Morality? What morality?

[Spock]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

 

[fhansen]

Agree with him in what way? A Christian could never agree with his tactics even if they agreed that his enemy was wrong. Killing is objectively wrong, and, in an imperfect world, this stance is mitigated only for reasons of self-defense-and Jesus didn’t even do that.

The CC never suggests that individuals don’t disagree on morality-in fact she suggests that that’s the problem; morality was never meant to be left up to the individual in the first place- IOWs murder could never take place at all if individuals had never begun to override their own innate morality. And this is why the individual must turn to God. If he turns to a god who condones murder, then he hasn’t yet found the God who can turn his heart away from a morality that was never god-based after all.

 

[You]

hmm. considering that such people need to be drugged and brainwashed into a state which their brainwashers say will only be good for three days; from their experience if they wait longer than three days the subject rebels and backs out.
A persons conscience is a universal truth which needs a lot of work to break down.

 

[inocente]

While wary of an accusation of reductio ad Hitler this early in a thread , are we allowed to call the suicide bomber a hero if he’s a Navy SEAL who decides it’s the only way to kill a despicable despot who was just about to press a button to slaughter a million innocents?

 

[hazcompat]

While wary of an accusation of reductio ad Hitler this early in a thread , are we allowed to call the suicide bomber a hero if he’s a Navy SEAL who decides it’s the only way to kill a despicable despot who was just about to press a button to slaughter a million innocents?

Thou shall not do evil that good may result.

peace

 

[JRKH]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

OK - I have considered it…I have thought about it…And…
I can think of no example where I would agree that such a person is moral in what they did. The closest I can come is the occasional case in recent years where someone killed an abortion Doctor in order to save the lives of many unborn children…
I know of no Catholic who condoned the person even though we agree that abortion needs to end. We agree with the end sought, but not the means employed…

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

If you agree with the person,

If you disagree with the person,

here is your fallacy
whether you, I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the actions of a given person is not the standard for morality. God’s law is the standard as it is made known in natural law, which can be discovered and known by human effort alone, and divine revelation which can be known only to the extent that God reveals and explains it directly or through prophets.

 

[PAboy57]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

The US military does not promote suicide bombing. I don’t know the present rules for other countries but see the damage done many times.

There are many reports of service members sacrificing their lives to save the lives of their fellow members. They receive honors and should because they made the ultimate sacrifice.

The Catholic Church’s thoughts:

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” 106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[danserr]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

You are confusing subjective perception of a fact, with the existence of the fact itself.

Your argument:

1. Person A believes that a suicide bomber is a villian.
2. Person B believes that he is a hero.
3. they disagree.
4. therefore there is no objective morality.

You think that because people disagree on perception something, the thing itself (here morality) cannot exist.

1. Person A sees an apple tree.
2. Person B does not.
3. They disagree.
4. Therefore there is no apple tree.

Obviously, this is absurd. It might simply be the case that person B is blind. To use this as evidence that the subject on which they disagree does not exist is absurd.

• Possibly you will respond that the examples are not comparable because the apple tree really exists. If so, then you are begging the question because you are assuming in advance that objective morality does not exist.

It is much more probable that objective moral values really exist and that the suicide’s bombers’ (or the person who admires him) perception of those values is wanting, rather like the blind person who does not see the tree. But this is not evidence that the tree does not exist, and disagreement over what are objective moral values does is not a reason for thinking they do not exist.

If you respond that this shows that we form our beliefs based on our experiences, or culture etc, then you are committing a textbook example of the genetic fallacy, which is the attempt to falsify a belief by explaining how that belief arose. This is a fallacy because the belief could be true regardless how how it arose.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

This scenario puts us square into the existentialist age of “personal preference morality.” It, itself, is a product of the culture we live in. Post Enlightenment and “teleology” in morality, we have all come to different conclusions about theories of action.

Perhaps we would, as a culture, do well to give heed to Aristotle’s claim that we ought not look for the same precision in ethics as we do with mathematics.

The fact is, moral behavior requires that we exercise prudence…i.e. there is a right way to act in all situations, but not one way to act in all situations. Circumstances can change the object of actions to such an extent that what is moral in one situation is not in another.

So for the suicide bomber it may appear “good” to kill in the name of religion – but his prudence is out of whack. Murder, for any reason, cannot maintain any mean of virtue and by its nature it is an extreme. Therefore, it is not a good action no matter if you agree with him or not.

 

[Spock]

While wary of an accusation of reductio ad Hitler this early in a thread , are we allowed to call the suicide bomber a hero if he’s a Navy SEAL who decides it’s the only way to kill a despicable despot who was just about to press a button to slaughter a million innocents?

Well said, though I had a slightly different example in mind. Suppose there is a war going on. In a war it is allowed to take out the “enemy”, even with “collateral damage”. And the two sides will evaluate the same deed differently, one person’s “self-sarificing hero” is another man’s “terrorist”.

What you said would be a “pre-emptive” defense of innocents. The idea of “self-defense” should not be taken verbatim, to defend only yourself, generally it is understood to prevent an act against others, too. Maybe your children, maybe your family. In the Christian opinion, where everyone is your “brother and sister”, it makes sense to protect them, as well.

