Carn: What about an atheistic argument why infanticide is wrong, was always wrong and will be always wrong?

[MindOverMatter2]

Prejudice and misinformation, most likely. Homosexuality does not in itself lead to HIV infection - careless sexual practices can result in infection for anyone, regardless of sexuality. In any case, unless the mother was already infected, it’s highly unlikely that the child resulting from sex with a gay man would have HIV.

Furthermore, since the thread is dealing with infanticide, HIV does not constitute a death sentence - these days it can be controlled such that quality of life is still very much possible. Having said that, it’s difficult to imagine how one might justify killing the aforementioned infant fathered by a gay man, simply on the ignorant assumption that it might be infected with HIV. Abortion on those grounds is also dubious, unless the mother had other reasons for not being able to carry the pregnancy to term.

It is born out of irrational ideas. I thought that you was going to say that the church is the origin of it; in response to which i was going to jump down your throat dragging your tonsils along with me. But you didn’t.

I imagine that its possible that some people would consider the death of an infant, who is known to be the child of a gay man, as a mercy killing. This being due to the irrational fear that the child will certainly become gay in adulthood, but also due to the very real possibility that the child would almost certainly have to suffer social alienation and prejudice if it did become gay. Such can happen regardless of whether people choose to act on their attraction or not; and can happen to a brutal extent.

Whether the mercy killing in question would be reasonable or not (i don’t think it is), it is possible that people who do murder their own children think that they are doing whats best for the child.

Imagine having a child that is born a hermaphrodite?

In times past, people who were born with deformities were discarded and put to death because they were seen as a weakness and a burden on society. Without belief in moral truth, can there be a reasonable argument against this behavior if the society in question believes that its okay? If the goal of society is to be the most sufficient at survival, and therefore sees genetic disorder as a weakness and a burden on their financial realities, what can be said to safe guard those who do not have a default moral value in the eyes of that society?

 

[Sair]

It is born out of irrational ideas. I thought that you was going to say that the church is the origin of it; in response to which i was going to jump down your throat dragging your tonsils along with me. But you didn’t.

There’s no doubt that some prejudice against homosexuality is fostered by religion, but that’s certainly not the whole picture.

I imagine that its possible that some people would consider the death of an infant, who is known to be the child of a gay man, as a mercy killing. This being due to the irrational fear that the child will certainly become gay in adulthood, but also due to the very real possibility that the child would almost certainly have to suffer social alienation and prejudice if it did become gay. Such can happen regardless of whether people choose to act on their attraction or not; and can happen to a brutal extent.

This then becomes a matter of which end of the perceived problem to address - the fact of homosexuality, or the socially-sanctioned antipathy towards it. It seems to me that one of these factors is more easily changed than the other!

Whether the mercy killing in question would be reasonable or not (i don’t think it is), it is possible that people who do murder their own children think that they are doing whats best for the child.

I am reminded of a Peanuts cartoon in which one of the characters passionately declared that there was never so much harm done as by those who “thought they were doing the right thing”…

Imagine having a child that is born a hermaphrodite?

Some would say that is the best of both worlds…

In times past, people who were born with deformities were discarded and put to death because they were seen as a weakness and a burden on society. Without belief in moral truth, can there be a reasonable argument against this behavior if the society in question believes that its okay? If the goal of society is to be the most sufficient at survival, and therefore sees genetic disorder as a weakness and a burden on their financial realities, what can be said to safe guard those who do not have a default moral value in the eyes of that society?

My take on this is that moral truth is relative to values, and that values are generated both by objective circumstances and subjective feelings - if one is brought up from birth to believe that physical deformity or ugliness is reflective of moral decrepitude (and this is a belief that was prevalent as recently as the Renaissance in Europe, a time of great devotion to Christianity), then it’s difficult to see how said individual could be expected to see beyond this. It’s fair to say, too, that until very recently in Western history, at least, many children died before the age of five, from illness or unsanitary conditions. Given the heavy odds against infant survival anyway in the times before advanced medical technology, and also before people could generally choose the number and spacing of their children - relatively speaking, killing a deformed or disabled infant could be seen as an act of mercy, one which would spare him or her a (probably short) life of disdain and despair, and leaving the parents with a greater ability to devote themselves to their other children’s welfare.

