Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[stpurl]

How conveniently you forget your own words. . .

Congratulations. You win this week’s Most Convoluted Hypothetical.

So I tell the gunman the truth and my kids are raped and murdered.

‘What in God’s name did you do that for?’ demands my wife.
‘You idiot’, I reply. ‘Don’t you know what would happen if we let them live? A year or so from now, little Jenny, angry at ‘the world’, might decide to pay back perceived slights, and kill a dozen other classmates! And you won’t believe what could happen next! Trust me, it’s for the best.’

 

[Wozza]

How conveniently you forget your own words. . .

Congratulations. You win this week’s Most Convoluted Hypothetical.

I think you’ll find a lot of yours in there, stpurl.

‘…angry at ‘the world’, might decide to pay back perceived slights, and kill a dozen other classmates’.

I skipped the rest (but you’ll never guess what he suggested could happen) for the sake of expediency.

 

[stpurl]

I’m not answering it because it’s nonsensical. You want me, in the example given, to tell the truth because…something much worse might happen in the future if my kids live so I should let my kids get raped and murdered. Utterly bizarre.

Maybe when one of yours runs out into the road you shouldn’t stop her. Imagine what a monster she may become if she lives.

And you don’t see how offensive this is?
Did you miss the point? You argued that it is always right to do a wrong thing (lie) in order to ‘save the family’ because 'saving the family is always a right action".

You argued that doing a wrong action that results in a ‘right result’ is good.

I showed you that the ‘right result’ can itself lead to further wrong actions. So how can you argue that your original wrong action always has a positive result?

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘in the concrete’. If it simply means ‘in all cases where the object of the act and the circumstances are specified’

In the concrete means in reality, not in abstraction. To speak of killing a human being as a human act is never concrete, only abstract. In reality, the circumstances always disclose the killing as murder or not.

However, fornication as sex with one who is not one’s spouse of the opposite sex is always immoral regardless of circumstances – even if doing so allows one to snatch a decoding device that saves countless lives. Always evil in the abstract as well as concrete

 

[stpurl]

Where, where, did I ever state that any spouse would ‘argue’ this? You picked that out on your own. It is pretty poor arguing to make the ‘end result’ a positive, which is what you are doing, in a mocking way. You’re saying that I was arguing that letting kids die was better than letting them live in case they did bad things, which is not what I said at all. I was addressing your argument which you have still not responded to, that doing a wrong in order to ‘let the family live’ was always a good thing.

Have you noticed, though, that you yourself are coming close to ‘objective morality’ because you are trying oh so hard to make a case for ‘letting the family live’ always BE a positive (IOW, an objective truth) in order to let yourself get by with a lie ‘depending on the circumstances?’

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’m not answering it because it’s nonsensical. You want me, in the example given, to tell the truth because…something much worse might happen in the future if my kids live so I should let my kids get raped and murdered. Utterly bizarre.

Maybe when one of yours runs out into the road you shouldn’t stop her. Imagine what a monster she may become if she lives.

And you don’t see how offensive this is?
Did you miss the point? You argued that it is always right to do a wrong thing (lie) in order to ‘save the family’ because 'saving the family is always a right action".

You argued that doing a wrong action that results in a ‘right result’ is good.

I showed you that the ‘right result’ can itself lead to further wrong actions. So how can you argue that your original wrong action always has a positive result?

Remember that claim you made about me putting words into your mouth (they were your words and I put them, effectively, in my mouth - but we’ll skip the semantics)? When I showed you I hadn’t? Well here’s an example of where it does happen. Right where you said:

‘So how can you argue that your original wrong action always has a positive result?’

Now I didn’t say that, did I…? No, I didn’t. To stretch the point to breaking I will allow that wrong actions in some cases, done for what is believed to bring about a beneficial result, may, in some circumstances, bring about a worse result.

So how are we to decide? Well, in the case of my kids being raped and murdered, I see no downside at all. And I’ll repeat that so there’s no confusion: I see no downside AT ALL.

If someone in the house with me said that I couldn’t lie because (and this was your example so I feel free in using it) my kids, if they survived might grow up to be mass murderers, then I would probably shoot him as well as the gunman if I had the choice.

We look at what the circumstances are, we draw conclusions from them and we make a decision. You cannot do anything else. Except tell the truth in all circumstances. If you think that’s a good idea, then when your wife asks you if her new dress makes her butt look too big, then prepare for a night on the couch.

