From consent to morality

[Paul1Up]

It was funny, if not accurate of relevant. It is a nice enumeration of the nanny-state. And the assumption that it could not have been achieved by private means. Have you ever compared the quailty of the state-maintained highways with the privately owned and operated ones? Since most of the areas of life are over-regulated by the goverment, we have only a few examples to make comparisions… Let’s see: US mail versus UPS, which one is cheaper and better? Public schools versus private ones? No contest. I am sure I could come up with more, but I am getting tired.

But it was worth to read it nevertheless for its fun-content.

Hehe. Actually, I live in an ex-communist country, and that was a true nanny-state if there ever was one. After two generations, the country is full of people content to do nothing about their own situation, and to sit around and philosophize all the time. They are nostalgic for the quality of life they had in communism, and I lament their lack of action, but I can’t blame them because their quality of life really was higher back then. People that I know that used to be communists became capitalists when the system changed. They are the kind of people who would live a lie as long as they live well and take advantage of the situation for their own gain. Libertarianism is nice on paper, but practically speaking and given limited resources, there are too many bad capitalists for it to be practical, and you can’t offset that by having more good capitalists. The assumption that private industry will act responsibly and consist of better quality is also mistaken. New buildings here are falling apart after 5 years because they saved money by building with cheap materials, while 60 year old communist eyesore buildings are the same as the day they were made.

 

[Shike]

And this “right” is something that is granted by the US goverment. If you would say that it “should” be granted by all the goverments, I would agree wholeheartedly. But the fact is…

After reading through your post I am convinced that we are talking at two different levels. For the most part I don’t really disagree with you.

I am more interested, for present purposes, in the “should” and it’s justification and foundation rather than any failures to live up to it. The government has legitimate authority (read: responsibilities) but can abuse it’s power in its own realm and in areas outside it. The philosophical question is where does that authority derive. Is it merely the consent of the people, or is the social creature as expressed in society a part of our human nature. …Questions like these and not any transgressions.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

Hehe. Actually, I live in an ex-communist country, and that was a true nanny-state if there ever was one. After two generations, the country is full of people content to do nothing about their own situation, and to sit around and philosophize all the time. They are nostalgic for the quality of life they had in communism, and I lament their lack of action, but I can’t blame them because their quality of life really was higher back then. People that I know that used to be communists became capitalists when the system changed. They are the kind of people who would live a lie as long as they live well and take advantage of the situation for their own gain. Libertarianism is nice on paper, but practically speaking and given limited resources, there are too many bad capitalists for it to be practical, and you can’t offset that by having more good capitalists. The assumption that private industry will act responsibly and consist of better quality is also mistaken. New buildings here are falling apart after 5 years because they saved money by building with cheap materials, while 60 year old communist eyesore buildings are the same as the day they were made.

I was born and lived for 35 years in one of the satellite countries, so I know exactly what you are talking about. Partially you are right, of course. People are nostalgic, since they miss the security of those times. Of course the current regimes are not “capitalist” at all. Only rulers changed, there is somewhat more freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. And that is a horrible prospect to those who grew up in an environment where the rulers made all the decisions. You can’t have both freedom and security. Freedom means to have the right (the only positive right) to make your own mistakes.

As the old saying goes: “The fault of capitalism is that it fails to distribute wealth equally. The virtue of communism is that it mananges to spread poverty equally”.

 

[Spock]

After reading through your post I am convinced that we are talking at two different levels. For the most part I don’t really disagree with you.

That is good to hear.

I am more interested, for present purposes, in the “should” and it’s justification and foundation rather than any failures to live up to it. The government has legitimate authority (read: responsibilities) but can abuse it’s power in its own realm and in areas outside it. The philosophical question is where does that authority derive. Is it merely the consent of the people, or is the social creature as expressed in society a part of our human nature. …Questions like these and not any transgressions.

The “should” comes from our biological setup.

We are both individuals and social beings. To realize our full potential we must balance these two aspects. Humans (for the most part) value their freedom highly (though there are exceptions). Any goverment limits that freedom. But there is a legitimate need for some goverment, since the opposite would be anarchy - which is the ideal state of affairs - but it is impractical because most people would be unable to cope with too much freedom.

We are willing to accept that some people are stronger, faster, smarter than others. From this general unequality it should follow that some people are more able to deal with the “overdose” of freedom, while others are more comfortable in a regulated environment.

Therefore we do need some goverment. The question is “how much”? The more indivdualistic people (libertarians) want a small goverment, which limits their freedom, but not excessively. They are willing to take the risk of more freedom and less security. The “sheep” want to feed at the public though and want to elect politicians who are willing to pander to their “wants”. And since the sheep outnumber the “wolves”, and since the current goverment is “majority based”, the sheep will win.

You ask from where does the goverment derive its power. The US is a great example. When it was founded, the Constitution was formed by the wisest people of the land. And the rest read it, accepted it and so it was ratified. As such it was the consent of the people which gave the power to the goverment. Once it was in place, the rules changed. The goverment is now in the position of monopoly. The rest of us is SOL. (I hope you know what that means). We certainly could change the goverment (ballots, not bullets), but it would require unity and determination - both of which most people lack. So we are up the creek. For how long? Who knows.

 

[Shike]

The “should” comes from our biological setup.

