Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

[jmcrae]

It would be if murder had a specific definition. Murder basically means “wrong killing.” Giving static definitions of what sorts of killing are to be considered wrong now, in all of history, and forever would be dealing in moral absolutes.

Best,
Leela

Well, self-defense, capital punishment (defense of society), and the defense of one’s nation in war are not murder. Where the question comes in is not whether murder is wrong (because it always is) but whether a past definition of the defense of the nation, the defense of society, or the defense of the individual and his family, were valid, or not. But if the actions taken were in accord with the definitions present at the time, then they don’t qualify as “murder” even if they were regrettable.

 

[Ender]

What prevents morality from being arbitrary is reality.

If morality is a word we use to describe our concerns for human flourishing within a social setting, then if reality is real, then some moral positions really are better than others.

This is not at all what I mean by moral; this is the definition for useful. Clearly some activities are more conducive to human flourishing within societies but that doesn’t mean they are moral. Democrats and Republicans disagree on what actions will resolve our financial crisis. If one side gets it wrong was their decision immoral? It is only where I know (or believe) that my actions will be harmful that I act immorally; it is not immoral to be wrong or to take actions that are harmful if that was not my reasonable expectation or intent.

For example, clearly we can agree that a society where people do not murder one another is better than one where they do

It is certainly better for me to live in such a society but you can make no case at all that I should not murder if it is in my best interest to do so.

Ender

 

[Leela]

This is not at all what I mean by moral; this is the definition for useful. Clearly some activities are more conducive to human flourishing within societies but that doesn’t mean they are moral.

If you don’t think that morality is about living well, then we aren’t both talking about morality.

Democrats and Republicans disagree on what actions will resolve our financial crisis. If one side gets it wrong was their decision immoral?

Not necessarily. Remember that I don’t view morality issue as absolutely right or absolutely wrong but as really better or really worse. It is possible that both sides could recommend solutions that would be equally good.

Note that Republicans and Democrats do actually view taxation and government spending as moral issues. I certainly do. Pretty much everything is about values when you get down to it.

It is only where I know (or believe) that my actions will be harmful that I act immorally; it is not immoral to be wrong or to take actions that are harmful if that was not my reasonable expectation or intent.

It is generally agreed that intentions need to be considered when evaluating the morality of actions. But this undercuts the position that actions can be wrpong or right in and of themselves which is the Catholic position as I understand it. I disagree with that position.

It is certainly better for me to live in such a society but you can make no case at all that I should not murder if it is in my best interest to do so.

Sure I can. If we agree that murder is bad for society, then it is bad for you since you are a part of the society. But you are also suggesting a hypothetical situation where it actually is in your personal self-interest to murder. I don’t that you are ever in such a situation.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Well, self-defense, capital punishment (defense of society), and the defense of one’s nation in war are not murder. Where the question comes in is not whether murder is wrong (because it always is) but whether a past definition of the defense of the nation, the defense of society, or the defense of the individual and his family, were valid, or not. But if the actions taken were in accord with the definitions present at the time, then they don’t qualify as “murder” even if they were regrettable.

I’m not sure I understand you here. My argument is that murder is wrong by definition, and I’m not referring to any set of legal standards for what is considered murder at any particular time or place. Murder refers to whatever sorts of killings are wrong. The label, murder, adds nothing more to the word, killing, than just saying “wrong killing.” So saying that murder is absolutely wrong in defense of absolutes doesn’t work, since the word murder doesn’t describe any general principle for saying what is right and what is wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Not necessarily. Remember that I don’t view morality issue as absolutely right or absolutely wrong but as really better or really worse. It is possible that both sides could recommend solutions that would be equally good.

So, let’s see; as we travel down that slippery slope, we come to the issue of “rape”. Rape, then, is a value proposition: we can only guess that it is “better” for the rapist, but, “worse” for the victim? In this case, why bother with anything more than a slap-on-the-wrist punishment for the perpetrator? Why waste so much money on the trial? Surely, once all of the ramifications and effects, and costs of the act are weighed, rape is not nearly so “bad” (for society) as society, in general, seems to regard it.

