Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Anthony_V]

Sorry to push in again, but Bradski really is right in a sense. Unless the issue is specifically moral theology, then simply invoking God isn’t going to help anything, because we don’t have access to the divine intellect any more than we have access to creatures. Natural reason does not apprehend God directly. Thus, we find out morality, if at all, through nature. Traditionally, the Catholic intellectual tradition has understood this to be natural law and virtue ethics, which is simply the full development of realizing that nature is teleological. Now, it is surely granted that such teleology is eventually grounded in the divine intellect (a la Leah Libresco), but again, we only have access to that to begin with inasmuch as we know God through creatures. We don’t appeal to the divine intellect to get answers to moral dilemmas. We appeal to morality to get answers to moral dilemmas; and only appeal to the divine intellect in these situations to get answers as to where and how morality is grounded.

Pushing the same point, it’s not merely that we know morality through natural law, but it is in fact natural law that determines morality. Teleology functions differently in reference to different natures. If God created different natures, you have different teleology, and therefore different natural law/virtue ethics. (Of course there are going to be constants no matter how much things are changed up, since we would always be dealing with rational creatures.) While “should” and “ought” are grounded eventually in God because teleology is grounded in God, moral obligations and permissions, but especially virtue, are grounded in natural law, and so they do not require any immediate recourse to God; for it is precisely natural law that God uses to determine morality for creatures. We might say that natural law is the moral lawgiver, even if God is the giver of natural law. An atheist could say with certainty that natural law determines contraception to be a seriously immoral act. There’s no contradiction, because there’s no proximate reference to God. Would he be inconsistent on account of teleology itself? Sure, we could grant that, but that’s another matter altogether. The point is that invoking God in rational discourse does not resolve moral dilemmas; it resolves being inconsistent about what you think is the grounding point for objective morality. But it is the objective morality itself that resolves moral dilemmas.

Of course, an atheist might not appeal to natural law at all, but if he appeals to a valid moral point demonstrated by reason, he would effectively be appealing to natural law under a different name and application. What else is there?

 

[Bradski]

Logic and justice both prescribe that we treat LIKE things ALIKE. Yet, here we have essentially the same moral agents – you and someone else – but you are claiming that one of those agents (namely you) can and should be held accountable for things that no one else ought to be.

Did I say that? Well, no I didn’t.

Moral decisions that I make are not binding on anyone else. But I and everyone else are accountable to the decisions each of us makes.

Accountable to whom? Ourselves, society and God. Well, two out of three in my case.

 

[Bradski]

Of course, an atheist might not appeal to natural law at all, but if he appeals to a valid moral point demonstrated by reason, he would effectively be appealing to natural law under a different name and application. What else is there?

Indeed. What else.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry to push in again, but Bradski really is right in a sense. Unless the issue is specifically moral theology, then simply invoking God isn’t going to help anything, because we don’t have access to the divine intellect any more than we have access to creatures.

No one suggested “invoking God” is necessary for thinking through moral issues.

The point being discussed is whether morality itself is even possible without a foundation for it built into existence itself. That means if existence is essentially teleological and has purpose, meaning and an “end” for which it exists, then morality is explainable, necessary and obligatory. Existence can only be such under some kind of theistic model where intention is built into its very fabric.

If the universe is purposeless, meaningless, unguided and without any significance – it just happens to be – then morality is without foundation and is without any real cogency or immediacy. Whether someone was moral or not, acted morally or not, would not make one scintilla of difference to anything.

Oh, sure it would provide someone with the proclivity to be moral a sense of self-satisfaction, but in reality, that would not be any more significant than a life spent in sordid dissipation.

Now the problem is…

…if it turns out the universe really is meaningless, unguided and without significance, then nothing lost, nothing gained – neither by acting morally nor by being a despicable cad.

However, of the fundamental nature of the universe is purposeful, eminently meaningful and imbued with moral purpose, anyone who has lived as if it didn’t would be in deep, deep doo-doo and would have essentially missed an unimaginable opportunity, to say nothing of the monstrous moral harm they might have caused to themselves and those around them.

 

[Tomdstone]

I mean even Dawkins thinks pedophilia and aborting babies for pretty much any reason is quite acceptable.

There was a Roman Catholic priest who co founded the North American Man Boy Love Association. NAMBLA. And he was given a sterling letter of recommendation from Cardinal Law, when he applied to the San Bernadino diocese, where he proceeded to operated a hotel for perverts. There are Christian Churches which allow abortion under certain conditions and they are based on theistic Christian morality. There are many pro-life secular humanists and there is a pro-life secular humanist organisation.
prolifehumanists.org/

 

[Peter_Plato]

Did I say that? Well, no I didn’t.

