Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Aloysium]

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

I don’t think you could, which I imagine is why you choose not to. Sharing and communication require a mutual giving. If the other person is argumentative, or resistant to new understandings, when they are committed to a particular world view or politics, intent on confounding rather than clarifying, if the other person has a hidden agenda and is interested in debunking whatever is being discussed for extraneous reasons, if only because the dialogue is contaminated with mistrust, cynicism and doubt, why bother. I’m no Miss Manners, but it seems to me that a few moments of patience, nodding to signify one’s having paid attention, is all that polite conversation requires before moving on.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

You say:
The case immediately involves application of the double effect principles. (Some disagree.)
“The other survivor is an aggressor” because grabbing the lifeboat threatens your life. (Some disagree.)
The act, “pushing away” is allowed. Therefore, the act is not an intrinsically evil act.
The only reason the bad effect, the foreseeable death of the other person, is tolerated is because he is an aggressor.
I ask:
Is the fetus who is lethally implanted in the fallopian tube an aggressor? Certainly not.
Is the mother who allow the surgeon to excise the infect tube acting in self-defense? Yes.
May one, therefore, act in self-defense against a person whose being, not action, threatens one’s life? Yes.

 

[o_mlly]

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

If the act is not intrinsically evil then one examines the intention of the actor to determine the morality of the act. The circumstances (shark-infested) do not change the moral character of an evil act. Pushing someone off a lifeboat to save 4 lives is a morally permissible act.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Very novel but still a “wiggle” to avoid the dilemma.

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 .

A property right (and merely possession as ownership of the lifeboat is not specified) is greater than another’s right to life? This inventive distraction obfuscates rather than clarifies.

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 [sic] in saving your life if the other turns aggressive.

At last, you say it is morally permissible to push another from a lifeboat if the other is aggressive, i.e. to “push another” is not an intrinsically evil act.

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.

Wiggle redux.

I ask you the same question: Is a fetus who is lethally implanted in his mother’s fallopian tube an aggressor? No. Therefore, the threat to the mother’s life occurs simply because the fetus’ exists where he exists. Removing the tube in which the fetus is implanted is permissible. Pushing the non-aggressor person from the lifeboat is permissible.

 

[o_mlly]

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

You incorrectly conflate two principles. The act and the actor’s intention are examined separately in the double effect analysis. I’ve already demonstrated that the act is not intrinsically evil. I also specified the bomber is an actor in a just war. All actions in a just war by the non-aggressor are acts of self-defense. Self defense which involves killing others is always a double effect act. The bomber’s good intention is to end the unjust war by mitigating the unjust aggressor’s ability to sustain the war. The evil effect tolerated is the loss of human life.

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.

No, not a theater but by killing the commanders of the unjust aggressor the power of the enemy is mitigated. It doesn’t matter whether the enemy officers are in a theater in Paris or in a theater on one of their battleships.

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.

As mentioned, self defense in a just war always invokes the double effect principle. Ask “e_c” to explain if I’ve not done so.

My cabin on the “Catholic Answers Cruise” departing tomorrow has been assigned to lifeboat #7. I thought some might want to be aware of that factoid.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I am playing the atheist here, luv.

And this is my statement: I will not believe there is an atheist who is capable of giving his life out of love for a complete stranger until there is evidence to support this.

And by evidence I don’t mean: philosophical arguments. I don’t mean “sure, it’s possible”.

I want the same standard of evidence that is DEMANDED ((yes, demanded) by atheists.

After all, that’s fair, isn’t it?

Every time I bring this up it amuses me immensely to see atheists assert, “Of course there are atheists who have done this!”

Yet no one has a name, an event, witnesses, proof of this alleged atheist’s actual atheism…

And what is that except…a great…

BLIND FAITH.

