Inherent Value of life (secular)

[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.

Perhaps I haven’t been as clear as I need to be.

You stated…

An objective act is one that has no conditions, that does not relate to anything. Killing is an objective act.

An “objective act” like dying or killing is merely what happens. Lightning may kill someone, or someone might die from electrocution. These are not objectively moral acts because moral acts are actions of moral agents.

Ergo, a mere “objective act” is distinguishable from an objectively moral act, because the latter requires a moral agent to bring it about.

My point about 3D objects in geometry is that just as objectively categorizing 3D objects in geometry requires analyzing those in relation to their 2D components –surfaces, faces, edges, points, corners and such. We know, objectively speaking, which 3D object we are speaking of because we consider that object relative to its 2D components. The status or identity of 3D objects is contingent upon and relative to their 2D components.

Similarly, moral actions – those actions that are carried out by autonomous moral agents – are assessed relative to, or contingent upon, the dimensions or components that make them, objectively speaking, the moral actions of a moral agent.

Moral agents are not caused to act as they do, they choose end results, are motivated by their psycho-physiological make-up, within specific situations or circumstances in place and time.

It makes no sense to speak of moral acts without reference to [or relative to or contingent upon,] motivation, circumstances, and chosen ends, outcomes, or results. These are specifically what make moral acts, what they are. They are essential to the very nature of a moral act. There is no such thing as a moral act without them.

They are what make a moral act, objectively, a moral act and not something different.

The objective rightness or wrongness of any moral act is, in fact, objectively determined by the motives of the agent, the circumstances under which the act is conceived and carried out, and the outcome or end goal willed by the agent.

These each add some element of rightness or wrongness to the act. If the motive is pure animus, the circumstances are inexcusable, and the willed outcome evil – perhaps harm or death to a victim – then the act can be objectively determined to be morally bad. It isn’t really that difficult.

Moral acts are three-dimensional in the same sense that 3D objects are three dimensional. That does not mean they cannot be determined to be objectively good or bad, perhaps even absolutely so if the motive is hateful, the willed outcome malevolent and the circumstances inexcusable.

I am puzzled why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Or is it?

 

[Bradskii]

The objective rightness or wrongness of any moral act is, in fact, objectively determined by the motives of the agent, the circumstances under which the act is conceived and carried out, and the outcome or end goal willed by the agent.

It is NOT objectively determined. YOU are the person who determines if an act is morally right or wrong. It is a subjective call.

And if you do not agree with that, then tell me who does determine it. Either you decide or someone else does. There are no other options.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The objective rightness or wrongness of any moral act is, in fact, objectively determined by the motives of the agent, the circumstances under which the act is conceived and carried out, and the outcome or end goal willed by the agent.

It is NOT objectively determined. YOU are the person who determines if an act is morally right or wrong. It is a subjective call.

Back to…

Inherent Value of life (secular) Philosophy

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…

It is a subjective call whether or not to act morally, but it isn’t a subjective call that determines the reality and nature of morality.

And if you do not agree with that, then tell me who does determine it. Either you decide or someone else does. There are no other options.

You are correct. Someone else determines the existence of morality, whether you like it or not.

That would be the Ground of Existence, the Pure Act if Being Itself, aka God.

The alternative is that morality is a chimera because matter, if it alone is the Brute Fact of existence doesn’t care to decide anything.

Take it or leave it. God exists and morality inheres in reality, or he does not and morality is a meaningless fiction that you might acquire some sympathy with, but in the end makes no difference in the least.

The great divide. Morality is meaningful or fall over a moral cliff. Pick your poison!

I know, you prefer to go on about how moral your empathetic view of the world is, but then not even you can decide who ties your moral shoelaces.

Only ONE real, live, option.

 

[Bradskii]

That would be the Ground of Existence, the Pure Act if Being Itself, aka God.

Gee, it certainly took a lot of posts for you to get there.

So God decides on every aspect of morality (I’m going to assume that you don’t want to imply that He only deals with certain aspects). And now we can get down to the nitty gritty. Such as: How do you, personally, know what God has decided on any given moral act?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

That would be the Ground of Existence, the Pure Act if Being Itself, aka God.

Gee, it certainly took a lot of posts for you to get there.

So God decides on every aspect of morality (I’m going to assume that you don’t want to imply that He only deals with certain aspects). And now we can get down to the nitty gritty. Such as: How do you, personally, know what God has decided on any given moral act?

