Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

I do not present an “atheistic” framework for morality. I merely say that “morality” is nothing more than a collection of preferences. What is “moral” or “immoral” simply does not matter. What is “legal” does matter - as long as it is actually enforced.

And why should what is “legal” actually matter even if it is enforced?

If what is legal is simply the preferences of a political body, then it is the mere fact that those are the preferred ones that is what makes them “legal.” Your point, I take it, is that these legal preferences only have force if they are enforced by the political body.

Essentially, that would mean the “legal” preferences of Nazi Germany would make them the only ones that “matter” and that ONLY because the Nazi’s enforced them. Ergo, as far as you are concerned, that Nazi Germany enforced their views about Jews is the ONLY moral consideration that you would need to make their views “morally” correct.

YOUR determination that “moral” or “immoral” wouldn’t matter in any case means that, by YOUR moral system, what Nazi Germany carried out as “legal” was the only thing that mattered morally, as far as you are concerned.

In other words, by your system of morality, the extermination of Jews was neither moral nor immoral, but simply “legal” which was the ONLY thing that mattered in your determined and purportedly “moral” view.

It appears that your moral system condones the most heinously immoral acts as “legal” and therefore “moral” because legal is the only thing that matters.

Your moral “system” is beginning to reek offensively.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Funny that now YOU appeal to YOUR personal preference.

I think what you are missing is that where moral considerations are concerned it may be possible for those to be BOTH objectively real AND personally preferred, whereas some aspects of reality – such as a preference for okra – there is ONLY personal preference.

I mean it wouldn’t make sense for moral agency NOT to involve the full endorsement of the agent in what they choose. In that sense morality is not merely a “preference” upon which nothing hangs, but a full-bodied commitment BECAUSE the moral agent recognizes the choice is both grave and significant.

To call moral choices mere “preferences” is to understate what they are all about.

 

[o_mlly]

And I think you continue to confuse “intention” with “object,” based on this response.

In the lifeboat example, I wonder if you can name the intention, object, and circumstance of throwing someone overboard…

See post #398.

 

[inocente]

Well, no, the analogy does work because the analogy is specifically to a particular war where there is a right side after all, just as there is right and wrong in reality.

Merely because there are wars that have no “right” side does not rule out that the moral life is specifically like a war where there is clearly a right and wrong side.

Now -]you/-] one may happen to believe there never can be a war with a right or wrong side, but then -]you/-] one might also believe there is no determinable good or evil in the world. If -]you/-] one does think this, then clearly -]you/-] one doesn’t subscribe to a Judeo-Christian view of the world where God lays before us the choice between life and death, good and evil.

In all wars everyone claims God is on their side, which makes their side right in their own eyes. So by your analogy, right and wrong are whatever anyone claims. Even without that, you’ve now had to restrict your analogy to only those wars in which you claim “clearly” there is a right and wrong side.

I’m not a pacifist, but pacifist denominations may not agree with your just-war doctrine. After all, Jesus says “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (Matt 5).

Your argument doesn’t seem to have much of an anchor. Talking of which, you didn’t comment on the third option in the lifeboat dilemma (post #452). If God lays before us the choice between good and evil, is having the faith to leave it to the will of God evil compared with throwing someone overboard?

Re your third paragraph, when you invent hypotheticals, consider using the third-person as I’ve amended it above.

 

[PRmerger]

You are missing the point. In order to even go looking for the right view, there has to be a prior understanding that there is a right view.

That is absolutely correct.

The fact that there are atheists here who are arguing their position limns quite clearly that they believe there is a right and a wrong.

That is, an absolute, objective morality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In all wars everyone claims God is on their side, which makes their side right in their own eyes. So by your analogy, right and wrong are whatever anyone claims.

So your claim is that there never could be a war where there is an objectively right side? That God could never take one side over the other, regardless of what “everyone” claims about God being on their side?

Clearly, on the micro scale of injustices being committed by individuals, it would appear that you would likewise insist God could never declare one of the parties “right” and the other “wrong,” even if both parties claim God is on their side. So much for justice, then!

Your objection is mere deflection. Clearly, you didn’t understand the point of the analogy in the first place, which explains why you are harping on an irrelevancy – you don’t even get that your point is irrelevant.

Your “rewriting” also serves to muddle the point completely, which is, it appears, precisely your intention - not to achieve clarity, but to sidetrack and obfuscate.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not present an “atheistic” framework for morality. I merely say that “morality” is nothing more than a collection of preferences.

LOL!!

What is that if not an atheistic framework for morality?

And, again, what you have described is a hellish, grotesque, profoundly brutal morality.

As for me and my house, we will seek succor in a theistic morality and avoid the “Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you” standard for determining what’s right and wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

See post #398.

