Who is a moral agent?

[ateista]

The usual definition:

Moral agent: a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

From this it follows that animals are not moral agents, small children are not moral agents, even retarded adults are not moral agents, since none of the beings in these categories are able to “act with reference to right and wrong”.

It also follows Adam and Eve were not moral agents when they allegedly took the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They became moral agents as the consequence to this action.

Therefore the whole concept of “original sin” is incorrect. A being who is not a moral agent cannot be held morally responsible for whatever they do and should not be punished for their deed.

The usual argument is that they were “warned” by God and acted against the command. That argument does not hold water. Before they tasted the fruit, they could not have possibly known that disobedience is “wrong” - since they learned about “wrong” via that fruit.

Do you have a better argument?

 

[Katholish]

The fault is that you are assuming Adam and Eve could not have known their action to be wrong before they committed it. They knew that disobedience, by its nature, and that of the one commanding, was wrong.

A being who has not committed sin can still discern what sin is. It isn’t as if the “knowledge of evil” were an actual knowledge. You cannot know something that does not exist, and evil, properly speaking, does not exist. Evil is the privation of a due good, and Adam and Eve were better able to understand that then even we are today. They were aware that God’s command was good, and than not to follow it was a privation of that due good.

 

[ateista]

The fault is that you are assuming Adam and Eve could not have known their action to be wrong before they committed it. They knew that disobedience, by its nature, and that of the one commanding, was wrong.

No, they could not have known that. That is the whole point. Eating from the tree was the method of introducing the knowledge. Besides, disobedience is not “always” wrong.

 

[tobias]

The usual definition:

Moral agent: a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

From this it follows that animals are not moral agents, small children are not moral agents, even retarded adults are not moral agents, since none of the beings in these categories are able to “act with reference to right and wrong”.

It also follows Adam and Eve were not moral agents when they allegedly took the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They became moral agents as the consequence to this action.

Therefore the whole concept of “original sin” is incorrect. A being who is not a moral agent cannot be held morally responsible for whatever they do and should not be punished for their deed.

The usual argument is that they were “warned” by God and acted against the command. That argument does not hold water. Before they tasted the fruit, they could not have possibly known that disobedience is “wrong” - since they learned about “wrong” via that fruit.

Do you have a better argument?

The biblical usage of the idea of ‘knowing’ something is to have 1st hand, personal experience of something. You should not equate word usage of antiquity with todays vernacular, it seems a bit dishonest.

 

[ateista]

The biblical usage of the idea of ‘knowing’ something is to have 1st hand, personal experience of something. You should not equate word usage of antiquity with todays vernacular, it seems a bit dishonest.

Why would it be different?

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

It says nothing about “personal experience” of good and evil. There is a usage of “knowing” as a euphemism “for unlawful carnal knowledge”, but the Genesis usage is completely different.

 

[Isambard]

Im curious why God got so mad about the whole ordeal. I mean Adam and Eve had never encountered deception before, and they would’ve known that nothing happens w/o God willing it.

I guess thats just another plot hole to add to the pile.

 

[Oakleaf]

It seems to me that yes, Adam and Eve became moral agents in the act of eating the fruit. That is exactly what the story is about. Kind of a “childhood’s end.”

When a child reaches a certain age and begins logically questioning the parent’s point of view, they are consciously assuming moral agency for themselves. That is when childhood ends, and the “Garden of Eden” prepared by the parents can never really be re-entered. It is guarded by an angel with a “double-edged sword.” (In the Bible, “double edged swords” often refer to words that carry a spiritual or ontological truth). This transition/expulsion signals a fundamental change of state.

Ateista, Thomas Aquinas and others in the Middle Ages interpreted the Bible in ways you might find surprisingly Existential or Ontological. The “rules” or “moral arguments” follow from the ontological observations and seem less silly or arbitrary in that light.

From that ontological point of view, the implied question in your original post (whether Adam and Eve should be “blamed” for their act of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) is moot. It was simply an action that facilitated a change of state, by which humans became conscious moral agents. Just as a child becomes an adult, it simply happened by cause and effect and had enduring moral consequences.

 

[davidv]

The usual definition:

Moral agent: a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

From this it follows that animals are not moral agents, small children are not moral agents, even retarded adults are not moral agents, since none of the beings in these categories are able to “act with reference to right and wrong”.

It also follows Adam and Eve were not moral agents when they allegedly took the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They became moral agents as the consequence to this action.

{snip}

Do you have a better argument?

You conclusion is a non-sequiter. Adam are Eve were not animals, nor small children, nor retarded adults. You cannot claim them to be non-moral agents based on your first premise.

 

[tobias]

Why would it be different?

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

It says nothing about “personal experience” of good and evil. There is a usage of “knowing” as a euphemism “for unlawful carnal knowledge”, but the Genesis usage is completely different.

Using the words of tjhe one who distorted the truth hardly makes your point. And no, the use of ‘know’ sexually is not reserved for ‘unlawful’ sexual acts.

 

[Katholish]

No, they could not have known that. That is the whole point. Eating from the tree was the method of introducing the knowledge. Besides, disobedience is not “always” wrong.

I explained the reason how they were able to understand the evil nature of their choice. The “knowledge of evil” is not real knowledge. Evil is not a “thing” that can be known. Evil is the lack of a thing, the privation of something that should be there.

