Thoughts on the gay cake case

[LucyEm]

No one asks you to abandon your principles. My remark was only pointing out that there is no reason to refer to God in each and every scenario, as long as there is a secular, rational approach.

But what’s “rational”? For one who believes in a deity, and in his relationship to that deity - I’d say respecting the deity’s law is pretty rational! I know you want to pretend that that somehow shouldn’t matter - but it does. The other poster pointed you to Veritatis Splendor…it’s a difficult read, but the connection to God is emphasised and central to the discussion (for believers).

Responsible to those who will perish because you allowed the terrorist to blow up that dirty bomb. And for all those children who are born with serious deformity due to the nuclear fallout.

Well, those who perished/suffered, if they agreed with the consequentialism view of “rational”, might be cross that the guy didn’t “gun down the kindergarten class” or whatever he was called upon to do. But those who subscribed to the moral theology view of the world probably hold the guy that set off the bomb responsible for the mess! Now if our would-be hero had only been called upon to dance a gig to save NY and had refused, that would be a different matter LOL . Then I’d say “hang the guy” LOL

Actually, you don’t KNOW what God will do (assuming that there is one).

He believes he does - that’s all that really matters!

And the reaction of the court system is unclear. However, it is certain that you will be condemned if you fail to alert the authorities about an impending terrorist attack. If there is no time for the authorities to intercede, but you have the ways and means to prevent the attack, then you will be held responsible for allowing the attack to happen.

Well, I addressed above the “held responsible” bit, if you mean by the victims. And as for the courts, I’m pretty sure they aren’t goin’ hang anybody for NOT gunning down the kindergarten class!! Mass murder of the innocent is not required by any court I’ve ever heard of.

Now, how far CAN one go before the system will NOT find you responsible is exactly the question I presented, and you studiously avoided to answer. Of course no one forces you to participate.

I thought he answered something about “can’t do evil” (as his system defines it) or words to that effect. That would seem to be the right answer under a moral theology system.

The utilitarian/consequentialist approach is simple (in principle) : chose the option which does the smallest harm. This principle is ages old, ever since the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm”. But if you must do harm make sure that the harm is balanced by the beneficial outcome. Way before Christianity came upon the scene.

But you kind of forget that what is appropriate under your assumptions (no God, no God-given law) and what is appropriate under the reverse set of assumptions, might just be different.

 

[LucyEm]

Here on Earth we ARE the final arbiters.

There you go again - you forget that for those believing in a deity and their relationship to the deity, the final arbiter “on earth” is not the final arbiter!!

If someone is in the position to prevent a dirty bomb to be detonated in New York, and fails to prevent it, that person would be considered to be equally responsible for the event.

I already addressed this. If it’s “dance a gig and save NY”, I’m with you. If its “gun down the kindergarten class” - well in that case - who holds whom (morally) responsible [see note below] depends on the system under which the evaluation is made. The consequentialist would be quite entitled to be very cross with the would-be hero who let them down. The moral theology folks would be quite right to focus their annoyance on the bomb-maker.

No one, but NO ONE could get away with this kind of a cop-out.

Sure they can! God made the rules, including the negative precepts which say what you’re not to do. If we do as God says, (and given that he is God after all ) - what happens is kind-of on Him, no?

Note: Just one other comment. I’m not sure if the moral theology folks would argue with you about their “responsibility” (the word you use) for events in this hypothetical. In a clinical sense / ‘cause and effect’ sense, they are responsible - at least in a secondary way. They played a part. They could influence outcomes. But the thing is, they played by the (relevant) rules - rules they hold to be unassailable because of their source (as they believe it to be). For the adherents of any given system, it’s the rule set of “the system” that determines morality, and thus who bears the moral responsibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I will explain it to you one more time.

“A” is “B” - absolute statement
“A” is always “B” - exactly the same as above, the word “always” is just a “filler”, it does not add anything to it.
IF “C”, then “A” is “B” - conditional or relative statement.
IF “C”, then “A” is always “B” - exactly the same as above, the word “always” is just a filler, it does not add anything to it.

“A” is sometimes “B” - a relative statement. If someone wishes to dig deeper, they can ask: So when is it true that “A” is “B”? And the answer is “When C is true”.

Just because there is the word “always”, it does not make the statement “absolute”. I hope you get it now.

Can you give an example of when torture for fun would be moral, then?

No? It’s ALWAYS wrong to torture for fun?

Well, then, Pallas, that makes it a…

wait for it…

wait for it…

moral absolute.

Immunization is not a matter of opinion, it can be measured.

So your opinion is that only things which can be measured are objectively true.

If that’s your opinion, (and it has to be, since it can’t be measured), then it’s subjective.

