Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Plato
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roscoe_Turner said:
Again it’s not my conclusion.

People have and do make the argument for rape as a valid breeding strategy. I don’t think they are saying it’s an act they condone in modern life but I don’t think they are calling it immoral in the context of gene pool diversity.
Click to expand...
What kind of people are those who make such an argument?
 
PRmerger said:
There you go. There is only one moral answer to the question of whether it is permissible to rape.
Click to expand...
I think that all of us would agree. But that simply and only means that we have reached an agreement on one matter. It in no way implies that there is an Absolute Morality. Examples such as rape and torture are the ones on which we’ll all agree and, as I said earlier, there is no way of knowing in most cases if the manner in which either of us reached our conclusion is the correct one.

But…if two people disagree on a matter, then one of them (assuming that there aren’t two acceptable answers), will be wrong and we can look to see how they reached their conclusions and decide which is the acceptable one (or the more correct one). Without recourse to religious beliefs. Because we are just going to use ‘logic and reason’.
PRmerger said:
I think that everyone with a well-formed conscience will come to the “right” answer on issues of morality.
Click to expand...
OK, so what are the right answers to contraception? Sex outside marriage? Drugs? Homosexuality? Gay marriage? Are there any matters in regard to morality where your logic and reason lead you to a different conclusion to that of the Catholic Church?

If there aren’t, then you will have a hard time convincing me that your morality is not religiously based. If there are, then how do you know you are right?
Peter_Plato said:
The problem, I find, is that interlocutors on moral questions arrive at a place where their view is in jeopardy and the “out” for them is to claim, “That’s your moral view, I just see it differently. To each his own,” and resort to that as a final rebuttal of the opposing view. The assumption is that moral relativism is a kind of “fall back” recourse that buttresses their view against any and all counterpoints even though they have no real logical answer.

This is precisely the case where moral questions involving disputing moral agents begin with a presumption that the question is meaningful but when the matter is definitively decided the agent on the short end of the decision feels free to dismiss the question entirely, by appeal to relativism.

That simply entails the person leaving the discussion does not want to morally commit to the logical conclusion and cites moral relativism as their justification.
Click to expand...
I think we need to back the truck up a little here. Nobody who is taking the opposing to view to yours is likely to think: ‘Good grief, I think he’s making a good argument and I might be proved wrong. I’d better cut and run’. I’ve got enough runs on the board to know where I stand on most matters. I believe that in almost every case I have (using logic and reason) reached the correct conclusion.

If you have a good argument that contradicts my view, then I am willing to listen to it. I am, after all, in a discussion with you at this moment and, whether you believe it or not, I read what you are writing and listen to what you have to say.

If you have an argument that begins to sow doubts in my mind, then you’ll be the first one to know about it. If I am unsure about a position I will let you know. But I’m a little affronted by the suggestion that I can use moral relativism to support a position to which, for whatever reason, I do not want to commit.
Peter_Plato said:
Or, some even go as far as claiming, “Well that’s your religious position!” or “Your religion tells you that!” as a means of deflecting the argument.
Click to expand...
If any moral position that you hold is based on religious belief or defers to divine authority at any point, it is pointing out what I consider to be a flaw in your argument. It is not deflecting the argument away from my position.
 
Bradski said:
I think that all of us would agree. But that simply and only means that we have reached an agreement on one matter. It in no way implies that there is an Absolute Morality.
Click to expand...
Of course it does.

If there is only one correct answer, and it can be achieved by anyone who appeals to logic and reason, then this is an Absolute Morality.
Examples such as rape and torture are the ones on which we’ll all agree and, as I said earlier, there is no way of knowing in most cases if the manner in which either of us reached our conclusion is the correct one.
Click to expand...
The manner in which you achieved this is, essentially, irrelevant.

That you achieved the correct answer is what is of import here.
But…if two people disagree on a matter, then one of them (assuming that there aren’t two acceptable answers), will be wrong and we can look to see how they reached their conclusions and decide which is the acceptable one (or the more correct one). Without recourse to religious beliefs. Because we are just going to use ‘logic and reason’.
Click to expand...
Sure.
 
PRmerger said:
Of course it does. If there is only one correct answer, and it can be achieved by anyone who appeals to logic and reason, then this is an Absolute Morality.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that it has to be the one correct answer. I said that we probably would, on a lot of matters, agree. Agreement as to what’s correct doesn’t mean we are therefore correct and doesn’t imply an Absolute Morality.

