Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

Where did I say that immutability or omniscience were required for a moral code?

Your statement was, "First of all such a God would have an immutable moral character, not shifting or changeable like ours." Now, four posts later, I still don't have an answer to my original question, which was: Why does immutability make a difference to a moral code?

The point is, you would segregate or destroy your wayward robot because he did something objectionable to your moral sense. As God will do to men that He finds morally objectionable.

Yes - if the robot was trying to live in our society and did not want to live according to the norms of that society, they would be exiled, destroyed, or incarcerated. But the robot has the option of relocating to a different society, or leaving voluntarily. They just can't stay in the society and not adhere to the commonly agreed to moral norms.

In your framework - there is no option for the individual to follow what they truly believe to be right, which creates a conundrum. If I truly believe X is right, but I do NOT X (which I believe to be wrong) because it aligns with what someone told me is "god's will," then my intent is to act immorally to gain a reward or avoid a punishment. And this is behavior your god would reward because the act aligns with his/her moral code?

That seems off...

No I said that if we did not LARGELY agree on certain moral norms we could not function as a society, that is a fact.

Your quote: "A culture can not exist if the majority doesn't see eye to eye on the larger ethical questions." (underline mine)

But we have many societies functioning with fairly divergent moral views in many domains. They are turbulent, yes - but they function.

And perfection is important since any moral deviation could or does lead to upheaval.

Why is upheaval bad? A farmer turns over the field every spring. We destroy buildings to build new things. Mountains collapse under the forces of erosion to make way for gentler hills. Sometimes, upheaval is nature's way of stirring the pot and letting new things develop and letting a little fresh air distribute.

I will leave these final judgements in God's hands. Like I said in the past, there is one right answer to all these questions, even if as Paul says, for now we see through a glass, darkly. And in the final analysis God knows those who are His...

So you have no insights on how these divergent Christian sects will fare? Does the question of honest pursuit of divergent moral codes not raise ANY questions in your minds? These conflicts don't bother you at all - they are just "god's will?"

[seer]

Your statement was, "First of all such a God would have an immutable moral character, not shifting or changeable like ours." Now, four posts later, I still don't have an answer to my original question, which was: Why does immutability make a difference to a moral code?

Now you are moving the goal posts. First you claimed that I suggested that immutability or omniscience was required for a moral code, which I didn't. If you don't see why omniscience or knowledge would be superior to ignorance I can't help you. And if you don't think a moral code grounded in a changeless morally certain character is superior to one grounded in uncertain personal or cultural whims and characters I again don't know what to tell you. I believe the distinction is obvious.

Yes - if the robot was trying to live in our society and did not want to live according to the norms of that society, they would be exiled, destroyed, or incarcerated. But the robot has the option of relocating to a different society, or leaving voluntarily. They just can't stay in the society and not adhere to the commonly agreed to moral norms.

In your framework - there is no option for the individual to follow what they truly believe to be right, which creates a conundrum. If I truly believe X is right, but I do NOT X (which I believe to be wrong) because it aligns with what someone told me is "god's will," then my intent is to act immorally to gain a reward or avoid a punishment. And this is behavior your god would reward because the act aligns with his/her moral code?

That seems off...

But you do have an option, just as your robot does. No civil society would accept your robot, he would either be destroyed or imprisoned, no matter if he truly believed the killing of men is right. So yes, you have the option of joining this future civil culture.

Your quote: "A culture can not exist if the majority doesn't see eye to eye on the larger ethical questions." (underline mine)

But we have many societies functioning with fairly divergent moral views in many domains. They are turbulent, yes - but they function.

What if a large portion of a society believed that rape, murder, fraud, stealing, etc... were moral acts.

Why is upheaval bad? A farmer turns over the field every spring. We destroy buildings to build new things. Mountains collapse under the forces of erosion to make way for gentler hills. Sometimes, upheaval is nature's way of stirring the pot and letting new things develop and letting a little fresh air distribute.

