Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[inocente]

No, it’s a subject of much debate. But the organism has the most identifiable level of drive.

Please actually read what you cite. Please.

I accept your apology, although you could have avoided adding the bluster.

I often hear “common sense” tossed about, but appeals to popular belief are fallacious in the practice of logic. My “common sense” isn’t theirs.

The common sense is not a belief. It is a sense. The conscience is not imaginary.

And mercy is not logical. The priest and the Levite walk on by, driven by their logic. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

Jesus chooses a Samaritan because his audience despised them. The lesson is that everyone is capable of doing the right thing. Capable because we share human nature.

The only real difference here between theists and atheists is that the former can argue they have a foundation for morality outside of humans. This is William Lane Craig’s claim. Atheists, in turn, claim that he invented his deity to try to trick everyone into accepting his morals.

The ultimate authority has to be the individual conscience. As the CCC says “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”. And echoing Romans 14, “If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . What I’m trying to “divine” is the basis of atheist morality evaluated on it’s own merits . . . I really don’t think they have anything…

It’s sort of a quagmire, but if you are speaking about “progressive” atheists and humanists, the morality that is espoused, simply put, seems to be based on empowerment and tolerance. Everyone is free to do what they want and feel good about themselves and the greatest “sin” is to interfere with another person’s doing so. Where it gets complicated has to do with boundaries, where one person’s freedom interferes with that of the other. The ultimate good is in being oneself. That is where again things get hazy because the will needs a master, a direction, a purpose or end to achieve. While it is up to the individual to arrive at that meaning for their existence, it must exist outside, transcend the person in order for it to have any sort of influence on one’s will. Survival of and harmony within the human species would be one foundation of atheistic morality. Noble aspirations to be sure, but they would not hold much weight in situations where one must make a difficult moral choice, especially where it is known only to oneself. This sort of morality seems more useful in judging others, such as politicians and others in the class that holds power and influence. It’s also a way to feel morally superior, as an atheist might feel intellectually superior to the believer. Bottom line: I don’t know either.

My default understanding of a phrase like “common sense morality” is that it would have to do with conscience. Conscience here is understood to be our dialogue with God, which we all have since He brings us all into being through His love. When it is not recognized as such, it is less likely to be informed. That said, we all are likely to feel compelled to become more conscientious when we enter into conflict within ourselves and our difficult dealing with others. Another alternative, of course, is to deafen ourselves to its message. The problem with morality has to do with the ignorance that plagues the human condition. The voice of our conscience melds and is confused with immediate and tangible realities such as the people with whom we interact as part of a family within the greater society. Our conscience, left unexplored can become simply a collection of “gut reactions”, the emotional sequelae of interactions with significant people in our lives. Without a connection to what is truly good, from which follows the knowledge of sin within ourselves, we will drift either into sociopathy or will be left with what are merely irrational feelings of shame and guilt, these accompanied by a flimsy sense of self-esteem that replaces the reality of our being loved by He who brought all into existence and wants us to join Him in love.

As to nature and those who hold us to be animals, there is the herd. In addition to instincts directed to self-survival, I would postulate that feelings arose (“were created” would be a better way to phrase it since they did not bring themselves into existence) in the “evolution” of the animal soul/mind. At some point instincts dedicated to the care of the young were strong enough to supercede those of self-preservation. The inclination to this sort of behaviour would have then be generalized to others forming the group.This isn’t strictly altruism, which involves a choice, since it is simply a different emotional reaction. The same feelings that lead us to work together in harmony can cause a holocaust. This occurs through the surrendering of one’s will to society, which swallows up one’s identity and freedom. Actually, it is only within the Church, the body of Christ, here as a sample of heaven, that this does not happen. Human beings are able to choose how we behave, we go beyond the vagaries and conflicts of feelings, adhering to standards that see one action as being better than another. Although we possess a similar anatomy, having lungs, a heart, brain, muscles and bones, and we likewise share some of their feelings, our eternal human souls, with its capacity to know and relate to God, makes us something other than animals.