On this view, morality simply must take real circumstances into account - if it does not, there is the strong possibility that greater suffering will result from adherence to any absolute conception of morality. To raise a controversial point - where would the sacrifice of Christ (or, for that matter, the sacrifice God demanded of Abraham) stand in relation to any absolute prohibition of filicide?

 

[tonyrey]

To raise a controversial point - where would the sacrifice of Christ (or, for that matter, the sacrifice God demanded of Abraham) stand in relation to any absolute prohibition of filicide?

You are overlooking two facts:

1. The sacrifice God demanded of Abraham probably existed only in his mind or was misinterpreted by the Hebrew writers.
2. Jesus **as a man **chose to sacrifice Himself.

 

[Sair]

You are overlooking two facts:

1. The sacrifice God demanded of Abraham probably existed only in his mind or was misinterpreted by the Hebrew writers.

My understanding has always been, since my Catholic childhood, that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son to his god was a mark of righteousness; at the very least, faith that God didn’t really mean what he said he wanted! And on what basis do you conclude that the recorded divine command was imaginary or a result of misinterpretation?

1. Jesus **as a man **chose to sacrifice Himself.

So Jesus’ prayer of surrender, “Not my will but Thine,” somehow absolves God the Father from any filicidal intent?

 

[tonyrey]

The sacrifice God demanded of Abraham probably existed only in his mind or was misinterpreted by the Hebrew writers.

Nothing I have stated alters that fact.
.

… at the very least, faith that God didn’t really mean what he said he wanted!

You are assuming that Abraham - or the writers- was not mistaken.

And on what basis do you conclude that the recorded divine command was imaginary or a result of misinterpretation?

It is incompatible with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

2. Jesus **as a man **

chose to sacrifice Himself.
So Jesus’ prayer of surrender, “Not my will but Thine,” somehow absolves God the Father from any filicidal intent?

Jesus said “The Father and I are one”. There is a difference between His divinity and humanity…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There’s no doubt that some prejudice against homosexuality is fostered by religion, but that’s certainly not the whole picture.

People in the past have thought that they have had the moral right to do evil towards others based on faith; but such is a flawed faith. The simple rejection of somebodies philosophy about what sexuality is, is not a-prior immoral, and i don’t believe any prejudice is taking place in the moral sense of the term and it doesn’t become immoral simply because people take it to be a right to do evil towards another person. But is prejudice wrong in a world absent of moral truth? If i discriminate between an apple and an orange, and choose the orange simply because i like that more and discard the other one, by what rational standard do you determine that the same kind of discrimination towards humans is immoral? A white man discards of a black man because its not his flavor, it does not fit with his idea of a white england; can you determine with rational argument that this is wrong without recognizing objective moral truth?

This then becomes a matter of which end of the perceived problem to address - the fact of homosexuality, or the socially-sanctioned antipathy towards it. It seems to me that one of these factors is more easily changed than the other!

This is a very popular and flawed idea. It assumes that if the gay man cannot become straight then we should say there is nothing wrong with it so as to make the person feel as if there is no disorder in the first place. But the inability to change your desires does not necessarily make it okay to act on your desires.

But in any case i don’t want to get in to a discussion about the right and wrong of homosexuality, since what i perceive as the defining factor of moral truth is evidently different to yours.

I am reminded of a Peanuts cartoon in which one of the characters passionately declared that there was never so much harm done as by those who “thought they were doing the right thing”…

Given metaphysical naturalism, its a meaningless statement, if you cannot rationally determine or distinguish between true harm and mercy. Harm to some people is mercy to another; and without moral-realism nobody can truly determine them selves as being correct, since everything is relative. Pain by itself is not a good enough basis upon which to judge the good of an action.

