Inherent Value of life (secular)

[Bradskii]

That is not sufficient to make morality “relative” in the sense you appear to want to insist that it is. You jump from “relative” to circumstances, motives and outcomes, to “relative” meaning subjectively determined or as determined by the subject. That is an unwarranted logical leap.

Relative means just that. Relative to the conditions. All moral acts are relative. That is, they are all determined by the conditions. The term subjective has no connection with what I have been discussing. There is no leap to be made from one to the other. They are to be considered completely independently.

If you want to discuss subjectivity as regards moral acts then we can ( now we have determined that all acts are relative to the conditions).

So who determines if an act is morally good or bad? I guess you could check the catechism or ask a priest or read the bible to find the answer. Or you could decide yourself. If you decide yourself, then it becomes a subjective decision.

If you are told if it is good or bad then we have two options: You accept the decision without question and need put no more thought into the matter, or you decide if what you have been told is correvt (which makes it subjective again).

So which of those two options do you follow?

 

[HarryStotle]

Is ‘harming a child’ an intrinsically immoral act? Obviously not. It’s not objectively wrong because we need to know the conditions. If the conditions relate to a life saving procedure which will cause short term harm but result in a life saved then it is justified. If it is for pure pleasure then it would be wrong. We need to know what the act relates to. The relative conditions. As you said earlier, all acts are relative.

So we cannot say that we can claim that harming a child is objectively wrong. We need to know the conditions and then make a decision. And note that simply because all people would agree with an act does not make it morally good or bad because of that fact.

To find out why we state that torturing children is bad I suggest you consider the Golder Rule.

No. The problem with “harming a child” is that it tells us too little about the act. If moral acts always, by their very nature, include the dimensions of circumstances, motives and outcomes, then determining the morality of the act requires that all of those dimensions are clearly stipulated.

Thus, when I stated “Torturing and killing an innocent child for the sheer hedonistic pleasure of doing so,” I was sufficiently characterizing the act in all of its dimensions. At that point we can determine with certainty whether the act is conclusively wrong or not.

What is inherent to moral acts are the dimensions of circumstances, motives and outcomes, ergo we can determine that some acts – i.e., those where circumstances don’t warrant the act, when the act is done for evil or malicious motives and the outcome is a bad or harmful one, the moral act is inherently evil. Its inherent qualities or dimensions make it so.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

OK, so you do accept that all moral acts are relative. I’m not sure exactly what you have been arguing against these past few posts.

And I have SPECIFICALLY said that all acts being so have no bearing on whether we accept them as moral or not. That is a separate discussion. Now that we have agreed that morality is not absolute (i.e. moral acts are not right or wrong in themselves) now we can discuss how we actually determine if certain acts are moral or not.

What I have been arguing against is your unwarranted jump from

1. all moral acts are relative
   to
2. we have agreed that morality is not absolute (i.e. moral acts are not right or wrong in themselves

Several issues, to spell them out clearly:

A. That moral acts are “relative” in the sense of dependent upon circumstances, motives and outcomes does not imply they are “not absolute” because there may be acts with very limited possibilities in terms of motives, outcomes and circumstances such that they are absolutely, i.e., always, wrong.

I am now at a loss as how to proceed. 1 and 2 are EXACTLY the same. There is no difference. There is no ‘leap from one to the other’.

As regard A, if an act is relative to motives, outcomes and circumstances it is RELATIVE to those aspects of the act. It is conditional on those aspects. It is not objective by any sense of the word. You are literally describing a relative act. Just like killing Spot. You need to know the motives, the outcomes and the circumstances. Killing Spot is not an obective act. It is relative to the conditions.

Beyond this, I am at a loss as to how to continue.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Is ‘harming a child’ an intrinsically immoral act? Obviously not. It’s not objectively wrong because we need to know the conditions. If the conditions relate to a life saving procedure which will cause short term harm but result in a life saved then it is justified. If it is for pure pleasure then it would be wrong. We need to know what the act relates to. The relative conditions. As you said earlier, all acts are relative.

So we cannot say that we can claim that harming a child is objectively wrong. We need to know the conditions and then make a decision. And note that simply because all people would agree with an act does not make it morally good or bad because of that fact.

