Is the latest morality the best?

[PRmerger]

Elementary grammar in English 101, my dear Watson.

1. Action “X” is wrong under any and all circumstances - is an absolute statement.
2. Action “X” is wrong under “these specific circumstances” - is a relative statement. Especially, since it implies that it is NOT wrong under different circumstances.
3. Even if you add: Action “X” is always wrong under “these specific circumstances” - it remains a relative statement.

So Action X = killing someone because you want to have sex with his wife.

Now, tell me for what circumstance X would be permissible, Vera.

If what you say is true, that it’s a relative statement, you will be able to come up with at least 1 situation. Preferably more.

What are these situations where X would be permissible?

 

[PRmerger]

So Action X = killing someone because you want to have sex with his wife.

Now, tell me for what circumstance X would be permissible, Vera.

If what you say is true, that it’s a relative statement, you will be able to come up with at least 1 situation. Preferably more.

What are these situations where X would be permissible?

Oh, and don’t try to change the action I have designated as X, ok?

You just come into the discussion and someone asks you, “Is there any person for whom X would be permissible?”, you would say, “Yes, certainly. Because there are NO SITUATIONS that have moral absolutes, (which, I get, is a moral absolute also but I’m just going to ignore that for now)…so of course I can give an example of when X would be permissible.”

What are these situations and persons where X is permissible, Vera?

Again: X = killing a man because you want to have sex with his wife.

 

[inocente]

There are some arguments that it’s moral under certain circumstances.

However, there are NO ARGUMENTS that it’s moral when done for fun.

Who decides whether there are arguments? Are there any arguments that torture is moral as long as the torturer doesn’t have fun?

Your clauses appear arbitrary and wrong. There are no arguments that it’s moral under certain circumstances to drag anyone around by her hair, or enslave someone, or annihilate a group of citizens. Or are you claiming there are?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sadists torture people for fun. :bigyikes:

Members of NAMBLA corrupt children for fun. :bigyikes:

Hitler’s people made lampshades of Jewish holocaust skin … presumably for fun. :bigyikes:

 

[goout]

Morality is the evaluation of human acts.
Morality is -not- a logic proof, although (anticipating the knee jerk) it should be logical. Well-reasoned is probably a better word for those who can’t wade out of literalist fundamentalism.

Morality is the evaluation of human acts, always in service of the good. Morality is not about prohibitions for prohibition’s sake. It’s purpose is to serve and preserve the good. The absolute factor is this good.

A human being has transcendent dignity and value. Does everyone understand what the word transcendent means? Transcendent means the thing is not subject merely to my emotions, thoughts, whims, popular opinions. Those things are all recognized as goods, but they are lesser goods than the value and dignity of a human being. So the moral objection to dragging a woman by the hair is not merely of authority, or emotion, or popular opinion (aka force). The moral authority derives from the higher good of human dignity.
For example
Dragging a woman by the hair is evil because it violates her human dignity, not merely because I say so, or because the Catholic Church makes the claim. But rather because the woman herself is an objective good to be respected.

Before the Church proclaims this good as a basis for morality, it first of all observes this good. In other words,
it is first revealed,
then observed,
then proclaimed as sound morality.

 

[inocente]

Sadists torture people-] for fun/-]. :bigyikes:

Members of NAMBLA corrupt children-] for fun/-]. :bigyikes:

Hitler’s people made lampshades of Jewish holocaust skin -]… presumably for fun/-]. :bigyikes:

I hope you’re not claiming those acts are only horrifying when done for fun.

Torturing people is wrong period. The victims are violated just the same, whether or not the perpetrator enjoys torturing them. He can’t stand before God and say he was justified because he didn’t enjoy it. The act is the act.

Corrupting kids is wrong period. The Holocaust was wrong period.

No get-out clauses. No weasel words. No small print. The act is the act.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So Action X = killing someone because you want to have sex with his wife.

That is more than just an action, it is an “action” coupled WITH intent or circumstances. It is not mere semantics that we differentiate between the “raw” action and the intent, the method and the circumstances. The teaching of the church is that there are some actions, which are immoral, regardless of the intent, the aim and the circumstances. So I suggest to go with the church’s teaching, and not change it willy-nilly just for the “fun” of it. The church does not say that “killing” aka. “homicide” is intrinsically wrong. Only a well-qualified homicide - MURDER - is condemned. Murder is not an “act”, killing is the act. And no matter how much you would like to muddy the waters, by merging the act with the intent - it will not work.

