Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PumpkinCookie]

Good observation. It’s a nonsequitur, but it’s true, sure.

Drinking coffee, going to Disney, eating ice cream and…sex can all just be for amusement only.

Oh wait, one of those things doesn’t belong because you wouldn’t let your wife do that thing with her ex-boyfriend, despite her protests that it’s just for fun alone.

Exactly, your argument doesn’t do the work you want it to do. Those things all DO go together as long as we’re talking about my wife with me because we’re married. They also go together for all other people married to each other. More controversially, they go together for people who are not married to others.

The marriage agreement/mutual promise not to have sex with others is why extramarital affairs are wrong.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The lack of a distinction between the act in general and in practice continues to plague this argument. In general (separate from any individual act), we see several kinds of goods that sex provides which may motivate the act, along with certain restrictions for its proper use. In practice, those goods may be desired in a good way or bad way, depending on whether or not they are within the restrictions the act in general. Any goods might be jettisoned for the sake of obtaining the other goods… the restrictions do not need to be respected for the act to exist.

You act to obtain a certain good (pleasure) but it is within the context of a mutual agreement on playing by the rules. So inasmuch as you also desire that the rules be followed, you want the goods that those rules provide, which in a way informs the action and modifies its practice and delectation (intimacy, reciprocation, expression of commitment, etc.).

Would you mind explaining this a little bit more? I think I am following you, but not sure.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s because we promised not to have sex with others and did not promise not to have coffee with others.

Why?

Because that is one of the central regulations of marriage, since our ancestors have found it useful to regulate sexual relationships since sex is necessary for reproduction.

Ah. So sex separated from reproduction would be contrary to the nature of the act?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Sex for pleasure only - PR has a good point, but the subtlety need not be subtle: it is for a certain KIND of pleasure, which is “pleasure with me only”… There was equivocation going on between the act in general and in practice.

OK, this helps me understand your thoughts. Sorry for ignoring your posts before, I didn’t notice you were contributing to this particular aspect of the discussion.

Ironically, I agree with PR that “enjoyment” is not the exclusive purpose of sex, it’s just that I think her explanation about why this is so is not satisfactory because, as you say, it relies on an equivocation of an act in general and a specific act with other highly relevant conditions.

Just like eating a baby for nutrition only is wrong because it requires killing a human being, but eating for nutrition only in general cannot therefore be shown to be immoral in general simply because eating a baby with this attitude is wrong.

Am I following you?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ah. So sex separated from reproduction would be contrary to the nature of the act?

Yup. I actually agree with Catholic moral philosophy on this particular thing. I think artificial contraception frustrates one of the purposes of sex (reproduction).

I understand that medicine frustrates one of the purposes of illness (suffering/death) but I do not see reproduction as analogous to illness!

Most of my beef with Catholicism/Christianity has to do with theology, history, psychology, and philosophy, not ethics or morality.

 

[Bradski]

So I have no problem with this…but as an atheist, you will be experiencing some cognitive dissonance, no?

I have explained until my fingers are starting to get cramp from all the typing…

Morality is ONLY concerned with harm. An act that causes no harm means that it is not immoral. It is amoral at worst.

Whether causing harm to a child is immoral or not is entirely dependent upon the conditions. If it is done without permission, without the child’s consent and in a manner which serves no purpose other than the enjoyment of the person causing it, then it is, according to those conditions, relative to those conditions, solely dependent upon those particular conditions, immoral.

Now you have a shorthand for causing pain relative to those conditions which is ‘torture’. That you have a single description for it does not, in any way at all, detract from the procedure one must go through to ascertain if the harm being caused is morally acceptable or not. When you say that ‘torturing a child is wrong’, you are stating that causing harm in a particular way, to a particular person, for particular ends, is wrong. Again, harm is the ONLY determinant.

Otherwise, once you list all the conditions that are relative to an act and you reach a point where you believe it to be immoral, whether you have a single description for that act or not, you want to call it absolute.

If someone didn’t understand the word torture, then your discussion with them would run as follows:

P: Torturing a small child is wrong.
A: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the word. What do you mean?
P: I mean that causing harm to a child without that child’s consent, or without anyone’s consent, with no benefit accruing and done only for the pleasure of the person causing harm, is morally wrong.

A: I see. What if the harm was beneficial and with a parent’s consent, such as an injection?
P: Well, that would be morally correct.
A: So the harm is morally acceptable or not relative to the conditions.
P: But the first is a moral absolute.
A: So the second is as well? Causing harm by injecting a child in order to cure her of a disease must also be morally absolute. Both are relative to the conditions.

If you give me an act that you consider to be morally correct or morally acceptable (nothing amoral thanks), according to your line of reasoning, it must be absolute. Always. If that is not so, then give me one that is relative only. It can’t be difficult. Anything will do.

 

[wanstronian]

Yup. I actually agree with Catholic moral philosophy on this particular thing. I think artificial contraception frustrates one of the purposes of sex (reproduction).

