Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[mrajax]

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

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”.

And when did you mention mercy kill as intent? What if there was a chance that the person you mercy killed was going to live? What about all the people who are disabled in excrutiating ways but don’t want to die? There’s a saying that goes: “Humans are weak but we want to live… even if we’re wounded or tortured we feel the pain and fight to survive…” So yes, mercy kill would still be considered murder as it is done voluntarily, not out of force, most people don’t have the qualifications to judge whether it’s right for someone to die and even if they do, there are other options like you know, letting people die of old age.

 

[mrajax]

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

Yeah, because that works SOO well in abusive relationships.

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[like God you mean. I think you leeft that out bud]. Sorry, pal… looks like I am THAT closed-minded.

Aw, how cute, Tyrion reads Richard Dawkins and thinks we believe in leprechauns and faries and that we interpret the book of revelation literally and not as some symbolical work. Wait…

As for angels and demons, that’s your loss. We believe they, along with God and heaven exist and no, we are not idiots for believing in them so don’t get your hopes up that we’ll think less of ourselves. It’s this type of close mindedness that I despise in atheists or any fake intellectual; you want us Catholics to consider some of the ‘absurd’ things other religions believe out of tolerance yet you yourself don’t even want to study our own religion. You want us to explore atheism and the possible non-existence of God yet you yourself don’t explore why WE of sincere faith believe, when we’re surrounded by encyclopedias, books, councils, documents etc… of studies about our faith.

Of course, we should keep in mind that we have no obligation towards you in exploring atheism in the first place so if someone decides to become atheist, he doesn’t owe it to you for ‘changing him’. Some atheist bigot once told me how she converted some people into atheists: why would you that? Whats practically wrong with believing in God? Are we less intelligent because we do? Do you really think that the world will become a better place if everyone becomes atheist? Do you think concepts like war, poverty, sexual promiscuity, infidility in relationships, abortion, etc… will end if we all become atheist? Does atheism really unite people or do good friends unite each other? Do friendships with someone who regards you as an idiot for believing in something or with someone who believe you’re going to hell for being obnoxious work?

So no, I think you are close minded and even if you don’t believe in God, that doesn’t excuse you SQUAT for not studying what we believe from our own sources because you know, you can actually sympathize with our own view even if you don’t believe in it; it;s the same thought process that makes us sympathize with anti-heroes like Tyrion Lannister even if we don’t agree with their actions. People who think they are smart enough to throw away the concepts others believe not smart, they just think they are, just like people who complain about shows they don’t watch.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

No, I don’t think so. The punishment is different because of the motivation, and that is definitely punishing your thoughts.

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.

Again, you are moving the goalposts.

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.

Of course they do. Besides, the alleged “revelations” do not count as epistemological methods. Empiricism would, but all the empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence.

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?

I mean unsubstantiated allegations like “revelation”. Of course there is no real difference between the leprechauns and demons… the only difference is the group of people who believe in them. The whole point was to reject that one is “close minded”, if one does not consider any and all unsubstantiated arguments, whatever the other party might bring up. I also reject the allegations of paranormal claims, the new-ager concept that pyramidal structures have curative powers, etc… I suspect that you reject them as well. Does it make you close-minded?

 

[jonathan_hili]

No, I don’t think so. The punishment is different because of the motivation, and that is definitely punishing your thoughts.

Not thoughts in themselves: thoughts that are manifested in actions (and, more so, motivations to criminal or immoral actions). And of course that requires different punishment.

Person A murders his wife because she cheated on him.
Person B murders his wife because he hates all women.

Now, Person A if released from prison unchanged is unlikely to murder again because of the motivation behind his murder. Person B, however, if he leaves prison unchanged (with the same attitude), there is a danger of him murdering again because of his motivation.

Again, you are moving the goalposts.

How?

Of course they do. Besides, the alleged “revelations” do not count as epistemological methods. Empiricism would, but all the empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence.

Wow… “all empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence”. You mean, like DNA, the intricate apparent design of the universe, the existence of minds, etc.? Firstly, greater minds than yours or mine have believed in the existence of God based on the reality of existence, so I don’t think you can just dismiss what might be evidence. Antony Flew, for instance, was convinced of the existence of some kind of God by empirical evidence. Secondly, by claiming that all empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence suggests that you’ve seen and considered all such evidence, which is doubtful. Lastly, why can’t revelation be a sound epistemological method?

