Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[epan]

The reason is simple; our ethical systems are completely different. The christian sysem is “deontological” (rule or command based), while the secular system (mine and other atheists with whom I conversed) is mostly “consequentialist”. Not fully, because we consider the “end” and the “means” equally important.

For the deontological approach the main emphasis is on obedience. The result is at best secondary, or more likely irrelevant. Looking at the example of Abraham, it would have been “moral” for Abraham to go ahead and kill his son, if God would not have stopped the execution. This proves that obedience is much more important than the “usual” moral consideration against murder. Also looking at Genesis, the “original sin” was disobedience.

For the consequentialist the means and the outcome are relevant, while the “intent” is not important. If someone does a lot of good deeds just to be proud of himself, the christian view condemns him for “pride” (mortal sin!), and disregards the good deeds. The consequentialist does not care about the intent, the good deeds are sufficient.

The christian system is not consistent. On one hand it says that “good deeds” are not sufficient to have an act be considered moral, unless the “intent” was also good - in other words, the deed cannot be “intrinsically good”. On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral. Ho-hum! Just another inconsistency, of course - among the many.

No wonder that there is no common ground.

Keep in mind that the current Catholic preoccupation with moral absolutism is a modern phenomenon which is not consistent with Catholic history. JP II invented it as a new idea, Benedict XVI took the bit in his teeth.

We’ll see if Francis can restore a more historic perspective.

 

[Ion]

You say that the conversations are futile. What end are you trying to achieve? What do you want to change about Catholics and their morality?

I don’t know but his posts are very juicy!
Doing good, part of a plan for an evil end, the good thing is good anyway. The evil desire is evil and separate from the good think that has been done. You can’t balance them, anyway, or consider them together.

 

[St_Francis]

Keep in mind that the current Catholic preoccupation with moral absolutism is a modern phenomenon which is not consistent with Catholic history. JP II invented it as a new idea, Benedict XVI took the bit in his teeth.

We’ll see if Francis can restore a more historic perspective.

Keep in mind that until recently, people in the West had some idea of what sin was. One did not have to clarify as much as we do now.

 

[tonyrey]

Keep in mind that until recently, people in the West had some idea of what sin was. One did not have to clarify as much as we do now.

The concept of “sin” has virtually disappeared in a secular society like the UK while the concept of evil has become nebulous. It is a term usually avoided because it takes people out of their comfort zone! That is why the media thrive on sensational horror crimes which at least give the public a glimpse of harsh reality…

It reminds me of a famous line in a novel by Charles Reade:

“Courage, mon ami, le diable est mort!” (Take courage, my friend, the devil is dead!)*

            - The Cloister and the Hearth* (1861)

It is just wishful thinking to think discussions about morality are futile. Evil is still alive and kicking - extremely hard!

 

[anruari]

Doing good, part of a plan for an evil end, the good thing is good anyway. The evil desire is evil and separate from the good think that has been done. You can’t balance them, anyway, or consider them together.

I believe your thinking here is totally flawed.

A charitable act might be “good”, but if it is done explicitly as part of a plan to achieve an evil end then it is an evil act.
One way of looking at this is that the apparently charitable act was in fact a Lie.

e.g. the predators bait.

Be that bait the sweets offered to a child by a kidnapper
be it the formula milk offered free to women in deprived areas to make their breast milk dry up and become dependant on the inferior product (e.g. nestlé marketing of formula milk in the 70’s)
be it the landlord who lets a poor tenant off their rent but later extorts other things from the tenant

An apparently virtuous act which is intended from the outset as part of a plan which includes an inherently means or end, is in itself an evil act. It is a sin against the virtue of Honesty.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The concept of “sin” has virtually disappeared in a secular society…

Interesting that you wrote that. I was recently in a conversation about morality with a Catholic family member who takes issue with some of the Church’s moral teachings. At one point she said she was really uncomfortable calling anything a sin. And here was me—>

It help us make better choices if we know what is a sin and what’s not a sin–yet that word gets in some people’s way. It was as if this person thought the only people who use the word “sin” still are all a bunch of judgemental pharasees, and not people who also striving to avoid sin.

Maybe we could take a cue from some of secular social activists and come up with a new name for sin!–something pithy and simply that gets across the point that it’s not something we should do–but without all the emotional hang-ups some people attached to it. Secular society does embrace the concept of right and wrong–and they even judge–but what they identify as undesirable behavior is often very different from what has traditionally been called sin.

