Why Should God Be the Moral Authority?

[Oreoracle]

By “physical” I mean of the world, not spiritual. Mental pleasure and pain can be considered “physical” in this sense. Allow me to repeat what I said with this clarification:

“No. Physical pleasure is not the ultimate goal of man. It would be better for the whole world to suffer pain than for us to compromise the God-given rights of a single person. Each person has true value and dignity. It would be better for us all to suffer and still respect that dignity in each person than to resort to carnal survival tactics. We may suffer in this earthly life, but at least we will suffer as “brothers in arms” and not turn on each other like animals.”

You were the one that said we were integrating utility with absolutes. When that was said, I assumed that utility would be given some weight. But if you’re willing to ignore the astronomical benefits of that murder, I have to assume that you’re not even considering utility.

39% of adults think abortions are too easy to obtain, 18% think it is too hard, 25% think it is about right, and 18% are not sure.

The problem with your statistics is that few are deeply saddened that abortions exist, just minorly uncomfortable. Don’t you oppose abortion? Is your suffering comparable to the woman that will die if she does not get an abortion? It would be extremely selfish to think so.

From gallup.com

49% of Americans oppose civil unions, while 48% support such unions.

Again, minor discomfort. Don’t you think that those wanting a civil union would be suffering more than those who disagree with it if it were not allowed? These are instances of people not “living and letting live.” This one isn’t even a moral question.

66% believe the death penalty to be moral, 27% think it is not moral, 5% think it is not a moral question, and 2% have no opinion.

So 73% don’t feel bad when it is enacted? That’s a clear majority.

 

[Tamsulosin]

Sorry, but for reasons of work, etc.I did not follow the thread to the present point,as it evolved.
Then,I just want to take you back for a moment to the subject of Hitler’s values.I believe there is consensus among historians that he had several personality disorders,he was
borderline mad .
Consider now a weighting scale with a halfbroken spring. The readings are erratic and incorrect.It is impossible to rely on them, or conclude from them. Likewise, to try to analize the values or ethics of a deranged man is futile.

 

[JDaniel]

The problem with your statistics is that few are deeply saddened that abortions exist, just minorly uncomfortable. Don’t you oppose abortion? Is your suffering comparable to the woman that will die if she does not get an abortion? It would be extremely selfish to think so.

The potential for the death of a woman during childbirth is always brought up as an apologetics for abortion. But, here are the facts:

"Friday, August 24, 2007; 4:43 PM

ATLANTA – U.S. women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show. Though the risk of death is very small, experts believe increasing maternal obesity and a jump in Caesarean sections are partly to blame.

Some numbers crunchers note that a change in how such deaths are reported also may be a factor." - The Washington Post

In the past, the number of deaths from childbirth was fairly steady, at 10 per 100,000. In the above 2004 statistical count, it jumped from 10 to 14 per 100,000. Statistically, that’s pretty insignificant. It’s .00014%. Now, there are more than 4 million childbirths in the US each year. And, there are about 1.4 million abortions.

The math: 14 per 100,000 = 140 per 1,000,000 = 560 deaths from child birth per 4,000,000. Yet, we permit the killing of 1.4 million boys and girls. It’s a poor argument at best, and a non-argument at worst. Really, it’s a non-argument. It is something we would have to tackle as soon as the system is put in place, that is, provided the implementation of the system does not get derailed due to this one single problem.

However, on another note, I would like you to view a couple of clips on Youtube. Go to Youtube and do a search for “Milton Friedman.” The first clip is an interview with Phil Donahue on Capitalism. We may not want to throw out Capitalism just yet. The next is a series of four clips interviewing Prof. Friedman on Libertarianism. This political philosophy seems to have many of the qualities of utilitarianism and then some. Tell me what you think after viewing them. They are very interesting. You’ll like them.

Again, minor discomfort. Don’t you think that those wanting a civil union would be suffering more than those who disagree with it if it were not allowed? These are instances of people not “living and letting live.” This one isn’t even a moral question.

A detail that can be worked out later - by plebiscite, if necessary.

So 73% don’t feel bad when it is enacted? That’s a clear majority.

jd

 

[Daedelus76]

1: Why do we consider these things to be atrocities? Because they violate our view of morality which has been provided to us by religion; in other words, by God. Without a view of morality that comes from religion, we would have no basis for considering these acts to be atrocities.

