Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[inocente]

Then I must retract post #140 as the consequentialists following this thread would not agree with my post:
o_mlly;13980936:

While all, I think, would agree that plunging a knife into the heart of a survivor before pushing him/her overboard (to mitigate the thrashing and screaming) is evil and never permissible, the act of pushing a survivor overboard (the best swimmer?) would not be the immediate cause of death and not being an intrinsically evil act may be considered a morally neutral act.

Then placing a bomb in a crowded theater would also be a morally neutral act so long as the bomb is on a timer, since placing the bomb, like pushing someone overboard, wouldn’t be the immediate cause of death.

But in both cases we have good cause to expect that death will occur later, and in both cases as a result of our action.

Also, some have said that according to Catholic morality, pushing someone overboard is morally good if done with the intention of saving the other lives. In which case surely if the person fights being pushed and needs to be knifed to get them overboard, that would still be morally good if done with the intention of saving other lives. The only difference is seeing the person die at our hands.

Here’s hoping some are misinterpreting what the Church teaches.

 

[PRmerger]

This periodic “threat” (disguised as a helpful advise) does not add anything to a dialog.

I think it helps reel some folks back in so they can continue to dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

However, as much as I give this advice (BTW, it’s not “advise”) to folks, some folks let their inner snarky get the better of them, and, sadly, end up being banned.

I always lament this and hope that these folks continue to lurk as a guest (or there are other options sometimes, but I’d be careful about seeking succor in them as they are against the rules).

Chesterton may be a good mystery writer,

I’ll accept that if you accept: Christopher Hitchens may be a good game show contestant…(but as for what he was better known as, not so much).

 

[inocente]

There are NO moral facts, only opinions based upon preferences.

Not quite true. Moral realists maintain that there are moral facts. They don’t agree what the facts are, but they do maintain that moral facts exist.

 

[PRmerger]

There are NO moral facts, only opinions based upon preferences.

Which one is this ^^? A moral fact or only your opinion based upon preference?

The water boils at 100 degrees Celsius (on the sea level under one ATM pressure - and ATM does not stand for Automated Teller Machine . That is a fact. The alkalinity of a substance can be measured with a litmus test. That also reveals a fact. But the maxim “Do not spare the rod” or “thou shalt not masturbate” are NOT facts, they are opinions.

As is “You should never rape someone”?

That’s merely an opinion too?

But until you learn the difference between facts and opinions, there is no point to explain it.

I certainly am confused by your presentation of this.

You really are of the…opinion…that it’s just a preference to say that rape is wrong, kind of like it’s my preference that brides wear white?

Not here, where we could learn from some punishment and be encouraged by a reward. The Sun shines on the wicked and the righteous alike. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Not much of an “enforcement”.

Well, that’s as otiose as saying, “I didn’t get punished for taking meth while pregnant. In fact, I rather enjoyed it.” Yeah. It’s only later when you get your baby taken away that you live that hell.

I will let him decide which is the best method.

So you’ve made a challenge, but don’t even know what it would look like when it’s met?

That seems pretty lame, doesn’t it?

You have this idée fixe about me and some imagined alter egos. You can safely drop it, and stick to actual arguments pertaining to the subject.

Will do.

Unless I am incited to do so again.

So that’s up to you.

 

[e_c]

Morality comes down to the measurement of the character of acts based on an order set in place by a will or group of wills. That means it is human or divine. If human, yada yada, if divine, etc.

Back to the sub-thread with a glimmer of hope:

See post #398.

Which is:

1. The hypothetical denies any alternatives.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The saving of the 4 lives is made possible by the lightening of the lifeboat – not the death of the person.
5. 4 lives saved is greater good than 1 life lost.

The issue is with #2. This is not the moral object. Let me dehydrate your statement so it is clearer. According to you:

Circumstances: lethal danger within the boat due to sinking induced by weight, lethal danger outside the boat due to sharks, one person’s weight being removed could save the vessel

Intention: Lightening the lifeboat to keep it from sinking to save 4 lives.