I'm speaking of moral upheaval, like for instance what ISIS did in the Middle East.

So you have no insights on how these divergent Christian sects will fare? Does the question of honest pursuit of divergent moral codes not raise ANY questions in your minds? These conflicts don't bother you at all - they are just "god's will?"

Who said they were God's will? The point is, none of us get it all right in this life, as Paul said. But God knows if our faith is genuine, if we genuinely seek to love and serve Him. I can't not know another man's motivation or heart.

[Tassman]

Now you are moving the goal posts. First you claimed that I suggested that immutability or omniscience was required for a moral code, which I didn't. If you don't see why omniscience or knowledge would be superior to ignorance I can't help you.

And if you don't think a moral code grounded in a changeless morally certain character is superior to one grounded in uncertain personal or cultural whims and characters I again don't know what to tell you. I believe the distinction is obvious.

Again you are merely asserting that a changeless morality is superior. You have not provided reasons for why this would be so. There are good reasons why a changing moral code that keeps pace with our evolving social values is superior.

What if a large portion of a society believed that rape, murder, fraud, stealing, etc... were moral acts.

I'm speaking of moral upheaval, like for instance what ISIS did in the Middle East.

They did it in the name of God, just as Moses did

Who said they were God's will? The point is, none of us get it all right in this life, as Paul said. But God knows if our faith is genuine, if we genuinely seek to love and serve Him. I can't not know another man's motivation or heart.

[carpedm9587]

Now you are moving the goal posts. First you claimed that I suggested that immutability or omniscience was required for a moral code, which I didn't. If you don't see why omniscience or knowledge would be superior to ignorance I can't help you. And if you don't think a moral code grounded in a changeless morally certain character is superior to one grounded in uncertain personal or cultural whims and characters I again don't know what to tell you. I believe the distinction is obvious.

OK, you guys love that expression. Seer, I explicitly went back to the first post, took your statement, then took my responding quesion and put it in the last post I sent to you. How on earth can that be "moving the goal posts?" And I didn't "claim" anything - I merely asked a question, which you've been dodging now for multiple posts. I'm getting the distinct sense that you just don't want to give me an answer. That's OK with me, but why this convoluted strategy? Just say, "I don't want to answer that question."

Unless you answer is "it should be obvious," which is basically what I'm getting from your post above. Is that your answer?

But you do have an option, just as your robot does. No civil society would accept your robot, he would either be destroyed or imprisoned, no matter if he truly believed the killing of men is right. So yes, you have the option of joining this future civil culture.

The conundrum, Seer, lies in intent. Let's take something less obvious than "killing." I believe that homosexuality is morally neutral (i.e., only immoral in the same contexts as heterosexuality). For me to "join this society" to which you belong and which you believe (I think?) has access to "god's will) with regard to homosexuality, I have to adopt a moral position that I actually believe to be immoral. I cannot force myself to find something immoral and I actually believe it is morally permissible, and to "act" as if I did makes me a hypocrit. So my choice is either to act according to the dictates of my conscience, or be a hypocrit to appease the god you believe in. If I understand you correctly, the "hypocrit" route is one I should take so your god will be satisfied with me.

What if a large portion of a society believed that rape, murder, fraud, stealing, etc... were moral acts.

Some of these are nonsensical questions, Seer. Murder is "wrongful killing," so it cannot, by definition, be moral. Let's use your "stealing" example, because it's a good one. Stealing is defined as taking the property of another without permission and without intent to return. Some societies have no such concept, because they lack the concept of "personal property." Everything is shared by the community. This happens in some tribal cultures. If I were to join one of these communities, I would suddenly find myself experiencing "theft" regularly, but they would think nothing of it. For them, it is not theft. So my choice would be to adjust my sense of personal property and join in the communal sense of "everything for everyone," (which has some benefits, but some definite disadvantages), or I need to find a new culture. I can, of course, try to convince the folks in that culture that personal property is a good thing and sway them to change how they function.

