Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[o_mlly]

I am not sure but I think that Catholic morality does not allow you to do evil in order to bring about good. A good end does not justify an evil means. So I guess that you would have to choose D according to Catholic principles but hope that there would be some other way of saving everyone. I don’t see how you could deliberately choose to kill someone to save others?
God hates the hand that sheds innocent blood:
Proverbs 6
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17… hands that shed innocent blood

While all, I think, would agree that plunging a knife into the heart of a survivor before pushing him/her overboard (to mitigate the thrashing and screaming) is evil and never permissible, the act of pushing a survivor overboard (the best swimmer?) would not be the immediate cause of death and not being an intrinsically evil act may be considered a morally neutral act.

Since I would have already jumped overboard, I would not suffer the angst of this classic moral dilemma.

 

[Tomdstone]

While all, I think, would agree that plunging a knife into the heart of a survivor before pushing him/her overboard (to mitigate the thrashing and screaming) is evil and never permissible, the act of pushing a survivor overboard (the best swimmer?) would not be the immediate cause of death and not being an intrinsically evil act may be considered a morally neutral act.

Since I would have already jumped overboard, I would not suffer the angst of this classic moral dilemma.

With reference to the boat problem, most people will try to change the ground rules and give some alternative in order to get around the dilemma. To correctly understand the dilemma, the hypothesis is that no one volunteers to jump out of the sinking boat, which is surrounded by hungry man eating sharks. The captain of the boat has a gun. Should he kill one person and throw him overboard to stop the boat from sinking and save the others, or should he just do nothing and let the boat sink and everyone die? There are hungry man eating sharks all around so if you jump out of the boat or hang on to the edge, you will surely die by being eaten up by the sharks. But the ground rules say that no one volunteers to jump out.

 

[o_mlly]

With reference to the boat problem, most people will try to change the ground rules and give some alternative in order to get around the dilemma. To correctly understand the dilemma, the hypothesis is that no one volunteers to jump out of the sinking boat, which is surrounded by hungry man eating sharks. The captain of the boat has a gun. Should he kill one person and throw him overboard to stop the boat from sinking and save the others, or should he just do nothing and let the boat sink and everyone die? There are hungry man eating sharks all around so if you jump out of the boat or hang on to the edge, you will surely die by being eaten up by the sharks. But the ground rules say that no one volunteers to jump out.

Unless there is a woman on-board (“man”-eating sharks!) then eenie, meenie, minee, mo, over you go.

Hey cap, empty your gun on the first few sharks to circle the overboard person.

 

[Tomdstone]

Unless there is a woman on-board (“man”-eating sharks!) then eenie, meenie, minee, mo, over you go.

Hey cap, empty your gun on the first few sharks to circle the overboard person.

Most people will try to wiggle out of the dilemma and avoid the issue in some way.The captain has only one bullet and the sharks love eating women.

 

[PRmerger]

With reference to the boat problem, most people will try to change the ground rules and give some alternative in order to get around the dilemma. To correctly understand the dilemma, the hypothesis is that no one volunteers to jump out of the sinking boat, which is surrounded by hungry man eating sharks. The captain of the boat has a gun. Should he kill one person and throw him overboard to stop the boat from sinking and save the others, or should he just do nothing and let the boat sink and everyone die? There are hungry man eating sharks all around so if you jump out of the boat or hang on to the edge, you will surely die by being eaten up by the sharks. But the ground rules say that no one volunteers to jump out.

Why does it have to be that no one volunteers?

Is this a boat of atheists?

 

[Tomdstone]

This was already answered above.

The Church’s teaching on Capital Punishment is a great example of this: it may be permitted in one time and culture, but today there is no reason for it (in developed countries).

So at one time and in one culture an action would be moral, whereas at another time and in another culture, the same action would be immoral? Would that apply to something like artificial birth control (ABC)? Generally ABC is immoral, but if there is overpopulation and lack of food or other dire circumstances, would it then be moral for a married couple facing economic difficulties with six children to use ABC? For example, in China today there is the Patriotic (Communist approved) Catholic Church and priests are advised by the government not to preach against ABC.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why does it have to be that no one volunteers?

