Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PRmerger]

so what on earth is the reason do you think we still indulge in a little horizontal folk dancing? Excercise?

It’s called making love, luv.

And you and your wife do it because you understand, implicitly, that it bonds you together, it makes you…em…One Flesh…and it is a renewal of the vows you said to each other on your wedding day, even if it’s not, for you, an intelligible articulation of this renewal.

That’s what it is, whether you articulate it this way or not.

And that, my friend, is why NO ONE who’s morally sane REALLY believes that sex is for enjoyment only.

 

[Bradski]

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

I’m here to tell you that that is the only reason I do it. And with the exception of the ocassions where we were trying to have a family, it has always been the only reason why I do it. To be honest, it’s the main reason why everyone on the planet does it.

Trying to conflate it with adultery ain’t going to work.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m here to tell you that that is the only reason I do it. And with the exception of the ocassions where we were trying to have a family, it has always been the only reason why I do it. To be honest, it’s the main reason why everyone on the planet does it.

Nope.

I’ll believe this when you tell us here that your wife had a sexual encounter with the pool boy and you had no problem with it because, hey, it was for enjoyment only.

She went out to lunch with her girlfriends, for enjoyment only. And you’re fine with that.
She had a massage from a complete stranger, for enjoyment only. And you’re fine with that.

But sex for enjoyment only?

Not a chance you’d be fine with that.

 

[Bradski]

I agree that causing harm may be relative to the situation.

An act is either moral or immoral entirely dependent on whether it causes harm (or does some good).

Therefore ALL acts are relative to the conditions. Unless you can give an example of an act which has no conditions relative to it at all.

Killing is wrong, dependent upon the conditions. Lying is correct, dependent on the conditions. Causing harm is right or wrong, dependent on the conditions.

What you want to do is state the conditions and then claim it is objective. When the act is relative to the conditions in the first instance. Otherwise, literally everything would be objective.

Killing a man ‘if he is an enemy soldier and war has been declared and he is armed and is in a position where there is a strong possibility that he might shoot you or someone else and there is no other way to prevent that happening’…well, according to some, killing in that case is objectively correct.

What nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m here to tell you that that is the only reason I do it. And with the exception of the ocassions where we were trying to have a family, it has always been the only reason why I do it.

Perhaps you forgot that you said this, in 2012, in a discussion with me:

“Do you want me to say that sex is more than just a simple pleasurable sensation? Seems pretty obvious to me.”–Bradski

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9767195&postcount=584

Yep.

I knew you didn’t believe that sex is for pleasure alone.

 

[Bradski]

I knew you didn’t believe that sex is for pleasure alone.

That, as you well know, was comparing it to something like a pleasant meal with a co-worker of neighbour.

I think that your time might better spent trying to find moral acts that are not dependent on anything at all rather than digging out irrelevent posts from 4 years back. That is, moral or immoral acts that are not relative to the conditions at the time.

 

[PRmerger]

That, as you well know, was comparing it to something like a pleasant meal with a co-worker of neighbour.

I think that your time might better spent trying to find moral acts that are not dependent on anything at all rather than digging out irrelevent posts from 4 years back. That is, moral or immoral acts that are not relative to the conditions at the time.

So are we agreed that you used to believe that sex isn’t just for pleasure only?

And that you wouldn’t countenance your wife coming home and saying, “Honey, I had sex with the pool boy, but I know that (now) you believe that sex is for pleasure alone so, you shouldn’t be mad, ok? It meant absolutely nothing. It was…
just like a pleasant meal with a coworker!”

 

[PRmerger]

I’m here to tell you that that is the only reason I do it.

I think I am going to add this to my list of ONLYs that fundamentalists espouse:

-the Bible ONLY
-faith ONLY
-Science ONLY
-English ONLY
-Jesus was a man ONLY
-the Mass should be in Latin ONLY
and…
-sex is for pleasure ONLY.

It is ohsopuzzling to me to see folks demand an ONLY where none is required.

Why, oh, why, do folks do this?

Why not embrace the Catholic paradigm of both/and, which makes Catholicism so formidable to refute?

 

[PRmerger]

An act is either moral or immoral entirely dependent on whether it causes harm (or does some good).

Absolutely not.

Chemotherapy causes harm but it is certainly moral.

Therefore ALL acts are relative to the conditions

This is a nonsequitur.

ALL acts need to be judged, yes, but some acts are immoral independent of the conditions.

That is, there is NO CONDITION in which you would say, “In this case it would be entirely permissible to torture that baby for fun.”

Unless you can give an example of an act which has no conditions relative to it at all.

Just did.

Killing is wrong, dependent upon the conditions. Lying is correct, dependent on the conditions.

Yep.

Causing harm is right or wrong, dependent on the conditions

Yep. Sometimes.

