To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

So a behavior, you believe, is right simply because it is right, there is no underlying reason for an actions being right or wrong, there is no reason why a behavior is good or bad, it's simply either good or bad because like god, morals are just brute facts?

Jim moral questions must stop somewhere. Reasons are immaterial since reasons too are subjective, you have your reasons, the Hutu his, that Nazi his, etc...

It was a good act seer

.

Why? Your act of saving one kid cost the life of a family of five. How on earth was your act good?

So what, we don't know the future, that has nothing to do with the present consequences of our actions. The present consequences are that you saved the 17 year olds life. What that 17 year old might do at any time in the future is irrelevant since you have no control over that.

Except in this case your saving act of one person cost the lives of a whole family.

So you think god is going to make you perfect like god himself, or do you mean something else by the use of that term.

Morally perfect, in the sense of without sin. Like Christ...

[JimL]

Jim moral questions must stop somewhere. Reasons are immaterial since reasons too are subjective, you have your reasons, the Hutu his, that Nazi his, etc...

So if you believe that there is no underlying reason that makes a action good or makes it bad, then what exactly do you mean by the term "good" and "bad".
.

Why? Your act of saving one kid cost the life of a family of five. How on earth was your act good?

No, my act of saving the kid, merely saved the kid, and was good for that reason, that the kid turned around and murdered someone later in his life is not a direct consequence of my saving his life at an earlier time. That would be a consequence of his own moral behavior, not of mine.

Except in this case your saving act of one person cost the lives of a whole family.

No it didn't. See above. You are not resposible for the moral behavior of others.

Morally perfect, in the sense of without sin. Like Christ...

Well seer, according to the bible man was created without sin in the first place, it didn't help. Free will he had, but not sin. Perhaps you mean that god will make you no longer be able to sin or that he will remove from you your free will?

[carpedm9587]

Jim moral questions must stop somewhere.

They do - they stop at the self. My moral view trumps all other moral views to me.

[seer]

So if you believe that there is no underlying reason that makes a action good or makes it bad, then what exactly do you mean by the term "good" and "bad".

There can be reasons, it just that reasons by very definition are subjective, and dependent on the goal you have in mind. But what makes an act good or bad is whether it conforms to the law of God or not.
.

No, my act of saving the kid, merely saved the kid, and was good for that reason, that the kid turned around and murdered someone later in his life is not a direct consequence of my saving his life at an earlier time. That would be a consequence of his own moral behavior, not of mine.

No Jim, your act of saving directly lead to his ability to kill, since you kept him alive. If he wasn't alive those people live. In other words don't consequences tell you if an act is right or wrong? If not what does?

Well seer, according to the bible man was created without sin in the first place, it didn't help. Free will he had, but not sin. Perhaps you mean that god will make you no longer be able to sin or that he will remove from you your free will?

Well I hope he removes my will to sin, and I freely give Him permission to do so.

[seer]

They do - they stop at the self. My moral view trumps all other moral views to me.

And since you agree that you can not know the long term consequences of your moral acts how do you decide if an act is good or not?

[carpedm9587]

And since you agree that you can not know the long term consequences of your moral acts how do you decide if an act is good or not?

The morality of an act is not determined by the "long term unforeseen circumstances," Seer. I do not think that even is true in any theistic framework I know of. One can only be morally culpable for actions based on intent. Examples:

1) I park my car by an ocean cliff, set the brake, and go for a walk. The brakes fail and the car goes over the cliff killing a person below.

I know of no moral framework where my action of parking the car would be considered "immoral." I acted within the bounds of moral norms, making no explicitly moral OR immoral action. Sometimes, stuff happens.

2) I park my car by an ocean cliff knowing the brakes won't hold it, and go for a walk.

I am now acting in a way such that there is a reasonable chance the car will go over the hill. Given that chance, if someone is killed, I am morally complicit. Some moral frameworks would agree, some would disagree.

3) I park my car by an ocean cliff, knowing the brakes won't hold it, wait for someone to walk by, then step out of the car.