Is there a best or correct choice in every given moral situation? Is there a bad or worst choice? Could we pro-rate choices based upon a bad to good spectrum? I think those questions are all answered in the affirmative.

However, God alone would have access to all the morally relevant information required to know the best choice. We don’t. We can make good or better choices as opposed to bad or worse ones. Honesty, integrity, sincerity, courage, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, a continual development of our love and understanding of others, and what constitutes their well-being, all focus us on the end of becoming the best human beings we can be. That is our prime moral goal.

I am not certain the end game is necessarily to make the best choice in each case, but – more likely – becoming the best moral agent we can possibly be, given our somewhat limited but continually developing access to moral information.

That would imply individually struggling with the process of being moral by taking seriously our responsibility to develop as moral agents is more important than any one particular decision at any one time. However, there are key junctures in our moral lives when some decisions are so important given the circumstances that we must do the right thing and avoid the wrong one at that moment.

How each of us knows, personally, what God has decided on any given moral act involves a process of becoming more morally integrated human beings – partly maturity but partly engaging in the moral life to the best of our abilities. We become more attuned to “what God has decided” by becoming better moral agents through time.

There is no “correct” abstract answer because life is not lived in the abstract. It is lived in situations and particulars, through personal choices with particular ends in view. The better we become at morality the better our choices and motivations in differing situations, and the clearer we see better moral ends.

The trajectory is as important as the steps along the way.

Unfortunately, atheism doesn’t provide much in the way of trajectory because the ends for which we exist are somewhat limited, assuming atheism is correct.

 

[Bradskii]

There is no “correct” abstract answer because life is not lived in the abstract. It is lived in situations and particulars, through personal choices with particular ends in view. The better we become at morality the better our choices and motivations in differing situations, and the clearer we see better moral ends. .

PERSONAL choices? The better WE become? OUR choices and motivations?

Thanks. You have now answered the question.

 

[o_mlly]

But I’m not sure what you think that might prove.

It proves that morality is not always relative. It proves that there are acts that no circumstances or good intentions can ever justify because those acts are evil in their object. Calumny, the act at issue, cannot be justified even if the intention is good – save us from a bad leader (who could think that might happen?). Nor may James Bond sleep with a woman not his wife to obtain the Russian decoder, nor may the settlers give up an innocent man to satisfy the blood thirst of the savages even though doing so saves the lives of all, nor may one throw the track switch that kills the fat man …

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

There is no “correct” abstract answer because life is not lived in the abstract. It is lived in situations and particulars, through personal choices with particular ends in view. The better we become at morality the better our choices and motivations in differing situations, and the clearer we see better moral ends. .

PERSONAL choices? The better WE become? OUR choices and motivations?

Thanks. You have now answered the question.

Answered the question, but that does not imply moral choices and acts cannot be objectively assessed. You know that as well as I, but you keep trying to insist the subjective aspect (choice and action by a moral agent) implies no objective grounds for making moral choices, or no possible way of assessing whether a moral act is definitively good or bad.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But I’m not sure what you think that might prove.

It proves that morality is not always relative. It proves that there are acts that no circumstances or good intentions can ever justify because those acts are evil in their object.

Where on EARTH do you get the idea that just because morality is relative that I am suggesting that moral acts can THEREFORE be justified?

I have a feeling that you are reading what you want to read and not what I am writing. You are playing the man and not the ball. There seems to be a complete lack of comprehension.

Morality is relative. To the conditions that appertain to the act. Morality is subjective because we each personally decide if something is right or wrong. Is there anything at all in those two statements that even suggests that either determine what is indeed right or wrong? No there is not. So where do get these ideas from? It’s certainly not me.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

HarryStotle:

There is no “correct” abstract answer because life is not lived in the abstract. It is lived in situations and particulars, through personal choices with particular ends in view. The better we become at morality the better our choices and motivations in differing situations, and the clearer we see better moral ends. .

PERSONAL choices? The better WE become? OUR choices and motivations?

Thanks. You have now answered the question.

Answered the question, but that does not imply moral choices and acts cannot be objectively assessed. You know that as well as I, but you keep trying to insist the subjective aspect (choice and action by a moral agent) implies no objective grounds for making moral choices, or no possible way of assessing whether a moral act is definitively good or bad.

