Three friends and three questions

[Bradski]

You’re joking, right? What about when they get into a discussion about the Holocaust. “A” says: “Hitler killed too many”, “B” says: “not enough”, and “C” says: “it was just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

You say obviously there is no correct evaluation. “Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice”. You’re joking, right?

You’re joking, right? How about when ISIL capture woman and use them as slaves.

A: I think that’s going too far.
B: I think that’s not going far enough.
C: I think it’s just right.

You say “But the opinions are…well, just opinions”. You’re joking, right?

There are obvious answers to straightforward questions to which all reasonable people would agree. Some unreasonable people might not. The point being made is that you need reasonable arguments for all moral problems.

That’s why seemingly innocuous examples are being given because it emphasises the fact that arguments are needed for ALL moral propositions. Just because you feel that the arguments are so blazingly obvious that you feel you can claim someone must be joking to even suggest that they are needed doesn’t change that fact in the slightest.

I might point out that there were, and still are, people to whom you need to make those arguments. Do you think a raised eyebrow and a sarcastic ‘You’re joking, right?’ will change someone’s mind about flying a plane into a building? Good luck with that.

 

[Bradski]

You will get a perfect judgement when you have perfect information among other attributes. No human judge is perfect and no man made laws are perfect either and there is no perfect information either.

I am not sure whether these are moral issues or not. It looks like a mix bag of cultural, economic, political, hobbyist issues. But of course, any of these can be abused to cause a moral issue. Or are these issues of economics where limited resources can not be allocated in a satisfactory manner to satisfy unlimited wants while satisfying the politics of the country as well, democratic or otherwise ?

Not in an imperfect world such as ours.

They are all moral problems. Or at least have a moral component. But you have just said it is impossible to know with any certainty if we have found the correct answer to any moral problem.

Innocente might suggest that you are joking. I guess we’ll have to settle for basing our answers on our personal views coupled with as much information as we can determine.

I’m food with that.

 

[inocente]

There are obvious answers to straightforward questions to which all reasonable people would agree. Some unreasonable people might not. The point being made is that you need reasonable arguments for all moral problems.

That’s why seemingly innocuous examples are being given because it emphasises the fact that arguments are needed for ALL moral propositions. Just because you feel that the arguments are so blazingly obvious that you feel you can claim someone must be joking to even suggest that they are needed doesn’t change that fact in the slightest.

I might point out that there were, and still are, people to whom you need to make those arguments. Do you think a raised eyebrow and a sarcastic ‘You’re joking, right?’ will change someone’s mind about flying a plane into a building? Good luck with that.

I’m not being sarcastic, just cannot believe you’re so naive.

You say there are obvious answers to some moral questions, but philosophers of ethics, scientists and judges won’t agree with you. Do you think it’s absolutely obvious to shoot down that plane to save as many lives as possible? Others think it’s absolutely obvious you ought not sacrifice the innocent passengers as a means to your ends (Kant’s categorical imperative).

Jesus taught against blindly following rules, because those who do “are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” (Matt 23).

One of the Church’s absolutes is CCC 1789 “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”. That’s a line which must not be crossed, and may seem obvious but all the same it’s been argued long into many nights. Some may disagree with aspects of the Church’s morality, I do myself, but that’s no reason to misrepresent it as if it isn’t based entirely on rational arguments. And I can’t say for certain but think you’ll find every major religion’s system of ethics is likewise based on rational arguments, whether or not you agree with them.

 

[Qoeleth]

Obviously, determinations of taste are subjective.

Ethical determinations also are subjective (“the punishment was too harsh”, etc.), in a sense, since they are culturally conditioned.

Luckily, however, God was kind enough, in His mercy, to provide moral laws (“Thou shalt no kill, etc.”), which provide at least some kind of a firm basis, the proverbial lamp for our feet, etc.

As to how these are applied in a particular circumstance, there must remain some subjectivity, since even people of the same religious views may interpret different situations differently.

But it is not the case there is no absolute right and wrong- right and wrong are ABSOLUTE, but only God knows it any particular circumstance, for sure. So, human beings must labour under a degree of uncertainty…Hold to what our conscience, informed by the Word of God and the Church, indicates as right- but respecting the various different interpretations (within reason).

 

[PseuTonym]

When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

Why isn’t it possible that they are expressing a lack of awareness of any potential moral deficiency in the choice?

