Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Solmyr]

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.

If that would be the case, if there would be a “pre-determined” response, then everyone would reach the same solution.

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.

Nonsense. Reality does not care about our preferences. If at least one of the options would be “palatable”, there would be no problem. No matter how deeply you try to bury your head in the sand, these dilemmas exist - due to insufficient resources. And your reluctance to contemplate them - even as abstract problems - is a crystal clear sign that your “moral” system is deficient. You don’t dare to face reality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Quite. I’ve gotten some interesting responses from questions of “who do we let in/do we let them in.” For past events the answers seem fairly uniform (ex: Q:“Do we hide Jews in our attic?” A:“Of course, it’s the right thing!”). For modern less hypothetical scenarios (which for some are concrete current situations) the answers I get from people vary.

• Do we let the kids from the less affluent neighborhood with the failing educational system into our more successful school system
• Do we allow the public transportation system to expand into the neighborhoods of the other (out-group) people
• Do we let any of the people displaced by that conflict/disaster into our neighborhood

The general arguments in support of letting the others in are based on how it will help them. The general arguments against it are how those in the group with the ability to make the decision will be potentially harmed, inconvenienced, or be subjected to less favourable conditions if others are let in. These discussions sometimes end with a real decision being made on a ballot. One can vote in favour or against with no option for nuances. The only option for tergiversation is to not vote at all.

 

[inocente]

There is no other reasonable answer.

You must choose between “morally” unpalatable solutions.

You guys sound like moral absolutists - I must follow your orders or I’m not being reasonable. There are Christians who say much the same - I must do as they tell me or my conscience is not well-formed.

Baptists have a principle known as soul freedom, according to which the only moral absolute is to always follow your conscience. Doesn’t matter what anyone else tells you, never ever act against your conscience, for only God can judge you, and God does not accept any “I-was-only-following-orders” defense.

c.f. “everything that does not come from faith is sin” - Romans 14
c.f. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” - Jean-Paul Sartre
c.f. “Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide” - Jiminy Cricket

 

[inocente]

Quite. I’ve gotten some interesting responses from questions of “who do we let in/do we let them in.” For past events the answers seem fairly uniform (ex: Q:“Do we hide Jews in our attic?” A:“Of course, it’s the right thing!”). For modern less hypothetical scenarios (which for some are concrete current situations) the answers I get from people vary.

The trolley problem is interesting. Most people want to kill one to save five when given the “switch” version, but then kill five to save one when given the “fat man” version. We then back-peddle to try to reconcile our inconsistency. Doesn’t seem to make much difference what our beliefs are, seems to be a more basic property of how humans process moral decisions.

 

[James_Tyler]

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.

I don’t think saving the soul means saving it from God’s wrath. If you think it is OK to walk around the deck of a sinking boat and kill people to save your life then you have problems dude. You need to be saved.

 

[James_Tyler]

The trolley problem is interesting. Most people want to kill one to save five when given the “switch” version, but then kill five to save one when given the “fat man” version. We then back-peddle to try to reconcile our inconsistency. Doesn’t seem to make much difference what our beliefs are, seems to be a more basic property of how humans process moral decisions.

The trolley problem is just a choice between “evils”. I suppose it doesn’t really matter which you actually choose in a case where you are selecting from “evils” so long as God knows you’ve done your best to select the least evil thing. God sees you struggling to choose the best thing. People with a good conscience would just “select the lesser of two evils”. In a hypothetical, I would save the five people. But I will still suffer from the guilt and sorrow of the one that died. The act was still evil and so it is still just that I should know that my act had killed someone. If i did nothing, then I would feel exactly the same way about the five that died. Exactly the same way. Not five times worse. How I would feel about it is not the most important thing at all. But I would not blame the person who switched the track or the person who did nothing. If someone froze up and did nothing, so what? Who knows what to do in a situation like that if it were happening for real?

If the lifeboat example was as hypothetical as the trolley example then you can approach it the same way. I probably should not pick on Bradski. It’s just a puzzle. In the puzzle it is just another trolley problem. But in REAL LIFE you don’t start shooting people in emergency situations because you think it increases your odds of survival! I hope you all know that. Or should I ask in which order you will kill your loved ones in order to survive in the lifeboat example. And for those that mocked those that wanted to be self-sacrificial, you can’t kill yourself. It’s one of your kids or your wife. Choose. But it doesn’t matter what you choose. All the choices are evil. Nobody is going to go home with a clear conscience. I hope people are not using these types of example to assert you can choose evil in some scenarios and suffer no consequences. You might be able to rationalize the choice but you won’t escape the heartache.

 

[Bradski]

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.

You really don’t understand these, do you.

There are not an imfinite number of choices. Sometimes life is like that. Sometimes life gives you a limited choice. Even if it is do something you would rather not do OR do nothing.