Note that Republicans and Democrats do actually view taxation and government spending as moral issues. I certainly do. Pretty much everything is about values when you get down to it.

Please site instances of where the government views taxation and spending as moral issues.

It is generally agreed that intentions need to be considered when evaluating the morality of actions. But this undercuts the position that actions can be wrpong or right in and of themselves which is the Catholic position as I understand it. I disagree with that position.

Cool. Life, in your worldview, is looking up for the rapist! :frighten:

Sure I can. If we agree that murder is bad for society, then it is bad for you since you are a part of the society. But you are also suggesting a hypothetical situation where it actually is in your personal self-interest to murder. I don’t that you are ever in such a situation.

Perhaps a billion or more adults (out of a little over 3 billion, on the planet) consider abortion murder. Abortion is way more often than not commited precisely because of “self interests”.

Thus, again, you stand refuted!

jd

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure I understand you here. My argument is that murder is wrong by definition, and I’m not referring to any set of legal standards for what is considered murder at any particular time or place. Murder refers to whatever sorts of killings are wrong. The label, murder, adds nothing more to the word, killing, than just saying “wrong killing.” So saying that murder is absolutely wrong in defense of absolutes doesn’t work, since the word murder doesn’t describe any general principle for saying what is right and what is wrong.

Best,
Leela

Sure it does. It tells us that killing other people at random is always wrong. It defines the parameters of when it is permissible (though regrettable) to kill someone else. (In self defense when it is not possible to disable the person; in defense of society when incarceration is not sufficient; in defense of one’s nation when treaties and negotiations have failed.) Outside of these parameters, if someone is killed, it is murder.

But murders are committed every day for reasons of self-interest. Someone who has committed a criminal act murders the witnesses to avoid being prosecuted for the original criminal act. A teenage girl kills the child in her womb to avoid falling behind in school due to pregnancy. A boy kills a random stranger on the street to prove himself worthy to join a gang.

 

[Ender]

If you don’t think that morality is about living well, then we aren’t both talking about morality.

Living well has nothing whatever to do with morality; we are clearly using the term differently. Yours is an “ends justify the means” morality. Whatever works is moral.

It is possible that both sides could recommend solutions that would be equally good.

This evades the question. Is it your position that it is not merely wrong to support a solution that is harmful but also immoral?

It is generally agreed that intentions need to be considered when evaluating the morality of actions. But this undercuts the position that actions can be wrpong or right in and of themselves which is the Catholic position as I understand it. I disagree with that position.

You misunderstand that position. The Church does not hold that all evils are intrinsically wrong (wrong in every case without exception). The morality of an action is determined by three aspects, one of which is the nature of the act itself, the other two are intent and circumstances.

Sure I can. If we agree that murder is bad for society, then it is bad for you since you are a part of the society. But you are also suggesting a hypothetical situation where it actually is in your personal self-interest to murder. I don’t that you are ever in such a situation.

Richard Rich was in just such a situation and you would have a hard time explaining how his action was harmful to his society. There are two problems with your definition of morality: it is based on consequences alone which cannot be known until after the fact and it completely ignores the rights of the individual. It would, for example, excuse the excesses of Pol Pot if his slaughters had yielded a better society. That is, his actions were immoral not because he murdered two million people but simply because they didn’t work.

Murder, by the way, is not merely “wrongful” killing where the definition of wrongful is arbitrary. It is the intended killing of the innocent. Killing in self defense, war, and the execution of criminals is not murder as the victims are not innocent. The inevitable killing of innocent civilians in war is not murder as it is not intended.

Ender

 

[Leela]

Living well has nothing whatever to do with morality; we are clearly using the term differently. Yours is an “ends justify the means” morality. Whatever works is moral.

Not at all. I am using the word as traditionally understood.

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

When I say morality is concerned with living well, I mean morality is concerned with good conduct. If you don’t think so, then you are using the word in an unusual way.