We consider things to be atrocities not because of religion, but because they disgust us in a fundamental way, they speak to our guts or our heart, not our head. They do speak to some peoples’ intellect, but that’s not the only possible way to view ethical behavior. Where does empathy fit into your scheme at all? It seems to me absolutist, inflexible morality is wooden and fake.

While religion still has a strong influence in the United States, we have steadily moved away from considering God when determining what will be allowed in our society.

The reality is religious industrialized societies do worse in objective standards of wealth and prosperity than non-religious societies. If God is good, and accurately reflected in organized religion, this makes no sense why this should be so- you’ld figure religion would be a good influence. The US and Portugal are two of the most religious industrialized nations and yet have alot of social problems that religion hasn’t fixed, like crime, poverty, or even abortion (there are countries in Europe where abortion is publicly financed, yet have fewer abortions than the US, where it is restricted). There are relatively irreligious countries where people are wealthier and happier. The issue is more complex than “religion is always good”. Sometimes religion is bad, sometimes secularism is good. “Moral relativism” doesn’t seem to be quite as evil as some people seem to think.

 

[Sarpedon]

You were the one that said we were integrating utility with absolutes. When that was said, I assumed that utility would be given some weight. But if you’re willing to ignore the astronomical benefits of that murder, I have to assume that you’re not even considering utility.

Utility can only be integrated with absolutes if the absolutes are not compromised. As long as we are not compromising rights, we can try to figure out what best brings about happiness. If we try to bring about happiness by compromising individual rights, the foundation for things like communism is set. Unlike you, I do not maintain that “positive emotions” are the greatest good for man. The greatest good for each individual and for humanity as a whole is union with God. It would be better to suffer all your life than to abuse someone in pursuit of much greater pleasure (meeting the utilitarian maxims), because abuse is contrary to the nature of God, which is selfless love.

Do you agree with the Kantian maxim that people should only be used as ends in of themselves, not as means? You seem to think individuals can be compromised and sacrificed for the “greatest happiness,” which means using people as tools to an end. This is entirely contrary to Catholic ethics, where each person has true dignity and value as a child of God. You seem to be regarding people as mere units can be manipulated for a certain mathematical result (quantity and quality).

The problem with your statistics is that few are deeply saddened that abortions exist, just minorly uncomfortable. Don’t you oppose abortion? Is your suffering comparable to the woman that will die if she does not get an abortion? It would be extremely selfish to think so.
Again, minor discomfort. Don’t you think that those wanting a civil union would be suffering more than those who disagree with it if it were not allowed? These are instances of people not “living and letting live.” This one isn’t even a moral question.
So 73% don’t feel bad when it is enacted? That’s a clear majority.

You are missing the point. Specific examples do not matter. You said:

“We’re all human, it’s not that hard to deduce what most of us would want anyway. If all else fails, take a few thousand and sample their opinions. I don’t want to sound flippant, but it’s not that difficult to guess others’ opinions most of the time.”

I gave you three examples of tricky questions that need to be resolved. All of these issues are closely split in terms of public support. This data illustrates that it is very difficult to guess other’s opinions most of the time. Often you would have around a 50% chance of being right. We need to make a decision on these issues soon, and you seem to think the course of public opinion is obvious.

The data for America illustrates that the course of popular opinion is not set on a clear course of action. How are you going to measure and take into account the opinions of the whole world for global issues like carbon emissions? You said that it’s easy to know what people want, but the data for America alone contradicts this. If America is a tricky case, do you think other places like Africa and Asia are going to be any easier? How would you even conduct such a survey in a poverty-stricken place where the vast majority of people do not have access to global communications? I would like to see some specifics on this.

 

[grannymh]

Is your suffering comparable to the woman that will die if she does not get an abortion?

Clarification needed: This example has nothing to do with the statistics presented by JDaniel in post 262 which pertain to childbirth.

This “the mother or the child” example pertains to pregnancy when there is a prognosis that she is going to die before giving birth. She is in mortal danger. Maybe from cancer. Maybe from a car accident. Plus, it is determined that the fetus is preventing a reversal of the serious condition.

