Ethics versus rationality

[Bahman]

Are all his decision rational? I can think of number of decision that are not rational. Why is that?

Can you give an example where your decision is not rational?

If both are grounded in reality, ethics and rationality cannot be in conflict. The problem is that our grounding is often emotion and wishful thinking.

I can give you many example to show that ethics and rationality can be in conflict.

 

[Bahman]

Can you provide an example of a rationally correct and ethically wrong action, Bahman?

Example like, to murder someone to save life of others from his/her cruelty. Another example like, murdering someone who is in very complicated medical situation.

 

[Bahman]

1. Your definition of ethics is incorrect;

Merriam‑Webster; Ethics - rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. (not a set of fixed moral principals.

I don’t see why my definition is wrong and yours is right.

1. Even though we are rational beings we do not always make rational decisions.

Since both of your premises were incorrect no correct conclusion can be made.

Can you give one example?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And do you have any reason to disapprove B’s actions?

Yes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes.

Then, it is a rational action.

 

[inocente]

Self defense is always ethically right and rational so long as the means are proportional to the end. Waterboarding, for example, does not maim or kill, but produces results without killing.

“If you disagree with me about waterboarding, if you believe that waterboarding is allowable in certain circumstances, we can agree to disagree and defer to the Church to settle between us. But keep in mind that the defense you give of your position should not be made to me. It need not even be made to a priest or bishop. Your defense of your position should be prepared and made ready for the day when Jesus Christ might one day say to you, “I was waterboarded and you approved” (cf. Matt. 25:31–46).” - catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/waterboarding-reconsidered

What rational reason would you give Christ to defend why you approved waterboarding Him?

 

[davidv]

Can you give an example where your decision is not rational?

Choosing to overindulge (a double serving) in ice cream after a full meal. This is a decision based only on emotion while ignoring the adverse health effects.

I can give you many example to show that ethics and rationality can be in conflict.

I am sure you can. The reason being is that most peoples’ ethics are not based on reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If a terrorist holds out when being tortured, then as it’s apparently a method of self defence and doesn’t maim or kill, we could waterboard someone close to him to ensure that he talks.

That would be rational. And you’ve already indicated that you’d be prepared to actually kill innocent people to obtain a good result, so a non lethal method of obtaining g info should be OK as far as you are concerned.

By the way, what if we don’t know the guy knows anything? Do we need to waterboard him if there is a strong suspicion that he does?

I think you’re treading through a moral minefield, Charles. Careful where you step.

Life itself is a minefield. We don’t have to worry about doing what seems to be the right thing to do when we do it. The torture of innocents is evil. It is only the torture of the evil ones that can be excused as a type of self defense. Be careful how you answer, especially if you think the evil ones should be allowed to prevail unless we are able to torture the information of where the bomb is out of them when we are certain they have it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“If you disagree with me about waterboarding, if you believe that waterboarding is allowable in certain circumstances, we can agree to disagree and defer to the Church to settle between us. But keep in mind that the defense you give of your position should not be made to me. It need not even be made to a priest or bishop. Your defense of your position should be prepared and made ready for the day when Jesus Christ might one day say to you, “I was waterboarded and you approved” (cf. Matt. 25:31–46).” - catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/waterboarding-reconsidered

What rational reason would you give Christ to defend why you approved waterboarding Him?

I would never waterboard Christ. What would be the point?

But I would waterboard Satan if I could get my hands on him.

 

[clem456]

Ethics is defined as a set of fixed moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right.

Immorality is opposed to reason.

 

[inocente]

I would never waterboard Christ. What would be the point?

But I would waterboard Satan if I could get my hands on him.

The secular Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Note, no exceptions. Sounds like you’re saying the secular world now has higher ethical standards than Christians.
.
You know the moral context of Matt 25 is that whoever you waterboard is Christ:

*Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was waterboarded and you did not protest.

They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or being waterboarded, and did not help you?’

He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”*

I’m asking you what rational reason you give to Christ to defend why you approved waterboarding one of the least of these. How do you defend that what seems rational to you is ethical. Christ is listening in. Over to you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You know the moral context of Matt 25 is that whoever you waterboard is Christ:

More silly putty logic, I’m afraid.