From this it sounds like a) there is no is/ought guillotine (and rightly so because it is a bunch of nonsense, what one should do depends upon what is) and b) some kind of beginning formulation of natural law. Soon you will be talking about how the nature of our capacities dictate how someone is harmed or benefited.

You already speak of ‘full potential’.

But there is a legitimate need for some goverment, since the opposite would be anarchy - which is the ideal state of affairs - but it is impractical because most people would be unable to cope with too much freedom.

Why do you think anarchy means freedom? What is your definition of freedom?

If your definition is merely without any restrictions, that freedom is merely the ability to choose whatever, then it is self-refuting. When we make any choice, we place restrictions on ourselves… some new possibilities open, but most importantly old possibilities die away. It has the strange outcome that every time you choose you lose freedom. Or at the very least one shouldn’t make final decisions because of their finality (but I want to marry this person and spend the rest of my life with her! Final!).

Also, because such a definition would say that someone should never choose, never choosing eventually becomes the choice of never choosing, due to death–making it impracticable in reality.

As such it was the consent of the people which gave the power to the goverment. Once it was in place, the rules changed. The goverment is now in the position of monopoly.

Well, at least the underlying natural law didn’t change. So any abuse of power is just that, an abuse. Basically, the people cannot give away their right to justice, no matter what they say. It is not possible to make Hobbes’ authoritarian monster moral, although its authoritarian abuses may be practicable.

 

[Spock]

From this it sounds like a) there is no is/ought guillotine (and rightly so because it is a bunch of nonsense, what one should do depends upon what is) …

So far agreed.

and b) some kind of beginning formulation of natural law. Soon you will be talking about how the nature of our capacities dictate how someone is harmed or benefited.

Our biology is not uniform, so there cannot be a uniform “is/out guillotine” as you correctly said above.

Why do you think anarchy means freedom? What is your definition of freedom?

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows” - said Winston Smith in 1984. But seriously, in an anarchy there are no codified laws, and the only restiction is what people impose on themselves and the possible “ostracism” of the immediate society - and, of course the restiction imposed on everyone by the “laws of nature” - which have nothing to do with “natural law”…

If your definition is merely without any restrictions, that freedom is merely the ability to choose whatever, then it is self-refuting.

As I said above, it is not that. Of course there is nothing “self-refuting” about it. Obviously to make a choice eliminates some alternatives, but that is a physical limitation. Even in an anarchy one cannot expect to jump off from a cliff, and float down unharmed.

Well, at least the underlying natural law didn’t change.

Since there is no natural law, there is nothing to change.

So any abuse of power is just that, an abuse.

That is the obvious opinion of the abused ones (and the sympathizers). The abusers see it differently. They usually create some excuse, like “it is in the best interest of the abused ones” (sounds familiar when one remembers the inquisition). Did they not say that they must act to exorcise the devil out of the body of those poor witches, to they could repent and cleanse their “souls”? Was that an “abuse” in your opinion?

But this is way off the topic of this thread. Can we return to it?

 

[Shike]

Our biology is not uniform, so there cannot be a uniform “is/out guillotine” as you correctly said above.

There also isn’t a un-uniform is/ought guillotine.

Uniformity doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the is/ought guillotine. The guillotine basically says that you cannot derive an ought from an is. Uniformity of human nature is pertinent to natural law and any possible conclusions, however, it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the is/ought guillotine itself.

But as least we agree that the is/ought guillotine is rubbish!

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows” - said Winston Smith in 1984. But seriously, in an anarchy there are no codified laws, and the only restiction is what people impose on themselves and the possible “ostracism” of the immediate society - and, of course the restiction imposed on everyone by the “laws of nature” - which have nothing to do with “natural law”…

But what is freedom? Can I get a positive definition?

Obviously to make a choice eliminates some alternatives, but that is a physical limitation. Even in an anarchy one cannot expect to jump off from a cliff, and float down unharmed.

Which just illustrates the point that freedom defined as the mere ability to choose is not sufficient.

That is the obvious opinion of the abused ones (and the sympathizers). The abusers see it differently. They usually create some excuse, like “it is in the best interest of the abused ones” (sounds familiar when one remembers the inquisition). Did they not say that they must act to exorcise the devil out of the body of those poor witches, to they could repent and cleanse their “souls”? Was that an “abuse” in your opinion?

First, if the abuser makes an unjustified excuse it still remains unjustified.
Second your quote “it is in the best interest of the abused ones” can be easily twisted for evil within a utilitarian framework.
And third, witch hunting was mostly a Protestant phenomenon. And the injustices that were committed still remain injustices, whether by the Church or anyone else. People do stupid things sometimes, and the Church is made up of people.

But this is way off the topic of this thread. Can we return to it?

The ground of morality is particularly pertinent to the thread. But I will change directions: my latest post about sexual morality has yet to be addressed, #43.

 

[Spock]

But what is freedom? Can I get a positive definition?

The communist philosophy said that “freedom is a recognized necessity”. This was for your amusement only. Freedom is “to do whatever we wish to do as long as it is physically possible”. Observe, because of our physical limitations, our freedom is not “whatever we wish to do”. As such our freedom is always limited by our ability.

Which just illustrates the point that freedom defined as the mere ability to choose is not sufficient.

Why not?

First, if the abuser makes an unjustified excuse it still remains unjustified.

Unjustified in the eyes of whom? Surely, the abusers find it sufficient. Here comes a simple problem: “what is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?”. Think it over, it is a very important point.

