Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[PRmerger]

That’s not what you stated. You said I’d need a belief in a Law Giver to ‘stop evil being perpetrated by another’. And that’s not correct.

Look, Bradski. You know that I know that you can be a moral person. You can intervene when someone is torturing a cat, dumping oil into the ocean, beating up his girlfriend.

The point is: without a belief in an Absolute Moral Law (and thus an Absolute Moral Lawgiver) you cannot argue (here, argue is used in the philosophical sense, not as in “quarrel”) with anyone whose morality is different than yours.

They will simply respond, “Atheist Bradski, I am only using the same paradigm that you use. I just come to a different conclusion than you do. Isn’t your model–‘different strokes for different folks’, yes?”

We’ve done this before. I am entitled to tell him he’s wrong and Jonathon also gave the reason why I am entitled to tell him it’s wrong.

Sure.

But he (Evil Perpetrator) is going to tell you that he just looks at it like you do: you like turnips. I like strawberries. There’s no moral absolutes about what’s the best root. Similarly, I like dumping oil into the ocean. You like cleaning up the environment. There’s no moral absolutes about stewardship of the earth. It’s mine to use as I see fit.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Until you’ve done a complete history and physical on this person, (in addition to your piece of paper that gives you the credentials to diagnose) arm-chair psychiatry is as valuable as the screen upon which you read this.

For the most part I agree with you; at recognition that a person may have this condition it is appropriate to pass off the person to a mental health professional for further evaluation. So for the most part, I don’t think that there are many here in these forums that are qualified to handle the perpetrator in the scenario that you’ve outlined irrespective of their religious label.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you know many Hindus that believe in God?

Hindus recognise one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence.

The gods of the Hindu faith represent different expressions of Brahman.

Different Hindu communities may have their own divinities whom they worship, but these are simply different ways of approaching the Ultimate.

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml

 

[Bradski]

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml

So it’s the same god? I never knew. But look, they’ve got a Trinity too…

‘The god Shiva is part of the Hindu Trinity, along with Vishnu and Brahma’.

It’s all beginning to fall into place.

 

[PRmerger]

For the most part I agree with you; at recognition that a person may have this condition it is appropriate to pass off the person to a mental health professional for further evaluation. So for the most part, I don’t think that there are many here in these forums that are qualified to handle the perpetrator in the scenario that you’ve outlined irrespective of their religious label.

You are already diagnosing him of worthy to be referred to a mental health professional.

You are not so qualified, based simply on my few characteristics I’ve animated him with.

Regardless, if there were an individual who does not view “A” as evil, while you view “A” as evil, without an Absolute Moral Law you are resigned to telling him, “Well, that’s just your opinion.”

And that has as much moral oomph as your saying, “Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream!”

 

[Bradski]

But he (Evil Perpetrator) is going to tell you that he just looks at it like you do: you like turnips. I like strawberries. There’s no moral absolutes about what’s the best root. Similarly, I like dumping oil into the ocean. You like cleaning up the environment. There’s no moral absolutes about stewardship of the earth. It’s mine to use as I see fit.

We seem to be talking across each other. Let me try again.

Liking strawberries over turnips is a simple preference so there’s no relationship to questions of morality. We are talking about things that are considered to be immoral. And we have both agreed that a Christian and an atheist can be moral persons and know the difference between right and wrong. Notwithstanding that there will be areas where we disagree (contraception or sex outside marriage for example), a simple case like a man beating up a young girl is something on which we can agree. It is wrong.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone that you could class as a reasonable person would also agree. Whether that person is an atheist or a Christian, they will reach their decision in pretty much the same way. The Christian may invoke a Law Giver or Divine Moral Principle or quote from scripture or add whatever he or she considers to be relevant. But we can agree it is wrong without those additional concepts. That is, I don’t use them and you accept that I can reach the correct view without them.

