Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

Because he ran into the street.

On the assumption that it is to instill in the child a realization that it is dangerous, then under your system it is a moral absolute to spank your child if he ran out into the street.

Now you can qualify the statement in any way you like. Maybe the street is safe. In which case the reason for spanking him is something else. Maybe it was his bath time. In which case…

On the assumption that it is to instill in the child a realization that he must listen to his parents when they insist he does something, then under your system it is a moral absolute to spank your child if he ran out into the street.

Maybe you were in a bad mood. In which case…

On the assumption that you hit the child simply because you were in a bad mood, then under your system it is a moral absolute not to spank your child if he ran out into the street.

Maybe he’s run out into the street before and you’ve spanked him numerous times but he won’t listen.

On the assumption the punishment is not serving the purpose for which it is inflicted, then under your system it is a moral absolute not to spank your child if he ran out into the street.

And so on.

 

[Bradski]

Is adultery still wrong if your wife hasn’t found out, and thus is not harmed by it?

Been here, done that, so this will be the last post on this question. Please don’t expect another.

The harm is done to the mutual trust that the couple had in each other. Whether the wife realizes it or not, the husband certainly does. The trust is broken.

 

[PRmerger]

Been here, done that, so this will be the last post on this question. Please don’t expect another.

But it’s a good one.

It’s like you’re the anti-vaxxer and I bring up the studies which show the efficacy of vaccines…you don’t respond to that…and then several months later we meet again on a different thread and I…bring up the studies…

You say: been there, done that.

But it’s almost as if you can’t really address the studies, no?

The harm is done to the mutual trust that the couple had in each other. Whether the wife realizes it or not, the husband certainly does. The trust is broken.

This seems to be a statement based on…faith.

And it’s curious to see an atheist say that harm can be done to a concept.

How very non-empirical of you, dear atheist!

How is it that you can measure this “harm to to the mutual trust the couple had in each other?”

At least, when the wife finds out you can record the
-number of items she throws at you
-number of times she flings the F-word at you
-measure the amount of time it takes for her to throw your clothes out on the lawn.

But harm to a concept? Well, that’s kind of faith-inspired, isn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

On the assumption that it is to instill in the child a realization that it is dangerous, then under your system it is a moral absolute to spank your child if he ran out into the street.

Nope.

Because it would also be correct for a parent to NOT spank her child for running out into the street.

She could scold him, put him in the corner, tell him his daddy’s going to be very disappointed in him…

So many OTHER right things to do.

#relative

 

[PRmerger]

Nope.

Because it would also be correct for a parent to NOT spank her child for running out into the street.

She could scold him, put him in the corner, tell him his daddy’s going to be very disappointed in him…

So many OTHER right things to do.

#relative

[SIGN]Spanking your child–where you get to decide what feels right for you![/SIGN]

 

[Bradski]

How on earth does having other choices make a single act relative? It’s the conditions relative to that single act that makes it so. This is not a multiple choice option.

‘Is punishing your child in a specific manner acceptable if he runs out onto the road?’ That is the question. That’s it. There are no other options to consider. It’s an answer to this one, single question that we need. You can, if it makes it easier for you to understand, put it into the past tense.

‘Was spanking your child because he ran out into the road the correct thing to do at that time?’

No options. It’s a done deed. And there are only two possible answers to that. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. It was either the correct thing to do at the time or it wasn’t. If the answer is ‘Yes’ then according to you, because it would always be correct under those specific conditions, it becomes absolute. If no, then it would always be incorrect under those specific conditions and it becomes absolute.

Incidentally, if you are going to insist that equal choices make a single act relative, then you might want to think about it a little before commenting. Otherwise you are going to end up arguing that only what you consider to be morally acceptable choices are relative and all morally unacceptable choices are absolute. Which is a situation so bizarre that I’m nor sure there would be any reasonable answer to it.

 

[PRmerger]

How on earth does having other choices make a single act relative?

Why don’t you give us your definition of relativism then?

You seem to have something in mind, so let’s hear it.

Here’s my definition: “What’s right for you is right for you. What’s right for me is right for me”.

And it may be right for you to spank your toddler and wrong for me to do so (because it doesn’t feel right in my heart to do so).

And both positions are equally valid.

#relative

 

[e_c]

How on earth does having other choices make a single act relative? It’s the conditions relative to that single act that makes it so. This is not a multiple choice option.

