Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

Throw a bunch of clothes overboard - no problem. Someone is still wearing the clothes - problem.

I like that.

‘Why are you arresting me? I just smashed his hat a few times with my baseball bat’.
‘Yeah, but he was actually wearing it at the time’.

 

[inocente]

Did you mean “disparate” as in moving from conception to highway construction? I thought the logic unassailable in defeating the argument “that any action which causes the delayed death of a human being is always intentional and, therefore immoral.”

As straw men go, not a bad attempt, but no one made that argument.

And I was right. At last a breakthrough! You are now very Catholic in your thinking.

As other Catholic posters on this thread disagree with you, I’ve no way of knowing if you yourself are “very Catholic in your thinking”.

Oh, you’re back-sliding a bit. Did you forget that we agreed “bombing” is not intrinsically evil and that the bomber’s intention to mitigate an unjust aggressor is good. The next issue is one of balance. The issue is not “worth” but proportionate. Does the good effect equal or outweigh the evil.

Not such a good straw man. What I actually said was you are using consequentialism to calculate the utility (enemy soldiers killed minus collateral damage). And you’ve just confirmed you’re only balancing the consequences. Done and dusted.

inocente;14028059:

Not sure Christian morality should be about finding loopholes in the small print, but yes, it’s torture:

No argument here. I also believe water-boarding as I understand it to be torture. Others, some more knowledgeable than me in the procedure, disagree.

I’m glad we at least agree on that. Tell those others that their country signed the Treaty, so if they’re ever proven to have used water-boarding they’ll end up behind bars.

They are combatants waging an unjust war watching a show in the theater.

Exactly.

*You’ve got to read the whole book.

Yes, the killing of humans is evil but it may be an unintended* and tolerated evil if a proportionate good is intended.

CCC#2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

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#2269 … Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

Nice try, but by quoting those paragraphs out of order you’ve made it seem as if 2263 modifies 2268, which it doesn’t.

*We agree:

CCC#2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.*

Well there you go. Knowing that your bomb will kill and main people is “more than necessary violence”, even if it were self-defense, which it can’t be as they’re not attacking you, they’re watching a show.

btw, if you entered the theater as a suicide bomber, killing yourself as well as the others, is that less or more moral than planting the bomb beforehand so you can get away without a scratch?

Did I mention the Catechism is available on Amazon.com?

It’s free online. And if you look at its objectives, it’s a teaching aid for those responsible for catchesis, not a rule book for laity. Rules deny Grace. There’s a section on Grace, 1987 to 2005. They’re not rules.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it blazingly obvious that what could be considered correct or not depends on the circumstances.

This is very Catholic.

However, there are some things in which there is NO circumstance which would ever consider an action “correct”.

 

[PRmerger]

And if you look at its objectives, it’s a teaching aid for those responsible for catchesis, not a rule book for laity. Rules deny Grace. There’s a section on Grace, 1987 to 2005. They’re not rules.

It this ^^ a rule?

 

[inocente]

inocente;14028178:

CCC 2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Seems clear enough.
Read the paragraphs about capital punishment, just war, etc. Then we can discuss whether or not it is clear.

The fifth commandment clearly doesn’t have any get-out clauses, God categorically prohibits killing with direct intent.

If the CCC was a legal contract, it’s possible any and every act could be authorized. A legalist could point to the section on capital punishment where it says “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”, and say there you go, doesn’t say it’s prohibited, no problem.

But the Holy Spirit doesn’t write contracts. The CCC says it’s a teaching aid, and the spirit of the teaching is surely to make justifying capital punishment hard if not impossible.

Throwing someone off a boat is, in itself, morally neutral after all.

Can’t see how throwing someone off a boat can ever be morally neutral unless perhaps (a) they have consented to being thrown and (b) you have a high degree of certainty that they will come to no harm and (c) you do all in your power to keep them from harm until safely back on the boat.

Why do you say it’s morally neutral?

 

[inocente]

It this ^^ a rule?

I have in mind whether we’re redeemed by Grace or by rules.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology))

 

[PRmerger]

I have in mind whether we’re redeemed by Grace or by rules.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology))

Grace of course.

But you seemed to be offering a rule about how to view the Catechism.

And a rule that rules deny Grace.

Yes? Is that a correct assessment of what you were asserting?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Agreed. Murder is always murder, regardless of the tools used to carry it out: handgun, arsenic, shark attack.

Pushing someone off a lifeboat to save 4 lives is a morally permissible act.

