Why there is no such thing as objective morality

[packermann]

You shouldn’t “judge” her values, but you should still protect the child once its being is separate from the mother’s. One cannot say that the being of the fetus is wholly seperate from the mother’s – for instance is the umbillical cord while the fetus is still in the womb a part of the mother’s body or the fetus’ body? Where does the mother’s body end and the fetus’ body begin?

You are side-stepping my question. I will try to re-phrase the question.

A mother kills her **already-born **child. The child is not a fetus, but has been born already. The child is dead, so protecting the child is not an issue. So let’s not talk about fetus, or the mother’s womb, or the umbilical cord. To make this clearer, lets say this child is 5 years old. So there is no umbilical chord anymore.

The police come to arrest her. She says that according to her values she did the right thing. She was being true to herself.

So should the police then let her go based on her being true to her values?

Now mind you - I am not saying what these values are. According to you, all that matters is that she is true to her values, and that no one else has to agree with her values in order to be valid for her, so the content of values are irrelevant. All that matters is that these values are her values. All she has to be is true to herself. She assures the police that she was true to her self and her values. So based on that, should the police let her go?

 

[ToddM]

But the only moral issues involved here from a Catholic perspective are whether or not marriage between the two people is right or wrong based on things like their ages, previous marital status and their genders. The Church wouldn’t care how or why people get together-she’s not a dating service. Many marriages begin where everyone’s sure it’s a good thing and they divorce anyway.

Wouldn’t care how or why? The ends justify the means?
Act
Intent
Context

You are right in general, but you are starting to drift. There is alot of shucking, jiving and rope a dope going on, agreed.

Perhaps a rephrase. The Church most definitely does care about the how and why, as this is a large part of clarifying what a moral act is.

Yes, there can be a subjective element in this determination, but this does not make truth or morality itself subjective.

 

[ToddM]

You are side-stepping my question. I will try to re-phrase the question.

A mother kills her **already-born **child. The child is not a fetus, but has been born already. The child is dead, so protecting the child is not an issue. So let’s not talk about fetus, or the mother’s womb, or the umbilical cord. To make this clearer, lets say this child is 5 years old. So there is no umbilical chord anymore.

The police come to arrest her. She says that according to her values she did the right thing. She was being true to herself.

So should the police then let her go based on her being true to her values?

Now mind you - I am not saying what these values are. According to you, all that matters is that she is true to her values, and that no one else has to agree with her values in order to be valid for her, so the content of values are irrelevant. All that matters is that these values are her values. All she has to be is true to herself. She assures the police that she was true to her self and her values. So based on that, should the police let her go?

I would not be true to myself if I didn’t shoot her on the spot. If anyone took exeption, and were a better shoot, they could be true to the same values and shoot me.

Meanwhile, not to go to waste, my partner finds her corpse quite attractive…

‘Do what thou will…’

Personally don’t want anything to do with that kind of ‘love.’

Shuck, jive and justify.

 

[dbg]

The police come to arrest her. She says that according to her values she did the right thing. She was being true to herself.

She’s preventing other people from pursuing their own values (namely she prevented her child from doing so) and so to protect the right of each individual to harmoniously or at least without violence express their values one must send her to prison as a deterrance where hopefully she will change her mind and reflect on her values.

If this is a case of mercy-killing (euthanasia) involving not a 5 year old child who is too young to consent to euthanasia responsibly but rather someone who is newly born or who is old enough to legally be able to consent to euthansia, then I don’t think the mother should be punished as long as govt regulations were followed – this is if euthanasia were legal like it is in some place in Europe. I don’t advocate or support people going against the law.

But otherwise, I don’t see how such a person would be sane and so instead of prison, hospitalization may be called for.

So should the police then let her go based on her being true to her values?

No but it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing (that it, it should be, not that it will)

 

[ToddM]

She’s preventing other people from pursuing their own values (namely she prevented her child from doing so) and so to protect the right of each individual to harmoniously or at least without violence express their values one must send her to prison as a deterrance where hopefully she will change her mind and reflect on her values.

If this is a case of mercy-killing (euthanasia) involving not a 5 year old child who is too young to consent to euthanasia responsibly but rather someone who is newly born or who is old enough to legally be able to consent to euthansia, then I don’t think the mother should be punished as long as govt regulations were followed – this is if euthanasia were legal like it is in some place in Europe. I don’t advocate or support people going against the law.

But otherwise, I don’t see how such a person would be sane and so instead of prison, hospitalization may be called for.

No but it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing (that it, it should be, not that it will)

Was Bundy, or Gacy sane? Were they being true to themselves?
How about Dahmer? If these things are not comparable, how so?

Act, intent, context.