Anyway, this is an enlightening discussion. I don’t think it’s futile at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting that you wrote that. I was recently in a conversation about morality with a Catholic family member who takes issue with some of the Church’s moral teachings. At one point she said she was really uncomfortable calling anything a sin. And here was me—>

It help us make better choices if we know what is a sin and what’s not a sin–yet that word gets in some people’s way. It was as if this person thought the only people who use the word “sin” still are all a bunch of judgemental pharasees, and not people who also striving to avoid sin.

Maybe we could take a cue from some of secular social activists and come up with a new name for sin!–something pithy and simply that gets across the point that it’s not something we should do–but without all the emotional hang-ups some people attached to it. Secular society does embrace the concept of right and wrong–and they even judge–but what they identify as undesirable behavior is often very different from what has traditionally been called sin.

Anyway, this is an enlightening discussion. I don’t think it’s futile at all.

I agree with you. There is a moral consensus in the world today that has never existed before, thanks to modern communications and the United Nations whose achievements are often underrated.

No single word can replace “sin” but “harm”, “neglect”, “abuse”, “ruin” and “destroy” are effective terms for condemning evil behaviour because they apply not only to others but also ourselves. If people realise they cannot ill-treat persons or animals with impunity they will be less likely to be cruel or selfish. When we deliberately cause or allow others to suffer we become inhuman, unlovable and even detestable…

“Do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the wilderness.” Psalm 95:8

 

[Ion]

I believe your thinking here is totally flawed.

A charitable act might be “good”, but if it is done explicitly as part of a plan to achieve an evil end then it is an evil act.
One way of looking at this is that the apparently charitable act was in fact a Lie.

e.g. the predators bait.

Be that bait the sweets offered to a child by a kidnapper
be it the formula milk offered free to women in deprived areas to make their breast milk dry up and become dependant on the inferior product (e.g. nestlé marketing of formula milk in the 70’s)
be it the landlord who lets a poor tenant off their rent but later extorts other things from the tenant

An apparently virtuous act which is intended from the outset as part of a plan which includes an inherently means or end, is in itself an evil act. It is a sin against the virtue of Honesty.

What you do is judge the evil fact, not the good one, and using a charitable act to achive an evil end is another evil thing, but doesn’t make the charitable act evil. In the situations you mentioned, you can see that the good think is good because the person gets confidence, and this confidence is later used, but in no way can balance with the bad ends.

 

[D_Martin]

Tyrion

First it seems you might be mistaken about the obedience part in the case of Abraham. He was told by the same voice that through this son that he was taking to a sacrifice, is the very same that a nation chosen by God would be born into the world through. So if Abraham believed the first, that through Isaac there was going to be a nation, then Abraham had to believe that Isaac was going to survive the incident even if he used the knife on him. Therefore because Abraham believed what the Lord God told him about his son Isaac, he was able to obey. If he didn’t believe why would he kill his son that he loved very much, on something he didn’t believe.

Also on the subject of “good” and what is good. Those who truly follow Jesus Christ agree that only God is the judge of what is good, because they trust the Lord God’s Judgements. (again demonstrated in your example of Abraham) Secular on the other hand insist that they are the judge of what is good according to there own judgements. Its secular’s nature to seek fulfillment in this world in this flesh, and what satisfies that in their own judgement, is good in their sight. But what satisfies God’s will according to God’s Judgement is good in His sight.

And since the Lord God has the power to give and take away life especially life eternal I will go with God’s Judgement over mankind’s judgement. Mankind may have the power to take you out of this world by his own judgements, but that’s not an eternal consequence.

So the true difference is believers (true believers) agree with God’s Judgements and none believers agree with there own judgements, or take it further the world’s judgements.

In those agreements whether they be with God and His Word, or with the ways of the world is Morals and Ethics. Without agreement you have no basis for morals or ethics. Because of a social agreement one can walk in a store browse the products and pay on your way out of the store. But if you don’t act according to that agreement then the act is immoral and or unethical. I can see how there would be difficulty in this because most people christian and secular alike don’t understand this simple principle but yet they are expert in the subject of morals because they acuse in an act they didn’t agree with, and don’t understand that not all are bound to the same agreement.

 

[Tyrion]

So a molester giving candy to a child to gain its trust is doing a good deed?

You should ask one of those pedofile priests.

In the same way, God *created *Isaac. Isaac belonged more to God than to Abraham.

Ugh… what did Abraham do? But the point is that IF God came to you and ordered you to torture and kill some child, you would obey… or would you?

If an act is “beneficial or neutral,” then it is not intrinsically evil. The fact that you or even many people are mistaken about its moral nature does not render *us *inconsistent; it just means that you do not understand why we consider it evil.