Second your quote “it is in the best interest of the abused ones” can be easily twisted for evil within a utilitarian framework.

Of course it can. There is no hammer, which can only be used to hit nails on the head, but not humans. This is obvious.

And third, witch hunting was mostly a Protestant phenomenon. And the injustices that were committed still remain injustices, whether by the Church or anyone else. People do stupid things sometimes, and the Church is made up of people.

I am not blaming. But I find it amusing that when the “church” obviously makes some horrible decisions, it is always composed of “fallible people”, and when the church makes a moral declaration, it is always infallibly guided by some holy spirit. This reminds me of another old joke: “how come that I am always indispensable when I wish to take a vacation, and very dispensable, when I ask for a raise?”.

I am talking about the worst vice of all: “hypocrisy”.

 

[Spock]

…my latest post about sexual morality has yet to be addressed, #43.

Indeed, I neglected it. And with good reason. You were twisting the problem. My stipulation was that there are two people in the privacy of their home. There is no one else affected by their actions. You wished to change that with saying that since they are occupied with each other, they neglect to take care of others, who might be in need of help. And you said that being busy having some fun with each other is “immoral”, since they do not look at the “big picture” and thus in the hierarchy of “things” they act selfishly.

Do I really have to explain why this line of thought is nonsense? But just in case you need it: the same line of argument could apply to those instances when the said couple is engaged in an act of purposeful procreation. According to your argument, no matter what we do, we are always selfish, since we “could” spend our efforts on something, which is “higher” in the hierarchy of “needs”.

Get real, buddy, and answer honestly. Those two people are alone. They have no pending “duty”. Their room is soundproofed and the curtains are drawn. They engage in an activity of mutually satisfying each other, not simultaneously, rather consecutively - because it is more efficient to concentrate on your partner without caring about your own needs (if that is not unselfish, I don’t know what is). What is your “moral” problem with this picture? And this time, stick with the parameters.

 

[Shike]

The communist philosophy said that “freedom is a recognized necessity”. This was for your amusement only. Freedom is “to do whatever we wish to do as long as it is physically possible”. Observe, because of our physical limitations, our freedom is not “whatever we wish to do”. As such our freedom is always limited by our ability.

This is a better definition than what you first implied. It’s getting there.

So we have physical limitations. But the laws of nature are not the only physical limitations. For instance, an individual cannot place his hand in the fire without being burned (under normal circumstances). One cannot really try to violate the laws of nature, but one can try to violate his own nature.

And if you are willing to bite the bullet and say that your definition still stands, and someone should still be able to choose to damage themselves… I say fine, but don’t call it freedom. The person who burns his hand long enough will lose some capabilities. The person who smokes can become addicted and lose the ability to quit (more or less). Addiction sounds like slavery to me, and not freedom.

Once you realize that physical limitations are not only the laws of nature, you can call yourself part of the natural law philosophy gang.

Why not?

Why did your point illustrate how freedom is not the mere ability to choose? Because you mentioned physical limitations. If we add physical limitations to the definition we no longer have the same definition.

Unjustified in the eyes of whom? Surely, the abusers find it sufficient. Here comes a simple problem: “what is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?”. Think it over, it is a very important point.

Before I answer fully, I think I would need clarification on what the freedom fighter does. Are you referring to any current events? I’m pretty sure I understand what a terrorist does.

Of course it can. There is no hammer, which can only be used to hit nails on the head, but not humans. This is obvious.

I disagree. Natural law philosophy is pretty good in not justifying the absurd scenarios that can be justified by utilitarianism. Natural law philosophy would keep the hammer off the head of an innocent person, which might not be the case with utilitarianism.

I am not blaming. But I find it amusing that when the “church” obviously makes some horrible decisions, it is always composed of “fallible people”, and when the church makes a moral declaration, it is always infallibly guided by some holy spirit.

This is not hypocrisy. Preaching your principles and failing to live up to them is different than preaching your principles and not even trying to live up to them. The latter is hypocrisy the former is human weakness.

At least that should be the case. I will not deny that hypocrites exist within the Church, but notice it would be against the teachings of the Church. Christ’s teachings are worth trying to live up to, even though we sometimes fail.

Have you read the Gospels?

 

[Shike]

Indeed, I neglected it. And with good reason. You were twisting the problem. My stipulation was that there are two people in the privacy of their home. There is no one else affected by their actions. You wished to change that with saying that since they are occupied with each other, they neglect to take care of others, who might be in need of help. And you said that being busy having some fun with each other is “immoral”, since they do not look at the “big picture” and thus in the hierarchy of “things” they act selfishly.

I explained why I offered my example of the person outside the door. It was to help you realize that consent is not the be-all-end-all. Figuring out why my example showed a higher order good would shed light on the higher order goods that exist when two people are alone.

Do I really have to explain why this line of thought is nonsense?

Yes.

But just in case you need it: the same line of argument could apply to those instances when the said couple is engaged in an act of purposeful procreation. According to your argument, no matter what we do, we are always selfish, since we “could” spend our efforts on something, which is “higher” in the hierarchy of “needs”.

It’s not a question of spending yourself on higher order goods rather than not violating higher order goods. So no, my same reasoning does not apply to a married couple unless they are violating some of those higher order goods. I already explained the difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose.

