Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[James_Tyler]

It is always the same.

‘Throw yourself overboard’
‘Shoot the sharks’
‘Fix the lifeboat’
‘Ask for volunteers’

Ye gods, what a tangled attempt to avoid answering the question. It seems that Christians hate hypotheticals because it leads to them having to make personal decisions regarding life and death. Whereas the church absolves them of making that call. Otherwise, why not give the answer that is blazingly obvious to any literate and reasonable person who reads the question?

Again back to reasonable arguments.

Is it in any way conceivable that a reasonable argument would lead to anything other than throwing the wife beating, paedophile mass murderer overboard to save a boat load of children?

Is there a reasonable argument anywhere by anyone that says it is better that everyone drown? Can it really be expressed by any sane person?

Forget where the decision might lead. This is a one off. All situations are one off. Every call you make is a one off. Throwing the convicted murderer overboard leads to…nothing whatsoever excet saving a boat load of children.

Shame on anyone who cries: ‘It isn’t my call’. Shame on anyone who attempts to avoid the unavoidable. Shame on anyone who looks to someone else to make the tough calls. Life is about making tough calls. We all have them. If your religion helps you make them and gives you some guidlines for making them, then that is all to the good.

But YOU are the one who has to make them in the end. After taking all the advice, after gathering all the information, it comes down to one person to make the call. One person has to make a reasonable argument either for or against the matter in hand. And that person is you.

Fail in that, fail in the requirement to make your own decisions, and you absolve yourself of responsibility. I wonder where that might lead…

Bradski, along with a few of the philosophers, I would consider myself unfortunate to be stranded in a dangerous habitat with a guy like you, because not only would i have to worry about surviving the environment, I would have to keep an eye over my shoulder to make sure you hadn’t come up with a good reason to kill me just yet.

Here is maybe the big difference between theological and non-theological moral foundations. Bradski’s puzzle in concerned with saving the flesh. “Saving’s one’s own skin.” Or maybe saving the skin of the kids is you are a real good atheist. Theologically founded morality such as ours would be more concerned with saving our souls. Hence we all sink together and we would murder no one, and our spirits would soar to the high heavens. However, if Bradski decides, in his wisdom, that I must die and attacks me then I do have the right to self defense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And we had shooting sharks. Where did sharks come into it? And who had a gun? I even had to throw myself overboard and I’m not on the boat. Maybe the sat nav and the priest will save the day.

But as I said, it’s anything and everything except answer the question. Want to save a boat load of children? Well throw the big guy overboard. That’s it. There is no other reasonable answer.

Yes, we are playing God. That’s the bloody point of the hypothetical. To show that we have to. Thumbing through the catechism won’t save the kids. Praying won’t save them. Not making a decision will definately kill them.

Define “save.”

The ultimate moral answer to the dilemma can only be provided with reference to the Summum Bonum. If you, arbitrarily I might add, make physical existence – survival as a biological group or specimen – the ultimate good then, of course “saving” implicitly means extending the physiological life of the those most morally deserving. That might seem obvious to those who think physical existence is ALL there is, but that assumes a great deal, doesn’t it?

Human thinkers all through the ages have debated this very question, but you seem adamant to make it an a priori assumption as if mere survival to live another day, regardless of what that entails, is the only valid consideration.

There IS only one answer that all reasonable people would come to.

Again, “reasonable,” in the practical sense assumed in the dilemma, can only mean with reference to the end or good in view. What is the purpose or end that warrants or makes any proposal “reasonable?” Practical reason assumes the “reason for” is understood or certain.

If human beings are eternal and this life is only a precursor of a life to come then actions which might seem “reasonable” relative to “this life only” considerations may become far less “reasonable” if humans are indeed destined to far greater or eternal ends.

It is, again, your atheism that puts a monochromatic filter on the entire question making the answer seem obvious to you, but not so to others.

Perhaps, your cojones are getting in the way of seeing the entire picture?

In passing, I mentioned this problem to my wife. That Is, that people on the forum seem to dislike them. Seem not to understand that they can’t change the rules to suit want they want the answer to be.

Except that the dilemma itself is also rigged by setting the rules to suit what the designer of the hypothetical “wants the answer to be” – i.e., forcing the view to be one from inside the box of the situation by setting the outside parameters. Any wonder thinking people seem to dislike them?

She said she didn’t like them as well. So I said: ‘If I asked you a hypothetical question, would you answer it?’

She said no. Which had me giggling all day.

Smart woman.

 

[o_mlly]

Captain of the cruise ship: “Now hear this! We are taking on water. In order to keep from sinking we ask that parents please throw their kids overboard immediately!”

