The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham

[tonyrey]

How do you interpret Paul’s writings in Romans 9?

1.There is no injustice with God.
2. It is not for us to question His decisions because our knowledge and understanding are limited whereas He is our Creator.
This passage should be interpreted in conjunction with St Paul’s exhortation:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice.
Mend your ways, encourage one another,
agree with one another, live in peace,
and the God of love and peace
will be with you.”

Cor 13:11

Are you suggesting God is incapable of creating a universe where ancestors’ actions don’t interfere with descendants’ position in life without God interfering with the choices made?

The question is absurd because it implies that God would defeat the purpose for which He created us.

The deaths commanded or directly caused by God throughout the Bible, do you consider it literal or not literal. How does this reflection your comments about God not using anyone as an executioner?

God is not the Destroyer but the Creator. Jesus told us to love our enemies. You don’t love them by killing them!

How so?

When two persons love each other they identify themselves with each other
.

Now instead of explaining your point you’re just reiterating yourself.

Not at all. You cannot be compelled to love a person against your will. The romantic notion of being under the spell of love is false. It is infatuation not love.

I am well aware of what selfishness is and am also aware of it’s large presence in human societies of all kinds. It is naturally instinctive for humans to watch out for number one as a priority and sometimes that includes disregard for others. Whether everyone is as selfish as everyone else is debatable but it is certainly instinctive.

We are not dominated by our instincts. If we were we would not be considered responsible for our actions.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

1.There is no injustice with God.
2. It is not for us to question His decisions because our knowledge and understanding are limited whereas He is our Creator.
This passage should be interpreted in conjunction with St Paul’s exhortation:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, rejoice.
Mend your ways, encourage one another,
agree with one another, live in peace,
and the God of love and peace
will be with you.”

Cor 13:11

So when Paul writes of potter being made for noble or for common use and of objects prepared for wrath and others prepared for glory, he doesn’t mean that he actually made or prepared anything, he means something entirely different to what he wrote then?

It logically follows that everything is determined and Paul’s notions of preparation support that logical proposition.

The question is absurd because it implies that God would defeat the purpose for which He created us.

So Ancestors’ actions not interfering with the descendants’ position in life does not fit in with the purpose that God created us for? How so?

God is not the Destroyer but the Creator. Jesus told us to love our enemies. You don’t love them by killing them!

So then why did he go on massive killing sprees throughout the Old Testament, children and babies were executed along with everybody else, how could they not be considered innocent? Did they share in the crimes of their ancestors’? Did God punish them for the crimes of their ancestors’? If not, why kill them or have them killed with the rest?

When two persons love each other they identify themselves with each other

Indeed but that does not necessarily make them unified.

Not at all. You cannot be compelled to love a person against your will.

Why not?

We are not dominated by our instincts. If we were we would not be considered responsible for our actions.

Depends on what one considers instinctive. Even still, we would be responsible in the eyes of law and of society.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s what I base my morals on but that doesn’t mean we can conclude that these things are objectively good

I don’t understand what you mean by “your morals”, then. Do you believe that “rape is wrong”, but not believe that “it is objectively true that rape is wrong”? That position makes absolutely no sense to me, unless you are saying that you just *prefer *that people not rape.

Most generously, I could assume that you mean that you believe rape (e.g.) is objectively wrong, but that it is not wrong because of those objectively bad things that go with it. This is a strange view. Usually, we would say that rape is wrong because it inflicts pain, or it violates a person’s will – and we would say that these things are bad.

Kant might agree with you, and say that the right is prior to the good. Rape is wrong, on Kant’s view, because it is irrational. But it seems that Kant needs to appeal to consequences too, if he is to give any plausible explanation of why people shouldn’t rape each other.

So your moral view puzzles me. It reminds me of many people who say that they have “opinions” on morality, but believe there are no moral truths. This is a confusion. When you opine about some thing, you venture your opinion about the TRUTH about that topic. If you don’t believe that there is any truth about X, then where do you get off having any opinions about X?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I don’t understand what you mean by “your morals”, then. Do you believe that “rape is wrong”, but not believe that “it is objectively true that rape is wrong”? That position makes absolutely no sense to me, unless you are saying that you just *prefer *that people not rape.