So we have reached a point where I can say to the guy: ‘You have to stop that – it is wrong’. I can do this because I know it’s wrong and you know it’s wrong and every reasonable person would know it’s wrong. He may have a preference for beating up young girls, but unlike digging in to a plate of turnips as opposed to strawberries, there are outcomes which affect others.

His preference, if indeed it is a preference, has negative consequences. And all reasonable people would agree that the world would be a worse place to live if he were allowed, in this case, to act on them. And we don’t have to invoke any deity to reach this conclusion. It is reached by all reasonable people. If he insists that beating up a young girl is acceptable, then we all know he’s wrong. If he really believes it, then we would consider him to be an unreasonable person and take all necessary steps to restrain him.

Same with the ocean dumping. If you’re dumping a few litres of fresh water into the pacific now and then, there’s literally no problem. But if you’re dumping thousands of hectolitres of untreated sewage, then all reasonable people would agree that the world would be a worse place to live if it were allowed.

 

[PRmerger]

Liking strawberries over turnips is a simple preference so there’s no relationship to questions of morality.

Well, this is begging the question, isn’t it?

You are presuming that without an Absolute Law that morality is different than “simple preference”.

We haven’t yet established this.

What I am proposing is that “liking strawberries over turnips” is the same, to someone who doesn’t have an Absolute Moral Law, as “liking to dump oil into the ocean rather than cruising 2000 miles to a proper area of disposal.”

Without the golden goose egg of Absolute Moral law, all you are doing in a discussion is a wild goose hunt. It’s pure inanity. (And, insanity as well.).

 

[PRmerger]

We are talking about things that are considered to be immoral.

Indeed.

And what we are talking about is when there is some disagreement between 2 atheists about morality, who deny that there is a Moral Absolute to which they can appeal.

Essentially, it’s 2 people quarreling about rules that no one has authority over.

To take the analogy I proffered earlier in a PM, it’s like me saying, “You cannot post this gif. It’s mine. I told you how to find them. I told you how to post them. I reserve this one for myself”

And you replying, “Yes I can certainly post it. It’s not yours. There is no Property Rights For Gifs here on the CAFs!!”

And both of us could go round and round and neither of us could appeal to any Absolute Rule about posting gifs.

(Sorry to be so esoteric here, folks. I just can’t think of a better example right now that serves as well as this one to make my point to Bradski.)

But, essentially, thanks to the above analogy…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bradski]

What I am proposing is that “liking strawberries over turnips” is the same, to someone who doesn’t have an Absolute Moral Law, as “liking to dump oil into the ocean rather than cruising 2000 miles to a proper area of disposal.”

Quick, I need a face palm giff. Anyone got one?

If you dump sewage actually in Bondi then there will be bad outcomes (to be personally specific, there used to be a problem way back and I got hep A for my troubles). If you treat it and take it waaaay out to sea, then not so bad.

If you beat up young girls (torture cats etc etc), then there will be bad outcomes. If you treat people (and animals) with some respect, then not so bad.

If you prefer turnips to strawberries, then go for your life. No-one is affected in any way. I’ll repeat that, because it’s kinda important: No-one is affected in any way.

So I don’t care if you have an Absolute Law giver or you don’t. I don’t care if you believe Elvis is still alive. I don’t care if you worship rocks. Preferring to beat girls is wrong. Preferring to treat people with respect is right. Preferring to dump raw sewage on the beach is wrong. Preferring to treat it is right.

Reasonable people will care about the girl getting beaten and sewage being dumped because it makes the world a worse place. They are ethical problems that concern acting morally or not. Preferring one food type to another is not connected in any way to ethics or morality. They are different.

And what we are talking about is when there is some disagreement between 2 atheists about morality, who deny that there is a Moral Absolute to which they can appeal.

It doesn’t have to be two atheists. It can be atheists, Christians or any combo of any religious type that you’d like. If there is disagreement, then it comes down to reasonable debate. Which naturally doesn’t always end in agreement. But that’s the way the world works. We all make compromises. If we didn’t, then some person, or some group of people would have to make the decisions on how we all live.