Thou shall not do evil that good may result.

It is not “evil” to protect others.

here is your fallacy
whether you, I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with the actions of a given person is not the standard for morality. God’s law is the standard as it is made known in natural law, which can be discovered and known by human effort alone, and divine revelation which can be known only to the extent that God reveals and explains it directly or through prophets.

No fallacy, since I did not say that the act is “moral” or not, I only spoke about the opposing opinion of the bystandards. I deny the valid existence of “morality” - precisely because it is nothing more than an opinion.

The US military does not promote suicide bombing. I don’t know the present rules for other countries but see the damage done many times.

Certainly not openly admitted. But the US goverment also declares torture unacceptable, and quietly practices “waterboarding”. You cannot go by what any goverment says.

You are confusing subjective perception of a fact, with the existence of the fact itself.

You put it together really well, even anticipating some possible objections. Good job. I am simply saying that the adjective “moral” is not based upon facts, it is based upon “opinion”. We call or declare something to be “moral” without justification. As to whether an “objective” morality exists or not, without a common definiton of “morality” it is a futile endeavor. Yes, I know that according to the Christian perception (opinion again) God is the “standard”. But since you cannot prove that God exists, it is a vacuous opinion.

So for the suicide bomber it may appear “good” to kill in the name of religion – but his prudence is out of whack. Murder, for any reason, cannot maintain any mean of virtue and by its nature it is an extreme. Therefore, it is not a good action no matter if you agree with him or not.

I was very careful to leave out all the details from the example. I did not mention any “religious” connotations. The suicide bomber is not supposed to be an Islamic fundametalist, just someone who sees the victims of his act as enemies. Who wants to protect his people, and is willing to sacrifice his life in the process.

 

[4Horsemen]

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

This is an example of the inversion of means and ends. The value of an ultimate end is given by the suicide bomber to what is only a means for attaining it. He is defining persons as only a means to that end, assuming his goal was to be a hero or martyr sacrificing his life for what he defines as a “moral” cause. The cause is most likely his version of social justice. So he is, in actuality, the product of a malformed conscience.

Underlying a well-formed conscience is the realization of the dignity of each human person. Application of this principle requires maturity, reason and prudence. In the example above where a Navy SEAL pushes a button to kill a “despicable despot” to save a million innocent people, the SEAL is making a moral choice since the ends of the act commited are in conformity with moral judgment and the prudent judgment of his conscience. In this case, the SEAL is defining the innocent persons as worthy of human dignity and respect unlike the suicide bomber who uses innocent people as a means to an unjustified end.

 

[Spock]

Underlying a well-formed conscience is the realization of the dignity of each human person. Application of this principle requires maturity, reason and prudence. In the example above where a Navy SEAL pushes a button to kill a “despicable despot” to save a million innocent people, the SEAL is making a moral choice since the ends of the act commited are in conformity with moral judgment and the prudent judgment of his conscience. In this case, the SEAL is defining the innocent persons as worthy of human dignity and respect unlike the suicide bomber who uses innocent people as a means to an unjustified end.

Your analysis is the result of your opinion. Mind you, I agree with your analysis, but my agreement is meaningless, since it is only my opinion. That Navy SEAL is just another suicide bomber, we happen to agree with. That is what I wanted to illustrate in this thread.

 

[inocente]

Well said, though I had a slightly different example in mind. Suppose there is a war going on. In a war it is allowed to take out the “enemy”, even with “collateral damage”. And the two sides will evaluate the same deed differently, one person’s “self-sarificing hero” is another man’s “terrorist”.

I’m what some others call a scientistic relativist, meaning I think, realist .

I take others’ point that Muslimist suicide bombers are a bunch of guys who have lost contact with reality, and by going a few kilometers south of here across the Med find entire Muslim nations full of nice folk who don’t understand this supposed war any better than the rest of us. Yet in Europe, looking at a picture of a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire with petrol to protest the US in Vietnam, the idea that we can somehow know the mind of God here just seems plain silly.

But morality does have a dictionary definition, and to pick one at random: a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable.

The evidence isn’t for objective standards set in stone (beyond any pre-wired by evolution) but instead that our noggins contain the means to decide what is “right, honest or acceptable”, and we do this both individually and collectively. Each tribe forms it own morality to aid its survival, none is intrinsically perfect, and as we become one big tribe through globalization we need to deal with our tendency to judge others by our own standards.

I wouldn’t go so far as the OP though, which seems to argue for anarchy. The Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, which always goes down well on morality threads , is merely a convention that member states happen to agree on. No need for Christians or Muslims or Hindus to know the mind of God, no need for atheists to provide objective proofs, just an agreement to try to make a better world.

Some other theists see it all entirely differently, but exactly how they do it without putting Almighty God in a box I could never fathom .

 

[Spock]

I’m what some others call a scientistic relativist, meaning I think, realist .