Most generously, I could assume that you mean that you believe rape (e.g.) is objectively wrong, but that it is not wrong because of those objectively bad things that go with it. This is a strange view. Usually, we would say that rape is wrong because it inflicts pain, or it violates a person’s will – and we would say that these things are bad.

Rape as an act entails many things, some of them you have outlined here. Now to give a rather harsh example of why rape is not objectively wrong, say a group of man capture you and several others, throw you in a van and take you somewhere you don’t know, they tie you up, beat you, threaten you, rape the women and then they tell you to rape one of the women. You decline, they offer a counter proposal, rape a girl or we kill one of them, if you continue to decline we kill another.

Do you rape them? What if you say no and they have 5 girls, they kill one right in front of you, they do it brutally, do you continue to say no? Would it be right or wrong here to rape them?

From the looks of this situation every captive there will probably die eventually at the hands of this savage sadistic group but perhaps clinging to life for yourself and others for just a while is better than forsaking them all to avoid a vulgar act. Maybe the few days lingering on might be enough time for people to find you and free you, maybe not but I honestly find it better to live than to die and to preserve that for others.

Then there’s rape within other species in the animal kingdom, it is instinctive and natural, it is how much life is brought to fruition, is it wrong for other animals?

Kant might agree with you, and say that the right is prior to the good. Rape is wrong, on Kant’s view, because it is irrational. But it seems that Kant needs to appeal to consequences too, if he is to give any plausible explanation of why people shouldn’t rape each other.

As far as I’m aware that is how morals are derived, from what people consider what should be done and usually when one suggests what should be done, they have an end in mind.

So your moral view puzzles me. It reminds me of many people who say that they have “opinions” on morality, but believe there are no moral truths. This is a confusion. When you opine about some thing, you venture your opinion about the TRUTH about that topic. If you don’t believe that there is any truth about X, then where do you get off having any opinions about X?

Where I “get off” is that my opinions of moral absolutes is that there are none, I have found no reason to believe that any exist. My opinions on what myself and others should do is derived from my own experience and I don’t expect everyone to agree with what I have to say because their morals are derived from their own, different experience.

 

[ddarko]

Rape as an act entails many things, some of them you have outlined here. Now to give a rather harsh example of why rape is not objectively wrong, say a group of man capture you and several others, throw you in a van and take you somewhere you don’t know, they tie you up, beat you, threaten you, rape the women and then they tell you to rape one of the women. You decline, they offer a counter proposal, rape a girl or we kill one of them, if you continue to decline we kill another.

Do you rape them? What if you say no and they have 5 girls, they kill one right in front of you, they do it brutally, do you continue to say no? Would it be right or wrong here to rape them?

I think you are mistaking two things here. What you are saying shows merely that we CANNOT ontologically ground objective moral values on what is normative in nature. Going by your example, rape happens in the animal kingdom all the time.

But it appears that you have failed to see that what you say does not disprove the idea that objective moral values MAY exist. Just because sexual behavior from one species to the other differs does not mean that objective values do not exist. It might be that objective moral values exist but only one culture knows them correctly or no culture knows them correctly.

Just to give you an analogy, a completely blind man, a person with a weak eye sight, and another with good eye sight could be asked to view a photo of a person and describe it. All three of them will have differing descriptions but it does not mean that the person in the photo does not exist.

So your conclusion from your examples to “Objective moral values therefore do not exist” does not logically follow. Hence it is a non-sequitur.

Now then, how do we know objective moral values exist? We know this by human experience. Every human being believes that somethings are objectively right vs. bad. Now I don’t refer here to someone holding values but what I refer to here is the belief that every human being has that somethings are objectively wrong and right,

Now the reason why many like you abandon this human experience of the existence of moral values are due to things like the examples you gave above. But as you can see, that is a logical error. The conclusion does not logically follow. So in the absence of evidence and reasons against it, one must believe in the human experience that objective moral values exist. After all, one cannot doubt human experience without sufficient reason to do so.

God Bless

 

[tonyrey]

1.There is no injustice with God.
2. It is not for us to question His decisions because our knowledge and understanding are limited whereas He is our Creator.
This passage should be interpreted in conjunction with St Paul’s exhortation:

That is sheer nonsense because St Paul would not have told people to “mend their ways” if they had no choice in the matter. The analogy with the potter doesn’t mean we don’t have free will but that God has created us with the vocation to love others according to our talents. The righteous anger of Jesus was justified by the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who exploited the poor and condemned them to a life of misery as “sinners”. It is absurd to think the atrocities committed by men deserve God’s wrath if everything is determined by God.