Quite often people choose to do nothing because they don’t like taking responsibility for their actions. They might claim a moral position that forces them to do nothing. Fair enough. But we need to see where this moral position could take you.

In the scenario given, the moral position that every single Christian has taken is effectively: Do nothing. Forget the ‘other alternatives’. There aren’t any. That is the POINT of a hypothetical.

But we are flooded with all the get-out-of-jail cards you could imagine. But to repeat, there are no such cards. If you don’t want to play God, then simply say so and let the chips fall where they may. You may not like the result (all the children die) and you may try to lessen it to an extent (but we all die anyway). But that is the position you take.

There obviously can’t be any Christians in Government. Because they make decisions that are literally life and death calls for many. Do we go to war? Do we direct funds from defence to cancer research? Do we ban the sale of automatic weapons? Do we tackle gloabal warming? Do we decrease military aid to some countries and increase humanitarian aid to others? Do we ban smoking? Do we tax the hell out of sugar?

ALL these decisions are comlicated and need careful thought. Reasonable thought. They need a lot of information given to people who can interpret it properly. And ALL these decisions, one way or another, will mean, beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever, that some people will live and some people will die.

And all these questions are too complicated for life or detah hypotheticals. They are too complex to use as an illustration of why we need to ‘play God’. Why we need to use reasonable arguments and available information to make decisions that we would rather not have to.

Hence trolleys and lifeboats. Hence an attempt to put into the simplest of terms what is required.

And all we get are excuses, non-answers, complaints that it is all too hard, that these aren’t real questions anyway and hell, everyone dies eventually anyway, so what’s the big deal in doing nothing.

There’s no big deal at all. Nobody actually dies. There is no lifeboat full of children. These questions aren’t put to you to find out the best answer. They are put to discover more about those who answer. Or not, as the case may be.

Let’s hope there are no real Christians in government or the millitary or hospital ethical departments or charitable organisations. Because any time someone had to make a life and death decision, there would be a plaintive cry: ‘it’s not for us to decide, so we choose to do…nothing’.

 

[James_Tyler]

You really don’t understand these, do you.

There are not an imfinite number of choices. Sometimes life is like that. Sometimes life gives you a limited choice. Even if it is do something you would rather not do OR do nothing.

Quite often people choose to do nothing because they don’t like taking responsibility for their actions. They might claim a moral position that forces them to do nothing. Fair enough. But we need to see where this moral position could take you.

In the scenario given, the moral position that every single Christian has taken is effectively: Do nothing. Forget the ‘other alternatives’. There aren’t any. That is the POINT of a hypothetical.

But we are flooded with all the get-out-of-jail cards you could imagine. But to repeat, there are no such cards. If you don’t want to play God, then simply say so and let the chips fall where they may. You may not like the result (all the children die) and you may try to lessen it to an extent (but we all die anyway). But that is the position you take.

There obviously can’t be any Christians in Government. Because they make decisions that are literally life and death calls for many. Do we go to war? Do we direct funds from defence to cancer research? Do we ban the sale of automatic weapons? Do we tackle gloabal warming? Do we decrease military aid to some countries and increase humanitarian aid to others? Do we ban smoking? Do we tax the hell out of sugar?

ALL these decisions are comlicated and need careful thought. Reasonable thought. They need a lot of information given to people who can interpret it properly. And ALL these decisions, one way or another, will mean, beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever, that some people will live and some people will die.

And all these questions are too complicated for life or detah hypotheticals. They are too complex to use as an illustration of why we need to ‘play God’. Why we need to use reasonable arguments and available information to make decisions that we would rather not have to.

Hence trolleys and lifeboats. Hence an attempt to put into the simplest of terms what is required.

And all we get are excuses, non-answers, complaints that it is all too hard, that these aren’t real questions anyway and hell, everyone dies eventually anyway, so what’s the big deal in doing nothing.

There’s no big deal at all. Nobody actually dies. There is no lifeboat full of children. These questions aren’t put to you to find out the best answer. They are put to discover more about those who answer. Or not, as the case may be.

Let’s hope there are no real Christians in government or the millitary or hospital ethical departments or charitable organisations. Because any time someone had to make a life and death decision, there would be a plaintive cry: ‘it’s not for us to decide, so we choose to do…nothing’.

Bradski, the answer to all your hypothetical scenarios are the same. It does not matter how you phrase them.

If there is no “good” option then choose the “lesser of evils” which might include doing nothing. Just do your best. There is no “right” answer because there is not a “good” option.

