Morality? What morality?

[Spock]

No. Your premise is completely false. In fact, I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that you casually assume that people would sanction terrorism on behalf of a cause in which they believe.

I only wish this were not a fact.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I really appreciate all the time and effort you spent in formulating your thoughts. I will only answer some of it explicitly, not out of disrespect, rather not to burden you with pages of text.

What, me copying and pasting texts? Not all that difficult

Immediately your opening line is problematic. Of course I agree that human life is - generally - worthy of respect. I don’t know about “sacred”, that is a religious term. But respecting human life is a good starting point.

And that is the problem. You say that you respect life…generally That is not enough. For how do you judge whether a man is worthy of “respect” or not? You tell me not to judge other people’s behavior. Well, if I understand you, you judge other people’s worth. Which is worse?

No, ALL human life must be treated as sacred, no matter how evil that person may be.

Again, I can respect others without resorting to God. Is that not enough?

Unfortunately, no. “Respect” is too vague. What is this respect? What is it based on? This very basic principle must be very specific and unchangeable, for that is the basis for defining such a serious concept as murder.

My aim is to have a common definition which is acceptable to both theists and atheists. Otherwise we shall be talking past each other. If you insist that “morality” describes the relationship between man and God, then we are stuck, we cannot take even one more step ahead.

That is a noble thing, and I agree. If you want to have a common definition of morality between theists and atheists, then I think at least you must start from the viewpoint that all people must have dignity in them that cannot be taken away from them, no matter what their state is. But then one has to define what is this dignity.

Well, the legal definition of “murder” is the “illegal taking the life of someone else”. Is that sufficient, or should we try to make a “moral definition” for the sake of this discussion?

“Illegal” in whose law? I do not think that is sufficient.

If so, I would offer this definiton: “The intentional taking of someone else’s life without their consent, and without acceptable justification”. I am aware that this is somewhat vague. We could talk about the specifics if you want to. But, of course, first we should agree what could be a “moral” definition. Which brings us back to square one.

I would remove “without acceptable justification”

EDIT: I would also remove “without their consent.” That would give legitimacy to assisted suicide also.

I am aware of this principle. I find it a nice attempt to perform a cop-out. After all how can anyone else know what my state of mind (intention) was when I committed an act?

God

God bless.

 

[Spock]

What, me copying and pasting texts? Not all that difficult

Still, it took time and effort, and that is appreciated. There are many “one-liner” posts, and I am not fond of them.

And that is the problem. You say that you respect life…generally That is not enough. For how do you judge whether a man is worthy of “respect” or not? You tell me not to judge other people’s behavior. Well, if I understand you, you judge other people’s worth. Which is worse?

Yes, it was vague. Maybe we can “flesh” it out a little. I suggest the two old, almost universal principles as starting points, the direct and the inverse “golden rules”, of which I find the inverse rule superior. These are (first the inverse rule):

“Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you”.
“Do unto others what you would want them do unto you”.

This is what I mean by respect. I start with respecting others, and as long as they reciprocate it, we are fine. If they do not respect me, then I will stop respecting them. I am aware of the “turn the other cheek” principle. Being a mathematician, I know that this is a bad strategy. It can be proven - mathematically - that the “turn the other cheek” principle is sub-optimal in conflict resolution. Funny thing, if Jesus would have been “God”, he would have known that there are better strategies than that. Much better. But he did not know this. Ergo, he was not God.

No, ALL human life must be treated as sacred, no matter how evil that person may be.

Alas, “sacred” is still has religious overtones.

That is a noble thing, and I agree. If you want to have a common definition of morality between theists and atheists, then I think at least you must start from the viewpoint that all people must have dignity in them that cannot be taken away from them, no matter what their state is. But then one has to define what is this dignity.

Would you do the honors and define what “dignity” is in this respect?

“Illegal” in whose law? I do not think that is sufficient.

In the prevailing laws of the society considered. In the medieval Japan, the samurais were allowed to kill any lower class people without impunity.

I would remove “without acceptable justification”

EDIT: I would also remove “without their consent.” That would give legitimacy to assisted suicide also.

I was sure you would. But I presented it as my view. If we cannot agree then we fail to establish a common ground. Would not be the first time. The real trouble is that if you remove these qualifiers, the definition will be: “The intentional taking of someone else’s life” - and as such self-defense will also be a “murder”, state-sanctioned executions will be murders, too. By the way, I don’t think you reflected on the “scope” of self-defense. Does it stop literally at defending oneself? Or does it extend to defending someone else? These are not trivial questions.

