Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[macska]

Actually, in my profession (social work), as well as a number of others, we are required to report intent to cause harm to self or others.

So what will it be? Shall we allow people the freedom, even they might make a choice which will harm them?

Actually, it’s just your opinion that your so-called “biological benefit” should trump their religious or so-called societal benefits.

Or shall we override their bad choices?

You can’t have it both ways. Either they are allowed to to harm themselves or they are not. If you argue that even the intent to self-harm should be reported - and, of course - PREVENTED, then you override their right to self-control. One of them has to go. Which one?

But I would not try to override their desires. It someone wishes to emulate Christ’s passion by having himself crucified, I would not try to prevent his action. As long as they only affect themselves, they are free to act out their desires.

 

[SPBlitz]

If it is acceptable to steal to prevent starvation, and if it is acceptable to lie to protect some people from death squad, then why would it not be acceptable to rape someone to prevent some other kind of mayhem?

Wow, I never thought I’d actually see someone defending rape…

Because I would prefer to have my subjective morality to prevail. On the ground that it brings objectively more beneficial results.

How can something that is subjective bring about an objective result? That’s nonsensical. You say that there is no objective morality, but here, it seems obvious that an objective morality would be one that brought about objectively more beneficial results.

“yes, but only if one is a materialist, and believes that this existence is all that matters”. And then I look at your life, and see that you also try to seek pleasure, and avoid pain…

How exactly does this support your point?

common question comes. There are many ethical systems. Some are:

1. utilitarian
2. deontological
3. divine command theory
4. virtue ethics
5. duty based ethics

and quite a few more. What epistemological system can you suggest to find out which is the best, second best, etc… all the way to the worst? Do you have a special scale to measure these systems?

Well, according to you, it would be ‘whatever brings about the more beneficial result’. To me, its how we measure all truth values - with reason. Your morality should be the logical result of your metaphysics. I can anticipate your response - ‘but the fact that we each have differing system proves that it’s subjective!’ No, it only proves that one of us is correct and the other mistaken. Either utilitarianism or reason (or, perhaps some other method) is the proper scale. And since reason is the measurement we use to determine all truth, then I think that’s strong evidence to use reason as our scale.

 

[BlueMaxx]

SPBlitz:

Wow, I never thought I’d actually see someone defending rape…

Life is complicated. Not just rape, but even killing can be justified under proper circumstances.

Are you sure you meant to convey that sentence?

 

[SPBlitz]

No, it is not.

Alright then , prove it to me. How can something that inherently is different for each individual, and that differs depending on their opinions of it, produce something that is, by definition, true for everyone, regardless of their opinions?

What are those “truth” values? The devil is in the details

The truths of mathematics. Of science and the physical laws. Of logic - the same logic you are attmpting to use to weaken my arguments and strengthen your own. If we can use reason to determine these, why not morality as well?

Life is complicated. Not just rape, but even killing can be justified under proper circumstances

Killing - maybe. Rape, that’s a harder sell

 

[goout]

Killing may be justified / Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent life.
Rape is an intentional forced sexual encounter.
Anyone can see the difference. The fact that a specific real situation might be excruciatingly difficult (justification of war for instance)…should not blur the fact that evaluations must be made.

And this brings about the most basic point:
Morality evaluates human acts. A toddler may not yet have the capacity to thoroughly evaluate life’s decisions, but human beings are “wired” to grow in these powers and to seek truth, to make good evaluations of life’s circumstances and act accordingly.

Even before we can agree that a specific type of act is good or evil…
we must first agree that human acts can be evaluated, and that human acts should be evaluated.
Morality does not consist of a mere list of rules to be argued about, it’s about giving due credence to the human capacity to evaluate our actions. And missing that fact is where these discussions go askew. If you can’t even agree that acts can and should be evaluated as good or evil, then what’s the point of even discussing this? That’s a gross mis-observation of human nature.