Consider this problem:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost? _____

When people who write “ten cents” turn the page and are instructed to assign a truth value to the sentence “The ball costs ten cents”, they might – unless they become suspicious and rethink the question – answer “true.”

Can you conclude that “true statement” means “statement that I agree with?” People know that they are fallible. A document “free of typographical errors” is sometimes discovered to contain more than one typographical error.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is an offshot of the “absolute / relative morality thread”. Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they go to the gym, and try to lift the same weight. “A” says: “bah, it is too easy”, “B” says: “ouch, it is too heavy”, and “C” says: “neither too heavy, nor too light”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Then they go to a spa, and sit in the whirlpool. “A” says: “the water is too hot”, “B” says: “the water is not hot enough”, and “C” says: “the water is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?
Obviously there is no correct evaluation in either case. Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice. The last one is an ethical question, the other ones are not; they are a little like an aesthetical problem. Is the music of Bach beautiful? What about rap music?

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition. On the other hand “this rock is too heavy”, or “this rock is too light” or “this rock is neither too heavy, nor too light” are subjective statements.

A,B, and C observe an old man raping a child.

A says bad.
B says bad.
C says bad.

How is that not objective as opposed to a matter of taste.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Moral Law is absolute as given by the Lawgiver.

Unfortunately the “Lawgiver” made two major mistakes. One, he failed to communicate this nebulous “law” to us, and two, he fails to enforce his “law”. All we have access to is some ancient script, loaded with factual errors, and some self-appointed interpreters, who try to claim that they are the one and only correct interpreters of this nebulous “law”. I am sorry, but you need to be better if you wish to convince us that you are right.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You’re joking, right? What about when they get into a discussion about the Holocaust. “A” says: “Hitler killed too many”, “B” says: “not enough”, and “C” says: “it was just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Can you provide an objective epistemological method and “feed” the above propositions into it, which will stamp them with either “true” or “false” label? Think about it as a “black box”, with an (name removed by moderator)ut and an output. You feed the proposition “X” into its (name removed by moderator)ut, and it will come out with either “X is correct + explanation” or “X is false + explanation” at the output.

You say obviously there is no correct evaluation.

Not to my knowledge, there isn’t. Of course I could present my own personal opinion, but I cannot claim that my personal opinion is somehow “binding” on others.

“Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice”. You’re joking, right?

I am NOT joking.

 

[ericc]

They are all moral problems. Or at least have a moral component. But you have just said it is impossible to know with any certainty if we have found the correct answer to any moral problem.

Innocente might suggest that you are joking. I guess we’ll have to settle for basing our answers on our personal views coupled with as much information as we can determine.

I’m food with that.

You may make decisions based upon the best information you have and yet may be immoral because personal values could be immoral as well. And personal values may lead to cherry picking i.e. what is best for me and I am the judge of that. Let me wallow in my immoral lifestyle. I am not involving you. You have no right to tell me, I am paying for it, not you blah , blah , blah.

Yes it is impossible for us to know with certainty the optimal answers to ALL moral issues. But that doesn’t mean we need all information to know that something is morally wrong. Child pornography, child sex, torturing children for the sake of amusement are morally wrong, even without putting a lot of thought into it. Do I have the answer, absolutely, don’t do it! The people committing these immoralities were not compelled to do it. But they do it of their own free will and time and monies. Sometimes even taking a holiday package to Thailand to indulge in these immoralities on their own expense. Or subscribing to certain immoral internet/TV/satellite channels in the privacy of their own homes and disguising the comments on the credit card statement as something innocuous.

One guiding principle has been “don’t do it to others that you wouldn’t want others to do unto you”. “You” may include oneself or family or even country.

There may be other great guiding principles but I think this one will suffice for common day-to-day issues.

 

[Bradski]

You say there are obvious answers to some moral questions, but philosophers of ethics, scientists and judges won’t agree with you. Do you think it’s absolutely obvious to shoot down that plane to save as many lives as possible? Others think it’s absolutely obvious you ought not sacrifice the innocent passengers as a means to your ends (Kant’s categorical imperative).

Are we talking across each other? It seems were supporting the same premise.

I consider some acts to be wrong. And it is a fact that some people would disagree with me - however blindingly obvious it would appear to any reasonable person. But whether it is valid to shoot down a plane to save lives is a subjective matter that needs to be debated. There is no obvious answer.