‘Is punishing your child in a specific manner acceptable if he runs out onto the road?’ That is the question. That’s it. There are no other options to consider. It’s an answer to this one, single question that we need. You can, if it makes it easier for you to understand, put it into the past tense.

‘Was spanking your child because he ran out into the road the correct thing to do at that time?’

No options. It’s a done deed. And there are only two possible answers to that. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. It was either the correct thing to do at the time or it wasn’t. If the answer is ‘Yes’ then according to you, because it would always be correct under those specific conditions, it becomes absolute. If no, then it would always be incorrect under those specific conditions and it becomes absolute.

Incidentally, if you are going to insist that equal choices make a single act relative, then you might want to think about it a little before commenting. Otherwise you are going to end up arguing that only what you consider to be morally acceptable choices are relative and all morally unacceptable choices are absolute. Which is a situation so bizarre that I’m nor sure there would be any reasonable answer to it.

I need to get to the top of the mountain to light a torch to let my country know the Huns are coming. I went up side A, which takes 10 minutes. Was this a correct act? Yes. Does this mean that going up side B, which also takes 10 minutes, would not have been a correct act? No.

Come on…

Still waiting for responses to my challenges to “empatheticism.”

 

[e_c]

Been here, done that, so this will be the last post on this question. Please don’t expect another.

The harm is done to the mutual trust that the couple had in each other. Whether the wife realizes it or not, the husband certainly does. The trust is broken.

So it does not have to be actual people that are harmed? Hmmmmm… Interesting… So what other non-living things can be “harmed”?

 

[inocente]

The fact that a person or a group of people or a society appears to ignore harm when deciding whether to commit an act or not doesn’t detract from the fact that it is the basis for deciding on the morality of said act. Acts that you might argue ignore any harm caused would cause greater harm, in the belief of the person carrying out the act, then by not carrying out that act. Honour killings and human sacrifice for example.

The man who kills his daughter for having an affair believes that the harm caused to his family’s honour outweighs the physical harm he will cause his daughter. Sacrificing people causes less harm than a bad harvest would, which people would believe would be the case without the human sacrifice.

It’s not just physical harm. It includes harm to one’s honour, one’s sense of family or tribal loyalty, one’s pride. Which is not to say that using any of these reasons means that the act automatically becomes moral. You decide that yourself.

You’ve chosen examples to support your view, but others don’t measure morality by harm alone or by prioritizing harm.

For instance, swearing. Try swearing in front of the tomb of the unknown soldier. Most people would say it’s morally wrong, not because they think it can harm the dead, but because it defiles something sacred to them, the sacrificed lives. You may want to think of it in terms of harm, others will think in terms of honor or tradition or cleanliness.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . relativism . . . my definition: “What’s right for you is right for you. What’s right for me is right for me”. . .

This default position may work until there is conflict, at which point some sort of arbiter is needed, in the form of a person or set of rules.
Clearly, the closer it is aligned to what is good, the greater will be its capacity to heal.

Let’s take a not uncommon situation in relationships, for example:

Atheist 1 posts:

… All of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because, at the bar later that night — actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar, four a.m. I said I’ve had enough guys, I’m exhausted, going to bed, so I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” Um, just a word to the wise here, guys, don’t do that. I don’t really know how else to explain that this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at four a.m., in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I, don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualise me in that manner.

Atheist 2 (most probably the “elevator man”) responds:

Dear Muslima,
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and… yawn… don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so… And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

While perhaps trivial, these sparks ingnited a flame war.
We witness in the world how such misunderstandings and conflicts can fester and grow, resulting in much discord, mistrust and suffering.

What does Christianity teach us about how to deal with such issues? Love.
Maintaining one’s own integrity, one gives one’s mind and heart over to what the other person thinks and feels.
Recognizing that the other person is hurt (and angry, which is where the catch is), one demonstrates that one is sorry that this has happened.

It is in this way, having promised to love, honour and stick to the relationship in our wedding vows, that we can grow in the love and understanding that characterizes the most intimate of relationships.

Christianity does not have proprietary rights over love. What it does is proclaim its centrality in existence.
There are two rules, to love and to love Love, the Source of all creation, above all else.
It is on this basis, we believe, that we are judged. The judgement is the reality that without love we are lost.

Any sort of non-theistic morality must, to be true and good, have its basis in love.
What we as Christians understand as revealed historically, is also understood in our hearts.
If a person cannot accept the former, let’s pray that they will know the latter.

