O
o_mlly
Guest
Apparently, you missed the word “often” in my post substituting “always”. We call that a straw man. Please read more carefully in future.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
Hmmm. Moral dilemma for the relativist.The cow was already dead
If the cow was road kill then may do I do whatever I want?
Dead cow cannot withhold consent.
Let’s see, of course, I could eat it but what about necro-bestial …
I just lost my appetite.
B
Bradskii
Guest
It generally comes down to this: ‘Morality is objective’. So let’s run with that.
You didn’t propose that some morality is objective. So we’ll assume all. So following from that, all questions of morality have objective answers. One cannot personally determine what the answer is. There simply IS an answer.
What is generally put forward by those in favour of such a proposal are examples of whaylt is considered to be wrong. And it generally tends towards the end of the spectrum. Torturing babies, rape, genocide etc. Which confuses what is being discussed - objective moral answers to any given act , with acts to which you would get universal agreement on them being wrong.
Now that is obviously not a definition of an objective answer. That is: one to which all people would agree.
So how do we determine whether an act is objectively wrong or not? Because if the matter is discussed even between people of the same religious beliefs, we get different answers.
Who is available for us to make this determination? Would it be you? I doubt that you would consider yourself the determinant of all moral problems. The pope? Does he decide every single matter? Obviously not. God?
Well, here we may have a proposal that rings true for some. God determines what is right or wrong. He is the final arbiter of ALL matters.
Which leads me to ask: Who speaks for God on all matters?
Does God take time out to determine if I can eat a dead cow? If not, what is the objectively correct answer to that question? And how do you know?
O
o_mlly
Guest
A point is not belabored when that point is the main point and remains unanswered.
If moral claims are inconsistent then the underlying morality is irrational. So I ask a third time: What moral principle gives the Mongols and Vikings a pass on rape and condemns the Germans of genocide? (The Vikings and Mongols were quite skilled at raping and pillaging as were the Nazis at exterminating.)
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, one can. Knowledge which conforms to reality is truth. One’s subjective morality can be identical to objective morality.
Using reason. First, establish the general principles and then apply to particulars. Any systematic moral theology requires substantial work and must be internally consistent. In this thread its seems that the first principle – the accidents of person, place or time do not change the morality of a human act, is still unresolved. If we cannot agree on this principle then we need not proceed further.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I would have completely and totally agreed with you. Except that you mentioned ‘sytematic moral theology.’ Knowing that I am an atheist.
Am I right in saying that you believe that I have to accept your theology in the first instance to be able to agree on moral acts? And not just me, but anyone with a different theology?
Can decisions on morality only be determined by…those who believe exactly like you? Or somewhat like you? Are you restricting access to objective morality to believers? Or Christians in particular? Or Catholics? Or Catholics who hold exactly the same views as you?
See what happens? You have already determined who has the keys to the truth.
But if it’s open to all, then please take out the word ‘theology’.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Fair enough. “Any systematic moral system requires substantial work …”
B
Bradskii
Guest
Excellent. So now all we need to do is determine when we reach the answer to any given moral problem that reprsents the absolute answer. As opposed to simply reaching consensus.Bradskii:
Fair enough. “Any systematic moral system requires substantial work …”
Because if we agree on any matter then we will obviously agree that we have proceeded in what we have agreed to be the correct manner.
Maybe you can see the problem already…
All you need is for people to reach agreement that the way they are approaching any given problem is the correct way. And if consensus is reached, then…can we assume we have reached an objective decision?
You have only kicked the can a little further down the road.
Let me be plain. All you can hope for is consensus. That people agree with you. Because as sure as God made little green apples, if 99% of people say X is true and you don’t agree, then you will say that they are wrong.
But if you and everyone else agrees that X is wrong, then you will declare that you have reached your objective. Your objective morality.
In the first instance, you are deciding. And in the second, it is determined by consensus. Either way, it ain’t objective.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The correct answer does not infer the correct method.
64
__
16 =
Cancel the “6s”
__
1
4
__
1 =
4
Right answer. Wrong method.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You don’t believe that determining the answer to moral problems can be equated to maths. If I had suggested as much then you would have rightly derided me. So I’m not sure what the point of that post was.
To repeat: If we agree that we are both approaching a moral problem in the correct way and we reach agreement as to what the answer is, then that is not any indication whatsoever that the answer is an objective one.
In which case, how IS it determined?
