Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Bradski]

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.

I agree with all that. There may be some who would describe climbing a hill to warn of an impending attack to be a moral act. I’m finding it a bit of a stretch myself, but anyway…

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.

Yes. I’d agree with that. Harm is likely to occur is no-one gets any warning. You have a duty of care to your comrades.

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…

Again, I agree. But be aware that when I was saying that it is could be considered absolutely morally wrong, I was taking PR’s position. The situation is relative. Spanking the child is morally correct or immoral entirely dependent on the conditions. Relative to those conditions.

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.

Agreed. But empathy allows you to understand what your wife would feel if you were adulterous. You (hopefully) have a position of mutual trust with your wife. If you cheat on her, she feels betrayed, angry etc and that trust is harmed.

I get it.

Cool. I think that more than few people would misunderstand it.

Poor, poor Mutual Trust. If I was Mutual Trust, I would not like that. I can certainly understand how Mutual Trust experiences adultery.

See above.

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…

The point of being married? I don’t think that really requires an answer. But then, I’m not sure what point you are making. When you marry, you commit to someone. There is a position of mutual trust. Don’t do anything to break it.

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.)

That entirely depends on whether an act has been committed. This now might sound like I’m winging it, but intention is good enough for the act to be placed in the Harm column. It hasn’t been brought up in this discussion but I have made that clear on other threads regarding morality. However, simply the intention alone is not immoral. For example…

I might be having a bad day in work (not too far from the truth as it turns out) and I’m so angry with everything that I want to get my gun out the draw (this is Oz, so we don’t have that option) and shoot someone. This is not immoral. There has been no act. An evil act does not exist if there is no act. Just me thinking it is just that – me thinking it.

Obviously, if I do get the gun out and blow the brains out of the guy sitting at the end of the office (hi Dave!), then have I caused harm? Yes. Was it justified? No. So it was immoral (relative to the conditions – he had done nothing to deserve decorating the wall with the contents of his head). However, if I took a shot and missed…still immoral. So it’s harm, or the intention to cause harm that makes something immoral, dependent upon the conditions.

Similarly, if you fancy making love to Julie in accounts, that is not immoral. I remember Pres. Carter stating at one time that he had committed adultery many times in his mind. No you didn’t, Jimmy. Don’t beat yourself up about it. But…if you and Jools decide to meet up in a motel on the weekend and consummate your passion and she doesn’t turn up? Tough luck, buddy. The act was there (you drove to the motel), the intention was there (you were definitely not going there to discuss Sartre) so guilty as charged.

Incidentally, even though thinking that you want to do it is not immoral, I would suggest that you keep it to yourself. Your wife might not appreciate the moral nuances.

 

[Bradski]

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.

That might well be the result (it depends under which column you place the act).

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.

 

[PRmerger]

The point of being married? I don’t think that really requires an answer. But then, I’m not sure what point you are making. When you marry, you commit to someone. There is a position of mutual trust. Don’t do anything to break it.

What about 2 friends who are committed to each other? Is that a marriage in your eyes?

http://images.zap2it.com/assets/p8677512_b_h3_aa/best-friends-forever.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

That might well be the result (it depends under which column you place the act).

Nope. That’s my definition of morally relative.

 

[Bradski]

What about 2 friends who are committed to each other? Is that a marriage in your eyes?

Have they promised to love and comfort each other, honor and keep each other for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to each other, for as long as they both shall live?

I didn’t have to look that up, I’ve heard it so many times. What do you think the ‘faithful only to each other’ means? If it’s just being bestest friends, then there’s a lot of people who have made that promise who are under a misapprehension. They thought it meant ‘don’t let me catch you in bed with the pool boy’.

 

[PRmerger]

Have they promised to love and comfort each other, honor and keep each other for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to each other, for as long as they both shall live?

Why does that make a marriage?

And why should the gov’t be involved in recognizing the commitment of 2 people who vow to forsake all others and be faithful to only each other, etc etc?

 

[Bradski]

Nope. That’s my definition of morally relative.

Yet both of us agree that that definition is not acceptable. It doesn’t work. Just because either of us believes something to be right doesn’t make it so. So we need a method of determining if something is right or not independent of our beliefs. So we look at the conditions and see if there is a harmful or a beneficial outcome. We look at the act relative to the conditions.