Moral decisions that I make are not binding on anyone else. But I and everyone else are accountable to the decisions each of us makes.

Accountable to whom? Ourselves, society and God. Well, two out of three in my case.

So you are accountable to yourself AND society, but society is not accountable to you?

Your past posts belie this claim.

You said once upon a time that if you witnessed a father beating his child you would intervene. It appears that you would be holding the father accountable to your moral decisions regarding how fathers ought to treat their children.

In what possible sense should we understand “not binding” when you are indeed holding that father to some standard of yours regarding his behaviour?

The meanings of “accountable” and “binding” have, apparently, been amended to mean whatever Bradski wants them to mean.

So, "Moral decisions that I make are not binding on anyone else,” except that the father you have decided to thrash cannot make the appeal that your moral decisions are not binding on him because you have laced him up tightly in a stranglehold.

Oh, I get it…

You mean “not binding” figuratively, but giving him a whupping if he thinks he is not bound by your moral decisions is just a quirk of yours akin to a slight twitch.

Rest assured that no one is bound by the moral decisions Bradski makes, but just watch your backs if the ole Bradster starts to twitch.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There was a Roman Catholic priest who co founded the North American Man Boy Love Association. NAMBLA. And he was given a sterling letter of recommendation from Cardinal Law, when he applied to the San Bernadino diocese, where he proceeded to operated a hotel for perverts. There are Christian Churches which allow abortion under certain conditions and they are based on theistic Christian morality. There are many pro-life secular humanists and there is a pro-life secular humanist organisation.
prolifehumanists.org/

Where did I claim that theistic morality will be applied flawlessly by anyone claiming to be Christian or Catholic?

You STILL haven’t answered my moral dilemma.

 

[Bradski]

Now the problem is…

…if it turns out the universe really is meaningless, unguided and without significance, then nothing lost, nothing gained – neither by acting morally nor by being a despicable cad.

Dear me. How many times do we have to read this type of nonsense. I must suppose that if you say it enough times then it becomes true for you. But really, this is scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel indeed.

If this is the type of argument to which you are reduced, then I’m not sure there’s much else to add.

 

[Anthony_V]

No one suggested “invoking God” is necessary for thinking through moral issues.

The point being discussed is whether morality itself is even possible without a foundation for it built into existence itself. That means if existence is essentially teleological and has purpose, meaning and an “end” for which it exists, then morality is explainable, necessary and obligatory. Existence can only be such under some kind of theistic model where intention is built into its very fabric.

If the universe is purposeless, meaningless, unguided and without any significance – it just happens to be – then morality is without foundation and is without any real cogency or immediacy. Whether someone was moral or not, acted morally or not, would not make one scintilla of difference to anything.

Oh, sure it would provide someone with the proclivity to be moral a sense of self-satisfaction, but in reality, that would not be any more significant than a life spent in sordid dissipation.

Now the problem is…

…if it turns out the universe really is meaningless, unguided and without significance, then nothing lost, nothing gained – neither by acting morally nor by being a despicable cad.

However, of the fundamental nature of the universe is purposeful, eminently meaningful and imbued with moral purpose, anyone who has lived as if it didn’t would be in deep, deep doo-doo and would have essentially missed an unimaginable opportunity, to say nothing of the monstrous moral harm they might have caused to themselves and those around them.

Then why entertain specific moral claims not in line with natural law when you’re trying to establish the very edifice for morality? Why not talk about teleology? That’s where the point of contention is. Point in case:

Post #503
Dear me. How many times do we have to read this type of nonsense. I must suppose that if you say it enough times then it becomes true for you. But really, this is scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel indeed.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

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.

I believe the scenario, described as an overpopulated sinking lifeboat in shark infested waters, met the immediacy criterion.

For each person (moral agent) there are two choices – jump or push – thus the dilemma.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Dear me. How many times do we have to read this type of nonsense. I must suppose that if you say it enough times then it becomes true for you. But really, this is scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel indeed.

If this is the type of argument to which you are reduced, then I’m not sure there’s much else to add.

And I must suppose that since you gave never adequately replied but keep dismissing under the pretense that the “nonsense” isn’t worth responding to and you won’t lower yourself to do so, that you hope your lack of response will be taken as profound and true despite the fact that it is neither.

I will, therefore, read “not much to add” as meaning you cannot muster an adequate or meaningful response.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I believe the scenario, described as an overpopulated sinking lifeboat in shark infested waters, met the immediacy criterion.

