Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[Bradski]

This sounds suspiciously like an argument for Moral Absolutes.

More an argument for a set of morals that all reasonable people would accept. Kind of a Universal Morality. And what would the difference be?

I think it a morality that you attain. It’s when you reach a position that after discussion, investigation and thought you think might be the right one. And all other reasonable people would reach it to. Bit I really don’t think that it’s already there waiting for us.

I read one of Sam Harris’s book recently – The Moral Landscape, and I have to say that I disagreed with quite a lot that he wrote. But one thing rang a bell with me regarding morality. It’s as if immorality is represented by the valleys in life and an increase in morality is represented by us climbing out of the valleys and attaining higher ground. The higher we get, the more moral we become.

Perhaps you look at Catholicism as a peak that needs to be climbed and maybe it will always be out of reach, but that’s what you have to strive for. But I look at it as if we have to build the scaffold ourselves to get to the same height. You could say it’s a lot harder to do that and quite possibly one couldn’t get as high. But at least I know that the foundations are solid and I built them myself.

Maybe we’re waving at each other from the same height right now. If that is the case, then you have the advantage because you can see your path laid out in front of you. Me, I’m trying to get up there, but I need to do it myself.

I don’t understand how you’re arguing for the “potentially negative” part. You told me that you wouldn’t consider your son cheating on a test to be immoral if it could be proven that nothing bad happened from the cheating.

So it’s curious that you’re now arguing that something can be immoral even if nothing bad happens, only if something bad could have happened. Cheating on a test is pretty much a catalyst for something bad happening in the future, don’t you think?

The answer is in your question. If nothing bad came of it (except to himself – I’m not sure you can commit an immoral act whereby you are the only one to suffer negative effects), then it’s not immoral. If there were to be negative effects, or potential negative effects on someone else, then it would be immoral.

And isn’t that what atheists find all hunky-dory? You do what’s right for you? I’ll do what’s right for me.

I’ve no problem with that as long as there is no negative, or potential negative impact on anyone. If there was, then we’d need to discuss it and come to a reasonable decision. Or compromise. Not everything is black and white. We may have to decide on a shade of grey.

I believe that the accepted definition of “moral authority”, is a set of principles or values, which underlie our moral code. It is also sometimes defined as, a set of fundamental assumptions which guide our perceptions. Moral authority is independent of any vehicle transmitting the authority, though the vehicle (such as the CC) is said to have moral authority over those who accept it as a vehicle of transmisison.

I think that all you have really said is that you recognize the and accept the Catholic Church as a vehicle for moral authority, and as such you accept it as having moral authority over yourself.

One of the rules, of course, is that such a vehicle has no moral authority over anyone who does not accept it as having such. The CC’s opinion is a voice to be considered, as any other voice, in our secular society.

This I like a lot.

 

[epan]

Yep. Are you familiar with him, epan?

The link also served another purpose. I object to your assertion that I was just making up my “own personal definition”.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu6dj9ZcSn1qd9jvmo1_250.gif

And this is different from what I’ve said, how?

I don’t see where your sense of obligation fits that definition. But I have only perused the thread. I’ll look up kreeft when i get a chance. practicing French at the moment. Intending to get my next job with Medecins Sans Frontieres

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see where your sense of obligation fits that definition.

I can’t help you if you don’t see any relationship between obligation and authority.

Aren’t you in the military? That’s peculiar to me that you don’t see this.

But I have only perused the thread.

And only because you made a (slightly) snarky (and untrue) remark about my making up my own personal definition, I must make this slightly snarky (and true) comment: it appears you have made up your own definition of “perused”. Or, at least, used it erroneously.

Peruse has long meant “to read thoroughly” and is often used loosely when one could use the word read instead, as in The librarians checked to see which titles had been perused in the last month and which been left untouched. Seventy percent of the Usage Panel rejected this example in our 1999 survey. **Sometimes people use it to mean “to glance over, skim,” as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error. **In a 1988 survey, 66 percent of the Panel found it unacceptable, and in 1999, 58 percent still rejected it. thefreedictionary.com/peruse

I’ll look up kreeft when i get a chance.

 

[epan]

I can’t help you if you don’t see any relationship between obligation and authority.

