Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

Some cultures consider it moral to mutilate a woman’s genitals so she cannot enjoy sexual intercourse.

There is no doubt that this is immoral. Therefore, there exists objective morality.

This will do as an example. Although there are multiple others.

Is it moral to cause harm?
To oneself or another?
To another.
Is the harm justified?
As far as the person causing it is concerned, yes.
How about for the person who is harmed.
They would object.
But is there an overall good?
That’s debateable. It’s in regard to sex and whether it could be considered for enjoyment only.
Would the person being harmed agree?
Possibly. But they may well be involved at some point in perpetuating the harm.
So they would ultimately agree that it was for a good cause?
Indeterminate. It may be cultural indoctrination.
Would anyone agree to undergo a painful procedure for an indeterminate outcome?
Yes.
So where does that leave us?

It means that causing harm to a woman by rearranging her genitalia without pain relief and without her express permission may be wrong if the ultimate outcome is not ultimately for the greater good.

What if she agrees and it is with pain relief and it can be shown that it is for what all concerned is the greater good.

That would depend on one’s personal opinion on what would be considered to be the greater good. On the assumption that all concerned did indeed accept that it was for the greater good, then the question is moot.

And this is objective morality?

 

[Tandem]

There is no need to quote every line and add: “Yes, I agree”. But a few remarks are in order.

Some cultures consider it moral to mutilate a woman’s genitals so she cannot enjoy sexual intercourse.

There is no doubt that this is immoral.

In your ethical system and in mine as well. But obviously for those who practice this custom, it is not “immoral” - after all no one would perform an act which (s)he considers morally wrong.

Therefore, there exists objective morality.

I must add a qualifier to your last sentence. “Therefore, there exists objective morality in a particular ethical system”.

The underlying problem is that different ethical systems have different starting points. It is quite possible that despite the different starting points people reach the same conclusion - just like you and I both say that “torturing for fun” or “genital mutilation” are wrong - even though we have differing starting points.

However, there is the fundamental question: “what to do when the ethical systems are different?”. How can you compare two ethical systems? I have never seen a solution for this problem.

 

[inocente]

Ahhh, there’s the rub. I get it now.

Pleased you finally agree that your chosen weapon is indiscriminate, you can’t make a bomb kill only the unrighteous while leaving the righteous unharmed.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Objective, subjective; absolute, relative…

Does water boil at 100 degrees Celsius?

Not always; that depends on certain conditions (circumstances): If water is subject to a pressure above 1 bar, it will boil at a temperature above 100 degrees Celsius; if the pressure is lower than 1 bar, then water will boil at a temperature below 100 degrees Celsius; if the pressure is 1 bar, then water will boil at 100 Celsius.

But, is that so always?

Well, if water is pure, then the statement “pure water boils at 100 Celsius when the pressure is 1 bar” is kind of a definition.

So, isn’t the sentence “water boils at 100 Celsius” an absolute truth?

You need to establish the relevant conditions (circumstances) in order to determine if it is true or false. Also, you need to understand that a complete sentence (one that includes the description of the circumstances) becomes true or false within a scientific tradition, where the terms “water”, “purity”, “temperature”, “degrees Celsius”, “pressure”, “bar”, “boiling”, “boiling temperature”, “measurement” -and many others- have been defined, and certain practices are performed while others are rejected.

Okay, but once one belongs to a certain tradition and says “pure water at 1bar boils at 100 Celsius”, is that an absolute truth?; or, said in other words, does something called water really and always boil at 100 Celsius when it is subject to a pressure of 1 bar?

Well… more or less…

Are we better positioned than this in the moral realm?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

However, there is the fundamental question: “what to do when the ethical systems are different?”. How can you compare two ethical systems? I have never seen a solution for this problem.

Some ethical systems are downright evil. Those can be dismissed.

Others have a modicum of truth, but clearly not all the truth is in them.

One ethical system should be true, time tested, and have the authority of God behind it, not the authority of men.

When you find that one, all you have to do is hold onto it and not let false systems distract you.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There is no need to quote every line and add: “Yes, I agree”. But a few remarks are in order.