For each person (moral agent) there are two choices – jump or push – thus the dilemma.

The question, “Push who?” splits the dilemma into four separate “jump or push” choices, thus it is a quintilemma, at best. If immediacy was met it likely passed by as the necessity of acting was swamped by the hours required just having to consider all the factors for each choice.

In addition, there isn’t really the “immediacy” you surmise because if a lifeboat has just seconds before sinking, I don’t think the weight of one person would make enough of a difference. That, however, is a logistics problem which means the scenario isn’t very plausible in any case.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So what if those who prefer to rape get a larger horde together to convince you and your people that their preferences should hold sway over yours?

Isn’t that pretty much what so many barbarian groups did through much of human history?

And where are those barbarian groups today? They all were assimilated into the much larger group, which has its “preference” against raping an pillaging. Some people are slow learners. Look at the long haul.

I asked PR to explain the “shoulds” of “theistic morality”. So far I am waiting. She asserted that without some “shoulds” there can be no morality. And she said that the Christian moral system allows her to separate the “right” and “wrong” acts and decisions. Which is fine by me. (It is her preference) But she is gun-shy to explain why SHOULD someone else accept her paradigm? And what SHOULD happen to those who disagree?

I hope you will explain.

It is amusing to see how the “life-boat” or the “trolley” problem is being distorted. In the original version you only have two options. There is no provision for self-sacrifice. Just a choice between two “morally” unpalatable options. Different people will use their own interpretation (also known as PREFERENCE) of the “theistic morality” to arrive at different solutions.

No moral system required - just raw force.

Every society is based upon raw force. Laws would not be laws if they were not enforced, they would be suggestions or guidelines. Of course not all societies are equal, and slowly, but surely the more permissive societies gain foothold. Not too long ago homosexual behavior was a punishable crime. Today only a few societies uphold that barbaric view. And they will lose out at the end. The trend is unmistakable.

By the way, so much for the absolute, objective and unchanging “morality”.

The only “moral” paradigm that is needed is summarized in the golden rule: “do NOT do onto others…”. And that concept has predated Christianity by millennia.

 

[o_mlly]

The question, “Push who?” splits the dilemma into four separate “jump or push” choices, thus it is a quintilemma, at best. If immediacy was met it likely passed by as the necessity of acting was swamped by the hours required just having to consider all the factors for each choice.

In addition, there isn’t really the “immediacy” you surmise because if a lifeboat has just seconds before sinking, I don’t think the weight of one person would make enough of a difference. That, however, is a logistics problem which means the scenario isn’t very plausible in any case.

The answer to “Push Who” is push anyone according to the scenario. And the OP I believe specified just one person out would save the others and the time to decide and act existed.

We’ve agreed this scenario is overly contrived to assert that certainty exists where it most certainly does not.

I believe you have decided not to play with good reason: the fallacies of the scenario are too many. However, I have played as a thought-experiment to apply the double effect principles just as I did when first introduced to the lifeboat dilemma in high school. Then came the “James Bond” dilemma, the “Kamakazi Pilot vs. the American Dive Bomber” dilemma, the “Live Grenade in the Foxhole” dilemma. Applying the principles to each of these dilemmas gave different results and facilitated an understanding of the doctrine in ways not otherwise possible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then why entertain specific moral claims not in line with natural law when you’re trying to establish the very edifice for morality? Why not talk about teleology? That’s where the point of contention is. Point in case:

Well, one reason is that Brad has no real commitment to natural law and only acquiesces in order to prove to theists that his ethics are in some sense grounded in “reason” when what he means by that is not so much that there are undeniable reasons underpinning his ethics which obligate all moral agents to the principles which thus arise. No, what he is doing is “endorsing” natural law in order to make you think he has good reasons for the moral beliefs he has, but his endorsement is quite tenuous and he will back away as soon as any attempt is made to make his principles in any way obligatory to anyone beyond himself.

This was clear from his post where he distinguished “accountable” from “obligatory” and “binding.”

If natural law holds, what sense is there in claiming you are accountable to yourself but your moral thinking binds no one else? We are not then speaking of anything like a natural law that applies to all moral agents. He is a relativist through and through, but will clutch at anything that he thinks will give his moral thinking some kind of legitimacy in the eyes of those he is trying to persuade regarding his brand of ethics.

He is completely invested in presenting himself as “moral” through and through, except when any attempt is made to extrapolate from why he is bound by his ethical thinking to why his sound moral thinking would not then obligate ANY moral agent. Make that move and Brad will backpedal quicker than a unicyclist on steroids.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And where are those barbarian groups today? They all were assimilated into the much larger group, which has its “preference” against raping an pillaging. Some people are slow learners. Look at the long haul.

