Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Sair]

Married women do have a moral duty to have kids. A good argument, from a reverse perspective, for outlawing abortion!

jd

If I may presume to dip my toe in the deep waters of this argument, can you please explain why I, as a married woman, have a moral obligation to have children?

I can understand why I would have a moral obligation to care for said children once I had them, but I’m not sure from where the moral obligation to actually have them in the first place is drawn. It may be a biological imperative to continue my genetic line, but I don’t see how a biological imperative necessarily translates to a moral imperative.

To bring the utilitarian aspect into play, whence this moral duty when: a) I have no personal desire to have children; b) it’s entirely probable that lack of desire would lead me to be a fairly poor mother; and c) when there are already nearly 7 billion other humans on the planet? Is not my having children likely to increase the amount of suffering in the world without a substantially increasing the happiness?

 

[Sair]

I guess humanism is in many ways compatible with religion and vice-versa. I think that there have been many Catholic humanists.

jd

True - some of the first prominent humanist thinkers, like Erasmus and Thomas More, were certainly Catholic. They tended to believe that cultivating human abilities and that the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world and the human mind were in line with respecting God’s creation. It’s only when human reasoning tends to diverge from Catholic principles that the difficulties arise!

 

[Mike_Dye]

I just think it is so funny that the silliest questions, that even a simple minded 2nd grader could answer, gets so many replies. If I had any hair left I would pull it out.

 

[agangbern]

I just think it is so funny that the silliest questions, that even a simple minded 2nd grader could answer, gets so many replies. If I had any hair left I would pull it out.

ha ha ha Be kind to “animals”…

 

[Oreoracle]

Slavery meant that rich plantation owners did not have to work and feel pain in the fields. Furthermore, they could make huge profits without doing any significant work to earn them. Having an easy life and lots of money was undoubtedly a very positive “emotional feeling” which would encourage the owners to keep slavery as a “factor of their life.”

If you look, there are actually two potentially contradictory principles held in “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”: the amount of happiness to be gained and the number of people affected. Bentham himself chose to drop “the greatest number” when he realized that utilitarianism couldn’t tell us whether we should worry more about a lot of happiness existing in the world, spread across many beings, or a smaller amount of happiness concentrated in a few beings. In other words, do we promote many content people, or few happy people?

If we want to be precise, we cannot just worry about the number of people that are satisfied or dissatisfied by a decision, but about the amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction there is. Remember the hierarchies I was talking about? Being a free person is certainly higher on one’s pleasure hierarchy than living a work-free life. Thus, minority oppression is not always justified, because, even though there are less people suffering, there is still more suffering than happiness.

Of course, there were far more slaves suffering than owners benefiting. I suppose you could argue that since the majority was not happy, “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people” would not apply in this case. Would you agree that a reasonable thing, according to your theory, for the slaves to do would be to rise in revolt and put the white owners (not other whites) in slavery? This would feel very vindictive, and would mean that the black majority would not have to work hard. This would be a positive “emotional feeling” that would be worth “being kept.” Since the blacks were in the majority, wouldn’t this be a case of “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people?”

Every utilitarian will give you a different opinion of how to balance the quantity and quality of pleasures, but I do not feel this is justified, as the white peoples’ suffering can still outweigh the blacks’ pleasure, given the emotional weight one has in being free.

I would still like to see your take on the second issue in utilitarianism: is mathematical majority a reliable standard in ethics?

Yes, so long as the moral factors being measured are happiness and suffering, and not only the number of people feeling such.

Do you believe that individuals have any absolute rights that cannot be morally impinged upon, even for the “greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people?” If yes, how do you determine what these rights are?

That’s the thing; as a consequentialist, I believe the process of determining rights is an error in logic, as it detracts from the evaluation of the consequences. I would prefer solving conflicts without exploitation, but I can’t say that exploitation is always wrong in theory.

I will say that I don’t believe people should have moral duties, if that counts. Inaction = neutrality.

In short, the problem with utilitarianism is that it looks at the happiness of the majority before it looks at the happiness (and rights) of the individual. This leads to compromise of the individual for the sake of the majority.

I agree–sometimes. But there are problems in every system.

