Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PumpkinCookie]

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

Possibly. It depends on the torture and my certainty about it. If the torturer where right there waiting for the baby to be born, perhaps to vivisect her or something, and somehow my only option would be to cause her death (rather than escape/disable the torturer/get help) then that might be the best solution. God forbid this ever happens to anyone!!

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

Being overweight as a result of over eating/under exercising/ eating poorly is wrong, in my opinion.

 

[inocente]

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

Psychologists, anthropologists and philosophers may disagree with you:

*"A society might have a moral code according to which practices as necessary for purity or sanctity are more important than practices related to whether other persons are harmed. A society may take as morally most important that certain rituals are performed or that certain sexual practices are prohibited, than that harms are avoided or prevented.

"A society might have a morality that takes accepting its traditions and customs, including accepting the authority of certain people and emphasizing loyalty to the group, as more important than avoiding and preventing harm.

“Some psychologists, such as Haidt, take morality to include concern with, at least, all three of the triad of (1) harm, (2) purity, and (3) loyalty, and hold that different members of a society can and do take different features of morality to be most important. Most societies have moralities that are concerned with, at least, all three members of this triad.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/*

 

[PRmerger]

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

You keep using that word, analogy.

I wasn’t offering an analogy. I gave an example. And an argument.

“No morally sane person thinks of sex for enjoyment only. If he did, he wouldn’t have a problem with his wife engaging in sex with the pool boy…for enjoyment only”.

That’s NOT an analogy.

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.

Well, because there’s a huge overlap in their theology: there is One God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You keep using that word, analogy.

I wasn’t offering an analogy. I gave an example. And an argument.

“No morally sane person thinks of sex for enjoyment only. If he did, he wouldn’t have a problem with his wife engaging in sex with the pool boy…for enjoyment only”.

That’s NOT an analogy.

Well, because there’s a huge overlap in their theology: there is One God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

In your example, you claimed that sex was analogous to drinking coffee, going bowling, visiting Disney World, etc to try to show that it wasn’t actually analogous by invoking our moral intuitions about adultery as a red herring.

This fails though, and I have explained why at great length. You attempted to show that sex is not for enjoyment only, but your attempt relies on a basic confusion about the nature of our revulsion at adultery. Adultery isn’t wrong MERELY because sex isn’t for enjoyment only, but PRIMARILY because it is adultery. There, I’ve made a concession that I hope will resolve this. Though I think your example doesn’t do any of the work you want it to do, I will concede that it could be an effective explanation for people who already agree with your premise.

As you may know, there are a lot of people who have open marriages, are unmarried, swing, are poly-amorous, or polygamous. This example wouldn’t be effective in those cases. How would you prove your point to those people? I would rely on the obvious observable fact of reproduction and the chaos that results from indiscriminate and unregulated reproduction (observable on Jerry Springer/Maury). What would you say?

 

[inocente]

Yes, I agree. I think that love would be a kind of moral universal. And it is clear to me that with love one has to be creative (inventive): Given the knowledge you have about the other and her actual circumstances, your love can be expressed in many different ways. It depends on you. Love is a kind of “relative absolute”.

Agreed. Looking at the parallel conversation about adultery, I think the reason most people don’t do it probably isn’t about feeling a need to comply with vows, or being frightened of getting caught, but because they only enjoy it with their spouse and don’t want to hurt her. Virtue ethics is alive and well.

 

[Aloysium]

‘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?

I’m trying to understand you saying.
I don’t get it.
Paraphrasing to make it coherent, it get:

Statements can be true or false.
Moral acts cannot be true or false.
Some people claim moral acts are absolute.

Huh?

Does the guy who drives a lorry through a crowd do something wrong?
Regardless of what people may think, is this behaviour absolutely abhorrent, or a matter of preference?

Not to pressure you in your decision, I have to say that to choose the latter is to have left common sense and reality in favour of a surreal vision of what constitutes absolute truth.

 

[PRmerger]

In your example, you claimed that sex was analogous to drinking coffee, going bowling, visiting Disney World, etc to try to show that it wasn’t actually analogous by invoking our moral intuitions about adultery as a red herring.

No, PC.