I understand that medicine frustrates one of the purposes of illness (suffering/death) but I do not see reproduction as analogous to illness!

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but by what rationale do you determine that this natural process should be mitigated against, but that one should not?

Do you believe that if a couple don’t want a baby, they should just never have sex again?

 

[Bradski]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but by what rationale do you determine that this natural process should be mitigated against, but that one should not?

Do you believe that if a couple don’t want a baby, they should just never have sex again?

They can take measures to assure it is impossible. I wonder what might be the reason for a couple dedicated to each other then having sex? Maybe satisfying a primal sexual need as has been proposed. Or increasing their emotional attachment to each other.

Or maybe, just maybe, lust. But whoa there Bradski! A loving couple in a lifetime commitment having sex just for the hell of it? Does lust have any place in a marriage? Surely not!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have explained until my fingers are starting to get cramp from all the typing…

Morality is ONLY concerned with harm. An act that causes no harm means that it is not immoral. It is amoral at worst.

,Again, harm is the ONLY determinant.

Otherwise, once you list all the conditions that are relative to an act and you reach a point where you believe it to be immoral, whether you have a single description for that act or not, you want to call it absolute.
…
If you give me an act that you consider to be morally correct or morally acceptable (nothing amoral thanks), according to your line of reasoning, it must be absolute. Always. If that is not so, then give me one that is relative only. It can’t be difficult. Anything will do.

So, you are claiming "Do not willfully harm other persons,’ is your ABSOLUTE moral principle?

I mean if “harm is the ONLY determinant” of morality, it would have to be absolute, no?

You absolutist, you!

 

[Bradski]

I mean if “harm is the ONLY determinant” of morality, it would have to be absolute, no?

‘It’ refers to ‘harm is the ONLY determinant’. Which is a statement. Which can either be true or false. We are talking of moral acts. Which cannot be described as true or false. But which some are determined to claim as being absolute.

Do you not understand the difference?

 

[e_c]

OK, this helps me understand your thoughts. Sorry for ignoring your posts before, I didn’t notice you were contributing to this particular aspect of the discussion.

Ironically, I agree with PR that “enjoyment” is not the exclusive purpose of sex, it’s just that I think her explanation about why this is so is not satisfactory because, as you say, it relies on an equivocation of an act in general and a specific act with other highly relevant conditions.

Just like eating a baby for nutrition only is wrong because it requires killing a human being, but eating for nutrition only in general cannot therefore be shown to be immoral in general simply because eating a baby with this attitude is wrong.

Am I following you?

You’re getting close. It is not that complex: there is a range of goods that a certain act can obtain, some of which are based on restrictions on its use (like running can be healthy, as long as you don’t go until you pass out). The moral agent can commit this act for any reason whatsoever - in the case we are discussing, it happens to respect and presume the restrictions, which reveals that he is also looking for a good that only those restrictions can provide… unless one is with his wife simply because she was the nearest or most available or most attractive person he could find in that instant. THEN the act would truly be “just for physical pleasure.” But as long as the “who” makes a difference, there is more going on. This does not mean one has to be conscious of desiring the goods that come from restriction… but he seeks them nonetheless.

Bradski - The same issue was batted around by myself and o_mlly a few pages ago. You are touching on the relationship between “circumstance” (or “situation”) and “object.” If you just move them around a little here and there, you can get away with saying there are no intrinsically evil acts. But moving them arbitrarily is poor form… Can we really not provide an account of what it is for a man “to act”?

And I also notice that you didn’t attempt to answer my challenges to “empatheticism.” Here’s another, based on your last post: there is never a situation that calls for someone’s death? Do you really want to take the Jainist position? That is certainly empathetic… but…

 

[Bradski]

When you understand the term ‘empathy’, come back to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Yup. I actually agree with Catholic moral philosophy on this particular thing. I think artificial contraception frustrates one of the purposes of sex (reproduction).

Excellent.

Then my work here (with you) is done.

You have agreed that the nature of sex is that it’s for babies and bonding and to thwart one of these purposes is to create a disordered act.

Thus, no one who’s morally sane looks at sex for enjoyment only.

You have agreed to that now, it seems, so…

Most of my beef with Catholicism/Christianity has to do with theology, history, psychology, and philosophy, not ethics or morality.

Well, since ethics and morality are based on theology, you can’t support the former without agreeing with the latter

 

[e_c]

When you understand the term ‘empathy’, come back to me.

“Understanding the condition of others from their perspective.” I addressed it directly. You are trying to dodge the massive wall of problems by saying I don’t understand the word, which you gave a dictionary definition of and assumed it would be an open and shut case.

So you understand exactly what a person feels. How exactly does that tell you how you ought to act? What is the mysterious mechanism in between? Let’s just start there and skip the other stuff for now.