Since the objective moral value is all life is sacred, every attempt is made to save both mother and child’s lives. Even in the last century, when I needed emergency surgery while pregnant, the doctors were able to keep the baby in my womb while saving my life. Today, with medical technology, babies, who are taken way before term, have very good survival rates. In the very rare event, that there has to be a choice between which life to save, the difficult decision is up to the parties involved. We should not judge them.

Blessings,
granny

All life is precious to God.

 

[Oreoracle]

Utility can only be integrated with absolutes if the absolutes are not compromised. As long as we are not compromising rights, we can try to figure out what best brings about happiness. If we try to bring about happiness by compromising individual rights, the foundation for things like communism is set. Unlike you, I do not maintain that “positive emotions” are the greatest good for man. The greatest good for each individual and for humanity as a whole is union with God. It would be better to suffer all your life than to abuse someone in pursuit of much greater pleasure (meeting the utilitarian maxims), because abuse is contrary to the nature of God, which is selfless love.

Is that what you’d do if an invading army began killing civilians in your country? All life is sacred, guilty or not, and two wrongs don’t make a right, etc. If we truly respect the sanctity of life, it would render us total pacifists; we could not stop the invading army. There is no reason, other than one based on utility, that we should kill someone who is killing others. Unless you plan on having our army just try to restrain them, and I’m doubting that that would work.

Come Sarpedon, pain’s for sissies! Let’s die, as brothers-in-arms!

Another question: is all life sacred, or just human life? What would be the reasoning behind upholding human life as having intrinsic value, but not other animals?

Do you agree with the Kantian maxim that people should only be used as ends in of themselves, not as means? You seem to think individuals can be compromised and sacrificed for the “greatest happiness,” which means using people as tools to an end. This is entirely contrary to Catholic ethics, where each person has true dignity and value as a child of God. You seem to be regarding people as mere units can be manipulated for a certain mathematical result (quantity and quality).

I don’t agree with Kant because I believe in hedonism. If you accept that every choice is prompted by the want of happiness, you cannot believe in selfless acts. Even embracing altruism would make it a value, and your nature makes you seek to satisfy your values, which is selfish. If you dropped some change, and I returned it to you, I’d be doing it to feel happy with myself (because I helped you). Thus, you were a means to my happiness, and not an end.

I’m not saying that every action should be partially selfish, I’m saying that every action is partially selfish.

As for gathering the statistics, I’d have to cross those bridges when I came to them. It’s a necessary difficulty.

 

[Oreoracle]

However, on another note, I would like you to view a couple of clips on Youtube. Go to Youtube and do a search for “Milton Friedman.” The first clip is an interview with Phil Donahue on Capitalism. We may not want to throw out Capitalism just yet. The next is a series of four clips interviewing Prof. Friedman on Libertarianism. This political philosophy seems to have many of the qualities of utilitarianism and then some. Tell me what you think after viewing them. They are very interesting. You’ll like them.

I’ll try to watch some tonight.

I’m still not convinced that abortion is immoral or that it should be outlawed. But if you insist, we should make sure that there are plenty of suitable foster homes or means to alternative care open for unwanted children that would follow from outlawing abortion in our hypothetical society.

 

[JDaniel]

The reality is religious industrialized societies do worse in objective standards of wealth and prosperity than non-religious societies.

I’d like to see the statistics or studies on this subject. If you’re right, it would be very interesting. Can you point to any?

If God is good, and accurately reflected in organized religion, this makes no sense why this should be so- you’ld figure religion would be a good influence.

Your conclusion does not yet follow any valid premise(s). I would really like to see the studies.

The US and Portugal are two of the most religious industrialized nations and yet have a lot of social problems that religion hasn’t fixed, like crime, poverty, or even abortion (there are countries in Europe where abortion is publicly financed, yet have fewer abortions than the US, where it is restricted).

Well, let’s affix the blame where it belongs. You can’t willy-nilly blame “religion” can you? There might be other considerations, such as things like the US Constitution. The blame might be secular in origin, also.

There are relatively irreligious countries where people are wealthier and happier.

I’d like to know which countries are these. I want to study them.

The issue is more complex than “religion is always good”. Sometimes religion is bad, sometimes secularism is good.

I’d like to see examples of these, too. More and more ammunition for starting our new world!