Catholic philosopher: “Well does that meet the double effect criteria?”

Change the ship to a mother’s body and the sinking life boat to an ectopic pregnancy gone awry…

When an ectopic pregnancy does not resolve itself: “In this situation, the intention of the surgeon is directed towards the good effect (removing the damaged tissue to save the mother’s life) while only tolerating the bad effect (death of the ectopic child)” (Father Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D).
catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/when-pregnancy-goes-awry-ectopic-pregnancies.html

 

[Bradski]

Ah yes. There seems to be a difference between how I use the term ‘saved’ and how it is used by a Christian. There’s me thinking it was ‘prevent from drowning’ in this case. Except in hypothetical dilemas it means something to do with the soul.

How convenient. Best that everyone should die rather than cross God. Saves making a choice. Leave the hard calls to someone else.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah yes. There seems to be a difference between how I use the term ‘saved’ and how it is used by a Christian. There’s me thinking it was ‘prevent from drowning’ in this case. Except in hypothetical dilemas it means something to do with the soul.

How convenient. Best that everyone should die rather than cross God. Saves making a choice. Leave the hard calls to someone else.

Best that everyone should die?

You do realize, friend, that everyone WILL die, yes?

 

[Solmyr]

Best that everyone should die?

You do realize, friend, that everyone WILL die, yes?

You are very UN-Catholic when you say this. According to Christians no one dies… just passes into the next phase of life.

It is rather amusing to see how Christians try to wiggle out of difficult problems, like the life-boat problems or the trolley scenarios. Sometimes the cards which are dealt do not allow you to choose a solution, which is “good” for everyone. You must choose between “morally” unpalatable solutions. And that is when the Christians start to try to evade at all costs… redefining the scenario, choosing unallowed options.

To get to the bare-bones problem: you have two choices, 1) to actively cause the death of one person, or 2) to actively cause the death of two persons - which one do you choose? There is no other option. No action is the same as option 2). Make your choice.

 

[PRmerger]

You are very UN-Catholic when you say this. According to Christians no one dies… just passes into the next phase of life.

No one dies?

This is one of the most uninformed things I’ve read here on the CAFs.

(And that’s saying something. )

Death is the separation of the soul from the body.

“In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God”–(look it up Sol. It’s in the Catechism but I’d like for you to try to find it yourself. You need to read up a bit before I’ll respond to any more of this stuff).

Everybody dies, Sol. (Few exceptions, of course).

That’s good old Catholic teaching.

 

[Solmyr]

No one dies?

Death has been “conquered” according to Corinthians 15:55. Of course, you - following the good old tradition - redefine death, when convenient. “On that day you shall surely die” says Genesis 2:17. But they did not. So the fresh, new, improved definition of death is “spiritual death”… whatever it means. It would be very nice to establish a mutually accepted vocabulary of commonly used words and phrases, like “death”, “love”, “free will” and others. Without it you will keep on changing the definitions. A pair of eels in a bucket of slime are clumsy compared to the “apologists”.

I would suggest you try to actually answer the dilemma I posited for your convenience. Not that I expect it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ah yes. There seems to be a difference between how I use the term ‘saved’ and how it is used by a Christian. There’s me thinking it was ‘prevent from drowning’ in this case. Except in hypothetical dilemas it means something to do with the soul.

How convenient. Best that everyone should die rather than cross God. Saves making a choice. Leave the hard calls to someone else.

Except it isn’t just Christians who think it is better to die than do evil. Socrates thought the same thing. I would submit that any ethicist worth his salt would agree – well, perhaps, except modernist ethicists like Peter Singer.

In fact, it might be a good guiding principle for your lifeboat example, at least if there are determinably moral characters involved. Once a decision has been made, any truly moral agent would claim it is better to die than to renege on what conscience tells us is the right thing to do – at the very least where lives are at stake.

 

[PRmerger]

Death has been “conquered” according to Corinthians 15:55.

Amen!

Very Catholic, this.

But your assertion that Christianity asserts that “no one dies” is cringe-worthy.

Look up “death” in our Catechism and read up on it, and then we can chat.

According to Christians no one dies… just passes into the next phase of life.

Oh, geez.

 

[PRmerger]

According to Christians no one dies… just passes into the next phase of life.

This ^^.

I. Just. Can’t.

So, until there is some demonstration of some ability to correctly express Christian doctrines in general, and Catholicism in specific, I will have to ignore all further posts.

But I will check in every once in a while to see if some progress is being made.