If another two people hold the opposing view, then they would agree that they must have the ‘right’ answer and that there must be an Absolute Morality. So how can a ‘wrong’ view lead to that conclusion?
 
Bradski said:
I didn’t say that it has to be the one correct answer. I said that we probably would, on a lot of matters, agree. Agreement as to what’s correct doesn’t mean we are therefore correct and doesn’t imply an Absolute Morality.
Click to expand...
Then you must be of the position that there are some times when it is permissible to torture children for fun?
If another two people hold the opposing view, then they would agree that they must have the ‘right’ answer and that there must be an Absolute Morality. So how can a ‘wrong’ view lead to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
Can you give an example in which it would be possible for someone to agree that it’s permissible to torture children for fun?
 
PRmerger said:
Then you must be of the position that there are some times when it is permissible to torture children for fun?
Click to expand...
No. We’d both agree that there never would be a time. And I think that I’m as right about that as I could possibly be (as I am about other matters with which we disagree). But again, just because everyone agrees with something doesn’t imply an Absolute Morality. Otherwise, the definition of Absolute Morality becomes: that to which we would all agree.

Are you are suggesting that some aspects of morality are absolute and others not? If you are, then how do we decide? If not, then the criteria for deciding must be something other than universal acceptance, because we don’t agree on everything.

You need to pick something where there isn’t universal acceptance and say why your view is the absolute truth with recourse to the divine.
 
Bradski said:
If you have an argument that begins to sow doubts in my mind, then you’ll be the first one to know about it. If I am unsure about a position I will let you know. But I’m a little affronted by the suggestion that I can use moral relativism to support a position to which, for whatever reason, I do not want to commit.
Click to expand...
Your personal feelings aside, I, then, am to understand that you would agree to the following proposition:

For something to be morally right or good, if it is to mean anything, it MUST mean we, as moral agents, are obligated to it.

Do we agree on that point?

When I mentioned that a strategy I have often encountered in moral discussions is when hemmed in by sound moral thinking, individuals will play the relativism card. It serves as a “Get out of moral dilemmas free card,” for them.

Your distinction between objective and absolute appears to be just that kind of move. Just because agreement exists on moral questions does not make them obligatory. That is why I prefer to use the word obligatory instead of absolute.

Let us be clear. You agree that if “morally wrong” means anything it must mean we are obligated to refrain from doing the act in question. Correct?

This entails no implication as to who or what obligates us, merely that we are obligated by moral determinations.
 
Peter_Plato said:
This entails no implication as to who or what obligates us, merely that we are obligated by moral determinations.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you can leave a motivating factor out if the equation. If it changes so does the equation. If my motivation for morality is as Hobbes says in his version of Natural Law, is self interest as my interest goes so goes my morality.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
I’m not sure you can leave a motivating factor out if the equation. If it changes so does the equation. If my motivation for morality is as Hobbes says in his version of Natural Law, is self interest as my interest goes so goes my morality.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that your self-interest will simply trump whatever moral determination is made if it is contrary to your self-interest? Then you don’t accept that we can be obligated by any moral determination, whatsoever, because every moral determination can be overruled by self-interest? That doesn’t sound like an effectual moral system.

My point - and obviously you missed it - is that IF morality means anything it must mean moral obligation trumps self-interest. In other words, a moral claim on you cannot be overruled by mere self-interest.

Self-interest in this context does not equate to self-preservation or self-defense. Those are different.

If, however, by “self-interest,” you mean something like “stake,” there is no problem.

You are not contending that your “stake” should be more objectively important than someone else’s stake, are you? Again, this brings up the problem of neutrality where moral considerations are concerned.

Objective morality (justice) would insist that each stake is treated as any other stake, no?

This is to rephrase “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

I would contend that any objective morality would require an objective view of “stakes” or “interests,” if you will.

RE: Obligations
Where true ethical or moral concerns exist, we are obligated to regard the interests of like moral beings as equally valid.

This does not mean I am obligated to feed everyone in the same way that I am obligated to feed myself. Moral responsibilities derive from location and situation (circumstances). Recall the three dimensions to moral acts.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Do you mean that your self-interest will simply trump whatever moral determination is made if it is contrary to your self-interest? Then you don’t accept that we can be obligated by any moral determination, whatsoever, because every moral determination can be overruled by self-interest? That doesn’t sound like an effectual moral system.