“Moral relativism” doesn’t seem to be quite as evil as some people seem to think.

I’m sure you have plenty of examples of this, too. Would you share them with me?

jd

 

[grannymh]

I’d like to see the statistics or studies on this subject. If you’re right, it would be very interesting. Can you point to any?

Your conclusion does not yet follow any valid premise(s). I would really like to see the studies.

Well, let’s affix the blame where it belongs. You can’t willy-nilly blame “religion” can you? There might be other considerations, such as things like the US Constitution. The blame might be secular in origin, also.

I’d like to know which countries are these. I want to study them.

I’d like to see examples of these, too. More and more ammunition for starting our new world!

I’m sure you have plenty of examples of this, too. Would you share them with me?

jd

Me, too.

 

[JDaniel]

Utility can only be integrated with absolutes if the absolutes are not compromised. As long as we are not compromising rights, we can try to figure out what best brings about happiness. If we try to bring about happiness by compromising individual rights, the foundation for things like communism is set. Unlike you, I do not maintain that “positive emotions” are the greatest good for man. The greatest good for each individual and for humanity as a whole is union with God. It would be better to suffer all your life than to abuse someone in pursuit of much greater pleasure (meeting the utilitarian maxims), because abuse is contrary to the nature of God, which is selfless love.

But, Sarpedon, we are hoping that it won’t come to that. If everyone climbs on board, the world will be a model utopia. If people who tend to criminality have most of what they need, they won’t commit any more crimes.

Do you agree with the Kantian maxim that people should only be used as ends in of themselves, not as means? You seem to think individuals can be compromised and sacrificed for the “greatest happiness,” which means using people as tools to an end. This is entirely contrary to Catholic ethics, where each person has true dignity and value as a child of God. You seem to be regarding people as mere units can be manipulated for a certain mathematical result (quantity and quality).

Again, sarpedon, isn’t it your experience that everyone is motivated only by their unique desires, wants and emotions?

“We’re all human, it’s not that hard to deduce what most of us would want anyway. If all else fails, take a few thousand and sample their opinions. I don’t want to sound flippant, but it’s not that difficult to guess others’ opinions most of the time.”

Trial and error. We could put things in place. If we get too much distressing feedback, replace it with something better.

I gave you three examples of tricky questions that need to be resolved. All of these issues are closely split in terms of public support. This data illustrates that it is very difficult to guess other’s opinions most of the time. Often you would have around a 50% chance of being right. We need to make a decision on these issues soon, and you seem to think the course of public opinion is obvious.

I agree with you here: split decisions - which happens more often than not - will cause some serious difficulties. We’ll have to employ some glib politicians.

The data for America illustrates that the course of popular opinion is not set on a clear course of action. How are you going to measure and take into account the opinions of the whole world for global issues like carbon emissions?

Don’t you believe that carbon emissions are bad?

You said that it’s easy to know what people want, but the data for America alone contradicts this. If America is a tricky case, do you think other places like Africa and Asia are going to be any easier? How would you even conduct such a survey in a poverty-stricken place where the vast majority of people do not have access to global communications? I would like to see some specifics on this.

My guess would be that we give it a trial here in America. Then let the rest of the world know what we’ve done.

jd

 

[grannymh]

The problem with your statistics is that few are deeply saddened that abortions exist, just minorly uncomfortable.

Statistics regarding feelings about existence of abortions???

Let’s poll the babies in wombs. How many would be saddened by the idea of having their heads squeezed until their brains pop out?

 

[jmcrae]

Just fly there and hold a meeting.

Do we fly to every Third World country and hold a meeting, every single time we have to decide what to have for dinner? I mean, when I’m making a decision about what to buy for dinner that is ethically and morally sound with regard to the environment, with regard to slave labour, treatment of animals, etc., and nutritionally balanced, I have to consult in person with each and every one of the people who might be affected by my decisions?

It just seems ever so much more efficient to use the conscience that God gave me, combined with the teachings of His Church, to avoid buying foods that were produced by slave labour or through poor treatment of animals. It still involves a certain amount of research and paying attention to the newspapers, but that’s not nearly as time consuming, I don’t think, as preceding every trip to the grocery store with a trip around the world.