I'm speaking of moral upheaval, like for instance what ISIS did in the Middle East.

Umm..bad example. ISIS is a group of thugs - not much more than a very large gang. They are the Middle East's KKK on steroids.

Who said they were God's will? The point is, none of us get it all right in this life, as Paul said. But God knows if our faith is genuine, if we genuinely seek to love and serve Him. I can't not know another man's motivation or heart.

Then I trust that, if there is a god, this god knows the difference between a man with good intent who gets it wrong, and a man of bad intent. I cannot follow the supposed moral teachings of your god because many of them appear immoral to me. If there is a god, then I think men have corrupted what this god actually wants; no god I can imagine would spend more than a fleeting thought to whether people should or should not love one another on the basis of their genitals. Love is love.

But the point is moot. I have come to believe the entire notion of "god" and "gods" is a human projection, not an external reality. So I live my life as best I can in the universe I find myself in.

[seer]

OK, you guys love that expression. Seer, I explicitly went back to the first post, took your statement, then took my responding quesion and put it in the last post I sent to you. How on earth can that be "moving the goal posts?" And I didn't "claim" anything - I merely asked a question, which you've been dodging now for multiple posts. I'm getting the distinct sense that you just don't want to give me an answer. That's OK with me, but why this convoluted strategy? Just say, "I don't want to answer that question."

Unless you answer is "it should be obvious," which is basically what I'm getting from your post above. Is that your answer?

But Carp, I did not say that immutability or omniscience was required for a moral code, which is exactly what you were asking me to justify. That was your question - why was immutability or omniscience required for a moral code. You said: The question is, in your worldview, why is it necessary for a moral code to be immutable?

But here is my overall point. Why would a moral code based on ignorance of future consequences be more valid or equal to one based on absolute and certain knowledge of future consequences? And why would a moral code based on relative personal or cultural norms be equal to or more valid than one based on a changeless moral character. Let's focus on this for now, I will try to get to the rest of your post later.

[seer]

The conundrum, Seer, lies in intent. Let's take something less obvious than "killing." I believe that homosexuality is morally neutral (i.e., only immoral in the same contexts as heterosexuality). For me to "join this society" to which you belong and which you believe (I think?) has access to "god's will) with regard to homosexuality, I have to adopt a moral position that I actually believe to be immoral. I cannot force myself to find something immoral and I actually believe it is morally permissible, and to "act" as if I did makes me a hypocrit. So my choice is either to act according to the dictates of my conscience, or be a hypocrit to appease the god you believe in. If I understand you correctly, the "hypocrit" route is one I should take so your god will be satisfied with me.

This goes directly to my point in the other post. Like we spoke about in another thread - if you were born one hundred years ago, or in Iran today, most likely you would have had a completely different opinion on this issue. So why would you go to the wall for an opinion that may be merely culturally relative?

Some of these are nonsensical questions, Seer. Murder is "wrongful killing," so it cannot, by definition, be moral. Let's use your "stealing" example, because it's a good one. Stealing is defined as taking the property of another without permission and without intent to return. Some societies have no such concept, because they lack the concept of "personal property." Everything is shared by the community. This happens in some tribal cultures. If I were to join one of these communities, I would suddenly find myself experiencing "theft" regularly, but they would think nothing of it. For them, it is not theft. So my choice would be to adjust my sense of personal property and join in the communal sense of "everything for everyone," (which has some benefits, but some definite disadvantages), or I need to find a new culture. I can, of course, try to convince the folks in that culture that personal property is a good thing and sway them to change how they function.

First, I'm not sure that any person would not see stealing the food that I was about to feed my starving family as a moral wrong. As far as murder goes, it would be subjective as to what one defined as "wrongful."

Umm..bad example. ISIS is a group of thugs - not much more than a very large gang. They are the Middle East's KKK on steroids.

