Towards a Common Ethic

[JDaniel]

You don’t realize that I stopped responding to you, no matter how “taunting” you are?

Well, now I know. But, you should know that I will point out arrogance when I see it. You are welcome to point out suspected “taunting” on my part.

If you ask questions without the tone of arrogance, you might just get replies that don’t always seem to start out with some statement about it. Philosophical discussion does not have to harbor rudeness. Re-read some of your posts. Especially all those from whom you have received a reply questioning your tone.

Actually, I liked you. When you got to the meat of your disputes with me, they were quite challenging.

Anyway, as long as I am alive and allowed on this forum, I’ll be pointing out that you and anyone else that comes here with a flagrant attitude of superiority and arrogance, is being flagrantly arrogant. Stop being such and you’ll see that the replies you receive will no longer start out with some reference to it. You have asked for a way to discuss peacefully; I’m suggesting it to you.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock
*
No, not toward the “hosts” in general, but definitely toward some of them. Respect has to be earned, it is not the default position. *

Among Christians it** is** the default position. Disrespect has to be earned … or rather invited.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

If reason is insufficient in this case, then why try to employ it? Your argument supports my position.

How so? Half a glass of water is better than none. Atheist Antony Flew found in reason (the Big Bang and Intelligent Design) reasons to believe in some kind of God. That his god is a “half-baked” god of Reason I will allow. But who knows that Flew is not on the road to Rome?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

(For example, Socrates hit on many of the virtues Christians speak of, before Christians spoke of them.)

To go back a few posts (#15) this needs to be answered more fully. It is one thing to say Socrates spoke of the Christian virtues. It is quite another to say that what he had to say about any of the Christian virtues has had any real impact on the history of the world. How many people do you think read Plato as opposed to the Bible. How many people do you think would be inspired by the teaching of Plato as opposed to the teachings of Jesus? My recollection of Socrates, especially when I was very young (which is the time that most people need moral guidance) is that he was a great debater, but not much else. He brought as much confusion to his discussions as clarity. No one has made a religion of Socrates even though, like Jesus, he was a martyr for his teachings.

Try as the atheist might, there is no character in history to compare with Jesus for moral clarity and inspiration. Even Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, thought so.

 

[Spock]

Among Christians it is the default position. Disrespect has to be earned … or rather invited.

Very probably we are talking about two different uses of “respect”. (Oh, the beauty of the English language. ) Of course I respect (unconditionally) your right to hold any belief you happen to hold. That does not necessarily mean that I will respect those views. When starting a conversation with someone new, I have no respect nor disrespect for the person’s view (after all I have no idea what those views are). Once I see the arguments, respect may or may not emerge. I had many conversations with Catholics, whose arguments I could respect, even though I disagreed with them.

I do not want to bring up examples of these conversations, I am not sure if it would be appropriate, or if the rules of the forum would allow them. But I can give a neutral example. There is a great book: “May it please the Court”, which contains the transcripts of the most important, and controversial Supreme Court cases. In each case, I strongly agreed with position, and strongly disagrred with the other. Yet, I felt great respect (intellectual respect) for those lawyers who argued the side I disagreed with. They were able to argue, and not just bring up BS. That is what I miss so frequently around here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*Yet, I felt great respect (intellectual respect) for those lawyers who argued the side I disagreed with. They were able to argue, and not just bring up BS. That is what I miss so frequently around here. *

Then maybe you are wasting your time here? Think about it. We respect everyone here, even those who are not good at argumentation … and hope that they will learn from Catholic Answers. If you go, go with our blessing.

Good luck, too!

 

[Oreoracle]

You should be so lucky! Actually, no, I wasn’t meaning you. I like you and your skills.

Thanks.

But, Socrates did refer it to a “standard” which he said derives from the desire, in men, for the goal of “happiness”. As you may be aware, some of his followers misunderstood what he was teaching and took them to extremes. Aristippus took it to mean, that “pleasure” was the chief means to happiness, hence, Hedonism. And Antisthenes, who misunderstood in the other direction and taught that “virtue” was the chief means to happiness, hence Stoicism.

