The general problem discussing morality

[IQ170]

I can’t act with such disregard for the life of another without internal harm to myself.

First of all, there is no disregard for life. Your scenario is: “to shoot at someone else, aiming to miss and the non-victim is not aware of this fact”.

But since we have dominion over our life and body, it is no one else’s business if we harm ourselves.

 

[thistle]

Sadly morality seems to have gone out the window. Many people simply view things as legal or illegal.

 

[Annie]

The actions which are “seriously frowned upon” in any specific society are included in the criminal code

Not necessarily; just those things which are deemed to be inimical to order.

As to which of your numbered items, I go for natural law (which is not the laws of nature, as some seem to believe!).

Oddly enough, Catholic moral teaching is more founded on natural law than the other way around. This is because we believe that God is good, and so what He has taught us to do is good rather than decrees from on high, more like the owner’s manual of a car than the diktat/whims of an all-powerful ruler.

Basically, if you do as your owner’s manual suggests, your car will serve you better for longer, right? And some of those maintenance items, like fixing your brakes, are required by law for the maintenance of public safety, right?

The owners manual is more based on the specs of the car than it is on the whims of the manufacturer so in that way, too, it is like natural law.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’m not harmed, she’s not harmed (in fact I’ve made her feel pretty good). So there’s no problem.

What if she finds out the truth later? I would say that would be more harmful than telling her the truth when she asks.

It sounds like you’re not married.

‘Wow I’d better tell her that her butt looks big in that dress because, boy, will I be in trouble if she finds out later’.

 

[IQ170]

Sadly morality seems to have gone out the window. Many people simply view things as legal or illegal.

And the reason should be obvious. What is legal or illegal is well defined, and if you are in doubt, you can look it up in the proper places. On the other hand moral and immoral are subjective, depending on the ethical system you accept. The same act is immoral in one system and neutral in another one. Probably the best example is sexual behavior.

As to which of your numbered items, I go for natural law (which is not the laws of nature, as some seem to believe!).

Many people do. The best argument against this comes from observing children. They act instinctively, just like what their human nature compels them to do. Only children can love you unconditionally, or torture other beings without any qualms. If you have not read Orson Scott Card’s novel: “Ender’s Game”, I strongly suggest it. Without giving away the plot, the basis is that only children can be as vicious as the worst sociopath - when they are playing and not aware of it.

Oddly enough, Catholic moral teaching is more founded on natural law than the other way around. This is because we believe that God is good, and so what He has taught us to do is good rather than decrees from on high, more like the owner’s manual of a car than the diktat/whims of an all-powerful ruler.

I understand that this is your opinion, but it is not convincing to others. God’s goodness is not obvious. Actually, if anyone would behave as God (allegedly) does, the last adjective that would come to our mind is “good”. Most likely it would be “indifferent or uncaring”, though “evil” might be a possible choice, too.

If you can look at the world with an unjaundiced eye, and consider reality, the picture will be rather grim. All the natural features, which do not have to be there, and many of which we can change - speak loudly about indifference. And, no, you cannot shrug it off and blame our “fallen nature”. When there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving deity, EVERY act is his responsibility - either directly or indirectly. And there is no difference between them. But this is another conversation.

Basically, if you do as your owner’s manual suggests, your car will serve you better for longer, right? And some of those maintenance items, like fixing your brakes, are required by law for the maintenance of public safety, right?

No doubt about it. But, of course, you can test the suggestions in the case of the car, and no such epistemological method is available for morality. Now there is also the minor question of “suggestions” vs. “commands”. Of course many of the Catholic teachings are excellent, and worthy to follow - because they are rational.

 

[goout]

Morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to objective good, not a subjective ethical system.
The fact that two people can’t agree that the earth is a sphere doesn’t change the fact: the earth is round. Any scientist doing evaluations based on subjective assumptions is: a fool, not a scientist.

Likewise, the idea of morality without objective foundations and trajectories leads to circular nonsense instead of morality.

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s a fallacy.

Is that an objective fact or your subjective opinion?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

That’s a fallacy.

Is that an objective fact or your subjective opinion?

You must have missed the few posts that explained that facts are objective by definition. It’s a fact. And therefore objective.

 

[Brendan_64]

You must have missed the few posts that explained that facts are objective by definition. It’s a fact. And therefore objective.

So it is not your opinion that subjective morality does not leads to anything goes, it is an absolute objective fact?

 

[Annie]

Many people do. The best argument against this comes from observing children. They act instinctively, just like what their human nature compels them to do. Only children can love you unconditionally, or torture other beings without any qualms.

And even a very young child will protest the unfairness of one sibling’s getting a cookie and the other not. They are in many ways very moral, but need to be taught things such as pulling the cat’s tail will hurt the cat. LOL, I once saw a very young child crying because his hair was being pulling, while he was pulling it himself!

What children need to learn is about the world. Sure there are some moral points they need to learn, but they usually have a good foundation “built-in.” When they do not, we say they have a deficiency of conscience, not that they haven’t learned morality.

. If you have not read Orson Scott Card’s novel: “Ender’s Game”, I strongly suggest it. Without giving away the plot, the basis is that only children can be as vicious as the worst sociopath - when they are playing and not aware of it.

I find it difficult to accept evidence which is a fictional character pretending… I do not see how a child’s pretending to kill on a computer game shows anything at all.

I do see that children have a great capacity for imagining what to do in times of danger. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes a lot of sense, since the world used to be a very dangerous place, much more dangerous than it is now in most places, especially those with computer access.

But this is another conversation.

I am up for it if you want to start a thread exploring it.

But, of course, you can test the suggestions in the case of the car, and no such epistemological method is available for morality.

What do you mean by epistomological method of testing?