I mean unsubstantiated allegations like “revelation”. Of course there is no real difference between the leprechauns and demons… the only difference is the group of people who believe in them. The whole point was to reject that one is “close minded”, if one does not consider any and all unsubstantiated arguments, whatever the other party might bring up. I also reject the allegations of paranormal claims, the new-ager concept that pyramidal structures have curative powers, etc… I suspect that you reject them as well. Does it make you close-minded?

Who said such revelation is unsubstantiated? The Church has lots of substantiation for Her claims; it’s actually remarkable how much there is.

As for paranormal claims, I think each needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There may be intelligent species out there trying to communicate with us, humans may have latent mental powers… I really don’t know. I’m sceptical, just as I’m sceptical of religious claims too.

 

[mrajax]

No, I don’t think so. The punishment is different because of the motivation, and that is definitely punishing your thoughts.

No, it’s punishing your action which are borne from your thoughts because if the law did punish our thoughts, then everyone in the whole world would be charged for attempted murder every time they got angry at someone. And no matter how much spout, if somebody were to, God and Mary forbid, murder a loved one, you;d want justice; you’d want him to be tried for hate crime no matter what. If you say you wouldn’t do that, heh heh, I don’t believe it.

 

[mrajax]

Of course they do. Besides, the alleged “revelations” do not count as epistemological methods. Empiricism would, but all the empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence.

I mean unsubstantiated allegations like “revelation”. Of course there is no real difference between the leprechauns and demons… the only difference is the group of people who believe in them. The whole point was to reject that one is “close minded”, if one does not consider any and all unsubstantiated arguments, whatever the other party might bring up. I also reject the allegations of paranormal claims, the new-ager concept that pyramidal structures have curative powers, etc… I suspect that you reject them as well. Does it make you close-minded?

That would mean that episodes like the miracle of Fatima, the miracles of Lourdes, the Lanciano, the Ressurrection of Jesus, the morality that the Church advanced etc… can’t be used as evidence of the existence of OUR God. Yes, we reject New Ageism but do you know why? Because it is only made up of the ramblings of random people who think they can find knowledge in ultra-mundane things, one that draws concepts form a ton of religions, one with no creed and one invented by men to suit their caprices, not God unlike our religion which is based o that of Abraham and the Gospel of Christ.

We also reject Islam because it claims to be the true Gospel despite being made 600 or so years after Jesus died and having a ton of contradictions against the Bible; we reject Buddhism because it rejects that we ourselves by our own capabilities can achieve true enlightenment and mystical knowledge without the help from God which is sorry to offend, stupid seeing as how most people who do say that only have an image of God borne from their own caprices.

Of course, even the Church recognizes that there can be good in other religions such as in the 1500’s when it translated the works of Confucius to distribute in Europe. Yeah, the Church which had the inquisition at the time and condemned Martin Luther and every Protestant out there actually liked and supported Confucius and do you know why? Because it supported his morality which was so compatible with the Christian religion whereas the Protestant religion mutilated the meaning of the teachings of Jesus.

Those are just a few examples but they show that we’re not really close minded; we study these things so just because we reject someone for claiming he knows God doesn’t mean we are close minded or intolerant. But hey, we do study our faith, do you study it too in order to know what the heck you are talking about or do you just think of ways to make us feel bad about ourselves?

And as I said, there is a huge difference between leprechauns and demons. Leprechauns are obviously fake; they’re fairy tales, invented by men whereas demons have been known to exist since God invented our religion, that of Abraham. Cthulhu is a God; he was invented by a writer. Our God is the Holy Trinity, always existed and worshipped by millions since ancient times. One is born out of caprice, the other is born out of nothing.

 

[Pugsly]

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

I was giving highly visible and known examples of a WORLDLY PHILOSOPHY that is based on fear…a philosophy that ignores evil results if your intentions are “good”=part of this WORLDLY PHILOSOPHY. The OP made a bold assertion that today’s worldly philosophy was superior to Christianity because it was NOT based on intentions. And, I called him out on this error.