And how do we do that?

 

[tonyrey]

Do you know many Hindus that believe in God?

 	 		 			 				Hindus recognise one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence.

The gods of the Hindu faith represent different expressions of Brahman.

Different Hindu communities may have their own divinities whom they worship, but these are simply different ways of approaching the Ultimate. ‘The god Shiva is part of the Hindu Trinity, along with Vishnu and Brahma’.

So it’s the same god? I never knew. But look, they’ve got a Trinity too…

‘The god Shiva is part of the Hindu Trinity, along with Vishnu and Brahma’.

It’s all beginning to fall into place.

I’m relieved that your ignorance of religion is being rectified…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You are already diagnosing him of worthy to be referred to a mental health professional.

You are not so qualified, based simply on my few characteristics I’ve animated him with.

Recognition of possible causes for a condition is a part of how societies with specialist cooperate.

• This left arm pain and chest pain might be a heart attack, let me see a Dr.
• This strange grinding noise might be from a transmission problem, I’ll take the car to a mechanic.
• This course of action might be illegal. I need to consult an attorney.

Regardless, if there were an individual who does not view “A” as evil, while you view “A” as evil, without an Absolute Moral Law you are resigned to telling him, “Well, that’s just your opinion.”

I am assuming the goal in interacting with the perpetrator would be to convince him to stop beating people up. If it is there’s not a panacea argument for that. To make the claim that you speak informed from an absolute law giver doesn’t defeat “that’s just your opinion” response.

Binding some one’s well being and freedom to their ability to change their behaviour is not an unusual approach. For example: “If you beat some one up you’ll be imprisoned.” may convince some to stop, not necessarily because of a moral agreement, but change nonetheless. There may be a chance for rehabilitation, or the person may remain intransigent. In cases where a person is found not to change he or she may be isolated from the rest of society (or in some states if the person’s actions are violent enough execution).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you prefer turnips to strawberries, then go for your life. No-one is affected in any way. I’ll repeat that, because it’s kinda important: No-one is affected in any way.

When I read this I think about peanuts vs. almonds. It’s an innocuous looking choice at first. But because of the deadly reaction peanuts can have with some individuals peanut based products have been banned in some environments. I could see some one making a decision to not buy peanut based products because of moral concern.

 

[PRmerger]

When I read this I think about peanuts vs. almonds. It’s an innocuous looking choice at first. But because of the deadly reaction peanuts can have with some individuals peanut based products have been banned in some environments. I could see some one making a decision to not buy peanut based products because of moral concern.

 

[PRmerger]

I am assuming the goal in interacting with the perpetrator would be to convince him to stop beating people up. If it is there’s not a panacea argument for that. To make the claim that you speak informed from an absolute law giver doesn’t defeat “that’s just your opinion” response.

Of course it does, TS.

Without an appeal to an Absolute Law, all the perpetrator has to say is, “I am using the very same paradigm that you are using–deciding for myself what’s right and wrong–but I came to a different conclusion than you did.”

And you have to say, “Yes, I suppose you’re right.” :sad_yes:

What the Believer says is, “You are using a completely arbitrary paradigm. I believe that there is an Absolute Right and an Absolute Wrong, and to the degree that my conscience is informed by this Absolute Truth is the degree that my moral decisions will be correct. When you follow that model to come to the Truth, then we can chat further.”

Binding some one’s well being and freedom to their ability to change their behaviour is not an unusual approach. For example: “If you beat some one up you’ll be imprisoned.” may convince some to stop, not necessarily because of a moral agreement, but change nonetheless. There may be a chance for rehabilitation, or the person may remain intransigent. In cases where a person is found not to change he or she may be isolated from the rest of society (or in some states if the person’s actions are violent enough execution).

Sure. Non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

 

[PRmerger]

Quick, I need a face palm giff. Anyone got one?