At the foundation of Christian morality, we have Love, God, the Source and destiny, should we choose it, of our lives. The Ten Commandments are founded on the two that express this truth. They are practical descriptions of how we, divorced from the truth of love, can make it central to our lives, as it should have been. Behaving in this manner, we elevate this earth, our relationships, to heaven, where God’s will is done. Entering into His infinite compassion, we see ever clearer things and people as they truly are. Unfettered from the illusions that accompany sin, the world in all it’s wonder is revealed and we can honestly love our enemies.

 

[EnosJadon]

Vonsalza, this post is written to you, but it’s not written for you, it’s written for all those people who are open-minded enough to understand it.

Then it is I who is sorry. You’ve never actually been taught how natural selection affects evolution. Let me illuminate your darkness:

Species change over time in response to pressure. But this change is affected at the individual level, not the group level. Why is this? Because it’s the innovation (be it mutation, adaptation, ect) of the individual that drives it.

One thing that we can be absolutely certain of, is that altruism…acting for the benefit of someone else… is innate within the human species. We don’t have to figure out how it arose, or how it was selected for, because it’s always been there. As long as there have been humans, there have been those who have acted for the benefit of others.

We know that this is true, because we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t. We’re not born with the capacity to survive on our own. We’re completely dependent upon the care, protection, and nurturing of others. So we don’t have to figure out how evolution selected for selfless behavior, it selected for it because it’s absolutely essential for our survival as a species. And yet we’re not always selfless and altruistic, we can be greedy, and indifferent, and cruel as well. Unfortunately natural selection doesn’t care if a strategy is kind or not, it only cares if it works. As you point out, there’s a tipping point where selfish behavior trumps selfless behavior, but selfish behavior can never completely eliminate selfless behavior, because it’s very survival depends upon it. A species which is reliant upon the nurturing of its young, must always retain some level of selfless behavior. And so natural selection did what natural selection always does…it found a balance between essential selfless altruism and effective selfish greed. That’s why humanity looks the way that it does, with acts of both unspeakable cruelty, and unbelievable compassion. Because there are two driving forces that govern the viability of our species…the need for individual survival…and the need to pass our genes on to the next generation. Lose either one and humanity ceases to exist.

For all of our intelligence and reasoning, humanity still behaves as natural selection has designed it to behave. And it seems that not even God can change that.

No, they did not write it. Their lauded ancients wrote it and it was followed by the fathers all the way back to it’s genesis.

This is a non-arbitrary basis for belief in a moral norm - even if factually untrue. It’s basis, regardless of fact, is woven into the culture in a functioning way.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so blind to the obvious. The very premise of this thread is that one can’t use “common sense” and “popular opinion” as the basis for moral truths. And yet that’s exactly what you would have us do, use a moral code formed by the consensus of men thousands of years ago, and consented to by popular opinion today, as the basis for morality. The sheer hypocrisy of it bewilders me.

I say this knowing that you’ll never be able to see it, and that’s the saddest part of all…the truth is right before their eyes, and men can’t see it.

Enos, I hope this has been illuminating.

I wish that I could say that this little chat has been illuminating, but in all honesty, it hasn’t been. Yours isn’t a behavior that I haven’t seen a thousand times before. Sometimes louder, sometimes more articulate, but always the same, blindly self-confident. I long ago realized that in it’s own way, it’s a good thing. In the absence of absolutes, it’s necssary for one person to be just as passionate in defense of their beliefs, as others are in defense of theirs.

So I understand…even though I know that you won’t listen. Which is why this post is written to you, but not for you.

I don’t think that I’ll be responding again. I have nothing else to add. You’re on your own.

 

[EnosJadon]

It’s sort of a quagmire, but if you are speaking about “progressive” atheists and humanists, the morality that is espoused, simply put, seems to be based on empowerment and tolerance. Everyone is free to do what they want and feel good about themselves and the greatest “sin” is to interfere with another person’s doing so. Where it gets complicated has to do with boundaries, where one person’s freedom interferes with that of the other. The ultimate good is in being oneself. That is where again things get hazy because the will needs a master, a direction, a purpose or end to achieve. While it is up to the individual to arrive at that meaning for their existence, it must exist outside, transcend the person in order for it to have any sort of influence on one’s will. Survival of and harmony within the human species would be one foundation of atheistic morality. Noble aspirations to be sure, but they would not hold much weight in situations where one must make a difficult moral choice, especially where it is known only to oneself. This sort of morality seems more useful in judging others, such as politicians and others in the class that holds power and influence. It’s also a way to feel morally superior, as an atheist might feel intellectually superior to the believer. Bottom line: I don’t know either.