Killing a man ‘if he is an enemy soldier and war has been declared and he is armed and is in a position where there is a strong possibility that he might shoot you or someone else and there is no other way to prevent that happening’…well, according to some, killing in that case is objectively correct.

What nonsense.

Sure.

I think here’s ANOTHER thing I’m going to add to my list of ONLYs that are demanded by fundamentalists where, curiously, none are required:

If morality isn’t ALWAYS morally absolute, then it must ONLY be morally relative.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14045157:

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.

Come on, stop with the ducking and diving. You said “Still misquoting, I see” in response to me quoting your entire post. So we both know that I couldn’t possibly have misquoted you on that occasion.

I asked you to tell me where you think I altered your words. Please do that or apologize for your mistake. You made allegations about Brad previously without providing any evidence. You can’t just make unsubstantiated allegations about other posters and then duck and dive when asked for evidence. It’s not moral is it?

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

No point calling me friend until you stop doing this stuff. As always I quoted you verbatim. If you don’t believe me then follow the links below. All our posts are still there for everyone to see, carved in hard disc.

inocente;14029777:

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.

 

[inocente]

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.

Thanks, I will.

My guardian angel and me,

Google can’t find your First Law of Teaching Children: Talk like an adult.

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?

I never proposed any thought experiment, you’ve got all the intellectual property rights to that one. There is no bomb which explodes on the evil but not on the good. Bombs kill both righteous and unrighteous indiscriminately, randomly without judgment.

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.

Answer: No for the reasons given previous posts.

 

[PRmerger]

So cannabalism is morally acceptable in some conditions.

Incidentally, I addressed this way back in 2011 in my blog:

threeminuteapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-catholics-believe-that-eucharist-is.html

 

[inocente]

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?

Depends on whether they are logical possible. Let’s suppose they are, and let’s suppose that all other logically possible beings exist in one logically possible universe or another.

Therefore every logically possible morality also exists in one logically possible world or another. None of these moralities are concerned with things which could only occur in other worlds, but together they necessarily include every logical possibility.

Presumably some of the rules which apply in some worlds contradict those in other worlds, but we care nought, for as long as an act is logically possible, it must be moral somewhere so why not here?

Still sounds like the Ultimate Moral Relativism. Or are you on another track?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

There could be, but only if the principle of entropy is impossible, which it is impossible to imagine.

 

[o_mlly]

… No point calling me friend until you stop doing this stuff. As always I quoted you verbatim. If you don’t believe me then follow the links below. All our posts are still there for everyone to see, carved in hard disc.

What “stuff” is that? Calling you out on misquotes? Factoid: Data stored on a hard drive is not “carved.” It’s magnetic.

I’ll travail once again to do the forensics on just this last one of your many misquotes (I have a life). You claim on this misquote, “As always I quoted you verbatim. “ You might look up the word “verbatim” because, as shown below, you apparently have not grasped the meaning.

#731

… You know for certain that your chosen weapon will kill people indiscriminately, so by choosing that weapon you make indiscriminate killing part of your intent…

#734

… The bomber is rendering an unjust aggressor’s capacity to do harm. The bomber is also killing discriminately and is justified in doing so. …

Falsehoods in red.
#736

Since you agree here that you know the bomb will kill indiscriminately, and since you have no case for self-defense as you are not repelling aggressors, CCC 2268 forbids direct and intentional killing.

Plea for honesty in posts in blue.
#741

It seems you would like in error to assign an overriding weight to the Catholic teaching that those in a just war have the “right to use arms to repel aggressors" compared to the teaching that those in a just war have the "right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

But that is not so. The two teachings are complimentary, not contrary, one to the other. The former authorizes ***defensive ***actions and the latter authorizes ***offensive ***actions against an unjust aggressor. Your interpretation would subordinate or eliminate the legitimate use of offense to end an unjust war. That is not the teaching.

I did not agree (and I wish you stop misquoting me a la “you-know-who”) that the bomber kills indiscriminately. I said exactly the opposite and made the typeface bold

Repeated falshoods in bold red.
#778

**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.

#784

Still misquoting, I see. …

Do you anywhere in the thread see me write verbatim or otherwise that I “finally agree that your chosen weapon is indiscriminate.” No.

One who is given the gift of intelligence ought not use the gift to be childishly clever but rather to become wise. (You won’t find that on google.)

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
If—
Rudyard Kipling (You’ll find that on google.)

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

This was a very interesting post! You have a very thought provoking take on analogies and thought experiments!

Let me see if I got this right:

A moral man. Hungry. He wants to:

• eat a sandwich for nutrition only
• eat a turkey for nutrition only
• eat a baby for nutrition only

A moral man would NOT endorse this at all. Why?

Because he truly doesn’t believe that eating is for nutrition ONLY.

