Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

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.

You define intentions as the standard for moral choices, rather that consequences - then what fits intentions is judged as moral or not. Yes that does seem circular. But it doesn't even make sense, it would not be that the man you killed or let drown may become Hitler, you know for sure that he will become Hitler. So I kill him out or let him drown - is not my intention to save thousands, even millions, of people a moral good?

[carpedm9587]

You define intentions as the standard for moral choices, rather that consequences - then what fits intentions is judged as moral or not. Yes that does seem circular. But it doesn't even make sense, it would not be that the man you killed or let drown may become Hitler, you know for sure that he will become Hitler. So I kill him out or let him drown - is not my intention to save thousands, even millions, of people a moral good?

I figured we'd get to "determinism" at some point. Seer, if the future is known and fixed, then choice becomes irrelevant. If I kill the "future Hitler," then the future Hitler cannot exist to do what he apparently was foreknown to do, making the foreknowledge wrong, making the whole thing absurd. The whole thing just falls appart into nonsense.

Like I said, I don't delve into nonsensical hypotheticals. Something that has the potential to really happen, those are meaningful. But this is just jibberish, IMO.

And, BTW, you did not show circularity. Circularity occurs when the outcome of an argument is used as a premise for the argument.

[seer]

I figured we'd get to "determinism" at some point. Seer, if the future is known and fixed, then choice becomes irrelevant. If I kill the "future Hitler," then the future Hitler cannot exist to do what he apparently was foreknown to do, making the foreknowledge wrong, making the whole thing absurd. The whole thing just falls appart into nonsense.

Like I said, I don't delve into nonsensical hypotheticals. Something that has the potential to really happen, those are meaningful. But this is just jibberish, IMO.

Carp, foreknowledge does not necessarily equal determinism. And you have been delving into hypotheticals this whole debate - that is often what Philosophy does. Using your standard of intentions taking out a Hitler to save millions would be a moral good. But you don't even have to have foreknowledge - it's 1941 you have already seen the death camps in Poland, you get a clean shot at Hitler with a high powered rifle. Do you take the shot? Is not that shot taken with good intentions?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, foreknowledge does not necessarily equal determinism. And you have been delving into hypotheticals this whole debate - that is often what Philosophy does. Using your standard of intentions taking out a Hitler to save millions would be a moral good. But you don't even have to have foreknowledge - it's 1941 you have already seen the death camps in Poland, you get a clean shot at Hitler with a high powered rifle. Do you take the shot? Is not that shot taken with good intentions?

Seer, if I have already seen the death camps, then Hitler has already done it, so I can execute him (if you believe in capital punishment) without moral conflict. But wait - if I execute him BEFORE 1941 because of my perfect foreknowledge, then he WON'T commit any of those acts and I just killed an innocent man - not to mention my "perfect foreknowledge" has now been rendered wrong.

The whole thing is nonsensical.

[seer]

Seer, if I have already seen the death camps, then Hitler has already done it, so I can execute him (if you believe in capital punishment) without moral conflict. But wait - if I execute him BEFORE 1941 because of my perfect foreknowledge, then he WON'T commit any of those acts and I just killed an innocent man - not to mention my "perfect foreknowledge" has now been rendered wrong.

But executing Hitler in Germany would be murder. And except by killing an "innocent" Hitler you would have save millions of lives. Why isn't that intention a moral good?

The whole thing is nonsensical.

Not if you could also know all counterfactuals.

[carpedm9587]

But executing Hitler in Germany would be murder.

I have no idea how this relates to the subject at hand.

And except by killing an "innocent" Hitler you would have save millions of lives. Why isn't that intention a moral good?

Because your "hypothetical" is logically inconsistent and cannot exist in the real world, so it is not even a good thought experiment.

Not if you could also know all counterfactuals.

We're not talking a logical structure here, Seer, we're talking about foreknowledge of the future. So I think you're proposing, in this hypothetical, that

...we have a multithreaded universe in which there is a being that knows all outcomes of all possible choices taken by all people at all times...

...somehow, this knowledge gives this being a means for crafting a moral code that is "better" and covers all of these eventualities for all finite mortals...