My default understanding of a phrase like “common sense morality” is that it would have to do with conscience. Conscience here is understood to be our dialogue with God, which we all have since He brings us all into being through His love. When it is not recognized as such, it is less likely to be informed. That said, we all are likely to feel compelled to become more conscientious when we enter into conflict within ourselves and our difficult dealing with others. Another alternative, of course, is to deafen ourselves to its message. The problem with morality has to do with the ignorance that plagues the human condition. The voice of our conscience melds and is confused with immediate and tangible realities such as the people with whom we interact as part of a family within the greater society. Our conscience, left unexplored can become simply a collection of “gut reactions”, the emotional sequelae of interactions with significant people in our lives. Without a connection to what is truly good, from which follows the knowledge of sin within ourselves, we will drift either into sociopathy or will be left with what are merely irrational feelings of shame and guilt, these accompanied by a flimsy sense of self-esteem that replaces the reality of our being loved by He who brought all into existence and wants us to join Him in love.

As to nature and those who hold us to be animals, there is the herd. In addition to instincts directed to self-survival, I would postulate that feelings arose (“were created” would be a better way to phrase it since they did not bring themselves into existence) in the “evolution” of the animal soul/mind. At some point instincts dedicated to the care of the young were strong enough to supercede those of self-preservation. The inclination to this sort of behaviour would have then be generalized to others forming the group.This isn’t strictly altruism, which involves a choice, since it is simply a different emotional reaction. The same feelings that lead us to work together in harmony can cause a holocaust. This occurs through the surrendering of one’s will to society, which swallows up one’s identity and freedom. Actually, it is only within the Church, the body of Christ, here as a sample of heaven, that this does not happen. Human beings are able to choose how we behave, we go beyond the vagaries and conflicts of feelings, adhering to standards that see one action as being better than another. Although we possess a similar anatomy, having lungs, a heart, brain, muscles and bones, and we likewise share some of their feelings, our eternal human souls, with its capacity to know and relate to God, makes us something other than animals.

At the foundation of Christian morality, we have Love, God, the Source and destiny, should we choose it, of our lives. The Ten Commandments are founded on the two that express this truth. They are practical descriptions of how we, divorced from the truth of love, can make it central to our lives, as it should have been. Behaving in this manner, we elevate this earth, our relationships, to heaven, where God’s will is done. Entering into His infinite compassion, we see ever clearer things and people as they truly are. Unfettered from the illusions that accompany sin, the world in all it’s wonder is revealed and we can honestly love our enemies.

Aloysium, I just wanted to compliment you on an excellent post. It’s balanced and discerning. It presents both the theist’s argument, and the opposing argument with equal insight. The truth is…sincere and reasonable people can disagree.

Well done…

 

[minkymurph]

The problem with common sense is it is often uncommon

 

[minkymurph]

I’ve been browsing around several threads that are currently on the go on CAF synonymous with this one.

One thing surprises me about arguments I have read that are being presented by those in the ‘God does not exist’ camp - apologies for the clumsy definition, I just can’t think of a better definition at the moment and have used it in recognition of the fact the ‘God does not exist’ camp is comprised of atheists, anti-theists, anti-deists, people who define their position as ‘areligious’ in the sense they don’t believe in God but it doesn’t matter to them others do, and is it 'apatheists? (Don’t care if there is a God or not).

What surprises me is I have not read any posts by those in the ‘God does not exist’ camp in favour of utilitarianism. Bentham and Mill were atheists and utilitarians. They argued morals should be determined on the basis of consequentialism. I think Hume who was an atheist and a utilitarian argued this as well. As someone who believes in God I think consequentialism is sound argument. If I didn’t believe in God I would be arguing consequentialism.

Bentham, Mill and Hume critiqued religion but to my knowledge did not advocate it’s erradication, nor argue a society comprised of individuals who do not believe in God would be better. Such an argument would be at odds with The’Greatest Happiness’ principle and even Nietzche didn’t make this argument. His ‘overman’ would be one that had no religious beliefs and thus would not advocate any one religion, but would not be anti-religious and seek to eradicate it.