Moral evaluation assumes a person of good will, possessing rationality, able to perceive and reason and make real decisions.
Sadly, the problem of our age is not merely that we disagree on moral structures, it’s the fact that people have lost the ability to reason well (or refuse to employ reason out of ill-will).

This evaluative process of perceiving, listening, conversing with commonly accepted language, and then reasoning, and acting according to reason, is being lost. And you can’t have a sane and orderly society with people who can’t or won’t reason.

 

[lelinator]

Actually, that’s what’s causing the problem. If you said that stealing was absolutely and always wrong, then there wouldn’t be any room for doubt. But if you make it subject to the circumstances, then you make it impossible for a non-omniscient being to accurately discern the “right” course of action.

It’s the fact that there are grey areas that makes it impossible for us to definitively agree on right and wrong.

SPBlitz:

This makes no sense. Just because you don’t no very possible scenario doesn’t mean you can’t know anything about it’s morality. I know that rape is wrong even if I can’t imagine every possible situation it could be in. Saying ‘I don’t know every scenario l, so I can’t know right and wrong’ is a cop out.

Name one circumstance where rape is acceptable.

First, I wasn’t arguing that there’s no such thing as objective morality. The argument in this case is whether you can ever know which specific acts are immoral and which aren’t, given that each act occurs under slightly different circumstances.

Most of us older Americans remember the origin of the phrase “I’ll know it when I see it” as it pertains to pornography. But “I’ll know it when I see it” is hardly an objective means of measuring something.

So with that in mind, and in order to have a productive discussion on morality, perhaps we should attempt to reach a consensus on what makes an act immoral. We seem to agree that killing and stealing are sometimes immoral acts, and sometimes not, depending upon the circumstances. The question is, does the same hold true for rape?

To begin to answer that question we need to agree on what it is that makes an act immoral.

So what is it exactly that makes one act immoral as opposed to similar acts?

 

[goout]

Morality evaluates human acts -in reference to- the objective good.
The immorality of abortion offends the good of being alive.

You start with defining the good that you are pursuing, and evaluate an act in reference to that.

 

[lelinator]

I find it to be quite telling that no one seems to want to explain how to recognize an immoral act. Obviously it can’t just be “I’ll know it when I see it”, because that would make it totally subjective. And it also can’t be, “Well everybody knows that rape is wrong”, because that would simply make it a matter of popular opinion, or subject to the prevailing social norm.

So how can we have a serious discussion about the nature of morality, if no one is willing to explain how to distinguish an immoral act from a moral one?

 

[Zaccheus]

It is not “absolute”. Absolute would mean that it is applicable everywhere and every time. And we know that cannibalism (for example) is not considered immoral in extreme circumstances

“Not everybody agrees that X is true” is not the same as “X is untrue”.

There are people who insist that the Earth is flat. That does not change the fact that the Earth is a spheroid.

 

[Zaccheus]

blackforest:

Let’s look at a more universal boundary violation. Can you name one culture that would find it morally acceptable for invaders to come in and kill all of their women and children?

What did the Bible say? In Numbers 31:17-18? There is your answer.

And that is a very strong proposition. There are many cultures where public nudity and publicly performed sex is totally acceptable.

Do you think the Israelites held it morally acceptable for someone else to invade Israel and kill all the male children and all the women who weren’t still virgins?

 

[SPBlitz]

So what is it exactly that makes one act immoral as opposed to similar acts?

I think the only answer to this would be reason - reason as determined by a Thomistic metaphysics. If I may quote Edward Feser:
“What is good or bad for us is determined by the ends set for us by our nature, and given the essentialist metaphysics Aquinas is committed to, that means that there are certain things that are good or bad for us absolutely, which even God could not change (since God’s power does not extend to doing what is self-contradictory).”

 

[lelinator]

I think the only answer to this would be reason - reason as determined by a Thomistic metaphysics. If I may quote Edward Feser:

First, I must say that i appreciate the response, but I must also reiterate that I didn’t claim that there’s no such thing as an objective moral standard, only that it’s impossible for us as non-omniscient beings to know what that moral standard is.