Now, tell me for what circumstance X would be permissible, Vera.

Piece of cake, but I decline to play this kind of 20 questions. You presented your problem and I answered it. The bare minimum would be a follow-up on your part, something like: “Yes, dragging around a woman by her hair because she burned the toast is NOT problematic, if it happens in a make-believe environment”. You like changing the goalposts instead of engaging in an HONEST conversation. :tsktsk: Very bad habit.

Of course you could somehow argue that such action is NOT permissible even as a part of a theater play. Good luck. I would like to see your argument for that.

Once that part is finished, I will give an answer to this current “problem”, even though I do not accept it as a legitimate question.

 

[PRmerger]

That is more than just an action, it is an “action” coupled WITH intent or circumstances. It is not mere semantics that we differentiate between the “raw” action and the intent, the method and the circumstances. The teaching of the church is that there are some actions, which are immoral, regardless of the intent, the aim and the circumstances. So I suggest to go with the church’s teaching, and not change it willy-nilly just for the “fun” of it. The church does not say that “killing” aka. “homicide” is intrinsically wrong. Only a well-qualified homicide - MURDER - is condemned. Murder is not an “act”, killing is the act. And no matter how much you would like to muddy the waters, by merging the act with the intent - it will not work.

Piece of cake, but I decline to play this kind of 20 questions. You presented your problem and I answered it. The bare minimum would be a follow-up on your part, something like: “Yes, dragging around a woman by her hair because she burned the toast is NOT problematic, if it happens in a make-believe environment”. You like changing the goalposts instead of engaging in an HONEST conversation. :tsktsk: Very bad habit.

Of course you could somehow argue that such action is NOT permissible even as a part of a theater play. Good luck. I would like to see your argument for that.

Once that part is finished, I will give an answer to this current “problem”, even though I do not accept it as a legitimate question.

Still waiting for your examples of when X would be permissible, and for what person.

Wait–never mind, Vera.

WE ALL KNOW that there is NOT A SINGLE PERSON who says to you, “I dragged my wife by her hair because she burned my toast” that you would say, “Well, I suppose that was right for you to do. If that’s what you feel. It wouldn’t be right for me to do, of course, but that’s because I am a relativist and I can’t tell you that what you did was wrong.”

Why?

Because you’re a moral absolutist.

There is NOT A SINGLE PERSON who does this that has an “out” because he thought it was perfectly fine.

 

[inocente]

There is NOT A SINGLE PERSON who does this that has an “out” because he thought it was perfectly fine.

In post #317 you said "There are some arguments that [torture is] moral under certain circumstances.

Hair pulling is a form of torture.

Logically, then, your arguments for torture provide you with an “out”.

You either have moral absolutes or you don’t.

 

[o_mlly]

There are some arguments that it’s moral under certain circumstances. … .

Recalling the fonts of morality: object, intent and circumstances,

• all intrinsically evil, that is acts evil in their object are absolutely immoral .
• all acts proceeding from an evil intention are absolutely immoral
• all acts evil in their circumstance are absolutely immoral

The principle of the integral good requires that to be good, the act must be absolutely good in all three fonts.

The adjective “relative” applies only to the process of discerning the morality of an act which is good in its object and good in its intention. “Relative” applies only to those acts which are deemed so far** to be “good.” Any circumstance deemed to be evil immediately removes the “relative” adjective and the act is absolutely evil. Conversely, if no circumstance can be deemed evil then the act is absolutely good.

To put the case in another way: Only those acts which are not evil in their object and not evil in intention but maybe evil in one or more of their circumstances hold a temporary “relative” status. If evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely immoral. If not evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely moral.

 

[PRmerger]

Recalling the fonts of morality: object, intent and circumstances,

• all intrinsically evil, that is acts evil in their object are absolutely immoral .
• all acts proceeding from an evil intention are absolutely immoral
• all acts evil in their circumstance are absolutely immoral

The principle of the integral good requires that to be good, the act must be absolutely good in all three fonts.