Here’s where you first used the word “analogy” in this discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14050506&postcount=861

See what you were responding to.

It was my argument that NO sane married person endorses the view that it’s ok to have sex with the pool boy because, hey, it’s for entertainment only.

 

[PRmerger]

Possibly. It depends on the torture and my certainty about it. If the torturer where right there waiting for the baby to be born, perhaps to vivisect her or something, and somehow my only option would be to cause her death (rather than escape/disable the torturer/get help) then that might be the best solution. God forbid this ever happens to anyone!!

Well, to make the example appropriate, you would also have to vivisect her…for that is what happens in an abortion, no?

Being overweight as a result of over eating/under exercising/ eating poorly is wrong, in my opinion.

Ok. I agree.

So what you’re really referring to is gluttony and sloth.

 

[PRmerger]

I You attempted to show that sex is not for enjoyment only, but your attempt relies on a basic confusion about the nature of our revulsion at adultery.

Right. Because sex can’t be for…

enjoyment only.

Adultery isn’t wrong MERELY because sex isn’t for enjoyment only, but PRIMARILY because it is adultery.

LOL!

I’m just going to leave that statement to speak for itself.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No, PC.

Here’s where you first used the word “analogy” in this discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14050506&postcount=861

See what you were responding to.

It was my argument that NO sane married person endorses the view that it’s ok to have sex with the pool boy because, hey, it’s for entertainment only.

Is sex analogous to going bowling or drinking coffee? If not, why not? You’ll say, because those activities are for enjoyment only, and sex isn’t, because adultery is upsetting. Imagine if you drew the analogy between a husband and wife going bowling, eating ice cream, and having sex together. You wouldn’t be able to show that sex is not for enjoyment only in that case. So, you bring in a red herring (adultery) and point at our revulsion toward adultery as evidence of your understanding of the telos of sex.

Your example fails because it employs 1) false analogies and 2) a red herring.

I have explained this at length as carefully as I’m able. Please, someone else chime in and tell me if I’m getting through, and if not, why not.

 

[PRmerger]

As you may know, there are a lot of people who have open marriages, are unmarried, swing, are poly-amorous, or polygamous. This example wouldn’t be effective in those cases. How would you prove your point to those people? I would rely on the obvious observable fact of reproduction and the chaos that results from indiscriminate and unregulated reproduction (observable on Jerry Springer/Maury). What would you say?

Let’s see if we can be consistent here.

As you may know, there are a lot of people who believe that God hates homosexuals.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20227&d=1403928673

Saying that all human persons, regardless of their sexual attractions, should be treated with dignity and respect wouldn’t be effective in those cases. How would you prove your point to these people?

My point: just because there’s a group of people with an insane view of reality doesn’t mean that our argument is inutile.

 

[PRmerger]

Is sex analogous to going bowling or drinking coffee? If not, why not? You’ll say, because those activities are for enjoyment only, and sex isn’t, because adultery is upsetting.

Nope. That’s not why I say sex isn’t for enjoyment only.

I say that the way I know that YOU don’t view sex as for enjoyment only is that you would NEVER accept your wife having sex with the barrista and saying, “But PC, you believe that sex can be for enjoyment only! And I PROMISE you that the sex I had with him was very enjoyable, but only that. It was for my amusement ONLY.”

You don’t buy that because…

you know that the sex she had couldn’t have been for enjoyment only.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is sex analogous to going bowling or drinking coffee? If not, why not? You’ll say, because those activities are for enjoyment only, and sex isn’t, because adultery is upsetting. Imagine if you drew the analogy between a husband and wife going bowling, eating ice cream, and having sex together. You wouldn’t be able to show that sex is not for enjoyment only in that case. So, you bring in a red herring (adultery) and point at our revulsion toward adultery as evidence of your understanding of the telos of sex.

Your example fails because it employs 1) false analogies and 2) a red herring.

I have explained this at length as carefully as I’m able. Please, someone else chime in and tell me if I’m getting through, and if not, why not.

Sorry to join the party so late, but you DID ask for additional (name removed by moderator)ut.

You are right in saying that sex “is not for enjoyment only”.