If I may presume to dip my toe in the deep waters of this argument, can you please explain why I, as a married woman, have a moral obligation to have children?

I can understand why I would have a moral obligation to care for said children once I had them, but I’m not sure from where the moral obligation to actually have them in the first place is drawn. It may be a biological imperative to continue my genetic line, but I don’t see how a biological imperative necessarily translates to a moral imperative.

To bring the utilitarian aspect into play, whence this moral duty when: a) I have no personal desire to have children; b) it’s entirely probable that lack of desire would lead me to be a fairly poor mother; and c) when there are already nearly 7 billion other humans on the planet? Is not my having children likely to increase the amount of suffering in the world without a substantially increasing the happiness?

Bingo!

 

[agangbern]

Every utilitarian will give you a different opinion of how to balance the quantity and quality of pleasures, but I do not feel this is justified, as the white peoples’ suffering can still outweigh the blacks’ pleasure, given the emotional weight one has in being free.

The question would inevitably arise in that situation. Who would decide which of the two opposing emotions have greater weight in order to be upheld?

 

[Oreoracle]

The question would inevitably arise in that situation. Who would decide which of the two opposing emotions have greater weight in order to be upheld?

A trusted authority figure (or figures). If an authority figure cannot be trusted to reasonably measure happiness and distress in society, then we democratically elect one that we think can and will do so.

 

[agangbern]

A trusted authority figure (or figures). If an authority figure cannot be trusted to reasonably measure happiness and distress in society, then we democratically elect one that we think can and will do so.

What would be the guiding principle that this figure would follow in order that both sides would submit to his decision? And what is our reason for observing democracy?

 

[Oreoracle]

What would be the guiding principle that this figure would follow in order that both sides would submit to his decision? And what is our reason for observing democracy?

1. Depends on what the decision is about. He is not allowed to use a mean that would contradict his end (he should not cause more suffering than the happiness that is to be gained).
2. Democratic votes are the easiest way to sample the public’s opinions, which is essential to utilitarianism.

 

[agangbern]

1. Depends on what the decision is about. He is not allowed to use a mean that would contradict his end (he should not cause more suffering than the happiness that is to be gained).

Relate the decision required to the situation given in this case. The pleasure to be experienced by the black slaves when they revolt and gain freedom as against the suffering of the whites for losing their slaves. What principle shall govern in order that we may say which among the two is right?

 

[agangbern]

1. Democratic votes are the easiest way to sample the public’s opinions, which is essential to utilitarianism.

Would it be justified if the majority would vote to declare as criminals all who believe in utilitarianism?

 

[Sarpedon]

Actually, utilitarianism would contradict itself if it says it has no place to an absolute law. For to say so would mean they believe and cherish the absoluteness of utilitarianism. That it is a closed “ism”, no chance for adjustment. To avoid this contradiction, utilitarianism must find a way to adapt to obvious basic absolute law.

Of course. The utilitarian needs to explain why this single, absolute law exists, and no others. If this absolute law exists, why not more? Did this one law just arbitrarily come into existence alone?

 

[grannymh]

True - some of the first prominent humanist thinkers, like Erasmus and Thomas More, were certainly Catholic. They tended to believe that cultivating human abilities and that the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world and the human mind were in line with respecting God’s creation. It’s only when human reasoning tends to diverge from Catholic principles that the difficulties arise!

Dear Sair,

In America, the major humanist organizations are a real, public, tangible example of why God should not be the moral authority.

Those who believe that God should be the moral authority should at least check out why many Americans, our neighbors, are opposed to God being the moral authority.

A good start woud be to examine how atheistic humanist organizations recruit the public. BTW, I recognized the three points in the opening post as being common knowledge, albeit they are expressed in a different format.

This statement is from International Humanist and Ethical Union, The World Union of Humanist Organizations www.iheu.org/minimumstatement

“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

Each of the statement’s three sentences is directly opposed to any kind of a higher power. They are very much a part of our society’s fabric.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Sarpedon]

In other words, do we promote many content people, or few happy people?

Suppose 99.9% of people could gain unimaginably great pleasure from the murder of a single person, you. Would you be outraged if I tried to murder you? Do you have any intrinsic right to life?

