Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Ah, but no where in the scenario are you throwing “a” man out of the lifeboat. You are specifically throwing this or that particular person out of the boat. And this or that particular person carries with him or her a host of very specific qualities.

If “a man” happened to be Superman, there would follow a conclusion that throwing the Man of Steel out of the boat would carry no moral consequences. However, if the individual you selectively cull happens to be a five year old overweight non-swimmer, well that is a different story altogether because those characteristics may have been the deciding factor in terms of selecting which person is to be thrown. If it didn’t matter, then short straw loses or why wouldn’t a self-sacrifice be permissible? Why are all the conditions stipulated to narrow the choice in the most refined versions of the scenario?

The refined versions do recognize that specifying rather than generalizing is important in making moral decisions when they seek to put “faces” on the persons in the lifeboat. Why would this be necessary or helpful when deciding to throw “a man” out of the boat if it is ONLY throwing “a man” (a nondescript and dehumanized individual) out of the boat?

I don’t think it is right to argue bad morality using sloppy logic.

Again,the fact that because specific individuals and their individual characteristics are integral to making the decision, the lifeboat scenario does not fit the conditions of the principle of double effect, which permits two and only two choices: carry out an act or not carry out an act and the choice by the integral logic of the situation MUST be one of the two – the lesser of two evils. This was stipulated in your cited breakdown of the DE principle.

Since the lifeboat scenario does not meet the criteria for DE, any choice made has to be argued on its own merits, not as an instance of the principle the double effect.

 

[inocente]

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.

The part of my post you quoted was about placing a bomb in a theater crowded with unjust aggressors, so by saying yes I take it you now agree that it doesn’t meet any of the double effect criteria and so is not permissible.

Throwing someone out of the boat doesn’t meet the first of the criteria, as the act of throwing him overboard to drown is neither morally good nor indifferent. You are not merely permitting his death but bringing it about by your act. It’s even worse if he tries to get back on board and you stop him, as you may as well be holding his head underwater.

 

[e_c]

The part of my post you quoted was about placing a bomb in a theater crowded with unjust aggressors, so by saying yes I take it you now agree that it doesn’t meet any of the double effect criteria and so is not permissible.

Throwing someone out of the boat doesn’t meet the first of the criteria, as the act of throwing him overboard to drown is neither morally good nor indifferent. You are not merely permitting his death but bringing it about by your act. It’s even worse if he tries to get back on board and you stop him, as you may as well be holding his head underwater.

This is somewhat helpful. It plays on the natural extreme to which this kind of thought can be taken.

Say you do hold his head underwater - you can truly state that you are not intending to kill him, you just want him to pass out so he doesn’t continue to try to get back into the boat. Doi! Back to the whole “I’m just moving the sword, I’m just moving my arms, I’m just sending electrical impulses to my muscles, etc.”… It works in the other direction too.

The first scenario that I was introduced to which depended on understanding this set of principles was a trolley dilemma. There’s a fat man on a bridge over a railroad, with a car heading toward 10 people. If you push him, he will surely die by being hit by the train, but the 10 lives will be saved. Can you push him?

NO NO NO, a million times no. It is intrinsically evil to target an innocent person for insertion into a lethal situation. This is the object of this case, and the lifeboat case, in general. It also holds for craniotomies. The innocent human being is an essential part of the action, not an accident of it, as with real PDE cases. If the man was not hit by the train, and yet the people were still saved, we would be compelled to say your action was a failure. You did not achieve the proximate goal, even though you achieved your intention.

So really, the demarcation is something like this:

Circumstances: sharks, etc.
Object: the targeted insertion of this innocent person into the deadly situation of shark infested waters without a boat
Intention: Saving 4 lives

It’s all about the object, just like with ABC.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s a fact.

How can I verify that it is a fact?

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

All I am saying that no one is in the position to know that.

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

I don’t know what is so “hellish” about this: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”.

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

I am only interested in what God does on the “prevention” front. Not what you try to do.

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

Compared to the stone age?

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

Oh, I can. But I am not sharing with you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Whether it is “fortunate” or not remains to be seen.