Oh, I do understand just fine, but I vehemently disagree with it. You consider “evil” actions which are either beneficial or neutral. (Mostly they happen in the privacy of the bedroom.)

Now, certainly actions like feeding the hungry may very well be good actions, and so be moral for me to do, but if my intention in feeding the hungry is solely to get fame, then my action might not be a moral one: I might do good, but not be good.

Do you think that the hungry people would CARE?

Consider “hate crime laws”–that’s a modern, more typically secularist way of saying intent matters. Some people think it’s not enough to punish a criminal for committing a crime–some want to punish them extra for what the criminal thought before or while committing the crime.

I completely disagree with the concept of “hate-crime”. It conjures up the image of “thought crime”, directly from 1984 (or the bible).

Don’t be so sure we don’t have some common ground.

I would like to find it.

It’s not based around “obedience”, it’s based around “obedience toward God”.
Ignoring love toward God or fear of God, there is a simple / logical explanation as to why someone should obey God: God is omniscient and infinitely just.
In the Abraham example, Abraham’s “moral consideration” is completely irrelevant, as God himself, being omniscient, is in the better position to make the call (and being infinitely just, would never make the wrong call).

So you would follow Abraham’s example, even if the “killing” would be horrible and gruesome?

I understand that your point is that you don’t believe that the means/intent make any difference, but that’s your opinion and has nothing to do with the Christian system being flawed.

You misunderstand. The MEANS is of utmost importance. I expicitly explained it at the beginning. Only the intent is irrelevant.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

**The christian system is not consistent. On one hand it says that “good deeds” are not sufficient to have an act be considered moral, unless the “intent” was also good - in other words, the deed cannot be “intrinsically good”. On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral. Ho-hum! **

This is surely an oversimplification and an error. Both good deed and bad deeds are instrinsically good or intrinsically evil.

The christian sysem is “deontological” (rule or command based), while the secular system (mine and other atheists with whom I conversed) is mostly “consequentialist”.

Both systems are command based. Civil law, whether Christian or atheist based, is a civil command.

Both systems are consequentialist. Violation of both sets of laws have consequences. Why not?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Do you think that the hungry people would CARE?

Come on Tyrion, you know that’s beside the point. In analysing moral situations and trying to assess the morality of some action or some person, you don’t take into account whether someone else who care about their morality.

For example, let’s say my neighbour raped my daughter. So I decided to go over there and torture him to death. As he is slowly and painfully dying, I tell him why I doing this: “It’s because you raped my daughter”. Now, he could sympathise and say sorry or could tell me to go to hell. Regardless of what he thinks or feels, however, my action of torturing him to death would still be wrong.

 

[mrajax]

The reason is simple; our ethical systems are completely different. The christian sysem is “deontological” (rule or command based), while the secular system (mine and other atheists with whom I conversed) is mostly “consequentialist”. Not fully, because we consider the “end” and the “means” equally important.

For the deontological approach the main emphasis is on obedience. The result is at best secondary, or more likely irrelevant. Looking at the example of Abraham, it would have been “moral” for Abraham to go ahead and kill his son, if God would not have stopped the execution. This proves that obedience is much more important than the “usual” moral consideration against murder. Also looking at Genesis, the “original sin” was disobedience.

For the consequentialist the means and the outcome are relevant, while the “intent” is not important. If someone does a lot of good deeds just to be proud of himself, the christian view condemns him for “pride” (mortal sin!), and disregards the good deeds. The consequentialist does not care about the intent, the good deeds are sufficient.

The christian system is not consistent. On one hand it says that “good deeds” are not sufficient to have an act be considered moral, unless the “intent” was also good - in other words, the deed cannot be “intrinsically good”. On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral. Ho-hum! Just another inconsistency, of course - among the many.

No wonder that there is no common ground.

Actually there is no common ground because people, not Christian or ‘atheist’ morality is different. It would only be so if every had the same thought process as Jesus or you but fortunately, it isn’t so. I know atheists who think certain actions irregardless of the emans or consequence as being morally repugnant no matter what. Not only that but our beleif system inconsistent?

About the deed bit, lets say a man saves girl from drowning, not because he cares for her life but to gain fame. If the girl is saved, that is a good thing but if the man then selfishly exploits her, how is that a good thing? God Himself wants to save everyone and have them go to heaven but if they continually sin despite His grace, how can he get them to heaven? It’s like expecting a family to give their inheritance to their son despite him constantly using them for his own selfish ends. So no, everything depends upon the circumstances. Even the Church fought back against Muslim invaders in the crusades. It wasn’t ignoring ‘turn the other cheek’ like a dumb sitting duck it was I don’t know, SELF DEFENCE.