The moral context of MATTHEW 25 is to assuage the suffering of the unfortunate. It is not about assuaging the suffering of those who are about to kill us if they can.

Christ does not require us to assent to be murdered if we can prevent the murdering.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The secular Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Note, no exceptions. Sounds like you’re saying the secular world now has higher ethical standards than Christians.

Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also require that we must consent to be murdered when we can do something effective to prevent the murder?

 

[clem456]

Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also require that we must consent to be murdered when we can do something effective to prevent the murder?

I think we are thin moral ice.
There is such a thing as just actions taken in self defense but torture is prolly at the line if not over it. At least in the eyes of the Church.

 

[o_mlly]

Ethics is defined as a set of -]fixed/-] reasoned moral principles that govern human behavior. Human is a rational being and his decision is rational too. If the reasoning is correct then the ethics are necessarily correct. -]The question is why we should feel guilty of our actions when they are ethically wrong but rationally right./-]

But the reasoning can be wrong and still no guilt occurs. In some societies cannibalism was (is?) accepted behavior. By their own unhealthy logic, cannibal ethics permitted the capturing, killing and eating of other humans. I do not believe the cannibals felt any guilt as their minds and stomachs were in agreement, in accord.

Guilt as a disposition only occurs when the mind and the action of the actor are discordant, when one knows or thinks that one has done something bad or wrong, something unethical.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think we are thin moral ice.
There is such a thing as just actions taken in self defense but torture is prolly at the line if not over it. At least in the eyes of the Church.

I don’t believe the Church has declared itself on waterboarding.

On the other hand, the Church regularly advocated torture and execution for heresy during the Inquisition.

So tell me, if you knew the person in question could tell you where the bomb was, would you refuse to waterboard him out of a misguided sense of his rights versus the rights of those he planned to murder?

Shall we just surrender to the terrorists?

Or is waterboarding not a weapon of self defense?

 

[Usagi]

Or is waterboarding not a weapon of self defense?

Self-defense is a very specific thing. While the “rules” of legitimate self-defense differ somewhat between the individual and national levels, I don’t believe any of them permit causing pain or anguish to a person who is at your mercy.

Don’t delude yourself that waterboarding is somehow a harmless way of “getting results” that doesn’t count as torture. How do you think it works, if not by applying a highly aversive stimulus and threatening to continue until the victim cooperates?

 

[davidv]

I don’t believe the Church has declared itself on waterboarding.

On the other hand, the Church regularly advocated torture and execution for heresy during the Inquisition.

Can you please provide a source for this?

So tell me, if you knew the person in question could tell you where the bomb was, would you refuse to waterboard him out of a misguided sense of his rights versus the rights of those he planned to murder?

Shall we just surrender to the terrorists?

Or is waterboarding not a weapon of self defense?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Don’t delude yourself that waterboarding is somehow a harmless way of “getting results” that doesn’t count as torture. How do you think it works, if not by applying a highly aversive stimulus and threatening to continue until the victim cooperates?

Yes, that certainly makes sense. Since the object of waterboarding is not to kill but to obtain life-saving information, why would it not be justified. Do you believe that nothing should be done to save others from being bombed to death when you could have saved them by waterboarding?

In battle men, according to the lawful rules of military conduct, throw grenades at each other to kill. Waterboarding hardly constitutes anything approximating hand grenades that leave men in tortured states often resulting in agonizing death.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you please provide a source for this?

This from the *Summa Theologica *of Thomas Aquinas commenting on the question whether heretics should be tolerated:

"I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

True, Thomas was not the formal voice of the Catholic Church. But there was no formal Catechism of the Catholic Church that we have today.

I would place waterboarding not under the topic of torture but rather under the topic of a justifiable weapon used for self defense in a just war scenario. The war we are engaged in with Radical Islam, whether declared or undeclared by Congress, seems to me a just war, and all the more so an immediate necessity in the instance of attempting to stop an imminent bombing of the innocents.

Waterboarding is, moreover, covered by the natural law principle of choosing the lesser of two evils, which I believe Pope Francis recently invoked but I can’t remember the source or the issue he referenced.