That is not to say that the fruit did not impart some kind of further understanding, but Adam and Eve knew that God is Goodness itself, and that to contradict His command would be a privation of Goodness (which is the very definition of evil.)

 

[ateista]

It seems to me that yes, Adam and Eve became moral agents in the act of eating the fruit. That is exactly what the story is about. Kind of a “childhood’s end.”

So far, so good.

From that ontological point of view, the implied question in your original post (whether Adam and Eve should be “blamed” for their act of eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) is moot.

I don’t think so. The concept of “original sin” and “fall” are basic tenets of Catholicism. Rather than being “moot”, it is of utmost importance.

It was simply an action that facilitated a change of state, by which humans became conscious moral agents. Just as a child becomes an adult, it simply happened by cause and effect and had enduring moral consequences.

But it was more than that. Not just a “declaration” of adulthood - which God tried to prevent - but the curse that God placed on his creation. The curse was a volitional act, not just a “natural” consequence of the disobedience.

 

[ateista]

You conclusion is a non-sequiter. Adam are Eve were not animals, nor small children, nor retarded adults. You cannot claim them to be non-moral agents based on your first premise.

Those were merely examples, not a full enumeration of beings who are not moral agents.

Yes, I can claim that they were not moral agenst, since - by definition - the moral agent acts “with reference to right and wrong” and also by the story itself, they learned the concept of right and wrong by eating the forbidden fruit.

You could claim that the definition of moral agent is incorrect. I don’t see how could you do that.

 

[ateista]

Using the words of tjhe one who distorted the truth hardly makes your point.

I am quoting the Bible.

And no, the use of ‘know’ sexually is not reserved for ‘unlawful’ sexual acts.

Yes, I know. I used the phrase as a hidden pun, which you did not see. (Hint: look at the starting letters…)

But, joke aside, the concept of “knowing good and evil” does not mean to have “first hand experience of them” it simply implies intellectual comprehension.

 

[ateista]

I explained the reason how they were able to understand the evil nature of their choice.

That was merely your opinion.

The “knowledge of evil” is not real knowledge. Evil is not a “thing” that can be known. Evil is the lack of a thing, the privation of something that should be there.

No. Evil is a concept, an abstraction. To know right and wrong is the prerequisiste to know “evil”, which is “intentional causation of something wrong”.

That is not to say that the fruit did not impart some kind of further understanding, but Adam and Eve knew that God is Goodness itself, and that to contradict His command would be a privation of Goodness (which is the very definition of evil.)

They could not have known anything of that kind. That knowledge was imparted by the fruit itself.

 

[davidv]

Those were merely examples, not a full enumeration of beings who are not moral agents.

Yes, I can claim that they were not moral agenst, since - by definition - the moral agent acts “with reference to right and wrong” and also by the story itself, they learned the concept of right and wrong by eating the forbidden fruit.

You could claim that the definition of moral agent is incorrect. I don’t see how could you do that.

Let us examine whether the bolded part of your statement is a correct understanding.

In Gen 2:16-17 we read

16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

If you were placed in a garden and given this instruction, how would not know what was right and what was not? This instruction preceded the eating of the fruit. So even though they did not experientially know evil, they knew it conceptually.

I have no quarrel with your “usual definition” of moral agent as you provided.

Your claim that Adam and Eve were not moral agents is unsubstantiated, because it is based on an erroneous understanding of the biblical text.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

(The) claim that Adam and Eve were not moral agents is unsubstantiated, because it is based on an erroneous understanding of the biblical text.

Exactly. Adam and Eve were, by definition, moral agents. The constant teaching of Christendom is such.

Is there anything else to discuss?

VC

 

[Katholish]

Ateista,

Are you claiming that they did not know Goodness either? That is, are you saying that they knew neither Good nor Evil, or are you saying that they knew Good, but not Evil?

It didn’t occur to me at first that you might be saying they didn’t know, or couldn’t perceive, goodness.

 

[tobias]

I am quoting the Bible.

Which was quoting the serpent.

Yes, I know. I used the phrase as a hidden pun, which you did not see. (Hint: look at the starting letters…)

But, joke aside, the concept of “knowing good and evil” does not mean to have “first hand experience of them” it simply implies intellectual comprehension.

I got the pun, just wanted to clarify.
Please demonstrate, using scripture, that is not a quotation of one who is distorting truth.

 

[ateista]

Let us examine whether the bolded part of your statement is a correct understanding.

In Gen 2:16-17 we read If you were placed in a garden and given this instruction, how would not know what was right and what was not? This instruction preceded the eating of the fruit. So even though they did not experientially know evil, they knew it conceptually.

That is exactly the point! To know something conceptually is on a much higher level of understanding.

I have no quarrel with your “usual definition” of moral agent as you provided.

Good.

Your claim that Adam and Eve were not moral agents is unsubstantiated, because it is based on an erroneous understanding of the biblical text.

That is your opinion. I say that the “knowledge of good and evil” - which was the result of eating the fruit - makes one a moral agent. Without it what kind of “knowledge” can there be?

 

[ateista]

Exactly. Adam and Eve were, by definition, moral agents.

By what definition?

The constant teaching of Christendom is such.

Which is therefore illogical and thus incorrect.