Did Adam and Eve have complete dominion of reason over appetite?

[STT]

Hitler was convinced that he was doing right by eliminating Jews from the face of the earth. Is he, by virtue of his opinion, not guilty of heinous crimes against humanity? (Feel free to substitute Stalin / Pol Pot / your favorite mass murderer, if it helps you reach clarity on this question.)

Yes, they are not guilty.

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias:

Again: the point of making moral choices is to do what God wishes – He wishes us to choose virtue over vice.

We always make moral choice if there is no free will. Isn’t morality justifiable?

Except it’s not a choice, let alone anything to do with morality, if there is no free will.

 

[STT]

No, not that either. Not as its primary, meaning, anyway, though it follows from the primary meaning that they are capable of doing wrong.

It could’t be neither this nor that.

 

[STT]

Except it’s not a choice, let alone anything to do with morality, if there is no free will.

Yes, I should rather call it moral act.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No, not that either. Not as its primary, meaning, anyway, though it follows from the primary meaning that they are capable of doing wrong.

It could’t be neither this nor that.

Why? Does that exhaust all options?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Except it’s not a choice, let alone anything to do with morality, if there is no free will.

Yes, I should rather call it moral act.

There’s nothing moral or immoral about it.

 

[STT]

Why? Does that exhaust all options?

Rationality gives direction to our actions. It cannot neither leads to good nor bad.

 

[o_mlly]

There are three moments that the doctrine of Original Sin must explain: What is human nature before the Fall, during the Fall, and subsequent to the Fall? Augustine tells us that human nature changed as a result of the Fall, was corrupted by it, and is now inclined to sin. But what was the nature during the Fall? If corruption is the effect of the Fall (the Original Sin) then does Augustine’s doctrine hold that sin is both the cause and the effect of our fallen nature? If the corrupted nature was antecedent, incident and subsequent to the Fall, then human nature did not change. But we believe man’s nature did change. How do we resolve?

The resolution to this apparent incoherence resides in understanding that part of man’s nature that preceded and remained unchanged by the Fall. The answer is free will, specifically the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving Him and loving one another.

Without this freedom man cannot be God’s friends, only His slaves. Adam’s freedom to love or to reject love preceded and remained unchanged by his fall from grace. Although Adam rejected God, God did not reject Adam for God is Love.

 

[STT]

There’s nothing moral or immoral about it.

If morality is justifiable and there is no free will, our act always is moral.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

There’s nothing moral or immoral about it.

If morality is justifiable and there is no free will, our act always is moral.

Morality is a facet of goodness which applies to the goodness of our choices. If there is no choice, there is no morality.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Why? Does that exhaust all options?

Rationality gives direction to our actions. It cannot neither leads to good nor bad.

No. A human being and a computer differ. The computer is programmed to follow a logic. These algorithms are determined entirely by another mind. The computer behaves according to the logic of its program but has no awareness or understanding of it’s own program, let alone logic in general.

Human beings can abstract from particulars to universal concepts. Not only that, we don’t just behave according to instinct and reflexes and logically, we understand logic and logical systems. We can grasp the abstraction, know the abstraction. Furthermore, we can evaluate the soundness and appropriateness of logical systems and come to our own conclusions. The ability to abstract is what makes us rational animals. It’s not a question of simply executing a logical program.

And it follows from our ability to do this and choose that we can do moral goods and moral evils.

 

[STT]

If there is no choice, there is no morality.

That is not correct. You would realize it if you read my sentence carefully. To elaborate, is morality justifiable? Yes. You believe in God. We always follow morality because there is a good end which satisfies our nature.

 

[STT]

No. A human being and a computer differ. The computer is programmed to follow a logic. These algorithms are determined entirely by another mind. The computer behaves according to the logic of its program but has no awareness or understanding of it’s own program, let alone logic in general.

Human beings can abstract from particulars to universal concepts. Not only that, we don’t just behave according to instinct and reflexes and logically, we understand logic and logical systems. We can grasp the abstraction, know the abstraction. Furthermore, we can evaluate the soundness and appropriateness of logical systems and come to our own conclusions. The ability to abstract is what makes us rational animals. It’s not a question of simply executing a logical program.

And it follows from our ability to do this and choose that we can do moral goods and moral evils.

You mean we could make neutral act?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

If there is no choice, there is no morality.

That is not correct. You would realize it if you read my sentence carefully. To elaborate, is morality justifiable? Yes. You believe in God. We always follow morality because there is a good end which satisfies our nature.

That there is something we see as good as the object of every choice does not make that choice a moral good. You’re conflating a good in general with a particular type of goodness.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No. A human being and a computer differ. The computer is programmed to follow a logic. These algorithms are determined entirely by another mind. The computer behaves according to the logic of its program but has no awareness or understanding of it’s own program, let alone logic in general.

Human beings can abstract from particulars to universal concepts. Not only that, we don’t just behave according to instinct and reflexes and logically, we understand logic and logical systems. We can grasp the abstraction, know the abstraction. Furthermore, we can evaluate the soundness and appropriateness of logical systems and come to our own conclusions. The ability to abstract is what makes us rational animals. It’s not a question of simply executing a logical program.

And it follows from our ability to do this and choose that we can do moral goods and moral evils.

You mean we could make neutral act?

No. I’m saying we are not computers simply executing a programmed logic.

 

[STT]

That there is something we see as good as the object of every choice does not make that choice a moral good. You’re conflating a good in general with a particular type of goodness.

I said good end.

 

[STT]

No. I’m saying we are not computers simply executing a programmed logic.

We were talking about the absence of free will and not computer.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That there is something we see as good as the object of every choice does not make that choice a moral good. You’re conflating a good in general with a particular type of goodness.

I said good end.

Scenario: I am in a room with a red button. I have full knowledge that every time I press the button I will have a minute of intense pleasure and that ten people will die.

If I still press the button, it is because the object of my will is the good of feeling pleasure. However, to do this while killing ten people is a moral evil. If I had no free will, the physical good of the pleasure remains, and the physical evil of ten people dying remains, but there is no moral good or moral evil involved.

Moral judgments only apply to choices and actions that follow from beings with free will, and who are said to be rational beings because they have the intellect to understand abstract concepts such as logic, goodness, evil, and other such things

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

No. I’m saying we are not computers simply executing a programmed logic.

We were talking about the absence of free will and not computer.

We were talking about rationality and what that means when talking about a person.

 

[STT]

Scenario: I am in a room with a red button. I have full knowledge that every time I press the button I will have a minute of intense pleasure and that ten people will die.

If I still press the button, it is because the object of my will is the good of feeling pleasure. However, to do this while killing ten people is a moral evil. If I had no free will, the physical good of the pleasure remains, and the physical evil of ten people dying remains, but there is no moral good or moral evil involved.

Moral judgments only apply to choices and actions that follow from beings with free will, and who are said to be rational beings because they have the intellect to understand abstract concepts such as logic, goodness, evil, and other such things

That, bold part, doesn’t follow. Do you mean that we use our free will to justify morality. We of course not since free will is not a tool for justifying morality. We in fact use rationality.