I know of no moral frameworks that would not evaluate this as morally complicit.

Action with intent. Indeed, I would consider someone who did #3 to be morally complicit even if the person at the bottomn of the cliff were NOT hit (i.e., they missed).

[Tassman]

Jim moral questions must stop somewhere. Reasons are immaterial since reasons too are subjective, you have your reasons, the Hutu his, that Nazi his, etc...

[JimL]

There can be reasons, it just that reasons by very definition are subjective, and dependent on the goal you have in mind. But what makes an act good or bad is whether it conforms to the law of God or not.

Whether or not an act conforms to gods law isn't what makes it good or bad. To say that murder is evil, or that theft is evil, simply because its gods law, doesn't explain why the behaviors themselves are evil. That would be no different than if we were to reverse the definition and say that murder is good, or that theft is good, simply because it's gods law. So, that morality conforms to gods law is not what makes a moral action either good or evil.

No Jim, your act of saving directly lead to his ability to kill, since you kept him alive. If he wasn't alive those people live. In other words don't consequences tell you if an act is right or wrong? If not what does?

Seer, our actions are not resposible for the future actions of others. The consequences of saving someones life is simply that their lives were saved. Only they are responsible for their future actions and their future actions are not a direct consequence of their lives being saved in the past. Unless of course you are a determinist, which we all know you are not.

Well I hope he removes my will to sin, and I freely give Him permission to do so.

Well, perhaps you are a would be determinist after all. Interesting though how we came up with the idea that god is a male, don't you think?

[seer]

Whether or not an act conforms to gods law isn't what makes it good or bad. To say that murder is evil, or that theft is evil, simply because its gods law, doesn't explain why the behaviors themselves are evil. That would be no different than if we were to reverse the definition and say that murder is good, or that theft is good, simply because it's gods law. So, that morality conforms to gods law is not what makes a moral action either good or evil.

Then what makes an act good or bad? If the Hutus murder the Tutsis, to gain power, wealth and control - why is that wrong? Because you say so?

Well, perhaps you are a would be determinist after all. Interesting though how we came up with the idea that god is a male, don't you think?

How do you get determinism out of what I said? If I freely give the surgeon permission to do whatever it takes to cure me is that determinism? You are not making sense...

[JimL]

Then what makes an act good or bad? If the Hutus murder the Tutsis, to gain power, wealth and control - why is that wrong? Because you say so?

No, not because I say so, but I've given you my take on that over and over again. If the Hutus feel free to murder the Tutsis, then the Tutsis or some other group will feel free to murder the Hutus. Ultimately that is not good for anyone, not in the best interests of human society, nor of either group, nor is it in the best interests of individuals within a group, and ultimately is what we are talking about, right? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
But again, prima facie, good and evil can't be defined by a source, otherwise anything could be considered either good or evil according to the source.

How do you get determinism out of what I said? If I freely give the surgeon permission to do whatever it takes to cure me is that determinism? You are not making sense...

Yes, it would be determinism, if the surgeon removed your will.

[seer]

No, not because I say so, but I've given you my take on that over and over again. If the Hutus feel free to murder the Tutsis, then the Tutsis or some other group will feel free to murder the Hutus. Ultimately that is not good for anyone, not in the best interests of human society, nor of either group, nor is it in the best interests of individuals within a group, and ultimately is what we are talking about, right? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Again Jim this makes no sense, some other group could decide to attack the Hutus even if they did not first attack the Tutsis, and the Hutus did what was good for them, if not society in general. So your objection or standard falls on deaf ears.

But again, prima facie, good and evil can't be defined by a source, otherwise anything could be considered either good or evil according to the source.

But that is exactly what you are doing - you are the source and you are defining good or evil as it relates to the greater good.

Yes, it would be determinism, if the surgeon removed your will.

But God is not removing my will in totality, only the desire to sin, which as I said I desire...

