Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Of course they do. Insanely evil people never agree with sane people.

That’s why they have to be jailed or killed.

It’s that or submit to their insanity.

 

[Tandem]

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

Godwin’s Law raises its ugly head again. Inevitable… I guess.

And that’s why…
you need…
a…
theistic foundation of morality!

I don’t need it. I can love and respect others without any divine help.

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.

As soon as God will declare his views, I will be happy to take them into account. I am ready and waiting.

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”.

It makes sense for me (and millions of others) without it. If you don’t get it, it is your problem.

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

What about the millennia before the small Jewish tribe came up with their creation myth? Was everyone “immoral” before that time?

But since you insist, let’s NOT do some warm and fuzzy cherry-picking. Let’s look at the whole “basket”, which also contains “Numbers 31:17”: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Guess what, I will decline to follow it. Without any divine help. My own principles against genocide and sexual slavery are sufficient deterrents for me.

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

Ah, let’s add a juicy “No true Scotsman” fallacy to the mixture.

 

[PRmerger]

Godwin’s Law raises its ugly head again. Inevitable… I guess.

It’s an appropriate question, Godwin’s Law notwithstanding.

If you are of the position that the Nazis could decide what is moral and what’s not, then you will, at least, be consistent.

Is that what you are proposing? What the Nazis did was, indeed, moral, since they determined it to be so?

Yes?

I don’t need it. I can love and respect others without any divine help.

You certainly can.

But it’s kind of like taking medication without understanding why you do it.

You have no rationale for loving and respecting others if you have no theistic foundation for doing so.

As soon as God will declare his views, I will be happy to take them into account. I am ready and waiting.

What would that look like to you?

And how would you be sure that it was God and not an alien?

It makes sense for me (and millions of others) without it. If you don’t get it, it is your problem.

Careful, Tandem.

Clearly, you want to be here with us so very badly.

So it would be a shame for you to be banned for not knowing how to learn from past mistakes.

You seem to enjoy being in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so learn what you’ve done wrong, and try not to repeat it.

That’s the smart thing to do, eh?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

Yes, I asked you how you get to the conclusion that genital mutilation is wrong starting from the first principles of your ethical system. Your answer did not seem complete to me, so I asked you if you can complete it. I think the principle you proposed needs further explanation, and perhaps you need to present some other principles besides that one.

Do you have clear in your mind the first principles of your ethical system?

 

[o_mlly]

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. .

Your unconscious apology accepted.

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

I answered the parts that were coherent and showed that what I had posted was in fact read. For you, I will take another look. Stay tuned.

Who is this royal we? .

My guardian angel and me,

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

Yes, And I answered my just war version indicating that the bomb and bomber killed discriminately. Now you want to change my thought-experiment so the bomb and bomber are indiscriminate so it becomes once again your thought experiment. Get it?

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. .

My scenario was asked and answered. If you want to make the bomb indiscriminate then it is no longer my thought-experiment. But, as you say now, If you don’t have a thought experiment then please stop changing mine to fit the your predetermined moral outcome. The question has never been: Do you accept the moral determination but rather does the moral determination proceed from Catholic moral teaching? Answer: Yes.

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. .

You better find that post claiming " you ruled it immoral " because once again you are dead wrong in quoting or paraphrasing what I have posted. That’s a problem, friend

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.

I have justified my claim. Why would I be upset? I simply remember the First Law of Teaching Children: Talk like an adult.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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?

It doesn’t, but don’t you think that in a universe where all beings are asexual, morality is not concerned with sexual practices?

Could there be a universe where all living beings are immortal?

 

[Tandem]

Is that what you are proposing? What the Nazis did was, indeed, moral, since they determined it to be so?

I will repeat again. They considered it to be moral. There is no “morality” independent from someone’s ethical system. And different ethical systems MAY have different definitions about the “morality” of an action “X”. But I already repeated this many times.

To be very explicit:

I never say that an action is “MORAL”. I only say that an action is considered moral in a particular ethical system, and it might be considered immoral is a different ethical system. Can we now move on?

You have no rationale for loving and respecting others if you have no theistic foundation for doing so.

I respect your opinion but do not share it. People loved and respected others since time immemorial, millennia before any kind of monotheistic religion came onto the scene. Christianity has no “dibs” on ethics or morality.

 

[Tandem]

Yes, I asked you how you get to the conclusion that genital mutilation is wrong starting from the first principles of your ethical system. Your answer did not seem complete to me, so I asked you if you can complete it. I think the principle you proposed needs further explanation, and perhaps you need to present some other principles besides that one.