 

[Wozza]

Where, where, did I ever state that any spouse would ‘argue’ this? You picked that out on your own. It is pretty poor arguing to make the ‘end result’ a positive, which is what you are doing, in a mocking way. You’re saying that I was arguing that letting kids die was better than letting them live in case they did bad things…

Your point was that even worse things could happen by telling a lie for a good reason. It’s not my fault you used such a risible example. And to show it was a risible example, it was fair game to slip into a hypothetical scenario to highlight that fact. Humorously I thought. But apologies if you took offence.

And if you check my post immediately above this one, I just did address the point that helping my kids live was a good thing. I cannot for the life of me imagine any scenario whatsoever, from all the facts we have, where it would be a bad thing. Even if the scenario happened in Austria in the early 20th century and one of my kids was called Adolf.

And please don’t do what others do and confuse objective morality with objective facts. My family living is better than them dying is an objective fact. Allowing them to live or not by lying or not is a question of morality. And as we have seen, if there are circumstances to be considered, it must be relative and cannot be objective.

 

[Ender]

Hey, you just asked me what criteria I used. I told you what I use, and you complain because you don’t like it? How does that work?

It’s my criterion, not yours, but if you think yours is better (and I don’t think that you do), then tell me why. That might make a better discussion: Yours doesn’t work because A, B and C and mine does because X, Y and Z.

You go first.

I also asked whether your criteria were objective or subjective, which is really the point. I think it’s clear that yours (like the alternative I suggested) is subjective. That being the case, arguing about whose standard is “better” is not unlike arguing whether chocolate is better than vanilla. It is entirely arbitrary.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘in the concrete’. If it simply means ‘in all cases where the object of the act and the circumstances are specified’

In the concrete means in reality, not in abstraction. To speak of killing a human being as a human act is never concrete, only abstract. In reality, the circumstances always disclose the killing as murder or not.

However, fornication as sex with one who is not one’s spouse of the opposite sex is always immoral regardless of circumstances – even if doing so allows one to snatch a decoding device that saves countless lives. Always evil in the abstract as well as concrete

As I use the criteria of harm in order for acts to be classed as immoral (and as a moral absolute to boot), then that wouldn’t be acceptable to me.

Granted you would argue that there would be harm in some way. But almost certainly in a way with which I would disagree.

 

[stpurl]

OK, I do think I see what you’re saying. And I think you still miss what I’m saying. That being the case, I honestly see no way to get through this–I think you will keep on misunderstanding me (I don’t think it’s deliberate, but I just can’t seem to get through, not necessarily either any ‘defect’ from either of us), and I know I will not see what you’re saying. Obviously, each of us thinks we are crystal clear, perfectly right, etc., but it’s just not getting through.

I’m not going to go on with the ‘he-said, she-said’. I’ve already said that you’ve misread me, I don’t need to repeat it, it’s not a game where somebody is going to be declared ‘winner’ if he or she gets the last word or seems to ‘prove something’, so I’ll just wish you the best and move on.

But one last thing–no wife–I’m a woman. With children. And grandchildren. Love them all better than anything in the whole wide world, and only God more, and yes, warts and all, some horrific (not tabloid though) events included, and I hope I never face any kind of situation like the above, but I also believe in objective morality.

In my case, I would do everything possible to ‘save my family’ because murder is an objective evil, but I would do everything possible not to commit another sin. I don’t believe ‘the end justifies the means’. This particular situation is one where the definition of ‘lie’, "a deliberate falsehood done to damage one’s relationship with God and others’ might not actually hold, as a person threatening mortal sin on others is not ‘entitled’ to material cooperation, but the fact is, lies are damaging by their nature.

The old, “your family will be killed unless you tell the gunman you reject God” is more problematic, because that involves a sin against God himself (rejection), a lie that you know is both a lie and a mortal sin too, and a pitting of one mortal sin against another. Let’s hope nobody ever has to face THAT one.

 

[AlNg]

If morality does not exist objectively then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

Is slavery objectively speaking morally wrong?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Hey, you just asked me what criteria I used. I told you what I use, and you complain because you don’t like it? How does that work?

It’s my criterion, not yours, but if you think yours is better (and I don’t think that you do), then tell me why. That might make a better discussion: Yours doesn’t work because A, B and C and mine does because X, Y and Z.