[SIGN]“I believe he exists but I don’t have a shred of evidence for this!”*[/SIGN]

*(At least, this is the atheist’s definition of faith)

 

[inocente]

You incorrectly conflate two principles. The act and the actor’s intention are examined separately in the double effect analysis. I’ve already demonstrated that the act is not intrinsically evil. I also specified the bomber is an actor in a just war. All actions in a just war by the non-aggressor are acts of self-defense. Self defense which involves killing others is always a double effect act. The bomber’s good intention is to end the unjust war by mitigating the unjust aggressor’s ability to sustain the war. The evil effect tolerated is the loss of human life.

No, not a theater but by killing the commanders of the unjust aggressor the power of the enemy is mitigated. It doesn’t matter whether the enemy officers are in a theater in Paris or in a theater on one of their battleships.

As mentioned, self defense in a just war always invokes the double effect principle. Ask “e_c” to explain if I’ve not done so.

Placing a bomb in a theater is not an act of self-defense. You’re getting close to justifying any act at all.

My cabin on the “Catholic Answers Cruise” departing tomorrow has been assigned to lifeboat #7. I thought some might want to be aware of that factoid.

Have a good trip.

 

[o_mlly]

Placing a bomb in a theater is not an act of self-defense. You’re getting close to justifying any act at all

And you’re getting close to going histrionic, again.

Catholic teaching justifies such acts, offensive acts against unjust aggressors, as self-defense. Not only a right but a duty for those in authority.

CCC# 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

CCC# 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. …

Just kidding about the cruise.

 

[inocente]

I am playing the atheist here, luv.

And this is my statement: I will not believe there is an atheist who is capable of giving his life out of love for a complete stranger until there is evidence to support this.

And by evidence I don’t mean: philosophical arguments. I don’t mean “sure, it’s possible”.

I want the same standard of evidence that is DEMANDED ((yes, demanded) by atheists.

After all, that’s fair, isn’t it?

Every time I bring this up it amuses me immensely to see atheists assert, “Of course there are atheists who have done this!”

Yet no one has a name, an event, witnesses, proof of this alleged atheist’s actual atheism…

And what is that except…a great…

BLIND FAITH.

[SIGN]“I believe he exists but I don’t have a shred of evidence for this!”*[/SIGN]

*(At least, this is the atheist’s definition of faith)

Sure, I get your purpose, but the particular example you chose implies that only persons with certain beliefs are worthy of being honored in the Tomb of the Unknowns (local alternatives are available). There’s a logical flaw in claiming we’re all equally children of God, but that some are more equal than others.

Thinking about it, you could use that as an alternative. I mean no one stands at the the Tomb of the Unknowns (local alternatives are available) and asks for evidence in triplicate. We all believe without a shred of evidence they laid down their lives for us. If you catch my drift.

 

[inocente]

And you’re getting close to going histrionic, again.

You’re getting close to calling every sentence histrionic.

*Catholic teaching justifies such acts, offensive acts against unjust aggressors, as self-defense. Not only a right but a duty for those in authority.

CCC# 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

CCC# 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. …*

Morality isn’t a matter of small print. But having said that, a couple of paragraphs later there’s:

CCC 2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.

Placing a bomb in a theater isn’t an act of self-defense, it’s the direct and intentional killing of many people, which goes beyond what is necessary to render them unable to cause harm. Just as torturing a female soldier by rape to get her to tell you which theater the soldiers will be in is categorically evil. Unless you’re asking me to believe that the Church’s morality is pure consequentialist.

Edit: btw we all know what an aggressor nation might do if its soldiers were killed on their night off by a bomb placed in a theater. It would shoot every person in the town as an example. Unnecessary violence just breeds more violence into a run away all-out no-rules war, which is another reason why it’s immoral.

Just kidding about the cruise.

Who said I wasn’t kidding about having a good trip?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am playing the atheist here, luv.

You should try harder, because so far you failed. There is a guy called Lee Strobel who wrote a few books titled “The Case for…” He proudly stated that he used to be an atheist, and he will interview prominent apologists and present them “hard” questions from the atheist standpoint.