The adjective “relative” applies only to the process of discerning the morality of an act which is good in its object and good in its intention. “Relative” applies only to those acts which are deemed so far to be “good.” Any circumstance deemed to be evil immediately removes the “relative” adjective and the act is absolutely evil. Conversely, if no circumstance can be deemed evil then the act is absolutely good.

To put the case in another way: Only those acts which are not evil in their object and not evil in intention but maybe evil in one or more of their circumstances hold a temporary “relative” status. If evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely immoral. If not evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely moral.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Recalling the fonts of morality: object, intent and circumstances,

• all intrinsically evil, that is acts evil in their object are absolutely immoral .
• all acts proceeding from an evil intention are absolutely immoral
• all acts evil in their circumstance are absolutely immoral

The principle of the integral good requires that to be good, the act must be absolutely good in all three fonts.

The adjective “relative” applies only to the process of discerning the morality of an act which is good in its object and good in its intention. “Relative” applies only to those acts which are deemed so far to be “good.” Any circumstance deemed to be evil immediately removes the “relative” adjective and the act is absolutely evil. Conversely, if no circumstance can be deemed evil then the act is absolutely good.

To put the case in another way: Only those acts which are not evil in their object and not evil in intention but maybe evil in one or more of their circumstances hold a temporary “relative” status. If evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely immoral. If not evil in circumstance, the act is absolutely moral.

The first problem here is that “evil” is not defined. The second problem is that the definition is circular, it uses the adjective “moral” to define what “moral” is. The third problem is that an “act” - in and of itself is always neutral, it can only gain an evaluation in context.

 

[Aloysium]

The first problem here is that “evil” is not defined. The second problem is that the definition is circular, it uses the adjective “moral” to define what “moral” is. The third problem is that an “act” - in and of itself is always neutral, it can only gain an evaluation in context.

As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

View attachment 23480

The photo is of an Australian soldier freed from a Japanese POW camp.
Here is a pictorial definition of evil. I’m sure you can come up with some words to describe it. Clearly human beings do such things to each other that everyone, well almost everyone, understands as being evil, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Here is a pictorial definition of evil.

Nope. That is not a definition, it is an illustration. But it can be used as a starting point. By the way, if that picture would be about a fakir in India, who intentionally deprives his own body of necessary nutrients, to gain some “spiritual growth”, then it would not be an illustration of “evil”. So, let’s not rush to conclusions.

I’m sure you can come up with some words to describe it. Clearly human beings do such things to each other that everyone, well almost everyone, understands as being evil, regardless of the circumstances.

Now, if you would say that intentionally inflicting gratuitous harm on others is evil, that would be an excellent start, and I would agree with you.

But the question is not that simple. It is my understanding that you (not necessarily personal “you”) also consider the loving relationship between two people “evil” when the physical expression of that love excludes procreation (same sex, or active artificial birth control). And that makes the common definition of “evil” very unlikely, if not downright impossible. That is the reason why I feel discouraged when I contemplate the possibility of a mutual understanding with a certain subset of Christians.

Certain activities that no one else would declare “evil” is considered “evil” by these people. So, how can we arrive at a mutually acceptable definition of “evil”? Any ideas?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Certain activities that no one else would declare “evil” is considered “evil” by these people. So, how can we arrive at a mutually acceptable definition of “evil”? Any ideas?

There is no mutually acceptable definition of evil between you and us.

You will always disagree on principle that there even is such a definition.

Unless, of course, you’d like to offer one.

Can you? Will you? Dare you?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is no mutually acceptable definition of evil between you and us.

Quite possible. And this is just the “sterile” definition of “evil”. The conclusion is then that there can be no rational conversation between a ultra-orthodox-Catholic and a non-ultra-orthodox-Catholic. Pretty sad prospect. If there cannot be a conversation, there cannot be a peaceful resolution. If there cannot be a peaceful resolution, there will be conflict. Fortunately there will be no need for a violent resolution - no more crusades to slaughter the infidels. The future is very clear. Can you see it? Many people already complain that the ultra-orthodox view is getting marginalized, swept away.

You will always disagree on principle that there even is such a definition.