My point - and obviously you missed it - is that IF morality means anything it must mean moral obligation trumps self-interest. In other words, a moral claim on you cannot be overruled by mere self-interest.

Self-interest in this context does not equate to self-preservation or self-defense. Those are different.

If, however, by “self-interest,” you mean something like “stake,” there is no problem.

You are not contending that your “stake” should be more objectively important than someone else’s stake, are you? Again, this brings up the problem of neutrality where moral considerations are concerned.

Objective morality (justice) would insist that each stake is treated as any other stake, no?

This is to rephrase “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

I would contend that any objective morality would require an objective view of “stakes” or “interests,” if you will.

RE: Obligations
Where true ethical or moral concerns exist, we are obligated to regard the interests of like moral beings as equally valid.

This does not mean I am obligated to feed everyone in the same way that I am obligated to feed myself. Moral responsibilities derive from location and situation (circumstances). Recall the three dimensions to moral acts.
Click to expand...
We all have our stake that includes our place and self preservation. The tension of the group need vs the individual need.

For example self sacrifice

One view - it would be considered immoral because self preservation is abandoned.
Another view - A larger good is obtained serving the group.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Your personal feelings aside, I, then, am to understand that you would agree to the following proposition:

For something to be morally right or good, if it is to mean anything, it MUST mean we, as moral agents, are obligated to it.

Your distinction between objective and absolute appears to be just that kind of move. Just because agreement exists on moral questions does not make them obligatory. That is why I prefer to use the word obligatory instead of absolute.

Let us be clear. You agree that if “morally wrong” means anything it must mean we are obligated to refrain from doing the act in question. Correct?
Click to expand...
In the sense that we personally believe that it’s the wrong thing to do, then yes. But obligatory doesn’t mean compulsory. We can still do wrong if we choose.

Person A would agree it’s the wrong thing to do and not do it.
Person B would agree that it’s the wrong thing to do, but play the relativity card and say that it doesn’t apply to them at this time and in these circumstances.
Person C would agree that it’s the wrong thing to do but do it anyway.

Take contraception. Catholics are a mix of all three.
 
Peter_Plato said:
See post #169.

The most basic premise is that moral questions must have, in principle, a correct solution.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And I feel like our 2 atheist friends here have acknowledged this, without actually acknowledging this, for in doing so I think they know where the logical conclusion would lead them>>>>>>>>>>>to an Absolute Morality.
 
Peter_Plato said:
To NOT have an, in principle, understanding that moral questions have correct answers and that no illicit recourse to a default relativism is acceptable is the most basic premise of moral discourse. Without that, discussions tend to be fruitless.
Click to expand...
Yes. As fruitless as having an internet forum dedicated to discussing whether butter pecan or mint mocha is the best flavor of ice cream.

Being on a forum on morality where one is arguing for a position presupposes that the member believes that his position is the correct one, and not merely a preference. As if one were advocating for butter pecan over mint mocha.
 
PRmerger said:
Yes.

And I feel like our 2 atheist friends here have acknowledged this, without actually acknowledging this, for in doing so I think they know where the logical conclusion would lead them>>>>>>>>>>>to an Absolute Morality.
Click to expand...
Not an Atheist but I think we can agree about moral positions. I wouldn’t call them absolute. Absolute implies that they are fixed. I can’t make that leap.
 
Bradski said:
Are there any matters in regard to morality where your logic and reason lead you to a different conclusion to that of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are.

But to paraphrase Cardinal Newman:
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

Where there is disagreement between me and the Church I view it with this analogy: I am a math major who is deferring to my professor in this particular problem. I haven’t yet wrapped my mind around the answer, but know that I will get there eventually.

To wit: I don’t really see a problem with condom use between a husband and wife, when one of them is infected with HIV. To me it appears to be a “medicinal” use of latex, and as medicinal uses of oral contraceptives are permissible in Catholic theology (such as for endometriosis), then it would seem to me that medicinal use of a condom would similarly be permissible.

The Church sees it differently.

I am the college student right now deferring to the professor.

Or, perhaps a better analogy is I am a kindergartner deferring to the professor who wrote the textbook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top