You may choose reasoning as the measure of moral conduct, but even among those of us who sincerely attempt to use reasoning as a guide Thomism isn’t universally accepted, or perhaps even generally accepted. Thus even among reasoning individuals what amounts to moral conduct isn’t a universally accepted standard. There are some cultures in which the manner in which a woman is dressed may be deemed to be immoral, and as such it might be deemed that rape is a morally acceptable punishment for that immorality. Reasoning is a very subjective thing.

“What is good or bad for us is determined by the ends set for us by our nature, and given the essentialist metaphysics Aquinas is committed to, that means that there are certain things that are good or bad for us absolutely,

The problem is that what’s in our nature to do as human beings isn’t a universally accepted standard either. Yes, Thomism may argue that there is such a universal standard put there by God Himself, but that doesn’t help me to know whether Thomism is true, or to discern exactly what lies within that moral standard. Some may argue that simply judging by man’s actions as a whole, immoral behavior is well within man’s nature. And thus using man’s nature as a guide, morality is a very subjective thing.

So my argument isn’t that there’s no objective moral standard, it’s just that as a non-omniscient being it’s impossible for me to know what that standard is. And yes, for some, even rape can be considered to be morally acceptable under certain conditions. So even the one standard that most theists hold up as an unassailable standard of morality isn’t necessarily as absolute as some may think it is.

Yes, there may be an absolute moral standard of right and wrong, but even if there is, it’s impossible for you as a non-omniscient being to know what it is.

 

[SPBlitz]

but even among those of us who sincerely attempt to use reasoning as a guide Thomism isn’t universally accepted, or perhaps even generally accepted.

That is irrelevant. What does it matter if everyone accepts it? Not everyone accepts the scientific method either, but you wouldn’t use that as a reason to deny the Big Bang theory.

Reasoning is a very subjective thing.

No, it’s not. The whole point of reason is that it is objective. Math is objective - it doesn’t matter your opinion on the multiplication tables, they are true whether you want them to be or not. A given argument may be begging the question, even if the argument giver really doesn’t want it to be.

The problem is that what’s in our nature to do as human beings isn’t a universally accepted standard either. Yes, Thomism may argue that there is such a universal standard put there by God Himself, but that doesn’t help me to know whether Thomism is true, or to discern exactly what lies within that moral standard.

Again, it doesn’t have to be universally accepted. There could be a whole host of irrational reasons for someone to reject Thomism, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Your whole argument subtly implies that reason is not an objective way to obtain knowledge, but that line of thinking undermines your whole argument, since reason is the very thing you are attempting to use to undermine my argument and bolster your own.

So even the one standard that most theists hold up as an unassailable standard of morality isn’t necessarily as absolute as some may think it is.

I’m not arguing for an absolute moral standard - that would be one everyone agrees on. I’m arguing for an objective one. There doesn’t need to be universal acceptance for there to be an objective standard. Those that disagree on it would simply be wrong.

Yes, there may be an absolute moral standard of right and wrong, but even if there is, it’s impossible for you as a non-omniscient being to know what it is.

I don’t think that’s true. You can use reason - which by definition is objective. Those that arrive to at a different conclusion regarding Thomism or what have you aren’t using a different reason, they have an error in reason, just like how someone who says that 2+2=5 isn’t using different math, they are using incorrect math! If you can use reason to gain knowledge, and if Thomism is the result of rational inquiry, then I don’t see how you can argue that it can’t be used to discover morality. The fact that it isn’t universally accepted is not a refutation of it.

 

[SPBlitz]

And yes, for some, even rape can be considered to be morally acceptable under certain conditions.

Well, then they would be wrong. The fact that some people may do their multiplication tables incorrectly doesn’t prove those tables to be wrong or subjective. The fact that some people have twisted moralities doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for us to know what the true morality is.

