Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[o_mlly]

That seems like a stretch. You are in the middle of an ocean with no lifejackets. The person thrown overboard will surely drown. The circumstances indicate that throwing someone overboard is equivalent to murdering her.

Throwing a person overboard who cannot swim in the middle of the ocean could only equate to attempted murder if done with malice. Malice is not a circumstance but an attitude which makes the actor’s intent malevolent.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps your last post will help you catch on to what has been your error all along because, you see, YOU kept insisting I was a consequentialist even though I never argued that ONLY consequences matter.

Perhaps you have a short memory, as only yesterday YOU argued that ONLY consequences matter :-

What sense is there in saying rape is wrong, but it’s not wrong because of the harm it causes to a woman or child (i.e., the harmful consequences) but for some other reason that has nothing to do with consequences? That doesn’t make sense.

Suppose a date-rape drug was used, so the woman doesn’t know she’s been raped. According to your argument, no harm done to her, therefore it wouldn’t be wrong. That doesn’t make sense.

You ask what sense is there in saying rape is wrong for some other reason that has nothing to do with consequences? Here’s one reason. The woman is a child of God. It’s wrong to use a child of God as an object. Therefore it’s wrong to act without her consent. Therefore rape is categorically wrong whether or not it causes harm to the victim.

Hopefully that will help you catch on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Perhaps you have a short memory, as only yesterday YOU argued that ONLY consequences matter :-

Perhaps you need to reread that post because that isn’t what I was arguing. In fact it couldn’t have been because I don’t think it is true.

I do, however, think that teleological ends built into the very nature of why things are the way they are, is crucial to morality. The distinction may be a difficult one to grasp, but keep working on it.

It would be good if you could quote the precise part from which you lifted the impression that I argued ONLY consequences matter and then make sure that what I wasn’t doing was attempting to explicate what consequentialists might insist or what you were claiming consequentialists hold as distinct from my point of view of what morality is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Suppose a date-rape drug was used, so the woman doesn’t know she’s been raped. According to your argument, no harm done to her, therefore it wouldn’t be wrong. That doesn’t make sense.

You ask what sense is there in saying rape is wrong for some other reason that has nothing to do with consequences? Here’s one reason. The woman is a child of God. It’s wrong to use a child of God as an object. Therefore it’s wrong to act without her consent. Therefore rape is categorically wrong whether or not it causes harm to the victim.

Hopefully that will help you catch on.

So using “a child of God as an object” has NO bad consequences? Isn’t the fact that viewing a child of God in that way leads to a host of bad consequences at least one reason why we should not do so?

In addition, the harm follows from the error of distorting the truth.

I mean, if it makes NO difference to the woman or to anyone really whether she/they are seen as objects or not, then explain why it would be wrong to do so?

What if seeing them as mere objects actually improved their situation would you continue to claim it was wrong to do so?

Just asking the question of why it is wrong to treat children of God as objects assumes there are bad outcomes in doing so, not the least of which is the agent him/herself, thereby, has an errant view of reality and the moral landscape. That in itself is a bad consequence.– i.e., they are living a delusion which harms themselves and their potential for being a good moral agent.

I would say you biggest problem with consequentialism is that you don’t seem to understand how far-reaching consequences of actions can be in terms of causing systemic harm to the moral outlook of the agent themselves.

Regardless, despite your shallow depiction of consequentialism, I would agree it isn’t a complete moral perspective.

 

[Bradski]

Killing a human being that is not murder lacks malice in all of its definitions, i.e. self-defense, accidental, and protection of the innocent. Malice is not a circumstance but an attitude of the actor.

So despite all the walzing around the question, actually killing the guy in the lifeboat in acceptable. It is done without malice. Indeed, probably with reluctance and regret, but it gets the thumbs up from you because it is done to protect the innocent.

 

[inocente]

It would be good if you could quote the precise part from which you lifted the impression that I argued ONLY consequences matter and then make sure that what I wasn’t doing was attempting to explicate what consequentialists might insist or what you were claiming consequentialists hold as distinct from my point of view of what morality is.

Come on, nowhere did you say you were acting a part or playing devil’s advocate. I already made the relevant quotes.

So using “a child of God as an object” has NO bad consequences? Isn’t the fact that viewing a child of God in that way leads to a host of bad consequences at least one reason why we should not do so?