In your ethical system and in mine as well. But obviously for those who practice this custom, it is not “immoral” - after all no one would perform an act which (s)he considers morally wrong.

I must add a qualifier to your last sentence. “Therefore, there exists objective morality in a particular ethical system”.

The underlying problem is that different ethical systems have different starting points. It is quite possible that despite the different starting points people reach the same conclusion - just like you and I both say that “torturing for fun” or “genital mutilation” are wrong - even though we have differing starting points.

However, there is the fundamental question: “what to do when the ethical systems are different?”. How can you compare two ethical systems? I have never seen a solution for this problem.

I would like to know which are the starting points in your ethical system, and how you get to the conclusion, for example, that “genital mutilation” is “wrong”. Could you please explain yourself?

 

[Tandem]

Some ethical systems are downright evil.

In your opinion and mine. Obviously the practitioners of those systems disagree.

 

[Tandem]

I would like to know which are the starting points in your ethical system, and how you get to the conclusion, for example, that “genital mutilation” is “wrong”. Could you please explain yourself?

Sure, why not?

1. I start from the very “selfish” point that I want the best for myself. (And I am not ashamed to admit it )
2. In other words, I do not want others to interfere with my life (which includes my bodily integrity).
3. Then I looks at others, and see that we are very much alike. (We are all human beings.)
4. Therefore I assume that they also prefer not to be mutilated.
5. Now I might be mistaken, and maybe some people like to be mutilated. (I never heard of one, but then I am not omniscient.)
6. If that is the case, then they can state their preference, and their view should be respected.

That is the basic gist of it. I am sure you see that this is based upon the negative version of the golden rule. Or to use the simplified version: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. If someone does not respect this, then I will defend myself - with force, if necessary. But I would not throw the first punch (figuratively speaking, of course).

 

[o_mlly]

Pleased you finally agree that -]your/-] chosen weapon is indiscriminate, you can’t make a bomb kill only the unrighteous while leaving the righteous unharmed.

Still misquoting, I see. Your posts are wiggling around more than usual on this – your own thought-experiment.

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… .

Look up “indiscriminate weapon.” It’s your bomb and your bomber. If you want now to define your bomb in size and destructive capacity that on detonation the bomb will kill more than those in your original theater group then it becomes an indiscriminate weapon. Because it is your thought- experiment things are whatever you say they are. Let us know when you get your thoughts organized and complete. Maybe then we’ll take another look at your revised thought-experiment.

 

[inocente]

Objective, subjective; absolute, relative…

Does water boil at 100 degrees Celsius?

Not always; that depends on certain conditions (circumstances): If water is subject to a pressure above 1 bar, it will boil at a temperature above 100 degrees Celsius; if the pressure is lower than 1 bar, then water will boil at a temperature below 100 degrees Celsius; if the pressure is 1 bar, then water will boil at 100 Celsius.

But, is that so always?

Well, if water is pure, then the statement “pure water boils at 100 Celsius when the pressure is 1 bar” is kind of a definition.

So, isn’t the sentence “water boils at 100 Celsius” an absolute truth?

You need to establish the relevant conditions (circumstances) in order to determine if it is true or false. Also, you need to understand that a complete sentence (one that includes the description of the circumstances) becomes true or false within a scientific tradition, where the terms “water”, “purity”, “temperature”, “degrees Celsius”, “pressure”, “bar”, “boiling”, “boiling temperature”, “measurement” -and many others- have been defined, and certain practices are performed while others are rejected.

Okay, but once one belongs to a certain tradition and says “pure water at 1bar boils at 100 Celsius”, is that an absolute truth?; or, said in other words, does something called water really and always boil at 100 Celsius when it is subject to a pressure of 1 bar?

Well… more or less…

Are we better positioned than this in the moral realm?

Fun fact. The SI definition appears to be that the triple point of a composition of water called VSMOW in an evacuated cylinder is defined to be 273.15 K. Then a degree C is defined to be the same interval as one K, and 0º C defined as 273.15 K. The size of a degree then makes 100º C = 373.15 K.

But whatever, that definition only holds for our universe. In other possible worlds water or even atoms may not exist. So the definition relies on experience of nature in our universe, it couldn’t be written without knowing about water, absolute zero and so on.