Get real, buddy, and answer honestly. Those two people are alone. They have no pending “duty”. Their room is soundproofed and the curtains are drawn. They engage in an activity of mutually satisfying each other, not simultaneously, rather consecutively - because it is more efficient to concentrate on your partner without caring about your own needs (if that is not unselfish, I don’t know what is). What is your “moral” problem with this picture? And this time, stick with the parameters.

What I have always been saying, that they are harming each other if 1) they are not married, and 2) if they use artificial contraception. My further point was that ‘we are our brother’s keeper’ and so when someone is hurt it affects the rest of us, especially in cases of selfishness.
These have been my points and I have answered honestly all along. If you have further questions I am all ears. I don’t wish to get personal so let’s make this strictly an argumentation thing and assume the other is always answering honestly.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

So we have physical limitations. But the laws of nature are not the only physical limitations. For instance, an individual cannot place his hand in the fire without being burned (under normal circumstances). One cannot really try to violate the laws of nature, but one can try to violate his own nature.

Have you heard of Mucius Scaevola? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Mucius_Scaevola)

And if you are willing to bite the bullet and say that your definition still stands, and someone should still be able to choose to damage themselves… I say fine, but don’t call it freedom.

Of course it is freedom. There were those Buddhist monks who put themselves aflame to protest against their oppressors. Was that not a demonstration of their freedom? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc)

The person who smokes can become addicted and lose the ability to quit (more or less). Addiction sounds like slavery to me, and not freedom.

And one can break that habit, or make a free decision, that the pleasure derived from smoking is worth the risk of a shorter life. It is only the person who can make such a decision.

Once you realize that physical limitations are not only the laws of nature, you can call yourself part of the natural law philosophy gang.

So far you did not mention any other limitations.

Why did your point illustrate how freedom is not the mere ability to choose? Because you mentioned physical limitations. If we add physical limitations to the definition we no longer have the same definition.

You are kidding. You confuse freedom with “total freedom”, which I never advocated.

Before I answer fully, I think I would need clarification on what the freedom fighter does. Are you referring to any current events? I’m pretty sure I understand what a terrorist does.

No, what I said is all the information you have. There is some person whose acts are viewed by some as heroic self-sacrifice for the good of his people, and the same acts are viewed as the acts of a terrorist by others. My point is that there is no difference in the act, but if you “like” what he does, he will be labeled a “freedom fighter”, and if you are against it, he will be labeled a “terrorist”. One man’s terrorist is another one’s freedom fighter. There is no difference, except in the attitude of the observer. Ponder that.

I disagree. Natural law philosophy is pretty good in not justifying the absurd scenarios that can be justified by utilitarianism. Natural law philosophy would keep the hammer off the head of an innocent person, which might not be the case with utilitarianism.

What do you disagree with? That a hammer can be used for both good and bad purposes? I am not justifying anything, I am mentioning facts.

This is not hypocrisy. Preaching your principles and failing to live up to them is different than preaching your principles and not even trying to live up to them. The latter is hypocrisy the former is human weakness.

Not in the scenario I was talking about. The church cannot “claim” infallibility in one case and shrug off responsibility in the next. To torture the witches was done by the inquisitors, for the “good of those witches”. That is a moral claim, where the church - allegedly - cannot fail.

At least that should be the case. I will not deny that hypocrites exist within the Church, but notice it would be against the teachings of the Church. Christ’s teachings are worth trying to live up to, even though we sometimes fail.

That is not what I am disputing. I agree that striving to do good is a worthy endeavor, even if the effort fails sometimes. What I say is that the church is dishonest in trying to blame the “fallible nature” of its members, and still claim infallibility.

Have you read the Gospels?

Sure.

 

[Spock]

I explained why I offered my example of the person outside the door. It was to help you realize that consent is not the be-all-end-all. Figuring out why my example showed a higher order good would shed light on the higher order goods that exist when two people are alone.

It did not. If those people consent to the act, and the act does not affect anyone outside, then there are no “higher goods” to consider.

It’s not a question of spending yourself on higher order goods rather than not violating higher order goods. So no, my same reasoning does not apply to a married couple unless they are violating some of those higher order goods. I already explained the difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose.

You only stated your view, which I understand and discard. There is no single “innate” purpose of those organs. There are multiple “purposes” - all natural.

What I have always been saying, that they are harming each other if 1) they are not married, and 2) if they use artificial contraception.

You certainly “claimed” it, but never substantiated that claim.

My further point was that ‘we are our brother’s keeper’ and so when someone is hurt it affects the rest of us, especially in cases of selfishness.

I disagree. We are not our brother’s keeper. With adulthood comes responsibility, and we must respect each other that they know what they are doing. The opposite is a “nanny state”, where someone will tell you what to do, even if you are aware of the consequences of your action, and accept the risk of those consequences.

Here is another basic priniple, which you can disagree with (but only on religious grounds, and not rational ones): “we are the sole proprietors of our body, and whetever we do with it, is none of your business (as long as it does not hurt you)”. Important to note: “the phrase ‘it does not hurt you’ means direct harm, nothing more”. Lost income, offended feelings, sorrow for the loss, etc… are not direct harm, they do not count.

As I said, you may disagree with this principle on religious grounds, but not on rational ones, just like your claim that sex out of wedlock and using contraception somehow “hurts” the participants and others.

 

[Shike]

Have you heard of Mucius Scaevola? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Mucius_Scaevola)

No, not until I read the article. What of it?