 

[Betterave]

Unfortunately, any disagreement on the Church’s doctrines on human sexuality stems from this.

I hope you won’t mind me flatly contradicting you, but that is simply false.

 

[Betterave]

We are in the danger of drifting away, but I guess, it is inevitable. Of course I hate them and what they stand for. But what is the solution? Exposing their views as sick and unacceptable - in the open markeplace of ideas. Expose them, ridicule them, criticize them. It is not a solution to make laws against “hate-speech”. That “cure” would be worse than the “disease”. What about “pornography”? It cannot be “defined”. One man’s digusting “porn” is another’s mildly interesting sexual material. Whose undefinable standard should prevail?

There are all sorts of ideas we find odious. Let’s just take some anti-abortion protesters, who stand on street corners, and expose pictures of aborted fetuses. I disagree with them, and yet I support their rights to do what they do. They must be allowed to think what they think, and within limits, they must be allowed to act as they act. The other “solution” would be to bring some laws to restrict the freedom of thought (how would they be enforced without telescreens?) or restrict the freedom of speech, which could be enforced, and the resulting society would be something that is much worse than the possible damage that those “undesired” thoughts could bring. There are many grey areas. Not everything is nice, black and white.

I don’t think we’re drifting away at all here. The issue here comes down to what we accept as the basic conception of morality. Now the conception you are presenting here seems to be a very strange one: You are apparently claiming that morality is both restricted to and determined by (synonymous with?) the laws which are positively ennacted by some kind of human legislator (or set of human legislators)? Or do you have some other point in mind in your question above? You certainly seem to be implying that IF X is immoral, THEN formal legal recourse should be available to punish doers of X.

This would be an extremely idiosyncratic view.

When they put their ideas into practice. When they do not only talk about the “inferiority” of certain people (they hate not just blacks, but also Jews, atheists and Catholics, too), but attempt to put their ideas into individual and group actions. That is the line which cannot be allowed to cross.

That’s what I don’t understand though: where do we draw the line indicating that past this point they have attempted to put their ideas into individual and group actions? (Where and how; based on what principle?)

 

[Betterave]

The electro-chemical activity of the brain. Some of it occurs in the “little grey-cells” area, the conscious and most of it occurs in the sub-conscious.

I’m a bit nonplussed. I think you’re again offering a very idiosyncratic notion here. You don’t think that’s all that a thought is, do you?

Here’s an argument - tell me what you think:

1. A thought is necessarily intentional, it is a though of something.
2. Electro-chemical activity, as such, is never intentional (and this is true regardless of its location, whether in the brain or anywhere else).
3. Therefore a thought cannot be simply identical to electro-chemical activity as such (including that in the brain).

Indeed I agree. The relationship is exactly like it is between “a-book” and “book”.

I don’t know what you mean.

The “thoughts” within the sub-conscious will stay “hidden” from us - usually. Our brain controls our “breathing” (for example), but those thoughts (firings of the neurons) usually stay beneath our perception.

I’ll be honest: that makes no sense to me. Why should a firing of neurons, as such, constitute a thought? That sounds like a thought that is never thought. (I have never observed the firing of my neurons, and if I did I’m sure I wouldn’t think I was observing thoughts - you?)

Even if you want to posit the existence of some dubious entity known as a ‘sub-conscious thought’ (why??), I think we can agree that such an entity is irrelevant here.

I am not sure about the relevance of this. I would like to concentrate on the problem of “desires, thoughts, which are not put into actions”. Specifically, looking at someone else, who is not our spouse, finding that person sexually arousing (which is not a conscious thought, it is all chemistry), imagining having an affair with that person (daydreaming, perhaps for a second), without any intent whatsoever of putting that little daydream into practice. Does such a passing thought belong to the “immoral” realm?

I don’t know if it’s wise to pass over the discussion of the conceptual underpinnings, but to answer your question: No, it doesn’t ipso facto belong to the “immoral” realm; but it does, prima facie at least, belong to the realm of morality. Why? It is something which is morally considerable insofar as it presents a question to us: What should I choose to do with these thoughts? Are they morally problematic? And if they are, it is because they are the thought of something (something which matters, morally speaking), not because they are somehow constituted through the electro-chemical activity of the brain (that is in fact entirely irrelevant, it seems, and so is an inappropriate answer (in this context, at least) to the question “what is a thought?”).

 

[Spock]

I don’t think we’re drifting away at all here. The issue here comes down to what we accept as the basic conception of morality. Now the conception you are presenting here seems to be a very strange one: You are apparently claiming that morality is both restricted to and determined by (synonymous with?) the laws which are positively ennacted by some kind of human legislator (or set of human legislators)? Or do you have some other point in mind in your question above? You certainly seem to be implying that IF X is immoral, THEN formal legal recourse should be available to punish doers of X.