Now, Socrates, not being a stupid man, knew that somewhere in the middle of pleasure and virtue, was the norm of “ethics”. Where did this underlying idea come from? Why was it that he knew that the extremes of Aristippus and Antisthenes would lead to corruption?

One question first: are you referring to hedonism as an ethical doctrine or as an epistemological doctrine? There is quite a difference between “I always pursue my own pleasure” and “I should always pursue my own pleasure”. Utilitarianism is an example of something you may consider a virtuous pursuit of pleasure.

Personally, I think people reach that norm using a combination of feeling and common sense. If I dislike experiencing pain, it’s safe to say that others like me also dislike it. And, being the social creature that I am, I wish to prevent mine and others’ pain, which I consider virtuous.

My history class must be inaccurate. I thought that Antisthenes founded Cynicism, and that Zeno founded Stoicism.

Try as the atheist might, there is no character in history to compare with Jesus for moral clarity and inspiration. Even Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, thought so.

I was not meaning to use Socrates’ fame to compete with Jesus’. I was using him as an example of someone who had a different interpretation of common virtues.

 

[JDaniel]

One question first: are you referring to hedonism as an ethical doctrine or as an epistemological doctrine? There is quite a difference between “I always pursue my own pleasure” and “I should always pursue my own pleasure”. Utilitarianism is an example of something you may consider a virtuous pursuit of pleasure.

You make an important point. But, we’re on the wrong thread for this discussion.

Personally, I think people reach that norm using a combination of feeling and common sense. If I dislike experiencing pain, it’s safe to say that others like me also dislike it. And, being the social creature that I am, I wish to prevent mine and others’ pain, which I consider virtuous.

I understand. Socrates has a different concept though. But, again, this is not the thread.

My history class must be inaccurate. I thought that Antisthenes founded Cynicism, and that Zeno founded Stoicism.

Smarty! Give me a little break. My philosophy classes took place a long time ago. But, Stoicism was anticipated by Antisthenes and the Cynics.

I was not meaning to use Socrates’ fame to compete with Jesus’. I was using him as an example of someone who had a different interpretation of common virtues.

I’m sorry if I seemed to be conveying that. My meaning was that Socrates had something more in mind as a “standard” of “ethics” than either the Cynics/Stoics or the Hedonists.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

But, we’re on the wrong thread for this discussion.

Agreed.

Smarty! Give me a little break. My philosophy classes took place a long time ago. But, Stoicism was anticipated by Antisthenes and the Cynics.

I’m sorry if I seemed to be conveying that. My meaning was that Socrates had something more in mind as a “standard” of “ethics” than either the Cynics/Stoics or the Hedonists.

Don’t worry; that was directed toward Charlemagne II.

 

[Sair]

Sair, welcome again! It must have been dark in that closet!

Do you realize that you have just put your finger on the problem? Without a moral standard, all we have is 6 billion opinions. Yet we don’t. We have several formal codes of ethics and morality and we have even codified them into sets of laws. Someplace along the way, men sat down and came to agreements - and, they did so rather easily, in my estimation. And, the rest of us tacitly agree with them. Thus, it can’t be merely 6 billion opinions.

Granted there has been some trial and error and some despots had to be overthrown, but, the generalities of men found ways to give expression to a relative few ethical “standards”. Thank God we do not live under anarchy.

I will be charitable and not assume you are suggesting that atheists would act against the laws of their country, were they not thus enshrined as laws!

That aside, the interesting thing about many legal frameworks is that they are primarily concerned with protecting property, not so much with ethics. I suspect any Catholic living in a state that permits legal abortion would have no trouble agreeing with that assessment. It could be argued, of course, that there are ethical standards that relate to property, but these are concerned with harm done to the person through damage or theft of property - not in preserving the wealth of the powerful, which seems to be the ultimate end of many property laws (OK, I’m being a cynic, but when the penalties for fraud and financial crime exceed those imposed for assault, rape and murder, one really can’t help wondering…)

However, it is certainly the case that there is a striking commonality between certain laws in any part of the world - the proscription of murder immediately springs to mind, and I think it would take extraordinary genius to convincingly argue that rape or child abuse under any circumstances are morally permissible. My belief is that this kind of universal moral awareness, if I may so phrase it, is a product of the earliest days of humankind, when we lived in small societies that had to look after each other and maintain harmonious relationships in order to survive. Whether this is simply the result of instinct and social evolution, or if it is in fact a kind of “sixth sense” implanted by God, the outcome is pretty much the same.