Of course it is freedom. There were those Buddhist monks who put themselves aflame to protest against their oppressors. Was that not a demonstration of their freedom? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc)

That was a demonstration of choice and not freedom. You are close to coming to a fuller understanding of freedom when you acknowledge physical limitations. Purposely destroying oneself is not freedom since it goes against the natural good of self-preservation.

And one can break that habit, or make a free decision, that the pleasure derived from smoking is worth the risk of a shorter life. It is only the person who can make such a decision.

With addiction, it is not always so simple–I think it is legitimate to say some people are enslaved so much that they cannot stop themselves. My point, however, is that choices which lead to destructive behavior limit someones freedom because it diminishes his own capacities in an important way.

So far you did not mention any other limitations.

Yes I did. The case of someone sticking their hand into a fire… they’re going to get burned. And the case of smoking and propensity toward addiction (or if you like, the damaging effects of smoking).

You are kidding. You confuse freedom with “total freedom”, which I never advocated.

I wouldn’t call it “total freedom” as much as “free from any restriction whatsoever”. Though you never advocated it, what is someone to think when it seems (from my perspective anyway) that you disregard physical limitations with regards to human sexuality?

No, what I said is all the information you have. There is some person whose acts are viewed by some as heroic self-sacrifice for the good of his people, and the same acts are viewed as the acts of a terrorist by others. My point is that there is no difference in the act, but if you “like” what he does, he will be labeled a “freedom fighter”, and if you are against it, he will be labeled a “terrorist”. One man’s terrorist is another one’s freedom fighter. There is no difference, except in the attitude of the observer. Ponder that.

Labeling something doesn’t necessarily make it so. In this case some calling someone a terrorist versus some calling the same someone a freedom fighter, doesn’t mean there isn’t a determinate truth to the situation. Maybe he is one, maybe he is the other, or maybe he is a mixture of both.

Your argument is as good as saying that because some philosophers disagree about what is true, there is no truth.

What do you disagree with? That a hammer can be used for both good and bad purposes? I am not justifying anything, I am mentioning facts.

That is true, the hammer can be used for both good and bad purposes. My point is that utilitarianism justifies objectively wrong acts, something which natural law philosophy doesn’t do. The abuse is built into utilitarianism while the abuse is not built into natural law philosophy.

Not in the scenario I was talking about. The church cannot “claim” infallibility in one case and shrug off responsibility in the next. To torture the witches was done by the inquisitors, for the “good of those witches”. That is a moral claim, where the church - allegedly - cannot fail.

Last time I checked burning witches was not part of the doctrine of the Church. You need to make a distinction between actions and doctrines. The Church is infallible in her doctrines, not in her actions. Therefore, no inherent hypocrisy.

That is not what I am disputing. I agree that striving to do good is a worthy endeavor, even if the effort fails sometimes.

I’m glad we agree.

What I say is that the church is dishonest in trying to blame the “fallible nature” of its members, and still claim infallibility.

A distinction between actions and doctrine is key. The Church only claims infallibility with regards to doctrine. Even the pope is a sinner, well probably anyways.

 

[Shike]

It did not. If those people consent to the act, and the act does not affect anyone outside, then there are no “higher goods” to consider.

It seems like now you are going back on your definition of freedom and physical limitations. How about the good of one’s own existence?

You only stated your view, which I understand and discard. There is no single “innate” purpose of those organs. There are multiple “purposes” - all natural.

I agree as well. So what? There doesn’t have to be a single innate purpose.

And really, denying innate purpose (which I assume you do because you use scare quotes) is about as tenable as saying the eye has no function. It amounts to you denying your definition of freedom that includes physical limitations.

You certainly “claimed” it, but never substantiated that claim.

I did substantiate it. It depends how deep of an explanation I should spend time giving, considering that at this moment you have a hard time seeing how our nature determines right and wrong. Basically, those actions contradict natural law. You dispute natural law so I try to focus more on that. But don’t throw around the ad hominem that I didn’t substantiate my claims or that I am merely using a religious justification when I have uttered no such thing.

I disagree. We are not our brother’s keeper. With adulthood comes responsibility, and we must respect each other that they know what they are doing.

That is why we don’t haul off someone who abuses intercourse. We must respect others and hope that they know what they are doing even when they manifestly do not.

But it is eminently responsible of someone to point out the dangers of something that can harm others. Which I am trying to do. I think you misunderstand what “brother’s keeper” means. It doesn’t mean nanny-state, but it doesn’t mean cold indifference either.

Here is another basic priniple, which you can disagree with (but only on religious grounds, and not rational ones): “we are the sole proprietors of our body, and whetever we do with it, is none of your business (as long as it does not hurt you)”. Important to note: “the phrase ‘it does not hurt you’ means direct harm, nothing more”. Lost income, offended feelings, sorrow for the loss, etc… are not direct harm, they do not count.

Thank you for limiting my possible responses to those that are “religious”.

The key words are “as long as it does not hurt you”. And then you qualify by saying “directly”. Well first, it seems that in general it is my business with regards to things that hurt me indirectly, maybe not with regards to the examples you offer, but perhaps in others. I could mention second hand smoke for starters.

And second, it is my point that the actions in question, hurt those who are directly involved, and therefore end up hurting others indirectly. It is not a “religious” claim but one backed up by natural law philosophy.

 

[Spock]

That was a demonstration of choice and not freedom. You are close to coming to a fuller understanding of freedom when you acknowledge physical limitations. Purposely destroying oneself is not freedom since it goes against the natural good of self-preservation.

