Gay marriage, sexual morality and the media

[Prodigal_Son]

While I’m not talking for rossum I’m going to make a guess here and say:

Karma. Torture is inflicting severe pain and suffering on someone without their consent to force them to do something. If actions have consequences then karma would put an equivalent to the pain and suffering inflicted on the person who inflicted it, which is a lifetime of hell.

What you write here presupposes an objective system of ethics, not a system of ethics based merely on one’s expectation of the consequences. We have bad karma because we do bad things. Thus, we cannot use the notion of bad karma to explain why the things we do are bad. That would be circular.

 

[Rau]

What you write here presupposes an objective system of ethics, not a system of ethics based merely on one’s expectation of the consequences. We have bad karma because we do bad things. Thus, we cannot use the notion of bad karma to explain why the things we do are bad. That would be circular.

Unless the idea is simply “what goes around comes around”? If I hurt you, I must expect to be hurt. Etc.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

What you write here presupposes an objective system of ethics, not a system of ethics based merely on one’s expectation of the consequences. We have bad karma because we do bad things. Thus, we cannot use the notion of bad karma to explain why the things we do are bad. That would be circular.

Well no it doesn’t presuppose an objective system of ethics, inflicting pain without consent is a fact. The karmatic equivalent to that would be something comparable to pain inflicted on you without consent.

If I’m understanding rossum correctly, it’s not using the notion of bad karma to explain why the things we do are bad, it’s that if you do something it has an equivalent karmatic response.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Unless the idea is simply “what goes around comes around”? If I hurt you, I must expect to be hurt. Etc.

Well, suppose I’m a masochist.

So I torture someone, but I’m happy enough to be tortured myself.

Also, the notion that I have to go through three hells if I torture someone does not seem to be proportional, if we’re just talking about “what goes around comes around.”

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Well, suppose I’m a masochist.

So I torture someone, but I’m happy enough to be tortured myself.

I don’t think it works like that. It wouldn’t respond with something you want, because that wouldn’t be karma, it would have to be a karmatic equivalent to the torture you inflicted upon them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t think it works like that. It wouldn’t respond with something you want, because that wouldn’t be karma, it would have to be a karmatic equivalent to the torture you inflicted upon them.

Well, then, suppose I’ve reached Nirvana, and I desire nothing, and I am averse to nothing. On this view, it would not be wrong for a person who reached Nirvana to torture people.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Well, then, suppose I’ve reached Nirvana, and I desire nothing, and I am averse to nothing. On this view, it would not be wrong for a person who reached Nirvana to torture people.

Those sort of metaphorical scenarios are pointless, because it’s not possible.

For example, suppose you can’t sin? On that view it would not be wrong for a person who can’t sin to torture people. You could torture people to your hearts content in that situation.

If you’re going to create a situation you have to make one that’s realistic. You can’t elevate yourself to godhood and then ask “Then what?”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

For example, suppose you can’t sin? On that view it would not be wrong for a person who can’t sin to torture people.

False. It would still be wrong for that person. It would just be impossible for that person to do the wrong thing.

In Christianity, the ontological moral status of an action is not affected by the state of the actor.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

False. It would still be wrong for that person. It would just be impossible for that person to do the wrong thing.

In Christianity, the ontological moral status of an action is not affected by the state of the actor.

Well no not in that situation. If it’s impossible for that person to do the wrong thing they wouldn’t be able to toture. But that’s not the situation I created, I said what if they can’t sin and then pointed out that they could torture. If it was wrong for that person but impossible for that person to do the wrong thing, then they wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place.

See how there’s no answer to that? You can’t elevate someone to godhood and then expect an answer or to be taken seriously.

In other words, you need a new analogy.

 

[rossum]

Well, then, suppose I’ve reached Nirvana, and I desire nothing, and I am averse to nothing. On this view, it would not be wrong for a person who reached Nirvana to torture people.

We have examples of people who have attained nirvana. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died age 80. Others too attained nirvana during their lifetimes. I am not aware of any of them torturing people, though I am willing to be corrected if you have any examples.

rossum

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well no not in that situation. If it’s impossible for that person to do the wrong thing they wouldn’t be able to toture. But that’s not the situation I created, I said what if they can’t sin and then pointed out that they could torture. If it was wrong for that person but impossible for that person to do the wrong thing, then they wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. There’s no contradiction in saying that it is wrong for someone to do something they are constitutionally incapable of doing.

If John can’t sin, and torturing is a sin, then John can’t torture.

But it does not follow that torture is not a sin for John.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We have examples of people who have attained nirvana. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He died age 80. Others too attained nirvana during their lifetimes. I am not aware of any of them torturing people, though I am willing to be corrected if you have any examples.

Well, let’s slow down. How would you define karma, rossum?

 

[Ben_Carmine]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. There’s no contradiction in saying that it is wrong for someone to do something they are constitutionally incapable of doing.

If John can’t sin, and torturing is a sin, then John can’t torture.

But it does not follow that torture is not a sin for John.

That wasn’t the situation I created. I said John can’t sin, but he can torture, it just wouldn’t be considered a sin for him.