No question about it, he presented the problems very well. The problem was that the apologists gave really lame answers, and instead of pointing out the problems with those answers, he simply “folded” his cards. “Wow, he said, that is a good answer…”. So he came across as an “uneducated ATHEIST”. Just like you.

And this is my statement: I will not believe there is an atheist who is capable of giving his life out of love for a complete stranger until there is evidence to support this.

That is a very admirable back-pedaling. (NO sarcasm!) Previously you said something very different. You said that only Christians are capable of “REAL agape”, of sacrificing their life for a total stranger. You affirmed that this is a “FACT”, not a belief. Of course you never gave a “proof” of this “fact”. Instead you tried to turn the tables in “REAL” PRmerger style.

Now you backpedaled. You only say that you “don’t believe… unless…”. That is perfectly fine. So here is some evidence for you. Ever since the dawn of time soldiers sacrificed their lives defending their tribe / country / whatever. The overwhelming majority of those soldiers were NOT Christians… since they lived before Christianity was even invented or established. So now you can either say that non-Christians and atheists ARE able to perform self-sacrifice for others, or you can downplay their self-sacrifice as insignificant. “Yeah, they gave their life… but that does not count, because it was not REAL agape” (which would be a blatant example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy).

After all that is what you tried to establish: “Well, atheists can be heroes, can perform some good acts, but they NEVER, under ANY circumstances can be as self-giving as a Christian can.” So no matter that some atheists try become good people, they are always behind the Christians.

I will leave you alone.

If and when you will understand the difference between “reasonable expectation” and “blind faith”, and the difference between “preference for okra” and “preference against rape” check back, and I will continue to talk to you. I certainly learned a lot “about” you, even though I did not learn anything “from” you.

In the meantime I will wish the best for you.

 

[o_mlly]

You’re getting close to calling every sentence histrionic.

Morality isn’t a matter of small print. But having said that, a couple of paragraphs later there’s:

CCC 2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.

Placing a bomb in a theater isn’t an act of self-defense, it’s the direct and intentional killing of many people, which goes beyond what is necessary to render them unable to cause harm. Just as torturing a female soldier by rape to get her to tell you which theater the soldiers will be in is categorically evil. Unless you’re asking me to believe that the Church’s morality is pure consequentialist.

The bomber’s intended good is mitigating an unjust aggressor’s capability to wage war. The unintended, proportionate and tolerated evil is the killing of the enemy’s commanders. Notice that CCC 2268 specifies “intentional killing” which is specified as unintended in the bomber and lifeboat cases. Rape and torture are intrinsically evil and never permitted regardless of intention. Bombing or torpedoing are not intrinsically evil as previously shown.

Edit: btw we all know what an aggressor nation might do if its soldiers were killed on their night off by a bomb placed in a theater. It would shoot every person in the town as an example. Unnecessary violence just breeds more violence into a run away all-out no-rules war, which is another reason why it’s immoral.

Well, we don’t know what the aggressors reaction would be but, if I were the bomber, and foresaw the town’s massacre as an additional probable evil effect then the proportionate goodness of mitigating the unjust aggressor war making capability may well be eliminated and the act not permitted.

Who said I wasn’t kidding about having a good trip?

As in the down the staircase? Unintentionally, of course.

 

[e_c]

If the act is not intrinsically evil then one examines the intention of the actor to determine the morality of the act. The circumstances (shark-infested) do not change the moral character of an evil act. Pushing someone off a lifeboat to save 4 lives is a morally permissible act.

You’ve only half studied your Summa.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, I get your purpose, but the particular example you chose implies that only persons with certain beliefs are worthy of being honored in the Tomb of the Unknowns

Not at all.

I am saying that ONLY Believers have the ability to give their lives out of love for strangers.

Now, if there is someone who wants to prove me wrong, game on.

But I want the same standards that are demanded by atheists:

Something written within 40 years of said event.
4 different eye-witnesses to this event.
And documentation of this person’s alleged atheism, preferably from the atheist himself.

