Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Pallas_Athene]

Fact remains: raping a 3 yr old would be a most reprehensible act and absolutely immoral.

Yes, it would be a horrible act. But to allow the terrorist to go ahead would be even worse. There are some situations where you cannot win, where all the available options are “unpalatable”. How do you make a decision in such a case? Stay inactive and let the events unfold? That makes you an accomplice to the act. Or clench your teeth, do what must be done to prevent the disaster, and try to live with the memory? It is easier to say: “I did not do it, don’t blame me”, but that is hypocrisy. If you can prevent a disaster, and fail to do so, you are responsible for allowing it to happen.

By the way, I presented a few more hypothetical scenarios in my reply to Rau. Maybe you would want to review those, and tell us how far would you be willing to go prevent such a hypothetical disaster. As I said there: “we are haggling over the price now”. As soon as you agree that it is permissible to kill in self defense, the floodgates are open.

The evil in the action of a man who could do such an action could not bring about a good–as Peter Plato suggested–any society which would accept such a bargain has ceded its moral sense and the only society which could survive such a bargain would be one devoid of any moral sense.

The suggested “society” has nothing to do with it. It may not be even aware of the problem. It is between you and your conscience. Or between you and God, if you believe in God.

But not justified murder, right?

Murder can never be justified.

“Murder” is a qualified term, different from homicide. I don’t know what your definition of “murder” would be. Let me give an example of something I would consider “evil”: “to torture someone for fun”. Observe the qualification “for fun”.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it would be a horrible act.

What do you mean by “horrible”?

Horrible, as in icky? Distasteful? Kind of like an appendectomy?

 

[PRmerger]

Let me give an example of something I would consider “evil”: “to torture someone for fun”. Observe the qualification “for fun”.

Excellent. Now we’re talking.

So there’s no possible justification for someone torturing another individual “for fun”.

That is, for entertainment.

That means: you believe in an objective morality. An absolute morality.

 

[minkymurph]

Which is semantically the same as saying that the act was justified. It is no coincidence that killing in self defense is called “justified homicide” or “justified manslaughter”.

Perhaps from your point of view but not at law.

At law there are defenses to crimes. The acts in question are still categorized as crimes. They do not cease to be crimes because of society is willing to forgo any punishment due if the motive for committing the crime can be justified. Hence the term ‘justified manslaughter.’ The motive is justified but the act is still manslaughter which is a crime.

 

[Rau]

I have to wonder how many of “those” bakers would self - identify their beliefs. They could put a sign in their business window stating their beliefs and then gay people probably won’t even enter. I think the bulk of them are cowards in that respect.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

That’s naive. Such a sign would be a magnet for those would would see merit in suing over this issue.

 

[friardchips]

Fair enough.

Noted.

Fact remains: raping a 3 yr old would be a most reprehensible act and absolutely immoral.

The evil in the action of a man who could do such an action could not bring about a good–as Peter Plato suggested–any society which would accept such a bargain has ceded its moral sense and the only society which could survive such a bargain would be one devoid of any moral sense.

Like aborting a baby. Another example of a society “devoid of any moral sense”. To be honest, such calculations over what is moral via such an alien, inhuman algorithm that can find ‘reasons’ for rape being acceptable might as well not be dressed up as moral in any way - the motivation or intention, does not hide the inherent immorality and disregard for life behind such thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if meglomaniac doctors rationalize murder with such calculations. Unfortunately, this diseased culture of death does not need to wait around for rape numbers to pile up as hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of immoral acts happen every year in our morally-void Western culture. We all deplore ISIS, but we, the West that is, exterminates life in other subtle ways on a much greater scale that slips by quietly under our noses thanks to these atheistic calculations, which at best, is moral relativism; at worst, sociopathic psychology - ‘solutions’, to problems that require amazing sensitivity, the kind of which our society does not want to offer, because money and ease comes first and pervades every crevice of our fragmented culture.