Object: Removing one person from the boat.

Now watch this.

Circumstances: extreme financial hardship, inadequate housing for a family

Intention: preventing pregnancy to keep from introducing a new life into the world so that everyone stays happy and healthy etc.

Object: taking a pill that changes hormone levels

There. You have a good intention with a morally neutral (GOOD) act, by the same reasoning you’ve used. In fact, this is exactly the approach that was taken in those tense days leading up to (and sadly, following) the release of Humanae Vitae.

The first problem is with the exposition of the intention. You’ve listed not one, but three different goals (as I made sure to do as well in my counter example). What is THE intention? And yes, there is ONE… Can you figure out how to get to that?

The second problem, which follows, is with the exposition of the object, or “the act itself,” as it were. You are doing more than “removing a person from the boat.” This is why circumstances are important - sometimes they end up speciating the object. A morally good act (like marital procreation) can become evil based on circumstances (being in church).

In other words, your moral object is too narrow and your intention is too broad.

I understand exactly where you’re coming from… My suggestion is to try stepping back a bit and considering the simpler intuition that you likely have lurking within, which is that throwing someone into shark-infested waters is EVIL. (Duh!) Just think about it for a bit and see what you come up with.

 

[Tomdstone]

Now watch this.

Circumstances: extreme financial hardship, inadequate housing for a family

Intention: preventing pregnancy to keep from introducing a new life into the world so that everyone stays happy and healthy etc.

Object: taking a pill that changes hormone levels

There. You have a good intention with a morally neutral (GOOD) act, by the same reasoning you’ve used. In fact, this is exactly the approach that was taken in those tense days leading up to (and sadly, following) the release of Humanae Vitae.

Some Eastern Orthodox will allow this. They will not see too much difference in the morality of NFP and taking the pill when in using either one, you have the intention of limiting the size of your family. If a married couple has already three children or more, and is facing financial hardship, or the health of the mother is in question, you will probably be able to find an Eastern Orthodox priest who will allow you to use the pill. Both the RC Church and the EO Church teach under the assumption of a theistic foundation of morality, but each one has come to a different conclusion on this issue.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Not quite true. Moral realists maintain that there are moral facts. They don’t agree what the facts are, but they do maintain that moral facts exist.

I am sure that they hold that opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

Then placing a bomb in a crowded theater would also be a morally neutral act so long as the bomb is on a timer, since placing the bomb, like pushing someone overboard, wouldn’t be the immediate cause of death.

One of the DE principle requires that the act itself be morally good or neutral. Therefore, intrinsically evil acts are never permitted. Human acts which in their object are morally neutral require an examination of the actor’s intent to determine the act’s morality as good or evil.
“Placing a bomb in a crowded theater” with no other information is certainly on the face of it an evil act.
However, in a just war, placing a bomb in a theater crowded with unjust aggressors (“Inglorious Basterds”???) would be morally permissible assuming the other criteria of the DE are met.

But in both cases we have good cause to expect that death will occur later, and in both cases as a result of our action.

Yes, the effects would not be double unless an evil effect is foreseen and unintended and tolerated. There must be a proportional or greater good effect that is intended.

Also, some have said that according to Catholic morality, pushing someone overboard is morally good if done with the intention of saving the other lives. In which case surely if the person fights being pushed and needs to be knifed to get them overboard, that would still be morally good if done with the intention of saving other lives. The only difference is seeing the person die at our hands.

The DE never permits a moral evil. Knifing an innocent human is a moral evil.

Here’s hoping some are misinterpreting what the Church teaches.

The original (un-tweaked by our consequentialist friends) lifeboat dilemma goes as follows:
You are in a lifeboat built for one. Another survivor swims toward you and grabs onto the lifeboat. Immediately the lifeboat begins sinking the two of you. May you push the swimmer off and away from the lifeboat?