Not only that but simply because a bad thing brings something good doesn’t mean it’s going to stay that way. It’s better to be saved by an honest man than to be exploited by a selfish one all your life.

As for Abraham, God didn’t intend to kill Isaac, especially seeing that he went on to give birth to the Jewish race, so it can’t really be said that obedience is better than abstaining form murder. How many saints have critisized Church leaders for their actions or better yet, the state.

 

[mrajax]

You should ask one of those pedofile priests.

Aw how cute! An atheist is trying to make us feel bad!

Ugh… what did Abraham do? But the point is that IF God came to you and ordered you to torture and kill some child, you would obey… or would you?

Ah but there is a catch there: why the bloody HECK would God do that? Outside of Abraham which even then was only a test and God never had any intent to kill Isaac, why would our God who loves life an wants to bring people to heaven, order someone to torture their child? Because certainly, our God did not and will never do that, making your argument completely non-sensical.

Oh, I do understand just fine, but I vehemently disagree with it. You consider “evil” actions which are either beneficial or neutral. (Mostly they happen in the privacy of the bedroom.)

So it always comes down to sex doesn’t it? Er, leave sex out of this poor excuse of a debate please. We haven’t been discussing sex nor how moral it is to commit this or that act because most people here have the decency to not be nosy. There once was woman who just giggles made a thread about how she sends pornographic videos to her husband when he’s way and had the nerve to ask people of their opinion. I asked her this: why the heck would you post something like this?

It is true that sex can be taken out of hand where the couple only stay together for sex but we don’t have the right to judge unless they come forward for help in their marriage. Neither does anyone have the right to pretend we are judging so there.
And no, you don’t understand our position. All you’re saying is that we’re wrong for believing something is completely evil and that we should just let it go when the Church teaches there is always room for self improvement.

Do you think that the hungry people would CARE?

Not really, unless they were genuinely good people or were jerks who wanted to gain ame like that idiot Hitchens (no Madre Teresa debates please, I’m sick of them). If I had a friend who selfishly fed the poor only for fame, I’d call him out for it because one action leads to another is you stay obstinate in it; A selfish person could feed a certain number of poor people but if he truly cared for them, he;d try to reach out more if he was able.

I completely disagree with the concept of “hate-crime”. It conjures up the image of “thought crime”, directly from 1984 (or the bible).

Bring it to court than. If a man murders someone close to us or crashes a truck into our house, we still investigate whether he did it by accident or intent. So, ask your self this, is murder a thought crime? Answers:YES IT IS! making your argument completely non-sensical again.

I would like to find it.

Common gorund between who? Atheists and secularists and Christians, or you and Christians?

So you would follow Abraham’s example, even if the “killing” would be horrible and gruesome?

I can’t really say I have the strength to do so but the story of Abraham isn’t really about obedience so much as sacrificial love. God Himself didn’t withhold His Son Jesus from us despite loving Him and Abraham wanted to show God that he wouldn’t even withhold Isaac from Him if He demanded it. Of course, in this day and age God is not going to ask us to kill our children, especially seeing that the times of the old testament were harsher times but He still demands that we raise our children to love Him and if the time comes to give them up, either because they die, marry or become religious, we shouldn’t selfishly cling to them and curse God but give them up to Him.

You misunderstand. The MEANS is of utmost importance. I expicitly explained it at the beginning. Only the intent is irrelevant.

Sometimes intent dictates how the means gets carried out. For example, the French Revolution had noble goals but because of bad intent from it’s leaders and it’s people, it initiated the reign of terror, killed thousands and made France worse off. Not only that but your life really will not have a purpose means or no means. You won’t be truly happy or whole.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

… " You’re not the boss of me. " …

…" You have no right to tell me what to do. " …

Yes. Unfortunately I really believe we have become a nation of incredible arrogance and narcissism! Nothing is above the human.Self control and humility are for the “judgemental christofascists” God help us!

 

[vlf7973]

So you would follow Abraham’s example, even if the “killing” would be horrible and gruesome?

Like I said, my moral discretion is irrelevent when God is the one giving the orders. The only discretion I’d have to make would be determining whether or not it actually was God telling me to kill, and not the Devil or someone else. I’m sure that Abraham had no doubt.

You misunderstand. The MEANS is of utmost importance. I expicitly explained it at the beginning. Only the intent is irrelevant.

My bad… I misspoke (I was refeering to intent + means as “means” for some reason… I really shouldn’t have done that).
My point is your defintion of “act” (act = ends + means) is not the same as the Christian defintion (act = ends + means + intent). So where’s the inconsistency?

