Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[snarflemike]

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.

And if you were certain that God did not exist, you could not even coherently talk about moral reservations or morality in general. Your only basis for condemning these acts is if God actually exists. I’m amazed that you can’t see the double standard in your own eye.

 

[mrajax]

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.

It would matter if it was accidental, done out of self defense, insanity or desparation.

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 no, whatever a poster said above be damned because God will not order us to commit a random murder spree nor will He ever order us or anyone to rape anything ever, that’s disgusting and shows a very, very poor image of our God. In the old testament, God did tell the Jews to invade countries but He had a reason: these people were really savage and practiced very evil practices and for those times, waging war was fair game. So no, intent is important so that wars done out of self defense can’t be called evil. You also forget one other thing: the flipping result and consequences. Whether the result is good or bad should be acknowledged in discussing moral situations and frankly, those wars in the old testament while not wholly good were a much lesser evil than what was existing before.

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?

Again, we wouldn’t do it because God doesn’t want us too.

 

[vlf7973]

Ideally no, whatever a poster said above be damned because God will not order us to commit a random murder spree

I was going with a hypthetical scenario. If God commanded it, and if I was certain that it was God who commanded it, then I would have no need to make a moral decision on the matter, because I’d already know that the action itself is moral (otherwise God would not have commanded it).
And what I said before is still true, that if God did not command it, or if I was uncertain that it was God who commanded it, then I wouldn’t go doing anything that I believe to be immoral.

 

[Ion]

With Tyrion the futility rests on the fact that this guy has his own “handmade” definitions of terms. You guys never know when you are speaking about the same thing in different terms, or about different things in the same terms…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God didn’t think it was futile, neither did Moses, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, Our Lord, the Catholic Church. Of course those addicted to the nihilism of the present age view it as futile because their " moral " views are dictated by the Relativism of the Age, which is driven by some vague need to be popular and accepted by the crowd.

Our Lord said, " I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. " Actually, there are very few with the fortitude to live by that moral appeal - even among Christians. But we try. Linus2nd

 

[St_Francis]

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.

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.

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?

Are you 100% pro-life?

If you are not, then you already think that killing one’s children on one’s own desire is ok, don’t you?

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.

But it was the “positive effect” of the first 5 months which got the landlord power over the widow and her daughter. Without that “posiive effect,” they wouldn’t have been under any pressure when he asked for the daughter.

 

[aux1]

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?

Let’s define the terms, shall we?

In deontological view, the moral qualification is attached to the act itself. I.e. X is bad while Y is good. For example, lying is bad while saving someone’s life is good.

In consequentialist view, the focus is on the impact of the action, not the action itself. For example, stealing is bad because it desprives someone else of property.

Let’s now do the classic “Jew-in-the-basement” exercise:

You are in a Nazi-occupied Holland in WW2. You are hiding a Jew in your basement. A Nazi officer pays you a visit, and asks: “Is there a Jew in your basement?” Should you lie to him or not?

A strict consequentialist will answer that you should lie, because the consequences for the Jew are much better (he stays alive) when you lie then when you tell the truth (he dies).

A strict deontologist will say that you should not lie, because lying is bad, as there is a direct divine command not to lie. Yes the Jew will die, but you will be free of sin!

 

[epan]

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.

I think Kant addressed this issue. He would say that it is always possible and desirable to tell the truth. Failure to do so would be morally wrong. However, he would not object to deceiving someone for a moral good, such as saving a life, etc… For example, the Nazi knocks on the door, “where is Anne frank?” “I have not seen Ann frank for a longtime.”

My take on intractable moral positions is that they generally boil down the the essence, or meaning of something. The purpose, if you will. Aristotle advanced this idea, and it seems to hold in these discussions. Look at any intractable issue, and the discussion will eventually come to this. What is the purpose of marriage? What is marriage? What is life? When does life begin?

Those a examples which should be familiar. How. One answers those fundamental questions is foundational to one’s moral position.

 

[SonCatcher]

Tyrion:

I am interested in secular, rational and reasonable arguments about many difficult questions.
I am already familiar with faith-based (theological) arguments, so don’t waste your time to repeat them.
Thank you for your consideration.

It seems to me neither rational nor reasonable to exclude a class of arguments out of hand. Perhaps the alleged futility lies in closed-mindedness of the participant.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me neither rational nor reasonable to exclude a class of arguments out of hand. Perhaps the alleged futility lies in closed-mindedness of the participant.

Nothing that pretends to prove the universe can stand alone without the Causality ot the Christian God is reasonable. And speak of close mindedness. Brother, I think I know where we can find excellent examples.