The question is absurd because it implies that God would defeat the purpose for which He created us.

So Ancestors’ actions not interfering with the descendants’ position in life does not fit in with the purpose that God created us for? How so?

God created us to choose what to believe and how to live - which what everyone, including you and me, is doing…

God is not the Destroyer but the Creator. Jesus told us to love our enemies. You don’t love them by killing them!

So then why did he go on massive killing sprees throughout the Old Testament, children and babies were executed along with everybody else, how could they not be considered innocent? Did they share in the crimes of their ancestors’? Did God punish them for the crimes of their ancestors’? If not, why kill them or have them killed with the rest?

Bloodthirsty Yahweh is not the loving Father revealed by Jesus.

When two persons love each other they identify themselves with each other

Indeed but that does not necessarily make them unified.

If they both want the same things they cannot fail to be united.

You cannot be compelled to love a person against your will

.
Why not?

Try doing it!

We are not dominated by our instincts. If we were we would not be considered responsible for our actions.

Depends on what one considers instinctive

If we are dominated we are not responsible for our actions whatever you consider instinctive.

Even still, we would be responsible in the eyes of law and of society.

If we were held responsible in the eyes of law and of society both the law and society would be an ***!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That is sheer nonsense because St Paul would not have told people to “mend their ways” if they had no choice in the matter. The analogy with the potter doesn’t mean we don’t have free will but that God has created us with the vocation to love others according to our talents.

To me this appears to read too much into the text to protect a preconceived notion. The mention of pottery being made of clay for noble and for common use implies that the products of God have predetermined purposes.

The righteous anger of Jesus was justified by the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who exploited the poor and condemned them to a life of misery as “sinners”. It is absurd to think the atrocities committed by men deserve God’s wrath if everything is determined by God.

Don’t look at me, this is the Bible, I never claimed it wasn’t nonsense.

God created us to choose what to believe and how to live - which what everyone, including you and me, is doing…

Yes but our ancestors’ leave us with preconceived notions, their own bias and apparently it is because of them that we didn’t grow up in the Garden. Why? Why is the universe like this when God could have made it any way he wanted? Why do you think the alternative interferes with God’s plans, if anything the way it is interferes with God’s plan because of our ancestors’ swaying our belief’s with their own.

Bloodthirsty Yahweh is not the loving Father revealed by Jesus.

So the Old Testament gives a false representation of God ad God never asked for millions to be killed in his name and never killed millions with a flood?

If they both want the same things they cannot fail to be united.

That’s a big if, love does not mean that they want the exact same things.

Try doing it!

I may have proposed that question poorly. If our will is controlled are we capable of love? If not, why not?

If we are dominated we are not responsible for our actions whatever you consider instinctive.

Of course we are still responsible because we are the ones who performed the actions.

If we were held responsible in the eyes of law and of society both the law and society would be an ***!

Law and society seek a common goal, peace and harmony, whether the individuals are capable of acting differently or not does not change that goal or the method used to accomplish that goal.

 

[tonyrey]

That is sheer nonsense because St Paul would not have told people to “mend their ways” if they had no choice in the matter. The analogy with the potter doesn’t mean we don’t have free will but that God has created us with the vocation to love others according to our talents.

The products of God do have predetermined purposes - one of which is our capacity for self-determination.

The righteous anger of Jesus was justified by the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who exploited the poor and condemned them to a life of misery as “sinners”. It is absurd to think the atrocities committed by men deserve God’s wrath if everything is determined by God.

Don’t look at me, this is the Bible, I never claimed it wasn’t nonsense.

We are discussing the interpretation not what you believe.

God created us to choose what to believe and how to live - which what everyone, including you and me, is doing…

Yes but our ancestors’ leave us with preconceived notions, their own bias and apparently it is because of them that we didn’t grow up in the Garden. Why? Why is the universe like this when God could have made it any way he wanted?

Your apparent solution is to create a new universe for every generation!

Why do you think the alternative interferes with God’s plans, if anything the way it is interferes with God’s plan because of our ancestors’ swaying our beliefs with their own.