I am left speechless. How could there be “choice” without the "freedom to make that choice. With all due respect, I find your choice of words next to incomprehensible.

With addiction, it is not always so simple–I think it is legitimate to say some people are enslaved so much that they cannot stop themselves. My point, however, is that choices which lead to destructive behavior limit someones freedom because it diminishes his own capacities in an important way.

Major, major nonsense. Any action will “limit” the next possible choices - in some respects, and usually opens up new possibilities in other respects.

I wouldn’t call it “total freedom” as much as “free from any restriction whatsoever”. Though you never advocated it, what is someone to think when it seems (from my perspective anyway) that you disregard physical limitations with regards to human sexuality?

What limitations?

Labeling something doesn’t necessarily make it so. In this case some calling someone a terrorist versus some calling the same someone a freedom fighter, doesn’t mean there isn’t a determinate truth to the situation. Maybe he is one, maybe he is the other, or maybe he is a mixture of both.

You misunderstand. There is no difference in the action, the only difference is in the observer’s attitude.

Your argument is as good as saying that because some philosophers disagree about what is true, there is no truth.

There are certain truths, but not every proposition can be resolved as true or false. If one person says that this stone is exactly 100 pounds, it is an objective statement which can be checked. If someone says that the stone is heavy, and the other one says it is light, they can be both be right - from their own frame of reference, and there is no objective way to decide which one is “objectively” right. It is the same with moral statements. They can be right within a certain moral framework, and can be wrong in another one, but since there is no “absolute” morality, one man’s hero is another man’s villain - and there is no objective method (like a scale) which would prove, which one is right.

My point is that utilitarianism justifies objectively wrong acts, something which natural law philosophy doesn’t do.

Since there are no absolute, objectvely wrong acts and since the so-called “natural law” is still nonsensical, this sentence carries no information. (Let’s be blunt: it is possible under very strange circumstances that raping and burning a child is NOT immoral. It may never become a “moral” act, but since the labels “moral” and “immoral” are subjective assessments, this is not a problem. These possible scenarios are very far out, but not impossible. An example for you: “If God orders you to rape and burn a child, you will find it a moral act, since whatever God orders, is - by your definition - moral”.)

Last time I checked burning witches was not part of the doctrine of the Church. You need to make a distinction between actions and doctrines. The Church is infallible in her doctrines, not in her actions. Therefore, no inherent hypocrisy.

The point is that there is no official, endosed list of dogmas and doctrines. Since the church does not bother to make an official list of doctrines and dogmas, there is no way to decide if an act reflects a doctrine or not. I keep seeing the same “cop-out” - “but it was never officially declared a doctrine”. So, when it is inconvenient, it was not an offical doctrine. As I said, without having an inclusive, offical list of doctrines, when you say that it was not a doctrine, you merely state your opinion - which is fine, but you should not delude yourself that it is more than just your unsupported opinion.

 

[Spock]

How about the good of one’s own existence?

It is only his own business.

And really, denying innate purpose (which I assume you do because you use scare quotes) is about as tenable as saying the eye has no function. It amounts to you denying your definition of freedom that includes physical limitations.

No, I did not say that. The good old one-eyed monk and the jade-gate both have three, natural uses. One: elimination of some waste products, two: procreation, and three: pleasure seeking. These three are all natural, and relatively independent of each other.

We need to use them for elimination (that is biological necessity). Both the pleasure seeking and the procreative parts are optional. It is quite possible to procreate without the pleasure, and also to seek pleasure without procreation. To say that pleasure seeking without the intent to procreate is somehow “wrong” is a religious claim. As such I am not interested. But you try to say that it is also wrong in a secular environment. How? And why? Keep in mind that the procreative and pleasure seeking aspects exist independently from each other. And be specific, please.

I did substantiate it. It depends how deep of an explanation I should spend time giving, considering that at this moment you have a hard time seeing how our nature determines right and wrong. Basically, those actions contradict natural law. You dispute natural law so I try to focus more on that.

Since there is no “natural law”, it is worthless to concentrate on that, until you can establish what natural law is.

That is why we don’t haul off someone who abuses intercourse. We must respect others and hope that they know what they are doing even when they manifestly do not.

If you ask for their permission, and they grant you the freedom to educate them, then it is fine. Otherwise it is still none of your business. Only unsufferable “busybodies” stick their nose where it does not belong. (And yes, I heard before, that the ones who “close” their ears are the ones who really need to hear. Bollocks.)

The key words are “as long as it does not hurt you”. And then you qualify by saying “directly”. Well first, it seems that in general it is my business with regards to things that hurt me indirectly, maybe not with regards to the examples you offer, but perhaps in others. I could mention second hand smoke for starters.

Second hand smoke is dubious, but let’s accept it. A better example might be to burn tires in your back yard. These cause direct, physical harm to others. Listening to too loud music is noise-pollution, also a direct harm. Even storing a bunch of junk cars in his yard would lower the value of your property, thus causing direct (but not physical) harm to you. These and many others would be valid claims. Certainly, there are many activities, which affect others.

But if your neighbor watches X-rated movies in his home, that does not hurt anyone. You cannot claim that you are “hurt” by them. If it hurts him (it does not, of course), it is his business. Or if your couch-potato neighbor eats too many burgers a day, and slowly eats himself to death. If you “choose” to be upset by it, it is your problem.