No, it isn’t. You’re slicing the situation too thinly, and looking at the ‘push’ in isolation, as if that’s all that mattered. You’re right – ‘pushing a person’ isn’t morally impermissible. But, what about ‘pushing off a cliff’? Or ‘pushing into oncoming traffic’? The circumstances make these acts not morally neutral. Same with ‘pushing into shark-infested waters’. Not. Morally. Permissible.

 

[Gorgias]

The fifth commandment clearly doesn’t have any get-out clauses, God categorically prohibits killing with direct intent.

Are you sure about that? There sure seems to be just a bit of divinely-sanctioned war in the Bible subsequent to the Mosaic covenant…

The fifth commandment prohibits murder of humans.

But the Holy Spirit doesn’t write contracts.

No – on two counts. First off, what do you think a ‘covenant’ is, exactly? It’s a contract that makes its participants into family!

Second, what do you call the rainbow in the Noah story, or the split animals in the Abraham story, or even the blood in the Mosaic covenant story? These are all signs of the contract (aka covenant) God is making with His people there! (And now, for the kicker: what does Jesus say that the chalice contains, in his Last Supper ‘institution narrative’?)

Can’t see how throwing someone off a boat can ever be morally neutral unless perhaps (a) they have consented to being thrown and (b) you have a high degree of certainty that they will come to no harm and (c) you do all in your power to keep them from harm until safely back on the boat.

I’m not sure I agree that their consent comes into play. (For instance, if they’re standing in the path of a boom that’s swinging their way, then pushing them overboard in order to avoid getting crushed is morally good – even though they don’t consent to it.)

Otherwise, I agree: to argue that pushing someone off a boat is morally neutral requires an analysis of the circumstances. In some, it’s morally good; in others, neutral; in still others, evil.

 

[e_c]

inocente - The word used in the 5th commandment is “ratsach,” which is a little more specific than “kill.” In other places, you have God commanding people to be put to death under certain circumstances. You can’t reconcile these with the way you’re thinking.

Also, pushing someone off a boat is not always wrong. Therefore, in itself, it’s at least morally neutral.

o_mlly - Here’s another way to think about it. Circumstances are not something that we do. Objects are. If you say smoking a cigarette while fueling your car is reckless endangerment, you must admit that the circumstances have legitimately changed what the agent is DOING, which is separate from his intent.

Let’s say the “moral act” is one’s action combined with his intention, seeing as circumstances are not something DONE. Provided the intention is good, it goes from a neutral act (arguments about whether smoking is moral or not laid aside) to a bad act because of the circumstances. The circumstances have not changed the intention, they have changed what the agent is DOING… recklessly endangering people.

This is the teaching of St. Thomas, at least.

 

[o_mlly]

…Throw a bunch of clothes overboard - no problem. Someone is still wearing the clothes - problem.

Throw a section of fallopian tube overboard – no problem. Someone is still “wearing” the fallopian tube – problem?

 

[e_c]

Throw a section of fallopian tube overboard – no problem. Someone is still “wearing” the fallopian tube – problem?

The issue in an ectopic pregnancy is not that the child is growing, which is normal - it is that the fallopian tube is going to burst. You remove the tube, which happens to have a child in it. Whether it was a child or a grapefruit makes no difference for the fact that the tube breaking is the problem.

 

[o_mlly]

inocente - The word used in the 5th commandment is “ratsach,” which is a little more specific than “kill.” In other places, you have God commanding people to be put to death under certain circumstances. You can’t reconcile these with the way you’re thinking.

Also, pushing someone off a boat is not always wrong. Therefore, in itself, it’s at least morally neutral.

o_mlly - Here’s another way to think about it. Circumstances are not something that we do. Objects are. If you say smoking a cigarette while fueling your car is reckless endangerment, you must admit that the circumstances have legitimately changed what the agent is DOING, which is separate from his intent.

Let’s say the “moral act” is one’s action combined with his intention, seeing as circumstances are not something DONE. Provided the intention is good, it goes from a neutral act (arguments about whether smoking is moral or not laid aside) to a bad act because of the circumstances. The circumstances have not changed the intention, they have changed what the agent is DOING… recklessly endangering people.

This is the teaching of St. Thomas, at least.

Perhaps we can agree that:
The object is the “what.”
The intent is the “why.”
The circumstances are the “who”, “where” and “when.”

The morality of the act requires a combined examination of all three fonts.

 

[o_mlly]

The issue in an ectopic pregnancy is not that the child is growing, which is normal - it is that the fallopian tube is going to burst. You remove the tube, which happens to have a child in it. Whether it was a child or a grapefruit makes no difference for the fact that the tube breaking is the problem.

How is the “fallopian tube is going to burst” different in principle from "the lifeboat is going to sink’? On the lifeboat, the excess weight happens to be “clothes” with a child in it.