I’m not a utilitarian myself. Not because I believe in God, but because I live in Northern Ireland. One of the flaws of the ‘Greatest Happiness’ principle is the tyranny of the majority. This was evident in Northern Ireland. I appreciate utilitarianism is perhaps outdated now but Bentham, Mill and Hume made a significant contribution to political theory and their contributions have now been developed and expanded in ways that are beneficial to western democracies.

In conclusion, where do those in the ‘Don’t believe in God’ camp - feel free to come up with a better phrase - stand on consequentialism as a source of moral norms?

 

[Vonsalza]

The problem with common sense is it is often uncommon

I enjoy the axiom. Common sense is a great short-hand for commonly-agreed tenets between people who share a common culture. I readily confess to using it with my own “tribe”.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn’t work in dialogue between people with opposing views. There, we have a responsibility to “unearth” the reasons why a particular belief has been admitted to the informal canon of common sense to see if those assumed truths still hold true.

Many, many times, they do not.

I’ve been browsing around several threads that are currently on the go on CAF synonymous with this one…

You’re quite good at extending the olive branch. salute

What I was trying to do was see how an atheists morality actually works. Not in contra to Christianity or any other particular faith. I wanted to see its structure on its own merits.

I honest-to-god don’t feel like I’ve seen any, no matter how much I ask. The best I’ve gotten is that “we’re innately good because of reciprocal altruism”. Well, reciprocal altruism is relatively rare in nature, and we’re only altruistic as long as it also benefits us - which I don’t think is really “altruism” as it comes to people’s minds.

“God” provides:
Incentive to be good, even when you can “get away” with being bad
An identifiable moral code (often written) that actually provides what is “good” and “bad”
A resonance with your ancestors which believed the same thing
A resonance with your tribe which believes the same thing (stability in societal rules)
Meaning for your personal existence
There are others, these are just the biggies…

How in Hades does atheism do the same thing? I don’t see that it can.

It doesn’t seem to be able to provide anything to replace “god” and its derivatives while also meeting it’s own demands of materiality that it used to “kill god” with. It creates an unstable void with moral chaos and calls it “progress”.

shrug

At this point, I’m rhetorically “circling”. So I’ll chime back in if anything comes up that is interesting enough to warrant comment.

Thanks for the time.

 

[Bradski]

In conclusion, where do those in the ‘Don’t believe in God’ camp - feel free to come up with a better phrase - stand on consequentialism as a source of moral norms?

I can’t see how anyone could not be a consequentialist to some degree. Every act has consequences and we determine if it is morally good or not depending on those consequences. Otherwise you would have to claim that some moral acts are absolutely wrong even if there are no negative consequences. In fact, you would have to argue that they would be wrong, period, and specifically *exclude *any consequences.

That would make zero sense. So we’re all in bed with Bentham to a certain degree.

Where we might differ is deciding which consequences are allowable and which are not. There may be immediate bad effects but there may be benefits further down the line. There may be no objectively correct answers to those problems. Just subjective opinions.

 

[minkymurph]

What I was trying to do was see how an atheists morality actually works. Not in contra to Christianity or any other particular faith. I wanted to see its structure on its own merits.

I honest-to-god don’t feel like I’ve seen any, no matter how much I ask. The best I’ve gotten is that “we’re innately good because of reciprocal altruism”. Well, reciprocal altruism is relatively rare in nature, and we’re only altruistic as long as it also benefits us - which I don’t think is really “altruism” as it comes to people’s minds.

Thanks for the time.

Not at all.

I think what we have to be cautious of is using the term ‘atheist’ as an umbrella term. There are a lot shades of grey. That said, as a general rule and every general rule has an exception, hence the term ‘general’, the ‘atheist’ philosophy in terms of ‘moral norms’ is to me synonymous with libertarianism. Libertarianism as a political theory is radically individualistic, and has a very positive view of human nature. They are not essentially wrong in the sense of promoting individualism, individual rights, and arguing the benevolence of human nature. Human nature can be very benevolent, but it can also be very dark and libertarians tend to ignore the dark side.