Intentionally or otherwise, this is an argument pro/con regarding whether one should or should not be Catholic. (This is a Catholic site after all)

 

[packermann]

She’s preventing other people from pursuing their own values (namely she prevented her child from doing so) and so to protect the right of each individual to harmoniously or at least without violence express their values one must send her to prison as a deterrance where hopefully she will change her mind and reflect on her values.

But you are using an absolute value - that no one should prevent other people from pursuing their own values.

It seems that every time we get into specifics, you show to use absolute, objective values even though in theory you say they do not exist.

If this is a case of mercy-killing (euthanasia) involving not a 5 year old child who is too young to consent to euthanasia responsibly but rather someone who is newly born or who is old enough to legally be able to consent to euthansia, then I don’t think the mother should be punished as long as govt regulations were followed – this is if euthanasia were legal like it is in some place in Europe.

Is the definition of what is mercy-killing relative? Maybe you define mercy-killing as killing some who is suffering from a terminal disease. And this mother, let’s say in her value system, she may define mercy-killing as killing someone who is suffering from headache. Now, I think you probably would respond that a mother who kills her child because the child suffers from a headache is crazy, but again, you are applying an objective standard to determine this.

But otherwise, I don’t see how such a person would be sane and so instead of prison, hospitalization may be called for.

But, again, you seem to depart from relativism when you get into specific cases. To call someone crazy is a value judgement. If this value judgement is relative, you can only say that she is crazy TO YOU. To her, she may be perfectly sane. According to relaticim, her truth is that she is sane is not less true than your truth that she is insane.

No but it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing (that it, it should be, not that it will)

But even mitigating factors are objective standards.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

She’s preventing other people from pursuing their own values (namely she prevented her child from doing so) and so to protect the right of each individual to harmoniously or at least without violence express their values one must send her to prison as a deterrance where hopefully she will change her mind and reflect on her values.

If this is a case of mercy-killing (euthanasia) involving not a 5 year old child who is too young to consent to euthanasia responsibly but rather someone who is newly born or who is old enough to legally be able to consent to euthansia, then I don’t think the mother should be punished as long as govt regulations were followed – this is if euthanasia were legal like it is in some place in Europe. I don’t advocate or support people going against the law.

But otherwise, I don’t see how such a person would be sane and so instead of prison, hospitalization may be called for.

No but it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing (that it, it should be, not that it will)

God save us all.

 

[ToddM]

God save us all.

Life is hard, some suffer almost incessantly. Christ himself says that we will also suffer.

Perhaps some combination of a baptismal machine followed by being put to sleep would be in order.

This would seem to be the safest, most ‘humane’ approach to life.

Let us end it, it hurts.

This way is very ‘…right seeming…’ , no?

 

[dbg]

Life is hard, some suffer almost incessantly. Christ himself says that we will also suffer.

Perhaps some combination of a baptismal machine followed by being put to sleep would be in order.

This would seem to be the safest, most ‘humane’ approach to life.

Let us end it, it hurts.

This way is very ‘…right seeming…’ , no?

It would be right seeming and that is why it should lead you to question the whole idea of baptism and heaven vs hell. That baptism, heaven and hell makes such reasoning possible suggests that they are not true ideas.

I won’t be able to respond for a while but will be back in a few days or so.

 

[ToddM]

It would be right seeming and that is why it should lead you to question the whole idea of baptism and heaven vs hell. That baptism, heaven and hell makes such reasoning possible suggests that they are not true ideas.

I won’t be able to respond for a while but will be back in a few days or so.

Stalin got along ‘just fine’ without it. To seriously call this reasoning is
unreasonable to say the least.

Exactly how do you support this assertion? If we exist purely in a mechanistic universe, then reasoning is an automatically generated function of an equally automated universe.

Reason has no place in a place such as this. It all becomes one big string of dominoes.

Purely cause and effect. Everything becomes a cog in a watch with no maker.

" Do what though wilt…" so why make excuses, except to avoid others interfering in ones own doing?

Five year old ‘philosophy’ . Why, because, why, because. Because I said so, that is why.

My values.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Life is hard, some suffer almost incessantly. Christ himself says that we will also suffer.

Perhaps some combination of a baptismal machine followed by being put to sleep would be in order.

This would seem to be the safest, most ‘humane’ approach to life.

Let us end it, it hurts.

This way is very ‘…right seeming…’ , no?

Forgive me, but that is both crazy and wrong. It is given only to God to end life.

 

[ToddM]

Forgive me, but that is both crazy and wrong. It is given only to God to end life.

Agreed. Perhaps I should be more obvious. Sometimes it helps to break out the fingerpaints and crayons. You know, the common sense Stop sign rule. “What if everyone did this, what would the world look like then?”