That’s why I mentioned the cages in regard to factory farming. There is no obvious answer. In a case like that, there may not even be a correct answer.

 

[ericc]

Unfortunately the “Lawgiver” made two major mistakes. One, he failed to communicate this nebulous “law” to us, and two, he fails to enforce his “law”. All we have access to is some ancient script, loaded with factual errors, and some self-appointed interpreters, who try to claim that they are the one and only correct interpreters of this nebulous “law”. I am sorry, but you need to be better if you wish to convince us that you are right.

I don’t need to prove (1) or (2) for my statement to remain true. Whether you are convinced or not is a matter of your mental state since each of us need varying levels of evidence to reach a conclusion.

1. The Law Giver gave these laws to the Israelites thousands of years ago. The Law Giver 2000 years ago, enhanced the understanding of these laws through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus exist, he communicated. He said Moses exist, and Moses communicated too. And Jesus set up and authorized his institution to communicate to all and His Church is still communicating today.
2. He will enforce this Law. When we die or come Judgement Day, He will enforce.

But if you are thinking whether there are Divine Police Officers sitting around in the Divine Police Cars to catch you when you break the law, you are mistaken that his setup is of this sort. Upon your death, your soul will be judged while your material body rots. Meanwhile before our time on earth is up, we have sufficient time to ponder over what we have done or failed to do and to fix the errors. If we do and we acknowledge our failings and we ask for forgiveness, the Law Giver will wash our slate clean and forgets our trespasses against Him. He will count every penny.

You may wish to look for loopholes by denying these laws exist but that doesn’t help your case when you face the Judge, does it? Plead ignorance? Not if you access to this information. You are not prohibited to study, enlighten yourself, about these Laws. Or are you just finding excuses not to know?

If you have a treasure map, with unclear instructions to you but not others, that there is buried treasure that will make you the richest person on earth, won’t you spend some effort to ascertain and to clarify the instructions in order to obtain the treasure? Perhaps if the instructions were in a foreign language, won’t you enlist the assistance for those knowledgeable in order to understand the instructions a little bit clearer? Or will you walk away? The freewill is there for you to exercise. There is treasure in heaven if you are unaware and make you rich beyond your dreams.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

1. The Law Giver gave these laws to the Israelites thousands of years ago. The Law Giver 2000 years ago, enhanced the understanding of these laws through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus exist, he communicated. He said Moses exist, and Moses communicated too. And Jesus set up and authorized his institution to communicate to all and His Church is still communicating today.

According to SOME fallible humans, he “did”. But he most certainly did NOT communicate those “laws” to others in some undeniable, unmistakable fashion. Tell me, why on Earth should I accept a few thousand years old writ of some ignorant goat herders’ nonsensical testimonials of what they assert “has happened”? God is supposed to be able to communicate with us TODAY, in a language we understand. Why is he hiding above the clouds?

The church, the Bible, and the Magisterium are all self-proclaimed “authorities”, and God does not come down in all his glory and the army of glorious angels to lend credence to this “authority”.

1. He will enforce this Law. When we die or come Judgement Day, He will enforce.

That sounds like vengeance and retribution - not something that a “loving” judge would do who wishes to give us a second chance to “repent”.

But if you are thinking whether there are Divine Police Officers sitting around in the Divine Police Cars to catch you when you break the law, you are mistaken that his setup is of this sort.

That is how the enforcement SHOULD happen. To allow one to learn from one’s errors.

 

[Qoeleth]

This is an offshot of the “absolute / relative morality thread”. Let’s take three friends, “Albert”, “Brad” and “Cecil”, abbreviated as “A”, “B” and “C”.
They go to a restaurant and order the same dish. “A” says: “this dish is too spicy”, “B” says: “it is too bland”, and “C” says: “it is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they go to the gym, and try to lift the same weight. “A” says: “bah, it is too easy”, “B” says: “ouch, it is too heavy”, and “C” says: “neither too heavy, nor too light”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Then they go to a spa, and sit in the whirlpool. “A” says: “the water is too hot”, “B” says: “the water is not hot enough”, and “C” says: “the water is just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Later they watch a criminal trial, where the judge delivers a verdict. “A” says: “the verdict is too harsh”, “B” says: “the verdict was too lenient”, and “C” says: “the verdict was just”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?
Obviously there is no correct evaluation in either case. Their evaluation is SUBJECTIVE, according to their taste, or tolerance or sense of justice. The last one is an ethical question, the other ones are not; they are a little like an aesthetical problem. Is the music of Bach beautiful? What about rap music?