The problem is that the lifeboat scenario isn’t properly a dilemma, which is what Fr. Toracco stipulates it must be in #1.

There are alternatives besides two which would make it a genuine dilemma where you are forced by the sheer internal logic of the the situation to do one or refrain from doing so and, thereby, permitting the other.

If I may, let me spell out my reasoning after citing the principles from a reputable Catholic source,

ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=367602&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 5/19/2001:
In cases in which we foresee the possibility of both a good and a bad consequence of a given human action, the principle of double effect assists in determining whether or not one’s action is morally justifiable. The principle of double effect involves five criteria:

1. Appeal to this principle is justified only if there is no alternative to the action in question. This principle can be applied only in genuine dilemmas.
2. The action in question must be good in its object, or at least neutral.
3. The evil consequence must not be intended. The person caught up in a moral dilemma would prefer that there were no risk of evil at all, but can do nothing about the fact that such a risk exists.
4. The good consequence must not be the effect of the evil consequence. In other words, the end does not justify the means.
5. The good consequence must be morally proportionate to the evil consequence.
6. The hypothetical denies any alternatives.
7. The act is to remove a person of sufficient weight to lighten the lifeboat preventing the lifeboat from certain sinking in shark infested waters saving 4 lives. Morally good act.
8. The act does not intend the death of the person who goes overboard. The evil that is probable is death by drowning or by shark attack – both physical (not moral) evils.
9. The saving of the 4 lives is made possible by the lightening of the lifeboat – not the death of the person.
10. 4 lives saved is greater good than 1 life lost.

There are four on the lifeboat. You are one of them. That means there are four options in addition to doing nothing.

This is where the moral implications come into play.

Each of the four lives at stake add numerous unknowns into the issue. In addition, the option to sacrific your own life for the sake of the others is a live one.

Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the lifeboat scenario necessitates immediacy of action/inaction like the trolley dilemma or terrorist hijacking an airliner.

The scenario needs to be tweaked to make the moral decision, by necessity, an immediate one and the options reduced from five to two.

Unless that is done, the lifeboat scenario does not fit the guidelines set down by Fr. Torraco for the principle of double effect to come into play.

 

[PRmerger]

IThough I find it strange that you don’t see the difference between “rape” and “okra”.

Oh, believe me, PA, I see the difference indeed.

It is the atheistic framework which, when logically applied, cannot see the difference.

Morality in your realm is nothing more, and nothing less, than a preference. Okra? Yummy. Rape. Icky.

Each 'is own, I guess.

That is a great summary of the atheistic moral framework, to be sure.

And when, as you proposed, someone believes: “Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”, your ONLY resonse can be: “Each 'is own, I guess”.

What type of hell this is you are proposing.

Thank God for the Christian ethos which conquered such a monstrous moral worldview.

Do you have a better one, which is NOT based upon someone’s personal preferences?

Yes, I do. It’s called Christianity.

You said something about “canon” law which separates the “right” from the “wrong”. But that is nothing more than the collection of personal preferences of the people who wrote it… and it is NOT enforced either.

I have already told you much of it is NOT my personal preference.

Funny that now YOU appeal to YOUR personal preference.

You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that morality is NOT based on my personal preference.

If you keep doing that I am to have to report you,-] Hee Zen./-] Pallas Athene.

I simply described the objective reality. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant.

On this we are mostly agreed.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are all kinds of moral rules that anyone serious about discussing morality will agree upon…, it is wrong to kill others without just cause,…

It is subjective opinion as to whether or not you have a just cause. Take for example, burning someone at the stake because she is thought to be a witch or heretic. The application of your moral rule is fuzzy, and no one can know when to apply it correctly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And when, as you proposed, someone believes: “Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”, your ONLY resonse can be: “Each 'is own, I guess”.

The use of force and threatening or damaging something in which a person has interest seems to be one of the strategies for shaping behaviour throughout societies and time. That some party gathered force whether through people, weapons, or some other object to shape the behaviour or break the resistance of other doesn’t imply whether someone has a theistic or atheistic view of the world.

One might threaten the financial interest of another through law suits, boycotts, embargoes, or refusing to supply some good or service. Ones physical well being and life might be threatened of extinguished by people working in security, law, some one with a sharp or blunt object or other instrument. One group might mobilize armed troops,use ballistics or deadly chemicals, distribute diseased blankets, or take other against the people in another group. The people that engage in these behaviour may be religious or non-religious. They may or may nother present religious justifications for their actions.

If one can use well reasoned arguments to end a conflic (or even what ever may be convincing to another others, as sometimes appeals to emotion or statements that just sound good are enough to influence behaviour) that’s great! But when another is not moved by them it seems to come down to either tolerating their behaviour or trying to interfere with it by other means.

This is the world we live in today. It’s also the world people lived in prior to today.

