Inherent Value of life (secular)

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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

It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with facts. No brain, no person.

Really?

I guess this is what happens when we begin to discuss deep philosophical questions with those not very well versed in the sciences.

So by “brain,” do you mean whole brain neurons or cerebral cortex neurons? If the former, elephants have roughly three times the number of whole brain neurons that humans do. By your determination – No brain, no person. – elephants would qualify to be treated as three times the “persons” that human beings are.

And if by “brain” you simply mean the control centre of the nervous system, then you need to realize that even insects such as ants have brains in that sense.

You see, it isn’t as simple as “No brain, no person.”

By the way, by week four, the human embryo begins to develop the three brain sections; forebrain, middle brain and hind brain, along with the optical stalk.

So “brain, ergo person” at week four? Is that now your position based on the facts?

 

[HarryStotle]

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

Look, even objective mathematical proofs require subjective “determination” in order for the subject to function based upon their own comprehension of those proofs. That doesn’t imply the subject has full rein to determine whether those proofs are true or not.

The mathematical proof is true independent of the subject, but the subject must understand the mathematical proof in order to “make it his own” and move forward accordingly. The same with moral truths.

These also require the subject to grasp and make use of moral facts in order for those facts to guide moral decision making. The subject is morally responsible for his/her own behaviour, which means they also have a moral responsibility to develop their conscience so that their own moral decisions are morally correct.

The subject does not have full rein to make up their own morality because if they do then Hitler has as much a right to compose his version of moral truth as you do, and you have no basis upon which to criticize him.

So to answer your question…

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?

I take full moral responsibility for my actions and my moral thinking, but that does not imply I can merely make up morality based upon subjective whims, pleasures or moral apathy. I will be held fully responsible for making the correct moral decisions under whatever circumstances arise and with full conscious awareness of my own motives and vices. I am obligated to act morally – and my first obligation is to work to understand what it means to be a responsible moral agent in the fullest sense possible.

So making moral decisions does not mean contrive the morality that suits me to whatever advantage I can get from such a morality. Morality is objective and will necessarily apply to all moral agents including me and including the “someone else” in your question, i.e., me and the someone else are both responsible to the moral truth. It is the moral truth that imposes obligation.

Morality is based upon moral imperatives. They are called imperatives because no moral agent can act contrary to a moral imperative and still be a good moral agent. Ergo moral imperatives impose morality on moral agents. Persons don’t personally determine their own morality to suit them.

Does that answer your question?

 

[HarryStotle]

I have no idea whom are you talking about. We are not talking about elephants, or insects. We are talking about humans,

You didn’t specify human brains, you said…

No brain, no person.

It is interesting that your logic permits you to change terms and premises as you decide, and then you don’t even hold yourself to the conclusions from those premises.

Must be 'freeing" to take such license with the thought process.

 

[o_mlly]

Criticize the post, not the poster. The changing the subject from human persons to elephants or bugs is inappropriate. It is called moving the goalposts.

That’s adorable.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You didn’t specify human brains, you said…

Since we were talking about humans… and the brain is the necessary, but not sufficient to declare someone a person.

So what would be the “sufficient” conditions to declare a human being “a person?”

You indicated merely having a brain makes you a person. Now you want to specify “human brain” as if there is something special about being a human and possessing a human brain that brings with it personhood.

Then you balked at the fact that even four week old embryos have brain development, so you were conceding that you would accord human rights to even four week olds, despite that they aren’t really persons.

Your criteria for ending a determinably human life keep shifting and changing.

Sounds to me that YOU are finding all the traits YOU personally possess to be those that permit YOU to decide which human beings have the right to life and which do not.

Very convenient for YOU, I suppose.

Just to remind YOU that YOU were once a 3 week old embryo at one stage in YOUR development. To have ended YOUR life then would have been to end YOUR life and personhood now. That is a matter of undeniable fact. The presence of YOUR personhood was not actual at that time, but the possibility of YOUR personhood would have been exterminated had someone aborted YOU.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s not an abstraction. It is an act. …

I just killed Spot.

Was that a good act or a bad act?