And therefore it doesn’t refute my position that even if folks disagree, the truth remains: immunizations help folks.

So the fact that you point out that there may be people who may “disagree with this proposition” is otiose.

 

[PRmerger]

Here on Earth we ARE the final arbiters.

This assertion can’t be measured.

That makes it subjective.
Your opinion.
Your preference only.

“I like mashed turnips better than mashed potatoes!” is the position of Pallas.

Okey-dokey, then.

It’s absolutely inutile to have a discussion about people’s preferences.

But the fact that you are asserting your position as if it’s objectively true reveals your rejection of moral absolutes.

You really do believe your position is correct, and that others should conform to your belief.

#NOTsubjective

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here on Earth we ARE the final arbiters. If someone is in the position to prevent a dirty bomb to be detonated in New York, and fails to prevent it, that person would be considered to be equally responsible for the event.

That would all depend upon what it would take to stop the actions of the terrorist. At some point the cost would render the act unsolvable for human moral agents. At that point, your solution is to make up new principles as needed. At that point, the humans involved have moved from being moral agents, beyond being arbiters of morality to being creators or authors of morality.

Now, of course, in your system - grounded as it is on human subjectivity - each of us plays that role since, as you claim, morality is merely subjective and it belongs to the prerogative of subjects to make up their own morality as it suits them. I just don’t agree with that “system” of morality because it becomes arbitrary and incoherent very quickly.

If we each have a “right” to define our own morality subjectively, then - to be consistent - you would have to allow that Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Joseph Stalin, et al, were merely doing what moral individuals ought to do: define a morality that works for them. THAT is the essential nature of your system.

As soon as you say, “Wait a minute, you can’t do that!” you have walked away from your “system” into invoking some other grounds for constraining the definitively “subjective” grounds you claim for morality. Consistency, much?

Which brings me to this…

No one, but NO ONE could get away with this kind of a cop-out.

A “cop-out” according to which ethical system?

Recall YOUR words:

Did you actually READ what I said? I doubt it. There was not one word in my post about “good” or “best” ethical systems. It was your assertion that “laws have to be grounded in sound ethical thinking”. “Sound ethical thinking” is an empty phrase unless you elaborate “which” ethical system do you refer to - precisely because there are so many.

You keep on bringing up the word “morally”, which is another undefined category. “Morally” according to WHICH ethical system?

People consider something “moral” if it agrees with their own value / ethical system. That is all. According to your ethical system, sex outside marriage is “immoral”. In my ethical system, it is amoral. I don’t accept your ethical system, and you do not accept mine. So what? The conclusion is simple: there is no such thing as objective morality. It you disagree, bring up arguments for your disagreement.

The problem isn’t so much that you are advocating an ethical system as that you - by claiming all morality is subjective - are nullifying the grounds anyone else has for having an ethical system. You are claiming the authority and grounds for all ethical systems lie in the human subject. THAT is precisely what I reject because it is, ultimately, a pernicious view.

Your claim that referring the issue to God is a “cop-out” depends upon your premise that the human subject is the author of morality for them and therefore by not dealing with a determinably moral issue they are abdicating their role as AUTHOR of what ought to be a comprehensive moral system which arbitrates all issues.

That is precisely what I find pernicious. Human beings aren’t the authors of morality precisely because we are moral agents. If we played both roles it would be a conflict of interest. Either we truly are, each of us, authors of our own moral system, in which case the system only applies to oneself OR we are players in an objective moral system grounded on something other than subjectivity. In which case, we are not authors, but agents.

You want to have it both ways. You want to play by your rules, but you also want me to play by those rules. Otherwise, to be fully consistent with your claim that “…people consider something “moral” if it agrees with their own value / ethical system. That is all…” you would not be calling the implications of my system a “cop-out” merely because it disagrees with your subjective findings. Yet, here you are claiming that “No one, but NO ONE could [moral should?] get away with this kind of a cop-out.”

Sounds like you are trying to make me obligated to YOUR system in a way that you (inconsistently and incoherently) claim others are not supposed to be obligated if they don’t agree with the system. What ever happened to the simple conclusion, that “there is no such thing as objective morality?”

But, if there is NO objective morality, then there is no objective way to settle the dispute, AND there is…well…NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE.

If you want to insist I am “copping out,” then that claim needs to be objectively shown, which means determinations of morality cannot be merely subjective. AND, by the way, also means human subjects are not the authors of morality because that would mean deference to an objective system - or God - where human agency has no author’s rights (authority) would be perfectly legitimate and not a “cop-out.”

