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

[STT]

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

Rationality to me is a tool which gives direction to our action. Feeling push us forward.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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.

Our rationality being our ability to understand abstract concepts such as good, evil, logic, etc…

The bold part does follow. I don’t care what you choose to call it, there is a distinction between “a good” in itself and the goodness or lack thereof in a choice.

Good and evil are not synonymous with morality. Morality is only one type of goodness: the goodness of choices.

 

[STT]

Our rationality being our ability to understand abstract concepts such as good, evil, logic, etc…

Therefore we use rationality and not free will to justify morality. I don’t understand why you disagree. That is what leads to the conclusion I made.

The bold part does follow. I don’t care what you choose to call it, there is a distinction between “a good” in itself and the goodness or lack thereof in a choice .

I know the difference.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I should rather call it moral act.

It cannot be a moral act if it’s not freely chosen.

You mean we could make neutral act?

“Amoral”. Neither moral nor immoral.

Is Hitler, by virtue of his opinion, not guilty of heinous crimes against humanity?

I’m speechless. There is literally no middle ground we can find on issues of morality if the phrase “Hitler is not morally responsible for mass murder” has any traction in your moral philosophy.

Wesrock:

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.

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.

No, it means that there is no moral dimension to the act. It is an amoral act.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Our rationality being our ability to understand abstract concepts such as good, evil, logic, etc…

Therefore we use rationality and not free will to justify morality. I don’t understand why you disagree. That is what leads to the conclusion I made.

We use rationality to understand the morality of choices. You do not have moral goodness or moral evil apart from choices made by free will.

 

[STT]

It cannot be a moral act if it’s not freely chosen.

I said act rather than choice.

“Amoral”. Neither moral nor immoral.

Yes, we can do that.

I’m speechless. There is literally no middle ground we can find on issues of morality if the phrase “Hitler is not morally responsible for mass murder” has any traction in your moral philosophy.

You need to put yourself inside their shoes. They just believe differently.

No, it means that there is no moral dimension to the act. It is an amoral act.

That is not correct.

 

[STT]

We use rationality to understand the morality of choices.

That is correct.

You do not have moral goodness or moral evil apart from choices made by free will.

That is incorrect.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You do not have moral goodness or moral evil apart from choices made by free will.

That is incorrect.

A person dying is not a moral evil. It is a physical evil. There is no moral component to this fact yet.

A person willingly not taking reasonable action to save a dying person has made a morally evil choice.

A person who willingly and justly takes the life of the person who is dead has made a morally evil choice.

A person who willingly takes action to save the dying person has made a morally good choice.

A person who willingly takes action to stop a murder has made a morally good choice.

A rolling boulder stopping a person from dying is a physical, but not moral, good.

A rolling boulder crushing a person and killing them is a physical, not moral, evil.

Or do you claim there is no difference between a person acting with free will and a boulder shaken loose by an earthquake?

 

[STT]

Or do you claim there is no difference between a person acting with free will and a boulder shaken loose by an earthquake?

I am saying two rational beings one with free will and another without free will both can justify morality.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Or do you claim there is no difference between a person acting with free will and a boulder shaken loose by an earthquake?

I am saying two rational beings one with free will and another without free will both can justify morality.

A rational being without free will is basically an absurdity, for there is no actual exercise of judgment that can be attributed to him either before or after the act. He did not choose to do the act and he did not choose to judge the act. It would makes as much sense as calling a boulder that rolled down a hill intelligent and rational for “knowing” it should roll down a hill instead of fly upwards.

Your presuming the exercise of free will in this hypothetical being without free will.

 

[STT]

A rational being without free will is basically an absurdity, for there is no actual exercise of judgment that can be attributed to him either before or after the act. He did not choose to do the act and he did not choose to judge the act. It would makes as much sense as calling a boulder that rolled down a hill intelligent and rational for “knowing” it should roll down a hill instead of fly upwards.

Your presuming the exercise of free will in this hypothetical being without free will.

What is required is understanding rather than exercising free will.

 

[PetraG]

The fruit just not look pleasing to them. They were told that you become God. They were lied and believed otherwise. No mature and rational person do otherwise if he knows that he would die.

When you are told the moral law by God himself and you decide to accept someone else as an authority, that is a choice. Once again: the snake did not say that the law had changed. Adam and Eve were not deceived about that.

The snake said they ought to conclude that God was lying to them about the consequences of the sin; it was not implied that God had not commanded them to do any such thing. They tried to use their will to achieve the consequences they wanted, regardless of what the commandment was.