If you prefer the previous method of imprisoning homosexuals, you are welcome to create a new party and start to revert the laws. Or you can join the Westboro Baptist Church, where you could find like-minded friends.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Yes, DE does mean double effect and yes, your bomb planter under the conditions I described meets the DE criteria just as the submarine commander does in this example:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33215
An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled:

1. he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;
2. his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;
3. the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good effect (the lessening of the enemy’s strength);
4. there is sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his country.

 

[o_mlly]

The part of my post you quoted was about placing a bomb in a theater crowded with unjust aggressors, so by saying yes I take it you now agree that it doesn’t meet any of the double effect criteria and so is not permissible.

…

No, I simply demonstrated that “bombing” is not an intrinsically evil act.

If one stops injecting malice into the actor’s intention which I have specifically ruled out (it is a thought-experiment) then to deny permissibility one must show the act itself to be intrinsically evil.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah, but no where in the scenario are you throwing “a” man out of the lifeboat. You are specifically throwing this or that particular person out of the boat. And this or that particular person carries with him or her a host of very specific qualities.

If “a man” happened to be Superman, …

Wow, now we’re leaving the planet in tweaking this already tweaked scenario. Let’s keep it simple to draw out the logic that you claim is sloppy…

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?

What say you? Please show how the principles of the double effect are applicable in your answer.

 

[e_c]

What say you? Please show how the principles of the double effect are applicable in your answer.

This is more complex, because there are more real life variables that are unknowns. Here’s a stab.

If the person is already in a life-threatening situation, you are able to prevent yourself from being put into one as well by their action. You are defending yourself in this case, which lends itself pretty immediately to the PDE. The other survivor is an aggressor, actively putting you into a lethal situation (which is wrong, however understandable). Just as well, it is a situation that will kill both of you anyway.

This is entirely distinct from “4 lives” scenario. There, it is not self-defense, because there is nothing like an aggressor on the boat.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow, now we’re leaving the planet in tweaking this already tweaked scenario. Let’s keep it simple to draw out the logic that you claim is sloppy.

OK, then: throwing an innocent person into shark-infested water is not a “morally good or morally neutral” action. Therefore, DE is not satisfied.

 

[PRmerger]

How can I verify that it is a fact?

Read the very next 2 sentences in my previous post, PA.

If you can offer some reason to reject my fact, then that will verify that I’m wrong in what I assert.

So, please offer an atheist who has given his life out of love for a complete stranger.

Documentation, please, from 4 different sources that detail this event. And it should be written within 40 years of the event.
Witnesses of this event are also demanded.
Documentation, of course, is also required verifying that this person is an atheist (preferably something written by the atheist himself, but I will accept testimony from 4 other witnesses of his atheism).

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I can. But I am not sharing with you.

I wonder what your response would be here:

PA: You can’t offer a single piece of evidence that God exists.
Catholic: Of course I can offer definitive proof of God’s existence, but I’m not going to share them with you.

You say…what to this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wow, now we’re leaving the planet in tweaking this already tweaked scenario. Let’s keep it simple to draw out the logic that you claim is sloppy…

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?

Still, as it stands, the scenario doesn’t meet the principles of double effect for several reasons.

First, let’s assume you are a non-swimmer, but clearly since the other survivor is swimming towards you s/he is a reasonably good swimmer.

The choices are not between pushing the swimmer off or not. There are other options, the swimmer could use the lifeboat as a swimming aid and not come into the boat but merely kick with his/her feet while you paddle in the hopes of both of you finding safety. There is no compelling reason for the swimmer to come into the boat and possibly sink it.

Now if in the eventuality that, say, sharks are circling and the swimmer gets more belligerent, then your thwarting his moves to come into the boat could be considered self-defense since his aggression is what is threatening your life. Since you were in possession of the lifeboat to begin with, the swimmer is not entitled to it.

Now, it is also very possible for you to do the altruistic thing and sacrifice your life to save (assuming male) his by giving the lifeboat over to him. The would be the more morally laudable act, but there would be no moral approbrium in saving your life if the other turns aggressive.

Still, the third option of negotiating permitting him access to using the boat as a swimming aid would be the preferred one until a more grave choice has to be made. Ergo DE only kicks in if sharks are present and the swimmer turns aggressive.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you can offer some reason to reject my fact, then that will verify that I’m wrong in what I assert.