The point is that “ethics” and “aesthetics” are SUBJECTIVE. There is NO “absolute” ethics (morality) or aesthetics (beauty). When one says: “this action was immoral”, all they say that they don’t like it. When they say: “it was a moral choice”, all they express is that they agree with it.

This piece of rock weighs “100 pounds” - this is an objective proposition. On the other hand “this rock is too heavy”, or “this rock is too light” or “this rock is neither too heavy, nor too light” are subjective statements.

OK- even if moral opinions are subjective, why shouldn’t a given person (or group of persons) take measures to impose their views on others (even if they are subjective)?

If person A believes that “Guns should be banned” - yes maybe it is a subjective opinion (since everything is in some sense subjective for human beings, and, of course, some will disagree)- but why should he or she not attempt to make her or his subjective opinion binding on others (or to convince others of their opinion), according to his or her capacity and opportunities?

Any reason you could give (e.g. ‘respect for human freedom’) is a purely SUBJECTIVE argument.

The fact that person A thinks the heater should go on, and person B thinks is should go off is subjective. But one of them wins the argument, and one of them makes the decision.

 

[ericc]

According to SOME fallible humans, he “did”. But he most certainly did NOT communicate those “laws” to others in some undeniable, unmistakable fashion. Tell me, why on Earth should I accept a few thousand years old writ of some ignorant goat herders’ nonsensical testimonials of what they assert “has happened”? God is supposed to be able to communicate with us TODAY, in a language we understand. Why is he hiding above the clouds?

If you are finding excuses not to seek further that is your prerogative. If the message isn’t passed through infallible humans, how exactly do you think it should be done? Cows and dogs and sheep? Just because some witnesses came from the distant past does not mean that they are more likely to lie than a witness of our day. Just because you look down on goat herders does not mean you are more honest or credible than them. It may be the reverse. One’s profession should not determine the trustworthiness of the person nor the time when the testimony was recorded. Because you are saying 1) goat herders can not be trusted because they are goat herders and 2) history can’t be trusted because it is historical. Both remains to be proven by you.

The church, the Bible, and the Magisterium are all self-proclaimed “authorities”, and God does not come down in all his glory and the army of glorious angels to lend credence to this “authority”.

Jesus instituted his Church. It is entirely up to you whether you want to listen to his Church or not. You may reject his Church too if that is what you like to do. No one is forcing them into you. You must open your heart/mind/ears if you want to listen.

Having God coming down in all his glory based upon your demand? Who are you to demand? You couldn’t even get mere mortals e.g. City Mayor to do this for you. And if God were to do that, he would have compelled you to believe him and removed your freewill to reject him. And he wants you to do it out of your own freewill and not out of compulsion.

That sounds like vengeance and retribution - not something that a “loving” judge would do who wishes to give us a second chance to “repent”.

Only to you it sounds like that. If you think you have lived a virtuous life and deserved heaven, you wouldn’t think like that and instead look forward to meet him in person. Somehow, you gave me the impression that you are not too keen to meet him.

We are given plenty of time to repent if one has a mind to. If one don’t think it is necessary to repent because they enjoy what they are doing, giving more time means more time to enjoy whatever they are doing. Not more time to repent.

That is how the enforcement SHOULD happen. To allow one to learn from one’s errors.

That is your viewpoint on how to be Judge and how the penal system should work. And everyone would have their pet or preferred systems. (Un)fortunately, we don’t have a say in how he plans his penal system. He has all the wisdom that we do not possess.

If you don’t think you are doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Relax! But if you are not sure, don’t you think a prudent person ought to find out? Or is that person afraid to find out and that having found out he must abandon certain lifestyles that he is too attached for him to give up? Are you afraid to acknowledge your errors NOW? Why later? If it is wrong, NOW is the perfect time to give it up and not later. Then you would have more time to make amends. If you are dead, you can’t make amends can you? You can’t seek forgiveness from those still living if you are dead or if they are already dead. So many things you can’t do when you are dead. What a bummer! But we all know that and let us wake up and deal with reality. And how can one learn from one’s errors if he doesn’t want to find out until they are dead?? When you are dead, what is the point of learning?