No man is an island.

Bloodthirsty Yahweh is not the loving Father revealed by Jesus.

So the Old Testament gives a false representation of God ad God never asked for millions to be killed in his name and never killed millions with a flood?

The Old Testament gives a true representation of God because of the unique monotheism of the Jews, their insight that God is “He Who Is” and the Ten Commandments which prescribe love for God and one’s neighbour. This basic teaching was distorted by idolatry and **primitive notions **like the need for animal sacrifice, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of people.

If they both want the same things they cannot fail to be united.

That’s a big if, love does not mean that they want the exact same things.

If they don’t want the same things they don’t identify themselves with each other.

Try doing it!

I may have proposed that question poorly. If our will is controlled are we capable of love?

Our will is not controlled. We are capable of self-control.

If we are dominated we are not responsible for our actions whatever you consider instinctive.

Of course we are still responsible because we are the ones who performed the actions.

Instinctive behaviour does not entail responsibility. If it did rats and fleas would have to appear in court…

If we were held responsible in the eyes of law and of society both the law and society would be an ***!

Law and society seek a common goal, peace and harmony, whether the individuals are capable of acting differently or not does not change that goal or the method used to accomplish that goal.

Law and society are established by individuals.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Rape as an act entails many things, some of them you have outlined here. Now to give a rather harsh example of why rape is not objectively wrong, say a group of man capture you and several others, throw you in a van and take you somewhere you don’t know, they tie you up, beat you, threaten you, rape the women and then they tell you to rape one of the women. You decline, they offer a counter proposal, rape a girl or we kill one of them, if you continue to decline we kill another.

Do you rape them? What if you say no and they have 5 girls, they kill one right in front of you, they do it brutally, do you continue to say no? Would it be right or wrong here to rape them?

Yes, I do believe it would be wrong to rape them, even in this case. But I agree with you that the question – or a similar question – does approach being a moral dilemma. Still, I do not see how the existence of moral dilemmas supports the argument that morality is subjective. There are times when scientists cannot determine, say, the spin of an electron, but we do not thereby conclude that the electron has no spin.

You have said that your example shows “why rape is not objectively wrong.” This fails to account, however, for the fact that we have more than one moral duty. Many philosophers believe that the duty to respect other people’s bodies (i.e., not to rape) can be overridden by the duty to save lives, in extreme circumstances.

Then there’s rape within other species in the animal kingdom, it is instinctive and natural, it is how much life is brought to fruition, is it wrong for other animals?

The concept of rape as a crime presupposes the ability of the criminal to *understand *that the victim does not consent. I am not sure whether there are animals that can have such an understanding; thus, I suspect animals are incapable of rape.

Where I “get off” is that my opinions of moral absolutes is that there are none, I have found no reason to believe that any exist. My opinions on what myself and others should do is derived from my own experience and I don’t expect everyone to agree with what I have to say because their morals are derived from their own, different experience.

To say “there are no moral absolutes” is very different than to say “there are no moral truths”. It might be possible to structure an objective moral system that never says that any particular action is always wrong, nor that any thing is unambiguously good or bad. Personally, I think there are moral absolutes – namely, the virtues – but that such absolutes are rare.

Consider an analogy. Each scientist’s opinions are derived from their own experience. And scientists disagree, perhaps because they have different experiences. But if two equally talented scientists had all the same experiences, would they then agree? They would certainly be more likely to, and the same thing has been shown to be true about moral reasoning. Moreover, even if these scientists did not agree, would we take this as evidence that their discipline is subjective? I think not.

I’m not clear on what your *argument *against moral objectivism is. It is clear that, as ddarko said, morals might be objective even if people disagree about what is right and wrong.

 

[Luvya]

I am not sure whether there are animals that can have such an understanding; thus, I suspect animals are incapable of rape.

Just a little trivia. Some animals have a very elaborate courtship ritual, and a definite social structure to deal with mating. Crocodiles have a dominant male with a harem of all the females. All the other males (the bachelors) are excluded from the opportunity to engage in mating. The dominant male performs a very elaborate ritual before the female “consents” to mating.

However, when the dominent male is challenged for the leadership by one of the “bachelors”, the other bachelors take the opportunity and “rape” the females. The word “rape” simply means that the mating dance is not performed, they get down to business - so to speak. Naturally it is not a rape in the human sense, but pretty close to it. This trivia came from Vitus B. Dröscher’s book: “Gentle like a crocodile”.