And yes, there will be occasions where people disagree which column to use. In that case the only recourse is reasoned arguments.

Absolute morality is only based on what one person, or group of people says is true. ‘Sex outside marriage is wrong. Period’. That’s absolute morality. But, as we have agreed, just because someone says ‘this is what I believe’ doesn’t make it so. You need to look at the conditions and put into one column or another. And you must supply reasons for your choice.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet both of us agree that that definition is not acceptable. It doesn’t work. Just because either of us believes something to be right doesn’t make it so.

Oh, now, wait a minute.

That reminds me. You didn’t answer the question I asked several posts back.

You stated:

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.

I responded:

Ok. So he decides that for himself. He decides it’s the moral thing to do.

Is it?

Is it moral because he decided that it is?

Or is morality something that is outside of his decision?

Your response?

 

[Bradski]

Your response?

Let’s say that someone asks us for our advice if it is ok to do something. We obviously need to know the conditions under which the act will be committed. We need to ascertain if harm will result.

Based on all of this we decide under which column it will be listed. We may both decide that it goes under Harm. There are zero benefits as far as we can tell. We therefore tell the person that it is immoral.

Now if you disagreed with me, then only one of us would be right (you reject the fact that it could be right or wrong for each of us).

If we agree, then we are either both right or both wrong. Do you know how to tell which is which? Because I don’t. All I have is my personal opinion based on all the facts that I have available and our combined reasonable arguments.

If we agree, then all that has happened is that we agree. We haven’t cracked morality. We are just giving our opinion. It is right for us.

But when you talk of something being morally absolute, you don’t go through any of those processes. Or if you do, wonders will never cease, you end up agreeing with the moral absolute. You cracked morality. There is no moral absolute with which you disagree! It cannot be coincidence. You have access to moral truths.

Well, not really. You are not the New Oracle of Western Civilisation. You are simply refusing to go through the process.

 

[inocente]

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.

This is circular Brad. People who think differently to you will use other column headings and make similar arguments for their column headings.

 

[inocente]

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.

Technically:

“Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.” - iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

So it has a counter-colonialism, counter-imperialism overtone.

 

[Bradski]

This is circular Brad. People who think differently to you will use other column headings and make similar arguments for their column headings.

Yeah, I’m fully aware of that. But it’s not circular. As I said in the post above, I fully expect this to happen almost all of the time.

What column I use will be different to someone else’s dependent on a myriad of conditions (not least a belief in God). I can only state what is right as far as I am concerned using the information that is available to me under the conditions that are prevalent as I see them with the intelligence that I have. What else could anyone do?

Ths is how I determine morality. Your mileage may vary. You may come to different conclusions about the world. Who is right? Well, to state the bleedin’ obvious, if you ask me I will tell you that I am. Do I have another choice?

Is there some ‘Absolute Morality’ out there somewhere that I can’t access? Well, if there is, please tell me who can access it. The problem being, there are waaaay to many who will insist it that they are the one.

Please tell me how we can tell…

 

[inocente]

Yeah, I’m fully aware of that. But it’s not circular. As I said in the post above, I fully expect this to happen almost all of the time.

What column I use will be different to someone else’s dependent on a myriad of conditions (not least a belief in God). I can only state what is right as far as I am concerned using the information that is available to me under the conditions that are prevalent as I see them with the intelligence that I have. What else could anyone do?

Ths is how I determine morality. Your mileage may vary. You may come to different conclusions about the world. Who is right? Well, to state the bleedin’ obvious, if you ask me I will tell you that I am. Do I have another choice?

Is there some ‘Absolute Morality’ out there somewhere that I can’t access? Well, if there is, please tell me who can access it. The problem being, there are waaaay to many who will insist it that they are the one.

Please tell me how we can tell…

I think the Absolute Morality, stated in full, with no additions or modifications allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, is: Always let your conscience be your guide.

This can be argued logically - we don’t know who might be deceiving or coercing us, so ultimately as moral agents we must do what we ourselves think is right.

It can also be argued philosophically - for instance what Sartre calls bad-faith is acting against our innate freedom, under pressure to conform.

It can also be argued theologically - Paul argues when we act against what we think is right then we condemn ourselves (Romans 14).