Cannot tell. “I just killed Spot” is still an abstraction. In the concrete, the circumstances and intention are known.

It is not an argument against intrinsically evil acts to claim that varying circumstances and intention can alter the morality of an act. There are acts whose object is always and everywhere immoral. From another thread:

The description of a human act that is intrinsically evil requires that within that description alone nothing more is necessary to judge it so. The vocabulary does not control or limit the judgement of acts as intrinsically evil. Sometimes we have a single word that implies the necessary circumstances, sometimes not. The description may be a single word, e.g. murder, or a phrase, e.g., demon worship, or a sentence, e.g. capital punishment if other means exist to protect society is intrinsically evil.

Whether the circumstances are implicit or explicit is not important; what is important is whether the act as described can be judged evil with certainty. For instance, the human act of sexual intercourse cannot on that description alone be judged evil. If the sexual intercourse occurs between a married person and another who is not their spouse then the act is intrinsically evil. We have a single word – adultery – which makes implicit the circumstances necessary to judge that special circumstance of sexual intercourse intrinsically evil.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It’s not an abstraction. It is an act. …

I just killed Spot.

Was that a good act or a bad act?

Cannot tell. “I just killed Spot” is still an abstraction. In the concrete, the circumstances and intention are known.

It is not an argument against intrinsically evil acts to claim that varying circumstances and intention can alter the morality of an act. There are acts whose object is always and everywhere immoral. From another thread:

The description of a human act that is intrinsically evil requires that within that description alone nothing more is necessary to judge it so. The vocabulary does not control or limit the judgement of acts as intrinsically evil. Sometimes we have a single word that implies the necessary circumstances, sometimes not. The description may be a single word, e.g. murder, or a phrase, e.g., demon worship, or a sentence, e.g. capital punishment if other means exist to protect society is intrinsically evil.

Whether the circumstances are implicit or explicit is not important; what is important is whether the act as described can be judged evil with certainty. For instance, the human act of sexual intercourse cannot on that description alone be judged evil. If the sexual intercourse occurs between a married person and another who is not their spouse then the act is intrinsically evil. We have a single word – adultery – which makes implicit the circumstances necessary to judge that special circumstance of sexual intercourse intrinsically evil.

You appear to be agreeing with me. In fact, everyone appears to be agreeing with me. It just seems there is this terror in using the term relative. All acts are relative. There are no objectively moral acts.

But now you have introduced the term ‘intrinsic’. So who decides whether an act is, for example, intrinsically evil?

 

[HarryStotle]

All acts are relative. There are no objectively moral acts.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow because your logic doesn’t hold.

That moral acts are moral or not, relative to their three dimensions – motive, circumstances and outcome – does not establish that there are no objectively moral acts.

The fact that determining 3D objects in mathematics is relative to the 2D figures, numbers of adjoining faces, etc., that constitute them, does not imply that there is no objective 3D geometry.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

All acts are relative. There are no objectively moral acts.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow because your logic doesn’t hold.

That moral acts are moral or not, relative to their three dimensions – motive, circumstances and outcome – does not establish that there are no objectively moral acts.

The fact that determining 3D objects in mathematics is relative to the 2D figures, numbers of adjoining faces, etc., that constitute them, does not imply that there is no objective 3D geometry.

This is the last time I will be posting an explanation. I am tired of repeating myself…

An objective act is one that has no conditions, that does not relate to anything. Killing is an objective act. Lying is an objective act. Causing harm is an objective act. Shooting a gun is an objective act.

BEFORE anyone can decide if the act is immoral or not, we need to know the conditions RELATIVE to that act. The morality of any objective act can only be determined by knowing its relative conditions. When thus described, it can NO LONGER be described as an objective act because it is RELATIVE to the conditions.

Now if you want to explain how we determine what has been described as ‘inherently evil’ acts as actually being evil, then let’s go.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

All acts are relative. There are no objectively moral acts.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow because your logic doesn’t hold.

That moral acts are moral or not, relative to their three dimensions – motive, circumstances and outcome – does not establish that there are no objectively moral acts.