Aren’t you in the military? That’s peculiar to me that you don’t see this.

And only because you made a (slightly) snarky (and untrue) remark about my making up my own personal definition, I must make this slightly snarky (and true) comment: it appears you have made up your own definition of “perused”. Or, at least, used it erroneously.

Peruse has long meant “to read thoroughly” and is often used loosely when one could use the word read instead, as in The librarians checked to see which titles had been perused in the last month and which been left untouched. Seventy percent of the Usage Panel rejected this example in our 1999 survey. **Sometimes people use it to mean “to glance over, skim,” as in I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, but this usage is widely considered an error. **In a 1988 survey, 66 percent of the Panel found it unacceptable, and in 1999, 58 percent still rejected it. thefreedictionary.com/peruse

You are just all over the board. So, now your moral definitions rely on the snarky comments of others. I’m not wasting any more time with you. Your condescension won’t win anyone to your point of view.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;10635591:

It’s sounding like there would be no intent behind a conversation with this person.

And that, my friend, is exactly why your paradigm allows evil to persist.

You are proclaiming the inutility of dialogue with someone who thinks a heinous act is absolutely fine?

My expressed intent/motivation for having someone interact with this person was expressed one sentence before where you started quoting. But from what I can see there’s not an intent that you would have in interacting with this hypothetical person. Thus far there’s not been any other intent stated, and the one I had in mind doesn’t seem to fit. So right now there’s no intent defined for the scenario.

Are you, too, of the position that there are Moral Absolutes?

There are actions for which I am not capable of imagining any positive outcome. But with that being said a person more creative than myself may be able to paint a scenario in which that action would be the pathway of less destructive outcome.

 

[PRmerger]

You are just all over the board. So, now your moral definitions rely on the snarky comments of others. I’m not wasting any more time with you. Your condescension won’t win anyone to your point of view.

Huh? You’re allowed snarky comments about making up definitions, but when I correct your misuse of a word you’re offended?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...2LFgJGcMmHdluLt79I9EWBPGcDC_uMI7A7gyX9Vf7v0og

 

[PRmerger]

More an argument for a set of morals that all reasonable people would accept. Kind of a Universal Morality. And what would the difference be?

I think it a morality that you attain. It’s when you reach a position that after discussion, investigation and thought you think might be the right one. And all other reasonable people would reach it to.

Right. Yes.

Bit I really don’t think that it’s already there waiting for us.

Based on what? Why don’t you think this?

I read one of Sam Harris’s book recently – The Moral Landscape, and I have to say that I disagreed with quite a lot that he wrote.

Funny. Every time I hear Sam Harris this is whom I picture (comedian Sam Kinison). For no reason except I don’t really know either of these Sams.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...2dXJcesZ674BWbxv1IkUYpc6fGelSUdELCK1q8hH-EhfA

But one thing rang a bell with me regarding morality. It’s as if immorality is represented by the valleys in life and an increase in morality is represented by us climbing out of the valleys and attaining higher ground. The higher we get, the more moral we become.

PRmerger likes.

Perhaps you look at Catholicism as a peak that needs to be climbed and maybe it will always be out of reach, but that’s what you have to strive for.

Not sure about this yet. Let me think on it.

Right now my feeling is that Catholicism is the way up the mountain, not the peak itself.

But I look at it as if we have to build the scaffold ourselves to get to the same height. You could say it’s a lot harder to do that and quite possibly one couldn’t get as high. But at least I know that the foundations are solid and I built them myself.

How do you know the foundations are solid?

Maybe we’re waving at each other from the same height right now. If that is the case, then you have the advantage because you can see your path laid out in front of you. Me, I’m trying to get up there, but I need to do it myself.

True, perhaps.

But the need to do it yourself conjures up this image and the question, why:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...u2NjXYgMT1WrRld-7TzRminhJca7WdV7QuOkWTZrnz-ow

 

[PRmerger]

My expressed intent/motivation for having someone interact with this person was expressed one sentence before where you started quoting. But from what I can see there’s not an intent that you would have in interacting with this hypothetical person. Thus far there’s not been any other intent stated, and the one I had in mind doesn’t seem to fit. So right now there’s no intent defined for the scenario.