And second, it is my point that the actions in question, hurt those who are directly involved, and therefore end up hurting others indirectly. It is not a “religious” claim but one backed up by natural law philosophy.

I keep asking about the specifics, just how does contraception hurt you? Get specific, don’t just say that it is against some natural law. Please, do not waste any more of my time on generalities. Stick to specifics.

 

[Shike]

I am left speechless. How could there be “choice” without the "freedom to make that choice. With all due respect, I find your choice of words next to incomprehensible.

Free-will and freedom are not the same. Sure, someone has free-will, which means that he can choose many different things. But freedom brings in a quality of moral good, and not all choices are morally good. Therefore, not all choices promote freedom.

Major, major nonsense. Any action will “limit” the next possible choices - in some respects, and usually opens up new possibilities in other respects.

I agree that choices open and close possibilities. But some choices damage and destroy a person’s capacities while others do not. The key here is human nature.

What limitations?

The inherent function of the sexual organs as expressed by a person in intercourse.

You misunderstand. There is no difference in the action, the only difference is in the observer’s attitude.

To say so is either begging the question or trivial. It’s trivial if one of the observer’s are wrong, or it’s begging the question to say that there is no objective moral character. I agree that there is room for such scenarios with regards to flavors of ice-cream, but not with regards to many important cases of moral character and human flourishing.

It is the same with moral statements. They can be right within a certain moral framework, and can be wrong in another one, but since there is no “absolute” morality, one man’s hero is another man’s villain - and there is no objective method (like a scale) which would prove, which one is right.

I agree that moral statements can be right under one framework and wrong under another. But what I disagree with is that a multiplicity of moral frameworks preclude there existing a truth on the matter to which frameworks can be measured against. A system like utilitarianism has major flaws and is not grounded enough in something real.

An example for you: “If God orders you to rape and burn a child, you will find it a moral act, since whatever God orders, is - by your definition - moral”.)

That’s not my definition. God’s very nature is goodness and since God cannot contradict His nature (which would be meaningless to say He can, rendering objections about omnipotence impotent), he cannot tell us in principle to do that which is morally wrong. Therefore, your critique of my position is wrong.

This is all reached by reason, by the way. I have yet to appeal to a doctrine of the Church for justifying any of my positions.

The point is that there is no official, endosed list of dogmas and doctrines. Since the church does not bother to make an official list of doctrines and dogmas, there is no way to decide if an act reflects a doctrine or not. I keep seeing the same “cop-out” - “but it was never officially declared a doctrine”. So, when it is inconvenient, it was not an offical doctrine. As I said, without having an inclusive, offical list of doctrines, when you say that it was not a doctrine, you merely state your opinion - which is fine, but you should not delude yourself that it is more than just your unsupported opinion.

While it is true that there is no official list it’s pretty easy to figure out whether the doctrine is supported or not. Here’s an official doctrine of the Church: the virgin birth.

It’s not just my mere opinion that witch burning is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. 1) it’s not supported by the Bible, 2) it’s not supported as doctrine by the history of the Church, 3) it’s not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and 4) it’s not something taught by the bishops in union with the Pope. And even 5) it’s contrary to the teaching of the Church. There is no confusion among Catholic believers about this issue (or at least shouldn’t be).

 

[Shike]

It is only his own business.

In a way it is his own business, he is responsible for his own actions. But this does not refute that he can commit immoral actions against himself. For while we are the proprietor of ourselves, it’s not as if we brought ourselves into existence and created our own nature. Sure, we shape ourselves by the choices we make… but something(read: a being with defining qualities) has to exist there first before it can choose.

No, I did not say that. The good old one-eyed monk and the jade-gate both have three, natural uses. One: elimination of some waste products, two: procreation, and three: pleasure seeking. These three are all natural, and relatively independent of each other.

We need to use them for elimination (that is biological necessity). Both the pleasure seeking and the procreative parts are optional. It is quite possible to procreate without the pleasure, and also to seek pleasure without procreation. To say that pleasure seeking without the intent to procreate is somehow “wrong” is a religious claim.

You are confusing my position in a number of ways. First, I am not saying that pleasure seeking without the intent to procreate is necessarily wrong. Second, I am not making a religious claim–not once have I used Church doctrine to justify my position.

While I agree that it is possible in this case to pursue pleasure seeking and procreation separately (ie. contraceptive intercourse or in vitro fertilization), it is not moral. It is true that those functions you list are “relatively independent”. I agree and don’t really have a problem with that. But actively going against a inherent function is destructive.

Contraceptive intercourse goes against the action’s innate potential for new life. It’s as simple as that. Having the 3 functions be relatively independent doesn’t matter… it’s the active contradiction of the function that matters and is destructive.

But you try to say that it is also wrong in a secular environment. How? And why?

I never directly advocated the Church’s teaching on the matter, if I am not mistaken. But more to the point, I am only interested in what is true. This is a philosophy sub-forum, so arguments stand and fall on their own merits. There are good arguments for natural law, and all of the arguments I have found against natural law are either misunderstandings or simply untrue.

Basically, some may not care if the world ‘goes to hell in a hand-basket’, to use the popular phrase. But I want to care.

Since there is no “natural law”, it is worthless to concentrate on that, until you can establish what natural law is.

I already know what natural law is. Why must I play on your terms, why can’t you play on mine? You know, you could just say that you don’t understand and ask for an explanation.