This would be an extremely idiosyncratic view.

Looks like some more clarifications are due. I will try to be very clear about this. (Taking a deep breath now. )

Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society in a specific timeframe which describe the socially acceptable behavior.

Whew… breathing out now. This is how I understand and define morality. Some of the rules are codified into laws. Some are just implicitly understood. However! Some codified laws reflect morality, some do not. Some are neutral. Some may even go against the generally accepted rules. (Just one example here. In some US cities it is against the laws or local ordinancies to feed someone else’s parking meter. This behavior is beneficial to the individual, yet it is considered illegal, and as such punishable by fines. Generally speaking we find helping others a “morally upright”, yet in this case such behavior is punishable.) So, I do not think that “immoral” behavior should be codified into laws. Emphatically no.

That’s what I don’t understand though: where do we draw the line indicating that past this point they have attempted to put their ideas into individual and group actions? (Where and how; based on what principle?)

Extremely complicated question. I cannot answer on such a generic level. Maybe we could use a “successive approximation” principle by positing specific, actual instances and go from there. I am not trying to play “hard to catch” here.

 

[Betterave]

Looks like some more clarifications are due. I will try to be very clear about this. (Taking a deep breath now. )

Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society in a specific timeframe which describe the socially acceptable behavior.

Whew… breathing out now. This is how I understand and define morality. Some of the rules are codified into laws. Some are just implicitly understood. However! Some codified laws reflect morality, some do not. Some are neutral. Some may even go against the generally accepted rules. (Just one example here. In some US cities it is against the laws or local ordinancies to feed someone else’s parking meter. This behavior is beneficial to the individual, yet it is considered illegal, and as such punishable by fines. Generally speaking we find helping others a “morally upright”, yet in this case such behavior is punishable.) So, I do not think that “immoral” behavior should be codified into laws. Emphatically no.

Good, I recall this being your stated view earlier. Now can you explain to me what your point was supposed to be in the previous post, which seems to conflict with this?

Of course I hate them and what they stand for. But what is the solution? Exposing their views as sick and unacceptable - in the open markeplace of ideas. Expose them, ridicule them, criticize them. It is not a solution to make laws against “hate-speech”. That “cure” would be worse than the “disease”. What about “pornography”? It cannot be “defined”. One man’s digusting “porn” is another’s mildly interesting sexual material. Whose undefinable standard should prevail?

There are all sorts of ideas we find odious. Let’s just take some anti-abortion protesters, who stand on street corners, and expose pictures of aborted fetuses. I disagree with them, and yet I support their rights to do what they do. They must be allowed to think what they think, and within limits, they must be allowed to act as they act. The other “solution” would be to bring some laws to restrict the freedom of thought (how would they be enforced without telescreens?) or restrict the freedom of speech, which could be enforced, and the resulting society would be something that is much worse than the possible damage that those “undesired” thoughts could bring. There are many grey areas. Not everything is nice, black and white.

What was the purpose of all this talk of laws, when what we are discussing is morality?

You ask: “But what is the solution?” You propose: “Expose them, ridicule them, criticize them.” By why shouldn’t this include: “Call their position immoral”? In light of your definition of morality above, why isn’t that a reasonable way to criticize such people?? Don’t we all recognize this as “socially unacceptable” behavior?

 

[Spock]

I’m a bit nonplussed. I think you’re again offering a very idiosyncratic notion here. You don’t think that’s all that a thought is, do you?

Here’s an argument - tell me what you think:

1. A thought is necessarily intentional, it is a though of something.
2. Electro-chemical activity, as such, is never intentional (and this is true regardless of its location, whether in the brain or anywhere else).
3. Therefore a thought cannot be simply identical to electro-chemical activity as such (including that in the brain).

This is not going to be easy. (But then again, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it. ) We are getting into neuroscience here, and I am not an expert, not by a long shot.

1. No, I don’t think that a thought is always intentional. We have many instinctive, conditional responses. When a stimulus reaches our brain, we reflect on it, without a conscious, intentional thought. Example: we smell something repulsive and we draw back.
2. No, again. Example (and this is an observed and verifyable action): a chess player ponders a move. His eyes are observed and the movements of the eyes are recorded (using an infrared beam). It turns out that his eye movements follow a pattern as he contemplates possible moves and their ramifications. It is observed that his eye movements concentrate on specific areas of the board, sometimes contracting, sometimes expanding as he ponders a different move. All of a sudden, his eye movements speed up, and soon after that he experiences a “eureka” moment, when he finds the best possible move. All that happens in the sub-conscious part of the brain. Then, when he finds the best move, he acts on it.
3. What do you think a “thought” is, then? I need your (name removed by moderator)ut here to carry on.