This evades the question. Is it your position that it is not merely wrong to support a solution that is harmful but also immoral?

Yes. Wrong means the same thing as immoral.

Richard Rich was in just such a situation and you would have a hard time explaining how his action was harmful to his society.

You think it is good for society for one person to lie to get others killed?

There are two problems with your definition of morality: it is based on consequences alone which cannot be known until after the fact and it completely ignores the rights of the individual. It would, for example, excuse the excesses of Pol Pot if his slaughters had yielded a better society. That is, his actions were immoral not because he murdered two million people but simply because they didn’t work.

You are assuming the ends and means are distinguishable–as though means are not also always ends.

Murder, by the way, is not merely “wrongful” killing where the definition of wrongful is arbitrary. It is the intended killing of the innocent. Killing in self defense, war, and the execution of criminals is not murder as the victims are not innocent. The inevitable killing of innocent civilians in war is not murder as it is not intended.

Killing the innocent basically upacks to mean killing someone who does not deserve to be killed, i.e., someone who it is wrong to kill. Throwing “innocent” into the definition just means we now have to define what innocent means.

Best,
Leela

 

[elts1956]

Not at all. I am using the word as traditionally understood.

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

When I say morality is concerned with living well, I mean morality is concerned with good conduct. If you don’t think so, then you are using the word in an unusual way.

Yes. Wrong means the same thing as immoral.

You think it is good for society for one person to lie to get others killed?

You are assuming the ends and means are distinguishable–as though means are not also always ends.

Killing the innocent basically upacks to mean killing someone who does not deserve to be killed, i.e., someone who it is wrong to kill. Throwing “innocent” into the definition just means we now have to define what innocent means.

Best,
Leela

Originally Posted by Ender
There are two problems with your definition of morality: it is based on consequences alone which cannot be known until after the fact and it completely ignores the rights of the individual. It would, for example, excuse the excesses of Pol Pot if his slaughters had yielded a better society. That is, his actions were immoral not because he murdered two million people but simply because they didn’t work.

First of all Ender, to kill another living being is always wrong. Of course the wrongness descends from a hierarchy of what is allowed or not allowed by law.

4… Human - intentional and no threat to oneself. Murder
3. Human - Self defense - Allowed in specified circumstances by law.
2. Human - During a just war Allowed.
1… Human - accidental - not murder by law.

1. Non human- intentional and for no other reason but the act of killing. Immoral acts.
2. Non human - for sustanence. Allowed.

You also use the word slaughter in your statement regarding Pol Pot. To me this word indicates those killed did not have the means of self defense. Thus he committed murder. One may never commit an intentional evil so that a good may come of it.

 

[Ender]

First of all Ender, to kill another living being is always wrong.

If by “wrong” you mean sinful or immoral then this statement is not true nor has the Church ever taught this.

You also use the word slaughter in your statement regarding Pol Pot. To me this word indicates those killed did not have the means of self defense. Thus he committed murder. One may never commit an intentional evil so that a good may come of it.

I don’t think you went far enough back in the chain of comments. My comments were based on what Leela believes, not what the Church teaches; my conclusions were based on her definitions of moral behavior.

The major distinction between Leela and the Church is that her morality (as I understand it) is based on outcomes which would in fact justify all sorts of evil acts so long as good came from it. I was not endorsing this moral standard; I was trying to expose it for what it is.

Ender

 

[elts1956]

If by “wrong” you mean sinful or immoral then this statement is not true nor has the Church ever taught this.

I don’t think you went far enough back in the chain of comments. My comments were based on what Leela believes, not what the Church teaches; my conclusions were based on her definitions of moral behavior.

The major distinction between Leela and the Church is that her morality (as I understand it) is based on outcomes which would in fact justify all sorts of evil acts so long as good came from it. I was not endorsing this moral standard; I was trying to expose it for what it is.

Ender

My apologies. :whacky: Your one sentence: “That is, his actions were immoral not because he murdered two million people but simply because they didn’t work.”, was implanted on my brain. Sorry for the misunderstanding.