 

[Rau]

Like aborting a baby. Another example of a society “devoid of any moral sense”. To be honest, such calculations over what is moral via such an alien, inhuman algorithm that can find ‘reasons’ for rape being acceptable might as well not be dressed up as moral in any way - the motivation or intention, does not hide the inherent immorality and disregard for life behind such thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if meglomaniac doctors rationalize murder with such calculations. Unfortunately, this diseased culture of death does not need to wait around for rape numbers to pile up as hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of immoral acts happen every year in our morally-void Western culture. We all deplore ISIS, but we, the West that is, exterminates life in other subtle ways on a much greater scale that slips by quietly under our noses thanks to these atheistic calculations, which at best, is moral relativism; at worst, sociopathic psychology - ‘solutions’, to problems that require amazing sensitivity, the kind of which our society does not want to offer, because money and ease comes first and pervades every crevice of our fragmented culture.

Consequentialism is entirely utilitarian. Morality (not a word typically used in the context) is the result of a calculation about desirability of outcomes. It makes possible, and acceptable, any kind of act according to a utilitarian assessment.

 

[friardchips]

Consequentialism is entirely utilitarian. Morality (not a word typically used in the context) is the result of a calculation about desirability of outcomes. It makes possible, and acceptable, any kind of act according to a utilitarian assessment.

‘Utilitarian’ is the word. Utilitarian thinking equates morality with ‘maximum utility’. This is exactly the thinking behind abortion and so directly fits with your argument against consequentialism (allowing for a so-called example of moral-rape). I think we are on the same page. Allowing for different systems of ethics allows the meaning of ‘morality’ to be deformed thus giving way to a culture of ‘moral relativism’.

 

[Rau]

‘Utilitarian’ is the word. Utilitarian thinking equates morality with ‘maximum utility’. This is exactly the thinking behind abortion and so directly fits with your argument against consequentialism (allowing for a so-called example of moral-rape). I think we are on the same page. Allowing for different systems of ethics allows the meaning of ‘morality’ to be deformed thus giving way to a culture of ‘moral relativism’.

I imagine utilitarianism would concur with exterminating the seriously handicapped or mentally ill on account of the burden they place on the productive parts of society. I cannot see that it would find a reason to rule it out instantly. It would have to assess the pros and cons!

 

[friardchips]

I imagine utilitarianism would concur with exterminating the seriously handicapped or mentally ill on account of the burden they place on the productive parts of society. I cannot see that it would find a reason to rule it out instantly. It would have to assess the pros and cons!

Yes. Euthanasia derives from the same system of thinking. Been reading ‘The *Hand of God’ *- I think anyone who cares about such life issues needs to read this; if you haven’t, I recommend it. You are pretty much there already, with your reasoning.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Morality (not a word typically used in the context) is the result of a calculation about desirability of outcomes.

This is not true. The outcome is not the only one that needs to assessed (or calculated). The “price” of the outcome must be considered, too. And if the positive outcome outweighs the negative “price”, then the action be undertaken. It is a risk-reward analysis. In principle it is easy and simple. In reality it can be very complicated.

 

[Rau]

This is not true. The outcome is not the only one that needs to assessed (or calculated). The “price” of the outcome must be considered, too. And if the positive outcome outweighs the negative “price”, then the action be undertaken. It is a risk-reward analysis. In principle it is easy and simple. In reality it can be very complicated.

It’s all about outcomes (plural). All of the outcomes need to be weighed. What you call the price (eg. the rape of the little girl) is just another outcome. Our outcome is a raped little girl and a to be weighed up and balanced.

Christian morality lessens greatly the occasions when balancing outcomes is required, because other hurdles must first be passed.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s all about outcomes (plural). All of the outcomes need to be weighed. What you call the price (eg. the rape of the little girl) is just another outcome. Our outcome is a raped little girl and a to be weighed up and balanced.

Very well, let’s call it another outcome, though I would call it a prerequisite to AVOID an even greater “evil” - but let’s use your wording. The could be the very painful demise of a few million people and a lot of deformed children in the next several generations - due to a dirty nuclear bomb. Or something equally “undesirable”. These are the “outcomes” that have to be weighed and evaluated. What is your verdict?

Christian morality lessens greatly the occasions when balancing outcomes is required, because other hurdles must first be passed.