Some would say that is the best of both worlds…

Some would say that, others would not.

My take on this is that moral truth is relative to values,

There is no moral truth given metaphysical naturalism. There is simply pleasure and pain; and everybody has various subjective ideas about, how to get pleasure, what defines pleasure, or what can be acceptable degrees of pain, restriction, and sacrifice in regards to the pursuit of pleasure. Without moral truth, human beings at their root, are pleasure seekers. That you do not act on a certain kind of pleasure is not determined by morality, but rather it is determined by force or coercion by the community in which you exist. The only reason that sex with a 8 year old child would be rejected in such a society is not because its wrong, but because it does not fit with the subjective ideals of that community in so far as the pursuit of pleasure is concerned.

If you are going to be a Metaphysical-Naturalist Sair, it seems that you going to have to say that there is nothing truly or intrinsically wrong with having sex with children of any age.

I for one will not be following you down that path.

Given the heavy odds against infant survival anyway in the times before advanced medical technology, and also before people could generally choose the number and spacing of their children - relatively speaking, killing a deformed or disabled infant could be seen as an act of mercy, one which would spare him or her a (probably short) life of disdain and despair, and leaving the parents with a greater ability to devote themselves to their other children’s welfare.

In this situation, the idea of pain has been posited as that which will determine whether a child lives or dies. But some people want to live despite their pain regardless of how short their life is, because for them the desire for life always triumphs over the desire to stop the pain. Who is any one to determine what is in the best interests of a human object if everything is subjective to the individual? It seems in this case the mother is projecting the fact that subjectively speaking she would not be prepared to live with great suffering or the burden of somebody else’s suffering, and that therefore this must be also true for any individual that suffers. She is forcing her subjective emotions and values on to other objects. And there was always the possibility that a cure could have been found in their life time.

But of course, might makes right, and a being does have to give a home to the parasites that happen to come out of their bodies.

To raise a controversial point - where would the sacrifice of Christ (or, for that matter, the sacrifice God demanded of Abraham) stand in relation to any absolute prohibition of filicide?

Tony has answered the question about Jesus sacrifice.

As for morality, you would be correct to say that absolute moral truth does in some instances require us to make sacrifices, to put pain over pleasure, virtue over survival.

 

[Sair]

A white man discards of a black man because its not his flavor, it does not fit with his idea of a white england; can you determine with rational argument that this is wrong without recognizing objective moral truth?

In point of fact, humans are not like apples or oranges, though - fruit has no capacity for subjective preferences, for pleasure or suffering. There is no moral truth that does not derive from subjectivity - the response of subjective beings to states of reality.

This is a very popular and flawed idea. It assumes that if the gay man cannot become straight then we should say there is nothing wrong with it so as to make the person feel as if there is no disorder in the first place. But the inability to change your desires does not necessarily make it okay to act on your desires.

Certainly the excessive indulgence of desires is often harmful and productive of suffering. I might be unable to change my desire for creamy pasta sauces, but overindulgence in this desire will almost certainly lead to premature death for me and thus bereavement for those I love. However, this is not to say it is always a bad idea to indulge the desire. But you are here assuming that the desire for sex with others of the same gender is always bad, invariably morally wrong, and thus never to be indulged, not even in moderation. You also assume it is appropriate to even suppose a homosexual person can change his or her inclination. You have obviously settled upon some select criteria by which you judge the inclination to be disordered and therefore morally wrong - but these criteria are far from being universally recognised.

But in any case i don’t want to get in to a discussion about the right and wrong of homosexuality, since what i perceive as the defining factor of moral truth is evidently different to yours.

You assume the existence of moral facts as objects in the world. I do not.

Given metaphysical naturalism, its a meaningless statement, if you cannot rationally determine or distinguish between true harm and mercy.