No way have I said or even implied anything like that. I have been pushing you to admit that morality is relative (tick) and decisions we make on moral acts are, by definition, subjective (tick).

Now if you think there are objective facts about any given moral act which we can use (personaly) to determine whether it is right or wrong, then I am in complete agreement.

 

[o_mlly]

Where on EARTH do you get the idea that just because morality is relative that I am suggesting that moral acts can THEREFORE be justified?

This muddled idea (repeatedly) comes from someone who, I believe, presently lives in Australia on planet EARTH.

I have a feeling that you are reading what you want to read and not what I am writing. You are playing the man and not the ball. There seems to be a complete lack of comprehension.

You have nailed the root problem: you feel rather than think that the morality of an act is relative. The football analogy does apply. One plays the man only in determining culpability. One always plays the ball in judging the act. Think (don’t feel) about it.

The end (end in view) may justifies the means but not always. You have admitted that calumny is an act always evil in its object. Or do you now want to revisit the issue? You cannot have it both ways. If calumny is evil regardless of person, place, circumstance or intent then we have an objectively immoral act.

You seem to feel that all human acts must be distilled to some fundamental biological act before determining the morality of any act. He’s not lying, he’s just speaking. He’s not stealing, he’s just taking. He’s not murdering, he’s just killing. Which, of course, is nonsense.

 

[HarryStotle]

Now if you think there are objective facts about any given moral act which we can use (personaly) to determine whether it is right or wrong, then I am in complete agreement.

I suppose, then, that the “objective facts” about morality are where we differ somewhat.

Let me try to incorporate an analogy to demonstrate that objective facts are crucial and that mere subjectivity regarding morality isn’t a feasible perspective.

First of all let me make the point that morality is about what is “good for” human beings as individuals and as humanity. We cannot know the nature of morality regarding the governance of human behaviour without knowing what is “good for” – i.e., promotes the well-being of – human beings. Additionally, we cannot know what promotes the well-being of human beings – what is good for them – without knowing the kind of thing human beings are to begin with.

Take an analogy.

Someone, a first time car owner, asks you about how they ought to look after their car. If you were to say, “Just don’t damage it.” Would that be sufficient in terms of the entire concern someone should have about maintaining a vehicle?

It clearly isn’t.

Yet, that is precisely the view “Do no harm” advocates are promoting regarding human morality. “Do what you will as long as you don’t harm others”, cannot be a complete morality in the same way that “Don’t damage the vehicles of others,” is an incomplete outlook regarding the care and maintenance of vehicles.

This is where your “empathy” view of morality is also insufficient. The efficacy of your empathy, is completely dependent upon your level of understanding of what is “good for” or promotes the well-being of human beings.

Go back to the analogy of vehicle maintenance. If you know very little about cars, and yet own a vehicle, your insistence that others look after their vehicles in the same way that you look after yours isn’t very helpful. If you live by a “Do no damage to your vehicle” ethic regarding vehicle maintenance, it would be a very short-sighted strategy, and to simply advocate that others ought to treat their vehicles the way that you treat yours – that you do not damage it – isn’t a very comprehensive ethic regarding the “morality” of the ethical treatment of vehicles.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

So, getting back to human beings, just as the proper treatment of vehicles to care for and maintain them long term, isn’t merely to “Do no damage to them,” the proper long-term view of human morality is more than merely “Do no harm.”

To properly care for a vehicle long term means knowing some basics about what kind of thing a car is, how to properly maintain its various components, how to change or repair those that are wearing out, and how to operate it on a daily basis, etc.

By analogy, then, human morality – if it is to be objective in the same sense that vehicle maintenance is objective – must involve knowledge of the kind of thing a human being is, how to develop and maintain its various aspects – physical, mental, emotional – and how to monitor when parts or aspects are wearing and in need of maintenance.

I suspect your “subjectivity” view plays a part here when we observe how cars can be used for different purposes. You might say that some vehicle owners purchase cars just to drive the crap out of them, some as purely functional transportation devices and because they have lots of cash they may not care to maintain them, etc.

Similarly, you might insist people have some kind of right to decide for themselves whether they choose to “care for the well-being of others” and the extent to which they ought to be compelled to do so.

That would, again, depend upon what kind of thing, precisely, human beings are. If human beings are the infinitely valued creations of God who is the source of all that exists, then the value of each human being is not up to us to decide for ourselves how we will treat them, and we will be held accountable even for our choice to overlook that value that God has placed – as the Ground of Existence Itself – on each human being.