Whereas, as there’s only one God, presumably theistic morality should be the same in all possible universes. Which implies either that it should be possible to work out what it says without needing any experience of our universe (a tall order) or that it can be discovered only through revelation (but which holy books).

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Sure, why not?

1. I start from the very “selfish” point that I want the best for myself. (And I am not ashamed to admit it )
2. In other words, I do not want others to interfere with my life (which includes my bodily integrity).
3. Then I looks at others, and see that we are very much alike. (We are all human beings.)
4. Therefore I assume that they also prefer not to be mutilated.
5. Now I might be mistaken, and maybe some people like to be mutilated. (I never heard of one, but then I am not omniscient.)
6. If that is the case, then they can state their preference, and their view should be respected.

That is the basic gist of it. I am sure you see that this is based upon the negative version of the golden rule. Or to use the simplified version: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. If someone does not respect this, then I will defend myself - with force, if necessary. But I would not throw the first punch (figuratively speaking, of course).

Thank you, Tandem!

I tend to think that there must be much more principles in your ethical system than just your desire of “the best for yourself”, and your assumption that others have the same desire. I understand that according to you “the best for yourself” consists in that others do not interfere with your life. Now, in society others not only interfere with your life, but they have molded it. So, “your life” is already -and essentially- “an interfered life”. So, I guess some qualification is needed in your first principle, isn’t it?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Fun fact. The SI definition appears to be that the triple point of a composition of water called VSMOW in an evacuated cylinder is defined to be 273.15 K. Then a degree C is defined to be the same interval as one K, and 0º C defined as 273.15 K. The size of a degree then makes 100º C = 373.15 K.

But whatever, that definition only holds for our universe. In other possible worlds water or even atoms may not exist. So the definition relies on experience of nature in our universe, it couldn’t be written without knowing about water, absolute zero and so on.

Whereas, as there’s only one God, presumably theistic morality should be the same in all possible universes. Which implies either that it should be possible to work out what it says without needing any experience of our universe (a tall order) or that it can be discovered only through revelation (but which holy books).

Do you think a universe where all beings are asexual is possible?

 

[inocente]

Still misquoting, I see. Your posts are wiggling around more than usual on this – your own thought-experiment.

I didn’t misquote you, I quoted your post in full. I’ve never consciously misquoted you, check every post, tell me where I’ve ever altered your words and I’ll apologize.

As for wriggling, you’ve not yet answered most of my post #757, whereas I’ve always answered all of yours.

Look up “indiscriminate weapon.” It’s your bomb and your bomber. If you want now to define your bomb in size and destructive capacity that on detonation the bomb will kill more than those in your original theater group then it becomes an indiscriminate weapon. Because it is your thought- experiment things are whatever you say they are. Let us know when you get your thoughts organized and complete. Maybe then we’ll take another look at your revised thought-experiment.

Who is this royal we?

I didn’t make it a thought experiment, you did that all by yourself. A you-said-I-said:

You quoted your own post #140: “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.”

I replied (post #556): “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.”

No thought experiment needed or intended, I was making an outright condemnation.

You then replied (post #563) “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."

So you’re the one who made it into a thought experiment by adding your unjust aggressors and claiming that what would otherwise be morally impermissible would then be permissible. Get your facts straight, you chose that scenario, not me.

When I then asked (#677) if it would be less or more moral to detonate the bomb inside the theater instead of on a timer, you ruled it immoral. Meaning that by using a timer there would be no eyes inside the theater and no way to discriminate who got killed in addition to your intended target.

So your thought experiment, your scenario. If you’re now having trouble justifying your claim then instead of getting upset with me, just remember the First Law Of Holes: when in one, stop digging.

 

[PRmerger]

This will do as an example. Although there are multiple others.

Is it moral to cause harm?

Yes, sometimes.

To oneself or another?
To another.
Is the harm justified?
As far as the person causing it is concerned, yes.
How about for the person who is harmed.
They would object.
But is there an overall good?
That’s debateable.

Egg-zactly.

It’s in regard to sex and whether it could be considered for enjoyment only.

Just as an aside: no moral person considers it “for enjoyment only”.