 

[e_c]

Nobody else wants to go in for the kill? Ok, here we go. My emphases.

Do good, avoid evil. Sounds good. I’d agree with that although ‘evil’ has religious overtones, so can we agree on ‘do good and avoid doing harm’? I think that we can use ‘harm’ because for the life of me, I can’t think of anything that you would describe as evil that wouldn’t, in your opinion, cause harm. I say ‘in your opinion’ because there would be some acts upon which we would disagree. If I thought that there was no harm, then it couldn’t be classed as evil and wouldn’t, in my opinion, be immoral.

In regard to causing harm, this is where empathy comes in. In gives you the ability to understand how an act will affect a fellow traveller. If you discovered that your wife had been playing around with the gardener, then you would understand how someone else might feel if the same thing happened to them. So if you were thinking of asking a friend wife out for a quiet drink with a view to more amorous pursuits, then you would feel a sense of guilt in being party to the liaison. Because you know how the husband would feel.

If there was no empathy (or if you could [care] less if he was hurt), then you might proceed.

Been here, done that, so this will be the last post on this question. Please don’t expect another.

The harm is done to the mutual trust that the couple had in each other. Whether the wife realizes it or not, the husband certainly does. The trust is broken.

Here we have it. Based on this thinking a few oddities rear their ugly heads.

First, we have to be able to empathize with mutual trust. After all, THAT is what is being harmed… supposing one has devised a way to be reasonably certain his adultery will stay hidden. HOW DOES ONE EMPATHIZE WITH “MUTUAL TRUST”? One doesn’t. Instead, he realizes that it is simply his duty to avoid this act. Bradski, you have a correct intuition which contradicts your system - adultery is “intrinsically evil.”

Second, if you don’t or can’t empathize, or you don’t care, you can just go ahead anyway. And the consequences are simply that so-and-so is hurt. Whatever this is, it isn’t a morality - it is more like a simple description of behaviors. We are looking for prescription, not description. This “system” is only a bunch of “is,” there is no “ought.”

Third, in the case of adultery, if one knows his wife won’t care about his promiscuity, it would seem that it’s a-okay. This is contrary to our intuitions, isn’t it. (Not that our intuitions are always right… They aren’t. But this is a pretty strong one.)

 

[Bradski]

Why don’t you give us your definition of relativism then?

I really don’t believe that after all the times I have explained what it is in any number of posts, quite often more than once in a post, that you are asking that.

 

[Bradski]

I need to get to the top of the mountain to light a torch to let my country know the Huns are coming. I went up side A, which takes 10 minutes. Was this a correct act? Yes. Does this mean that going up side B, which also takes 10 minutes, would not have been a correct act? No.

Come on…

Still waiting for responses to my challenges to “empatheticism.”

You aren’t giving examples of a moral act. If you do, you need to examine that act itself. An act doesn’t become more moral or immoral because there were other options. It is moral or immoral in itself.

 

[Bradski]

You’ve chosen examples to support your view, but others don’t measure morality by harm alone or by prioritizing harm.

For instance, swearing. Try swearing in front of the tomb of the unknown soldier. Most people would say it’s morally wrong, not because they think it can harm the dead, but because it defiles something sacred to them, the sacrificed lives. You may want to think of it in terms of harm, others will think in terms of honor or tradition or cleanliness.

Write down the headings of three columns on a sheet of paper: Harm, Neutral and Benefit.

There’s a little old lady on the kerb. I help her across the street. Put that under Benefit. I say good morning. Put that under Neutral. I swear at her. Put that under Harm.

Also under Harm you can put dishonouring someone, breaking a trust, causing mental stress etc.

Now you will have a problem in that some people will put things under Harm with which you don’t agree. Sex outside marriage could go in any column depending on your personal views.

In that case…use reasonable arguments to determine which is correct.

 

[Bradski]

First, we have to be able to empathize with mutual trust. After all, THAT is what is being harmed… supposing one has devised a way to be reasonably certain his adultery will stay hidden. HOW DOES ONE EMPATHIZE WITH “MUTUAL TRUST”? One doesn’t.