But that is the point, it is only a difference in degrees not in kind. God, being all knowing, would know what or what not would be conducive to perfect harmony and brotherhood.

Then I trust that, if there is a god, this god knows the difference between a man with good intent who gets it wrong, and a man of bad intent. I cannot follow the supposed moral teachings of your god because many of them appear immoral to me. If there is a god, then I think men have corrupted what this god actually wants; no god I can imagine would spend more than a fleeting thought to whether people should or should not love one another on the basis of their genitals. Love is love.

No love is not love, a forty year old man can genuinely love an eight year old girl - in every aspect including sexually, but that is not a legitimate expression of love. If there is no moral teleology for human sexuality then it can be legitimate according to cultural preferences. The same with beastiality or homosexuality or adultery or biblically - even fornication.

But the point is moot. I have come to believe the entire notion of "god" and "gods" is a human projection, not an external reality. So I live my life as best I can in the universe I find myself in.

Fair enough...

[carpedm9587]

But Carp, I did not say that immutability or omniscience was required for a moral code, which is exactly what you were asking me to justify. That was your question - why was immutability or omniscience required for a moral code. You said: The question is, in your worldview, why is it necessary for a moral code to be immutable?

I wasn't asking you to "justify" anything, Seer. I had a question, and was curious about the answer. You noted god's moral code was immutable, not changing like ours, leaving an implication that this was somehow preferable, maybe even necessary. I wanted to know why. Apparently, you could have simply answered "it isn't necessary" and that would have been that. So if god's immutable nature is not necessary, are you suggesting it is preferable? If so, why?

But here is my overall point. Why would a moral code based on ignorance of future consequences be more valid or equal to one based on absolute and certain knowledge of future consequences? And why would a moral code based on relative personal or cultural norms be equal to or more valid than one based on a changeless moral character. Let's focus on this for now, I will try to get to the rest of your post later.

I have no idea how to answer you. I know of no moral framework in which "unknown future consequences" is in any way a factor. Morality is based on choices we make today and is not even necessarily linked to outcomes so much as it is to intent. If I randomly (and without provocation) kill a boy today, the moral nature of the act does not change depending on whether that man WOULD have been Hitler or WOULD have been Mandela.

And you keep coming back to "valid?" Valid to whom? My moral code is valid to me. Yours is valid to you. Society's collective code is valid to society but probably only partially valid to any individual member of that society.

Look - I understand that you want/need some universal metric against which everything else can be measured and deemed "worthy" or "wanting." So, in your worldview, your god plays that role. But then you get the problem of all of the people who believe they are doing "god's will" and fundamentally disagreeing with one another because language is just so marvelously malleable. So you get multiple religions, multiple sects within religions, and multiple moral frameworks that don't align and everyone claiming they have the "right" interpretation of god's will - the "right" claim on the universal.

In the atheist worldview, the result is not that different: multiple moral codes for multiple different groups that are the result of different group memberships. We lack the "universal" you claim you have (which few religious groups can even align on completely), and we end up in basically the same place: the golden rule, prohibitions against random killing, prohibitions against lying, etc. Most moral concepts are fairly simple constructs necessary to keep a society functioning.

So a moral code is only valid to the one holding it. There is no basis for comparing it to someone else's to establish more or less "validity," whatever you think that word means.

[carpedm9587]

This goes directly to my point in the other post. Like we spoke about in another thread - if you were born one hundred years ago, or in Iran today, most likely you would have had a completely different opinion on this issue. So why would you go to the wall for an opinion that may be merely culturally relative?

And as I have noted, an argument based on what "might" have happened is pointless. While there is a strong correlation between moral norms and cultural/family/religious contexts, the link is not absolute. My moral code does not align with the family I grew up in, the church I was raised in, or even the country I call my home.

As for why "go to the wall" for a moral code - my only answer is: because it IS my moral code. That is the entire purpose OF a moral code, to sort out what I ought do from what I ought not do. When my moral code says, "ought not do that," if I am a moral person, I will go to the wall untill such time as that code changes.