Important side-note. I will not be in the vicinity of the computer for about 3-4 days. Taking a trip. So, please forgive me when I will not be in the postion to answer immediately.

 

[4Horsemen]

What about “pornography”? It cannot be “defined”. One man’s digusting “porn” is another’s mildly interesting sexual material. Whose undefinable standard should prevail?

Today’s society cannot be trusted to develop objective moral standards. Just look at some of the clothing for example. Society has developed a youth culture that extends well into young adulthood from teen years on. So we have an infantile culture that leads to neuroses of various sorts with people having no ideals in the moral sense. Some live only on greed, lust, selfishness. To develop standards, for example regarding what is pornography, we need mature adults discussing and debating the nature of pictures that arouse. When it is realized that pornography is deleterious to our human nature, then it will be added to the dustheap of other immoral things.

There are all sorts of ideas we find odious. Let’s just take some anti-abortion protesters, who stand on street corners, and expose pictures of aborted fetuses. I disagree with them, and yet I support their rights to do what they do. They must be allowed to think what they think, and within limits, they must be allowed to act as they act. The other “solution” would be to bring some laws to restrict the freedom of thought (how would they be enforced without telescreens?) or restrict the freedom of speech, which could be enforced, and the resulting society would be something that is much worse than the possible damage that those “undesired” thoughts could bring. There are many grey areas. Not everything is nice, black and white.

Right! Let’s not shoot the messenger. The protestors are just showing what an abortion is. Usually, the first posters warn of the upcoming pictures so that parents with young children can take a different route. Since our censoring media blocks out abortion information, somebody has to tell the truth. I’m glad you’re open to freedom of speech in this regard. What should be restricted and invariably outlawed is the killing of unborn babies. It’s murder.

 

[4Horsemen]

So, I do not think that “immoral” behavior should be codified into laws. Emphatically no.

You don’t think we should codify murder, theft, battery, rape, driving under the influence or drugs and killing a pedestrian or other driver . . . and what else?

 

[dskysmine]

It’s funny that I was probably the only Catholic proposing to Spock to accept a morality without even the mention of “God” and he simply ignored me…
It really shows a cherry picking of the highest degree

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

It’s funny that I was probably the only Catholic proposing to Spock to accept a morality without even the mention of “God” and he simply ignored me…
It really shows a cherry picking of the highest degree

Is that so? Hmm, OK I’ll defer first to dskysmine, Spock. Unfortunately, as far as morality is concerned it is hard for me to separate God. Please try to answer him/her first. Although I will post an answer to your post too.

This would be interesting.

God bless.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I hope you won’t mind me flatly contradicting you, but that is simply false.

Naah, no prob.

So can you please tell me why what I said is false?

God bless!

 

[inocente]

No, the intersection is *not *" just an artifact produced by our criterion" (whatever that means); it’s a visual presentation of the convergence of various strands of reasoning towards a set of common conclusions.

We omitted any circle that didn’t intersect (“we exclude any system that says murder is generally good on the basis it is downright unreasonable”), so the systems that are left must perforce intersect - they only converge because that was the condition for adding them to the diagram.

You stand at the door of a room and only allow women in, then look into the room and exclaim how miraculous it is there’s no men in there? Work with me here.

How is it “based on us subjectively wanting certain general conclusions”??

By looking in our women-only room we can’t conclude there are no men in the world. By deciding to only include systems which say murder in general is wrong we also skew the sample.

How does it do that?? How is “thinking there’s an objective morality” contingent upon “ignoring all the specific cases where differing systems don’t intersect”? You don’t explain this. And it appears not to make sense.

The reasoning in each system is contingent on the system’s assumptions, which were not arrived at objectively. Each circle represents the decisions in a system. The non-intersecting part of each circle represents decisions which differ from other systems. The fact that some decisions converge cannot be taken alone, we need to remember that both the reasoning and other decisions differ, and this together with our criterion that excluded non-converging systems brings into question whether any of it is objective. Doesn’t prove there’s no objectivity, but it says that logically it’s probably coincidental.