 

[Sair]

Yes, I do believe it would be wrong to rape them, even in this case. But I agree with you that the question – or a similar question – does approach being a moral dilemma. Still, I do not see how the existence of moral dilemmas supports the argument that morality is subjective. There are times when scientists cannot determine, say, the spin of an electron, but we do not thereby conclude that the electron has no spin.

I think I’d still have to maintain my stance that morality depends upon us being subjective beings. The fact that we have a range of values merely reinforces this idea. The actions of others affect us, and our actions affect others, not just ‘physically’, if one understands that from a purely external perspective, but emotionally. If one wishes for an objective basis to morality, this is about as close as you can get. A moral dilemma arises when a particular value - such as bodily autonomy and dignity for the potential rape victim - conflicts with another value, like life. It then becomes a question of the option to which you, personally, as the decider in the moral dilemma, attach the greater value. That is subjective. Although it is fair to say that one can have neither bodily autonomy nor dignity if one is a corpse.

You have said that your example shows “why rape is not objectively wrong.” This fails to account, however, for the fact that we have more than one moral duty. Many philosophers believe that the duty to respect other people’s bodies (i.e., not to rape) can be overridden by the duty to save lives, in extreme circumstances.

In terms of life being a necessary condition for caring about such things as respect for bodies and even awareness of moral duty, one might put the case that morality, as such depends upon sentient life - whether that of the moral agent or that of the moral patient. It’s hard to argue that a dead human body has any needs or desires, so one might say that preservation of life is paramount; however, if one brings quality of life into the equation, one then has to consider the long-term effects upon the person involved - are they the sort of person who would carry the rape - even if it were necessary to preserve their life - as an injury for the rest of their days? Would they rather have died than be violated? In that sense, maybe the person who preserves their life by committing rape is actually doing them a disservice, by prolonging their suffering. And let’s not forget the perversity of the situation that ignores human subjectivity to such an extent as to demand such a choice in the first place…

The concept of rape as a crime presupposes the ability of the criminal to *understand *that the victim does not consent. I am not sure whether there are animals that can have such an understanding; thus, I suspect animals are incapable of rape.

I know little enough about rape amongst other animals to tread carefully in this area, but I think that amongst many animals, the females select mates according to their fitness, based upon mating displays. One could say that rape, in such circumstances, is a matter of stepping outside this norm in terms of a male forcing himself upon a female. However, in many species, the strength of males and females is at least evenly matched, so a female is not without defences against male aggression. In some species, gang-rape occurs - dolphins are an example, I believe. From this, it seems that awareness of female receptivity exists amongst other animals, and that rape is an attempt to override this.

Consider an analogy. Each scientist’s opinions are derived from their own experience. And scientists disagree, perhaps because they have different experiences. But if two equally talented scientists had all the same experiences, would they then agree? They would certainly be more likely to, and the same thing has been shown to be true about moral reasoning. Moreover, even if these scientists did not agree, would we take this as evidence that their discipline is subjective? I think not.

I think the difference lies in the point of reference. Scientists studying the same external phenomenon are engaged in attempting to understand something that exists independently of our own conscious awareness as human beings. They are, in that sense, obliged to be objective in order to describe the ‘object’ of their study - such phenomena are not products of self-aware minds. By contrast, anyone studying morality must take into account the subjective feelings of those to whom moral considerations apply. We don’t assign the descriptors ‘good’ and ‘bad’ independently of our subjective judgements, as beings affected by those judgements. Subjective experience is essential to any conception of morality.

 

[tonyrey]

Just a little trivia. Some animals have a very elaborate courtship ritual, and a definite social structure to deal with mating. Crocodiles have a dominant male with a harem of all the females. All the other males (the bachelors) are excluded from the opportunity to engage in mating. The dominant male performs a very elaborate ritual before the female “consents” to mating.

However, when the dominent male is challenged for the leadership by one of the “bachelors”, the other bachelors take the opportunity and “rape” the females. The word “rape” simply means that the mating dance is not performed, they get down to business - so to speak. Naturally it is not a rape in the human sense, but pretty close to it. This trivia came from Vitus B. Dröscher’s book: “Gentle like a crocodile”.