Sorry. I don’t understand this. Could you please rephrase?

There are actions for which I am not capable of imagining any positive outcome. But with that being said a person more creative than myself may be able to paint a scenario in which that action would be the pathway of less destructive outcome.

So you are of the position that things are moral if they have positive outcomes and immoral if they have negative outcomes?

 

[PRmerger]

The answer is in your question. If nothing bad came of it (except to himself – I’m not sure you can commit an immoral act whereby you are the only one to suffer negative effects), then it’s not immoral. If there were to be negative effects, or **potential negative effects **on someone else, then it would be immoral.

So here’s where the inconsistency lies, Bradski. Cheating always involves “potential negative effects.” Right?

Don’t you agree that each and every time someone cheats that it’s possible for there to be some negative effects?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Yes. If I went into a potter’s workshop and picked up a vase and threw it on the floor, that would be the destruction of another’s work without his permission or against his will, no? But if the potter *told *me to break the vase, it would be a different thing altogether.

This is probably the best argument I have ever heard. Although I think it is difficult especially since we believe that human life is intrinsically valuable. But yes ultimately in the end we all belong to God, we are subject to His judgment, and he can do with us as he pleases.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sorry. I don’t understand this. Could you please rephrase?

Sure.

So as I understand the scenario you are having a chat with some one that doesn’t have a problem with beating people down. There would be some motivation, reason, or end goal for communicating with this person. What is that end goal? I initially thought it was to rehabilitate the person. But earlier responses indicate this is not the case. So then what is it? To get a more detailed understanding for his thought process? To express frustration? If there is no motivation, reason, or end goal then is there anything driving the interaction with him? There appears to be no other motivation defined.

So you are of the position that things are moral if they have positive outcomes and immoral if they have negative outcomes?

No.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Discussions about morality are really only futile when you are discussing with someone who takes an absurd and unorthodox position and sticks with it no matter what you say. Such people really want attention. And they think even negative attention is better than no attention at all … so they go all out to say ridiculous things, and the more ridiculous the more negative attention they get.

 

[PRmerger]

So as I understand the scenario you are having a chat with some one that doesn’t have a problem with beating people down. There would be some motivation, reason, or end goal for communicating with this person. What is that end goal? I initially thought it was to rehabilitate the person. But earlier responses indicate this is not the case. So then what is it? To get a more detailed understanding for his thought process? To express frustration? If there is no motivation, reason, or end goal then is there anything driving the interaction with him? There appears to be no other motivation defined.

So here’s the scenario, TS. There is an evil act that is being perpetrated by an individual. Let’s just not define the evil act for now because you seem to be getting caught up in minutiae. Just put in your mind any act that you consider evil, that perhaps another person may not.

After you intervene, as you are a moral person who can’t stand by and watch evil, you attempt to dialogue with this person.

Here is your motivation: you want to convert this person to understanding that this act that he performed was indeed evil.

My point: if there is no Absolute Moral Truth, then he is going to tell you (and be quite right about this!): Hey, dude. I think I heard you say that there is no Absolute Moral Truth. As such, your view is your view. My view is my view. I don’t think that act that I did was evil.

You efforts will prove otiose. Because he will be correct. You can’t argue against his position without limping by with your position.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are of the position that things are moral if they have positive outcomes and immoral if they have negative outcomes?

No.

That sees to be in direct contradiction, then, to this comment you made.

There are actions for which I am not capable of imagining any positive outcome. But with that being said a person more creative than myself may be able to paint a scenario in which that action would be the pathway of less destructive outcome.

 

[Ismael]

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.

The futility lies in the facts:

1- Atheists and secularists misrepresent the Christian position (for example that an act cannot be intrinsically good, but that is a wrong conception of what is meant as ‘good’)

2- Secularists’ morality is rater not consistent and arbitrary.

Even is all Secularists would accept Consequentionalim there are several problems with it.

a- It would still be an arbitrary decision. In the end in the HONEST secularist worldview there is no moral difference between Hitler and Gandhi.
I think that honest atheists, like Rosenberg, accept this and embrace nihilim. They might apply some sort of ethical system as a pragmatic form, but he would know it would be just a preferential choice.