Well, the “long haul” is not over yet and the “larger group” is giving every indication it is about to implode under its own inability to justify in any cogent way what the underpinnings of its moral “system” actually are.

I mean you have a range of contradictory notions: that people ought to be entirely free to be whatever they imagine themselves to be, reality be damned, and anyone who disagrees or seeks to dampen this “freedom” will be summarily punished. The “larger group” will continue to eat its own until there are none left precisely because the foundation for this “system” is notably non-existent.

Ergo, it will come down to sheer force and that with absolutely no underlying principle to guide it. Totalitarianism here we come.

Yes, some are, indeed, “slow-learners” and they will be “assimilated” into that larger group that will increasingly disintegrate under the weight of all those disparate notions that have been assimilated but cannot be integrated.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why, I’m doing exactly that.

That is wonderful. No more burning the heretics at the stake? No more prisons for homosexuals? In Russia it is still the accepted method to deal with homosexuals. And I have seen quite a few people in this board who were applauding to the Russian system.

And you hope that “talking” to the rapists will have any effect on them?

Oh. You meant it as an…allegory?

Please 'splain, a little bit more clearly, how you mean this?

There is someone who asserts, “I prefer to rape women and I don’t care a whit if you try to rape me. I’m bigger than you. And stronger. Just try to rape me. And I happen to be in power”

…and your “allegorical” option is to “gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”…this looks like…what, “allegorically”?

Do you mean that “beating the living daylights” out of someone isn’t literal, since there’s no such thing as “living daylights”, literally?

Is that what you mean by “allegorical”?

Well, I already explained a few times. The people, whose “preference” is against raping do the following:

1. establish a society
2. create a legal system with laws against rape
3. create a police force to maintain those laws
4. catch the rapists and put them into prisons

That is the reality behind the allegory. I was hoping that you would understand it.

(And just a FYI, you should know that abstinence isn’t the only option for folks who wish to engage in sex but don’t wish to procreate).

Birth control is now acceptable? NFP is periodic abstinence, nothing more.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I mean you have a range of contradictory notions: that people ought to be entirely free to be whatever they imagine themselves to be, reality be damned, and anyone who disagrees or seeks to dampen this “freedom” will be summarily punished.

What nonsense. No one advocates unlimited freedom (except a handful of anarchists). The basis of the society should be “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. That is being established (imperfectly, of course) by the “constitutional republics”. And the “long haul” never ends.

 

[PRmerger]

It is NOT. There is nothing to retract. What it STILL means is that we have our “preference” against raping others, and as such we join forces with like minded people and enforce some laws against rapes and rapists.

LOL!

So that’s what you meant when you said, allegorically: “Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”?

Beating the living daylights out of you is allegory for enforcing some laws against rape?

Really?

It certainly sounds as if you’re trying very desperately to disavow yourself from the supremely vile option you originally proposed.

But until you assert that you wish to retract this, I will continue to bring it up as an example of a monstrous option proposed by those espousing an atheistic morality.

“Then I will gather more people who agree with me, and beat the living daylight out of you”

(However, when someone acknowledges, “Oh! Sorry! I misspoke!” or “I stand corrected”, I am very, very gracious and will never mention it again.)

We do not need some “lofty” principles, except our dislike against rape,

Well, yeah…I guess. If you want to call “All people are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore have inherent dignity” something that’s not lofty, then we are agreed.

and we FORCE the dissenters to conform to our “preferences”.

Well, yeah. Legally we do this.

We impose our morality on others.

I hope you never, ever argue that Christians are imposing their morality on you, ok?

 

[PRmerger]

There is not ONE society which would base its constitution upon some Christian principles. The USA explicitly disavows them in the Treaty of Tripoli. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

This is kind of like a pediatrician’s office in the US saying, “This is our immunization schedule” but we do NOT follow the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.



Okey-dokey.

But you are appealing to their science, even if you don’t want to disavow yourself from this.

I HOPE that “rape” is not considered to be the equivalent of spicy food in their opinion… but what do I know… maybe they do not see any difference.

Egg-zactly!

With an atheistic framework, their arguments that rape is the equivalent of spicy food becomes the ONLY logical conclusion.

You see how monstrous it is to embrace an atheistic framework for morality?

Rape is considered to be the equivalent of spicy foods…

because an atheist can only say, “I don’t like rape”. Just like an atheist might say, “I don’t like okra”.