The absence of the dance does not imply lack of consent - which often entails resistance as when a lioness snarls at an overzealous lion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just a little trivia. Some animals have a very elaborate courtship ritual, and a definite social structure to deal with mating. Crocodiles have a dominant male with a harem of all the females. All the other males (the bachelors) are excluded from the opportunity to engage in mating. The dominant male performs a very elaborate ritual before the female “consents” to mating.

However, when the dominent male is challenged for the leadership by one of the “bachelors”, the other bachelors take the opportunity and “rape” the females. The word “rape” simply means that the mating dance is not performed, they get down to business - so to speak. Naturally it is not a rape in the human sense, but pretty close to it. This trivia came from Vitus B. Dröscher’s book: “Gentle like a crocodile”.

Thanks for the trivia.

As you seem to have recognized, it seems that we are applying our terms – rape, bachelor, consent – to animals somewhat inaccurately. Perhaps the situations show a resemblance, but we cannot thereby say that these actions are actually rapes. I do not deny the possibility of animal rape, however.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think I’d still have to maintain my stance that morality depends upon us being subjective beings.

I agree, actually. Morality could not apply to “objective beings”, whatever that term might denote. But from the fact that we are subjective, it only follows that our judgments are subjective; it does not follow that there is no objectively valuable object. Our judgments about the weather are also inherently subjective, even when well-informed – should we conclude that the weather doesn’t exist?

The fact that we have a range of values merely reinforces this idea. The actions of others affect us, and our actions affect others, not just ‘physically’, if one understands that from a purely external perspective, but emotionally. If one wishes for an objective basis to morality, this is about as close as you can get.

I think this is awfully close, if you think about it. Suppose that Bob desires to experience pain for its own sake, not for any pleasure he takes in it, nor for any subjectively beneficial outcome of experiencing pain. Can you deny that Bob is being irrational? Masochism might be rational, in some cases, because people take pleasure in pain. Bob’s action, however, makes no sense at all. But how could we account for this irrationality unless we admit that pain is objectively undesirable as an end.

(As an aside, I think that only philosophers with an agenda to vindicate moral subjectivity would disagree with this last statement. This means that its denial strikes one as singularly ad hoc.)

A moral dilemma arises when a particular value - such as bodily autonomy and dignity for the potential rape victim - conflicts with another value, like life. It then becomes a question of the option to which you, personally, as the decider in the moral dilemma, attach the greater value. That is subjective. Although it is fair to say that one can have neither bodily autonomy nor dignity if one is a corpse.

Even if it were proven that moral values are incommensurable, as you seem to imply, this does not mean that things are not morally valuable. But often it seems that they are not incommensurable. If someone says (seriously) that the pleasure of the experience of raping someone outweighs all considerations against it, this person’s moral sense has clearly been perverted.

It’s hard to argue that a dead human body has any needs or desires, so one might say that preservation of life is paramount; however, if one brings quality of life into the equation, one then has to consider the long-term effects upon the person involved - are they the sort of person who would carry the rape - even if it were necessary to preserve their life - as an injury for the rest of their days? Would they rather have died than be violated? In that sense, maybe the person who preserves their life by committing rape is actually doing them a disservice, by prolonging their suffering.

Exactly these considerations imply that subjective preferences ought to be factored into our judgments about objective moral truth. If a person likes cookies and hates cake, it is morally problematic for me to give them cake as a gift. However, there are moral constraints on this reasoning, since some things are objectively undesirable. Even though Bob prefers pain, I ought not give it to him.

I think the difference lies in the point of reference. Scientists studying the same external phenomenon are engaged in attempting to understand something that exists independently of our own conscious awareness as human beings. They are, in that sense, obliged to be objective in order to describe the ‘object’ of their study - such phenomena are not products of self-aware minds.

This is question-begging. I am arguing that moral truths are external phenomena, just like scientific truths. I deny that they are “products of self-aware minds”.

By contrast, anyone studying morality must take into account the subjective feelings of those to whom moral considerations apply. We don’t assign the descriptors ‘good’ and ‘bad’ independently of our subjective judgements, as beings affected by those judgements. Subjective experience is essential to any conception of morality.