First, I'm not sure that any person would not see stealing the food that I was about to feed my starving family as a moral wrong. As far as murder goes, it would be subjective as to what one defined as "wrongful."

Then you are very culturally isolated, my friend. In a culture with no concept of personal property, the concept of "stealing" simply doesn't exist. Hard to get your head around, I know. Thank our marvelous western culture for that. Such a culture is more concerned with gluttony, because that deprives the larger community of necessary resources.

But that is the point, it is only a difference in degrees not in kind. God, being all knowing, would know what or what not would be conducive to perfect harmony and brotherhood.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

No love is not love, a forty year old man can genuinely love an eight year old girl - in every aspect including sexually, but that is not a legitimate expression of love. If there is no moral teleology for human sexuality then it can be legitimate according to cultural preferences. The same with beastiality or homosexuality or adultery or biblically - even fornication.

Seer, you can pull out whatever extreme cases you want to pull out - but I think we both know what I mean. If two, mature adults are in love, cherish each other, and wish to spend the rest of their life together and even raise a family, the specific genitalia they have is essentially irrelevant. Any god who would waste more than an fleeting thought to the question is simply not one I would ever even THINK to worship - nor could I image them actually existing. The very thought is so odd to me. A god so vast that all of the cosmos can be their creative output, and they give a fig what is under the leaf (see what I did there? ) when two mature adults are in love? It just makes me scratch my head.

This is, in part, one of the many reasons I have come to believe no such being exists. I see, in the various gods of the world, the fears, hopes, and desires of humanity projected onto a supreme being to give them legitimacy. I think this practice is millenia old - so it is now so deeply engrained in out cultures and even thought patterns that is seems "natural." I think we are beginning to see that shift.

Fair enough...

[seer]

I wasn't asking you to "justify" anything, Seer. I had a question, and was curious about the answer. You noted god's moral code was immutable, not changing like ours, leaving an implication that this was somehow preferable, maybe even necessary. I wanted to know why. Apparently, you could have simply answered "it isn't necessary" and that would have been that. So if god's immutable nature is not necessary, are you suggesting it is preferable? If so, why?

See below

I have no idea how to answer you. I know of no moral framework in which "unknown future consequences" is in any way a factor. Morality is based on choices we make today and is not even necessarily linked to outcomes so much as it is to intent. If I randomly (and without provocation) kill a boy today, the moral nature of the act does not change depending on whether that man WOULD have been Hitler or WOULD have been Mandela.

But what if you knew for certain that a boy you saved would grow up to be a Hitler, would you still save him or allow him to drown (for instance)? See good "intentions" can lead to terrible results. So why are "intentions" the arbiter of what is moral or not? Why are not consequences just as important or more important?

And you keep coming back to "valid?" Valid to whom? My moral code is valid to me. Yours is valid to you. Society's collective code is valid to society but probably only partially valid to any individual member of that society.

Look - I understand that you want/need some universal metric against which everything else can be measured and deemed "worthy" or "wanting." So, in your worldview, your god plays that role. But then you get the problem of all of the people who believe they are doing "god's will" and fundamentally disagreeing with one another because language is just so marvelously malleable. So you get multiple religions, multiple sects within religions, and multiple moral frameworks that don't align and everyone claiming they have the "right" interpretation of god's will - the "right" claim on the universal.

In the atheist worldview, the result is not that different: multiple moral codes for multiple different groups that are the result of different group memberships. We lack the "universal" you claim you have (which few religious groups can even align on completely), and we end up in basically the same place: the golden rule, prohibitions against random killing, prohibitions against lying, etc. Most moral concepts are fairly simple constructs necessary to keep a society functioning.

So a moral code is only valid to the one holding it. There is no basis for comparing it to someone else's to establish more or less "validity," whatever you think that word means.