I have a very good reason to reject it. No one has access to thoughts of every atheist who ever died. Not me, not you, no one. Therefore what you asserted cannot be true. Simple, eh? So your assertion cannot be a “fact”.

I wonder what your response would be here:

PA: You can’t offer a single piece of evidence that God exists.
Catholic: Of course I can offer definitive proof of God’s existence, but I’m not going to share them with you.

You say…what to this?

My response is simple. You cannot be a “true” Christian, because you do not follow the COMMAND to evangelize, or spread the “good news”. That is your obligation. Since you deny to do it, you are a hypocrite.

On the other hand I admit that I have never met a more elusive person. You never answer a question, always try to evade it. In this particular exchange all I asked how can I meet this alleged “lawgiver” because I would like to hear the “laws” from the actual “lawgiver”. You immediately tried to turn the table and asked how would I know if it was the real “lawgiver”. That is none of your business. Can you or cannot you arrange a meeting with this “lawgiver”?

An intellectually honest person would answer the question. But you always try to evade by asking another question - even though it is against the “guidelines” of the board.

 

[e_c]

Can you or cannot you arrange a meeting with this “lawgiver”?

Just get in the lifeboat we’re talking about in the other posts, and I’m sure she can make that happen.



Maybe give it a rest. You’re becoming pretty feisty.Your fist is quickly approaching the nose (which, by the way, is totally fine in all kinds of cases, but not this one).

 

[PRmerger]

I have a very good reason to reject it. No one has access to thoughts of every atheist who ever died.

Then give me the name of the atheist who refutes my claim.

Give me the situation in which he/she offered their life. Witnesses verifying this.

And documentation that of his atheism.

Otherwise, you are asserting a belief based on…

amusingly…

FAITH ALONE.

 

[PRmerger]

My response is simple. You cannot be a “true” Christian, because you do not follow the COMMAND to evangelize, or spread the “good news”. That is your obligation. Since you deny to do it, you are a hypocrite.

And the Catholic says: I don’t have to evangelize by giving you the proof I have.
I don’t feel like doing that. I am going to evangelize you by some other method.

I have proof, but I’m not going to share it with you.

Now what say you?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I can. But I am not sharing with you.

Back to this original statement.

I think you’ve never even really considered the question I posed and that’s why you have no answer.

You made a demand but don’t even know what it would look like to have that demand made.

That is, folks, the paradigm that is being espoused by atheism.

“I will believe in God when I am 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!

Given this degree of absurdity, I think it best for me to decline further discussion with anyone who makes a demand and then refuses to offer how this demand can be made.

 

[inocente]

Yes, DE does mean double effect

I couldn’t find that anywhere in the literature, it’s always either PDE or DDE, but usually written in full.

*and yes, your bomb planter under the conditions I described meets the DE criteria just as the submarine commander does in this example:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33215*
An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled:

1. he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;

No, the example is not at all the same, on at least three counts.

First, the article you linked says “the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences”. In the theater, your bomb is purely intended to kill people, which is an evil intention independently of any consequences.

Second, the submarine’s commander’s intention is to “lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship”, whereas you can’t lessen the power of the enemy by destroying a theater.

Third, the commander invokes double effect to justify the death of the innocent children, whereas no innocents are harmed in the theater, so double effect isn’t even applicable.

 

[inocente]

So, please offer an atheist who has given his life out of love for a complete stranger.

Documentation, please, from 4 different sources that detail this event. And it should be written within 40 years of the event.
Witnesses of this event are also demanded.
Documentation, of course, is also required verifying that this person is an atheist (preferably something written by the atheist himself, but I will accept testimony from 4 other witnesses of his atheism).

Demanded? Now hold on PR, no one is morally obligated to justify every claim you might make.

If your claim is that no atheist has ever given his life for a stranger, then you’re making the claim so you’re the one morally obligated to justify it. To do so you’d need to rule out every possible occasion throughout all history. There’s no way you could do that, so your claim would fail.

But in any case surely such a claim would dishonor the Fallen. For example, I’ve no idea whether John R. Fox was religious, and that would be entirely besides the point. He is a hero, and trying to posthumously recruit him into one camp or another as a pawn on an internet forum would dishonor him by reducing him to an object.

I see what you’re trying to do, but there must be another way.