I think it is a sufficient foundation. I don’t want to be mutilated, therefore I surmise that others do not want to be mutilated, and therefore I am against mutilating others. Now, I might be wrong. I am against being crucified, so it is my opinion that others are also against being crucified. And then I am proven wrong… in the Philippines there are many people who like to “play” crucifixion games. Of course they do not really want to be crucified, they want to be taken off the cross before the “game” turns to be serious. But if someone really want to be crucified, I have no objection.

However, I never heard of a woman, who wanted to be mutilated in the genitalia. But what do I know? Maybe there are such women. If that is their desire, I will not stand in their way.

Do you have clear in your mind the first principles of your ethical system?

I would hope so.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think it is a sufficient foundation. I don’t want to be mutilated, therefore I surmise that others do not want to be mutilated, and therefore I am against mutilating others. Now, I might be wrong. I am against being crucified, so it is my opinion that others are also against being crucified. And then I am proven wrong… in the Philippines there are many people who like to “play” crucifixion games. Of course they do not really want to be crucified, they want to be taken off the cross before the “game” turns to be serious. But if someone really want to be crucified, I have no objection.

However, I never heard of a woman, who wanted to be mutilated in the genitalia. But what do I know? Maybe there are such women. If that is their desire, I will not stand in their way.

Everybody has his/her desires; and some even have uncommon desires. We are not obliged to give satisfaction to them just because people have them. But…, are we at least obliged to respect them, independently of their objects?

Do you think that it is different fundamental desires which give rise to different ethical systems?

I would hope so.

Would you mind letting me know those principles?

 

[PRmerger]

I will repeat again. They considered it to be moral.

Well, either it was right to kill 6 million Jews, or it was wrong.

That you can’t even say that it was wrong is monstrous. Truly monstrous.

I respect your opinion but do not share it. People loved and respected others since time immemorial, millennia before any kind of monotheistic religion came onto the scene. Christianity has no “dibs” on ethics or morality.

No doubt.

Atheists can love and respect others, be heroic, give to the poor.

But there is no foundation for this except, “I like to do it”.

And there is no reason to tell others to do the same thing.

And there is NO WAY that an atheist can offer any compelling argument to someone who says, “Well, that’s just your opinion that it’s good to not torture children for fun. I happen to ‘consider it moral’ and…what are you going to do about that?”

And that is a very, very treacherous position for the atheist (or lapsed Calvinist) to be in.

 

[PRmerger]

But since you insist, let’s NOT do some warm and fuzzy cherry-picking. Let’s look at the whole “basket”, which also contains “Numbers 31:17”: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Guess what, I will decline to follow it.

Maybe if you read that with a Calvinist’s (lapsed or otherwise) eyes you would declare that you will “decline to follow it”.

But we Catholics read the Scriptures through the lens of the Church which gave us this Bible.

Without any divine help. My own principles against genocide and sexual slavery are sufficient deterrents for me.

But they fail when someone else decides he doesn’t agree with your view.

And all you can do is say, “I prefer not to have sexual slaves. But you can certainly do so if that’s what you ‘consider’ to be moral, I guess”.

Ah, let’s add a juicy “No true Scotsman” fallacy to the mixture.

Really? I don’t think you’re apply this fallacy correctly, Tandem.

At any rate, do you* really* think that a moral person considers sex for enjoyment only?

 

[PRmerger]

If that is their desire, I will not stand in their way.

So would it be wrong, then, to stand in their way if they so desired to be circumcised?

 

[Tandem]

Everybody has his/her desires; and some even have uncommon desires. We are not obliged to give satisfaction to them just because people have them. But…, are we at least obliged to respect them, independently of their objects?

If those desires do not cause harm to others, then I would see nothing wrong with entertaining them. Not necessarily in a positive fashion (participating in them), but at least permissively.

Do you think that it is different fundamental desires which give rise to different ethical systems?

Partially, yes. Ethics is the third part of philosophy. I am sure you already know this, but just for the sake of others:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
   And finally:
3. Ethics - so how should we behave?

So based upon what you think exists, and what your desires are, and how should you go about fulfilling your desires - you will arrive at different ethical systems.

Would you mind letting me know those principles?

That might take a long time. But the basics are simple. Live and let live. Respect others. Do not hurt others. Balance your own needs with the needs of others. Accept that no one is an island unto himself.