Now, Epan…why do you think there is a market for showing off “good intentions” in today’s society? Why do people buy lil rubber wrist bands to express their giving to a charity…or wear “Race for the Cure” t-shirts…etc? It is often to show the world that they have “good” intentions"…because the WORLDLY PHILOSOPHY of our time divides reality between the Strong/manipulator…vs…the Weak/Empathetic.
Sin convicts people…(even if they don’t acknowledge the concept)…and running a 5k makes me feel “good” again…plus I get a T-shirt to tell everyone how I’m part of the “good” and empathetic crowd.

PS…The fact that a philosophy section of CAF rarely discusses the REAL philosophical problems of OUR TIME is amusing to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Empiricism would, but all the empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence.

Really.

And what studies demonstrate or “point to” God’s nonexistence? Can you provide your peer-reviewed, reproducible “empirical evidence” here?

 

[Bradski]

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

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…

This is kinda scary. You do appreciate that, don’t you? If you admitted in public that you would kill your son if you thought that God had commanded it, there would be a very good case for locking you up.

‘Dad, you wouldn’t hurt me, would you?’
‘No son. Unless God told me to, of course. Then I’d hope that I’d be able to’.
‘Good for you, Dad!’

Yeah, I know. He’s not likely to ask you in any case. But I think the right answer might have been that you wouldn’t do it anyway and pay the consequences. If He wanted something that bad, then I’d tell Him to do it himself.

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…

I inherited it from a Christian heritage? Where do all the other people who don’t believe in God inherit it from? There’s a couple of billion of them out there.

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

Aw, how cute, Tyrion reads Richard Dawkins…

I’m not sure a condescending tone does much to further any points that you make.

 

[tonyrey]

Your realisation is based on belief in the value of* everyone’s***

1. Then where did you - and they - get it? Were you brought up in a moral vacuum?
2. What do you think is the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?
3. ** In a purposeless universe there is no reason to believe anyone’s life is valuable **- as has been made abundantly clear by non-believers on this very thread…

I

 

[Bradski]

Then where did you - and they - get it? Were you brought up in a moral vacuum?

Does a Hindu get his morality from your God?

What do you think is the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

Maybe you know people who don’t mind losing their liberty. Well, actually, no you don’t. Everyone would prefer not to have their freedom constrained. Do you think that that is something divinely inspired?

 

[Tyrion]

Not thoughts in themselves: thoughts that are manifested in actions (and, more so, motivations to criminal or immoral actions). And of course that requires different punishment.

Person A murders his wife because she cheated on him.
Person B murders his wife because he hates all women.

Now, Person A if released from prison unchanged is unlikely to murder again because of the motivation behind his murder. Person B, however, if he leaves prison unchanged (with the same attitude), there is a danger of him murdering again because of his motivation.

So you have no problem for punishing someone for a deed he did NOT commit, but MAY commit sometime in the future. I read you five by five… and, you know… I shiver when I see your concept of “justice”.

Wow… “all empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence”. You mean, like DNA, the intricate apparent design of the universe, the existence of minds, etc.?

Sure. None of them point to anything beyond this physical reality.

Firstly, greater minds than yours or mine have believed in the existence of God based on the reality of existence, so I don’t think you can just dismiss what might be evidence.

Other, also “greater minds” dismiss them as “evidence”. Funny thing is that today atheism is not a life-treatening stance any more, and most of the greatest minds dismiss the “evidence” for God’s existence. In the past the lack of belief was a heresy, and sometimes it “earned” you a warm spot at the stakes - as the example of Giordano Bruno showed. In the past, most people, even the greatest minds were so heavily indoctrinated, that they never thought to question their fundamental belief.

Secondly, by claiming that all empirical evidence points to God’s nonexistence suggests that you’ve seen and considered all such evidence, which is doubtful.

All the evidence I have seen so far.

Lastly, why can’t revelation be a sound epistemological method?

Because it is just “hearsay”. Let God come and make a public revelation to everyone in their own language, in front of cameras… and then it will be something to consider… of course the “usual objection” is that God is not a vending machine, God cannot be expected to appear at our whim… which not an objection, just a transparent attempt to deny reality: “there is no revelation”!!

Who said such revelation is unsubstantiated? The Church has lots of substantiation for Her claims; it’s actually remarkable how much there is.

Any of them not in the hearsay category?

As for paranormal claims, I think each needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. There may be intelligent species out there trying to communicate with us, humans may have latent mental powers… I really don’t know. I’m sceptical, just as I’m sceptical of religious claims too.