To find out why we state that torturing children is bad I suggest you consider the Golder Rule.

No. The problem with “harming a child” is that it tells us too little about the act. If moral acts always, by their very nature, include the dimensions of circumstances, motives and outcomes, then determining the morality of the act requires that all of those dimensions are clearly stipulated.

Thus, when I stated “Torturing and killing an innocent child for the sheer hedonistic pleasure of doing so,” I was sufficiently characterizing the act in all of its dimensions. At that point we can determine with certainty whether the act is conclusively wrong or not.

Not much to argue with there. Except the ‘certainty’ bit. There are many, many situations where all reasonable people woukd agtee that something is morally wrong (but which, by that fact alone, does not make it wrong).

But is hunting ‘certainly’ wrrong? Is factory farming 'certainly wrong? Even if younknow all the conditions, it is a subjective decision.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you want to discuss subjectivity as regards moral acts then we can ( now we have determined that all acts are relative to the conditions).

We haven’t determined that all acts are relative to “the conditions.”

As far as I am concerned all moral acts are dependent upon the dimensions of the act, just as whether a three dimensional object is a pyramid, a sphere, a prism, cylinder or a cone is dependent upon the 2D components of the object.

That will mean the determination of 3D objects is conditioned upon the 2D figures that make them up. It does not mean, however, that such a determination is in any sense subjective or “relative to the subject” making that determination.

It simply means that moral determinations are not always easy, nor alway agreed upon. It also doesn’t mean that just because they aren’t always easily agreed upon that therefore they are by default subjectively determined.

That is, I suspect, where we don’t agree.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If you want to discuss subjectivity as regards moral acts then we can ( now we have determined that all acts are relative to the conditions).

We haven’t determined that all acts are relative to “the conditions.” .

Oh, good grief…

This what you wrote earlier:

Every moral act – in fact every act by any human or moral agent – is necessarily relative to circumstances, intention and its outcome.

 

[HarryStotle]

But is hunting ‘certainly’ wrrong? Is factory farming 'certainly wrong? Even if younknow all the conditions, it is a subjective decision.

I would suggest that where individuals disagree it is because they disagree about the facts.

If it is known with certainty that hunting will benefit the hunted species in the long term, that animals are to some degree sentient but not conscious or self-aware, and that hunting poses no detrimental psychological harm to the hunter, most people could be convinced that hunting isn’t wrong.

It is, precisely, because we don’t have complete access to the facts that moral determinations are difficult and human beings disagree.

I think CS Lewis made the point that if it was known with certainty that witches were malevolent and demonic beings determined to wreck great harm upon human beings by their magic spells and incantations, burning them would be far less problematic than it has been made out to be.

The facts matter in moral determinations, in spite of what AOC says.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

If you want to discuss subjectivity as regards moral acts then we can ( now we have determined that all acts are relative to the conditions).

We haven’t determined that all acts are relative to “the conditions.” .

Oh, good grief…

This what you wrote earlier:

Every moral act – in fact every act by any human or moral agent – is necessarily relative to circumstances, intention and its outcome.

Okay, so you are hereby committed to defining “conditions” as “circumstances, intentions and outcomes?”

I wasn’t going to assume that you were.

 

[HarryStotle]

As regard A, if an act is relative to motives, outcomes and circumstances it is RELATIVE to those aspects of the act. It is conditional on those aspects. It is not objective by any sense of the word. You are literally describing a relative act.

I made this point upthread.

Merely because a 3D object is conditional upon the 2D figures that make it up does not imply that determining a 3D object is “not objective by any sense of the word.” Of course, doing geometry is objective in every sense of the word. I am not “literally describing a relative act.” I am explicating universal geometrical principles and standards.

Just like killing Spot. You need to know the motives, the outcomes and the circumstances. Killing Spot is not an obective act. It is relative to the conditions.

Beyond this, I am at a loss as to how to continue.

Determining that an object with a rectangular base, six rectangular faces that all meet at 90 degree angles, where opposite faces are parallel, is a rectangular prism is – literally – an objective act even if it happens to be relative to the conditionals of the numbers and arrangement of 2D faces.