Also the realization that resources are not “abundant”, and as such sharing those resources is part of the equation. So the question is very complex.

Of course all that comes from our biological bodies and needs, since we are both individuals and herd animals. For a race of intelligent predators (for example sharks) there would be no need for cooperation. For a race of intelligent herbivores cooperation would be of paramount importance. For a race of intelligent “trees” the whole question would be irrelevant, since their sustenance is based upon sunlight, which is available in abundance. For a race of intelligent “rocks” there is no problem at all. Their existence does not require external resources.

This is presented as a short summary. You are welcome to criticize it, or amend it.

 

[Tandem]

That you can’t even say that it was wrong is monstrous. Truly monstrous.

Your opinion is duly noted.

But there is no foundation for this except, “I like to do it”.

That is good enough for me. I like to treat others kindly, I like to be helpful, and so on… I like all these things for their own sake, not because I expect reward (heaven) or I fear punishment (hell). I just like to do them, without any special reason. And I firmly believe that treating others kindly will “nudge” them to be kind to others, and everyone winds.

And there is NO WAY that an atheist can offer any compelling argument to someone who says, “Well, that’s just your opinion that it’s good to not torture children for fun. I happen to ‘consider it moral’ and…what are you going to do about that?”

That is why we have a legal system. There is no need to argue. But since we are at it… what is the argument that YOU would bring forth? Don’t do it, because you will burn in hell forever?

But we Catholics read the Scriptures through the lens of the Church which gave us this Bible.

Excellent. So please give me the official evaluation of Numbers 31:17. How should one “interpret” the words: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Which part of “kill” are you going to question?

But they fail when someone else decides he doesn’t agree with your view.

Just like yours, if someone disagrees with your starting point. What kind of arguments can you bring up to convince someone who disagrees with you?

And all you can do is say, “I prefer not to have sexual slaves. But you can certainly do so if that’s what you ‘consider’ to be moral, I guess”.

This kind of twisting of what I would say is extremely frustrating. Why don’t you actually argue against what I say, and not what you think I would say? You are not qualified to say what I would say.

Really? I don’t think you’re apply this fallacy correctly, Tandem.

Your opinion is duly noted. But I think it is. You said “no really moral person would consider sex for fun”… therefore anyone who allows sex for fun is not really a “moral” person. A typical “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

At any rate, do you* really* think that a moral person considers sex for enjoyment only?

In my world there is nothing wrong with having sex with an equally willing adult partner, for amusement only. Two (otherwise) unattached people volitionally having fun in each other’s arms… no problem. No third party is “hurt”. By the way, your objection to this event is the one which makes your whole “ethical system” questionable. In my opinion, of course.

So would it be wrong, then, to stand in their way if they so desired to be circumcised?

In my opinion, of course.

 

[PRmerger]

However, I never heard of a woman, who wanted to be mutilated in the genitalia. But what do I know? Maybe there are such women. If that is their desire, I will not stand in their way.

So would it be wrong, then, to stand in their way if they so desired to be circumcised?

Unfortunately, this dialogue has been forced to a close.

I will assert for the lurkers that there is a weird dissonance between what was being spoken (“morality is just an opinion!”) and then what was being unspoken, yet asserted (“it is wrong to stand in the way of someone who wants to be mutilated!”).

Clearly, one cannot really argue a position here on a forum without believing in actual right and wrong. Objective right and wrong.

That they are here presenting their views is testament to the fact that they believe their position is right, and the counter position is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

You said “no really moral person would consider sex for fun”… therefore anyone who allows sex for fun is not really a “moral” person. A typical “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

Not at all.

No moral person would consider sex for enjoyment only.

Imagine this scenario:

A moral man. Married. His wife is:

-having lunch with her friends, for enjoyment only,
-then chatting with the mailman, for enjoyment only,
-then going bowling with some strangers she met because she joined a league she saw advertised in the local paper, for enjoyment only

-and then having sex with the concession stand guy, for enjoyment only.

This moral man would NOT endorse this at all.

Why?

Because he truly doesn’t believe that sex is for enjoyment ONLY.

Otherwise, he would have to object to:

-having lunch with friends
-chatting with mailmen
-bowling with folks you just meet.

QED

 

[Bradski]

Egg-zactly

So cannabalism is morally acceptable in some conditions. To blandly state that is it morally wrong is, in itself, wrong. You need to know the conditions under which it occurs.