‘Atheist’ philosophy is a bit of a paradox. Whilst not unlike libertarianism in that the deterrent to ‘bad’ is altruism, they also claim to be realists. The realist would say the benevolent side of human nature or altruism is not a sufficient deterrent to ‘bad.’ Atheists also argue what we believe should be based on evidence and what can be observed. There is evidence the most evil of people can simultaneously be benevolent and vice versa. This can be readily observed. Yet, they appear to argue altruism in that the benevolent aspect of our human nature is a sufficient deterrent to bad. To me, this philosophy doesn’t add up so I share your confusion.

I would also say ‘atheism’ is radically individualistic. It is a philosophy that generally prides itself in that ‘atheists’ do not recognize a collective common good and notwithstanding serious crimes - I don’t know many atheists who think crimes such as murder and rape are OK all be it not on the basis God who doesn’t exist says it’s wrong, every atheist can pretty much do what they want.

For the ‘atheist’ to meet their objectives which to my knowledge is persuading those who believe in God and affiliate with an established religion not to believe in God and affiliate with an established religion, they need to present a vision of society that is not synonymous with the libertarian vision, outline and discuss the principles and values that will underpin that society, and persuasive arguments as to why citizens of that society should subscribe to them. Until they can do that, they are not in position to overturn and replace what is established because when you take something away, you have to replace it and replace it something the majority of the electorate perceive as better and more beneficial - even if what is established is allegedly founded on nothing.

 

[minkymurph]

I can’t see how anyone could not be a consequentialist to some degree. Every act has consequences and we determine if it is morally good or not depending on those consequences. Otherwise you would have to claim that some moral acts are absolutely wrong even if there are no negative consequences. In fact, you would have to argue that they would be wrong, period, and specifically *exclude *any consequences.

That would make zero sense. So we’re all in bed with Bentham to a certain degree.

Where we might differ is deciding which consequences are allowable and which are not. There may be immediate bad effects but there may be benefits further down the line. There may be no objectively correct answers to those problems. Just subjective opinions.

Am I to understand we have not only agreed on something but agreed on something in the absence of seeking to persuade each other of our respective positions as to the existence of God?

Wow - what a breakthrough. :extrahappy:

You just had to spoil it with the objective and subjective comment - didn’t you?

Bad atheist. :tsktsk:

Joking aside - there are some objectives we could subscribe to irrespective of where we stand on the existence of God but I agree deciding which consequences are allowable is problematic. That said, it not necessarily problematic purely because one party believes in God and the other does not.

For instance, rape is an absolute. I cannot think of one circumstance in which it could be argued the consequences of rape could be argued to be good in a subjective sense.

Murder is more difficult. Murder is the only crime to which there is no defense - there was a plot to murder Hitler. It can be legitimately argued had the plot to kill Hitler succeeded the good consequences would have outweighed any bad consequences.

 

[Bradski]

Am I to understand we have not only agreed on something but agreed on something in the absence of seeking to persuade each other of our respective positions as to the existence of God?

Wow - what a breakthrough. :extrahappy:

You just had to spoil it with the objective and subjective comment - didn’t you?

Bad atheist. :tsktsk:

Joking aside - there are some objectives we could subscribe to irrespective of where we stand on the existence of God but I agree deciding which consequences are allowable is problematic. That said, it not necessarily problematic purely because one party believes in God and the other does not.

For instance, rape is an absolute. I cannot think of one circumstance in which it could be argued the consequences of rape could be argued to be good in a subjective sense.

Murder is more difficult. Murder is the only crime to which there is no defense - there was a ploturder Hitler. It can be legitimately argued had the plot to kill Hitler succeeded the good consequences would have outweighed any bad consequences.

Good to get agreement, yeah. It helps when you can start with some common ground and then develop an argument from there.

But as regards absolutes, I don’t agree that rape (or murder) is an absolute. As I said earlier, for an act to be immoral there must be harm. And rape is harming in a particular way. Harming a person is wrong IF that entails sex against her will or IF she is not in a position to be able to refuse or IF she is below the age of consent etc.

Now that might seem like splitting hairs to you, but we HAVE to be specific about each act. Otherwise, if that is NOT a requirement, then how do we decide what is immoral? It’s like saying that if there is a word ‘XYZ’ that describes specific conditions where it is permissble to steal, then that word describes an absolute moral act. Whereas if it is relative to any number of conditions, it is, by definition, relative.