In addition, the harm follows from the error of distorting the truth.

I mean, if it makes NO difference to the woman or to anyone really whether she/they are seen as objects or not, then explain why it would be wrong to do so?

What if seeing them as mere objects actually improved their situation would you continue to claim it was wrong to do so?

Just asking the question of why it is wrong to treat children of God as objects assumes there are bad outcomes in doing so, not the least of which is the agent him/herself, thereby, has an errant view of reality and the moral landscape. That in itself is a bad consequence.– i.e., they are living a delusion which harms themselves and their potential for being a good moral agent.

I would say you biggest problem with consequentialism is that you don’t seem to understand how far-reaching consequences of actions can be in terms of causing systemic harm to the moral outlook of the agent themselves.

Regardless, despite your shallow depiction of consequentialism, I would agree it isn’t a complete moral perspective.

And there you go defending consequentialism again! It’s not what you think it is.

Obviously the consequence of our actions is a crucial aspect of morality. But that isn’t at all what consequentialism claims,

Consequentialism is the claim that only consequences matter. The claim is that acts of rape and torture are morally good if the consequences are better than not raping and torturing, because nothing matters except outcomes.

How about you agreeing not just that “it isn’t a complete moral perspective” but that consequentialism isn’t Christian?

Now, you ask me, “if it makes NO difference to the woman or to anyone really whether she/they are seen as objects or not, then explain why it would be wrong to do so?” btw I didn’t say “seen” I said “using”.

You really want to argue why objectification is wrong? “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking” (1 Cor 13). Objectification dishonors a child of God by reducing her to an object, a thing to be consumed and thrown aside. Therefore it also dishonors God. For these reasons alone is is immoral.

And yes it leads to bad consequences, but objectification would still be immoral whatever the consequences.

For a Christian (and Kant) at least, consequences matter, but they are not the only things that matter. Will you agree that consequentialism is wrong? Then we can move on.

 

[inocente]

Throwing a person overboard who cannot swim in the middle of the ocean could only equate to attempted murder if done with malice. Malice is not a circumstance but an attitude which makes the actor’s intent malevolent.

Hang on hang on. Suppose the person is nine-months pregnant with a heart condition, or is a ninety-year-old nun in full habit and veil.

Technically, throwing her overboard might not be murder unless it could be proved there was malice, but are you saying that it wouldn’t be immoral unless there was malice?

 

[Aloysium]

Murder as opposed to homicide requires “mens rea”, a term that’s been around since 1600 in British law. The person has to have malicious intent. Some people by virtue of a mental illness are unable to form a mens rea. The person to commit murder has to carry out the “actus rea” knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. I’m not a lawyer; someone else is likely better able to explain this.

 

[Aloysium]

Further to the above, doctors in a growing number of jurisdictions are doing the equivalent of throwing the person off the boat by participating in assisted suicide. Death is seen as a treatment for intractable suffering. Society may decide there is no mens rea in such cases. The person is saying they can’t tolerate being on the boat and wants someone to throw them off. There is a designated person who has no problem doing so. And, others on the boat are likely not unhappy to have more resources available to them as a consequence. Win-win, right? Probably not.

 

[o_mlly]

So despite all the walzing around the question, actually killing the guy in the lifeboat in acceptable. It is done without malice. Indeed, probably with reluctance and regret, but it gets the thumbs up from you because it is done to protect the innocent.

Would that be waltzing? With Matilda? Actually, no. I gave this answer early in the thread before the trolley went off the rails. The difference in my response to your paraphrase above is the lack of the word “innocence.” The justification for throwing one overboard – the bad effect – is that since all have an equal right to life then the good effect – saving five lives – justifies the action under the double effect principles.

 

[inocente]

Murder as opposed to homicide requires “mens rea”, a term that’s been around since 1600 in British law. The person has to have malicious intent. Some people by virtue of a mental illness are unable to form a mens rea. The person to commit murder has to carry out the “actus rea” knowingly, intentionally or recklessly. I’m not a lawyer; someone else is likely better able to explain this.

That’s the kind of thing I was thinking about. But no malice does not equal no crime. Manslaughter, death by drunken or dangerous driving, or by gross negligence, are all crimes, and all immoral. Lack of malice doesn’t make an act good.