On this last point, as I said, I agree. Morality appears to be different from science, because morality must consider subjective opinions.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes, I do believe it would be wrong to rape them, even in this case. But I agree with you that the question – or a similar question – does approach being a moral dilemma. Still, I do not see how the existence of moral dilemmas supports the argument that morality is subjective. There are times when scientists cannot determine, say, the spin of an electron, but we do not thereby conclude that the electron has no spin.

You have said that your example shows “why rape is not objectively wrong.” This fails to account, however, for the fact that we have more than one moral duty. Many philosophers believe that the duty to respect other people’s bodies (i.e., not to rape) can be overridden by the duty to save lives, in extreme circumstances.

What my point was is that an action cannot be considered wrong or right, it’s the intent and the reason. In my opinion rape is wrong because it is about self gratification and a disregard for the victim. I award others the same rights I maintain and if those rights are violated then penalization is required. But all of this is about what I think and although many agree, that does’t make it objectively right or wrong. There are objective morals but whether they are objectively moral or not is indeterminable.

The concept of rape as a crime presupposes the ability of the criminal to *understand *that the victim does not consent. I am not sure whether there are animals that can have such an understanding; thus, I suspect animals are incapable of rape.

I’m glad we agree with the concept that morals have less to do with the act and more to do with the intention and knowledge of the individual performing the act.

To say “there are no moral absolutes” is very different than to say “there are no moral truths”. It might be possible to structure an objective moral system that never says that any particular action is always wrong, nor that any thing is unambiguously good or bad. Personally, I think there are moral absolutes – namely, the virtues – but that such absolutes are rare.

Consider an analogy. Each scientist’s opinions are derived from their own experience. And scientists disagree, perhaps because they have different experiences. But if two equally talented scientists had all the same experiences, would they then agree? They would certainly be more likely to, and the same thing has been shown to be true about moral reasoning. Moreover, even if these scientists did not agree, would we take this as evidence that their discipline is subjective? I think not.

I’m not clear on what your *argument *against moral objectivism is. It is clear that, as ddarko said, morals might be objective even if people disagree about what is right and wrong.

This I agree with, I have no evidence or reasoning against the existence of objectively moral truths, I also have no evidence in favor of it. What criteria do we use to uncover moral truths? How do we know that criteria is trustworthy?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What my point was is that an action cannot be considered wrong or right, it’s the intent and the reason. In my opinion rape is wrong because it is about self gratification and a disregard for the victim.

You’re right that the intention is important, but it’s not the only thing that’s important. Imagine a man who thought that rape made women happy, even though he disliked it. If he raped someone as an act of perceived “selflessness”, wouldn’t he still be doing wrong?

But all of this is about what I think and although many agree, that does’t make it objectively right or wrong.

Suppose that one billion different people, of different origin and ethnicity, all agreed that happiness is a good thing. Now, I agree that it does not deductively follow from this that happiness is desirable. But doesn’t it at least provide some sort of evidence? Moreover, can we imagine a kind of being that doesn’t – at core – believe that happiness is good?

(I am certainly not meaning to imply that happiness is the only good. There are times when killing an innocent might make a person happy, but this happiness does not – all things considered – justify the action.)

This I agree with, I have no evidence or reasoning against the existence of objectively moral truths, I also have no evidence in favor of it. What criteria do we use to uncover moral truths? How do we know that criteria is trustworthy?

Consider an analogy. No one could disagree that there is some MLB baseball player that has hit the most home runs in a season; this is clearly objective. But is there some baseball player that is the best player ever to play the game? Many would respond that there is not – since such a judgment is subjective. How do we choose criteria?

A related question is this: Are some players better players than others? Obviously, yes. Mickey Mantle was better than Milt Wilcox. But, then, if there were only two players, there would be a best player. And if there were three players, there would be a best player. And if there were four, five, six, or seven. And if there were 35,000. And so on.

But then, there is a best player, even though it is very contentious how to determine who it is. Clearly, though, some criteria are better than others. Consider the criterion “is the tallest player.” This is no good – height has little to do with baseball.

Likewise, with morals. “Tends to make as many people as possible happy” is a much better criterion than “encourages the increased wealth of the wealthy.” The task of ethics is to find the best criteria, using our reason. We must assume that we have something like a moral sense, but – in practice – this has always been a plausible assumption.