 

[grannymh]

Do we fly to every Third World country and hold a meeting, every single time we have to decide what to have for dinner? I mean, when I’m making a decision about what to buy for dinner that is ethically and morally sound with regard to the environment, with regard to slave labour, treatment of animals, etc., and nutritionally balanced, I have to consult in person with each and every one of the people who might be affected by my decisions?

It just seems ever so much more efficient to use the conscience that God gave me, combined with the teachings of His Church, to avoid buying foods that were produced by slave labour or through poor treatment of animals. It still involves a certain amount of research and paying attention to the newspapers, but that’s not nearly as time consuming, I don’t think, as preceding every trip to the grocery store with a trip around the world.

You do have a point about all this being time consuming especially when I prefer to be outdoors weeding or going to the zoo with grandkids. What is needed is an efficient short cut to decisions.

Could you guys please make up a short list of basic guidelines – maybe 10 items or so?

 

[Oreoracle]

Statistics regarding feelings about existence of abortions???

Let’s poll the babies in wombs. How many would be saddened by the idea of having their heads squeezed until their brains pop out?

Umm…none. The point is that, before 18 weeks’ gestation, a fetus doesn’t feel. It doesn’t desire a thing, so it is impossible to make it suffer, as it has no interests to compromise. It’s body does, but you can’t make a body happy or sad, nor can you value it without feeling to begin with. And I don’t think potentiality should count, because a woman (or man) can destroy a potential being, in a sense, when they decide to remain abstinent.

Do we fly to every Third World country and hold a meeting, every single time we have to decide what to have for dinner? I mean, when I’m making a decision about what to buy for dinner that is ethically and morally sound with regard to the environment, with regard to slave labour, treatment of animals, etc., and nutritionally balanced, I have to consult in person with each and every one of the people who might be affected by my decisions?

It just seems ever so much more efficient to use the conscience that God gave me, combined with the teachings of His Church, to avoid buying foods that were produced by slave labour or through poor treatment of animals. It still involves a certain amount of research and paying attention to the newspapers, but that’s not nearly as time consuming, I don’t think, as preceding every trip to the grocery store with a trip around the world.

With all due respect, I think you’re exaggerating.

 

[agangbern]

And I don’t think potentiality should count, because a woman (or man) can destroy a potential being, in a sense, when they decide to remain abstinent.

I wonder what potential being you are talking about is existing and would be destroyed through abstinence. How can one destroy something that is not existing?

 

[jmcrae]

With all due respect, I think you’re exaggerating.

You’re the one suggesting that we fly to Africa and call a meeting every time we have a moral decision to make that might affect someone in Africa.

 

[Oreoracle]

I wonder what potential being you are talking about is existing and would be destroyed through abstinence. How can one destroy something that is not existing?

I said “in a sense.” Let’s say that a woman would have had a child, but for some reason decided to remain abstinent for the remainder of her life. When she decides to do this, she will prevent the person that would have existed from existing. I guess you can say that she destroyed the possibility of a potential being, so long as she adheres to her abstinence.

 

[grannymh]

Umm…none. The point is that, before 18 weeks’ gestation, a fetus doesn’t feel. It doesn’t desire a thing, so it is impossible to make it suffer, as it has no interests to compromise. It’s body does, but you can’t make a body happy or sad, nor can you value it without feeling to begin with. And I don’t think potentiality should count, because a woman (or man) can destroy a potential being, in a sense, when they decide to remain abstinent.
.

The point is that the fetus is human.

His and her lives from the moment of conception are totally precious. He and she are animated with a spirit for life. He and she desire comfort and protection in the safety of womb. He and she desire nourishment through the umbilical cord. As he and she freely move, the desire for life grows.

Blessings,
granny

All human life, however tiny, is worthy of love.

 

[Oreoracle]

The point is that the fetus is human.

His and her lives from the moment of conception are totally precious. He and she are animated with a spirit for life. He and she desire comfort and protection in the safety of womb. He and she desire nourishment through the umbilical cord. As he and she freely move, the desire for life grows.

Blessings,
granny

All human life, however tiny, is worthy of love.

Can I ask you a few questions? Would you say that other animals’ lives have intrinsic value? Would you say that plant life has intrinsic value? What’s the difference between a plant that can’t feel, and a human that can’t feel? Both their bodies strive for life, after all.