 

[inocente]

The problem with common sense is it is often uncommon

On another thread yesterday, you and I agreed that morality and conscience are intrinsic and fundamental elements of what it is to be human.

What surprises me is I have not read any posts by those in the ‘God does not exist’ camp in favour of utilitarianism. Bentham and Mill were atheists and utilitarians. They argued morals should be determined on the basis of consequentialism. I think Hume who was an atheist and a utilitarian argued this as well. As someone who believes in God I think consequentialism is sound argument. If I didn’t believe in God I would be arguing consequentialism.

Something which surprised me is that some Catholics on CAF are out-and-out utilitarians.

Most people, whatever their beliefs, are consequentialist only up to a point, but don’t accept that all acts are permitted (see studies of moral dilemmas such as Trolley Car). Whereas some Catholics on CAF have argued that in a 9/11 scenario, torturing a suspect in the hope of finding a bomb is fine if the consequence is a smaller body count. They insist on this even after being told the Church prohibits torture.

I doubt most Catholics would agree that everything is permitted in the name of the greater good, but then many Catholics don’t agree about condoms either. It seems that in practice, morality may be more a matter of individual conscience whatever one’s religion.

And given that most posters are American, and 4 out of 10 Americans change faiths at least once, that’s not necessarily very surprising.

 

[minkymurph]

Something which surprised me is that some Catholics on CAF are out-and-out utilitarians.

A wide diversity of political opinion exists among Catholics. Some Catholics are even out-and-out libertarians.

Most people, whatever their beliefs, are consequentialist only up to a point, but don’t accept that all acts are permitted (see studies of moral dilemmas such as Trolley Car). Whereas some Catholics on CAF have argued that in a 9/11 scenario, torturing a suspect in the hope of finding a bomb is fine if the consequence is a smaller body count. They insist on this even after being told the Church prohibits torture.

Catholics argue lots of things - as does everyone who is not Catholic.

I doubt most Catholics would agree that everything is permitted in the name of the greater good, but then many Catholics don’t agree about condoms either. It seems that in practice, morality may be more a matter of individual conscience whatever one’s religion.

And given that most posters are American, and 4 out of 10 Americans change faiths at least once, that’s not necessarily very surprising.

Changing faith in my part of the world is uncommon, and changing political allegiance virtually unknown. ‘I’m right’ is universally prevalent.

I have heard it said the US is the most resistant to Catholic Social Teaching. Catholics here very much embrace it.

 

[inocente]

“God” provides:
Incentive to be good, even when you can “get away” with being bad

Most people, religious or not, do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not because of punishments or rewards.

An identifiable moral code (often written) that actually provides what is “good” and “bad”

Jesus argued strongly against this, because it is only concerned with outward compliance with the code. “Everything they do is done for people to see”. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” (Matt 23)

A resonance with your ancestors which believed the same thing
A resonance with your tribe which believes the same thing (stability in societal rules)

Again you are emphasizing rules in contradiction to Jesus. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the respected tribal leaders, the priest and Levite, fail whereas the despised outsider, the Samaritan, is the role model.

Meaning for your personal existence

Possibly the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[inocente]

A wide diversity of political opinion exists among Catholics. Some Catholics are even out-and-out libertarians.

Catholics argue lots of things - as does everyone who is not Catholic.

Changing faith in my part of the world is uncommon, and changing political allegiance virtually unknown. ‘I’m right’ is universally prevalent.

I have heard it said the US is the most resistant to Catholic Social Teaching. Catholics here very much embrace it.

Yes, it is similar here, there are many cooperativas, etc. And a wide variance in moral opinions.

I think most people believe “I’m right” when it comes to morality. People get very angry at what they see as injustice. It can be very hard to see another point of view. Even Christians can and do turn sectarian over minor differences. To me this demonstrates that there is a large emotional content to morality, an evolved trait which can be so strong as to blot out rationality. Read just yesterday how that Brexit thing may even resurrect The Troubles. Hope not.

 

[fhansen]

Good to get agreement, yeah. It helps when you can start with some common ground and then develop an argument from there.

But as regards absolutes, I don’t agree that rape (or murder) is an absolute. As I said earlier, for an act to be immoral there must be harm. And rape is harming in a particular way. Harming a person is wrong IF that entails sex against her will or IF she is not in a position to be able to refuse or IF she is below the age of consent etc.