 

[PRmerger]

I have explained until my fingers are starting to get cramp from all the typing…

Morality is ONLY concerned with harm. An act that causes no harm means that it is not immoral. It is amoral at worst.

Whether causing harm to a child is immoral or not is entirely dependent upon the conditions.

Yes. You are correct.

And there are NO CONDITIONS in which it would be moral to torture a child for fun.

#moralabsolute

If it is done without permission, without the child’s consent and in a manner which serves no purpose other than the enjoyment of the person causing it, then it is, according to those conditions, relative to those conditions, solely dependent upon those particular conditions, immoral.

Sure.

Or, you could say it without the circumlocution: it is ALWAYS immoral to torture a child for fun.

Now you have a shorthand for causing pain relative to those conditions which is ‘torture’. That you have a single description for it does not, in any way at all, detract from the procedure one must go through to ascertain if the harm being caused is morally acceptable or not. When you say that ‘torturing a child is wrong’, you are stating that causing harm in a particular way, to a particular person, for particular ends, is wrong.

Well, if by “particular” you mean “something that encompasses billions and billions”, then, sure.

But that’s a pretty coy way of using the word “particular”, no?

Otherwise, once you list all the conditions that are relative to an act and you reach a point where you believe it to be immoral, whether you have a single description for that act or not, you want to call it absolute.

Or, you could simply say: it is always immoral to torture a child for fun.

And: it is always immoral to rape someone

And: it is always immoral to hate someone because of the language he speaks

And: it is always immoral to kill an innocent human being

 

[PRmerger]

Do you believe that if a couple don’t want a baby, they should just never have sex again?

Or, they could engage in the activity during her infertile periods. Which are about 26 days of the month.

 

[PRmerger]

They can take measures to assure it is impossible. I wonder what might be the reason for a couple dedicated to each other then having sex? Maybe satisfying a primal sexual need as has been proposed. Or increasing their emotional attachment to each other.

Just as long as they don’t divorce the 2 purposes of sex…then it’s fine.

You don’t want to eat and then stick your finger down your throat to stop the nutrition, just because you want the pleasure ONLY of eating.

That would be considered a…disorder.

Similarly, you don’t want to engage in sex and then metaphorically stick your finger down your throat to stop the baby part.

Or maybe, just maybe, lust. But whoa there Bradski! A loving couple in a lifetime commitment having sex just for the hell of it? Does lust have any place in a marriage? Surely not!

Lust in a marriage results in the same bad end as gluttony does in eating and greed does in business.

I wouldn’t suggest having a place for lust in your marriage, Bradski.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but by what rationale do you determine that this natural process should be mitigated against, but that one should not?

Do you believe that if a couple don’t want a baby, they should just never have sex again?

In general, I see reproduction as a natural good, and illness/death as a natural evil. It makes sense to frustrate the ends of cancer or AIDS, because the ends seem bad, in themselves (though I realize we all need to die of something or other at some point). But, it doesn’t make sense to frustrate the ends of sex (pleasure/reproduction) because they both seem good.

That said, I recognize that there are many situations where having a child ranges from inconvenient to disastrous. I recognize that it is immoral to bring a child into some circumstances (war/extreme poverty/pandemic/abuse/addiction/neglect). So, the mildly wrong action of contraception seems preferable to me in those instances. I cannot see abortion as justified though, because it seems to be a heinous action preferable to nothing, unless one was certain the child would be actively tortured upon birth or die a painful death anyway.

As PR mentioned, there are ways to avoid pregnancy without contraception. Though I agree with Catholic morality that contraception is morally wrong, I disagree with the gravity they ascribe to it. I do not think using contraception is more gravely wrong than abusing alcohol or being overweight. Wrong, yes, but forgivable.

 

[PRmerger]

I cannot see abortion as justified though, because it seems to be a heinous action preferable to nothing, unless one was certain the child would be actively tortured upon birth or die a painful death anyway.

So if your born child would be tortured actively upon birth would you think it moral to kill her to prevent this?

As PR mentioned, there are ways to avoid pregnancy without contraception. Though I agree with Catholic morality that contraception is morally wrong, I disagree with the gravity they ascribe to it. I do not think using contraception is more gravely wrong than abusing alcohol or being overweight. Wrong, yes, but forgivable.

You think being overweight is morally wrong? We are talking about morality, after all.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Excellent.

Then my work here (with you) is done.

You have agreed that the nature of sex is that it’s for babies and bonding and to thwart one of these purposes is to create a disordered act.

Thus, no one who’s morally sane looks at sex for enjoyment only.

You have agreed to that now, it seems, so…

Well, since ethics and morality are based on theology, you can’t support the former without agreeing with the latter

I have always agreed with the premise, I took issue with your analogy and explanation.

Wrong: there is a huge overlap between the moralities of Jews, Muslims, and Catholics but it is obvious from the non-stop violence and vicious hatred spanning centuries that they all disagree about theology.