You are adamant that objective answers exist. So simply tell me how you determine them. Else admit that you don’t know what they are or how they are determined.
To repeat: If we agree that we are both approaching a moral problem in the correct way and we reach agreement as to what the answer is, then that is not any indication whatsoever that the answer is an objective one.
In which case, how IS it determined?
You are adamant that objective answers exist. So simply tell me how you determine them. Else admit that you don’t know what they are or how they are determined.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The child: I decided not to euthanize dad.
Friend: Good. Dad’s life was not given to him by you so you have no right to take it from him.
The child: Don’t be silly. I’m only waiting for confirmation that the insurance company will pay me on his life policy.
Right decision but with an immoral incentive = Immoral act.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Senior moment? The methods to determine morality of a human act have been explained on this forum by me and others many times in many threads. Does “object, intent and circumstance” ring familiar?
As I’ve written, the atheist’s claim that the morality of an act is dependent on place and time leaves us no basis upon which to argue. Paradoxically, until we agree on something we cannot argue productively. Acting as your own authority in all matters moral leaves me nowhere to appeal a point. Are you your own authority as to what is moral or immoral? If yes, good luck with that.
But if you submit that morality is independent of your present state of mind then, I repeat, establish the principles of right conduct. Start with this work and, as you are an atheist, dismiss any teaching that relies solely on God’s existence. There are not many.
Here’s what our founding fathers found as a basis: Human beings have rights that all other human beings must respect, e.g., life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You don’t agree that either person is approaching the problem in the right way. I’m not interested in what others think or do in any case. I want to know how YOU determine which is the right way.
O
o_mlly
Guest
See my post just above.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So it’s on the basis of object, intent and circumstance.Bradskii:
See my post just above.
Whose object, whose intent? And…the circumstance? You mean objective morality is relative to the circumstance?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Sit back, grab a brewski and read the link or the Catechism. All your questions will be answered. Do you have a link for me on the atheist’s guide to morality?
Yes, circumstance may determine the morality of an act that is not objectively evil. To be good and act must be good in all three fonts or sources of morality.
My strumming needs work so catch up on this thread tomorrow.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Sorry, we agreed to take theology out of discussing moral systems.Bradskii:
Sit back, grab a brewski and read the link or the Catechism.
If your system relies on theology it is not accesible to me.Bradskii:
Fair enough. “Any systematic moral system requires substantial work …”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well, we both know the Catechism and the Handbook are accessible to you as you have cited the Catechism in several of your previous posts and I gave you the link to the Handbook.
And I agreed to dismiss any instruction that relies on God’s existence as its authority. You will find that the moral system explained is rationally determined, i.e., examination of the object of the act, the intention of the actor and the circumstances surrounding the act and the actor. Do the math and the act can be determined to be good or evil.
Now, if you are serious, all we need further to agree upon is what I have already suggested as a basis for objective morality – all human beings have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights we believe are God given but one need not be a theist to agree to the truth of the statement.
Over to you.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Yet only a few posts ago had this:Bradskii:
Well, we both know the Catechism and the Handbook are accessible to you as you have cited the Catechism in several of your previous posts and I gave you the link to the Handbook.
And I agreed to dismiss any instruction that relies on God’s existence as its authority.
Are you going to tell me that that is not a religious argument? You seem to have fallen before you’ve even reached the first hurdle.
If Dad is in pain and will die in a few days and he wants to end it, and his family want it to end, and his friends want it to end, then ‘It’s not your life to take’ isn’t going to get far as an example of determining moral principles without relying on ‘God’s existence as its authority’.
Or maybe you were referring to the child’s grandparents. They gave him life. Let them decide. Ah, they did. All the family want it to end.
So what we have now is a situation where euthanasia is acceptable if we leave God out of it and unacceptable if we include Him.
As I said, the second option is not available to me. So I call it as a morally acceptable act.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
And to be complete, I remind you of the incentive I used in the example you refer to:
So your argument is: If we can just get enough people to agree to kill Dad then killing Dad is a moral act and then I can get the insurance money?
And others always have the moral right to kill someone who is terminal (we all are, by the way) to end their suffering. Nay, say I.
And we accept the expressed will to die of the one who is in extraordinary pain as definitive, that is, freely made. Nay, say I.
And we know in the immediate future that the one who suffers will die with certainty. Nay, say I.
With those as the guiding principles, one could morally kill anyone who is suicidal.
- Status