I have just spent a weekend learning about medieval Italian swordsmanship (I promise this is relevant!) and the one thing that really struck me was the idea that one must practice the components of an art until one knows them “in one’s soul”. It seems that to the medieval mind, the soul had three elements - the vegetative soul (roughly equates to the autonomic nervous system), the animal soul (the voluntary nervous system) and the contemplative soul (the rational functions of the mind). The idea is to practice until the art becomes second nature. I found myself wondering if we also know certain moral principles “in our souls” - how often does someone ask you how you know something, and you reply that “I just do”, or how often do you find yourself saying that “I have a feeling…” about something? Maybe humans are equipped with an innate moral sense, and it is merely the conditioning of the contemplative soul by one’s upbringing or subsequent experience that leads this innate sense to be overridden.

But, interesting as it is to speculate, I sure don’t have the answers!

 

[Sair]

SAIR

… but my honest opinion is that ethics are always subjectively derived. People will inevitably (although they may not always realise it) rationalise what they want to believe - I catch myself doing it at times - and will even interpret the same evidence in opposite ways as it suits their respective mindsets. It really depends upon what one’s personal life experiences have been, and what one has learned from them, as to what evidence and what interpretations one finds convincing.

Always subjectively derived? Would it be subjectively or objectively bad to start a nuclear war that resulted in the annihilation of the human race?

Bad for us humans. Great for the cockroaches! :bigyikes:

I would agree that many values are subjectively arrived at. We sometimes want things to be so that are not necessarily so. There may be someone who believes it is good to rape a woman and then kill her. There might be some way that reason supplies an excuse by offering a lie, as the serpent lied to Eve.

It’s true, the Catholic Church does teach that truth and right can be objectively found. But when unaided reason is given a license to practice, all bets are off.

Is it then your belief that atheists are without moral guidance? I ask this not to seem antagonistic, but merely wondering - do you feel it is possible for someone who lacks faith in any God to be an essentially good person, and to act from an informed sense of personal and social responsibility?

 

[Sair]

Spock
*
No, not toward the “hosts” in general, but definitely toward some of them. Respect has to be earned, it is not the default position. *

Among Christians it** is** the default position. Disrespect has to be earned … or rather invited.

I agree that respect is the default position. There’s a basic level of respect that should be applied to all people, until such time as they do something to either elevate or destroy your respect for them.

Having said that, there have been one or two occasions where what I felt were perfectly civil posts received what seemed to me unduly scathing responses, and I believe at least one of the posters in this instance was Catholic. I have so far only once resorted to the Ignore function on the forums to avoid the temptation to unneccesary rudeness! I think there are also people out there who start threads in a manner that seems to say, “Go on - disagree with me. I dare you!” And then when some poor unsuspecting reader comes along and replies, they get jumped on and basically told that they’re a fool. I’m fairly sure this doesn’t happen often, though, and seems to be most common on the Social Justice forum - significantly, the one about applied ethics!

 

[Sair]

*Always subjectively derived? Would it be subjectively or objectively bad to start a nuclear war that resulted in the annihilation of the human race?
Allow me to clarify - I believe that all opinions, especially those regarding ethics, are subjective insofar as they can remain as opinions. For example, no-one would say - and be thought reasonable - that it was their opinion that the sky is blue. When there is a sufficient body of evidence that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is the case, an infomed opinion takes on the character of knowledge.

Similarly, I would never say that it was my opinion that murder is wrong. I would just leave out the ‘my opinion’ part, since it has been well established throughout human history that murder - that is, unjustified killing - is bad, and harms everyone involved, and may well be the ultimate violation of the golden rule. The difficulty only comes in proving that the killing was actually murder, as opposed to self-defence or killing in wartime, for example - conditions where killing is still a negative outcome, but that is mitigated by the need to act under the pressure of circumstances.