You may be at a loss. I am not.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

If you want to discuss subjectivity as regards moral acts then we can ( now we have determined that all acts are relative to the conditions).

We haven’t determined that all acts are relative to “the conditions.” .

Oh, good grief…

This what you wrote earlier:

Every moral act – in fact every act by any human or moral agent – is necessarily relative to circumstances, intention and its outcome.

Okay, so you are hereby committed to defining “conditions” as “circumstances, intentions and outcomes?”

I wasn’t going to assume that you were.

They ARE conditions. Why on earth wouldn’t I define them as such?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But is hunting ‘certainly’ wrrong? Is factory farming 'certainly wrong? Even if younknow all the conditions, it is a subjective decision.

I would suggest that where individuals disagree it is because they disagree about the facts…

When I say ‘conditions’ I mean the facts appertaining to the act. Facts are not undeniable. People deny facts all the time. But ‘fact’ in this discussion means that which is true. That is, my car is red, animals feel pain, shooting someone will harm them, the cage is this big etc etc.

When they agree about the facts but disagree about the act it is because they have a personal opinion on the matter. That is, a subjective opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

A fertilized egg is not a person. It would be simplistic to overlook the quantitative and qualitative changes that happen during the gestation.

Since the OP requires that beliefs and opinions be put aside, cite the scientific evidence that concludes the embryo is not a person.

The question of “personhood” is open.

Exactly. ? The argument is that until that being – the embryo – is affirmed scientifically to be non-human that acts which destroy that being are immoral.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

But is hunting ‘certainly’ wrrong? Is factory farming 'certainly wrong? Even if younknow all the conditions, it is a subjective decision.

I would suggest that where individuals disagree it is because they disagree about the facts…

When I say ‘conditions’ I mean the facts appertaining to the act. Facts are not undeniable. People deny facts all the time. But ‘fact’ in this discussion means that which is true. That is, my car is red, animals feel pain, shooting someone will harm them, the cage is this big etc etc.

When they agree about the facts but disagree about the act it is because they have a personal opinion on the matter. That is, a subjective opinion.

Opinions are formed from the knowledge base and cognitive biases of the subjects. Merely because individuals have different opinions does not mean moral determinations are in the final analysis merely subjective opinions. That seems to be your conclusion. Unfortunately your conclusion would then be merely your opinion and not conclusive at all, even though you choose to make it so.

 

[HarryStotle]

o_mlly:

Since the OP requires that beliefs and opinions be put aside, cite the scientific evidence that concludes the embryo is not a person.

Without a working brain there is no “person”. Until the brain develops, there is no person. Simple and scientific.

Perhaps, but the potential to be a person resides in the zygote, embryo and fetus.

If personhood is the defining moral attribute, then the value of personhood is to be transferred to the entire process by which a person becomes a person.

You, a person, were once a particular zygote, embryo and fetus. To kill you as an individual at any one of those stages would be to kill you as a person. To respect your personhood, we have to respect you as an individual being all along your journey to personhood.

We cannot claim respect for you as a person if we were to knowingly kill you when you were at any of those stages of becoming a person. If we knew you and were to go back in time to any point that you were in your mother’s womb, to kill you at that point would be to kill you as a person. Period.

As for your argument that a person has to behave as a person to be attributed personhood, the cases I linked to above where an individual was comatose and judged to have no possibility of consciousness for 23 years in one case but actually was aware of everyone going on around him puts your entire argument in jeopardy.

There is no certainty of when a person becomes a person, and you haven’t provided any grounds for determining what makes a person a person, so your personhood criteria for moral determinations about who is to live and who can be killed just seem very weak for such a morally significant decision.

We know with certainty that every zygote, embryo and fetus are steps towards personhood, unless there are mitigating factors (abortion being one of them.) Since we know that and since we are value personhood, we ought to value the journey towards personhood that every human individual takes.

It is morally incumbent upon us – if we truly value personhood – to equally value individual beings on their way to becoming persons. This is especially true for us as Catholics who believe each and every human being has an eternal destiny. We should not take lightly the killing of individual human beings at any stage because we are, indeed (simply and scientifically) killing a being who is on a defined path to becoming a person. To kill that being is to kill a person, in the end.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Perhaps, but the potential to be a person resides in the zygote, embryo and fetus.