There’s a logical flaw in claiming we’re all equally children of God, but that some are more equal than others.

Stop right there.

NO ONE has presented anything even remotely close to this.

We are all equally children of God but some children of God have acted with great agape.

Those who deny God’s existence…not so much.

We all believe without a shred of evidence they laid down their lives for us. If you catch my drift.

This is a good point.

Atheists–how is it that you can believe “without a shred of evidence” that there lies a hero in this Tomb?

#doublestandard

 

[PRmerger]

I mean no one stands at the the Tomb of the Unknowns (local alternatives are available) and asks for evidence in triplicate. We all believe without a shred of evidence they laid down their lives for us. If you catch my drift.

I wonder why atheists have not been consistent and asserted that they will not believe a hero lies in this tomb until there is evidence for this?

 

[e_c]

I am saying that ONLY Believers have the ability to give their lives out of love for strangers.

Now, if there is someone who wants to prove me wrong, game on.

But I want the same standards that are demanded by atheists:

Something written within 40 years of said event.
4 different eye-witnesses to this event.
And documentation of this person’s alleged atheism, preferably from the atheist himself.

Here:

militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

This is at least getting close. Do some digging… This is a bad argument. The bigger picture of course is that it doesn’t make any sense to act this way. But we should be careful about our means of trying to show that.

We are all equally children of God but some children of God have acted with great agape.

Actually, you’re only really a “child of God” by baptism (death to the world, adoption of the Father, incorporation into the life of the Church, individual redemption of the soul, etc.)… We’re all in God’s image and likeness (having reason and will) but we are not all His children, strictly speaking.

Anyway, back to the fun sub-thread:

If the act is not intrinsically evil then one examines the intention of the actor to determine the morality of the act. The circumstances (shark-infested) do not change the moral character of an evil act. Pushing someone off a lifeboat to save 4 lives is a morally permissible act.

Circumstances do not change an act from good or neutral to evil, UNLESS they actually speciate the act. Playing tennis is a neutral act - playing tennis in a church is a sacrilege. Giving money to the poor is a good act - giving money to the poor when your family is starving is prodigality. Can you begin to see the problem with what you are saying? Pushing someone off a boat (we do not mention the intention, because the object is separate, remember?)… This is neutral. Pushing someone off a boat into shark-infested waters is murder, no matter what it is for. Just like taking a pill that affects your hormones is a neutral act, and it can have a good intention (prevention of pregnancy). But the circumstances can inform the object and turn it evil. With contraception, it is more distantly the circumstances, but still they are involved in a way - inasmuch as it is a circumstance that this woman is presuming at the time of its ingestion to have intercourse while it is effective, or something like this.

 

[PRmerger]

Here:

militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

Can you cite the atheist who gave his life out of love for a complete stranger?

All of them seem to be…alive.

Also, after you cite this deceased atheist, please provide documentation of 4 eye-witness accounts and documentation of this person’s alleged atheism.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, you’re only really a “child of God” by baptism (death to the world, adoption of the Father, incorporation into the life of the Church, individual redemption of the soul, etc.)… We’re all in God’s image and likeness (having reason and will) but we are not all His children, strictly speaking.

That’s not what our popes have said, e_c.

Anyway, back to the fun sub-thread:

Would you mind correctly quoting in your responses?

You correct attributed to me some posts I made, but did not correctly attribute the author of your last quote.

I do not want to be inadvertently assigned to a post I did not make.

 

[e_c]

That’s not what our popes have said, e_c.

Would you mind correctly quoting in your responses?

You correct attributed to me some posts I made, but did not correctly attribute the author of your last quote.

I do not want to be inadvertently assigned to a post I did not make.

Actually it is…

Sorry for the most.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually it is…

Whattt???

Actually what is?

You are saying I actually did make the quote whose authorship is not clear?

Sorry for the most.

This is something no one should respond to.

#nonapologyapologies