 

[debgab]

On describing his writing as “wordy” I think he expresses his thought as completely as possible. Kind of like writing complete, elaborate sentences; complete thoughts. I don’t know that most of us are use to that kind of writing anymore. For me, it’s almost hard
to follow as I have to re-read the beginning of a sentence that he’s written. But I so enjoy his writing. We use to soundbites these days.
And as far as human moral nature being uniform, do you not think that “sane” people
would all agree that to murder is wrong? to take something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong? To lie is wrong…ect ect. This is pretty uniform and chiseling a kid down wouldn’t be possible if he were’nt able to be “chisled”. Your right that children need to be trained for their behavior, but you can’t train them if they aren’t able to be trained so uniform moral nature; isn’t it also called natural morality? We are taught by the church we do indeed possess this; it’s inborn or however you want to say it.
In any case, inborn and has to brought out so to speak.
Debbie

 

[debgab]

You can tell by my above writing, I am not able to slow down enough to write in thoughtful
complete sentences. In any case, hope you got my point.
debbie

 

[lelinator]

After taking a good amount of time to consider your reply, I think that we’ve pushed this discussion about as far as it can go, because we have a fundamental disagreement as to the capabilities of reason. I don’t put much merit in it, because it almost invariably entails assumptions. Now if you recognize them as such, then you’re fine, but the problem is that a great number of people don’t recognize them, and that’s where reasoning fails.

The whole point of reason is that it is objective. Math is objective - it doesn’t matter your opinion on the multiplication tables, they are true whether you want them to be or not.

Reasoning and math aren’t the same. Reasoning is rarely objective. And in the case of metaphysics I would argue that it isn’t objective at all. But you’re more than welcome to disagree, after all, there’s no reason to believe that my reasoning is any more objective than yours.

So the question isn’t whether you’re right, or I’m right, the question is, what definitive proof is there that either of us is right? So it simply comes down to your opinion versus mine. But where I come out ahead, is that I’m willing to accept that fact, and you’re not. Or have I assumed incorrectly?

Your whole argument subtly implies that reason is not an objective way to obtain knowledge, but that line of thinking undermines your whole argument, since reason is the very thing you are attempting to use to undermine my argument and bolster your own.

You are indeed correct in that I don’t believe that reasoning is an objective means of obtaining knowledge. At least when that reasoning is based upon assumptions. Which happens far more often than people realize. In fact, I’m using assumptions right now. Of course if you disagree, then perhaps I’m not using assumptions, perhaps I’m just using reason.

So you see, reasoning isn’t all that reliable, whether it’s mine, or yours, or Aquinas’. When you rely upon reasoning for your knowledge you had better be pretty dang sure that what you assume to be true, actually is true. Otherwise all the reasoning in the world won’t help you.

 

[SPBlitz]

After taking a good amount of time to consider your reply, I think that we’ve pushed this discussion about as far as it can go, because we have a fundamental disagreement as to the capabilities of reason.

I think you’re right. I can’t discuss things with someone who denies reason.

So you see, reasoning isn’t all that reliable, whether it’s mine, or yours, or Aquinas’. When you rely upon reasoning for your knowledge you had better be pretty dang sure that what you assume to be true, actually is true. Otherwise all the reasoning in the world won’t help you.

Perhaps, but if the only way you are able to salvage your argument is to deny reason itself, than that’s a very desperate position indeed.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

And yes, for some, even rape can be considered to be morally acceptable under certain conditions.

Well, then they would be wrong… The fact that some people have twisted moralities doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for us to know what the true morality is.

So then tell me, how do you know what the true morality is?

As I recall from a previous post, you believe that the true morality is discernible through reason. Which, if my reasoning serves me correctly, means that everyone in the world who disagrees with you, is incapable of reason. At least to the degree that you seem to have attained.

Forgive me if I doubt that.

 

[SPBlitz]

No, they’re not incapable of reason, they just have an error in their reasoning. Just like how someone who does their math incorrectly isn’t incapable of doing math, they simply made an error.

Also, you mentioned above that you disagree with the assumptions of Thomism, or with anyone’s assumptions. What assumptions might those be?