 

[o_mlly]

…
Circumstances: extreme financial hardship, inadequate housing for a family

Intention: preventing pregnancy to keep from introducing a new life into the world so that everyone stays happy and healthy etc.

Object: taking a pill that changes hormone levels …

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil – intention notwithstanding. The DE could not allow. CCC#2370 … In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

. A morally good act (like marital procreation) can become evil based on circumstances (being in church)…

For an act to be morally good it must be good in all three sources: object, intent and circumstance. CCC# 1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I will, however, assert this: only Believers can do acts of profound goodness and virtue, such as that which Maximilian Kolbe did. No atheist can do such a magnificent act of agape.

Is this a fact, or only your opinion?

So let’s get this clear: you are saying that it’s just your preference to say that homosexuals shouldn’t be imprisoned for being SSA.

Yes, that is my opinion. Fortunately more and more people share this opinion, and were able to erase the prior laws which allowed it. For those who disagree the path is open: “get the necessary vote to change the laws back”. Or they can try a putsch and forcefully change the government. Very unlikely that they will succeed in the current political climate. It is nothing short of amazing how quickly the opposition to gay marriage has crumbled, even in the predominantly catholic Ireland. Very encouraging, wouldn’t you agree? Well, maybe you would not. It would go against your preferences.

But someone else can have a different preference, and you’d be ok with that?

As long as they only say it, I have no problem with it. Much as I despise the KKK, I endorse their freedom to SAY their opinion, even to hold demonstrations - but not to lynch others. And before you try the same “trickery” as before, if someone wishes to put that preference into action, I would do everything in my power to prevent it. And if the only way to prevent it would be using force, then I would do it. But that will not be necessary. Their time is over.

So it’s just an opinion that rape is always wrong?

Why don’t you ask someone who actually says that? It is MY opinion that rape is ALMOST ALWAYS wrong., but under some very specified and under some extremely farfetched circumstances it can be justified. Of course it would not be my preferred solution. Though I don’t know why you insist? Would you follow Abraham’s path who was willing to sacrifice Isaac when God ordered it? Is it your personal opinion that “rape is always wrong - except when God orders it”?

I want you to be clear about this: you will stand by this statement “Pallas Athene agrees that it’s his preference and opinion that rape is always wrong”?

Clarified above.

That’s, frankly, the most absurd thing I’ve read on this thread.

There is disagreement about whether we landed on the moon, immunizations are effective, whether the holocaust occurred, whether the earth is older than 6000 years…so it’s not a fact that we landed on the moon, immunizations are effective, the holocaust occurred and the earth is older than 6000 years?

Sorry, I am not interested in the opinion of those people who belong to the loony bin. Normal, rational people will not deny that the water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. And normal, (otherwise) rational people WILL disagree if one should eat meat or only vegetables. Or if masturbation is a good, healthy practice. Or it is intrinsically “evil”.

Which one is this ^^? A moral fact or only your opinion based upon preference?

It is an epistemological observation.

As is “You should never rape someone”?

It is very bad form to answer a question with another question. It is against the -]rules/-] ahem… guidelines of the forum. Therefore I will ask again: Are the maxims “Do not spare the rod” or “thou shalt not masturbate” moral FACTS, or merely opinions?

You really are of the…opinion…that it’s just a preference to say that rape is wrong, kind of like it’s my preference that brides wear white?

I already stated that not all preferences are equal. Can’t you understand it?

Well, that’s as otiose as saying, “I didn’t get punished for taking meth while pregnant. In fact, I rather enjoyed it.” Yeah. It’s only later when you get your baby taken away that you live that hell.

That is not “enforcement”, it is punishment. Punishing someone who cannot learn from the punishment is barbaric and stupid. The best form of enforcement is prevention. The best proof that the “lawgiver” does NOT enforce the laws is the fact that there is no observable decline in “immoral” behavior. According to many people around here, the situation is just getting worse and worse.

