wikipedia is. Yet Wikipedia thought the “obscure philosopher” was not so obscure as not to be cited. I think in that instance they were trying to be be open-minded.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Right, but this is a very naïve application of utilitarianism (which you imply by comparing it to an abuse of a moral code). For one thing, studies were conducted shortly after WWII and, surprisingly enough, most Germans didn’t actually delight in the idea that the Jews were killed. The popular opinion was that they simply preferred not to think about it because it was painful. Secondly, any genuine hatred of Jews that did occur was based on lies, and happiness based on lies is bound to falter eventually. Lastly, utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, not merely increase it in the sloppiest way possible. Thus the first question is always: Is there a better way to bring about your ends? It’s hard for me to believe that genocide is the best way to bring about anything other than death.

It doesn’t really matter what most Germans thought. The holocaust was engineered by Hitler, so the motive lies with Hitler, and Hitler argued that the greater good for Germany was to kill all the Jews if that was humanly possible. He came very close to fulfilling his dream of a “vermin” free state. Yes, racism was part of it. But the greater good for the greater number was also part of it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Claiming that another entity is infallible is just as bad as deeming yourself infallible. To see why, ask yourself whether you are infallible in your judgment that the Church is infallible. After all, they are making the claim, and you don’t have to believe them. Thus the ball is in your court; the choice lies with you.

I don’t consider myself infallible, just the church. But as a former atheist I can see why you don’t want the church to be infallible. You really have no choice, do you?

Aren’t you infallibly certain the Church is not infallible?

I think this discussion of infallibility will get us nowhere. Let’s get back to the moral axioms.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Let’s get back to the moral axioms.

I can see why you use the :knight1: emoticon, taking on all these atheist, deists and doubters.

 

[Oreoracle]

It doesn’t really matter what most Germans thought. The holocaust was engineered by Hitler, so the motive lies with Hitler, and Hitler argued that the greater good for Germany was to kill all the Jews if that was humanly possible. He came very close to fulfilling his dream of a “vermin” free state. Yes, racism was part of it. But the greater good for the greater number was also part of it.

So, as you’ve admitted here, this was a misuse of utilitarianism. Do abuses of philosophies count as criticisms of those philosophies? Considering all of the things that have been done in the name of Catholicism, I don’t think you want to start playing that game.

I don’t consider myself infallible, just the church. But as a former atheist I can see why you don’t want the church to be infallible. You really have no choice, do you?

Well, lots of religions claim infallibility. I can see why you wouldn’t want them to be infallible, so you really have no choice, do you?

Aren’t you infallibly certain the Church is not infallible?

Nope. I think it’s a baseless claim, but I don’t reject it with 100% certainty.

I think this discussion of infallibility will get us nowhere. Let’s get back to the moral axioms.

You’re the one who brought it up.

I can see why you use the :knight1: emoticon, taking on all these atheist, deists and doubters.

Yes, keyboard warriors are quite valiant and brave. I should know, I’m one of them!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Yes, keyboard warriors are quite valiant and brave. I should know, I’m one of them!

:knight1::knight2:

 

[Tomdstone]

Post #260

I will not be answering any more questions or comments on infallibility.
Please maintain the integrity of this thread. Thank you.

But later he says in post #264:

I don’t consider myself infallible, just the church. But as a former atheist I can see why you don’t want the church to be infallible. You really have no choice, do you?

Aren’t you infallibly certain the Church is not infallible?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oreoracle

See post # 257. Are you going to pass on that one?

I’m surprised you haven’t already jumped on it.

How do you think the dilemma should be resolved?

And what moral criteria would you use?

Deontology … Consequentialism … Both? … etc?

 

[Oreoracle]

If you insist:

Again, here’s a dilemma for choosing the lesser evil.

Imagine a rapist kidnapping a mother and her teenage daughter. The rapist takes them to a house and locks them in separate rooms. He goes into the mother’s room and makes her an offer. Either she can let him rape her, or if not, he will go to the other room and rape her daughter. If the mother lets him rape her, he promises not to rape her daughter. This is an either/or situation. What’s a mother to do? And by what critera of morality should she choose?

Theoretical answer: I would say that she should most likely allow herself to be raped because the daughter probably has a more impressionable view of sexuality; better to traumatize someone who’s already had an extensive sexual history than someone who’s new to it.

Realistic answer: It doesn’t matter what the mother says because the rapist doesn’t have to haggle. He’s got them both restrained, so he’ll just do what he wants.

Could she say no to the rapist’s offer? But that is a choice for her daughter to be raped. Could she say yes to the offer, but that is a choice for herself to be raped.