Sex has two correct purposes: procreation and unification. (It can be used as an act of aggression or as a means of pure entertainment, but both of these uses are morally wrong.)

Bowling and eating ice cream do not result in procreation (at least, not that I’m aware of) nor do they result in the “two becoming one flesh”. Sure, time spent together in any activity may result in a couple feeling “closer” to one another, but it is only through the marital act that true unity can occur.

Is there something more to this that I’m missing?

 

[PRmerger]

Is there something more to this that I’m missing?

There were some folks here who were arguing that sure, sex can be for amusement only.

I proposed that the folks who asserted this don’t really believe this. If they did, then they wouldn’t have a problem with their wife having sex with the pool boy, saying, “But, honey, it was for my enjoyment only!”

OTOH, no spouse would have a problem with his honey going bowling or drinking coffee with someone else, for enjoyment only.

Why is that? Because we all understand that bowling can be for enjoyment only.

Sex can never be that.

QED

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

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.
QUOTE]

In the first instance, morality is not ONLY concerned with harm. On what authority do you say this, your own? Doing undue harm to others is not the ONLY basis of morality. As Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do un to you.” This broadens the scope of morality to our need to love and to manifest the fruits of loving, which decidedly has nothing to do with harming others, but rather with helping others along with ourselves.

It is an absolute moral principle that we should love each other, even when we’d rather not.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There were some folks here who were arguing that sure, sex can be for amusement only.

I proposed that the folks who asserted this don’t really believe this.

I think maybe the Marquis de Sade would heartily disagree with you.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Let’s see if we can be consistent here.

As you may know, there are a lot of people who believe that God hates homosexuals.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20227&d=1403928673

Saying that all human persons, regardless of their sexual attractions, should be treated with dignity and respect wouldn’t be effective in those cases. How would you prove your point to these people?

My point: just because there’s a group of people with an insane view of reality doesn’t mean that our argument is inutile.

Whooo boy.

OK so now you’re drawing another analogy.

You’re saying: “God hates homosexuals” is an immoral statement like “sex is for enjoyment only” is an immoral statement.

Am I right about that?

I’d argue against WBC by asserting that the bible (from which they understandably get this belief since it explicitly states that God finds homosexuality “detestable”) isn’t a reliable source of truth and therefore this claim is suspect at best. I’d present evidence and reason.

What would be an analogous approach when trying to explain why you believe sex is not for enjoyment only to a group of polyamorous/single/polygamist people? They would laugh at your adultery red herring because it either 1) doesn’t apply to them or 2) they reject the very concept of adultery. They’ll say “sure, my wife has sex with the pool boy all the time, and so do I. What’s the big deal?” What will you say to them?

I would say: maybe indiscriminate sex is working out for you guys, but it can be demonstrated to cause harm, especially among the poor, since sex causes reproduction and unregulated reproduction has been known to cause 1) poverty 2) misery 3) anger 4) confusion, and 5) the general decay of social relations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider indiscriminate sex as a moral norm since it doesn’t work when applied generally.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Nope. That’s not why I say sex isn’t for enjoyment only.

I say that the way I know that YOU don’t view sex as for enjoyment only is that you would NEVER accept your wife having sex with the barrista and saying, “But PC, you believe that sex can be for enjoyment only! And I PROMISE you that the sex I had with him was very enjoyable, but only that. It was for my amusement ONLY.”

You don’t buy that because…

you know that the sex she had couldn’t have been for enjoyment only.

No, I would be against that because we promised sexual exclusivity to each other. She can have sex with me for enjoyment only any time she wants.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I would be against that because we promised sexual exclusivity to each other.

And why would you do that but not promise never to play tennis with anyone else?

 

[PRmerger]

Whooo boy.

OK so now you’re drawing another analogy.

You’re saying: “God hates homosexuals” is an immoral statement like “sex is for enjoyment only” is an immoral statement.

Am I right about that?

No.

I am stating this: the fact that there are some people who have a really distorted view of morality shouldn’t dissuade us from presenting our arguments.

You were arguing: there are some folks with really distorted views of morality, therefore we can’t use our arguments on them.

The WBC proves that your position is incorrect.