Now that might seem like splitting hairs to you, but we HAVE to be specific about each act. Otherwise, if that is NOT a requirement, then how do we decide what is immoral? It’s like saying that if there is a word ‘XYZ’ that describes specific conditions where it is permissble to steal, then that word describes an absolute moral act. Whereas if it is relative to any number of conditions, it is, by definition, relative.

Wouldn’t the question simply involve whether or not someone is harmed: IF they are harmed at all rather than IF they are harmed in a particular way?

 

[Bradski]

Wouldn’t the question simply involve whether or not someone is harmed: IF they are harmed at all rather than IF they are harmed in a particular way?

I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure what you mean.

Well, you qualified the kind of harm that made rape wrong: “Harming a person is wrong IF…”

Wouldn’t harming a person always be wrong?

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, it is similar here, there are many cooperativas, etc. And a wide variance in moral opinions.

I think most people believe “I’m right” when it comes to morality. People get very angry at what they see as injustice. It can be very hard to see another point of view. Even Christians can and do turn sectarian over minor differences. To me this demonstrates that there is a large emotional content to morality, an evolved trait which can be so strong as to blot out rationality. Read just yesterday how that Brexit thing may even resurrect The Troubles. Hope not.

We cannot passionately believe in anything unless we think we are right, but where we try to persuade another we are right we should do so for a legitimate reason and not simply for the sake of being right.

The big issue for Ireland North and South as a result of Brexit is the open border. No one in Ireland North or South wants to see the closed border of the past re-established. The current UK government have promised this will not be the case, but I really don’t know how they are going to deal with this major issue. One thing I think can be said for certain is we will be plunged into further economic recession as a result of Brexit. Things are bad as they are, they are going to get worse, Northern Ireland will be worst hit.

When nations experience years of conflict they become ‘war weary.’ This was essentially the catalyst for the Good Friday Agreement. There were major issues with the Good Friday Agreement and there still are, but everyone just wanted an end to conflict and would pretty much have agreed to anything to achieve that objective. No one wants to a return to violence, we’ve come too far to back to those days but further economic recession that is now inevitable may potentially open old wounds. I strongly hope it doesn’t and I am not alone in that, but hope is not sufficient. Our will must prevent it.

If there is a return to the violence of the past, I’m getting out of here. I’m not going to live like that again and I’m not raising my children in the same climate I grew up in.

 

[minkymurph]

Good to get agreement, yeah. It helps when you can start with some common ground and then develop an argument from there.

But as regards absolutes, I don’t agree that rape (or murder) is an absolute. As I said earlier, for an act to be immoral there must be harm. And rape is harming in a particular way. Harming a person is wrong IF that entails sex against her will or IF she is not in a position to be able to refuse or IF she is below the age of consent etc.

Now that might seem like splitting hairs to you, but we HAVE to be specific about each act. Otherwise, if that is NOT a requirement, then how do we decide what is immoral? It’s like saying that if there is a word ‘XYZ’ that describes specific conditions where it is permissble to steal, then that word describes an absolute moral act. Whereas if it is relative to any number of conditions, it is, by definition, relative.

What you have cited is pretty much the legal definition of rape. Rape is pretty much the absolute. I personally can’t think of any reason we could excuse or justify having sex in the manner defined at law as rape, but I’m open to persuasion.

Murder is an absolute crime at law in that there is no defense to murder. If a defense exists the charge is dropped to manslaughter. That said, I cited the example of Hitler. Society would be willing to excuse the murder of an individual such as Hitler and thus even an absolute crime has it’s exceptions in terms of societies willingness to excuse. I say ‘excuse’ in that excuse does not validate the act itself. A more contemporary example would Tony Martin. At law that guy committed murder and thus had no legal defense, but he certainly had the public on his side. Public opinion is a pretty powerful tool when it comes to defining morality. There is any amount of information on the internet regarding the case if you are interested.

Theft - I don’t think anyone would argue the Theft Act should be scrapped and theft should no longer be a crime, but if someone stole because they were starving society would be willing to excuse them. Could we define it as an immoral act committed for moral reasons? Just a suggestion.