Is this a boat of atheists?

The people in the boat are afraid of being eaten alive by a shark so no one volunteers to jump overboard. The sharks are ferocious with huge teeth and they are very, very hungry. The captain has only one bullet in his gun and there are lots and lots of hungry sharks swimming around the boat.

 

[PRmerger]

So at one time and in one culture an action would be moral, whereas at another time and in another culture, the same action would be immoral?

Yep.

Would that apply to something like artificial birth control (ABC)?

Nope. ABC is intrinsically wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

The people in the boat are afraid of being eaten alive by a shark so no one volunteers to jump overboard. The sharks are ferocious with huge teeth and they are very, very hungry. The captain has only one bullet in his gun and there are lots and lots of hungry sharks swimming around the boat.

So why doesn’t the captain volunteer to sacrifice himself?

He is a grace-filled man, Catholic since the previous Easter, who understands the concept of “no greater love has a man than to lay down his life” for another.

 

[Tomdstone]

So why doesn’t the captain volunteer to sacrifice himself?

He is a grace-filled man, Catholic since the previous Easter, who understands the concept of “no greater love has a man than to lay down his life” for another.

Because he is the only one with the expertise, knowledge and skill to commandeer the boat. If he jumped overboard, everyone would surely die since the boat would surely capsize without his expertise. therefore, the captain cannot jump overboard. Those are the ground rules for the dilemma.
Of course, most people don’t like the ground rules and want to find some way of getting around them instead of facing the actual situation posed by the dilemma.
The situation is like this:
The boat is sinking from overweight of 10 people,
The boat would not sink if there were one person less in the boat, i.e., 9 people. Everyone would surely live with one less person in the boat.
No one volunteers to leave.
Should the captain throw one person overboard to save the remaining nine, or should he do nothing and as a result of his inaction the boat would sink and everyone would surely die .

 

[Tomdstone]

Yep.

Nope. ABC is intrinsically wrong.

So it is not intrinsically wrong to burn people alive at the stake or to chop off their heads for heresy? Are we speaking about Christianity here or from some other radical theological perspective?

 

[Bradski]

Of course, most people don’t like the ground rules and want to find some way of getting around them instead of facing the actual situation posed by the dilemma.

It is always the same.

‘Throw yourself overboard’
‘Shoot the sharks’
‘Fix the lifeboat’
‘Ask for volunteers’

Ye gods, what a tangled attempt to avoid answering the question. It seems that Christians hate hypotheticals because it leads to them having to make personal decisions regarding life and death. Whereas the church absolves them of making that call. Otherwise, why not give the answer that is blazingly obvious to any literate and reasonable person who reads the question?

Again back to reasonable arguments.

Is it in any way conceivable that a reasonable argument would lead to anything other than throwing the wife beating, paedophile mass murderer overboard to save a boat load of children?

Is there a reasonable argument anywhere by anyone that says it is better that everyone drown? Can it really be expressed by any sane person?

Forget where the decision might lead. This is a one off. All situations are one off. Every call you make is a one off. Throwing the convicted murderer overboard leads to…nothing whatsoever excet saving a boat load of children.

Shame on anyone who cries: ‘It isn’t my call’. Shame on anyone who attempts to avoid the unavoidable. Shame on anyone who looks to someone else to make the tough calls. Life is about making tough calls. We all have them. If your religion helps you make them and gives you some guidlines for making them, then that is all to the good.

But YOU are the one who has to make them in the end. After taking all the advice, after gathering all the information, it comes down to one person to make the call. One person has to make a reasonable argument either for or against the matter in hand. And that person is you.

Fail in that, fail in the requirement to make your own decisions, and you absolve yourself of responsibility. I wonder where that might lead…

 

[PRmerger]

So it is not intrinsically wrong to burn people alive at the stake or to chop off their heads for heresy?