Further to the above, doctors in a growing number of jurisdictions are doing the equivalent of throwing the person off the boat by participating in assisted suicide. Death is seen as a treatment for intractable suffering. Society may decide there is no mens rea in such cases. The person is saying they can’t tolerate being on the boat and wants someone to throw them off. There is a designated person who has no problem doing so. And, others on the boat are likely not unhappy to have more resources available to them as a consequence. Win-win, right? Probably not.

Under consequentialism, yes, win-win, as all the actors are agreed that the best possible consequence is to end the life, done and dusted. But most people believe there are self-evident a priori rules such as “do no harm” or “everyone is sacred”, which at a minimum question such ethics, and overturn them.

 

[o_mlly]

Hang on hang on. Suppose the person is nine-months pregnant with a heart condition, or is a ninety-year-old nun in full habit and veil.

Technically, throwing her overboard might not be murder unless it could be proved there was malice, but are you saying that it wouldn’t be immoral unless there was malice?

Not technically but morally. We don’t prove anything to an all-knowing God. He knows whether we have malice in our heart. All have an equal right to life so the pregnant person would of course count as 2 lives in the calculus and be spared. But, sorry Sister, you’re on the list to be tossed.

 

[o_mlly]

Further to the above, doctors in a growing number of jurisdictions are doing the equivalent of throwing the person off the boat by participating in assisted suicide. Death is seen as a treatment for intractable suffering. Society may decide there is no mens rea in such cases. The person is saying they can’t tolerate being on the boat and wants someone to throw them off. There is a designated person who has no problem doing so. And, others on the boat are likely not unhappy to have more resources available to them as a consequence. Win-win, right? Probably not.

Euthanasia, an intrinsic evil, is never justified regardless of intent, malicious or not.

 

[Bradski]

Euthanasia, an intrinsic evil, is never justified regardless of intent, malicious or not.

So you can kill a person to save others from an awful death, but you can’t allow that person to take his own life to save himself from an awful death. How odd.

Not technically but morally. We don’t prove anything to an all-knowing God. He knows whether we have malice in our heart. All have an equal right to life so the pregnant person would of course count as 2 lives in the calculus and be spared. But, sorry Sister, you’re on the list to be tossed.

Obviously there is no malice. Nobody ever suggested there was. But we now have an answer to a problem that you have solved using a theistic morality and it is diametrically opposed to what other Catholics would do in the same situation. Also using a theistic morality. Or should I say: Using their version of what they understand theistic morality to be.

At this point, the obvious question arises. What is the point of insisting that this so called theistic morality must be used if it gives us completely different answers depending on who we ask? There obviously isn’t just the one. Or if there is one, everyone interprets it as they see fit. It’s just a personal preference.

Now someone tell me the point of having a moral code, a system of morality, a canon by which we can judge all other moralities, this ‘theistic morality’ if people who say they are using it can’t agree on basic principles.

 

[inocente]

Not technically but morally. We don’t prove anything to an all-knowing God. He knows whether we have malice in our heart. All have an equal right to life so the pregnant person would of course count as 2 lives in the calculus and be spared. But, sorry Sister, you’re on the list to be tossed.

Calculus? As in the Hedonistic Calculus? As in Bentham’s utilitarianism?

Are you really saying you think so long as you don’t dislike her and do it with a cheery grin, God will judge you a good and virtuous person for throwing a ninety-year-old woman overboard to drown?

At this point, the obvious question arises. What is the point of insisting that this so called theistic morality must be used if it gives us completely different answers depending on who we ask? There obviously isn’t just the one. Or if there is one, everyone interprets it as they see fit. It’s just a personal preference.

The notion that only God provides a foundation for morality is basically (I think) that only God is perfect. Seems to be an argument popularized by a certain William Lane Craig, who I think is not a Catholic.

But some appear to suggest that God is concerned only in maximizing utility. Any act is permitted, and good, so long as the goal is to maximize (number of people) * (their future lifespans).

But that downgrades God from perfect being to accountant, and we can do the calculus by ourselves. Just give each possible consequence a score and whichever wins is deemed moral. In which case you’re right, the scoring factors are just a personal preference, God is redundant.

(Disclaimer: no accountants were harmed in writing this post.)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Euthanasia, an intrinsic evil, is never justified regardless of intent, malicious or not.