Since the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, there has existed a sufficient body of evidence that nuclear war would be bad, not just for the human race, but most of the rest of the world, since it would significantly alter both the face of the earth and the character of its atmosphere. So I can’t therefore say that the presumption that nuclear war would be bad is merely my own opinion - it’s certainly not something I’d want to leave open to experimentation!

 

[Oreoracle]

For those who are confused, when multiple people agree on an ethic unquestioningly, the ethic is not objective. Rather, it is “intersubjective”. Just thought I’d put that out there…

 

[Sair]

For those who are confused, when multiple people agree on an ethic unquestioningly, the ethic is not objective. Rather, it is “intersubjective”. Just thought I’d put that out there…

Thanks I can see that being a useful term for ethical discussions, although I can also see it causing some raised hackles!

I can see some potential applications for it, though - it could be said that while murder is generally considered wrong, it’s only wrong in a human context; only those who argue that the universe was created for humans would assume that it is a universal moral transgression - whereas I and other atheists doubt that the universe, or even the non-human world, have any interest in the issue.

Then there is the problem of how one defines murder - and that varies widely depending upon one’s personal ethical opinions. There are those who would group abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, even killing animals for food or fur within the category of murder.

Thus it’s fair to say that some common understanding of terminology is vital to any discussion of ethics.

 

[Sideline]

I’ve noticed a lot of times when people are trying to distinguish objective truths from subjective truths, they inadvertently muddy the issue by adding modifiers and context for instance.

Murder is objectively wrong, because by definition, murder is unjust killing. It becomes subjective when you try and decide what is murder and what is killing.

Rape is objectively wrong, because by definition, rape is an unjust sexual attack. It becomes subjective when deciding whether it was an unjust attack or just ordinary sex.

Robbery is by definition wrong, because by definition, it is taking something to which you have no right. But who decides who has rights to what?

All of these objective wrongs, have a subjective component.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Is it then your belief that atheists are without moral guidance? I ask this not to seem antagonistic, but merely wondering - do you feel it is possible for someone who lacks faith in any God to be an essentially good person, and to act from an informed sense of personal and social responsibility?

I don’t think I said anything like that. Reason itself is a moral guide. Also, we are all endowed with the natural law (conscience) that is very good at guiding us for the most part. However, the atheist position is to deny any objective exterior authority (like God, the Bible, or the Church) for deciding right and wrong. Lacking all those sources of guidance, the atheist is vulnerable to temptation, just like the Catholic, and has to rely only on reason. But reason can go two ways - objective or subjective. Temptations lead us to subjective reasoning … that is, a way to excuse what are really unconscionable acts … such killing a fetus because one has decided that it’s not really human until it’s born. I could very easily add to that example a thousand more.

Neither God, nor the Church, nor the Bible will let us get away with that nonsense. And so the Christian has more moral guidance than the atheist with the puny powers of intellect alone (never mind the millions of intellects competing to decide what is right and what is wrong). Moral chaos!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sideline

Rape is objectively wrong, because by definition, rape is an unjust sexual attack. It becomes subjective when deciding whether it was an unjust attack or just ordinary sex.

And perhaps it becomes** most** subjective when the rapist claims the voice of God told him to do it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*For those who are confused, when multiple people agree on an ethic unquestioningly, the ethic is not objective. Rather, it is “intersubjective”. Just thought I’d put that out there… *

When all people agree on an ethic unquestioningly, is it still “intersubjective”?

 

[Nepenthe]

To me, the problem seems to be one of trust. Theists don’t trust nontheists to act morally because we ‘don’t abide by any (supposedly single, correct, unassailable) authority’, and nontheists don’t trust theists to act morally because they appear to not rely on their (as they often say, ‘God-given’) reason to form moral conclusions.

This is pretty hard to get around, but I keep hoping. Both groups are human and fallible, and have failed plenty before, and I see a lot of bickering about whether theists or nontheists have more black marks on the record - but that IS a point in common, thus I can keep hoping.