Potential does not equal actual. Period.

So you would advocate for killing off those in comas who are only “potentially” aware?

If they are not actually aware, they can be targets for killing? Is that your position?

Better stay awake all the time, then because by your own standards sleeping people are not “actually” awake and aware, just potentially so.

And “Potential does not equal actual. Period.”

Nice of you to assume for yourself the position of “dictator of morality” for everyone.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Animals have brains and they’re not persons.

 

[o_mlly]

Without a working brain there is no “person”. Until the brain develops, there is no person. Simple and scientific.

I think not.

The scientist disagrees with you on multiple levels.

• Absence of evidence never proves absence.
• The claim that any parallelism exists between “brain death” and “brain birth” is scientifically invalid.
• Evidence of “personhood” is not observable. “Personhood” is not a subject for scientific inquiry. Rather “personhood” is an object of philosophical inquiry. Evidence of a new human being, a new individual is the proper object of scientific inquiry.

The observable evidence (the science) is that a unique human being exists in the unicellular embryo – the beginning of human life. The live human being is not the mother. This new human individual has its own unique 46 chromosomes (excepting for Downs and Turner) of which 23 are paternal and 23 maternal.

 

[Richca]

“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Whatever exists that God created is good insofar as it exists and everything that God created participates in some measure more or less to a likeness of God. Philosophically considered, being is convertible with good so that whatever is, is good insofar as it is or exists. There are various grades of created being, for example, inanimate things and living things. Among living things, there is a hierarchy of the less perfect and the more perfect. Plants occupy the lowest grade of living things, next come animals, and finally human beings. Among rational creatures, angels are more perfect than human beings.

Whatever exists has value even inanimate things like rocks. Rocks have being and insofar as they have being, they are good and participate in God’s existence and goodness. In regard to the unborn, they have being and exist and as such, they are good and participate in God’s existence and goodness. Next, the unborn are living beings, have life, and thus participate in a more perfect form of being, namely, having life which is a more perfect participation in God’s being. Next, the unborn are human beings with an immortal, spiritual and rational soul which is a more perfect manner of having life and by which human beings are made principally in the image and likeness of God. If we add all this up together, it is clear that the unborn are very good and very valuable indeed for they participate in many ways to God’s own being, goodness, and likeness.

This is why abortion is very wrong in general and the abortion of the unborn with disabilities such as down syndrome which in some countries is very common. Children born with disabilities participate in God’s being or existence and goodness in various ways even though they have the disabilities. Insofar as they exist, they reflect and participate in God’s existence and goodness as does everything, animate or inanimate, does. They are living beings which is a more perfect form of existence than inanimate things. Human beings are a kind of animal which is a more perfect form of living things than plants or brute animals. These children are human beings with an immortal, spiritual, and rational soul which is a reflection and participation in God’s own image and likeness. Human beings are the most perfect kind of animal on earth. So, the unborn, whether they be healthy and normal or possibly with disabilities or defects, are very valuable in God’s eyes and reflect and participate in his being and goodness in many ways.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

But is hunting ‘certainly’ wrrong? Is factory farming 'certainly wrong? Even if younknow all the conditions, it is a subjective decision.

I would suggest that where individuals disagree it is because they disagree about the facts…

When I say ‘conditions’ I mean the facts appertaining to the act. Facts are not undeniable. People deny facts all the time. But ‘fact’ in this discussion means that which is true. That is, my car is red, animals feel pain, shooting someone will harm them, the cage is this big etc etc.

When they agree about the facts but disagree about the act it is because they have a personal opinion on the matter. That is, a subjective opinion.

Opinions are formed from the knowledge base and cognitive biases of the subjects. Merely because individuals have different opinions does not mean moral determinations are in the final analysis merely subjective opinions.

How is an opinion on a moral matter - that is, a personal moral determination, not subjective?

 

[Bradskii]

Incidentally, you haven’t answered the question I posed earlier: Do you personally make decisions on all moral matters or does someone else do it for you?