 

[PRmerger]

It is subjective opinion as to whether or not you have a just cause. Take for example, burning someone at the stake because she is thought to be a witch or heretic. The application of your moral rule is fuzzy, and no one can know when to apply it correctly.

Would you mind, Tom, as a show of good faith, directing me to the posts which limn your theological beliefs?

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

The use of force and threatening or damaging something in which a person has interest seems to be one of the strategies for shaping behaviour throughout societies and time. That some party gathered force whether through people, weapons, or some other object to shape the behaviour or break the resistance of other doesn’t imply whether someone has a theistic or atheistic view of the world.

It was proposed by a poster here who rejects the theistic framework for morality.

And there is no doubt that anyone even remotely familiar with the Christian kerygma knows that the above is quite contrary to our worldview.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is subjective opinion as to whether or not you have a just cause. Take for example, burning someone at the stake because she is thought to be a witch or heretic. The application of your moral rule is fuzzy, and no one can know when to apply it correctly.

Things ain’t as “fuzzy” as you make them out to be.

The “fuzz” occurs around the edges or in the uncertain particulars/details of the issues, not in the “subjective” opinions of individuals. Individuals who erred, erred with regard to what they thought were facts or reality, not with regard to what is good or bad.

Think about it. The principle at play is protecting human life from threat. In all time periods in human history, including modern, it has been and is quite permissible to use proportionate force to stop or prevent someone from causing serious harm or death to others. The agencies responsible for public safety use lethal force when necessary, life-term incarceration and even capital punishment to stop those bent upon causing harm towards others.

Suppose there really were witches who could turn your family members into frogs, call down fire or hail to destroy your livelihood and unleash the power of Satan on you. Would it be your subjective opinion that doing such things would be good and laudable? Or would you condemn them as bad if they were actually happening? Wouldn’t it also be good and just to try to stop them? Wouldn’t it be moral to act on those sincere beliefs regarding the safety and well-being of your family and community, I mean if you sincerely thought a witch was about to turn your child into a scorpion and you had no way of knowing they couldn’t?

No whether or not burning them at the stake was the only way to prevent them from doing their deeds is another question entirely.

The only difference is that witchcraft is no longer considered a plausible threat to society.

By the way, you still haven’t presented anything with regard to the Church’s position on witchcraft and how witches should be dealt with. FYI, the Church maintained the consistent position that witches didn’t have the powers they were presumed to have.

Today the threat du jour is bakers and photographers who refuse to provide wedding cakes to gay couples. Those heinous, bigoted individuals must be stopped at all costs - their livelihoods taken from them and their assets confiscated to stop them. You see things haven’t changed all that much. We still have our witch hunts and heresies. It is just the targets that have changed.

As to heresies, if the taking of the physical life of a person is an heinous act, then I would suppose causing the eternal death of someone is a far more grievous one. Jesus made it clear that it is better for a person to be thrown into the sea with a great millstone around his neck than to cause another to be deprived of eternal life. Now whether or not burning heretics at the stake is a solution to the problem is debatable, but surely IF there is such a thing as eternal life then someone who causes another to lose it is committing a proportionately far more serious harm than causing the physical death of another.

The “fuzzy” part concerns more the question of what role should human communities play in permitting and restricting behaviours, along with identifying which are the real threats to human well-being. Whether real threats should be permitted is not a question that most human societies would dispute or be fuzzy about – unless of course that society has completely lost its moral compass.

 

[Tomdstone]

Today the threat du jour is bakers and photographers who refuse to provide wedding cakes to gay couples. Those heinous, bigoted individuals must be stopped at all costs - their livelihoods taken from them and their assets confiscated to stop them. .

So is it a just cause to burn bakers at the stake?
You know, burning people alive at the stake is not a joke. It was supposedly due to a just cause, even though it happened to innocent people.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So is it a just cause to burn bakers at the stake?
You know, burning people alive at the stake is not a joke. It was supposedly due to a just cause, even though it happened to innocent people.

You don’t seem to get the concept of proportionality, do you.

You are presuming innocence, but those who were burning witches didn’t have that assurance.

Tell me, Tomdstone, suppose there actually were magical bakers with devilishly evil powers that posed an immanent threat to all of society – bringing down fiery French loaves from the sky to kill people and destroy property, baking innocuous looking cupcakes that horribly disfigured and mutated anyone who ate them and served up cakes that rendered those who ate them into flesh eating zombie cannibals, AND there was no other way to stop them from using those powers than burn these evil bakers at the stake, don’t you think it MIGHT be morally permissible in that case to do so?

(I mean proportionally speaking, given that our society seems to think it permissible to steal the livelihoods, assets and homes of bakers for merely refusing to bake cakes for same sex “marriage” celebrations.)