Whether or not an act is merciful is a matter for subjective response - if a person with a terminal illness finds life intolerable, it is an act of mercy to allow them to end their life; by the same token, another person with a terminal illness may have a strong desire to go on living, to spend as much time as possible with loved ones or to achieve something for themselves before they go - in this case, euthanasia would deprive them of their subjective preference, and would therefore most certainly not be an act of mercy. Opponents of euthanasia, of course, see no difference between these two situations.

Harm to some people is mercy to another; and without moral-realism nobody can truly determine them selves as being correct, since everything is relative. Pain by itself is not a good enough basis upon which to judge the good of an action.

Certainly there are degrees of pain and anguish, and some people are so constituted as to be better able to cope with suffering than others. It seems to me that you are correct to say that pain, in and of itself, is not enough basis for a moral judgement - it is the subjective response to pain, whether or not the subject finds the pain intolerable (whether this is bodily or psychological pain) that determines the good of an action.

 

[Sair]

There is no moral truth given metaphysical naturalism. There is simply pleasure and pain; and everybody has various subjective ideas about, how to get pleasure, what defines pleasure, or what can be acceptable degrees of pain, restriction, and sacrifice in regards to the pursuit of pleasure. Without moral truth, human beings at their root, are pleasure seekers. That you do not act on a certain kind of pleasure is not determined by morality, but rather it is determined by force or coercion by the community in which you exist. The only reason that sex with a 8 year old child would be rejected in such a society is not because its wrong, but because it does not fit with the subjective ideals of that community in so far as the pursuit of pleasure is concerned.

Subjectively speaking, this is the very stuff of moral truth - a moral decision is a decision about the balance of pain and pleasure (broadly understood as suffering and happiness) pertaining to any given action. As far as community response is concerned in determining that balance, well, we are not free to choose to live only for ourselves. Even the most introverted amongst us exist as part of a community, and whether we like it or even believe it or not, our actions affect others as theirs affect us. On balance, I would say that the pain inflicted upon the 8-year-old and his/her family is of far greater weight than the transitory pleasure experienced by the child rapist - who, in any case, unless they are an absolute sociopath, cannot but be made uneasy by the general disapprobation of the community in which he/she exists; thus, even the transitory pleasure of fulfilling the desire for sex with a child is fraught with pain. Certainly these are all subjective judgements - but again, in point of fact, we cannot choose not to be subjective beings.

If you are going to be a Metaphysical-Naturalist Sair, it seems that you going to have to say that there is nothing truly or intrinsically wrong with having sex with children of any age.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it in the sense that “it is wrong to have sex with children” is a fact existing independently of the preferences of subjective beings. Amongst other considerations, the definition of childhood should be taken into account - these days we in the West do not countenance sex with 12-year-olds; not so our ancestors in the Renaissance, when 12 was the age at which girls were considered marriageable…

In this situation, the idea of pain has been posited as that which will determine whether a child lives or dies. But some people want to live despite their pain regardless of how short their life is, because for them the desire for life always triumphs over the desire to stop the pain. Who is any one to determine what is in the best interests of a human object if everything is subjective to the individual?

Who indeed? Who is to tell me that something for which I have no subjective inclination is in my best interests (beyond obvious objective benefits, such as going to the dentist when I loathe the very idea of doing so)? As an example, I have no desire to have children of my own - yet there are those who would presume to tell me that I should do so. Is it somehow objectively better for me to struggle to be a mother when it goes against my subjective preferences? Would it be better for children to be born to a mother who does not wish to have them, than not to be born at all?

It seems in this case the mother is projecting the fact that subjectively speaking she would not be prepared to live with great suffering or the burden of somebody else’s suffering, and that therefore this must be also true for any individual that suffers. She is forcing her subjective emotions and values on to other objects. And there was always the possibility that a cure could have been found in their life time.