You can’t “have your cake and eat it, too,” unless, of course, you want to make up incoherent and irrational rules about cake having and eating.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I am not interested in convincing a psychopath, since it is impossible. I can’t even convince you that God (if exists) does not care about our well-being here on Earth, even though every sign we can OBSERVE points to a total indifference.

The fact that you are here on the CAFs limns that you are indeed interested in convincing others that your position is true.

I’m quite certain that you would find it quite useless and tedious to be on a forum that tries to convince others that mashed turnips are the best root vegetable. Why? Because it’s simply a matter of preference. It’s subjective what one prefers to eat.

But if there are objective truths–like, “Man is the final arbiter of all things moral”, then it stands to reason that you would come to a forum and discuss this putative truth.

 

[PRmerger]

But all this is a sidetrack. Rau unfortunately “opted out” from following up on the problem: “just how far would you go to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a dirty bomb in New York?”. Hopefully you will tell me your “price”.

Why, I would do anything I could to stop a terrorist from blowing up a dirty bomb.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But what’s “rational”? For one who believes in a deity, and in his relationship to that deity - I’d say respecting the deity’s law is pretty rational!

It is “logical”, but not “rational”. Many people confuse these concepts. Rational is what starts with the observable, physical reality, applying observations to it, making logical inferences based upon the reality.

Well, those who perished/suffered, if they agreed with the consequentialism view of “rational”, might be cross that the guy didn’t “gun down the kindergarten class” or whatever he was called upon to do. But those who subscribed to the moral theology view of the world probably hold the guy that set off the bomb responsible for the mess!

They are both responsible. You can argue about the “split” of responsibility, whether it is 50-50, or some other number, but the fact is that the one who fails to prevent a disaster is also responsible for allowing it to happen.

Now if our would-be hero had only been called upon to dance a gig to save NY and had refused, that would be a different matter LOL . Then I’d say “hang the guy” LOL

This is a good starting point to build upon.

1. We agree that refusing to dance a gig to save NY would be unacceptable or wrong. Of course that is hardly a “moral” dilemma. So let’s tighten the screws.

evil grin

1. Suppose the only way to stop the terrorist is to grab a gun and deliberately kill him.
2. Or to mow him down with a machine gun, risking that some “collateral” damage will occur. (Foreseen but unintended)
3. Or to have an out-of wedlock steamy sex with him.
4. Or to go down to Times Square and masturbate for the delight of the teenagers there.
5. Or to go and have a homosexual display for the others to view.
6. Or to kidnap the two daughters of the terrorist and threaten to do all sorts of “bad” things to them. (This is a bluff so far).
7. Or to kidnap the two daughters and to show how serious you are - by shooting one of them.
8. Or create a very convincing video which depicts these actions, without actually performing them.
   etc… etc… let your imagination roll. Come up with other dilemmas at your leisure.

Which are the points where you would say: these actions I would be willing to perform, but those actions I would not…

He believes he does - that’s all that really matters!

To him it might be, but to others it is irrelevant what he believes.

Well, I addressed above the “held responsible” bit, if you mean by the victims. And as for the courts, I’m pretty sure they aren’t goin’ hang anybody for NOT gunning down the kindergarten class!! Mass murder of the innocent is not required by any court I’ve ever heard of.

Maybe, or maybe not. And you all love to throw around the word “innocent”. According to the believers we all commit “sins”, so no one is “innocent”. In the legal world, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty… Would be nice to explain who is “innocent” in your view.

I thought he answered something about “can’t do evil” (as his system defines it) or words to that effect. That would seem to be the right answer under a moral theology system.

Since he never defined what evil is, that was an empty, meaningless answer.

But you kind of forget that what is appropriate under your assumptions (no God, no God-given law) and what is appropriate under the reverse set of assumptions, might just be different.

No, I did not forget. Unfortunately the reverse set of assumptions are unsubstantiated, therefore they are merely wishful thinking.

There you go again - you forget that for those believing in a deity and their relationship to the deity, the final arbiter “on earth” is not the final arbiter!!

That is not much of an arbiter, if he never shows his face, never hands down a verdict. And that alleged deity is free to come down and assert his authority and smite all those who disagree. But he does not. So he gives the silent (or tacit) approval to the events here and now. He silently accepts that here and now we are the final arbiters.

Sure they can! God made the rules, including the negative precepts which say what you’re not to do. If we do as God says, (and given that he is God after all ) - what happens is kind-of on Him, no?

Not until he hides from us.

Note: Just one other comment. I’m not sure if the moral theology folks would argue with you about their “responsibility” (the word you use) for events in this hypothetical. In a clinical sense / ‘cause and effect’ sense, they are responsible - at least in a secondary way. They played a part. They could influence outcomes. But the thing is, they played by the (relevant) rules - rules they hold to be unassailable because of their source (as they believe it to be). For the adherents of any given system, it’s the rule set of “the system” that determines morality, and thus who bears the moral responsibility.