If you dump sewage actually in Bondi then there will be bad outcomes (to be personally specific, there used to be a problem way back and I got hep A for my troubles). If you treat it and take it waaaay out to sea, then not so bad.

I’m sure that’s true.

Sorry about the Hep A. Truly.

If you beat up young girls (torture cats etc etc), then there will be bad outcomes. If you treat people (and animals) with some respect, then not so bad.

True, dat. (Well, only if you get caught, of course.)

Do you think something is immoral only if it has bad outcomes?

Really?

Because you know I’m going to give you an example…based on your response.

Wait for it…wait for it…

So I don’t care if you have an Absolute Law giver or you don’t. I don’t care if you believe Elvis is still alive. I don’t care if you worship rocks.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Shoot! I guess I did actually have a facepalm gif.

Preferring to beat girls is wrong. Preferring to treat people with respect is right. Preferring to dump raw sewage on the beach is wrong. Preferring to treat it is right.

Indeed. An appeal to Moral Absolutes if I ever heard one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sure. Non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

Then it sounds like I misunderstand the motivation of interacting with the perpetrator. I now suppose then that rehabilitation and expediently curbing his behaviour is not a goal in the interaction. I am also assuming the the scenario has evolved a bit from when Bradski first raised it where a beating was in progress[1] to an after the fact discussion with the perpetrator (as during a beating is probably not the time to discuss the finer points of morality with the one giving the beating).

What the Believer says is, “You are using a completely arbitrary paradigm. I believe that there is an Absolute Right and an Absolute Wrong, and to the degree that my conscience is informed by this Absolute Truth is the degree that my moral decisions will be correct. When you follow that model to come to the Truth, then we can chat further.”

I think our thoughts here have some overlap here. Since the person has such a different way of thinking I too would find it agreeable to not continue the discussion with him myself. But this is the point at which I would entrust the task with qualified mental health specialist.

[1] - unrelated side note, but this scenario happened at a local Home Depot here in Georgia some years back. The general reaction was to get away and call 911. There was no discussion with the guy afterward as he shot both himself and his girlfriend in the head.

 

[epan]

This is true.

But what I am talking about is moral obligation and authority.

Why should society have any say about what I believe to be moral or not? What authority can they have over me?

Answer: absolutely none. Society is no one except people who are like me, and as such, they have absolutely no authority over me to tell me what I am obligated to do.

Only if you choose not to live in that society, and to benefit from it. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[epan]

Look, Bradski. You know that I know that you can be a moral person. You can intervene when someone is torturing a cat, dumping oil into the ocean, beating up his girlfriend.

The point is: without a belief in an Absolute Moral Law (and thus an Absolute Moral Lawgiver) you cannot argue (here, argue is used in the philosophical sense, not as in “quarrel”) with anyone whose morality is different than yours.

They will simply respond, “Atheist Bradski, I am only using the same paradigm that you use. I just come to a different conclusion than you do. Isn’t your model–‘different strokes for different folks’, yes?”

Sure.

But he (Evil Perpetrator) is going to tell you that he just looks at it like you do: you like turnips. I like strawberries. There’s no moral absolutes about what’s the best root. Similarly, I like dumping oil into the ocean. You like cleaning up the environment. There’s no moral absolutes about stewardship of the earth. It’s mine to use as I see fit.

Those who disagree with this POV would point out the challenge of not using an external moral authority to justify immoral acts.

 

[TimeEntrance]

No wonder that there is no common ground.

My feeling is that religion plays a very, very minor role in shaping a person’s moral beliefs. For the vast majority of people. For a very small percentage of people religion seems to shape most their moral beliefs. Popes John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis seem to be examples of this minority. Monks and Carmelite Nuns come to my mind as examples too.

Other than that it seems to me to be no “moral” difference between atheists, agnostics, and religious people. Being “Catholic” or “atheist” tells me nothing at all really. Well… a little but only a little. What would tell me much more is if one said they were Republican or Democrat. Their socio-economic background might give me more to go off of. If they are married or single might give me a little to go off. And their ethnicity might give me more or a lot to go off depending on the ethnicity and how strongly they identify with that ethnicity. Nationality will give me something to go off of two.