Helpful link:
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=death&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[Solmyr]

Oh, geez.

Oh, geez, indeed. Redefining words is a “time-honored”, but still a very bad tradition among apologists. It would be most appreciated and refreshing to conduct a conversation with an apologist who does change his definitions as the wind blows. I am afraid I will have to wait for a such an apologist for quite a long time.

As a matter of fact you keep on avoiding the dilemma I posited for your convenience. Typical. What solution would YOU choose if both possible choices are morally unacceptable (according to YOUR perception of morality)?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Death has been “conquered” according to Corinthians 15:55. Of course, you - following the good old tradition - redefine death, when convenient. “On that day you shall surely die” says Genesis 2:17. But they did not. So the fresh, new, improved definition of death is “spiritual death”… whatever it means. It would be very nice to establish a mutually accepted vocabulary of commonly used words and phrases, like “death”, “love”, “free will” and others. Without it you will keep on changing the definitions. A pair of eels in a bucket of slime are clumsy compared to the “apologists”.

Granted, to “clumsy” thinkers, deft logic might APPEAR slippery. Merely, because a clumsy thinker cannot follow a line of reasoning does not mean the reasoning is slick or slimy.

Perhaps try reading more slowly.

Death has been conquered, but that does not mean individuals do not have to die. Jesus himself had to die to conquer death. The Resurrection followed Jesus’ death, it didn’t replace it.

Have you never read, “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it?” (Luke 9:24)

Even a magician’s sleight of hand has an underlying logic. You might accuse him of pulling one over on you or slimy deception, but that would only be because you can’t follow what he is doing. The shortcoming would be yours, not his.

Which brings to mind another passage…

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from those who think themselves wise and clever but have revealed them to babes.

I would suppose a magician always has the option of who he chooses to bewilder and to which babes he reveals his “hidden” or apparently “magical” tricks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To get to the bare-bones problem: you have two choices, 1) to actively cause the death of one person, or 2) to actively cause the death of two persons - which one do you choose? There is no other option. No action is the same as option 2). Make your choice.

First of all, you would need to demonstrate that this “hypothetical” IS or, at least, CAN BE a legitimate moral dilemma with real world application, otherwise it isn’t worth the time to consider it, since it adds absolutely nothing to anyone’s understanding of ethics.

A moral choice only makes sense within a real world moral context or it is entirely meaningless.

It is like posing this as a moral dilemma…

You have to choose between running down and killing 36 people on a highway or running down and killing 35 people on a highway. No other action is permitted.

The most appropriate response would be…

Huh?

Or…

Why do you want me to waste my time and brain cells on such a completely inconsequential question? In fact, a moral case might be made that it would be an immoral waste of time to spend more than three seconds considering the question.

Is there any plausible situation or set of circumstances where such a moral choice would be faced? If not, then it isn’t worth our time answering it.

 

[Solmyr]

A moral choice only makes sense within a real world moral context or it is entirely meaningless.

That is your personal opinion - in other word - hogwash! Ethicists like to posit off-the-wall moral dilemmas to gauge the respondent’s meta-ethical systems. Of course the posited dilemma is feasible. There are many scenarios, when on is stuck between a “rock and a hard place”. Your reluctance even to contemplate it is only indicative our your moral turpitude.

Why do you want me to waste my time and brain cells on such a completely inconsequential question?

I could not care less about you or your allocation of time. Your reluctance to even contemplate the question is sufficient enough to gauge the validity of your meta-ethical system.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I could not care less about you or your allocation of time. Your reluctance to even contemplate the question is sufficient enough to gauge the validity of your meta-ethical system.

I take it, then, that YOUR “meta-ethical system” finds that it is always better to run down and kill 35 people on a highway than to run down and kill 36 people on a highway, given that this “off-the-wall” meta-ethical dilemma can – purportedly – be used to gauge YOUR meta-ethical system OR (given YOUR refusal to answer it) must, then, be indicative of YOUR moral turpitude that YOU chose not to answer.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why do you want me to waste my time and brain cells on such a completely inconsequential question?

No one is requiring that you consider the moral dilemma posed. If you believe that the question is too difficult or inconsequential, then you always have the option of ignoring it or reading what solutions or suggestions other people offer.

 

[Solmyr]

I take it, then, that YOUR “meta-ethical system” finds that it is always better to run down and kill 35 people on a highway than to run down and kill 36 people on a highway, given that this “off-the-wall” meta-ethical dilemma can – purportedly – be used to gauge YOUR meta-ethical system OR (given YOUR refusal to answer it) must, then, be indicative of YOUR moral turpitude that YOU chose not to answer.