But that is not the point, stop digressing, why would a moral code based on ignorance be better (on any level) than one based on perfect knowledge of the future and future consequences of all acts? Carp, you know it wouldn't, you just do not want to admit it.

[carpedm9587]

But what if you knew for certain that a boy you saved would grow up to be a Hitler, would you still save him or allow him to drown (for instance)? See good "intentions" can lead to terrible results. So why are "intentions" the arbiter of what is moral or not? Why are not consequences just as important or more important?

Hypotheticals with no correlation to the real world serve no purpose and I do not waste my time with them, Seer. And I have noted (a couple of times) that morality is not based on outcomes. "The ends does not justify the means" is applicable in both the positive and the negative.

In the real world, the morality of my choice is based on exactly that: my choice. The purpose for it - the motivation behind it - etc. Morality is about choosing actions. Every action is a point in a causal chain that stretches from the moment of the action to the ends of time. A moral choice may have bad outcomes, and immoral choice may have good outcomes. Because outcomes are not usually the result of any single one choice, I am only responsible for the outcomes I can reasonably foresee.

So if I am driving, and I come around a bend in the road and there is a crowd of 20 children in the street, and a single man on the sidewalk, and I have no alternative but to hit one or the other, I must strive to do the least harm I can. That is what my moral code tells me. If the boys turn out to be a street gang that proceeds to rape 40 women in the next 2 months, I am not morally culpable for their choices - they are.

But that is not the point, stop digressing, why would a moral code based on ignorance be better (on any level) than one based on perfect knowledge of the future and future consequences of all acts? Carp, you know it wouldn't, you just do not want to admit it.

I have no answer for you, Seer. Morality (for me) is not based on ignorance or perfect knowledge of the future. It is based on my choices and their intent. You keep trying to link moral choices to outcomes in a way I simply do not, so your asking me for an answer I cannot give you because I don't function that way.

[seer]

Hypotheticals with no correlation to the real world serve no purpose and I do not waste my time with them, Seer. And I have noted (a couple of times) that morality is not based on outcomes. "The ends does not justify the means" is applicable in both the positive and the negative.

In the real world, the morality of my choice is based on exactly that: my choice. The purpose for it - the motivation behind it - etc. Morality is about choosing actions. Every action is a point in a causal chain that stretches from the moment of the action to the ends of time. A moral choice may have bad outcomes, and immoral choice may have good outcomes. Because outcomes are not usually the result of any single one choice, I am only responsible for the outcomes I can reasonably foresee.

So if I am driving, and I come around a bend in the road and there is a crowd of 20 children in the street, and a single man on the sidewalk, and I have no alternative but to hit one or the other, I must strive to do the least harm I can. That is what my moral code tells me. If the boys turn out to be a street gang that proceeds to rape 40 women in the next 2 months, I am not morally culpable for their choices - they are.

I have no answer for you, Seer. Morality (for me) is not based on ignorance or perfect knowledge of the future. It is based on my choices and their intent. You keep trying to link moral choices to outcomes in a way I simply do not, so your asking me for an answer I cannot give you because I don't function that way.

Carp, this is a Philosophy board, so to a degree we are speaking of hypotheticals, and in this case what we are discussing is which is better - a moral code based on ignorance or one based on perfect knowledge of all future acts and consequences. The type of knowledge a God akin to the Christian God would have. Of course the latter is more comprehensive and therefore better. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me. It is like saying doing science with some of the facts is equal to doing science with all the facts. There is just no comparison.

[seer]

And as I have noted, an argument based on what "might" have happened is pointless. While there is a strong correlation between moral norms and cultural/family/religious contexts, the link is not absolute. My moral code does not align with the family I grew up in, the church I was raised in, or even the country I call my home.

As for why "go to the wall" for a moral code - my only answer is: because it IS my moral code. That is the entire purpose OF a moral code, to sort out what I ought do from what I ought not do. When my moral code says, "ought not do that," if I am a moral person, I will go to the wall untill such time as that code changes.