Are you skeptical only of the claims of OTHER religions, or…?

 

[Tyrion]

Does a Hindu get his morality from your God?

Hush, my friend… of course he does, even if he does not know it. When I give a few bucks to the homeless, it is - of course - God who acted and I was simply an unknowing conduit. I wonder, how did God achieve that? Did he override my natural meanness? Did he “tinker” with my free will? The possibilities are endless! After all, everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from us… is that not obvious?

 

[mrajax]

I’m not sure a condescending tone does much to further any points that you make.

I know that but those two remarks weren’t used to further my points, they were used to call off any bluff that would make us look bad and consequently our arguments. It’s a logical fallacy and the best way to brush these off is to shake them off immediately as they have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[mrajax]

Does a Hindu get his morality from your God?

Maybe you know people who don’t mind losing their liberty. Well, actually, no you don’t. Everyone would prefer not to have their freedom constrained. Do you think that that is something divinely inspired?

It is true that you don’t have to believe in our God to be a moral person but a) it helps tremendously and b) unlike others (God bless them still as they are NOT idiots) I don believe that atheists don’t have a reason to live or a source where they get their morality. But if you are a moral atheist living in the west like America or Europe, you can’t deny that the Catholic Church influenced your morality. Of course, if someone is a relatively good person but still believes in immoral stuff, he is wrong; you can;t be pro-abortion and still be a good person just like you can’t be racist and be a good person. Without the Church, disabled children would still be left out by the masses in Greece, pedarasty would have still been socially acceptable in Rome today, the vikings and Saxons would have still continued their revenge driven duels and we’d still be using redhot rods to find out if a person is a witch or not*.

There have been really moral people who haven’t even heard of Jesus but they are few and far between. The best example would be Confucius and his morals and teachings were so good that the Church in the 1500’s, the same Church that condemned Protestanism and persecuted heretics, translated and published his writings in the west. But despite Confucius having such influence in the EAST, what influence did he leave on the west and the south? Did he send missionaries to Europe? No, it was the Church that spread her influence here.

You also have to consider that our morals are vastly different than those of Muslims, Hindus etc… we don’t believe in idolatry, we don’t believe in having multiple wives, we don’t believe karma or that we ourselves by our own power can achieve true mystical enlightenment (yeah, because we are that smart we don’t need God’s help to go to heaven) etc…

No you can’t use the excuse that there have been a ton of wars in the middle ages proving that the Church is evil because even during the enlightenment wars and atrocities were still carried out by secularists like the French revolution and the reign of terror, Napoleon’s wars and today, the world is full of putrid corruption, oppression and war, especially in Africa, not to mention the rampant immorality. Evil has always existed because of human nature not religion and the enlightenment failed miserably to make the world a better place.

My point: Catholicism and it’s morality is superior to any other when practiced right even if you’re an atheist (and by morality, I don’t include things like praying) but you msut always be careful to distinguish between someone who is a good person and someone who is morally bankrupt like so many you tube atheists and their loud mouths.

 

[mrajax]

Hush, my friend… of course he does, even if he does not know it. When I give a few bucks to the homeless, it is - of course - God who acted and I was simply an unknowing conduit. I wonder, how did God achieve that? Did he override my natural meanness? Did he “tinker” with my free will? The possibilities are endless! After all, everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from us… is that not obvious?

Nah, He just made sure you were raised in a good home in what was mostly the Catholic west whose EVIL influence of charity, forgiveness and free will lingers on. And today, we will convert Africa. Tomorrow, the world…

The Laughing Jesus

Forget your worries and fear. Laugh out with Jesus

imagesofjesus.blogspot.com

By the way, this post you wrote: it’s abysmally written!

 

[jonathan_hili]

So you have no problem for punishing someone for a deed he did NOT commit, but MAY commit sometime in the future. I read you five by five… and, you know… I shiver when I see your concept of “justice”.

No, that’s not what I said, please pay attention. I said if Person B is unchanged in attitude in prison and is going to be released, he could potentially kill again, as opposed to Person A who murdered for a different reason. This, Person B’s intention for killing (i.e. a hate crime), would be taken into account when issues like parole are raised. I think it’s very reasonable to take this into account.

Sure. None of them point to anything beyond this physical reality.