On principle? What a rude accusation of dishonesty.

Unless, of course, you’d like to offer one.

Can you? Will you? Dare you?

I sure can. I did. I offer the one which I already expressed. “Evil is the intentional causation of gratuitous harm to someone”.

Without harm there can be no evil. Causing harm which will be balanced by good is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm - unintentionally, is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm intentionally - THAT is evil. Any objections?

 

[goout]

Without harm there can be no evil. Causing harm which will be balanced by good is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm - unintentionally, is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm intentionally - THAT is evil. Any objections?

Yea I have an objection. Let’s call it the “German villager” objection. You illustrate it perfectly right here:

Nope. That is not a definition, it is an illustration. But it can be used as a starting point. By the way, if that picture would be about a fakir in India, who intentionally deprives his own body of necessary nutrients, to gain some “spiritual growth”, then it would not be an illustration of “evil”. So, let’s not rush to conclusions.

No, let’s not rush to conclusions in the face of obvious evil, let’s find ways to rationalize it.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Without harm there can be no evil. Causing harm which will be balanced by good is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm - unintentionally, is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm intentionally - THAT is evil. Any objections?

Maybe this speaks to you:

Let’s look at “harm”.

In a universe ultimately composed of quantum and relative processes, it doesn’t quite fit. It could be understood as an adaptive reaction of the mind, a phenomenon that came later in the formation of the universe, with the emergence of animals. Much, much earlier, by linear standards (This whole thing could be as logarithmic as our capacity to mentally collapse the history of billions of years into moments), subatomic and later atoms and molecules, and all this space were formed from the initial plasma.

Back to the idea of harm; it has to do with damage to the integrity of the particular being. I don’t know you, but if it hasn’t become clear yet, everything goes. You learn to deal with all sorts of things in life that seem quite tragic at first. So, what it comes down to, is whether or not it matters. I think Camus put it quite succinctly, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.” To think that none of this matters, can be energizing - YOLO!! But, it is sad to think that in the end everything we do here, well, it is done here and everything here is in transition.

It does matter whether one does good or evil despite the fact that the universe itself will have no memory of anything, humanity ultimately existing as a scattered pattern of layers of weird rock just before the sun goes supernova. It matters because we see what we do when we do it, in the moment. That said we can fill that moment will lies and use the time that it contains to chase after what is not of the moment, but of the flux that it contains. Good and evil have more to do with eternity than simple harm done in life. We all die, the tyrant and abuser are simply using death as a source of power to get what they want. There is a reality to existence that makes harming another with intent, evil; and that truth is Love.

The picture of the Australian soldier, above, is a reflection of the soul of his persecutors - deprived of what truly sustains and gives us life and freedom - love; skeletal in their transformation into death itself. What we do has an order that envelops the material activity of the body. Or actions are more than complex physical reflexes; they have meaning. That meaning, which you have yet to know, exists within the infinite ocean of God’s compassion. It includes justice, karma if you like. We become who we are, through what we do. It is very important what we do in this one shot at this. Doing good is far more than not doing harm.

The rewards for who we are and what we have done are right here and now. We can change and what Christ offers, that no modern morality can, is redemption and a return to holiness.

 

[o_mlly]

The first problem here is that “evil” is not defined. The second problem is that the definition is circular, it uses the adjective “moral” to define what “moral” is.

I take it English may not be your first language. You write first that there is no definition and then that the missing definition is circular. A bit muddled? Perhaps your problem is not in the writing but in the reading.

The third problem is that an “act” - in and of itself is always neutral, it can only gain an evaluation in context.

Do you mean acts such as adultery, euthanasia, prostitution, rape, beastiality, slavery, bribery, etc. are, absent a context, morally neutral acts in your code?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Evil is the intentional causation of gratuitous harm to someone”.

Without harm there can be no evil. Causing harm which will be balanced by good is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm - unintentionally, is not evil. Causing gratuitous harm intentionally - THAT is evil. Any objections?

So, returning to a question I asked you earlier, is abortion evil?

It certainly is causing gratuitous harm to the unborn since it takes their whole life away from them.

“No more crusades to slaughter the infidels”?

But crusades to slaughter the innocent you don’t mention. That crusade is not evil?