You go first.

I also asked whether your criteria were objective or subjective, which is really the point. I think it’s clear that yours (like the alternative I suggested) is subjective. That being the case, arguing about whose standard is “better” is not unlike arguing whether chocolate is better than vanilla. It is entirely arbitrary.

I explained that harm can generally be determined as an objective fact but that whether that harm was justified is always a subjective position. I thought that was reasonably clear.

And pretty obviously, if you ask me what my criteria is, it will be my criteria I give so obviously it is my subjective opinion.

Aren’t we stating the obvious?

 

[Wozza]

The old, “your family will be killed unless you tell the gunman you reject God” is more problematic, because that involves a sin against God himself (rejection), a lie that you know is both a lie and a mortal sin too, and a pitting of one mortal sin against another. Let’s hope nobody ever has to face THAT one.

Apologies for misreading your gender. And I’ve got grandkids too. Other side of the planet at the moment and missing them like crazy.

But…please don’t tell me that God would hold it against you for saving your family. That would not be a just God. That wouldn’t be a caring God. Do you really imagine He would tell you that sacrificing your grandkids was better than a simple lie? That it would anger Him if you told it and justice was not done?

Some sins are sins in name only. I would tell the lie and go to confession. I doubt if I’d get three Hail Marys.

Edit: I’ve just been browsing a thread where someone had seen a nude character in a comic and wondered if it was a mortal sin. The consensus was that it wasn’t. But some weren’t exactly sure.

So here we have a situation where lying to save your family from a hideous death and seeing a line drawing of a nude character in a comic are comparable.

Go figure…

 

[TULIPed]

The first problem is how we find out if X is wrong.

When is this ever right?

“the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The first problem is how we find out if X is wrong.

When is this ever right?

“the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

There is no such thing as absolute morality. All acts are relative to the conditions. As is the example you have given. So we cannot accept the absolute act without considering the conditions. We personally need to make a decision as to whether the conditions justify the act. In every case.

Just because one can suggest acts that have specific conditions that we would all generally agree made the act wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that we have to make those calls.

Thinking of acts that everyone would agree are immoral doesn’t negate that. We don’t decide on morality by having a simple vote.

 

[o_mlly]

As I use the criteria of harm in order for acts to be classed as immoral (and as a moral absolute to boot), then that wouldn’t be acceptable to me.

Do no harm? Sounds like a Hippocratic Oath kinda rule. But a moral absolute? I think not. Is it immoral to harm an unjust aggressor? No. As long as the intention is to defend the innocent the act is moral.

 

[TULIPed]

There is no such thing as absolute morality.

We can agree to disagree.

So we cannot accept the absolute act without considering the conditions.

Under what conditions would the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another be morally acceptable?

Just because one can suggest acts that have specific conditions that we would all generally agree made the act wrong,

If everyone - literally everyone, all 7 billion of us - agree that something is wrong, isn’t it? And if it isn’t - why do so many people agree that it is?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

As I use the criteria of harm in order for acts to be classed as immoral (and as a moral absolute to boot), then that wouldn’t be acceptable to me.

Do no harm? Sounds like a Hippocratic Oath kinda rule. But a moral absolute? I think not. Is it immoral to harm an unjust aggressor? No. As long as the intention is to defend the innocent the act is moral.

You need to read all the answers. One of which was mine and said this in regard to harm:

‘That is almost always an objective criteria. But then we have to move on to whether the harm can be justified. Which is always subjective.’

W: I’m going to harm this guy.
O: For no reason at all?
W: No, he’s being aggresive to my innocent wife and I want to get my retaliation in first.
O: Is there reason for his aggresiveness?
W: No, it’s unjustified.
O: Go for the head.

 

[Pattylt]

Under what conditions would the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another be morally acceptable?

Haven’t you already put in the qualifiers for a moral determination? It isn’t just killing…it is unlawful and premeditated? Just curious.

 

[TULIPed]

Interestingly, Jesus anticipated our attempts to “qualify” words or actions:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

It seems though, that our need to find wiggle room goes back further. From the book of Amos:

“This is what he showed me: The Lord was standing by a wall that had been built true to plumb, with a plumb line in his hand. And the Lord asked me, “What do you see, Amos?”
“A plumb line,” I replied.
Then the Lord said, “Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer.”

The man is nothing if not consistent, no?