Are they actually guilty?

If so, then it’s never “intrinsically wrong” to punish them.

Burning and chopping is excessive, in our culture, and (thanks to Catholicism) we understand charity and mercy today better than they did then.

 

[PRmerger]

Most people will try to wiggle out of the dilemma and avoid the issue in some way.

LOL!

Please note the comment below:

The captain has only one bullet and the sharks love eating women.

Why do you reserve the right for yourself what you object to in others?

#doublestandard

 

[PRmerger]

Because he is the only one with the expertise, knowledge and skill to commandeer the boat. If he jumped overboard, everyone would surely die since the boat would surely capsize without his expertise.

That’s his excuse. He really just doesn’t want to sacrifice himself.

People are quite capable of being innovative and creating solutions, so, no, he’s not the only one with the ability to row a boat.

Sheesh.

 

[PRmerger]

Because he is the only one with the expertise, knowledge and skill to commandeer the boat. If he jumped overboard, everyone would surely die since the boat would surely capsize without his expertise. therefore, the captain cannot jump overboard. Those are the ground rules for the dilemma.
Of course, most people don’t like the ground rules and want to find some way of getting around them instead of facing the actual situation posed by the dilemma.
The situation is like this:
The boat is sinking from overweight of 10 people,
The boat would not sink if there were one person less in the boat, i.e., 9 people. Everyone would surely live with one less person in the boat.
No one volunteers to leave.
Should the captain throw one person overboard to save the remaining nine, or should he do nothing and as a result of his inaction the boat would sink and everyone would surely die .

The captain should throw himself over.

In fact, it is his duty to do so.

This is not a dilemma, Tom.

 

[PRmerger]

It is always the same.

‘Throw yourself overboard’
‘Shoot the sharks’
‘Fix the lifeboat’
‘Ask for volunteers’

Is this for real?

You are objecting to our providing the correct answers?

Imagine if you were a geography teacher and you overheard one of your students sniffing,

"It’s always the same.

Burma changed its name to Myanmar, not Winklehaven.
The US has 50 states, not 38.
Kenya is in Africa, not Antarctica
Turkmenistan, it turns out, is actually a real country".

facepalm

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is always the same.

‘Throw yourself overboard’
‘Shoot the sharks’
‘Fix the lifeboat’
‘Ask for volunteers’

Ye gods, what a tangled attempt to avoid answering the question. It seems that Christians hate hypotheticals because it leads to them having to make personal decisions regarding life and death. Whereas the church absolves them of making that call. Otherwise, why not give the answer that is blazingly obvious to any literate and reasonable person who reads the question?

Again back to reasonable arguments.

Is it in any way conceivable that a reasonable argument would lead to anything other than throwing the wife beating, paedophile mass murderer overboard to save a boat load of children?

Is there a reasonable argument anywhere by anyone that says it is better that everyone drown? Can it really be expressed by any sane person?

Forget where the decision might lead. This is a one off. All situations are one off. Every call you make is a one off. Throwing the convicted murderer overboard leads to…nothing whatsoever excet saving a boat load of children.

Shame on anyone who cries: ‘It isn’t my call’. Shame on anyone who attempts to avoid the unavoidable. Shame on anyone who looks to someone else to make the tough calls. Life is about making tough calls. We all have them. If your religion helps you make them and gives you some guidlines for making them, then that is all to the good.

But YOU are the one who has to make them in the end. After taking all the advice, after gathering all the information, it comes down to one person to make the call. One person has to make a reasonable argument either for or against the matter in hand. And that person is you.

Fail in that, fail in the requirement to make your own decisions, and you absolve yourself of responsibility. I wonder where that might lead…

Well, Brad, here the problem…

If “better” in not definable, then it isn’t “better” to throw the wife beating, pedophile mass-murderer overboard.