No argument from me.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why, I would do anything I could to stop a terrorist from blowing up a dirty bomb.

WOW. That was the surprise of the century! And a pleasant surprise it was. I suggest that you read the post directly above and contemplate those few possibilities.

 

[PRmerger]

I suggest that you read the post directly above and contemplate those few possibilities.

Done, as suggested!

Now what? :coffeeread:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

evil grin

1. Suppose the only way to stop the terrorist is to grab a gun and deliberately kill him.
2. Or to mow him down with a machine gun, risking that some “collateral” damage will occur. (Foreseen but unintended)
3. Or to have an out-of wedlock steamy sex with him.
4. Or to go down to Times Square and masturbate for the delight of the teenagers there.
5. Or to go and have a homosexual display for the others to view.

This sounds a lot like S1E1 of the TV show “Black Mirror.” In it a princess is kidnapped and instructions are sent for the prime minister to commit an unthinkable act while live broadcasting it. The kidnapper sends in a finger to show that he is serious.

If you have a weak stomach don’t ever watch it.

 

[DrTaffy]

You must realize that there is a difference between

1. “discriminating” against homosexuals in the sense of refusing to do business at all with individuals who are homosexual,

Of course not. They want to profit from the custom of the homosexuals, and people like me, up until the point when they choose.

1. objecting to a revision of the definition of marriage because of a well-reasoned view of what marriage is, along with the conviction that marriage is a unique social reality that deserves recognition and support.

There is no revision. It has always, since records began, been meaningful to say that (for example) Marcus Antonius married Curio the younger. We all know what is meant by that. Just as we know what is meant by saying that a man had sex with a 9 year old. This does not mean that we approve - or, necessarily, disapprove. Definition applies to meaning, not approval.

This is all part of the ‘war of language’ - the right wing try to portray this as ‘redefining’ marriage so they can claim that something is being ‘forced’ on them. This only indicates that they have no better argument. Enough said.

In virtually all of the legal cases where gay or lesbian “couples” have resorted to legal persecution, service to gays or lesbians was never the crux of the issue. These businesses never refused service to gays or lesbians,

emphasis added

Of course they did. Otherwise there would be no legal case.

They may not have refused in every case, but they did refuse. Not allowed, under current law, except in special cases of which they could have availed themselves.

Or people like me (including many, if not most ‘catholics’) would consider other options such as the opt-out with disclosure. Suggest it to your local catholic baker and watch his/her face.

 

[DrTaffy]

**…the vast majority of right wing businesses who want to discriminate against homosexuals in at least some circumstances turn white at the thought of letting all their other customers know this. I have been called a bigot for even suggesting it! **

This is inflamatory.

No. Also, two 'm’s in ‘inflammatory’. It is just true.

There is a difference between advertising on a window something which continually makes a statement to those on the outside of the shop, and giving personal one to one witness, to one’s faith, when called to do so.

There is.

Stating your opinion clearly, openly and above the board is honest. e.g. a simple notice “this business reserves the right not to serve homosexuals”

Profiting from them, me, and 99.9% of my community until they try to order a wedding cake, and then comparing them to paedophiles is not.

If you are not willing to openly declare your views on discrimination against homosexuals, then enough said. I am sure there are communities where a business would survive putting up such a notice but I am very proud of living in one where you would not. In fact, I believe the local Catholic priest might well lead the charge, depending on how the notice were worded.

If the people who were causing trouble by going into the bakers really were innocent then they would have known not to go into a well-known Catholic bakers - apparently it was likely they would have known the bakers were Catholic

Now that is inflammatory. You assume that the the people walking into a bakery and ordering a cake (how very dare they!) are ‘causing trouble’ and need to prove that they are ‘innocent’, that they knew that the bakers were ‘Catholic’ and that this meant that they would oppose same sex marriage, although most ‘Catholics’ do not according to many polls.

• and furthermore, it is on the part of the people wishing to have a gay wedding, to know the Catholic understanding of marriage, which they obviously did (facts exposed by their incendiary follow-up complaints) and to have avoided that baker, or better still, not get married.

Really? Do you feel the need to know the beliefs of Scientologists, Reformed UFOlogiost, Pastafarians, and to not get married if they might disapprove?

Putting up a notice in order to get the right to ‘opt out’ is a sane and sensible compromise. It allows the gays to know where they can go to get service. They are being treated as second class citizens, but that is inevitable to comply with what you want. It also allows me to ensure that that bakery never gets a penny of my money, but that is what you really object to, is it not?