If, on the other hand, God does not exist, and human beings are merely “bags of chemicals,” how we treat each other really makes no difference in the end.

Thing is, though, it isn’t what we imagine to be the case that is the significant thing. What matters is what really is the case. And THAT isn’t up to us to decide. It is the objective truth of the matter – what human beings really are – that counts.

That is why the crucial moral fact is whether God exists or he doesn’t, because that is the fact that ultimately determines the nature of morality.

 

[HarryStotle]

Morality is subjective because we each personally decide if something is right or wrong.

From a subjective perspective it APPEARS that we “personally decide” whether an act is right or wrong, but that is only “as far as we are concerned” in order to justify our choice to ourselves.

If that is NOT all you are proposing, then your claim must be that when we decide an act is right then it is right not merely “as far as we are concerned,” but objectively so.

That cannot be, however, because if I decide an act – including the circumstances, motives and outcomes – is right as far as I am concerned, and Joe decides that same act – along with the same circumstances, motives and outcomes – is wrong, then your perspective on morality entails there is NO WAY of determining whether the act is objectively right or not, because the ultimate arbiter is each subject.

That means the same act – along with all of the same motives, circumstances and outcomes – can be both right and wrong. There is not objective way to determine whether the act is truly right or wrong BECAUSE the subject is the ultimate arbiter and subjects can just happen to disagree.

Again, the main issue here is that you are allowing that two different subjects, no matter how qualified they are to speak on a moral issue – whether they are morally degenerate or morally upright – and are assuming, merely on the basis of their subjectivity, that they are equally qualified to determine the morality of an act.

That implies that all subjects, no matter how morally qualified or corrupt, have an equal say on moral issues, by virtue of the fact they are subjects.

I think that assumption flies in the face of what is self-evidently true: that some subjects can be morally corrupt, inept or just naive and are less qualified than others to judge moral matters.

That implies morality is objective and there must be grounds by which we adjudicate between the determinations of different subjects on morality. That implies morality is not, ultimately, merely subjectively determined, but must be objective.

 

[Youngling11]

While I don’t recommend jumping straight into this example, especially if you’re talking to someone who has had an abortion. But essentially any time humans have decided for themselves which humans have value and which humans do not some of the worst things in history have happened. Humans in the US decided that African Americans didn’t have value so they enslaved them and beat them, the nazis decided that Jews don’t have value so they killed them, and today people are deciding that the unborn don’t have value so that they can kill them based on convenience. Human life is valuable… imagine if one of the mars rovers discovered a living human embryo on mars, think of the extensive effort that everyone would go to keep the embryo alive. But since we have such an abundance of life here on earth we take the value of that life for granted. Life in itself is valuable, and when that life is human it becomes priceless, even from an evolutionary standpoint. Imagine if every woman in the world decided to abort their unborn children. The human race would become extinct. So from an evolutionary standpoint abortion doesn’t make sense and from a common sense standpoint abortion doesn’t make sense.

As someone who has had numerous debates in this topic and has been trained in how to talk with people about it, When debating this topic, yelling things is not helpful. The best approach is to hear the opposing argument, consider it, and then gently tell them why they’re wrong. Remember, you can’t convince anyone that abortion is wrong, only they can convince themselves. Good luck to you!

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Where on EARTH do you get the idea that just because morality is relative that I am suggesting that moral acts can THEREFORE be justified?

This muddled idea (repeatedly) comes from someone who, I believe, presently lives in Australia on planet EARTH.

Enough with the claims. Post any comment I have made from anywhere at any time that even suggests that because all moral acts are relative then they are THEREFORE justified.

If you just thought about that claim even for a second, you would realise that it would mean that all moral acts, even those that contradict each other, are justified. A nonsensical position if there ever was one.

 

[Bradskii]

That cannot be, however, because if I decide an act – including the circumstances, motives and outcomes – is right as far as I am concerned, and Joe decides that same act – along with the same circumstances, motives and outcomes – is wrong, then your perspective on morality entails there is NO WAY of determining whether the act is objectively right or not, because the ultimate arbiter is each subject.

Absolute nonsense. I have never even suggested such a thing. You are setting up straw men with every post. It seems that rather than responding to any given post, I have to spend my time constantly reiterating what I have previously said or denying claims about things I haven’t.