There is an old saying, “… the bigger they are the harder they fall. " Similar to it is the saying, " … there is no fool greater than an educated fool…” Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

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

Sad to hear that. I am very much against the concept of “thought crime”.

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?

But you changed the goalposts. You started to talk about “what makes murder a murder”… while I was talking about the different kinds of murder. First, “murder” is a legal term, usually defined as “the intentional taking of a human life - AGAINST THE LAW”, and sometimes it is added: “with malice aforethought”. This optional addidtion definitely takes the “intent” into consideration. Of course you forgot about something. When one performs a mercy killing, then the intent is humane… and you would STILL consider it a “murder”, even if it were legally allowed. So, look into the mirror, before you start you “accusations” about “giving myself away”.

 

[Tyrion]

But it was the “positive effect” of the first 5 months which got the landlord power over the widow and her daughter. Without that “posiive effect,” they wouldn’t have been under any pressure when he asked for the daughter.

So what? She still got 5 months of free ride and she can simply walk away from the demand.

 

[Tyrion]

It seems to me neither rational nor reasonable to exclude a class of arguments out of hand. Perhaps the alleged futility lies in closed-mindedness of the participant.

Ahh, yes, I guess you got me there. I will have to reconsider if I can call myself rational or reasonable, since I definitely will NOT consider the “class of arguments” based on the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus, or the leprechauns, or angels, or demons, or seven-headed fire-breathing dragons, and any other imaginary creatures. Sorry, pal… looks like I am THAT closed-minded.

 

[tonyrey]

The first really doesn’t come into play because I have realised that it is actually immoral to drink and drive and to put other road users at risk. This comes from my not unreasonable realisation that many lives could be changed for the worst and I can empathise with anyone whose life would be affected in that way.

Your realisation is based on belief in the value of** everyone’s** life which you have inherited from the Christian heritage of our society. In a purposeless universe there is no **reason **to believe anyone’s life is valuable; it is merely a human convention - as has been made abundantly clear by several non-believers on this very thread…

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sad to hear that. I am very much against the concept of “thought crime”.

A “hate crime” isn’t a thought crime - you’re not charged with someone you think but rather actions you do that are motivated by a singular hatred that is viewed as threatening to society, a particular ethnicity, etc. I’m sure you can appreciate that in the wake of the genocides of the 20th century “hate crime” is very relevant.

But you changed the goalposts. You started to talk about “what makes murder a murder”… while I was talking about the different kinds of murder. First, “murder” is a legal term, usually defined as “the intentional taking of a human life - AGAINST THE LAW”, and sometimes it is added: “with malice aforethought”. This optional addidtion definitely takes the “intent” into consideration. Of course you forgot about something. When one performs a mercy killing, then the intent is humane… and you would STILL consider it a “murder”, even if it were legally allowed. So, look into the mirror, before you start you “accusations” about “giving myself away”.

But this is exactly what I’m saying. You say “intent” is irrelevant, but you need to know that there is “intent” to charge someone with murder. It’s not just “with malice afterthought” that takes into account “intent”, the whole understanding of murder does. After all, what’s the difference between manslaughter and murder? The former is ostensibly accidental or unplanned, whereas the latter is planned and deliberate. How do you know the difference? By the intention. If “intent” was irrelevant, you would never know if someone was guilty of a murder or a manslaughter.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Ahh, yes, I guess you got me there. I will have to reconsider if I can call myself rational or reasonable, since I definitely will NOT consider the “class of arguments” based on the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus, or the leprechauns, or angels, or demons, or seven-headed fire-breathing dragons, and any other imaginary creatures. Sorry, pal… looks like I am THAT closed-minded.

I don’t understand how a “class of arguments” is based on a person, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. Even Christians don’t say that their arguments are based ob God, but rather on other epistemological methods: reason, revelation, empiricism, etc.

So, are you saying, Tyion, that you reject a “class of arguments” that tries to prove the existence of God? Or do you mean “revelation”, that is, a “class of arguments” purported to be coming from God?

 

[Pugsly]

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.

Western civilization is displacing Judeo-Christian morality for a worldly philosophy that is very FAR from what you described…“For the consequentialist the means and the end are relevant, while the “intent” is not important.”

Intentions are running the show right now.
For example…When candidate Obama was asked about the effect of raising taxes on the “rich” actually bringing in LESS revenue to the Federal government…he said he would do it anyway because it was more fair (more equal).

For example…Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and ended up destroying the African-American family by making it so rewarding to remain unmarried. The rate of black children raised by single moms went from 28% to 78%…and crime rates followed. But few complain because he was trying to do good.