 

[o_mlly]

As straw men go, not a bad attempt, but no one made that argument.

“Just because there’s a time delay between the action and the death doesn’t make it unintentional.” Nor does a time delay make it intentional.

As other Catholic posters on this thread disagree with you, I’ve no way of knowing if you yourself are “very Catholic in your thinking”.

Sometimes I wonder myself. Being Catholic is not for wimps or those who want easy answers.

Not such a good straw man. What I actually said was you are using consequentialism to calculate the utility (enemy soldiers killed minus collateral damage). And you’ve just confirmed you’re only balancing the consequences. Done and dusted.

Done and dusted? I don’t think so. Read the posts more carefully. Consequentialism only examines consequences to determine morality. I’ve examined far more than that. Are you really confused or just trying to be clever?

Nice try, but by quoting those paragraphs out of order you’ve made it seem as if 2263 modifies 2268, which it doesn’t.

No, you incorrectly **infer **any manipulation or modification effort on my part. (See Rash Judgment in the catechism.) Each paragraph has its own subheading and stands alone – one does not modify the other: “Legitimate Defense” and “Intentional Homicide.”

Well there you go. Knowing that your bomb will kill and main people is “more than necessary violence”, even if it were self-defense, which it can’t be as they’re not attacking you, they’re watching a show.

Apparently you don’t understand Catholic teaching on just war doctrine. It’s in the catechism. CCC#2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

btw, if you entered the theater as a suicide bomber, killing yourself as well as the others, is that less or more moral than planting the bomb beforehand so you can get away without a scratch?

It’s not moral at all. Suicide is intrinsically evil and never permitted.

 

[e_c]

Perhaps we can agree that:
The object is the “what.”
The intent is the “why.”
The circumstances are the “who”, “where” and “when.”

The morality of the act requires a combined examination of all three fonts.

Sure.

Can we also agree that the who, where, and when make a difference for the what?

How is the “fallopian tube is going to burst” different in principle from "the lifeboat is going to sink’? On the lifeboat, the excess weight happens to be “clothes” with a child in it.

The difference is the relationship of the action to the person who dies.

If someone were wearing a millstone around his neck, and it was impossible to remove, you could throw the millstone overboard (especially if he has been scandalizing people). The weight of the millstone is the problem.

If the person’s clothes are really that heavy, throw the clothes overboard. Peter fished lightly clad, after all.

 

[Aloysium]

The ectopic pregnancy will in all likelihood have terminated with the bursting of the Fallopian tube. It is time to patch up the life boat and commit the remains of the deceased passenger to the deep. There aren’t many life and death situations in real life that are analogous to the lifeboat scenario. In that very particular case it would realistically come down to power. Four are stronger than one, so it will boil down to who is to be the scapegoat. Morally speaking, it doesn’t matter whether one dies or five; one outcome is not better than the other as I see it. Each of us dies once in ourselves and our lives are not cumulative. Five deaths vs one, it doesn’t matter because for each person everything is being lost. How are we to decide whether any life would be of any less value than another. I am unable to assess the outcome of any individual’s death on the world. That’s one of the reasons for a final judgment. How do we know until all the ripples of our lives have reach the end and all the consequences of our actions can be tallied? At any rate, it is a sin to take the life of another; thinking one is justified in doing so, may act as a barrier to repentance.

 

[o_mlly]

Can we also agree that the who, where, and when make a difference for the what?

I’m not there. “Playing tennis” will always be just “playing tennis.” Can we agree that the the who, where, and when make a difference on the morality of the act? And if so, does it really matter if the “what” remains just what it is by its plain definition? It’s the act (by all 3 fonts) that is scrutinized as moral or not.

The difference is the relationship of the action to the person who dies.

I don’t see a difference in principle between the action of the mother and the “shover.” In both cases the “aggressor” is accidentally threatening another’s life.

If someone were wearing a millstone around his neck, and it was impossible to remove, you could throw the millstone overboard (especially if he has been scandalizing people). The weight of the millstone is the problem.

I don’t see a principled difference. The primary cause of the mother’s lethal situation is the size of the growing fetus. The primary cause of the survivors’ dilemma is the size of one of the occupants.

If the morality of the mother action is one of self-defense against the child as an aggressor (not willfully but by merely existing where the child exists) then why would a different principle apply to the survivor on the lifeboat?

It seems to me 3 principles apply:

1. The right of self-defense against an aggressor. Aggressor defined as one who threatens another’s life willfully or accidentally.
2. Moderate force to repel the aggressor may include a lethal blow.
3. One is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

*CCC#2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.*

If the person’s clothes are really that heavy, throw the clothes overboard. Peter fished lightly clad, after all.