Right, so you will go to the wall for a relative, PC, culturally induced moral sense. But if you lived a hundred years ago you would have most likely gone to the wall for the opposite opinion on this issue. There is no certainty in your declarations apart from the timing and place of your birth, which was completely out of your control. I don't see how an immutable moral sense would not be superior to one based on relative and shifting cultural norms.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, this is a Philosophy board, so to a degree we are speaking of hypotheticals, and in this case what we are discussing is which is better - a moral code based on ignorance or one based on perfect knowledge of all future acts and consequences.

So let me ask you, Seer, which is the better reasoner - a woman in a pink dress, or a woman in a blue dress?

You might be tempted to say, "the color or the clothes has nothing to do with reasoning, so I cannot answer your question.

So when you ask me, "which is better - a moral code based on ignorance or one based on perfect knowledge of all future acts and consequences?"

I have not answer except to note that "future acts and consequences" is not the basis for classifying a present action is moral or immoral," so I cannot answer you.

The type of knowledge a God akin to the Christian God would have. Of course the latter is more comprehensive and therefore better. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me. It is like saying doing science with some of the facts is equal to doing science with all the facts. There is just no comparison.

The science analogy breaks because science is based on gathering data, hypothesizing, testing, and confirming - the scientific method. So the more data there is at the beginning, the better the hypothesis and the better the outcomes. Facts are directly related to what science does.

Future acts and consequences are not directly linked to moral choices today. I have given you several examples. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing them, or are ignoring them.

I walk down the road, see a man, pull out a knife, and randomly stab him through the heart.

- The man would have grown up to be Hitler: my act is still immoral
- The man would have grown up to be Mandela: my act is still immoral

The morality of the act is linked to my intention and the act itself. I had no just cause to kill that person. Even if I knew, with god-like omniscience, that the man would become Hitler, I cannot take a man's life for future acts (have not yet occurred) that are not certain to occur.

And I think I can see where this is going...we're going to end up in a discussion of determinism vs. free will...

[seer]

So let me ask you, Seer, which is the better reasoner - a woman in a pink dress, or a woman in a blue dress?

You might be tempted to say, "the color or the clothes has nothing to do with reasoning, so I cannot answer your question.

So when you ask me, "which is better - a moral code based on ignorance or one based on perfect knowledge of all future acts and consequences?"

I have not answer except to note that "future acts and consequences" is not the basis for classifying a present action is moral or immoral," so I cannot answer you.



The science analogy breaks because science is based on gathering data, hypothesizing, testing, and confirming - the scientific method. So the more data there is at the beginning, the better the hypothesis and the better the outcomes. Facts are directly related to what science does.

Future acts and consequences are not directly linked to moral choices today. I have given you several examples. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing them, or are ignoring them.

I walk down the road, see a man, pull out a knife, and randomly stab him through the heart.

- The man would have grown up to be Hitler: my act is still immoral
- The man would have grown up to be Mandela: my act is still immoral

The morality of the act is linked to my intention and the act itself. I had no just cause to kill that person. Even if I knew, with god-like omniscience, that the man would become Hitler, I cannot take a man's life for future acts (have not yet occurred) that are not certain to occur.

And I think I can see where this is going...we're going to end up in a discussion of determinism vs. free will...

You keep saying this Carp, why is intention the standard for what is moral or not, rather than the consequences of the act. Where do you get that, did you just make it up? This seems like circular reasoning.

[carpedm9587]

You keep saying this Carp, why is intention the standard for what is moral or not, rather than the consequences of the act. Where do you get that, did you just make it up? This seems like circular reasoning.

You'll have to point out the circularity, Seer. I know of no moral system (including yours) that holds a person morally responsible for all outcomes associated with their act. So take the case of the knifing I presented, and show how the identity of the two people in question changes the moral culpability of the person weilding the knife.