[JimL]

Again Jim this makes no sense, some other group could decide to attack the Hutus even if they did not first attack the Tutsis, and the Hutus did what was good for them, if not society in general. So your objection or standard falls on deaf ears.

Seer, stop and think. It is not good for you, it is not in your best interests to be murdered, correct? Therefore it is in your best interests that both you and your neighbor consider murder to be immoral. You won't kill him, and he won't kill you. It is in the best interests of both you and your neighbor to consider theft to be immoral, correct. You won't steal from him, and he won't steal from you. Whatever evil you can lawfully do unto another, can in turn be done unto you. The same moral logic applies whether its applied to individual members of a particular group, or whether its application extends to individuals outside the group.

But that is exactly what you are doing - you are the source and you are defining good or evil as it relates to the greater good.

No, you're wrong, I am not the source that defines morality, reason is, and by reason, such as that in the above answer, we can determine moral behaviors that serve the overall best interests of human society, and so human individuals living together in the world.

But God is not removing my will in totality, only the desire to sin, which as I said I desire...

Then why didn't god do that in the first place, ever ask yourself that?

[seer]

Seer, stop and think. It is not good for you, it is not in your best interests to be murdered, correct? Therefore it is in your best interests that both you and your neighbor consider murder to be immoral. You won't kill him, and he won't kill you. It is in the best interests of both you and your neighbor to consider theft to be immoral, correct. You won't steal from him, and he won't steal from you. Whatever evil you can lawfully do unto another, can in turn be done unto you. The same moral logic applies whether its applied to individual members of a particular group, or whether its application extends to individuals outside the group.

Tell that to the Hutus who gained power and property - at the expense of their very neigbors.

No, you're wrong, I am not the source that defines morality, reason is, and by reason, such as that in the above answer, we can determine moral behaviors that serve the overall best interests of human society, and so human individuals living together in the world.

No, you absolutely are the source. To you a moral good is that which serves the greater good, to the Communist it is what serves the ruling elite. You are defining the good, based on the goal you desire. God also has moral goal for humanity based on His moral sense.

Then why didn't god do that in the first place, ever ask yourself that?

Because He wants free beings to freely ask Him, love Him. Which means we have the ability to not ask or love Him.

[Tassman]

Tell that to the Hutus who gained power and property - at the expense of their very neigbors.

Or tell it to the colonial invaders who gained power and property at the expense of the original inhabitants of America.

No, you absolutely are the source. To you a moral good is that which serves the greater good, to the Communist it is what serves the ruling elite. You are defining the good, based on the goal you desire. God also has moral goal for humanity based on His moral sense.

Just what is that moral goal of God seer and where during the 2,000 years of the Christian religion have we seen this goal being implemented?

Because He wants free beings to freely ask Him, love Him. Which means we have the ability to not ask or love Him.

[JimL]

Tell that to the Hutus who gained power and property - at the expense of their very neigbors.

Then your argument is that there is no reason that a thing is either good or bad other than that it is an objective law of god, correct? In other words murder and theft are not inherently evil, they are only evil because they go against gods law. Is gods moral nature based on reason do you think, or is it just arbitrary and purposeless? You do realize that your god orders both , that thou shalt not murder and that thou shalt murder. Are you going to argue that there are reasons for these moral changes in him.

No, you absolutely are the source. To you a moral good is that which serves the greater good, to the Communist it is what serves the ruling elite. You are defining the good, based on the goal you desire. God also has moral goal for humanity based on His moral sense.

Did not the biblical god define "good" based on his goal when he ordered the murder of men, women, and children, and the pillaging of their land and property, just like the Hutus? Your argument is the same as mine seer, i.e. that morality is goal based, determined by reason, not objective brute facts of gods immutable character.

Because He wants free beings to freely ask Him, love Him. Which means we have the ability to not ask or love Him.

So you want god to make you good? You don't want to be free to choose anymore? And seer, just a question, do you really think of god as a male, with male genitalia and a long white beard or do you think god is gender neutral and are just using "him" or "He" as a gender neutral term.