So you’ve made a challenge, but don’t even know what it would look like when it’s met?

I will know it when I see it. And I know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I am not interested in sharing it with you. So where is your “lawgiver”? Where are the “laws”?

 

[PRmerger]

Is this a fact, or only your opinion?

It’s a fact.

Unless you believe otherwise?

Are you going to assert a truth that contradicts this: no atheist has given his life out of supreme love for a complete stranger?

Yes, that is my opinion.

Well, since it’s your opinion, and someone else has a different opinion,we say: to each his own. We treat difference in preferences in the same way: you like okra. I dislike okra. To each his own.

And when that is applied to imprisoning homosexuals, well, that’s another example of a hellish morality.

Absolutely monstrous.

Add that to your gathering a bunch of people and beating the living daylights out of someone, guerrilla warfare and the law of the jungle…well, it’s no wonder that Believers are scared to death of a moral code that’s devoid of a theological framework.

It’s going to be hell on earth if atheistic principles become the framework for our moral code.

 

[PRmerger]

That is not “enforcement”, it is punishment. Punishing someone who cannot learn from the punishment is barbaric and stupid. The best form of enforcement is prevention.

You are very Catholic when you say this.

And that is exactly what we Catholics are trying to do here: work on prevention.

The best proof that the “lawgiver” does NOT enforce the laws is the fact that there is no observable decline in “immoral” behavior. According to many people around here, the situation is just getting worse and worse.

And I could say that the best proof for the Catholic view is that there is a dramatic increase in the use of antidepressants.

When people don’t follow the moral law, it leads to despondency, chaos and depression.

I will know it when I see it.

The second most absurd thing I’ve read in this thread.

You can’t even identify a criterion you’ve demanded.

“I demand that I be given a snozzlatchmabob!”

“Emm…What’s that?”

“Why should I tell you? I’m not really sure myself, but when it appears, I’ll know!”

 

[e_c]

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil – intention notwithstanding. The DE could not allow. CCC#2370 … In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

For an act to be morally good it must be good in all three sources: object, intent and circumstance. CCC# 1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

You are certainly correct, but you also have completely begged the question. I used the same kind of reasoning with ABC that you used with the lifeboat.

We’re used to talking about contraception, so the terminology is familiar, which is not true of other cases where similar principles are at work. Really, the object in the “series of events” that occurs in a normal case of contraception is “the sterilization of the marital act.” This encompasses a chain of causes and effects and takes into account certain circumstances (i.e., it’s a woman that takes this pill, she is healthy, etc.).

Here’s the solution:

Circumstances - “” (neutral by default)
Intention - Regulation of birth (good based on the fittingness of the circumstances)
Object - Sterilizing the marital act (evil)

Can you see WHY this is so, rather than the false demarcation I gave above, which mirrored your demarcation of the lifeboat scenario?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, that is my opinion. Fortunately more and more people share this opinion, and were able to erase the prior laws which allowed it.

Whether it is “fortunate” or not remains to be seen. The thing about teleology is that sometimes what may be unforeseen to some – owing to a total lack of foresight – has a habit of coming back and refluxing just about the time that what they presumed about “de gustibus,” namely that it “non disputandum est,” would make it entirely safe to swallow the tripe holus bolus.

 

[inocente]

One of the DE principle requires that the act itself be morally good or neutral. Therefore, intrinsically evil acts are never permitted. Human acts which in their object are morally neutral require an examination of the actor’s intent to determine the act’s morality as good or evil.
“Placing a bomb in a crowded theater” with no other information is certainly on the face of it an evil act.
However, in a just war, placing a bomb in a theater crowded with unjust aggressors (“Inglorious Basterds”???) would be morally permissible assuming the other criteria of the DE are met.