How would you go about measuring the happiness effect of an action? Would you take a poll before every major decision? How many people would you have to poll? Would it be online (what about those who have no internet?) Would it be through the phone (again, what about those who have no phone?) What about those in isolated rural areas? How would you practically do this?

You mention that democracy is how we choose our leaders in utilitarianism, and that they make the decisions. In that case, how does the leader measure the happiness effect of an action?

Remember the hierarchies I was talking about? Being a free person is certainly higher on one’s pleasure hierarchy than living a work-free life.

Not necessarily. Many people who are placed under strict control for a long time no longer want to be free, because due to their stress that have associated their captivity with stability. This happens all the time when young children are abducted, for often they refuse to escape even when they can.

Emotions are fickle and hard to measure. People enjoy lots of different things in different amounts in different situations. Some slaves want freedom, others stability. How on earth are we supposed to collect all this data and make a good decision? In our modern world, political decisions can have a worldwide effect. How do you determine the number and degree of “happiness feelings” for 6 billion people?

Every utilitarian will give you a different opinion of how to balance the quantity and quality of pleasures, but I do not feel this is justified, as the white peoples’ suffering can still outweigh the blacks’ pleasure, given the emotional weight one has in being free.

Emotions are not absolute. Some slaves wanted freedom, others wanted stability in slavery. Once the slaves were free, many were starving because they were no longer fed and their was a shortage of jobs in the south. Furthermore, since the slaves were totally uneducated, their options for a career were extremely limited. In the early years, many had more physical comforts in slavery than in freedom on the streets. Emotions and the situations that cause them are complex. Was Lincoln bad for causing the slaves to starve in freedom? In the short term, they may have been happier in slavery.

This brings us to the next question: how do we factor time in the equation:

That’s the thing; as a consequentialist, I believe the process of determining rights is an error in logic, as it detracts from the evaluation of the consequences. I would prefer solving conflicts without exploitation, but I can’t say that exploitation is always wrong in theory.

In other words, you admit that individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good.

I agree–sometimes. But there are problems in every system.

You agree that a problem in utilitarianism is that it does not address absolute individual rights, thus leading to communism and other ideologies that place the public good above the individual? That’s a pretty big problem.

Not all systems have problems. Catholic ethics looks at the individual and determines rights, based on the nature of God. Then, the system address what kind of society upholds those rights. Based on the nature of God, the system address “tricky” situations, such as killing in self-defense. There are no problems here. The Catholic system does not appeal to a “happiness quotient” that needs to be measured somehow across 6 billion people. Rather, it deals with absolute laws that can applied in every situation, and address in specific detail how tricky issues should be dealt with in accordance with the previously established philosophical system.

In summary, there are three more problems in utilitarianism:

1. How do we factor in time? Is it permissible to cause massive suffering for the sake of a much greater good far in the future, such as maybe a “utopian society?”
2. How are we to measure “happiness levels” for 6 billion people?
3. As a consequentialist, are you willing to sacrifice individuals for the greater good as long as the numbers come out right (majority quantity and quality)? You seem to have admitted this.

 

[grannymh]

Of course. The utilitarian needs to explain why this single, absolute law exists, and no others. If this absolute law exists, why not more? Did this one law just arbitrarily come into existence alone?

Aren’t you looking at this backwards?

First comes a basic objective moral law which exists outside of you, me, utilitarians, and the rest of the human population. There is no “if” regarding morality’s existence. There is absolutely no arbitrarily anything. Have I missed something? I don’t understand why subjective reasoning is being used when the majority of previous posts demonstrated that subjective decisions are, for the most part, useless.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I just think it is so funny that the silliest questions, that even a simple minded 2nd grader could answer, gets so many replies. If I had any hair left I would pull it out.

Would you ask your 2nd grader what are the examples of basic, objective morality?
Wouldn’t it be practical for God to have something real and concrete to have authority over? And how would the 2nd grader actually determine what are basic moral objectives since subjective reasoning, which appears on this thread, doesn’t work all that great? Or is that a silly question?

 

[Oreoracle]

Suppose 99.9% of people could gain unimaginably great pleasure from the murder of a single person, you. Would you be outraged if I tried to murder you? Do you have any intrinsic right to life?