If that were so, you wouldn’t feel bad, at all, about enjoying some sex with your buxom neighbor. And neither would your wife feel bad about knowing this.

Why don’t you do this nor care if your wife engaged in sex “for enjoyment only”?

Because you DO NOT believe that sex is “for enjoyment only”.

Would the person being harmed agree?
Possibly. But they may well be involved at some point in perpetuating the harm.
So they would ultimately agree that it was for a good cause?
Indeterminate. It may be cultural indoctrination.
Would anyone agree to undergo a painful procedure for an indeterminate outcome?
Yes.
So where does that leave us?

It means that causing harm to a woman by rearranging her genitalia without pain relief and without her express permission may be wrong if the ultimate outcome is not ultimately for the greater good.

What would be the greater good here again?

What if she agrees and it is with pain relief and it can be shown that it is for what all concerned is the greater good.

If she agrees, fully informed, then there’s still the question of what this greater good is?

That would depend on one’s personal opinion on what would be considered to be the greater good.

Yep. What is it that you have in mind?

On the assumption that all concerned did indeed accept that it was for the greater good, then the question is moot.

Ok.

And this is objective morality?

Huh?

 

[PRmerger]

In your ethical system and in mine as well. But obviously for those who practice this custom, it is not “immoral” - after all no one would perform an act which (s)he considers morally wrong.

Then you have no problem with the Nazis annihilating 6 million Jews?

It’s morally wrong for you, but not for the Nazis?

Or…is it morally wrong INDEPENDENT of what the Nazis determined whats moral?

 

[PRmerger]

However, there is the fundamental question: “what to do when the ethical systems are different?”. How can you compare two ethical systems? I have never seen a solution for this problem.

And that’s why…

you need…

a…

theistic foundation of morality!

The solution is: conform your views to God’s. And to the degree that 2 different ethical systems have divorced themselves from this view is the degree to which they need to re-configure.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, why not?

1. I start from the very “selfish” point that I want the best for myself. (And I am not ashamed to admit it )
2. In other words, I do not want others to interfere with my life (which includes my bodily integrity).
3. Then I looks at others, and see that we are very much alike. (We are all human beings.)
4. Therefore I assume that they also prefer not to be mutilated.
5. Now I might be mistaken, and maybe some people like to be mutilated. (I never heard of one, but then I am not omniscient.)
6. If that is the case, then they can state their preference, and their view should be respected.

That is the basic gist of it. I am sure you see that this is based upon the negative version of the golden rule. Or to use the simplified version: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. If someone does not respect this, then I will defend myself - with force, if necessary. But I would not throw the first punch (figuratively speaking, of course).

This works if you understand that someone has inherent dignity because he is made in the image and likeness of God.

But if you believe that all of us are just Big Bags O’ Chemicals, then it makes no sense to say, “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”.

 

[Tandem]

Thank you, Tandem!

I tend to think that there must be much more principles in your ethical system than just your desire of “the best for yourself”, and your assumption that others have the same desire. I understand that according to you “the best for yourself” consists in that others do not interfere with your life. Now, in society others not only interfere with your life, but they have molded it. So, “your life” is already -and essentially- “an interfered life”. So, I guess some qualification is needed in your first principle, isn’t it?

Of course it is more complicated. But you asked why I consider genital mutilation wrong. Obviously the principle “to be left alone” is not absolute.

 

[inocente]

Do you think a universe where all beings are asexual is possible?

I think asexual reproduction means one parent, meaning offspring are basically clones, whereas sexual reproduction mixes genetic information from two parents, allowing change.

But that’s on Earth, perhaps elsewhere in this universe there are other kinds of reproduction without sex, but with some other means of mixing genes, or perhaps without genes at all. In other possible worlds with different physics and chemistry, perhaps genes would not even be possible.

Does that mean that if morality is theistic, God is a moral relativist?

 

[PRmerger]

. Now, in society others not only interfere with your life, but they have molded it. So, “your life” is already -and essentially- “an interfered life”. So, I guess some qualification is needed in your first principle, isn’t it?

Indeed.

If anyone is moral today it’s because he has been “interfered” with the Judeo-Christian ethos.