Anyway, I think that through serious philosophical thinking, we can come to understand the better social outcomes long-term adherence to natural law brings. In fact, many philosophers or moral teachers have come up with surprisingly similar suggestions for living just by observing human nature and considering it.

For example I do not need to engage in polygamy to understand that a society rife with polygamy will have a lot of “leftover” and thus angry men, usually young, which leads to a dangerous situation.

Now there is also the minor question of “suggestions” vs. “commands”.

I tried not to use the word command–i was trying to show the difference between a tyrant who makes arbitrary rules according to his whims and a Creator Who tells us how to accomplish a certain task.

 

[Pug]

First of all, there is no disregard for life. Your scenario is: “to shoot at someone else, aiming to miss and the non-victim is not aware of this fact”.

Explain that to the relative of the child/person you just luckily missed, and the cops. The disregard is there, whether observed or not.

But since we have dominion over our life and body, it is no one else’s business if we harm ourselves.

No commitments? No friends? No connection to others? Sounds unpleasant.

 

[Wozza]

IQ170:

But since we have dominion over our life and body, it is no one else’s business if we harm ourselves.

No commitments? No friends? No connection to others? Sounds unpleasant.

I tend to agree here. If I choose to throw myself out of the window right now because I’m depressed and I say it’s my call then I still need to think about the harm I would do to others.

All decisions that you make will affect other people. They need to be thought of when you are considering if harm will be done.

 

[Brendan_64]

Only children can love you unconditionally, or torture other beings without any qualms.

Sadly, when it comes to torturing others without qualms, I think adults are capable of this. Give people a twisted ideology or a reason to hate and they can do all sorts of horrific things to others, seemingly without qualms.

 

[IQ170]

Explain that to the relative of the child/person you just luckily missed, and the cops.

Not luckily, on purpose. And it is not observed by anyone. The basic point is that if an act does not affect anyone else, then it is none of anyone else’s business.

No commitments? No friends? No connection to others? Sounds unpleasant.

Of course I have all those, but I choose to have them. And my first and foremost obligation is still to myself. The concept expressed in “Brave New World” was: “After all everyone belongs to everyone else” and it is not just incorrect but actually nonsensical.

Just one example will do. When traveling on a plane, the instruction is always: “If the oxygen masks appear for some reason, use it on yourself before trying to help others”.

But all these objections try to change the goalposts. The basic principle is: “if an act does not affect others, it cannot be considered morally significant”. And the secondary principle is: “I have dominion over my body, and whatever I do to it, is my own concern”. If that action would violate the primary principle, we have a totally different scenario, which needs to be examined on its own right.

All decisions that you make will affect other people.

Not “all” decisions, and not “will” affect. Some decisions may affect others.

Sadly, when it comes to torturing others without qualms, I think adults are capable of this. Give people a twisted ideology or a reason to hate and they can do all sorts of horrific things to others, seemingly without qualms.

Of course that is true, but has nothing to do with the assumed “natural moral law”.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

All decisions that you make will affect other people.

Not “all” decisions, and not “will” affect. Some decisions may affect others.

I try not to make such swinging statements. I generally leave myself some wriggle room. But I’m struggling to think of a decision that I make that needs consideration as to whether it causes pain (that qualifier might clarify my position) that wouldn’t include someone else.

 

[Pug]

Not luckily, on purpose

If you are able to bring every plan/action of yours to completion with no flaw, despite there being a second person involved, then I think common morality doesn’t apply to you, other than as a means to blend in with the natives.

Of course I have all those, but I choose to have them. And my first and foremost obligation is still to myself.

What is the nature of this obligation to yourself?

 

[IQ170]

If you are able to bring every plan/action of yours to completion with no flaw, despite there being a second person involved, then I think common morality doesn’t apply to you, other than as a means to blend in with the natives.

Why not deal with the proposition as it was presented? Does it need to be repeated? If an action has no effect on others, then it is not a “moral” problem. This is the basic proposition. Are you interested in dealing with it?

 

[Pug]

It is your supposition that an action that has no affect on others is not a moral problem. But lets say I grant that, though to think that is foreign to me. Since I do not know if or how much it will affect others prior to doing it and prior to waiting for all the consequences to play out in time, and even then I still won’t nearly fully know, how do I know if it is moral at the moment of decision, when I need to know? How can I use harm to make a decision, since the actual harm is not known as I make the decision (and you seem to disallow a risk assessment)? I must make the decision in complete darkness as to the tally of harm, so all decisions are amoral? Or perhaps they are all immoral, if acting without knowing the harm is classified as immoral. Or else we switch methods, no longer using harm as the standard.

 

[goout]

Pug:

If you are able to bring every plan/action of yours to completion with no flaw, despite there being a second person involved, then I think common morality doesn’t apply to you, other than as a means to blend in with the natives.

Why not deal with the proposition as it was presented? Does it need to be repeated? If an action has no effect on others, then it is not a “moral” problem. This is the basic proposition. Are you interested in dealing with it?

As morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to an objective good, every human decision can be morally evaluated. Not all matter is grave enough to merit evaluation for sure.
This ought to be obvious.

 

[goout]

Pug:

IQ170:

But since we have dominion over our life and body, it is no one else’s business if we harm ourselves.

No commitments? No friends? No connection to others? Sounds unpleasant.

I tend to agree here. If I choose to throw myself out of the window right now because I’m depressed and I say it’s my call then I still need to think about the harm I would do to others.

All decisions that you make will affect other people. They need to be thought of when you are considering if harm will be done.

This is true. Human beings do not live in isolated moral fiefdoms. We are a community of people. The good of one person is the good of all, and evil actions are also to the detriment of all, even when those effects are not obvious or immediate.

Our fulfillment is realized as individuals in communion with others.
With that in mind, our decisions need to be made with the good of others in mind.