I take others’ point that Muslimist suicide bombers are a bunch of guys who have lost contact with reality, and by going a few kilometers south of here across the Med find entire Muslim nations full of nice folk who don’t understand this supposed war any better than the rest of us. Yet in Europe, looking at a picture of a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire with petrol to protest the US in Vietnam, the idea that we can somehow know the mind of God here just seems plain silly.

But morality does have a dictionary definition, and to pick one at random: a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable.

The evidence isn’t for objective standards set in stone (beyond any pre-wired by evolution) but instead that our noggins contain the means to decide what is “right, honest or acceptable”, and we do this both individually and collectively. Each tribe forms it own morality to aid its survival, none is intrinsically perfect, and as we become one big tribe through globalization we need to deal with our tendency to judge others by our own standards.

I wouldn’t go so far as the OP though, which seems to argue for anarchy. The Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, which always goes down well on morality threads , is merely a convention that member states happen to agree on. No need for Christians or Muslims or Hindus to know the mind of God, no need for atheists to provide objective proofs, just an agreement to try to make a better world.

Some other theists see it all entirely differently, but exactly how they do it without putting Almighty God in a box I could never fathom .

Of course I agree with everything you say. The thread is mostly tongue-in-cheek. It is very ironic that all those who profess to derive morality from some God, fail to acknowledge and admit that the “commandments” issued by that God, somehow, mysteriously and inexplicably reflect their own opinion. Such a coincidence.

 

[You]

Of course I agree with everything you say. The thread is mostly tongue-in-cheek. It is very ironic that all those who profess to derive morality from some God, fail to acknowledge and admit that the “commandments” issued by that God, somehow, mysteriously and inexplicably reflect their own opinion. Such a coincidence.

Written on your hearts, springs to mind. Equally funny how everyones opinion is the same no matter what land you visit, what age you travel to.

 

[Spock]

Written on your hearts, springs to mind.

Just another meaningless euphemism. Out heart only pumps blood. There is nothing “written” on it.

Equally funny how everyones opinion is the same no matter what land you visit, what age you travel to.

Except that it is not true.

 

[You]

Just another meaningless euphemism. Out heart only pumps blood. There is nothing “written” on it.

Have you said on this thread that right and wrong or moral and immoral are just personal opinions. You are correct in one thing; that you recognize a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ and that recognition is personal, or in other words it is ‘written on your heart’.

Except that it is not true.

The one thing which is interesting about travel is the sameness in response in people all over the world. Everyone of every race is horrified at the injustice of whatever it is in question; and overjoyed at the good news. Their sense of the morally good and bad is the same. Or, a depressed cynic may say it another way - ‘everyones the same’.

 

[4Horsemen]

Your analysis is the result of your opinion. Mind you, I agree with your analysis, but my agreement is meaningless, since it is only my opinion. That Navy SEAL is just another suicide bomber, we happen to agree with. That is what I wanted to illustrate in this thread.

So . . . everybody of sane mind (or do you question the objectivity of sanity and insanity too?) seems to be of the opinion that murder is evil, or at least, wrong, negative. But killing isn’t always defined as murder. Think about abortion in which most people are of the same opinion it is a moral evil, but a smaller percentage considers it as necessary killing (at least vocally). (Isn’t all murder?) Which are the people going through “mental gymnastics” (referred to on another thread) and verbal torture to prove themselves right? IOW, it’s obvious to reasonable people that there is an understanding among individuals, populations, civilizations that a moral code exists objectively (imprinted on our souls – “hearts” is just more poetic). Someone mentioned “The Universal Declaration on Human Rights” which is an accumulation of opinion derived from the moral code. So are many local, state and federal laws derived from the moral code or Natural Law. And, yes, they just happen to match because moral imperatives are intrinsic to human nature.

In your opinion, the Navy SEAL, who saved the lives of innocent people by killing the despot, is a “suicide bomber” with the same culpability as the original suicide bomber in your OP. Of course, in a war each side will define heroism according to their their own idea of justice. That’s what makes war so, well, evil. Morality is often lost sight of. Was it moral for the U.S. to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I’ve heard it said that it saved the lives of our American soldiers and helped to end the war? Couldn’t there have been a better way? I suppose this question derails the thread. Anyhow . . . return tongue to cheek and proceed!

 

[Spock]

In your opinion, the Navy SEAL, who saved the lives of innocent people by killing the despot, is a “suicide bomber” with the same culpability as the original suicide bomber in your OP. Of course, in a war each side will define heroism according to their their own idea of justice. That’s what makes war so, well, evil. Morality is often lost sight of.

Indeed. I sure agree that wars are horrible, and I wish they never happened. And they always declare the enemy as sub-human, too. Truly horrible.

Was it moral for the U.S. to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I’ve heard it said that it saved the lives of our American soldiers and helped to end the war? Couldn’t there have been a better way? I suppose this question derails the thread. Anyhow . . . return tongue to cheek and proceed!

It is very probably true. It also saved many Japanese lives, who would have continued the war, if the horrors on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have happened. All we can safely say that that these questions are not easy to answer and they may be unanswerable, too.