The general problem discussing morality

[IQ170]

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?

This kind of reasoning is applicable (or rather inapplicable) to each and every act, not just a so-called morally significant acts. If you would want to “postpone” every act until you have full information, you would never be able to do anything - not even take a breath. Since we can never have a full, 100% assurance, we need to act on the available information. In other words, we must use the “duck principle”.

…you seem to disallow a risk assessment…

Where did this come from? Of course rational risk assessment is a “must”. It might not lead to absolute certainty, but a reasonable conclusion is sufficient. Even in the most serious criminal cases we adhere to the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt” - not to “beyond any doubt”.

 

[margaret42]

Maybe you could say at an appropriate time that “preferences” can be put aside and sometimes compromised on, but principles can’t. Objective moral principle-especially Catholic- can’t be changed.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If an action has no effect on others, then it is not a “moral” problem. This is the basic proposition.

This depends on the moral system being used which can make this an issue or not on mere whim.

 

[IQ170]

Maybe you could say at an appropriate time that “preferences” can be put aside and sometimes compromised on, but principles can’t. Objective moral principle-especially Catholic- can’t be changed.

The problem is that there is no objective moral principle. There is no “balance scale” onto which we can place two ethical systems (one onto each side) and wait for one side pull down to indicate that it is “better”. The expression of “balance scale” is just a placeholder for any epistemological method.

This depends on the moral system being used which can make this an issue or not on mere whim.

Thank you! You got that right. That is the topic of the thread, the differences between the ethical systems. Since the “morality” of an act hinges not only on the act itself, but also the evaluation system - the ethical system being used - there is no objective morality.

Though I have to disagree with your description of “mere whim”. All of our ethical systems are well defined - in our own eyes - and not subject to be changed willy-nilly.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Though I have to disagree with your description of “mere whim”. All of our ethical systems are well defined - in our own eyes - and not subject to be changed willy-nilly.

I wouldn’t rule out such an inconstancy in a few individuals, after all, there is hardly anything that can be done about it.

 

[Pug]

Where did this come from? Of course rational risk assessment is a “must”.

Because rational risk assessment disallows shooting to miss a person without serious reason.

And yes, I do agree we do not need full information, but to know that a bullet won’t strike requires more more information than is normally available.

 

[John10]

Catholic Church teachings, magisterium and doctrine is the only moral system that makes sense.

If we all follow the 10 commandment we would solve most of the problems we see in the world today.

 

[IQ170]

Because rational risk assessment disallows shooting to miss a person without serious reason.

What is serious reason is highly subjective. And to shoot to miss is simple. Aim above the head at least a yard or two.

 

[Pug]

Yes, I agree that it is subjective. What you have said about yards must accommodate possible movements/trips or various unexpected hazards (but not things like an airplane falling from the sky).

(and I was thinking of a near miss by inches)

 

[Dovekin]

That “innate” sense of ethics is not “innate” at all. It is the result of our upbringing during the early years of development. If you look at a random selection of small children, they are all vicious, selfish, little brutes, and it takes a considerable time and effort to “chisel them down” into decent, cooperating little human beings.
If you go to a kindergarten, which is the word you hear most of time, usually being screamed? Yes, it is “MINE!!!”

It is not unusual for children to act against their innate nature. They touch hot stoves. They get burned because their innate nature wants to be at a different temperature. “Chiseling them down” is not what keeps them from being hurt by fire; learning is how they know what is innate and how to protect it.

“Mine” only works if children recognize another person can use the same word. Eventually they understand that, and then develop to “ours” and “theirs.” Screaming “mine” is a part of learning about their innate social nature, not the sign of a vicious nature.

Ender’s Game is about that kind of learning. Learning that actions have consequences, that people interact, that adults are not outside their world. Ender learns about himself and about others, and learns to resist those who “chisel him down.” Learning about himself, his innate nature and how to live with it.

 

[IQ170]

Yes, I agree that it is subjective. What you have said about yards must accommodate possible movements/trips or various unexpected hazards (but not things like an airplane falling from the sky).

(and I was thinking of a near miss by inches)

Is that near miss accidental or purposeful? Let’s talk about the actual question: "An act which is not known to anyone, and which has no consequences to anyone is not morally significant. " That is all I am asserting.

 

[goout]

Catholic Church teachings, magisterium and doctrine is the only moral system that makes sense.

If we all follow the 10 commandment we would solve most of the problems we see in the world today.

I agree, and at the same time the appeal to even legitimate authority is not sufficient reasoning for a non-believer to accept Christian moral evaluation.

 

[IQ170]

Ender’s Game is about that kind of learning.

Partially, yes. But the major point is that no adult can be as vicious as children when they are playing. That is why the kids are no allowed to learn that they are in real battles. So they will behave as naturally as they can.

And your usage of “nature” is not is usually meant. It has nothing to do with hot stoves, rather an alleged “moral nature”. They are all “naturally” envious, vengeful and brutish. That is what needs to be “chiseled down”.

 

[Wozza]

Catholic Church teachings, magisterium and doctrine is the only moral system that makes sense.

If we all follow the 10 commandment we would solve most of the problems we see in the world today.

So if your parents were abusive you still will have to honour them? And no working on the Sabbath? And no false gods, so no Hindus? No taking the Lord’s name when you hit your thumb with a hammer?

 

[Wozza]

Pug:

Yes, I agree that it is subjective. What you have said about yards must accommodate possible movements/trips or various unexpected hazards (but not things like an airplane falling from the sky).

(and I was thinking of a near miss by inches)

Is that near miss accidental or purposeful? Let’s talk about the actual question: "An act which is not known to anyone, and which has no consequences to anyone is not morally significant. " That is all I am asserting.

I think that if you aim to kill and miss and nobody notices, it has no consequences and causes no harm. But the intention to cause harm was there.

Being a bad shot doesn’t make the attempt morally neutral.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Those are hardly problems, even honoring your parents can be done safely, though the emotional trauma is something else that needs to be overcome.

 

[Wozza]

John10:

Catholic Church teachings, magisterium and doctrine is the only moral system that makes sense.

If we all follow the 10 commandment we would solve most of the problems we see in the world today.

I agree, and at the same time the appeal to even legitimate authority is not sufficient reasoning for a non-believer to accept Christian moral evaluation.

Exactly. If you tell me that I must honour my parents and they spent my childhood abusing me, then you need to explain why. If you say I cannot work on the Sabbath then you need to give me a good secular reason. Etcetera.

 

[Wozza]

Those are hardly problems, even honoring your parents can be done safely, though the emotional trauma is something else that needs to be overcome.

Why would I need to honour them? That has to be earned. I might forgive them and that would possibly be the best course of action. But to honour them?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Cordiality will suffice.

 

[Wozza]

Cordiality will suffice.

Then the Ten Commandments aren’t justified. Well, that one anyway. So we’re down to the Nine Commandments at the moment. Now how about the rest?