Since you never asked about my meta-ethical system, you are not in the position to declare either a positive or a negative assessment about it. I was NOT asked about my solution. I was NOT reluctant to answer - contrary to your incorrect assumption.

But I will answer your “non-question”. All things considered - when the only things you know about the possible victims is the their NUMBERS, then the fewer number of victims is preferable.

So, let’s see YOUR solution. Your only choice is to select either 35 or 36 victims, and you have no additional information about them… which one will you choose? And no more attempts to wiggle out.

 

[PRmerger]

No one is requiring that you consider the moral dilemma posed. If you believe that the question is too difficult or inconsequential, then you always have the option of ignoring it or reading what solutions or suggestions other people offer.

It’s not that it’s too difficult.

It’s an interesting question, in principle, and hypothetical moral dilemmas/lifeboat scenarios/“who do we kick off the island” situations are the fodder for wonderful, fascinating discourse.

It’s just that there’s this weird hyper-rigorous standard that is pre-fabricated by setting up the scenario to pre-determine the response.

We respond, “The answer is [A]”
You say, “But I forgot to say that ** so [A] isn’t really an option!”

We respond, “The answer is [X]”
“Oh, yeah. [X] can’t really happen because [Y]”.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/385ad898...e81/tumblr_inline_nsugottLJ41r79k32_500.gif**

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since you never asked about my meta-ethical system, you are not in the position to declare either a positive or a negative assessment about it. I was NOT asked about my solution. I was NOT reluctant to answer - contrary to your incorrect assumption.

But I will answer your “non-question”. All things considered - when the only things you know about the possible victims is the their NUMBERS, then the fewer number of victims is preferable.

So, let’s see YOUR solution. Your only choice is to select either 35 or 36 victims, and you have no additional information about them… which one will you choose? And no more attempts to wiggle out.

My solution is to correctly identify both of these so-called moral dilemmas as IMMORAL dilemmas. They both sound like ultimatums issued by a Gestapo lieutenant in a death camp: “You must choose to gas either these 36 people over here or those 35 over there.” Or one concocted by an ISIS thug to test his underlings: “You will either car-bomb these 36 infidels in Mosul or those 35 in Baghdad! Which one will you choose? And NO MORE attempts to wiggle out.”

I would suggest it would be a function of a good meta-ethical system to label both dilemmas as travesties of morality rather than to seriously propose or try to answer either one. A meta-ethical system that cannot distinguish, in the first instance, a moral dilemma from an immoral one cannot be much of a meta-ethical system.

A true moral dilemma is one where the “wiggling out” is, itself, fraught with moral implications.

Take the terrorist on a jetliner with 200 innocents on board about to fly into a building with thousands of people inside. The “cusp” of the dilemma means you have ONLY two choices by the very logic of the situation. It is impossible to “wiggle out” precisely because wiggling out is one of the two (and only two) options.

The person in position to shoot the plane down MUST choose between firing the missile (and saving those in the building but killing all those on board) and refraining from firing (AKA “wiggling out”) and letting everyone in both the plane and in the building die. Now that is a true dilemma.

Dilemmas assume there are two and only two possible choices by the very logic of the situation. It isn’t that there is no “wiggling out” permitted, it is that there is no “wiggling out” possible.

Your “choose between killing two or killing three” is NOT a dilemma because, logically speaking, there is no constraining reason why one or the other MUST be chosen. Declining the whole offer would be the determinably more moral option. There is no logical constraint on “Thanks, but no thanks,” built into your so-called “dilemma.”

Neither is there in the one I proposed with regard to running over people on the highway. Anyone who chooses one over the other is guilty of crime simply because there is no logical constraint which forces them to do one or the other. They choose one over the other and are therefore culpable because they can choose, not only between them, but to do one or the other in the first place.

Even the subjects of the Gestapo or ISIS ultimatum have a choice, they can refuse and die themselves.

There is no logical constraint in your “ultimatum,” either. You just made up the “You must choose” from thin air. Nothing in the situation logically constrains the choice.

You are, as the dilemma builder, no more showing an awareness of actual morality than a sadistic Gestapo lieutenant or a lunatic ISIS thug. Again, this tells us nothing about any meta-ethical system, it just means any depraved human being regardless of the level of their moral competency can concoct bizarre and outrageous challenging moral “situations,” even ISIS crazies and Gestapo officers. Neither tell us anything about morality, although they do show how deeply immoral humans can become and excuse their immorality behind curtains of duty or fanaticism.