 

[St_Francis]

You should ask one of those pedofile priests.

Yes, we do think that was wrong.

Ugh… what did Abraham do?

Without God, there would have been no Isaac.

But the point is that IF God came to you and ordered you to torture and kill some child, you would obey… or would you?

If I were certain the voice was God’s I hope that I would have Abraham’s faith.

Oh, I do understand just fine, but I vehemently disagree with it. You consider “evil” actions which are either beneficial or neutral. (Mostly they happen in the privacy of the bedroom.)

What makes your evaluation any better than ours?

Do you think that the hungry people would CARE?

I am sure that hungry people would be very grateful. But just because some good ce out of the sinful pride of the giver doesn’t make the act a moral act on the part of the one doing the giving.

You misunderstand. The MEANS is of utmost importance. I expicitly explained it at the beginning. Only the intent is irrelevant.

I think you are confusing an act which produces a result pleasing to some with an act which is moral.

Consider that landlord. The first month he lets the widow off the hook, good. The second month, good. The third, fourth, and fifth months good.

Then the sixth month, he makes his intentions clear… oops! Bad! Bad! Bad!

So the act did not become bad until he tried to get the girl?

 

[Tyrion]

Come on Tyrion, you know that’s beside the point. In analysing moral situations and trying to assess the morality of some action or some person, you don’t take into account whether someone else who care about their morality.

For example, let’s say my neighbour raped my daughter. So I decided to go over there and torture him to death. As he is slowly and painfully dying, I tell him why I doing this: “It’s because you raped my daughter”. Now, he could sympathise and say sorry or could tell me to go to hell. Regardless of what he thinks or feels, however, my action of torturing him to death would still be wrong.

In the spirit of the old testament it would be moral to <explicit four letter word censored > (rape) the rapist…

It seems that you have no problem with the idea of “hate crime” legislation, since you consider the “intent” relevant. Well, I disagree. If a murder is committed, it does not matter if it was done for greed, or because the murderer hated the victim’s religion, skin pigmentation or sexual orientation.

Like I said, my moral discretion is irrelevent when God is the one giving the orders. The only discretion I’d have to make would be determining whether or not it actually was God telling me to kill, and not the Devil or someone else. I’m sure that Abraham had no doubt.

So, let’s not beat around the bush: “if you were certain that God gave you the orders, then you would rape, mutilate, torture, etc…” without any moral reservation.

Yes, we do think that was wrong. If I were certain the voice was God’s I hope that I would have Abraham’s faith.

Fine… why don’t you say it out loud? Why is this “bashfulness” from you and vlf7973? You would DO it, but are too shy to SAY it?

I am sure that hungry people would be very grateful. But just because some good ce out of the sinful pride of the giver doesn’t make the act a moral act on the part of the one doing the giving.

Which shows that the so-called “moral considerations” are not relevant.

Consider that landlord. The first month he lets the widow off the hook, good. The second month, good. The third, fourth, and fifth months good.

Then the sixth month, he makes his intentions clear… oops! Bad! Bad! Bad!

So the act did not become bad until he tried to get the girl?

Simple. In the first 5 months it was a-ok. The fact that the sixth month he changed the rules does not negate the positive effect of the first five months.

 

[vlf7973]

So, let’s not beat around the bush: “if you were certain that God gave you the orders, then you would rape, mutilate, torture, etc…” without any moral reservation.

Ideally, yes.

 

[jonathan_hili]

In the spirit of the old testament it would be moral to <explicit four letter word censored > (rape) the rapist…

It seems that you have no problem with the idea of “hate crime” legislation, since you consider the “intent” relevant. Well, I disagree. If a murder is committed, it does not matter if it was done for greed, or because the murderer hated the victim’s religion, skin pigmentation or sexual orientation.

Huh? Who said that, and I’m not sure what it has to do with the argument at hand. In fact, if you’ve studied ancient civilisations, you’d recognise that the lex talionis was actually a legal improvement and far more humane than the practices which were legalised beforehand. The whole idea of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is to set a limitation, rather than use a crime as a pretext for wiping out a whole family or village (which was very common in the ancient world, not only in the Near East, but in China and other parts of Asia and Africa).

You’re right, I have no problem with the idea of “hate crime” leglisation.

Ummm, I think you just gave yourself away, Tyrion. You said: “If a murder is committed, it does not matter if it was done for greed…” etc., that is, the “intent” is irrelevant. But any lawyer will tell you that you cannot know if it even was murder until you consider the intent. Don’t you have to find out whether somebody deliberately killed somebody else and why?