Natural laws in general are those moral prescriptions discoverable by human reason. Traditionally it has been grounded on the nature (read: capacities) of human beings.

One isn’t the origin of his own existence, so it is probably a good idea for one to discover how one ticks or is supposed to function.

If you ask for their permission, and they grant you the freedom to educate them, then it is fine. Otherwise it is still none of your business.

They can show their permission by listening or walking away. Same thing applies to science and other areas of learning and just conversation in general.

But if your neighbor watches X-rated movies in his home, that does not hurt anyone. You cannot claim that you are “hurt” by them.

First and foremost objectifying others as a means of self-gratification is wrong.
I only claim that secondarily and sometimes indirectly (though perhaps also directly), when someone hurts themselves they are affecting me. Not because my feelings are hurt but because of the objective negative effects of their actions.

I keep asking about the specifics, just how does contraception hurt you? Get specific, don’t just say that it is against some natural law. Please, do not waste any more of my time on generalities. Stick to specifics.

But saying that a specific action is against natural law is very specific. It means that it hurts those who engage in it.

Only secondarily was it my claim that others are affected. When one engages in selfish behavior it starts to make them a selfish person. And the acts committed by a selfish person will often have consequences against others.

How it hurts me? At least one of the myriad of ways it hurts me is by promoting a culture of apparent “consequence-free” sex. That waiting until marriage to give yourself completely to the other person is nonsensical and even contemptible. “Are you somehow better than the rest of us?” So alienation is one way I am being affected.
It is also helping to destroy the country I live in and many others by promoting selfishness above responsibility. It contributes, however much, to a lack of stable marriages, and therefore, the health of the country.

 

[Spock]

Free-will and freedom are not the same. Sure, someone has free-will, which means that he can choose many different things. But freedom brings in a quality of moral good, and not all choices are morally good. Therefore, not all choices promote freedom.

The problem is fundamental. Your usage of freedom linked to the “morality” of the act is vacuous. First, because there is no reason to make such a distinction, and second, because what is “moral” is not absolute. We have no common ground in the usage of even such simple words.

To say so is either begging the question or trivial. It’s trivial if one of the observer’s are wrong, or it’s begging the question to say that there is no objective moral character. I agree that there is room for such scenarios with regards to flavors of ice-cream, but not with regards to many important cases of moral character and human flourishing.

There is no difference. It is all preference based, when it comes to the individual. The significance may not be the same. But the significance is also subjective. According to you, declaring that “homosexual lifestyle is normal” is “harming you”, and as such it is a significant issue - for you. But where is the harm?

You don’t like it, but that is not “harm”. It changes the environment somewhat, in which you live, but that is not harm either. You will not be faced with a coersion to participate in that lifstyle. And we are back to the original problem: whatever they do in the privacy of their home is none of your business.

Let’s reverse the issue: I find the practice of religion despicable, I find the worshipping of God dumb and nonsensical. It does affect my envirnment, there are laws which are based on religion (the old Blue Laws were a prime example) so religion intrudes into my envirnment. In some states an atheist cannot be elected to public office, so the intrusion can be significant. But, it does not “harm” me directly. Sure it does not allow be to by booze on Sundays, but that is not a big deal. And I may be prevented to be elected in certain places. But I am not forced to participate in the rituals. I am not forced to listen to the sermons. Basically I am free from it. Just as you are free from the homosexual lifestyle.

I agree that moral statements can be right under one framework and wrong under another. But what I disagree with is that a multiplicity of moral frameworks preclude there existing a truth on the matter to which frameworks can be measured against. A system like utilitarianism has major flaws and is not grounded enough in something real.

In that case you can create a line of arguments, which will decide if a person is a hero or a terrorist. The act is committing a self-sacrifice while also killing some non-combatants in a hostile envirnment. The aim is to fight an oppressive system - at least the system is oppressive in the eyes of the perpetrator.

That’s not my definition. God’s very nature is goodness and since God cannot contradict His nature (which would be meaningless to say He can, rendering objections about omnipotence impotent), he cannot tell us in principle to do that which is morally wrong. Therefore, your critique of my position is wrong.

He certainly can. He did. He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which is ordering murder. So don’t wiggle out. IF God would order you to commit rape, you would do it, because it would be “moral”. He also personally killed every man, woman and child (infants, too) along all the animals in the flood (if you take that story seriously). He ordered to kill every man, woman and child (except the virgin girls) when he commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. So, if you wish to maintain that whatever God does is moral and good, then you must accept that murder, torture, genocide are all good - when ordered by God. You cannot have it both ways.

While it is true that there is no official list it’s pretty easy to figure out whether the doctrine is supported or not. Here’s an official doctrine of the Church: the virgin birth.

It’s not just my mere opinion that witch burning is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. 1) it’s not supported by the Bible, 2) it’s not supported as doctrine by the history of the Church, 3) it’s not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and 4) it’s not something taught by the bishops in union with the Pope. And even 5) it’s contrary to the teaching of the Church. There is no confusion among Catholic believers about this issue (or at least shouldn’t be).

Oh yes, there is. Millions of Catholics disagree with the stance of contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc… which shows that the need for an official list is paramount. Why is there no such list? Because it would “paint” the church into a corner. It would take its freedom to make changes - which it does after a lot of kicking and screaming - and then claim that nothing “really” changed. And that is the height of hypocrisy.