 

[inocente]

The trolley problem is just a choice between “evils”. I suppose it doesn’t really matter which you actually choose in a case where you are selecting from “evils” so long as God knows you’ve done your best to select the least evil thing. God sees you struggling to choose the best thing. People with a good conscience would just “select the lesser of two evils”. In a hypothetical, I would save the five people. But I will still suffer from the guilt and sorrow of the one that died. The act was still evil and so it is still just that I should know that my act had killed someone. If i did nothing, then I would feel exactly the same way about the five that died. Exactly the same way. Not five times worse. How I would feel about it is not the most important thing at all. But I would not blame the person who switched the track or the person who did nothing. If someone froze up and did nothing, so what? Who knows what to do in a situation like that if it were happening for real?

If the lifeboat example was as hypothetical as the trolley example then you can approach it the same way. I probably should not pick on Bradski. It’s just a puzzle. In the puzzle it is just another trolley problem. But in REAL LIFE you don’t start shooting people in emergency situations because you think it increases your odds of survival! I hope you all know that. Or should I ask in which order you will kill your loved ones in order to survive in the lifeboat example. And for those that mocked those that wanted to be self-sacrificial, you can’t kill yourself. It’s one of your kids or your wife. Choose. But it doesn’t matter what you choose. All the choices are evil. Nobody is going to go home with a clear conscience. I hope people are not using these types of example to assert you can choose evil in some scenarios and suffer no consequences. You might be able to rationalize the choice but you won’t escape the heartache.

Agreed, particularly about not blaming those we disagree with, as by definition a dilemma forces us to choose between undesirable alternatives. As you say, we choose what we each believe is the lesser evil.

I think the main point of these moral dilemmas is to let us understand our own decisions, and so learn about ourselves. Michael Sandel uses the trolley car dilemma at the start of the following moral philosophy class, which has been viewed 6.5 million times.

Worth watching the first ten minutes to see all those Harvard students try to get to grips with their own decisions.

youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
justiceharvard.org/

 

[kdbueno]

Morality expounds the reality that the goal to believe is correct.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, the answer to all your hypothetical scenarios are the same. It does not matter how you phrase them.

If there is no “good” option then choose the “lesser of evils” which might include doing nothing. Just do your best. There is no “right” answer because there is not a “good” option.

I’m sorry, James. But I couldn’t disagre more. The right answer is the one that results in what reasonable people would describe as the best outcome.

Hence lifeboat scenarios as a means to illustrate that. The best possible result is that all the children survive. There is no argument there. None at all. It is inconceivable to suggest that having everyone die is the better option.

So it is an illustration that we must, sometimes, take the least worse option. That some people, as I memtioned earlier, must make decisions that will result in someone dying. But it is, apparently, not a theistic answer. Not one that you can reach through Chritianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Bradski, the answer to all your hypothetical scenarios are the same. It does not matter how you phrase them.

If there is no “good” option then choose the “lesser of evils” which might include doing nothing. Just do your best. There is no “right” answer because there is not a “good” option.

Egg-zactly.

The fact that we are even having a discussion limns this truth: there is indeed an objective morality.

Otherwise it’s an otiose discussion to attempt to discern what’s the best solution.

It would be like having a debate about whether mashed turnips are better than fried.

 

[PRmerger]

You guys sound like moral absolutists -

Oh, YES!

That’s exactly right.

 

[PRmerger]

You really don’t understand these, do you.

You are correct in that there is indeed this cognitive dissonance that rears its head every time I see you pose a moral dilemma…given the fact that you deny the existence of moral absolutes.

I really don’t understand that–you are correct.

It’s like you’re presenting a case for why turnips are better than strawberries.

It’s a totally inutile discussion.

Now, if you believe that there is an actual GOOD answer and a BAD answer to the moral dilemma, then you can’t be a moral relativist.

There is this head scratching I do when I read your responses because it really SOUNDS like you’re embracing the position that there are moral absolutes, while also denying that there are moral absolutes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The right answer is the one that results in what reasonable people would describe as the best outcome.

Ah, yes, but do “reasonable people” pick it BECAUSE it is the “right answer” or is it the “right answer” BECAUSE “reasonable people” pick it?

If the former, the question of how the “right answer” is determined is still wide open. If the latter, then the question to be answered is how are “reasonable” people determined to be “reasonable” in a non-question-begging manner.

Either way, you have succeeded in merely kicking the can a little further down the street without having solved the real problem.

 

[Solmyr]

The fact that we are even having a discussion limns this truth: there is indeed an objective morality.

And this remark is the sign that you don’t understand the difference between “absolute” and “objective” morality. You really should learn more.

I really don’t understand that–you are correct.

Obviously, since you don’t even understand what moral absolutism IS. I will help you. To declare that action “X” is immoral under any and all circumstances would be a “absolutist” statement. Example: “masturbation is evil under any and all circumstances”. Or “artificial birth control is wrong under any and all circumstances”. The phrase “under any and all circumstances” is the hallmark of a “morally absolutist statement”. Do you understand? Or “homicide is wrong under any and all circumstances”. Not even catholics would go THAT far.