Assuming DE means double effect, none of its criteria are met whether unjust aggressors or not:

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *] The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *] The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *] The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
   

   The DE never permits a moral evil. Knifing an innocent human is a moral evil.

   Throwing an innocent human out of a boat to drown is just as evil.
   

   The original (un-tweaked by our consequentialist friends) lifeboat dilemma goes as follows:
   You are in a lifeboat built for one. Another survivor swims toward you and grabs onto the lifeboat. Immediately the lifeboat begins sinking the two of you. May you push the swimmer off and away from the lifeboat?

   If you throw a healthy person out of the boat, she will try to get back in. She will try to get in until she is exhausted. The act of pushing her away is at least as evil as using a knife to kill her.
   
   And choosing someone too weak or disabled to be able to try to get back on board is just as evil.
   
   I’d argue that throwing someone out of the boat is more evil then killing them first, because it deliberately prolongs their death.

 

[IWantGod]

Throwing an innocent human out of a boat to drown is just as evil.

If you throw a healthy person out of the boat, she will try to get back in. She will try to get in until she is exhausted. The act of pushing her away is at least as evil as using a knife to kill her.

And choosing someone too weak or disabled to be able to try to get back on board is just as evil.

I’d argue that throwing someone out of the boat is more evil then killing them first, because it deliberately prolongs their death.

The question is, will you make the ultimate sacrifice. or will you let the person drown and spend the rest of your life feeling guilty about it.

 

[inocente]

Artificial contraception is intrinsically evil – intention notwithstanding.

The following article discusses whether giving advice and giving contraceptives to under-16s is allowed by the principle of double effect. It argues that providing advice on contraption meets all ethical requirements, but argues that provision does not.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606825/

 

[inocente]

The question is, will you make the ultimate sacrifice.

The dilemma was specified by another poster, who made it a rule that no one on the boat is allowed to volunteer to sacrifice his own life.

 

[o_mlly]

You are certainly correct, but you also have completely begged the question. I used the same kind of reasoning with ABC that you used with the lifeboat.

We’re used to talking about contraception, so the terminology is familiar, which is not true of other cases where similar principles are at work. Really, the object in the “series of events” that occurs in a normal case of contraception is “the sterilization of the marital act.” This encompasses a chain of causes and effects and takes into account certain circumstances (i.e., it’s a woman that takes this pill, she is healthy, etc.).

Here’s the solution:

Circumstances - “” (neutral by default)
Intention - Regulation of birth (good based on the fittingness of the circumstances)
Object - Sterilizing the marital act (evil)

Can you see WHY this is so, rather than the false demarcation I gave above, which mirrored your demarcation of the lifeboat scenario?

I think I have answered the question more than once in this thread. Perhaps I don’t follow your line of thought.

Maybe it would be helpful to remember that while a morally good act must be good in all three sources, an act evil in its object or intention can never be made good by its circumstances. The lifeboat act is, as I’ve specified, neither evil in its object or intention. In examining the effects, many seem to ignore the good and only give weight to the bad.

All DE scenarios have good and bad effects. If one rolls all the effects into the category of “circumstances” and, in error disregards the good effect, claiming only that the occurrence of an evil effect as a circumstance nullifies the permissibililty of the act then the DE would be a meaningless set of principles, which it is not.

Look for the good effect. If the good effect is intended, does not follow the bad effect and meet the proportional requirement then the act is permissible (but not necessarily laudable).

Therefore, in applying the DE principles to the lifeboat scenario, if one denies the permissibility of the act then one must demonstrate that the act itself is intrinsically evil – evil in its object, the act of a disordered will – which it is not.

 

[o_mlly]

Assuming DE means double effect, none of its criteria are met whether unjust aggressors or not:

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *] The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *] The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *] The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
   …
   
   Throwing an innocent human out of a boat to drown is just as evil.

1. 
   Yes, but throwing a man out of a boat to save 4 lives is not evil. Look for the good effect. Now apply the principles.