I suspect–and you can correct me if I’m wrong–you’re getting hung up on controversial hot topics like homosexuality and how fiscally liberal or conservative a government should be?

Consider a former Catholic woman on a philosophy forum I post on. She’s agnostic now. Regards religion as often being unhealthy and dangerous for people and she also regards homosexuality as a mental disorder. And she took a lot of heated attacks from agnostic and atheist liberals over that last point let me tell ya.

Or consider my father reared Lutheran but non-religious now and antagonistic towards Christianity. My mother is a Mass attending Catholic but they are both liberals, support gay marriage so far as I can tell, and both have about 98% the same morals.

But let’s look at a non-Christian world together. Suppose you and I stood on a tall hill together overlooking the whole of Cambodia and tried through discussion to come to some explanation for all the cruelty, corruption, and neglect throughout Cambodia?

Would both you and I conclude it was due to Buddhism being the predominate and official state religion of Cambodia? I don’t think so. I’ve asked myself this question and it seems to me that the decades of war, starvation, and genocide has dramatically impacted the social fabric of Cambodia. A Cambodian’s Buddhism won’t tell me much about them. What will tell me much more is if that person is the rich son or daughter of a Cambodian military officer. Or if the person is male and thinks it’s okay to sleep with a 10 year old virgin girl to cure his HIV/AIDS, then I’ll deduce the person is likely an uneducated and relatively impoverished Cambodian male and his morals are shaped more by his socio-economic standing and environment than Buddhism.

I posed a moral/ethical question in the past on the philosophy forum I post on as to whether one can own too much house?

The question was sparked in me by reading and looking at a billion dollar family home (though estimated to have cost about $20 million to build) in India that was built by an Indian gentleman worth several billion dollars I believe. The home is built like a Chicago skyscraper and is 20 stories tall I think. And if I recall correctly it is staffed by 800 domestic servants.

But India has a lot of abject poverty.

The question is critical for me as I really like luxury and luxury homes. But I’ve asked myself it I had $500,000,000 how I would spend it? How much (if any) would I put into annuities for myself for life time payments? How big and how many homes would I buy? How much do I give (if any) to immediate and/or extended family in my first world nation? How much if any do I spend on the poor in third world nations living in misery? Do I help the “bum” living on mu city’s street that I pass and everyone else pass, irrespective of him being an alcoholic or “sinner”? These are questions I have.

These are not atheist or religious questions. They are my questions. And only I can bring resolution to them. And understand what I mean by that, at the end of the day I’ll resolve those questions, if I had that money, with the morals I have, with what’s important to me in order.

I fear my low socio-economic standing makes me a mental slave and fearful and guilty about having much and attaining greatness. I say that because those with billions keep most their money throughout most or all their life time. They may own several properties and vacation on private islands for the cost of $40,000 a night, whilst giving a single poor person $20,000 is thought of by them as a monumental gift of charity digging deep into their pockets. And maybe it is and maybe I’m just a mental slave?

Here is my favorite website: sothebysrealty.com/eng

Does the atheist and religious conclude differently about a roughly $13 million home? sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-737-4326806/florida-keys-private-family-fishing-estate-marathon-fl-33050

What about $20 million? sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-1877-4000031275/holly-tree-house-pepper-street-other-cities-in-england-en-sk11-9be

What about $48 million? sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-697-4000034420/exceptional-property-in-cannes-californie-cannes-pr-06400

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Other than that it seems to me to be no “moral” difference between atheists, agnostics, and religious people. Being “Catholic” or “atheist” tells me nothing at all really.

I’d agree. Based on one’s religious background alone I couldn’t make an assessment (in most cases) about how a person of that religion would treat me or others. I say in most cases because there are some religious groups that teach messages of hate.