The weight-lifting Arnold Schwartzenager type might decide it is “better” to throw all the pesky weaklings overboard and has the power to do so. He doesn’t need agreement from anyone to do so, just as a male African lion doesn’t call a referendum of the pride in order to kill a weak cub. It is assumed that some rational moral principle is clearly in view to everyone on the boat in order for “better” to hold sway in a way that all agree upon the final outcome. That, however, assumes that human moral decisions are in some sense “better” than male lion instincts. Yet that can only be true if a clear teleological principle is established where “better” becomes something more than an empty idea.

On what basis is it “better” for some humans to die for the sake of others, on principle, rather than for some humans (the stronger and more capable) to simply toss out whoever they choose? Establish the warrant – in some aspect of material reality alone – by which the strong and fit guy would be obligated by reason and not merely by his own survival.

I don’t think it can be done without making morality an integral aspect of existence itself – and that is only logically possible if existence itself is not merely purposeless matter, but has purposeful intent and, therefore, teleology and moral purpose built into Being Itself – i.e., the theistic view of existence being the essentially correct one.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is always the same.

‘Throw yourself overboard’
‘Shoot the sharks’
‘Fix the lifeboat’
‘Ask for volunteers’

Ye gods, what a tangled attempt to avoid answering the question. It seems that Christians hate hypotheticals because it leads to them having to make personal decisions regarding life and death. Whereas the church absolves them of making that call. Otherwise, why not give the answer that is blazingly obvious to any literate and reasonable person who reads the question?

Again back to reasonable arguments.

Is it in any way conceivable that a reasonable argument would lead to anything other than throwing the wife beating, paedophile mass murderer overboard to save a boat load of children?

Is there a reasonable argument anywhere by anyone that says it is better that everyone drown? Can it really be expressed by any sane person?

Forget where the decision might lead. This is a one off. All situations are one off. Every call you make is a one off. Throwing the convicted murderer overboard leads to…nothing whatsoever excet saving a boat load of children.

Shame on anyone who cries: ‘It isn’t my call’. Shame on anyone who attempts to avoid the unavoidable. Shame on anyone who looks to someone else to make the tough calls. Life is about making tough calls. We all have them. If your religion helps you make them and gives you some guidlines for making them, then that is all to the good.

But YOU are the one who has to make them in the end. After taking all the advice, after gathering all the information, it comes down to one person to make the call. One person has to make a reasonable argument either for or against the matter in hand. And that person is you.

Fail in that, fail in the requirement to make your own decisions, and you absolve yourself of responsibility. I wonder where that might lead…

I think that the Catholic teaching on this is that a good end does not justify a bad means. So you cannot just kill an innocent person to bring about a good end. For example, drop an A- bomb on Japan to save American lives and end the war. The Catholic teaching is no. BUT OTOH, in the case you presented there might be some wiggle room, if the person were guilty of crimes which merited the death penalty, such as mass murder. The group could conceivably get together and form a judge and jury and sentence him to death for his crimes and then throw him overboard as punishment and to save the others. That I think might possibly (I am not sure) pass the test of Catholic thinking, since he is guilty of serious crimes meriting death and society has a right to impose the death penalty. In this case the isolated society is formed by the people on the boat. But if the person were just an average Joe, not guilty of any crimes, then I don;t see how, according to Catholic thinking on the issue, you would be justified in taking the life of an innocent person to save the others. Eastern Orthodox have the concept of economia or exceptions to rules in some cases, but I don’t know if that would apply in this case.
There are a lot of ways to avoid answering the dilemma. For example, one way to wiggle out of the dilemma would be to get everyone to agree to drawing straws. By agreeing to that, each person agrees to take the consequences. Of course, if one person did not agree to it, then you would be back to the original dilemma.
There are other moral dilemma examples that often come up and generally, it is difficult to find a satisfactory answer.

 

[Tomdstone]

The captain should throw himself over…

The hypothesis of the problem is that the captain cannot throw himself over.