 

[Tomdstone]

Tell me, Tomdstone, suppose there actually were magical bakers with devilishly evil powers that posed an immanent threat to all of society – bringing down fiery French loaves from the sky to kill people and destroy property, baking innocuous looking cupcakes that horribly disfigured and mutated anyone who ate them and served up cakes that rendered those who ate them into flesh eating zombie cannibals, AND there was no other way to stop them from using those powers than burn these evil bakers at the stake, don’t you think it MIGHT be morally permissible in that case to do so?

As to heresies, if the taking of the physical life of a person is an heinous act, then I would suppose causing the eternal death of someone is a far more grievous one. Jesus made it clear that it is better for a person to be thrown into the sea with a great millstone around his neck than to cause another to be deprived of eternal life.

This is where I would disagree with people such as yourself and ISIS followers who, following a theistic foundation of morality, they advocate gruesome methods of killing people who disagree with them theologically. IMHO, both you and ISIS are wrong. A few centuries ago, there were Catholics burning people at the stake for disagreeing with them theologically or supposedly they were witches with imaginary Satanic powers, and now we have ISIS chopping off people’s heads if they do not observe some of the disciplines and moral principles of Islam. Both claim to rely on a theistic foundation of morality. This seems to me to show that relying on a theistic foundation of morality is seriously wrong and evil since it results in innocent people being tortured and butchered. The fact that a Catholic bishop, Bishop Pierre Cauchon, believed that Joan of Arc should be burned alive at the stake for witchcraft shows the utter and complete failure of this method of thought.

 

[Bradski]

Morality does affect persons as subjects of experience, which means persons are probably the best determiners of what it is that does their existence justice. This means that no rule or standardized way of doing things will necessarily capture all the subtle nuances of being a person, subject of experiences and moral actor.

Ergo, for true morality to have a hope of obtaining, the existence of God is absolutely crucial. Otherwise, what we are left with is the mere expression of opinion with no means or hope of ever completely fulfilling morally sufficient ends. And if there is no reason to think morality can succeed in the end, the impetus for living a moral life is undermined from the beginning.

So people should determine their own morality. Brilliant. I wish I’d said that. Oh, hang on…

And some people’s opinions should be discounted (after being heard first). Again, brilliant. I wish I’d said that too.

But there needs to be a God otherwise all we are doing is expressing personal opinions. Which, unless I’m very much mistaken, is what you just said we do anyway. In fact, you said that we are the BEST determiners of what is right.

Because, let’s face it, no-one knows exactly what God wants. Maybe He wants everyone in the boat to drown. As others have said, we don’t know all the consequences. Only God knows them. Unless, of course, YOU know what God wants. Or you know somebody who does. Any suggestions? Because if there is such a person, then he or she will be in a position to use ‘theistic morality’ to reach the correct answer to any problem. Because that what it boils down to: What God wants.

So unless you can nominate someone, we find ourselves in something of a quandry. No-one knows what the correct answer should be. And using ‘theistic morality’ isn’t going to get it for us.

Oh, yeah, we can say that because there is a God then there actually IS a correct answer. We can all sleep soundly in our beds because of that, I’m sure. But NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT IS. Is that not the argument being used against the practical answers to these problems. ‘Throw the guy overboard or they will ALL drown’. Oh, no…we don’t know the consequences. We don’t know if a ship may appear. There may be a reason for the children to drown. Who can know the mind of God!

But that is EXACTLY what you want us to use ‘theistic morality’ for. To reach the correct answer. Otherwise, what on earth is it for? To make you feel warm and comfortable? As a stick with which to beat atheists over the head (secular morality? Huh, WE use the new improved, fat free Theistic Morality. Change to Theistic Morality today and notice the difference).

Well, I think that we’ve all had a good look at the product. We’ve opened the fancy packaging, we’ve discounted the breathless advertising, we’ve ignored the celebrity endorsement and we’ve examined the contents. And lo and behold, it’s the same ol’ same ol’. It’s the same as everyone else uses, but in a fancy box carrying a fancy name.

 

[PRmerger]

So people should determine their own morality. Brilliant. I wish I’d said that. Oh, hang on…

So you are ok with this person’s (atheistic) morality: “Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I think that we’ve all had a good look at the product. We’ve opened the fancy packaging, we’ve discounted the breathless advertising, we’ve ignored the celebrity endorsement and we’ve examined the contents. And lo and behold, it’s the same ol’ same ol’. It’s the same as everyone else uses, but in a fancy box carrying a fancy name.

Again, NO ONE is saying that you, as an atheist, can’t determine what’s right and wrong.

What has been said, ad nauseum, is that when you have an atheistic framework, you cannot assert any SHOULDS. You cannot assert any moral obligation.

You can only say, “I don’t like rape.”

NOT: It is a moral obligation not to rape someone.