It’s not that one doesn’t. It’s that one cannot. I’m afraid you are going to have to look up the definition of empathy again. It is the ability (it’s not a feeling) to put yourself in another person’s position and understand, from their perspective, what they are feeling. People tend to use it when they agree with whatever someone is saying so it has become associated with sympathetic feelings. That is not the case. It the following sounds horrifying, then you don’t yet get it:

‘My daughter dishonoured my family so I killed her’
‘I can certainly empathise with that’.

Second, if you don’t or can’t empathize, or you don’t care, you can just go ahead anyway. And the consequences are simply that so-and-so is hurt. Whatever this is, it isn’t a morality.

Yes, you can just go ahead. But it is then immoral. You are harming the mutual trust between you and your wife.

Third, in the case of adultery, if one knows his wife won’t care about his promiscuity, it would seem that it’s a-okay. This is contrary to our intuitions, isn’t it. (Not that our intuitions are always right… They aren’t. But this is a pretty strong one.)

Sure. If she doesn’t care, then it’s amoral. There is no trust to be broken.

 

[PRmerger]

I really don’t believe that after all the times I have explained what it is in any number of posts, quite often more than once in a post, that you are asking that.

I am.

Sorry to have you type out something again.

I get it. It can be annoying.

But it will take you about 30 seconds to do so (unless you’re peculiarly slow at typing), I am asking you in the spirit of continued dialogue, to (re-)state your definition of relativism.

 

[e_c]

Incredible.

You aren’t giving examples of a moral act. If you do, you need to examine that act itself. An act doesn’t become more moral or immoral because there were other options. It is moral or immoral in itself.

I am having serious trouble making sense of this. What exactly is a “moral act”? Is it not anything that can be evaluated morally? Which is anything that is voluntary? (This is how it is in Aristotle and Thomas.) Acts in general are good, neutral, or bad. In particular (or when they are actually done) they are good or bad.

Considering the stakes, taking route C up the mountain which includes a stop for a mani-pedi and a drink or two WOULD BE WRONG. My “A or B” counter was in response to you saying it “must” be either “intrinsically evil” or “absolutely necessary” to spank a child after xyz. I was simply stating that there are many ways to reach a similar end… what the “absolute duty” is is to be prudent in the exercise of one’s office as a parent, caretaker, etc…

**1. **It’s not that one doesn’t. It’s that one cannot. I’m afraid you are going to have to look up the definition of empathy again. It is the ability (it’s not a feeling) to put yourself in another person’s position and understand, from their perspective, what they are feeling. People tend to use it when they agree with whatever someone is saying so it has become associated with sympathetic feelings. That is not the case.

**2. **It the following sounds horrifying, then you don’t yet get it:

‘My daughter dishonoured my family so I killed her’
‘I can certainly empathise with that’.

**3. **Yes, you can just go ahead. But it is then immoral. You are harming the mutual trust between you and your wife.

**4. **Sure. If she doesn’t care, then it’s amoral. There is no trust to be broken.

1. One cannot what? Empathize with an abstraction? Right, that’s my point. You can’t put yourself in the position of “mutual trust,” just like you can’t put yourself in the shoes of the number 37. I don’t need to review the definition, thank you. I did not mention “feeling” at all in that post.
2. I get it.
3. Poor, poor Mutual Trust. If I was Mutual Trust, I would not like that. I can certainly understand how Mutual Trust experiences adultery. (Are you seeing the problem now? The Ring of Gyges looms large. You will have to deal with it another way)
4. Ah well - what’s the point of being married in the first place then? Taxes? Pfft. Maybe there are some kids, maybe not, who cares. Maybe some kids come along from the night out. Meh. Whatever, it’s all amoral because Mutual Trust didn’t get a boo-boo. Ohhhh, but maybe there are these other things that are being hurt… Well, that brings me back to my original list of problems I gave for you to solve, which you have yet to comb through. Let me add another:

If one intends to cause harm but doesn’t, the action is not immoral… After all, it is all about whether or not harm is actually caused, right? (Yes, there is an easy way out of this problem but I think you will find that it leads to something rather unfriendly to your system.)

 

[Bradski]

I am.

Sorry to have you type out something again.

I get it. It can be annoying.

But it will take you about 30 seconds to do so (unless you’re peculiarly slow at typing), I am asking you in the spirit of continued dialogue, to (re-)state your definition of relativism.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Wait–your definition of “morally relative” is: it depends upon the conditions?

My definition of “morally relative” is: if you believe it’s right for you, then it is.
If I believe something is right for me, then it is.