 

[hazcompat]

Forgive the post…i am bookmarking the discussion. I have nothing to add to what 4 is saying. Spock is the echo in that cave deafening? come into the ABSOLUTE PERFECT LIGHT THAT HAS NO SHADOW OF BENDING! bless all of you

peace

 

[4Horsemen]

Forgive the post…i am bookmarking the discussion. I have nothing to add to what 4 is saying. Spock is the echo in that cave deafening? come into the ABSOLUTE PERFECT LIGHT THAT HAS NO SHADOW OF BENDING! bless all of you

peace

Sounds like you’re referring to Plato’s allegory of the cave. The people in the cave (Spock) see the world only as an illusion and can’t identify reality since they only see shadows. Spock doesn’t think we should make laws regarding morality (“codify morality”), but isn’t that what laws do?

 

[Betterave]

You don’t think we should codify murder, theft, battery, rape, driving under the influence or drugs and killing a pedestrian or other driver . . . and what else?

Just quickly on this: no, Spock clearly did not say or imply this. He said that morality includes written (i.e., codified) rules, presumably such as the ones you mention.

 

[4Horsemen]

Just quickly on this: no, Spock clearly did not say or imply this. He said that morality includes written (i.e., codified) rules, presumably such as the ones you mention.

True. I re-read post 166, and he explains himself better. Yet his language is contradictory, IMO, when he says, “So I do not think that “immoral” behavior should be codified into laws. Emphatically no.” And to top it, he puts quotes around the word immoral as if to qualify it. Am I missing something?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Yes, it was vague. Maybe we can “flesh” it out a little. I suggest the two old, almost universal principles as starting points, the direct and the inverse “golden rules”, of which I find the inverse rule superior. These are (first the inverse rule):

“Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you”.
“Do unto others what you would want them do unto you”.

This is what I mean by respect. I start with respecting others, and as long as they reciprocate it, we are fine. If they do not respect me, then I will stop respecting them.

OK.

I am aware of the “turn the other cheek” principle. Being a mathematician, I know that this is a bad strategy. It can be proven - mathematically - that the “turn the other cheek” principle is sub-optimal in conflict resolution. Funny thing, if Jesus would have been “God”, he would have known that there are better strategies than that. Much better. But he did not know this. Ergo, he was not God.

There is a problem to your mathematical analysis. Look at the success of the religion that preaches to “turn the other cheek,” that preaches to “rejoice in your afflictions.” This religion is the most prevalent in the world. This religion gave us much…very much. The remarkable success of the Saints also contradicts your analysis.

Maybe you are right: statistically, the “turn the other cheek” strategy maybe is not the best one. But in the real world, it is. Ergo, the One who promoted it is above statistics: He is God.

Alas, “sacred” is still has religious overtones.

Would you do the honors and define what “dignity” is in this respect?

Now that is surprising. You have to ask me what the dignity of man is in your own morality? You do not believe that humans have an innate value in them?

In the prevailing laws of the society considered. In the medieval Japan, the samurais were allowed to kill any lower class people without impunity.

I think you mean “with impunity.” And the example you gave just shows us how little you think of the value of a human being.

But anyways, you got it backwards. Morality should be the basis of the law of the land, not the other way around. It is like basing the Declaration of Independence on the laws of the United States, instead of the other way around as it is today.

I was sure you would. But I presented it as my view. If we cannot agree then we fail to establish a common ground. Would not be the first time. The real trouble is that if you remove these qualifiers, the definition will be: “The intentional taking of someone else’s life” - and as such self-defense will also be a “murder”, state-sanctioned executions will be murders, too. By the way, I don’t think you reflected on the “scope” of self-defense. Does it stop literally at defending oneself? Or does it extend to defending someone else? These are not trivial questions.

The problem with your qualifiers is that they trivialize killing. “Without their consent…” legitimizes suicide and euthanasia. If I give consent in having myself killed, then it is OK to either kill myself or have someone else kill me. “Without acceptable justification…” who decides that the justification is acceptable?

What you should consider is the use of the word intention. One may have the grave moral obligation to protect himself or other people from harm, and unfortunately that means he sometimes have to use lethal force.

You have the grave moral obligation to defend yourself from harm; therefore when someone wants to murder you, your primary intention is to render that person unable to harm you. Unfortunately that may sometimes mean you would have to kill him.

A soldier has the grave moral obligation to protect his comrades and the state from the enemy, therefore when he sees the enemy he his primary intention is to render that enemy unable to cause harm. Unfortunately most of the time that means he has to kill the enemy.

The state has the grave moral responsibility to “curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society (CCC 2266);” therefore, the state has as its primary intention the punishment of criminals to deter crime. Unfortunately the state may have to execute the criminal.

From these examples, it should be clear that the definition of murder as “The intentional taking of someone else’s life” is already sufficient.

God bless.