But the outcomes are still there, whether you wish to consider it or not. It looks like that no one is interested in discussing the problems delineated in post 148 Maybe you did not see it… I would love to see your analysis. The short summary is: how far would you be willing to go to prevent a much greater “evil”?

 

[mh2007]

As a practical matter, small and large business managers routinely face decisions about who they want as their suppliers, who they want to recruit for their senior management ranks, who they want to hire to be their marketing spokesmen, advertising agency, and who they want to partner with in various ventures, including key customers and strategic alliances. The goal is to serve and profit in order to benefit the owners.

Values based business decisions are made all of the time. And there frequenlty are unintended consequences.

Businessmen and women have the right to do as they see fit in making their choices.

 

[Rau]

…By the way, one of the standard “defenses” when the problem of evil is discussed that God allows “evils”, so he can bring some unspecified “greater good” from it. Now is it or is it not possible that “evil” can lead to “good”?

I cannot imagine a world where God intervened to deny the free will of man and halt every evil act or outcome. The discussion is not about that - it is about what man may morally do. In Christian theology, an act which is inherently ordered to an evil moral object cannot be pursued in order to get a good result. The reverse is never argued. Evil consequences, [and even physical evil in the 2nd font, as in amputation] may under some conditions be tolerated, but that is not the same as choosing an act with an evil moral object. Note that moral theology does accept consideration of the balance of consequences, but only when that is unavoidable - when the moral object of the act (and its Intention) are both good. For then, there is nothing left but the consequences. to base one’s decision upon.

---

Excellent. Now is the time to start “haggling” over the price. We agree that killing in self-defense is a justified action. (Implicitly understood: “when no other option is available”, so we do not have to spell this out again). We also agree that it is permissible to kill in the protection of others, even if one is not in immediate danger - preventive killing, if you will. This is what happens in a just or defensive war.

The problem here is that you look only to physical actions and consequences and omit consideration of the moral meaning of the act. While the acts on a video of murder and self-defence may be indistinguishable, their moral meanings before God are different. A killing is “murder” when its moral object is the deprivation of life of an innocent person. Self-defense is not murder because the person who is killed is not innocent. A killing is self defence when its moral object is the good end of preserving the life of the innocent victim of the attack. The death of the attacker is a bad consequence; for the loss of any human life, even a guilty person, is a bad consequence.

You can read more here if you’re interested:
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/killing-in-self-defense-intention/
[This person is not entirely well regarded around here, but on this topic, he is sound.]

…Most legal systems demand to take all the circumstances into consideration, both the mitigating ones, and the exacerbating ones.

Of course they do. But no legal system forgives all acts on the basis of a consequentialist analysis.

 

[Rau]

Very well, let’s call it another outcome, though I would call it a prerequisite to AVOID an even greater “evil” - but let’s use your wording. The could be the very painful demise of a few million people and a lot of deformed children in the next several generations - due to a dirty nuclear bomb. Or something equally “undesirable”. These are the “outcomes” that have to be weighed and evaluated. What is your verdict?

It would be wrong to do moral evil given God forbade it. We believe that acts must be “ordered” to love of God and neighbour, and that ordering is assured in their moral object. Good consequences and intentions are necessary, but not sufficient. Hence, we believe it would be wrong for authority to machine gun to death a kindergarten class in the belief that this would see the dirty bomb disarmed. The consequentialist says that the machine gunning was the “justified” act, unconcerned with the nature of man (as a child of God), or his ultimate destination beyond this life.
Pallas:

But the outcomes are still there, whether you wish to consider it or not. It looks like that no one is interested in discussing the problems delineated in post 148 Maybe you did not see it… I would love to see your analysis. The short summary is: how far would you be willing to go to prevent a much greater “evil”?

The Consequences will be weighed when necessary. But there is no point if the motivation for the act, is evil, or its moral object is evil.

Both “systems” are consistent if one relies on their respective premises and only those premises. Each system can be explained. But one cannot “switch sides” without abandoning a view about God and man’s relationship to Him.

PS: This discussion appears wildly off the topic of the thread.

 

[Personanongrata]

That’s naive. Such a sign would be a magnet for those would would see merit in suing over this issue.