The fact that determining 3D objects in mathematics is relative to the 2D figures, numbers of adjoining faces, etc., that constitute them, does not imply that there is no objective 3D geometry.

This is the last time I will be posting an explanation. I am tired of repeating myself…

An objective act is one that has no conditions, that does not relate to anything. Killing is an objective act. Lying is an objective act. Causing harm is an objective act. Shooting a gun is an objective act.

BEFORE anyone can decide if the act is immoral or not, we need to know the conditions RELATIVE to that act. The morality of any objective act can only be determined by knowing its relative conditions. When thus described, it can NO LONGER be described as an objective act because it is RELATIVE to the conditions.

Now if you want to explain how we determine what has been described as ‘inherently evil’ acts as actually being evil, then let’s go.

So apparently determining whether a 3D object is indeed a 3D object is NOT an objective act because determining 3D objects can only be done relative to the 2D figures, points and edges of contact, etc., that comprise them.

Therefore, according to your “rules” of objectivity, 3D geometry is not an objective enterprise.

Interesting.

 

[HarryStotle]

Now if you want to explain how we determine what has been described as ‘inherently evil’ acts as actually being evil, then let’s go.

How about inherently evil acts are those acts where the “object” or outcome (end for which they are carried out), can under no possible circumstances or motives be good? I.e., there are no circumstances nor motivations that could possibly justify or mitigate carrying out the act.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

Bradskii:

All acts are relative. There are no objectively moral acts.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow because your logic doesn’t hold.

That moral acts are moral or not, relative to their three dimensions – motive, circumstances and outcome – does not establish that there are no objectively moral acts.

The fact that determining 3D objects in mathematics is relative to the 2D figures, numbers of adjoining faces, etc., that constitute them, does not imply that there is no objective 3D geometry.

This is the last time I will be posting an explanation. I am tired of repeating myself…

An objective act is one that has no conditions, that does not relate to anything. Killing is an objective act. Lying is an objective act. Causing harm is an objective act. Shooting a gun is an objective act.

BEFORE anyone can decide if the act is immoral or not, we need to know the conditions RELATIVE to that act. The morality of any objective act can only be determined by knowing its relative conditions. When thus described, it can NO LONGER be described as an objective act because it is RELATIVE to the conditions.

Now if you want to explain how we determine what has been described as ‘inherently evil’ acts as actually being evil, then let’s go.

So apparently determining whether a 3D object is indeed a 3D object is NOT an objective act because determining 3D objects can only be done relative to the 2D figures, points and edges of contact, etc., that comprise them.

Therefore, according to your “rules” of objectivity, 3D geometry is not an objective enterprise.

Interesting.

Feel free to post as much as you think is necessary about geometry to make whatever point you think it is you are making. After you have finished perhaps you could explain how you suggest we determine that which is ‘inherently’ evil.

 

[HarryStotle]

Feel free to post as much as you think is necessary about geometry to make whatever point you think it is you are making. After you have finished perhaps you could explain how you suggest we determine that which is ‘inherently’ evil.

See my last post.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Now if you want to explain how we determine what has been described as ‘inherently evil’ acts as actually being evil, then let’s go.

How about inherently evil acts are those acts where the “object” or outcome (end for which they are carried out), can under no possible circumstances or motives be good? I.e., there are no circumstances nor motivations that could possibly justify or mitigate carrying out the act.

We are no closer because it still remains personal opinion as to whether the end can be described as good or not. Who determines that?

 

[Seeksadvice]

As, I believe it was, the anime FullMetal Alchemist put it… a human being is made up of a few elements that would, at best, fetch a handful of dollars on the market.

 

[o_mlly]

how … we determine that which is ‘inherently’ evil.

An act for which no circumstances or intentions could make the act good or just is inherently evil.

For instance, calumny is intrinsically evil. If the morality of calumny is relative then put forward some set of circumstances or intentions that could make calumny a morally good act.

 

[HarryStotle]

We are no closer because it still remains personal opinion as to whether the end can be described as good or not. Who determines that?