Yet the golden rule - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us - is founded on these very judgements. We extrapolate from our own subjective preferences to those of others. It makes no sense in this situation to say, “Would you rather not have been born?” since, had one not been born, there would be no-one to experience the preference!

As for morality, you would be correct to say that absolute moral truth does in some instances require us to make sacrifices, to put pain over pleasure, virtue over survival.

Then what good is absolute moral truth? And who even decides what this is? For the Nazis, absolute moral truth was served by the destruction of the Jewish people. There can be no doubt that subjective morality also requires sacrifice, often requires pain in order to achieve a desired goal, a goal that is subjectively considered to be worth the effort. But these are sacrifices made and pains suffered in order to fulfil a subjective preference - they are not made for the sake of cold, faceless moral “truths” that exist independently of human experience.

 

[tonyrey]

But these are sacrifices made and pains suffered in order to fulfil a subjective preference - they are not made for the sake of cold, faceless moral “truths” that exist independently of human experience.

Do you believe all truths are made to fulfil a subjective preference?

 

[atheistgirl]

not so our ancestors in the Renaissance, when 12 was the age at which girls were considered marriageable…

The age of consent in Spain, a country where in a 2009 survey, 73% of the population said they were catholic, is 13

Malta and Turkey have an age of consent of 18.

Canon Law 1083.1 allows for marriage in the church when the girl is only 14 years old

Gratian, the canon lawyer, thought between 12 and 14 was about right, but said consent could be recognised in girls as young as 7

Bishops can apparently set the bar higher in their own juristiction and set additional requirements such as parental consent.

The whole thing is entirely subjective, both from the church and civil authorities. Not an ounce of moral objectivity or truth in the area of consent.

For me, I would never entertain the notion that my 14 year old is mature enough to or should be allowed to engage in sexual activity, regardless of what any civil law says, and as for being allowed to get married Sheesh !!!

Just my subjective materialistic naturalistic atheistic opinion of course

 

[tonyrey]

There is no moral truth that does not derive from subjectivity - the response of subjective beings to states of reality…

Nor is there any scientific truth that does not derive from subjectivity - the response of subjective beings to states of reality! What is the difference?

 

[Sair]

Nor is there any scientific truth that does not derive from subjectivity - the response of subjective beings to states of reality! What is the difference?

The difference consists in what scientific and moral facts are about; both are part of reality as we experience it, but given our tendency to compartmentalise our knowledge, we file them differently - a moral fact (which for argument’s sake I will define here as a given being’s prevailing opinion upon a certain set of circumstances) is qualitatively different from what we would consider a scientific fact, since the existence or otherwise of a scientific fact does not depend upon the stance we adopt towards it - if I were a passionate flat-earther, that would not change the established fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a star we call the sun. A moral fact, on the other hand, simply is the stance we adopt towards a situation.

Scientific facts are generally considered to be morally neutral - they are facts about the states of reality to which we respond, whereas moral facts, as such, are about our subjective response to those states.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The difference consists in what scientific and moral facts are about; both are part of reality as we experience it, but given our tendency to compartmentalise our knowledge, we file them differently - a moral fact (which for argument’s sake I will define here as a given being’s prevailing opinion upon a certain set of circumstances) is qualitatively different from what we would consider a scientific fact, since the existence or otherwise of a scientific fact does not depend upon the stance we adopt towards it - if I were a passionate flat-earther, that would not change the established fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a star we call the sun. A moral fact, on the other hand, simply is the stance we adopt towards a situation.

Scientific facts are generally considered to be morally neutral - they are facts about the states of reality to which we respond, whereas moral facts, as such, are about our subjective response to those states.

I think Tony was pointing out that if you treat morality as subjective simply because we experience it subjectively, then there is no reason not to treat all knowledge in the same manner. To think and treat physical reality as something that exists beyond your mind is a subjective response to experience; you choose to give it that meaning.