Is cannabilism acceptable?
It depends. Was the person killed in order that that might happen?
No. They died in an accident.
It still depends. Was eating the flesh done for pleasure?
No. It was the only means of survival.
It still depends. Was it done gratuitously?
No. There was respect for those who died.

Then yes, it is appears to be morally acceptable, given the conditions you have listed. Presumably one could then state that whether cannabalism is morally acceptable or not is relative. Relative to the conditions.

Is causing harm acceptable?
It depends. Harm to whom?
A woman.
It still depends. Is the harm justified?
By some.
It still depends. Is it with her consent?
No.

Then no, it appears that it is morally unacceptable, given the conditions you have listed. Presumably one could then state that whether causing harm is morally unacceptable or not is relative. Relative to the conditions.

If you want to insist that the second is objective, then the first also becomes objective.

If causing harm to a woman for unspecified reasons without her consent is objectively wrong, then eating the flesh of another person as the only means to survive if that person was not killed for the purpose of being eaten is objectively right.

But you have already stated that the second (eating human flesh) is relative to the situation. So why on earth is the first (causing harm) not relative as well?

The way you are interpreting moral acts as objective is purely arbitrary. There is NO moral act that does not come with conditions attached. None at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The act either causes harm or it does not. And the conditions dictate whether we consider it to be right or wrong. And not whether it complies with God’s will, but whether we personally consider it to right or wrong.

If it needs to comply with God’s will, then you are going to be asked how you personally know what God’s will actually is. Because there are some instances, which people seem to believe actually happened, when God’s will appears to us to be immoral (ordering the slaughter of children). So God’s will might be directly in opposition to what you personally believe to be correct. Let me know how you work out who is right.

And in passing…

No-one has sex just for pleasure? You are kidding, right? And I’m not sure why you associate it with adultery. Don’t married couples have sex for pleasure? It is physically impossible for my wife and I to have any more children, so what on earth is the reason do you think we still indulge in a little horizontal folk dancing? Excercise?

 

[PRmerger]

No-one has sex just for pleasure? You are kidding, right?

If it’s for pleasure alone then you wouldn’t have a problem with your wife doing this pleasurable only activity with the mailman, right?

And yet, we all know you would have a problem with this.

A great big problem.

Ergo–you don’t believe that sex can be for pleasure only.

 

[PRmerger]

So cannabalism is morally acceptable in some conditions.

In extremis, yes.

To blandly state that is it morally wrong is, in itself, wrong.

No. I think that it’s acceptable to say that it’s wrong, in general, except for extreme circumstances.

And if we hold this view of cannibalism: killing a person in order to eat his flesh for the purpose of domination or of seeking the spirit or life of this person…then, it’s ALWAYS wrong.

You need to know the conditions under which it occurs.

Sure. That’s always helpful.

Even for moral absolutes like genocide or rape.

Is cannabilism acceptable?
It depends. Was the person killed in order that that might happen?
No. They died in an accident.
It still depends. Was eating the flesh done for pleasure?
No. It was the only means of survival.
It still depends. Was it done gratuitously?
No. There was respect for those who died.

Then yes, it is appears to be morally acceptable, given the conditions you have listed.

Yep. You got it.

Presumably one could then state that whether cannabalism is morally acceptable or not is relative. Relative to the conditions.

Yep.

Is causing harm acceptable?
It depends.

Yep.

Harm to whom?
A woman.
It still depends. Is the harm justified?
By some.
It still depends. Is it with her consent?
No.

Then no, it appears that it is morally unacceptable, given the conditions you have listed.

You got it.

Presumably one could then state that whether causing harm is morally unacceptable or not is relative. Relative to the conditions.

Indeed.

If you want to insist that the second is objective, then the first also becomes objective.

Ok.

If causing harm to a woman for unspecified reasons without her consent is objectively wrong, then eating the flesh of another person as the only means to survive if that person was not killed for the purpose of being eaten is objectively right.

Errr…what???

But you have already stated that the second (eating human flesh) is relative to the situation. So why on earth is the first (causing harm) not relative as well?

Causing harm is indeed relative.

Chemotherapy causes harm. Immunizations cause harm. Building a house causes harm. Eating a steak causes harm.

You’ve lost your steam, luv. I agree that causing harm may be relative to the situation.

 

[PRmerger]

It is physically impossible for my wife and I to have any more children, so what on earth is the reason do you think we still indulge in a little horizontal folk dancing? Excercise?

OhmyGOSH! spitting out my wine all over the keyboard


Horizontal folk dancing.

I love it.

I will use it the very next chance I get!