As Rosenberg himself writes:

We have to acknowledge (to ourselves, at least) that many questions we want the “right” answers to just don’t have any. These are questions about the morality of stem-cell research or abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or our obligations to future generations. Many enlightened people, including many scientists, think that reasonable people can eventually find the right answers to such questions. Alas, it will turn out that all anyone can really find are the answers that they like. The same goes for those who disagree with them. Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers. There are none. (Alex Rosenberg’ - The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, p. 96)

b- Consequentialism has quite a few defects.
As Elisabeth Anscombe notes it does not provide guidance in what one ought to do because there is no distinction between consequences that are foreseen and those that are intended.
People might have try to act on good possible outcomes, but since the outcomes are often unforseen, except for an hadful of actions, then Consequentialism migt lead to great evil. I think the “principle of double effect” is fatal to consequrntialism.

Hence we can see that the only atheist morality is inconsistence unless one accepts nihilism.

Any form of ‘good without god’ is really a form of self-deception… a way to ‘feel good’ and avoiding the inconsistencies. Sucking your thumb too, maybe.

I think that most serious atheist thinkers (i.e. not the ones at the secular web, but the ones who actually have something cogent to say) would mostly agree.

---

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.

I think the main incosistence here is your arbitrary and vague notion of what morality is.

Also nice straw man:

On the other hand it declares that some actions are “intrinisically evil”, even if those deeds are beneficial or neutral.

If you want to understand Christian morality you will need to brush up on Natural Law and you will need to give a good definition of what a ‘moral good’ or a ‘moral evil’ is.

Also you might try to stay away from seeing Christianity based on voluntarism, which might apply to some minorites but not all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That sees to be in direct contradiction, then, to this comment you made.

More information (such as how consequences fit into the overall evaluation) are available at the link that had been provided.

Here is your motivation: you want to convert this person to understanding that this act that he performed was indeed evil.

My point: if there is no Absolute Moral Truth, then he is going to tell you (and be quite right about this!): Hey, dude. I think I heard you say that there is no Absolute Moral Truth. As such, your view is your view. My view is my view. I don’t think that act that I did was evil.

A person’t thinking is going to be in their own mental context, not in the context of some one else. I thought about this most recently when a Catholic that is aware that I am not a Catholic was trying to convince me to not eat meat because of Lent. If you wanted to use a God to assist in the discussion then why not find out what the person’s god-concept and then show how their violate something about their god-concept? It may not be a violation in all cases. Some people engage god-concepts that include commandments to engage in negative behaviour against some groups or may include other considerations that may be moral considerations to one group but innocuous to another.

The claim of having a absolute moral truth by itself doesn’t seem helpful unless the person also respects the claim. If there is some overlap in relevant values than even without a absolute moral truth claim there may be a starting point for having a discussion and showing how the action violates those values. If there are very little to no relevant overlapping values then a discussion may not help much. When this happens changing some one’s moral evaluation isn’t likely to be immediately successful and it would seem to fall into the domain of the futile. From what you said in #134 it also sounds like under this condition you would have nothing further to say to a person under this condition. Changing behavior may still be possible (through the methods described in #131).

 

[PRmerger]

More information (such as how consequences fit into the overall evaluation) are available at the link that had been provided.

That’s what I’m arguing against. It’s an untenable position to hold, while also proclaiming

Originally posted by TS: There are actions for which I am not capable of imagining any positive outcome. But with that being said a person more creative than myself may be able to paint a scenario in which that action would be the pathway of less destructive outcome.

 

[PRmerger]

A person’t thinking is going to be in their own mental context, not in the context of some one else. I thought about this most recently when a Catholic that is aware that I am not a Catholic was trying to convince me to not eat meat because of Lent.

Of course. I would never quote the Scriptures to a Muslim as a means of compelling him to belief… I don’t use statements from the Magisterium as binding on Unitarians.

If you wanted to use a God to assist in the discussion then why not find out what the person’s god-concept and then show how their violate something about their god-concept? It may not be a violation in all cases. Some people engage god-concepts that include commandments to engage in negative behaviour against some groups or may include other considerations that may be moral considerations to one group but innocuous to another.