The lifeboat or trolley dilemmas are all presented with specific circumstances. They all present the problem of having insufficient resources, so someone’s need will not be accommodated. Like he has two doses of antidote and three patients needing them. It is the doctor’s dilemma, which patients to save. Does he toss a coin?

Now, if you believe that there is an actual GOOD answer and a BAD answer to the moral dilemma, then you can’t be a moral relativist.

On the other hand, taking all the circumstances into consideration DOES make one a moral relativist. It would be nice if you understood that.

 

[PRmerger]

There are not an imfinite number of choices.

You are correct.

Sometimes life is like that. Sometimes life gives you a limited choice. Even if it is do something you would rather not do OR do nothing.

As you are here.

Quite often people choose to do nothing because they don’t like taking responsibility for their actions.

Is this…good, or bad?

If you claim it is bad, (which I think you would) then you have to have some objective source to which you are comparing this decision.

And therefore…QED.

#objectivemoralityexists

 

[PRmerger]

Baptists have a principle known as soul freedom, according to which the only moral absolute is to always follow your conscience.

This is very Catholic, with the exception of it being the “only” moral absolute.

Doesn’t matter what anyone else tells you, never ever act against your conscience,

Yes. But a white supremacist whose conscience tells him it’s ok to rape a black woman because she’s not really a human being would be, I’m sure, admonished for his belief in your church.

At least he should be.

for only God can judge you, and God does not accept any “I-was-only-following-orders” defense.

Very Catholic, this.

But no one is talking about judging a person. But rather judging whether actions are objectively good or objectively bad.

And it is incontrovertibly true: raping a woman (because she’s black) is a grossly vile and immoral action.

 

[PRmerger]

The right answer is the one that results in what reasonable people would describe as the best outcome.

“Best outcome”? What is “best”? What is your reference point for discerning what’s “best”?

It sounds, again, as if you believe there is some sort of canon by which we can gauge whether something is good or bad.

It presupposes that there is some sort of measuring stick by which you can place an action…kind of like a numberline. You place an action nearer the negative numbers, it’s bad. You place an action near the positive side, it’s good.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But you actually have to have a numberline that everyone has agreed is the measure, no?

And that’s Objective Morality.

Allow me to offer an example from one of our previous discussions:

Imagine if I told you: “You cannot post this GIF. It’s mine. I told you how to find them. I told you how to post them. I reserve this one for myself.”

And you replying, “Yes I can certainly post it. It’s not yours. There is no Property Rights For Gifs here on the CAFs!!”

And both of us could go round and round and neither of us could appeal to any Absolute Rule about posting gifs.

Why? Because there is no numberline for “Who Gets To Post GIFS That Have Been Shared Between Posters”. There is no Objective Moral Code for who gets to post GIFS that have been shared.

It’s just a matter of opinion/preference.

PR: I would prefer it if you didn’t post that GIF because I showed it to you first.
Bradski: I prefer to use it because I like it and you have no authority to tell me that I can’t.

 

[James_Tyler]

I’m sorry, James. But I couldn’t disagre more. The right answer is the one that results in what reasonable people would describe as the best outcome.

Hence lifeboat scenarios as a means to illustrate that. The best possible result is that all the children survive. There is no argument there. None at all. It is inconceivable to suggest that having everyone die is the better option.

So it is an illustration that we must, sometimes, take the least worse option. That some people, as I memtioned earlier, must make decisions that will result in someone dying. But it is, apparently, not a theistic answer. Not one that you can reach through Chritianity.

Bradski, it comes down to how we determine the right answer. You must have some idea of what it means to be a “reasonable person”, but I don’t know what you mean by it. Almost everybody i have ever met or heard about in this lifetime has thought of themselves as generally “reasonable”. And you know what? They are. They reasoned out their positions, sometimes very carefully. But we all arrive at different kinds of conclusions all the time. For me the only truly “good” or truly “right” option results in everyone being saved. Every other option, that results in someone’s death at my doing, has an evil result. Therefore, I consider those options to be “evils”. It is wrong to do something that results in someone’s death, Truly, those same actions can also have good results, such as the salvation of the children, but the results are mixed. If the result has both good and evil then how can I call it truly “good”. Good is just purely good. At best I can only call it a type of evil. Not truly “pure evil”. Just a type of lesser evil.

One more thing. No one has the right to throw anyone else overboard, Bradski. We just plain don’t have the right to kill people even in serious situations even for kids. We don’t do that. If someone wants to sacrifice themselves that is up to them. But if no one is willing we can’t just go around offing whoever we want to. That should be clear. If you disagree with that then you sit upon a type of throne that I do not.