False, Tyrion. Technically, if you going to argue this way, empirical evidence doesn’t point to anything of itself: it just is. It depends how we interpret it. Therefore, while you may interpret it as only pointing to physical reality, others - and indeed many, many others - interpret it as pointing beyond to God.

Other, also “greater minds” dismiss them as “evidence”. Funny thing is that today atheism is not a life-treatening stance any more, and most of the greatest minds dismiss the “evidence” for God’s existence. In the past the lack of belief was a heresy, and sometimes it “earned” you a warm spot at the stakes - as the example of Giordano Bruno showed. In the past, most people, even the greatest minds were so heavily indoctrinated, that they never thought to question their fundamental belief.

Of course, no-one is indoctrinated today! So you are happy to dismiss all the sincere, educated beliefs of brilliant people of the past as due to simple indoctrination or fear of death, whereas all the brilliant people today are clear-headed and not influenced by anything in their atheism?

Also, I don’t buy your point. Who are these “greatest minds” today who dismiss evidence for God’s existence?

All the evidence I have seen so far.

Then you should have qualified your statement, Tyrion.

Because it is just “hearsay”. Let God come and make a public revelation to everyone in their own language, in front of cameras… and then it will be something to consider… of course the “usual objection” is that God is not a vending machine, God cannot be expected to appear at our whim… which not an objection, just a transparent attempt to deny reality: “there is no revelation”!!

shrugs Sorry but “it is just ‘hearsay’” is not a very sophisticated response to why revelation is not a good epistemological method. But nobody who believes in revelation is denying that revelation is a good method of knowing - only you are (that is, those who don’t believe in revelation as a good method). Basically, you are like an empiricist trying to convince a rationalist that they’ve got the wrong method. If you don’t think it’s a good method, explain why, rather than just dismissing it.

Any of them not in the hearsay category?

Hmmm what about the miracle of Fatima that was witnessed by thousands? Or all the miracles from Lourdes? Or the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano? Or the Shroud of Turin? Or the miracle of Guadelaupe? And there are lots more. These have been tested by scientists and are completely inexplicable. They are certainly not hearsay.

Are you skeptical only of the claims of OTHER religions, or…?

No, I’m sceptical about the claims of my own faith too. That’s why I’ve studied it, undertaken a Philosophy and Theology degree, as well as a separate History degree, read a fair bit, etc. I’m now convinced but that conviction took time.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This is kinda scary. You do appreciate that, don’t you? If you admitted in public that you would kill your son if you thought that God had commanded it, there would be a very good case for locking you up.

I agree. However, we have to look at this Scripture passage in context, that is, in a society where human sacrifice was not uncommon. Furthermore, we don’t know what Abraham was thinking. I’d suggest Kierkegaard’s Fear And Trembling on this point - a cracking read.

If He wanted something that bad, then I’d tell Him to do it himself.

Now you’ve spoken like a prophet Bradski, and that’s the theological point of what’s going on here.

I inherited it from a Christian heritage? Where do all the other people who don’t believe in God inherit it from? There’s a couple of billion of them out there.

Our beliefs in the value and dignity of human life can be discerned from natural law, and most cultures and peoples have recognised this truth. The real issue, I think, is not epistemological, that is, how to understand natural law, but how to justify it.

 

[tonyrey]

Then where did

You have clumsily evaded the question:

Where did you get “your” morality?

BTW The Hindu gets his morality from his belief in God. Since God belongs to no one the expression “your God” is nonsensical…

What do you think is the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

Maybe you know people who don’t mind losing their liberty. Well, actually, no you don’t. Everyone would prefer not to have their freedom constrained. Do you think that that is something divinely inspired?

The issue is not whether people mind losing their liberty or preferring not to have their freedom constrained but the origin of the belief in the principles of liberty, equality and - above all - fraternity (which you have not even attempted to explain!).

Even Dawkins respects the moral teaching of Jesus on which they are based.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hush, my friend… of course he does, even if he does not know it. When I give a few bucks to the homeless, it is - of course - God who acted and I was simply an unknowing conduit. I wonder, how did God achieve that? Did he override my natural meanness? Did he “tinker” with my free will? The possibilities are endless! After all, everything good comes from God, and everything bad comes from us… is that not obvious?

I blame you, Tyrion, for causing me to laugh out loud and disturbing my coworker’s productivity. I may have to take precautions when reading your post such as removing myself from the presence of others should an unexpected eruption of laughter occur in the future.