I was trying to state the position plainly, so as to really emphasize what is being said.

To say this position is insane is perhaps overly ‘charitable’.

This position, seriously asserted, is a product and prompting of the adversary.

In short, I was ‘kidding’, with very serious intent.

You tracking?

 

[ToddM]

Forgive me, but that is both crazy and wrong. It is given only to God to end life.

P.S. If anyone needs forgiving in this instance, I do not believe it is you.

Pax

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Agreed. Perhaps I should be more obvious. Sometimes it helps to break out the fingerpaints and crayons. You know, the common sense Stop sign rule. “What if everyone did this, what would the world look like then?”

I was trying to state the position plainly, so as to really emphasize what is being said.

To say this position is insane is perhaps overly ‘charitable’.

This position, seriously asserted, is a product and prompting of the adversary.

In short, I was ‘kidding’, with very serious intent.

You tracking?

See, that’s why THESE were invented:

 

[ToddM]

See, that’s why THESE were invented:

I didn’t think they were appropriate in this instance, and I (falsely) thought the writing alone was sufficient, my bad.

Sanitized barbarism is still barbarism.

Sewage is sewage no matter how it is served.

Later matey.

 

[ToddM]

I didn’t think they were appropriate in this instance, and I (falsely) thought the writing alone was sufficient, my bad.

Sanitized barbarism is still barbarism.

Sewage is sewage no matter how it is served.

Later matey.

Stand by for the vomit, btw. " "

 

[bogeydogg]

You shouldn’t “judge” her values, but you should still protect the child once its being is separate from the mother’s. One cannot say that the being of the fetus is wholly seperate from the mother’s – for instance is the umbillical cord while the fetus is still in the womb a part of the mother’s body or the fetus’ body? Where does the mother’s body end and the fetus’ body begin?

Are you then saying that because the two bodies are connected one is not human?

If you are then you are really short-sighted or even possibly blind.

First off there is not the slightest possibility that a fetus is part of a mother’s body, the first thing to develop is the heart, no healthy person has two hearts. If it is a boy then it will have a penis, mommies tend to not have those either.

Or maybe you mean since the baby draws its sustenance from the mother in such a way that it cannot exist without that sustenance then it is therefore not a human being. In other words, not viable.

I think you will find that no one is viable. Everyone needs a supporting ecosystem in order to live. A womb is an ecosystem, not more not less, it just so happens to be internal to one person. However, I feel fairly certain that you also depend on an ecosystem, so much so in fact I think that if you and were both introduced to the cold blackness of outer space sans a suit to serve as an ecosystem, my point would be made in very short order.

There see, an apples to apples comparison.

 

[ToddM]

Are you then saying that because the two bodies are connected one is not human?

If you are then you are really short-sighted or even possibly blind.

First off there is not the slightest possibility that a fetus is part of a mother’s body, the first thing to develop is the heart, no healthy person has two hearts. If it is a boy then it will have a penis, mommies tend to not have those either.

Or maybe you mean since the baby draws its sustenance from the mother in such a way that it cannot exist without that sustenance then it is therefore not a human being. In other words, not viable.

I think you will find that no one is viable. Everyone needs a supporting ecosystem in order to live. A womb is an ecosystem, not more not less, it just so happens to be internal to one person. However, I feel fairly certain that you also depend on an ecosystem, so much so in fact I think that if you and were both introduced to the cold blackness of outer space sans a suit to serve as an ecosystem, my point would be made in very short order.

There see, an apples to apples comparison.

Lessee…I cannot say with even a reasonable, let alone absolute, certainty that if I take a certain, specific course of action I will not be committing homicide. Since I am aware of this, even though I will go to ridiculous, unreasonable measures to rationo-lies doing so, I cannot likewise not be sure that this will not be a specific form of homicide, namely murder.

Ah, well, lets kill it anyway. I know, I’ll sidestep the basic issue with more hypotheticals.

" " “”<<<<

 

[Dranu]

As this does not appear to be a reality, I am puzzled by theistic belief in objective morality. In a nutshell, how do Christians account for “bad” things happening to “good” people and vice versa? Is it merely by the notion of an afterlife (i.e. punishment/rewards are issued post-death) or am I missing something?

Answer this question first, because I am confused with your position. Once I figure it out I can hopefully give a shot in giving you an answer.

"How do you account for ‘bad’ and ‘good’ things if there is no objective morality?"

 

[ToddM]

Answer this question first, because I am confused with your position. Once I figure it out I can hopefully give a shot in giving you an answer.

"How do you account for ‘bad’ and ‘good’ things if there is no objective morality?"

Pain bad, pleasure good?

Fire bad, water good?

Fight, flee, eat, sleep, procreate, defecate and die?

'Modern’ism?