Contrast their attitude to that of Christ, who was given a command that lead to a horrible death. He asked before he was handed over that the cup be taken–that is, that the command might be changed–but expressed his intention to do God’s will rather than his own, regardless of the consequences. He did not have a death wish; at other times, he had slipped away when people wanted to murder him. In this case, though, he chose obedience even though it lead to the Cross.

Thus the New Adam accepted any consequence of doing the Will of God, out of obedience.

 

[STT]

I think I said what should I said.

 

[PetraG]

I think I said what should I said.

When you wrote “They didn’t choose not to believe. They were lied,” it implies that they cannot be blamed for taking the fruit?

Do you believe it was it unjust to penalize Eve for listening to the serpent or to penalize Adam for listening to Eve, even though both had heard the commandment directly from God and no one told either that God was no longer forbidding them from eating the fruit?

 

[STT]

When you wrote “They didn’t choose not to believe. They were lied,” it implies that they cannot be blamed for taking the fruit?

Do you believe it was it unjust to penalize Eve for listening to the serpent or to penalize Adam for listening to Eve, even though both had heard the commandment directly from God and no one told either that God was no longer forbidding them from eating the fruit?

Would you consume poison? Assume that you like your life and there is no life after death.

 

[PetraG]

Would you consume poison? Assume that you like your life and there is no life after death.

Did God command me to consume poison? Did God command Adam or Eve to consume poison? No.
Was Our Lord willing to do whatever He was asked to do? Yes, even to death on a Cross.
By the way, the snake did not tell Adam and Eve they would die if they didn’t eat the forbidden fruit.
The snake said that God was lying to them because, according the snake, they wouldn’t die if they did.

Did Adam and Eve receive unjust consequences?

 

[STT]

Did God command me to consume poison? Did God command Adam or Eve to consume poison? No.
Was Our Lord willing to do whatever He was asked to do? Yes, even to death on a Cross.
By the way, the snake did not tell Adam and Eve they would die if they didn’t eat the forbidden fruit.
The snake said that God was lying to them because, according the snake, they wouldn’t die if they did.

Did Adam and Eve receive unjust consequences?

Could we please stick to the scenario. Asking more questions wouldn’t help the situation. Would you consume poison or not, knowing the fact that you like your life and there is no life after death?

 

[PetraG]

Could we please stick to the scenario. Asking more questions wouldn’t help the situation. Would you consume poison or not, knowing the fact that you like your life and there is no life after death?

OK, let’s stick to the scenario…explain what on Earth that has to do with Adam and Eve? No one ever asked them to take poison. If anything, the command was the reverse and they stupidly decided to ignore the directions.

If you get a prescription from your doctor, even, and he says, “don’t take this with X, it will kill you,” and one of your cousins says, “oh, no, he told you THAT? Ah, he’s just trying to scare you, because that will NOT kill you! No, what happens if you take that medication with X is that you’ll get is a tremendous high and you’ll understand everything!” would you say that the guy who takes his addict cousin’s advice about prescription medications can’t be blamed because he was lied to? Please!

My scenario is at least a direct analogy. I have no idea why you’re trying to get me to drink poison.

 

[STT]

OK, let’s stick to the scenario…explain what on Earth that has to do with Adam and Eve? No one ever asked them to take poison. If anything, the command was the reverse and they stupidly decided to ignore the directions.

They were told by God that they will die if they eat the fruit. So eating the fruit was equal by taking poison. No rational being would do that. You cannot be rational and make stupid decision at the same time.

 

[PetraG]

They were told by God that they will die if they eat the fruit. So eating the fruit was equal by taking poison. No rational being would do that. You cannot be rational and make stupid decision at the same time.

It is rational to be disobedient to God if you can convince yourself that you won’t have to suffer the consequences? No. They thought they could get away with it, but the fact remains that they deliberately chose to be disobedient. They never thought that God had changed the command. They thought that God had overstated the consequences.

Rational people make stupid decisions all of the time, because they convince themselves they are in some special class of people who won’t suffer the natural consequences that afflict other people. That is why they justly are sent to prison instead of a mental hospital. That is why they have affairs that their spouses do find out about and it does ruin their marriages and their spouses do not believe all their ridiculous excuses. The list goes on and on!! They are supposed to be excused because they were “deceived”? No! Only people who had no way of knowing the truth or no way of knowing whose advice is sound have that excuse. People who find flimsy excuses to rationalize stupid decisions do not have that excuse.

I suppose you could say arrogance is irrational, and in a sense you’d be right. No one says that the arrogant have lost the use of their free wills, however. For the arrogant, reason isn’t lost. It is abandoned.