 

[inocente]

inocente;14299768:

You’re joking, right? What about when they get into a discussion about the Holocaust. “A” says: “Hitler killed too many”, “B” says: “not enough”, and “C” says: “it was just perfect”. Whose proposition evaluates to “true”?

Can you provide an objective epistemological method and “feed” the above propositions into it, which will stamp them with either “true” or “false” label? Think about it as a “black box”, with an (name removed by moderator)ut and an output. You feed the proposition “X” into its (name removed by moderator)ut, and it will come out with either “X is correct + explanation” or “X is false + explanation” at the output.

The Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, …

Not to my knowledge, there isn’t. Of course I could present my own personal opinion, but I cannot claim that my personal opinion is somehow “binding” on others.

Of course you can. Always follow your conscience, but you’re not a computer, you’re a human being. No healthy human being would think the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust is legitimate. It is by definition inhuman, cruel, barbaric, psychopathic.

No human being would stand idly by watching the Holocaust unfold, pretending that their personal opinion isn’t binding on others. No human being can cast off 200,000 years of evolution to pretend they are above humanity.

If you take the human out of justice, what’s the point of justice?

 

[seagal]

If person A believes that “Guns should be banned” - yes maybe it is a subjective opinion (since everything is in some sense subjective for human beings, and, of course, some will disagree)- but why should he or she not attempt to make her or his subjective opinion binding on others (or to convince others of their opinion), according to his or her capacity and opportunities?

The moral principle that everyone agrees on, whether they are for or against gun control, is that you shouldn’t injure another person except in cases of self defense or defense of another person. That is a universal and objective truth. Where people disagree is on how to best live by that moral code. That is what is subjective.

 

[inocente]

Are we talking across each other? It seems were supporting the same premise.

I consider some acts to be wrong. And it is a fact that some people would disagree with me - however blindingly obvious it would appear to any reasonable person. But whether it is valid to shoot down a plane to save lives is a subjective matter that needs to be debated. There is no obvious answer.

That’s why I mentioned the cages in regard to factory farming. There is no obvious answer. In a case like that, there may not even be a correct answer.

OK. If you agree with what I say in post #35, that we’re humans not computers, then we’re on the same page.

 

[Bradski]

OK. If you agree with what I say in post #35, that we’re humans not computers, then we’re on the same page.

I do and I think we are.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If the message isn’t passed through -]in/-]fallible humans, how exactly do you think it should be done?

How about directly? After all there were some “revelations” direct communications from God. Or so they say…

Jesus instituted his Church. It is entirely up to you whether you want to listen to his Church or not. You may reject his Church too if that is what you like to do. No one is forcing them into you. You must open your heart/mind/ears if you want to listen.

Listen to whom? I would listen to God. I tried to pray, to ask for guidance. The silence was deafening.

Having God coming down in all his glory based upon your demand?

Why not? Is God too “busy” to come and have a nice fireside chat?

And if God were to do that, he would have compelled you to believe him and removed your freewill to reject him. And he wants you to do it out of your own freewill and not out of compulsion.

Nonsense. Just KNOWING that God exists would not compel me to worship him.

Only to you it sounds like that. If you think you have lived a virtuous life and deserved heaven, you wouldn’t think like that and instead look forward to meet him in person. Somehow, you gave me the impression that you are not too keen to meet him.

None of us has any direct information about God, what does he want, what our obligations might be. It is all conjecture. If God is similar to what the apologists say about him, I most certainly would NOT want to do anything with him. But I don’t think so. If there is a God he cannot be like the one depicted in the Bible or conceived by some “philosophers”.

That is your viewpoint on how to be Judge and how the penal system should work.

Not just “mine”. Every rational person shares it. When our child does wrong, the punishment comes immediately, not a few years later. The same is for rewards.

Just one more remark. It is amazing just how predictable your posts are. (Not just yours, personally).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, …

Those are nice principles, but too generic to be usable in individual cases.

Always follow your conscience, but you’re not a computer, you’re a human being.

My conscience finds no problem with contraception, with IVF, and many contested cases.

No healthy human being would think the industrialized genocide of the Holocaust is legitimate. It is by definition inhuman, cruel, barbaric, psychopathic.

Oh, I agree with that, but there are many people do not. And they are NOT clinically insane either.