It’s similar to the situation you created about reaching nirvana and being immune to karma, therefore being able to torture. You created an impossible situation (like above) and wanted an answer.

The point is your question was flawed because it’s an impossible situation. It wasn’t realistic.

 

[Rin]

The Buddhist teaching of Karma (sans reincarnation) actually doesn’t sound that unsimilar to the Catholic teaching of temporal punishment/purgatory, so I would be careful about criticizing it too hard. There are obvious differences, but still, the main principle isn’t really that different: Actions have consequences, and we will have to suffer them.

Given that the state of Nirvana sounds more like something that could be compared to a state of complete holiness than to salvation, this comparison seems even more justified. While we as Catholics believe in forgiveness of sin through no effort of our own in the Sacrament of Penance, we also believe in having to experience the consequence of said sin to achieve holiness. Attaining indulgences is just another way of accepting this consequence, by counteracting our sin in specific ways.

Rossum: Is there any notion of something like indulgence (having the suffering because of evil acts reduced by good actions) in Buddhism, or do you teach that those consequences will have to be lived no matter what good works the person does?

 

[rossum]

Rossum: Is there any notion of something like indulgence (having the suffering because of evil acts reduced by good actions) in Buddhism, or do you teach that those consequences will have to be lived no matter what good works the person does?

There are two versions: One Karma and Two Karmas. In One Karma, the good balances out the bad and you are left with the difference as the final result. In Two Karmas they don’t cancel out and you get both results in full and separately. I tend towards the Two Karma idea but YMMV.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How would you define karma

We are getting a long way off topic for this thread. A discussion of the details of karma-phala is probably better suited to the Non-Catholic Religions forum. In short, it is an impersonal force, like gravity. There is no God (or gods) driving it.

rossum

 

[Rin]

There are two versions: One Karma and Two Karmas. In One Karma, the good balances out the bad and you are left with the difference as the final result. In Two Karmas they don’t cancel out and you get both results in full and separately. I tend towards the Two Karma idea but YMMV.

Thanks, always wondered about this. Would you agree there are similarities between the Catholic teaching about purgatory and the Buddhist teaching about Karma (apparently closer to One Karma then, if we keep indulgences in mind), or is that just me misinterpreting Buddhism?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That wasn’t the situation I created. I said John can’t sin, but he can torture, it just wouldn’t be considered a sin for him.

I don’t understand why it’s relevant what is “considered” a sin. Under the hypothetical you proposed, we were working from Christian ethics, and Christian ethics has such a thing as objective sins – no “consideration” about it. Torturing is necessarily a sin in Christian ethics. Thus, there is no possible situation in which John can’t sin, and yet John can torture a person.

In contrast, I see no reason why a person who has reached Nirvana could not torture a person. And if they did, it would – ex hypothesi – not be wrong, since they did despite understanding the consequences. They were happy enough to be tortured themselves, or undergo three hells, or whatever, because they were no longer averse to pain (a condition of being in Nirvana).

Now if you can show me some non-question-begging reason why this latter person should not torture another person, I will certainly be interested to hear it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We are getting a long way off topic for this thread. A discussion of the details of karma-phala is probably better suited to the Non-Catholic Religions forum. In short, it is an impersonal force, like gravity. There is no God (or gods) driving it.

I’m fine with all that. But let’s review a bit of history:

(1) You were claiming that all systems of objectivist ethics are mistaken – for example, that they fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.

(2) Somehow the topic of your religion, Buddhism, came up.

(3) I expressed puzzlement as to how Buddhism could talk about “good” and “bad” without talking about objectivist ethics. My issue is not with Buddhism; it is with any sort of subjectivist Buddhism such as the type you propose.

(4) You said that Buddhist ethics are relative to the consequences of actions.

(5) I pointed out that, in that case, there is nothing to prove that torture is wrong, since in some cases torture will lead to desired consequences.

(6) You said that, in these cases, the threat of hell was sufficient deterrent, so that torture became wrong because karma dictates hell in response to it.

(7) I claimed that this usage of hell as a determinant of right and wrong was circular, since it does not explain why torturers get hell instead of pleasant consequences – unless we already assume that torturing is bad.

(8) Others suggested the notion that karma might be amoral, in a “what goes around comes around” sort of sense.

(9) I suggested that, in this case, a person who achieves Nirvana would not experience the consequence of hell negatively, and thus would not have any reason not to torture people.

I suggest that this dialectical situation puts you in a position where you either need to (a) deny that Buddhism gives us a reason not to torture people, or (b) admit that Buddhism contains objective moral values. I leave it open for you to choose (b), as many Buddhists before you have chosen (b). But the key point is that you have to choose one or the other.

I am happy to be done with the conversation, however, if you would like to stop. Blessings!

 

[rossum]

(1) You were claiming that all systems of objectivist ethics are mistaken – for example, that they fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma.

I have no problem with objective ethics. My option with the Euthyphro dilemma is that God does not have a choice. Things are good or bad independent of God. Correct ethics are discovered, not dictated by gods.

rossum