I’ve questioned statements that it is always wrong to end ones life under any circumstances. I think about a scenario where a catastrophic failure leaves an astronaut stranded on a trajectory that won’t return to earth. When I asked about that scenario here I was told that it would still be wrong for the person to kill themselves quickly and quietly with a suicide pill and that it would be better to go through experiencing asphyxiation or starvation until death.

 

[Aloysium]

I’ve questioned statements that it is always wrong to end ones life under any circumstances. I think about a scenario where a catastrophic failure leaves an astronaut stranded on a trajectory that won’t return to earth. When I asked about that scenario here I was told that it would still be wrong for the person to kill themselves quickly and quietly with a suicide pill and that it would be better to go through experiencing asphyxiation or starvation until death.

I’m not sure this is a good example. Once the oxygen runs out, they will die very quickly. I’m pretty sure the easiest way to die is to vent the air from the suit/ship. There’s no suicide pill that’s better than that. And, you’ll be dead after anyway; what difference does it make? But, isn’t it preferrable to live life to the fullest. Actually, pretty interesting things happen when the body is stressed. That’s one of the reasons why mystics fast. What has one to lose living those extra minutes longer?

 

[o_mlly]

So you can kill a person to save others from an awful death, but you can’t allow that person to take his own life to save himself from an awful death. How odd.

If you check, you’ll see I suggested you jump out first (as I hope I would have the grace to do as well). If neither intended to end our lives but rather save other lives, then jumping overboard is a morally good act.

Obviously there is no malice. Nobody ever suggested there was. But we now have an answer to a problem that you have solved using a theistic morality and it is diametrically opposed to what other Catholics would do in the same situation. Also using a theistic morality. Or should I say: Using their version of what they understand theistic morality to be.

I noted malice of intent only as a qualifier which would negate the moral goodness of the act.

Can you cite other Catholic responses other than jump out, throw out or do nothing? With the proper intent the first two are morally good. The last may be morally acceptable as only God would know that troubled person’s state of mind.

At this point, the obvious question arises. What is the point of insisting that this so called theistic morality must be used if it gives us completely different answers depending on who we ask? There obviously isn’t just the one. Or if there is one, everyone interprets it as they see fit. It’s just a personal preference.

As I have said now many times, there is more than one acceptable act which is morally good. Study the Catholic principles of the double effect and, if you truly are rational, you’ll come to the same conclusions.

Now someone tell me the point of having a moral code, a system of morality, a canon by which we can judge all other moralities, this ‘theistic morality’ if people who say they are using it can’t agree on basic principles.

We do agree on the principles. The principles allow in this lifeboat dilemma more than one good moral choice.

 

[o_mlly]

Calculus? As in the Hedonistic Calculus? As in Bentham’s utilitarianism?

A bit histrionic, don’t you think?

Are you really saying you think so long as you don’t dislike her and do it with a cheery grin, God will judge you a good and virtuous person for throwing a ninety-year-old woman overboard to drown?

You could change the possible outcomes if you can demonstrate that a ninety year old nun has a greater right to life than others in the boat. If you cannot and you are not mentally incapacitated then I think you either jump or throw.

No grin. I would kneel before my Creator and hope he would judge me for saving the lives of others. I would also pray that after my time in purgatory, I get a back pew close enough to that nun in order to worship Him together.

 

[e_c]

All have an equal right to life so the pregnant person would of course count as 2 lives in the calculus and be spared. But, sorry Sister, you’re on the list to be tossed.

Perhaps you’ve not reflected enough on this. Throwing someone overboard is a choice to put that person into a situation that will kill him. Contrast this with the classic railroad double-effect scenario, where pulling a lever redirects a train away from two people and ends up killing one instead… In the first, you target an individual for death. In the second, you target two individuals for life. You can throw yourself overboard though, because that can be motivated by charity, which is the highest principle in the moral life.

At this point, the obvious question arises. What is the point of insisting that this so called theistic morality must be used if it gives us completely different answers depending on who we ask? There obviously isn’t just the one. Or if there is one, everyone interprets it as they see fit. It’s just a personal preference.

Bradski - Do you have the same belief about the physical sciences? Even mathematics? You do know that there are disagreements in those, too, right? So I guess there’s no truth in anything, since nobody can agree, or at least sometimes there’s a disagreement, even among those people who claim to be like-minded… Come on.