Two questions: what’s the duration of the happiness, roughly? Would the people, after murdering me, turn toward a new person to kill in the same vein? Sacrifice becomes less meaningful when it becomes systematic, and there are fewer to affect.

If not, and I could guess that all that happiness was the consequence, I’d willingly accept being murdered. No, I don’t have an intrinsic right to life. Just an animalistic instinct screaming in my head, nothing more.

How would you go about measuring the happiness effect of an action? Would you take a poll before every major decision? How many people would you have to poll? Would it be online (what about those who have no internet?) Would it be through the phone (again, what about those who have no phone?) What about those in isolated rural areas? How would you practically do this?

Poll all of the citizens through the mail. You could also hold local meetings. The few who may be missing wouldn’t sway the vote much, anyway. You could poll over a range of interests, to determine your peoples’ hierarchal pattern, which would be used in future decision-making. For decisions affecting those outside the community, extrapolate if you can, based off the results of your own people.

As you’ll see happening in Agangbern’s process, a poll is not a stand-alone thing. If everyone wished to hold utilitarians as criminals, as he asked, that would cause more suffering in the long run (we could assume, if the government is ran properly).

Emotions are not absolute. Some slaves wanted freedom, others wanted stability in slavery. Once the slaves were free, many were starving because they were no longer fed and their was a shortage of jobs in the south. Furthermore, since the slaves were totally uneducated, their options for a career were extremely limited. In the early years, many had more physical comforts in slavery than in freedom on the streets. Emotions and the situations that cause them are complex. Was Lincoln bad for causing the slaves to starve in freedom? In the short term, they may have been happier in slavery.

Why should happiness only be measured in the short-term? If they had not been freed, the current social rift(s) would be worse, that much is predictable.

In other words, you admit that individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good.

Sacrifice, if not used sparingly, eventually becomes useless, or worse: harmful.

You agree that a problem in utilitarianism is that it does not address absolute individual rights, thus leading to communism and other ideologies that place the public good above the individual? That’s a pretty big problem.

It’s an even bigger problem if we allow our own personal rights bubbles to swell so large that they begin to burst others’ bubbles, as we do today.

To be honest, I see a much larger problem with capitalism.

Not all systems have problems. Catholic ethics looks at the individual and determines rights, based on the nature of God.

I don’t suppose a system that totally ignores consequences could find problems.

1. How do we factor in time? Is it permissible to cause massive suffering for the sake of a much greater good far in the future, such as maybe a “utopian society?”

The result has to be predictable, and I don’t think anything political and “far in the future” is predictable.

1. How are we to measure “happiness levels” for 6 billion people?

What do you plan on doing that will affect 6 billion people?

1. As a consequentialist, are you willing to sacrifice individuals for the greater good as long as the numbers come out right (majority quantity and quality)? You seem to have admitted this.

So long as the means don’t contradict the end, and we have good reason to believe this good will occur.

 

[Sarpedon]

Aren’t you looking at this backwards?

First comes a basic objective moral law which exists outside of you, me, utilitarians, and the rest of the human population. There is no “if” regarding morality’s existence. There is absolutely no arbitrarily anything. Have I missed something? I don’t understand why subjective reasoning is being used when the majority of previous posts demonstrated that subjective decisions are, for the most part, useless.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

The thing in question is respect for human rights. If a utilitarian holds that this aspect of morality alone is absolute, or part of a small group of absolute laws, the utilitarian needs to explain why respect for human rights is absolute but not other things. Why are some things absolute and others not, and how does the utilitarian figure out what is what?

 

[agangbern]

As you’ll see happening in Agangbern’s process, a poll is not a stand-alone thing. If everyone wished to hold utilitarians as criminals, as he asked, that would cause more suffering in the long run (we could assume, if the government is ran properly).

Do you mean to say that we should consider happiness not necessarily as it would be experienced at the present but also “in the long run”, that is, in the future? And what is our basis for assuming that holding all utilitarians as criminals would in the long run cause more suffering?

 

[agangbern]

So long as the means don’t contradict the end, and we have good reason to believe this good will occur.

What do you mean by “means don’t contradict the end”? Do you mean to say that both the means and the end must be pleasurable? So that if the end is pleasurable but the means is not pleasurable, then the undertaking is not good?