DOROTHY
IsAAC

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You’re right that the intention is important, but it’s not the only thing that’s important. Imagine a man who thought that rape made women happy, even though he disliked it. If he raped someone as an act of perceived “selflessness”, wouldn’t he still be doing wrong?

In my eyes, yes because from my perspective I consider the actuality of the woman’s position. However a man in this position appears to be of an unstable mind and rather than penalization I would recommend psychiatric help.

Suppose that one billion different people, of different origin and ethnicity, all agreed that happiness is a good thing. Now, I agree that it does not deductively follow from this that happiness is desirable. But doesn’t it at least provide some sort of evidence? Moreover, can we imagine a kind of being that doesn’t – at core – believe that happiness is good?

(I am certainly not meaning to imply that happiness is the only good. There are times when killing an innocent might make a person happy, but this happiness does not – all things considered – justify the action.)

What measure of evidence does subjective interpretation and opinion support something being objectively true? Our desire for happiness could be the core of our evolution and subsequently it is intrinsic to ours and probably many others desires but does that make it any closer to objectively true?

Consider an analogy. No one could disagree that there is some MLB baseball player that has hit the most home runs in a season; this is clearly objective. But is there some baseball player that is the best player ever to play the game? Many would respond that there is not – since such a judgment is subjective. How do we choose criteria?

Well depending on the criteria claims could be made but the criteria may be false, there could be an objectively true criteria that we are unaware of.

A related question is this: Are some players better players than others? Obviously, yes. Mickey Mantle was better than Milt Wilcox. But, then, if there were only two players, there would be a best player. And if there were three players, there would be a best player. And if there were four, five, six, or seven. And if there were 35,000. And so on.

But then, there is a best player, even though it is very contentious how to determine who it is. Clearly, though, some criteria are better than others. Consider the criterion “is the tallest player.” This is no good – height has little to do with baseball.

Likewise, with morals. “Tends to make as many people as possible happy” is a much better criterion than “encourages the increased wealth of the wealthy.” The task of ethics is to find the best criteria, using our reason. We must assume that we have something like a moral sense, but – in practice – this has always been a plausible assumption.

DOROTHY
IsAAC

You’ve raised issues that kind of support my point. The criteria used to judge morals or baseball players can vary and the results depend on the criteria. Until criteria can be shown to be the best example of “the best player” or “the best morals” then all we have is our subjective opinion. Pitcher vs. Batsman, can we compare them? What should be valued more so to present one as “better” than the other? Your claim for better criterion for morality is based on your subjective values for happiness over wealth, why should it be valued more? I personally agree with you but does our agreement make us objectively right?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ooops! I forgot to delete my children’s names from my last post. They begged me to type their names.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Ooops! I forgot to delete my children’s names from my last post. They begged me to type their names.

Haha, I was wondering what those names were. All good.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry for the delayed response!

In my eyes, yes because from my perspective I consider the actuality of the woman’s position. However a man in this position appears to be of an unstable mind and rather than penalization I would recommend psychiatric help.

I agree that sometimes people do the wrong thing out of ignorance and psychological instability, and these people deserve help. But why do you assume that we cannot help a person by punishing him? I punish my children, but only out of a desire to help them.

What measure of evidence does subjective interpretation and opinion support something being objectively true? Our desire for happiness could be the core of our evolution and subsequently it is intrinsic to ours and probably many others desires but does that make it any closer to objectively true?

A desire cannot be true or false. But an experience or a disposition can be objectively valuable. A Socratic question for you: do you believe that there is objective truth?

You’ve raised issues that kind of support my point. The criteria used to judge morals or baseball players can vary and the results depend on the criteria. Until criteria can be shown to be the best example of “the best player” or “the best morals” then all we have is our subjective opinion.

But I agree that all **we **have is subjectivity. The existence of epistemic barriers between me and the truth does not entail the nonexistence of truth, however. If it did, then Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason would have “proven” that nothing is true, since all reasoning is subject-bound. You seem to be thinking of truth as a function of agreement. Why else would it matter whether some criterion can be “shown” to be the best?

Your claim for better criterion for morality is based on your subjective values for happiness over wealth, why should it be valued more? I personally agree with you but does our agreement make us objectively right?

Why would anyone think that wealth is objectively valuable? Wealth is valuable only as a means to an end. Those who think otherwise – misers, e.g. – are clearly being irrational.