 

[tonyrey]

The difference consists in what scientific and moral facts are about; both are part of reality as we experience it, but given our tendency to compartmentalise our knowledge, we file them differently - a moral fact (which for argument’s sake I will define here as a given being’s prevailing opinion upon a certain set of circumstances) is qualitatively different from what we would consider a scientific fact, since the existence or otherwise of a scientific fact does not depend upon the stance we adopt towards it - if I were a passionate flat-earther, that would not change the established fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a star we call the sun. A moral fact, on the other hand, simply is the stance we adopt towards a situation.

Scientific facts are generally considered to be morally neutral - they are facts about the states of reality to which we respond, whereas moral facts, as such, are about our subjective response to those states.

If a moral fact is “a given being’s prevailing opinion upon a certain set of circumstances” a criminal’s opinion is just as valid as that of a virtuous person! As I have pointed out, you make yourself the supreme arbiter of what is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust…

 

[tonyrey]

I think Tony was pointing out that if you treat morality as subjective simply because we experience it subjectively, then there is no reason not to treat all knowledge in the same manner. To think and treat physical reality as something that exists beyond your mind is a subjective response to experience; you choose to give it that meaning.

Precisely! In fact all knowledge **begins **at home, i.e. in our mind…

 

[Sair]

I think Tony was pointing out that if you treat morality as subjective simply because we experience it subjectively, then there is no reason not to treat all knowledge in the same manner. To think and treat physical reality as something that exists beyond your mind is a subjective response to experience; you choose to give it that meaning.

Certainly our knowledge of reality is always subject to our perceptive abilities. This is quite a different claim than the implication that reality only exists if we are around to perceive it. To use a cliched yet relevant example, if I step out of a 10th-storey window, I’ll still plummet towards the pavement below, regardless of how I may choose to perceive the situation.

My point was that moral facts, if such can be said to exist, are a very specific category of the reality we experience - facts that, in themselves, only exist because we have a subjective response to external circumstances. It makes no sense to suppose that our human morality would exist without our presence in the world, or without our subjective responses to our environment. The rest of the world will, in all likelihood, continue to exist without our presence.

 

[tonyrey]

My point was that moral facts, if such can be said to exist, are a very specific category of the reality we experience - facts that, in themselves, only

 

[Sair]

Is there no significant difference between the subjective responses of a saint and a crook?!

They are qualitatively different responses to certain circumstances - what greater significance is required?

Then there is no valid reason to argue that there is excessive suffering in the world…

What does the amount of suffering in the world have to do with whether or not human morality is dependent upon human subjectivity?

 

[tonyrey]

Is there no significant difference between the subjective responses of a saint and a crook?!

On what grounds is the saint’s response preferable to the criminal’s? A difference of quality implies it is simply a matter of taste…

Then there is no valid reason to argue that there is excessive suffering in the world…

What does the amount of suffering in the world have to do with whether or not human morality is dependent upon human subjectivity?

It is constantly used as evidence that God doesn’t exist whereas subjective opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of reality!

 

[Sair]

On what grounds is the saint’s response preferable to the criminal’s? A difference of quality implies it is simply a matter of taste…

If the saint’s response is preferred by the majority (and that would depend very much upon the saint in question, I would venture to suggest) then that is a relevant difference as far as human society is concerned. On what grounds to you suppose that there is some inherent superiority in the subjective response of a saint to that of a criminal? And does this hold for any and all circumstances?

It is constantly used as evidence that God doesn’t exist whereas subjective opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the nature of reality!

The conception of god that is generally countered by the argument from evil/suffering is that of a loving, all-powerful god. The important thing is that this god is conceived of as a subjective being, as we are subjective beings. That a subjective being with intentions, as opposed to an indifferent force of nature, could allow and even create the quantity of actual suffering in the world runs very much counter to what most people would consider a ‘loving’ god - most people would find it repugnant to cause suffering to someone they loved, even if they did imagine it was for some ‘greater good’. And after all, subjective opinions are themselves part of the nature of reality.