For example…Jimmy Carter began a push to give low interest loans and lavish credit to very poor people who could not afford homes…30 years later the entire housing market collapsed, dragging down whole countries like Greenland into bankruptcy. Republicans got the blame because free markets are not fair…and Leftism has its heart in fairness and equality.

For example just last week President Obama wanted to return to what Jimmy Carter began…“to get this economy revived”…by loosening credit and loans for the poor AGAIN.
But no one complains about results because his heart is in the right place.

Leftism is a fear-based philosophy that seeks to equalize and flatten and protect FIRST…It sees a world divided between the Strong and the Weak. If you help flatten and equalize [even if you destroy much in the process] then you have “good” intentions and you get a pass.

For example…We live in a completely DSYFUNCTIONAL ECONOMY that is running on “good intentions”. The USA has 60 trillion dollars of total assets…and has promised about 100 trillion dollars in benefits (if you include Obamacare).

 

[epan]

Western civilization is displacing Judeo-Christian morality for a worldly philosophy that is very FAR from what you described…“For the consequentialist the means and the end are relevant, while the “intent” is not important.”

Intentions are running the show right now.
For example…When candidate Obama was asked about the effect of raising taxes on the “rich” actually bringing in LESS revenue to the Federal government…he said he would do it anyway because it was more fair (more equal).

For example…Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and ended up destroying the African-American family by making it so rewarding to remain unmarried. The rate of black children raised by single moms went from 28% to 78%…and crime rates followed. But few complain because he was trying to do good.

For example…Jimmy Carter began a push to give low interest loans and lavish credit to very poor people who could not afford homes…30 years later the entire housing market collapsed, dragging down whole countries like Greenland into bankruptcy. Republicans got the blame because free markets are not fair…and Leftism has its heart in fairness and equality.

For example just last week President Obama wanted to return to what Jimmy Carter began…“to get this economy revived”…by loosening credit and loans for the poor AGAIN.
But no one complains about results because his heart is in the right place.

Leftism is a fear-based philosophy that seeks to equalize and flatten and protect FIRST…It sees a world divided between the Strong and the Weak. If you help flatten and equalize [even if you destroy much in the process] then you have “good” intentions and you get a pass.

For example…We live in a completely DSYFUNCTIONAL ECONOMY that is running on “good intentions”. The USA has 60 trillion dollars of total assets…and has promised about 100 trillion dollars in benefits (if you include Obamacare).

I don’t think the OP intended this to become a political rant. The question is on the nature of moral arguments.

 

[mrajax]

I was going with a hypthetical scenario. If God commanded it, and if I was certain that it was God who commanded it, then I would have no need to make a moral decision on the matter, because I’d already know that the action itself is moral (otherwise God would not have commanded it).
And what I said before is still true, that if God did not command it, or if I was uncertain that it was God who commanded it, then I wouldn’t go doing anything that I believe to be immoral.

Except that’s where you are falling: WHY would God order you to do that? Saint Peter himself said that even if an angel came from heaven and preached a different gospel, we should reject him.

 

[mrajax]

Let’s define the terms, shall we?

In deontological view, the moral qualification is attached to the act itself. I.e. X is bad while Y is good. For example, lying is bad while saving someone’s life is good.

In consequentialist view, the focus is on the impact of the action, not the action itself. For example, stealing is bad because it desprives someone else of property.

Let’s now do the classic “Jew-in-the-basement” exercise:

You are in a Nazi-occupied Holland in WW2. You are hiding a Jew in your basement. A Nazi officer pays you a visit, and asks: “Is there a Jew in your basement?” Should you lie to him or not?

A strict consequentialist will answer that you should lie, because the consequences for the Jew are much better (he stays alive) when you lie then when you tell the truth (he dies).

A strict deontologist will say that you should not lie, because lying is bad, as there is a direct divine command not to lie. Yes the Jew will die, but you will be free of sin!

BEEP! Wrong. The deontologist in this case wouldn’t be someone free from sin but a total idiot with the same mental capacity of a man who lets flipping a coin decide his every action. The Catholic Church teaches prudence, and in this case, epikeia should be used: newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm So what should we listen to, your own definition of what a sin is or a Church doctor? It’s one reason why the crusades weren’t wrong as they were done out of self defense and if Jesus hated us for defending ourselves against Muslims, he wouldn’t be being true to his word as he wouldn’t be caring for our safety.

Of course, epikeia should always be used with prudence and just because an action does a lesser evil doesn’t mean it should still be used. While it is difficult of a situation, if a serial killer told you that he will spare your life if you kill a child, would you kill the child to stay alive even if it meant crushing said child’s dreams? What about the classic train railtracks moral dillema, where an out of control train is advancing and you have a choice to move it so that it either kills 1 or ten children? Neither of these choices are good or really benefit anything in anyway.