Otherwise, he would have to object:

-eating pizza for nutrition only
-eating broccoli for nutrition only

Babies and turkeys are similarly nutritious right? So, this seems to check out.

There couldn’t possibly be another reason why eating a baby would be wrong if it is for nutrition only right?

Just like there couldn’t possibly be another reason the wife can’t sleep with the pool boy or concession stand guy if sex is for enjoyment only. Did I do it right?

 

[Bradski]

ALL acts need to be judged, yes, but some acts are immoral independent of the conditions.

That is, there is NO CONDITION in which you would say, "In this case it would be entirely permissible to torture that baby for fun .

You seem to not understand that that statement is a description of harm that is relative in itself.

Is harm morally acceptable?
It depends. Who is being harmed?
A child.
It still depends. How is the child being harmed?
By having needles stuck into her.
It still depends. Does she consent?
No.
It still depends. What is the reasons for this happening?
To prevent and/or to cure illness.

There we have harm being caused, but for a good reason. We discover this by investigating the conditions under which it occurs. The conditions relative to the act. So ithe act is, without any shadow of a doubt, morally relative.

You can change the conditions and it obviously changes the morality of the act relative to those conditions. In fact, change the last statement to ‘just because it gives me pleasure’ and the act becomes morally unacceptable. Relative to the new conditions.

But what you want to do is call the first one relative and the second absolute. When ALL you are doing is changing the conditions relative to the act.

Literally everything comes down to the question of harm. To determine the morality of an act, you have to break it down and examine all the conditions relative to the act to be able to do so. Again, there is no act that stands alone whereby you cannot do this. Whereby you HAVE to do this to make the determination.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Depends on whether they are logical possible. Let’s suppose they are, and let’s suppose that all other logically possible beings exist in one logically possible universe or another.

Therefore every logically possible morality also exists in one logically possible world or another. None of these moralities are concerned with things which could only occur in other worlds, but together they necessarily include every logical possibility.

Presumably some of the rules which apply in some worlds contradict those in other worlds, but we care nought, for as long as an act is logically possible, it must be moral somewhere so why not here?

Still sounds like the Ultimate Moral Relativism. Or are you on another track?

I wouldn’t call it relativism.

If one of those asexual beings visited us and saw how we live, s/he would surely see the importance that moral considerations concerning sex have for our social interactions. Perhaps s/he would even realize what we should do and what we should avoid in that respect. But it would not make sense if s/he tried to establish the same attitudes and behaviors in the universe where s/he belongs.

Similarly, attitudes and behaviors related to the conservation of life would not exist in a universe where all living beings were immortal. So, their morality would not concern any of those attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, if one of those immortal beings visited us and realized that we are not immortal, he would probably see how important it is for us to have moral considerations in this respect.

There would not be a contradiction between the rules which apply in those different worlds and those which apply in ours, but some of the rules which are not needed in one world would be needed in the other.

A relativistic stance would be that for which, given the set of conditions that define the morality of a determined human act, it is good for subject A and bad for subject B, and it is not good nor bad independently of those subjects.

I am not a relativist if when someone asks me “does water boil at 100 degrees Celsius?” I respond: “it depends on certain conditions”.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

I guess that instead of “desires” you meant “the actions intended to fulfill those desires”. However, I did not ask if you see something wrong here or there, but if you think that the desires of others oblige us to perform certain actions.

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.

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.

It is not exactly as you say, but you certainly have to have a comprehension of what reality is in order to determine if you are obliged to do something or not, or even if there is any obligation at all. A command like “live and let live” is understood in the context of certain comprehension of reality. Now, if there are discrepancies between evaluations of the morality of a given human act, and it is desirable to debate them, then it would be necessary to start the debate discussing the comprehensions of reality that originate the incompatible evaluations. If the debate is rational, then it would become a metaphysical debate. If not, it would be a simple, simplistic and ordinary altercation.

 

[PRmerger]

This was a very interesting post! You have a very thought provoking take on analogies and thought experiments!

Let me see if I got this right:

A moral man. Hungry. He wants to:

• eat a sandwich for nutrition only
• eat a turkey for nutrition only
• eat a baby for nutrition only

A moral man would NOT endorse this at all. Why?

Because he truly doesn’t believe that eating is for nutrition ONLY.

Ok…

Otherwise, he would have to object:

-eating pizza for nutrition only
-eating broccoli for nutrition only

How does one eat pizza and broccoli for nutrition only?

How does a hungry person eat without satisfying the pleasurable sensation of satiety?

Babies and turkeys are similarly nutritious right? So, this seems to check out.

There couldn’t possibly be another reason why eating a baby would be wrong if it is for nutrition only right?

Huh? How about that it’s wrong to kill a human being?

Just like there couldn’t possibly be another reason the wife can’t sleep with the pool boy or concession stand guy if sex is for enjoyment only. Did I do it right?

Then what would that reason be, PC?