(By tradition, those who disagree now post a reductio ad Hitlerum).

 

[Bradski]

I think the Absolute Morality, stated in full, with no additions or modifications allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, is: Always let your conscience be your guide.

How can that be right? As I would understand it, Absolute Morality is correct whatever anyone thinks. Whatever the conditions. Whatever the result. Whatever your conscience says.

It doesn’t exist.

 

[inocente]

How can that be right? As I would understand it, Absolute Morality is correct whatever anyone thinks. Whatever the conditions. Whatever the result. Whatever your conscience says.

It doesn’t exist.

As I understand it, moral absolutism claims there is at least one principle that ought never be violated.

I say there is one, and only one, principle that ought never be violated: Always let your conscience be your guide.

Unless you can think of a situation where you morally ought to violate it …

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As I understand it, moral absolutism claims there is at least one principle that ought never be violated.

I say there is one, and only one, principle that ought never be violated: Always let your conscience be your guide.

Unless you can think of a situation where you morally ought to violate it …

You have been working hard. “Always let your conscience be your guide” sounds like the absolute principle of the absolute moral relativism. But your conscience is formed by others within your culture, so it implies cultural relativism as well: your conscience is the conscience of the others…

I tend to think that you should always question your own first conscience, and correct it if your new conscience deems it necessary. Most of the times your first conscience could be identified with the sartrean bad faith. It could even be that it is always a sartrean bad faith.

 

[inocente]

You have been working hard. “Always let your conscience be your guide” sounds like the absolute principle of the absolute moral relativism. But your conscience is formed by others within your culture, so it implies cultural relativism as well: your conscience is the conscience of the others…

I tend to think that you should always question your own first conscience, and correct it if your new conscience deems it necessary. Most of the times your first conscience could be identified with the sartrean bad faith. It could even be that it is always a sartrean bad faith.

Following Sartre’s line then, we always have options, we can always change. Bad faith is pretending we can’t, pretending we’re trapped by circumstance or our culture or tradition or our own self.

We could each become all that we currently are not. Yet the waiter tells himself he can only ever be a waiter. Sometimes, late at night, the waiter’s conscience breaks through and tells him that’s not right. But he doesn’t let his conscience be his guide. Easier to live with the pretense.

btw I don’t know what a first conscience is.

 

[Tomdstone]

I say there is one, and only one, principle that ought never be violated: Always let your conscience be your guide.

Unless you can think of a situation where you morally ought to violate it …

Not sure, because some people have a poorly formed conscience. Take for example, the religious clerics and other Americans who bought and sold black African slaves. Or take for example, the Swedish bus driver who beat up an innocent Syrian engineer who wanted to sit in a public bus.
thelocal.se/20160720/swedish-bus-driver-caught-on-camera-abusing-asylum-seeker

 

[inocente]

Not sure, because some people have a poorly formed conscience. Take for example, the religious clerics and other Americans who bought and sold black African slaves. Or take for example, the Swedish bus driver who beat up an innocent Syrian engineer who wanted to sit in a public bus.
thelocal.se/20160720/swedish-bus-driver-caught-on-camera-abusing-asylum-seeker

The bus driver beating up a passenger seems an example of rage suppressing conscience.

Imho the problem with your slave trader example is it begs the question. Today some say “active” homosexuality is immoral, others not. Both sides may say the other side has a poorly formed conscience.

A hundred years’ ago most people thought women were not as good as men. That changed when some peoples’ consciences told them it wasn’t right. If they had not let their conscience be their guide, nothing would have changed.

In a hundred years’ time everyone may conclude we had poorly formed consciences for eating meat.

To paraphrase, let him without a poorly formed conscience cast the first stone.

 

[Tomdstone]

A hundred years’ ago most people thought women were not as good as men. That changed when some peoples’ consciences told them it wasn’t right. If they had not let their conscience be their guide, nothing would have changed…

But did the conscience of St. Thomas Aquinas guide him to teach that women were inferior to men in several ways:
Woman is subject to man because in the male reason predominates
Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1, ad 2.

Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man
Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1

The woman’s hair is a sign of her subjection, a man’s is not.
Summa Theologica Supplement , qu. 28, art. 3 ad 1.

Man is more ordered to intellectual operation than is woman.
Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1.