As are many others on this thread, I’m already shark-bait.

 

[davidv]

I’m not there. “Playing tennis” will always be just “playing tennis.” Can we agree that the the who, where, and when make a difference on the morality of the act? And if so, does it really matter if the “what” remains just what it is by its plain definition? It’s the act (by all 3 fonts) that is scrutinized as moral or not.

I don’t see a difference in principle between the action of the mother and the “shover.” In both cases the “aggressor” is accidentally threatening another’s life.

I don’t see a principled difference. The primary cause of the mother’s lethal situation is the size of the growing fetus. The primary cause of the survivors’ dilemma is the size of one of the occupants.

If the morality of the mother action is one of self-defense against the child as an aggressor (not willfully but by merely existing where the child exists) then why would a different principle apply to the survivor on the lifeboat?

It seems to me 3 principles apply:

1. The right of self-defense against an aggressor. Aggressor defined as one who threatens another’s life willfully or accidentally.
2. Moderate force to repel the aggressor may include a lethal blow.
3. One is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

CCC#2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

As are many others on this thread, I’m already shark-bait.

My understanding of the discussion so far is that the principles are not in question. It is the application of those principles where there is disagreement. This is particularly true in defining the moral object. And as been seen, this is not a trivial exercise. In some cases it appears that the fallacy of division, or composition, is at work. If a moral object is too finely divided, one could judge each of the components as morally good or neutral and erroneously conclude that the combination of those elements is also morally good or neutral. This may not be the case and the conclusion is not logical.

 

[e_c]

1. I’m not there. “Playing tennis” will always be just “playing tennis.” Can we agree that the the who, where, and when make a difference on the morality of the act? And if so, does it really matter if the “what” remains just what it is by its plain definition? It’s the act (by all 3 fonts) that is scrutinized as moral or not.

**2. **I don’t see a difference in principle between the action of the mother and the “shover.” In both cases the “aggressor” is accidentally threatening another’s life.

**3. **I don’t see a principled difference. The primary cause of the mother’s lethal situation is the size of the growing fetus. The primary cause of the survivors’ dilemma is the size of one of the occupants.

**4. **If the morality of the mother action is one of self-defense against the child as an aggressor (not willfully but by merely existing where the child exists) then why would a different principle apply to the survivor on the lifeboat?

**5. **It seems to me 3 principles apply:

1. The right of self-defense against an aggressor. Aggressor defined as one who threatens another’s life willfully or accidentally.
2. Moderate force to repel the aggressor may include a lethal blow.
3. One is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

CCC#2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

As are many others on this thread, I’m already shark-bait.

1. Actually, playing tennis is rather complex. By this language, we’ve already accepted ALL KINDS of “circumstances” as the object. You’ve not caught onto that yet. You could just as easily say it’s “moving arms,” for instance. But we make a big leap, by taking into account the circumstances (there’s a tennis ball, rackets, white sweater vests, etc.). Apply the same thinking to contraception: “Taking a hormonal pill will always just be taking a hormonal pill.” So there is more to it.
2. Throwing someone overboard makes a human being the target. They enter into the essence of the moral object. It becomes essentially about putting this person into a lethal situation. This is not the case with the ectopic pregnancy… The tube could be splitting for any number of reasons. It happens to be split by a human. But, the human is not targeted in the act of removing the tube. This is like throwing the millstone off the boat when it is attached to someone.
3. One enters the object, one does not but remains a mere circumstance which behooves one to look for other options if possible because of the - you guessed it - double effect.
4. There are several distinctions, but the most important is that, once again, the fetus is not acted on except indirectly/accidentally. If you removed the tube and happened to find out it was actually an oddly shaped grapefruit, you would call your action successful… You achieved your proximate goal of removing the tube which was bursting. (The growth itself is not the problem, it is what the growth is doing to the surrounding body part.)
5. The problem is with your first principle. Material and vegetal threats in no way enter the commutative sphere. Animal threats arguably do (and are not always able to be distinguished from rational threats). Rational threats definitely do. When the agent reduces his body to a weapon by his desire to harm you, you may treat it as he does inasmuch as it bears upon you. Someone’s body simply being in the wrong place or growing in the wrong way does not give you this license. You must defend indirectly and indiscriminately, never targeting that individual’s body (in a lethal way).

Have you read the articles I linked to from the Summa? You seem like you’re starting to come around.

I will offer here once again my formula for demarcating the object. It begins with finding the intention, which is the first good desired for its own sake which motivated the action. The object is the whole means actively used (willed) to achieve the intention.