She wouldn’t be choosing for her daughter to be raped. The rapist is choosing that! In fact, if we took what you’re suggesting here seriously, then the other option would involve the mother choosing to have sex with the would-be-rapist, which means that it wouldn’t be rape. :whacky:

As I said, I dislike unrealistic thought experiments, because you can make any moral code look bad with them. That is because–surprise–they are unrealistic, and morals are meant to cope with reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you insist:

She wouldn’t be choosing for her daughter to be raped. The rapist is choosing that! In fact, if we took what you’re suggesting here seriously, then the other option would involve the mother choosing to have sex with the would-be-rapist, which means that it wouldn’t be rape. :whacky:

I did not insist. I invited.

Yes, the rapist is choosing to rape, but he gives the mother the choice as to his victim…

And the mother choosing to have sex with the rapist would still make it rape. She doesn’t want to be raped. Rape is by definition a violent act of aggression. She accepts the aggression for her daughter’s sake, which means she is choosing the lesser evil. This is a heroic act on the mother’s part, comparable to choosing to leap in front of the daughter to take a bullet for her.

A mother’s duty is to protect her child. She is following her duty, very Kantian?

Also very deontological and consequentialist simultaneously.

But not likely utilitarian since there is no greater good for the greater number involved.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I said, I dislike unrealistic thought experiments, because you can make any moral code look bad with them. That is because–surprise–they are unrealistic, and morals are meant to cope with reality.

Unrealistic? Hitler was unrealistic, but the Holocaust was real.

 

[Oreoracle]

A mother’s duty is to protect her child. She is following her duty, very Kantian?

I’m not sure whether the Categorical Imperative would advise someone to volunteer to be raped. Remember that the Imperative disregards the circumstances, so the fact that the daughter would be raped is irrelevant to Kant.

Or maybe Kant would apply the Imperative differently. The man was a bit of a nutter, so it’s hard to guess how he would think.

Also very deontological and consequentialist simultaneously.

I think deontologists and consequentialists can sometimes reach the same conclusions. That doesn’t mean that their reasoning is compatible with each other.

But not likely utilitarian since there is no greater good for the greater number involved.

Wait, so you proposed this thought experiment because you thought utilitarianism would have issues with resolving it?

In what universe would a utilitarian weigh the brief thrill of raping more heavily than the trauma of being raped and knowing that one’s mother was raped? How can you possibly misunderstand utilitarianism that badly, especially after I’ve spent thousands of words explaining it to you? I swear that it’s like talking to a wall.

If this is seriously the best you can do, I will take my leave from the thread. You clearly aren’t interested in learning. Which is a shame, since your misunderstandings seem to be pretty thoroughly ingrained.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure whether the Categorical Imperative would advise someone to volunteer to be raped. Remember that the Imperative disregards the circumstances, so the fact that the daughter would be raped is irrelevant to Kant.

In what universe would a utilitarian weigh the brief thrill of raping more heavily than the trauma of being raped and knowing that one’s mother was raped? How can you possibly misunderstand utilitarianism that badly, especially after I’ve spent thousands of words explaining it to you? I swear that it’s like talking to a wall.

If this is seriously the best you can do, I will take my leave from the thread. You clearly aren’t interested in learning. Which is a shame, since your misunderstandings seem to be pretty thoroughly ingrained.

My point was to say exactly what you just said. Utilitarianism is useless in dealing with such personal moral dilemma as the one about the mother and her daughter. That was just to point out once again its woeful limitations with respect to personal morality.

Kant’s ethics are centered on duty. Any Student of Kant 101 knows that. So I was pointing out that the mother would feel it her duty to protect her daughter, because that is what a parent is supposed to do.

Another rant? I figured you would build up to one sooner or later. :sad_bye:

I won’t be back to this thread. Thanks to all for your participation.

God bless.

 

[Tomdstone]

I did not insist. I invited.

Yes, the rapist is choosing to rape, but he gives the mother the choice as to his victim…

And the mother choosing to have sex with the rapist would still make it rape. She doesn’t want to be raped. Rape is by definition a violent act of aggression. She accepts the aggression for her daughter’s sake, which means she is choosing the lesser evil. This is a heroic act on the mother’s part, comparable to choosing to leap in front of the daughter to take a bullet for her.

A mother’s duty is to protect her child. She is following her duty, very Kantian?

Also very deontological and consequentialist simultaneously.

But not likely utilitarian since there is no greater good for the greater number involved.

It seems somewhat utilitarian to me if a mother accepts rape in place of her child. It can be seen as less harmful overall, because the mother already has the experience which will help her overcome the psychological pain involved.