The problem with holding to a “no one can determine whether the end is evil or not,” is that stance is, itself, taking a moral position.

If you want to declare that the end of harming a child by torturing, for example, for the simple motive of pleasure to the torturer, cannot be categorically described as evil, then you have taken a moral position on the moral outcome regarding the harming of a child.

If you are unable to say whether THAT is “good or not,” then your stated moral stance is that harming a child using that method is morally indeterminable BECAUSE we can’t get all people to agree on it. Is it indeterminable, though?

Why should the opinions of morally degraded individuals who cannot agree that the torture of a child is evil, even be considered in determining whether an outcome is wrong?

By claiming such a determination is merely a “personal opinion,” you are taking a moral stance. You are unable to declare it morally evil based upon your moral perspective of consensus regarding morality, so you punt to a “lack of agreement.”

In effect, you are saying that the moral perspectives of even the most morally degraded and corrupt persons should count as equal to the perspectives of morally good individuals. That is taking a moral stance: to wit, that what morally corrupt individuals hold as moral opinions are as valid as the opinions of morally upright or virtuous individuals.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

We are no closer because it still remains personal opinion as to whether the end can be described as good or not. Who determines that?

The problem with holding to a “no one can determine whether the end is evil or not,” is that stance is, itself, taking a moral position.

If you want to declare that the end of harming a child by torturing, for example, for the simple motive of pleasure to the torturer, cannot be categorically described as evil, then you have taken a moral position on the moral outcome regarding the harming of a child.

If you are unable to say whether THAT is “good or not,” then your stated moral stance is that harming a child using that method is morally indeterminable BECAUSE we can’t get all people to agree on it. Is it indeterminable, though?

Why should the opinions of morally degraded individuals who cannot agree that the torture of a child is evil, even be considered in determining whether an outcome is wrong?

By claiming such a determination is merely a “personal opinion,” you are taking a moral stance. You are unable to declare it morally evil based upon your moral perspective of consensus regarding morality, so you punt to a “lack of agreement.”

In effect, you are saying that the moral perspectives of even the most morally degraded and corrupt persons should count as equal to the perspectives of morally good individuals. That is taking a moral stance: to wit, that what morally corrupt individuals hold as moral opinions are as valid as the opinions of morally upright or virtuous individuals.

Nowhere and at no time have I said that everyones moral positions are equal. In fact, I have specifically said just the opposite.

Each person’s determination is his or her own. No-one else’s. You have come NOWHERE in telling me how we determine who is right.

An act may be justifiable to one Catholic but not to another. How to we tell which example to follow?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

how … we determine that which is ‘inherently’ evil.

An act for which no circumstances or intentions could make the act good or just is inherently evil.

For instance, calumny is intrinsically evil. If the morality of calumny is relative then put forward some set of circumstances or intentions that could make calumny a morally good act.

I can’t think of one. But I’m not sure what you think that might prove. Torturing a child for fun is an act for which I can see any justification whatsoever. But how does that tell us who is right for all the matters where there is no obvious wrong?

It’s easy to use specific examples and then say ‘well, that’s obviously wrong - only a madmaan would disagree’. But we don’t want to look at the easy examples. We need to look at the obscure problems where there is disagreement. How do we tell in those circumstances who is right?

 

[HarryStotle]

But we don’t want to look at the easy examples. We need to look at the obscure problems where there is disagreement. How do we tell in those circumstances who is right?

Perhaps by starting with the easy examples to distill basic moral principles and then apply those principles to the more difficult cases?

The problem is that you keep moving back to…

We are no closer because it still remains personal opinion as to whether the end can be described as good or not. Who determines that?

It appears you are claiming all ends remain personal opinions, and then, in the next breath, insist…

Nowhere and at no time have I said that everyones moral positions are equal. In fact, I have specifically said just the opposite.

So which is it?

1. Are ends merely personal opinions and indeterminable because we are at a loss to decide, “Who determines that – i.e., whether the end can be described as good or not?”

Or…

1. …at no time have I said that everyones moral positions are equal.

Perhaps you are clear in your own mind, but there seem to be inconsistencies in your statements.