No, not really. It would give people (gay or straight) the opportunity to decide if they want to do business with you. No doubt that many would support the baker 100%. But others, like myself may decide not to support the baker because they disagree with the baker. A sign in the window, self identifying the baker as one who does not want to supply gay wedding cakes would take care of the problem.

 

[Rau]

No, not really. It would give people (gay or straight) the opportunity to decide if they want to do business with you. No doubt that many would support the baker 100%. But others, like myself may decide not to support the baker because they disagree with the baker. A sign in the window, self identifying the baker as one who does not want to supply gay wedding cakes would take care of the problem.

No it would not, unless such a sign was understood to represent the legal right of the vendor.

Many SSM intending persons would indeed walk to the next bakery. But it is clear from the demonstrated actions of some that the sign woild simply draw the attention of any person wanting to engage in the public spectacle of suing the baker.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In Christian theology, an act which is inherently ordered to an evil moral object cannot be pursued in order to get a good result.

“Inherently ordered” is just another meaningless buzzword. You need to define it, if you wish to use it.

Note that moral theology does accept consideration of the balance of consequences, but only when that is unavoidable - when the moral object of the act (and its Intention) are both good.

You need to define what is “good”. It seems to be an impossible task if you do not consider the “outcome” or the “consequences”.

The problem here is that you look only to physical actions and consequences and omit consideration of the moral meaning of the act. While the acts on a video of murder and self-defence may be indistinguishable, their moral meanings before God are different.

If you wish to “drag” God into the discussion, you need to “prove” that God exists, and you have correct information of his value system. (It is very ironic that God is always supposed to agree with what the person thinks. And their opinions vary very widely. But God is always on their side. Curiousier and curiousier as Alice was wont to say.)

A killing is “murder” when its moral object is the deprivation of life of an innocent person.

Another undefined term: “innocent”. “Innocent” in the eyes of the law? Or what? “Murder” is a legal term, it describes an unlawful killing. If you wish to use it in a different manner,then you should state exactly what you mean by this term.

Self-defense is not murder because the person who is killed is not innocent. A killing is self defence when its moral object is the good end of preserving the life of the innocent victim of the attack. The death of the attacker is a bad consequence; for the loss of any human life, even a guilty person, is a bad consequence.

Ok, this could be a good starting point. Killing is self defense is acceptable. Preventive killing in self defense is also acceptable - if you have positive, reliable information that a perpetrator is about to kill you. Killing to defend others is also acceptable. Killing in defense of others (in a just, defensive war) is also acceptable, even if you (personally) are not in immediate danger.

So there are lots of instances when killing is a “moral” course of action - and observe - there was no need to refer to God.

The truly problematic part is in the area, which you did not reflect upon. Is it permissible to lie to defend yourself, or others? It is permissible to torture someone to defend others? Is it permissible to torture someone close to the perpetrator to defend others? Is it permissible to pretend to torture someone to defend others? Again, how far would you be willing to go in order to defend yourself and / or others. Let’s not forget that the price of “inaction” is very, very high. Use the detonation of that dirty nuclear bomb as an example.

Unfortunately, it is possible that you have no “good” option. What are you going to do in such a case? Go and evaluate the lesser of two “evils” and act accordingly? Or freeze and let the events unfold as they may? The problem is in such a case, is that if you could prevent a greater evil, and fail to do it, you are responsible for your “inaction”. Yes, when you are between a rock and a hard place… when there is no “good” option, you still must choose. What is your line of decision making then?

Of course they do. But no legal system forgives all acts on the basis of a consequentialist analysis.

How do you know that? And I was not arguing about “ALL” actions. The usage of the universal operator frequently lead to a Russell-paradox.

 

[PRmerger]

“Inherently ordered” is just another meaningless buzzword. You need to define it, if you wish to use it.

You need to define what is “good”. It seems to be an impossible task if you do not consider the “outcome” or the “consequences”.

I find it curious that you keep insisting on defining words…yet there’s this:

If that is what you described, then it was obvious that “John” was NOT acting on his own accord, the threat to his family forced him to participate, so he was rightfully excused.

You’ve been asked to explain how something could be “rightfully” excused, when it appears you have no definition for rightful vs wrongful.