Just because two people hold different views in regard to a moral act - which they are most definitely entitled to - obviously does NOT mean that they are both right. In fact they could both be wrong. And do you want to suggest that you know of no means whereby it coulod be determined?

No discussions about the facts? No common ground? No debate about outcomes? Nothing to say about intent?

Good grief…do I actually have to spend time explaining to you how we determine right from wrong? Is it too obscure a matter? Would you pefer to forego any complex discussions and just declare ‘God will decide’.

No, Harry. You and I decide. Between us. You bring forth your arguments and I bring mine and we see who has the best one. And anytime that you declare that you win because your position is divinely authorised, then we part ways.

And no…people aren’t just bags of chemicals. You don’t need a god to realise that. You might want to cling to that position for whatever reason, but it’s another straw man. You need to discuss matters with a materialist who does actually hold to that position. Not that you’ll ever find one.

 

[HarryStotle]

No, Harry. You and I decide. Between us. You bring forth your arguments and I bring mine and we see who has the best one. And anytime that you declare that you win because your position is divinely authorised, then we part ways.

No Bradskii, the moment we part ways isn’t when I declare I win because my position is divinely authorized, that is only a veil you place over the issue.

The moment we part ways is when I declare I win because my position is true.

It isn’t about divine authorization, really. It is about a true perspective on morality, about when anyone declares a certain moral position to be objectively true, that is when you head for the door… or the bar.

We could leave divine authorization completely out of it and speak of a true moral position as one that would be, theoretically speaking, the position of an all-knowing, perfectly good moral agent, and you would still have issues with that because at some point along the discussion towards moral truth you will backpedal to “Says who?”

So you won’t even accept that a true moral position – one held by a fictional perfectly good, all-knowing moral agent – could exist, even in theory. That isn’t acceptable to you, in principle.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No, Harry. You and I decide. Between us. You bring forth your arguments and I bring mine and we see who has the best one. And anytime that you declare that you win because your position is divinely authorised, then we part ways.

No Bradskii, the moment we part ways isn’t when I declare I win because my position is divinely authorized, that is only a veil you place over the issue.

The moment we part ways is when I declare I win because my position is true.

It isn’t about divine authorization, really. It is about a true perspective on morality, about when anyone declares a certain moral position to be objectively true, that is when you head for the door… or the bar.

We could leave divine authorization completely out of it and speak of a true moral position as one that would be, theoretically speaking, the position of an all-knowing, perfectly good moral agent, and you would still have issues with that because at some point along the discussion towards moral truth you will backpedal to “Says who?”

So you won’t even accept that a true moral position – one held by a fictional perfectly good, all-knowing moral agent – could exist, even in theory. That isn’t acceptable to you, in principle.

You say that we could leave divine authorization completely out of it and in the next breath, in fact within the same sentence, declare that we still need the position of an all-knowing, perfectly good moral agent from which to base decisions (oh, it doesn’t need to be God - it’s just that we need some higher authority on which to base our decisions).

We have reached the end of the discussion. We have agreed that morality is both relative and subjective. I have pointed out that neither of these facts mean that any one position is therefore morally correct. We have agreed that we personally make decisions on moral matters. Which again does not mean that we have decided correctly.

But then when we get down to the nuts and bolts, down to discussions about facts and outcomes and intent as a means to make educated and reasonable decisions as to what is right and wrong, then that all goes out the window and you play your divine trump card.

As I said, that’s where the discussion ends. Thanks for playing.

 

[HarryStotle]

You say that we could leave divine authorization completely out of it and in the next breath, in fact within the same sentence, declare that we still need the position of an all-knowing, perfectly good moral agent from which to base decisions (oh, it doesn’t need to be God - it’s just that we need some higher authority on which to base our decisions).

The truth about a moral position in the abstract would be, in theory, what a perfectly good moral agent equipped with full moral knowledge declares to be true, if such existed.

Wouldn’t that be, by definition, what an objectively true moral proposition would be?

Just as a scientific truth or a mathematical truth would be the propositions held to be true by an all-knowing scientist or mathematician?

I don’t need to insist that an all-knowing scientist or mathematician need to exist to propose that if scientific truths or mathematical truths existed they would be those held to be true by an omniscient scientist or mathematician. That would simply be true by definition.

Do you have something against moral truths that you seem not to have against mathematical truths or scientific truths? Or are you against the principle of truth in general, whether that be scientific, mathematical or moral?