 

[PRmerger]

No. Also, two 'm’s in ‘inflammatory’.

Wow.

Really? Do you feel the need to know the beliefs of Scientologists, Reformed UFOlogiost, Pastafarians, and to not get married if they might disapprove?

UFOlogiost?

I think you meant UFOlogist.

You added an extra letter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ufologists

 

[DrTaffy]

Wow.

No, there are, I promise you.

UFOlogiost?

I think you meant UFOlogist.

You added an extra letter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ufologists

UFOlogiosts are more advanced. We have an extra ‘o’.

 

[PRmerger]

UFOlogiosts are more advanced. We have an extra ‘o’.

Nope.

No such thing.

You made an error, made more egregious by the fact that* in the very same post *you pointed out someone else’s error.

Wow. Just wow.

Incidentally, it’s kind of weird to have you assert the existence of UFOlogiosts when there’s…no evidence that they exist (given that you’re an atheist and all).

Don’t you assert that you can’t believe in something that doesn’t exist…especially when there’s no evidence for its existence?

 

[Thomas1981]

On the contrary, various “acts” are tolerated on just such grounds. These include the building of (conspicuous) Churches, the gathering in groups for religious worship (sometimes in public), the declining of military service and so on.

Yes, somewhere along the line, the longstanding “separation of Church and state” meaning the mutual non-interference of the state and Church in each others’ matters has metastasized into a French laicite policy of sweeping all religious expression into the “private sphere.” Hopeless confusion on basic Constitutional principles and American history reign.

 

[Thomas1981]

On thing positive development from all of this gay cake hoopla is that people of faith have really sharpened their argumentative and philosophical tools for confronting government pc coercion. The arguments have really advanced since then. All the other side seems to do is bad mouth us as bigots. Usually, when the other side retreats to insults like this, you’re winning the argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. We agree that refusing to dance a gig to save NY would be unacceptable or wrong. Of course that is hardly a “moral” dilemma. So let’s tighten the screws.

evil grin

1. Suppose the only way to stop the terrorist is to grab a gun and deliberately kill him.
2. Or to mow him down with a machine gun, risking that some “collateral” damage will occur. (Foreseen but unintended)
3. Or to have an out-of wedlock steamy sex with him.
4. Or to go down to Times Square and masturbate for the delight of the teenagers there.
5. Or to go and have a homosexual display for the others to view.
6. Or to kidnap the two daughters of the terrorist and threaten to do all sorts of “bad” things to them. (This is a bluff so far).
7. Or to kidnap the two daughters and to show how serious you are - by shooting one of them.
8. Or create a very convincing video which depicts these actions, without actually performing them.
   etc… etc… let your imagination roll. Come up with other dilemmas at your leisure.

Which are the points where you would say: these actions I would be willing to perform, but those actions I would not…

The evil grin is an interesting acoutrement to your chalenge. Has it ever ocured to you that the evil terorist in your quandary has your moral system “by the short and stuby hairs” precisely BECAUSE of your asumption that moral systems are merely subjective enterprises where human beings are ultimately the final court of apeal regarding morality?

In other words, the terorist can compel human moral agents - in particular you and anyone who subscribes to your moral position - to comit evil acts in response to his demands precisely because he presumes, as you do, that no moral authority beyond human subjects exists, i.e., subscribing to the belief that human beings are the final court of moral appeal puts those who must respond to his demands in a compromised position from the get go (and he knows it.) He has won the moral war BECAUSE he has compeled you to comit evil in response to his demands. That litle shortcoming is a tel-tale sign of the inadequacy of your moral point of view.

At this point, the policy of never giving in to terorist demands - because it only encourages terorists even more - sems a wise and, ultimately, rational one.

Note: I couldn’t resist goading Dr. Tafy’s fetish for noticing erant double leters even at the risk of making my post les comprehensible.

 

[DrTaffy]

Nope.

No such thing.

Sure there are. Prove me wrong.

You made an error, made more egregious by the fact that* in the very same post *you pointed out someone else’s error.

So? I didn’t make a big self righteous deal about it - that might have justified your rage - just pointed out that there are, in fact, two 'm’s.

Incidentally, it’s kind of weird to have you assert the existence of UFOlogiosts when there’s…no evidence that they exist (given that you’re an atheist and all).

UFOlogiosts exist. We have pizza nights.

Don’t you assert that you can’t believe in something that doesn’t exist…especially when there’s no evidence for its existence?

On the contrary. You clearly believe in something that I do not think exists, and for which I think there is no (good) evidence. Do you not think these things through when you write them?