Huh?

The claim of having a absolute moral truth by itself doesn’t seem helpful unless the person also respects the claim.

And that’s how you get him to see the inconsistency of his position. It’s not intellectually defensible.

It’s how atheist Leah Libresco eventually converted to Catholicism. She understood her inconsistency in believing in Good Moral Teachings without a belief in God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That’s what I’m arguing against. It’s an untenable position to hold, while also proclaiming
ThinkingSapien;10636541:

There are actions for which I am not capable of imagining any positive outcome. But with that being said a person more creative than myself may be able to paint a scenario in which that action would be the pathway of less destructive outcome.

I’m not a consequentialist , but consequences are not completely irrelevant either. Consequences also are not the only consideration. So the description of moral evaluation in your earlier question doesn’t fit me making the answer to your question “no.”

Of course. I would never quote the Scriptures to a Muslim as a means of compelling him to belief… I don’t use statements from the Magisterium as binding on Unitarians.

Yes, so if the person giving beatings is of a different religious, philosophical, or ideological view that the person that is trying to convince him to change his stance on beatings using arguments from that religion, philosophy, ideology might not be effective. But where there is an overlap in these or values then there may be a point on which to start a discussion. (I’m taking a cognitive approach here).

Huh?

And that’s how you get him to see the inconsistency of his position. It’s not intellectually defensible.

To show the person that has been giving beatings that his position is inconsistent you would first need to have an understanding for his position. If you want to reference God in this discussion you would also need to understand his god-concept.

 

[Portofino]

And that’s how you get him to see the inconsistency of his position. It’s not intellectually defensible.

Just keep in mind that the argument “because God says so” is not intellectually defensible to someone who doesn’t believe in your particular God, or isn’t convinced that you’ve proven it. Mere consistency in your beliefs is not enough, though consistency is laudable in many people’s minds, even if one is “wrong, but consistent.”

The question that some of us here are trying to address is how to speak of morality when the statement “because God says so” – or because Allah says so – is not admissible. In a pluralistic society, an appeal to divine authority is not permissible as a way of settling the issue.

If there is no morality without appeals to God, then we are in trouble – because God can’t be proven, except in the eyes of those who already believe. Also, because there are competing visions of God, competing religions, each which is convinced that it is right – none of which is convincing to the other.

I can say that, personally, I no longer trouble myself as to whether the acts of something like that which happened in Boston, for example, is wrong in the eyes of the cosmos, of the universe. I really don’t care; that’s irrelevant to me. The swift, decisive response to those acts showed that this behavior was absolutely unacceptable, a kind of poison or cancer to the life of a society. What’s more, it was in no one’s interest – for survival of self, and of loved ones – to allow or permit such behavior.

I personally am no longer interested in the more abstract, philosophical question as to whether something is instrinsically morally wrong. What I know is that such behavior is to be avoid in others like the plague, like cancer, like typhus; and that any who would be engaged in such behavior will be treated as the plague, as cancer, as typhus.

But those boys appear to have done what they did, however, misguided, in the name of what they believed to be an absolute morality, divinely sanctioned. For example, from a recent Slate article on a bio that was written up about the older bomber, who entered into a boxing competition a couple of years ago (quoted passage from the bio that apparently was included in the program for the competition):

"Tamerlan says he doesn’t drink or smoke anymore: “God said no alcohol.” A Muslim, he says: “There are no values anymore,” and worries that “people can’t control themselves.”

These are the words of an individual with a strong sense of morality, and moral judgment. However perverse it may seem, their behavior likely made perfect moral sense to them-- after all, God prohibits the taking of innocent life. But they were not talking about innocent lives, in their own minds, but about the lives of the guilty and the culpable. This same logic was used to kill heretics, in times past, without considering it a form of murder, again in the name of an absolute morality.

So if relative morality is unsafe, and absolute morality is unsafe, I’m not sure where that leaves us, except to finding consensus either through common interests or common values. And these common values needn’t be metaphysically grounded; for example, having a fire department that extinguishes fires, instead of starting them; or a medical profession that heals patients, instead of harming them further, is based on common interests and common values. No appeal to God is necessary.