...somehow, this "universal" moral construct will guide us mortal, finite, time-bound humans in making decisions we cannot possibly know the outcome of...

OK - so let's see how this plays out. Two people, neither of which has knowledge of the future - just plain people. One has a young Hitler in a position where he can kill him, and the other has a young Mandela in a position where he can kill him. What is the moral precept, from this all-knowing being of yours, that will guide each of these people to the correct moral action?

[seer]

I have no idea how this relates to the subject at hand.

Because your opinion would be that killing Hitler after he began the Holocaust would be justified - but it wouldn't by their moral sense. Who is right?

Because your "hypothetical" is logically inconsistent and cannot exist in the real world, so it is not even a good thought experiment.

Carp, we are speaking of God here, who as Christian theology states is outside of time. And His moral code based, at least partly, on His omniscience. And why it would be superior to a moral code that is often based on ignorance.

We're not talking a logical structure here, Seer, we're talking about foreknowledge of the future. So I think you're proposing, in this hypothetical, that

...we have a multithreaded universe in which there is a being that knows all outcomes of all possible choices taken by all people at all times...

...somehow, this knowledge gives this being a means for crafting a moral code that is "better" and covers all of these eventualities for all finite mortals...

...somehow, this "universal" moral construct will guide us mortal, finite, time-bound humans in making decisions we cannot possibly know the outcome of...

OK - so let's see how this plays out. Two people, neither of which has knowledge of the future - just plain people. One has a young Hitler in a position where he can kill him, and the other has a young Mandela in a position where he can kill him. What is the moral precept, from this all-knowing being of yours, that will guide each of these people to the correct moral action?

In a particular instance God would have to provide direct instructions. But that is not my point, I'm speaking of His moral law in general. So when God deems homsexual belavior, for instance, immoral on what basis would you object? Certainly not on the basis of ignorance of possible future consequences, and certainly not on the basis of cultural norms, which we have seen are relative to timing and place of birth. So what then?

[carpedm9587]

Because your opinion would be that killing Hitler after he began the Holocaust would be justified - but it wouldn't by their moral sense. Who is right?

Once again, your question is "who is absolutely right." In a subjective moral system, which does not have an absolute, there is no answer to that question - just as there is no answer to the question "how fast is X moving" until there is an agreed upomn frame of reference.

Carp, we are speaking of God here, who as Christian theology states is outside of time. And His moral code based, at least partly, on His omniscience. And why it would be superior to a moral code that is often based on ignorance.

I have answered this several times. I am not sure what repeating my answer will accomplish. But I am somewhat flummoxed that I am called on constantly repeating myself, and no one thinks it odd to have the same question repeated over and over again.

I also know of no moral code that is "based on ignorance." That is a mischaracterization. Because of our finite, time-bound, mortal natures, our morals codes ARE based on the limited information set we are privy to.

In a particular instance God would have to provide direct instructions.

So I am asking for the general moral law that would guide this choice, and you are appealing to specific circumstance? But when I link action to specific circumstance, I'm being circular? I'm not seeing a lot of consistency here.

But that is not my point, I'm speaking of His moral law in general. So when God deems homsexual belavior, for instance, immoral on what basis would you object?

As I believe there is no god, my objection is that you are taking your moral framework and projecting it on a supreme being to give it authority, which is not binding on me. Indeed - no moral codse is binding on me. I am the arbiter of my moral framework. For me to accept a moral statement, it has to align with the rest of my framework without contradiction.

Certainly not on the basis of ignorance of possible future consequences, and certainly not on the basis of cultural norms, which we have seen are relative to timing and place of birth. So what then?

If you, as a person, want to argue that homosexuality is immoral, then I am going to have to ask you for your rationale for this belief. If your answer is "god says so," see my previous answer. If you have another rationale, I will listen to it and see if it make logical sense and fits into my overall moral framework without contradiction. If it does, I'll accept it. If it doesn't, I'll reject it.

[seer]

Once again, your question is "who is absolutely right." In a subjective moral system, which does not have an absolute, there is no answer to that question - just as there is no answer to the question "how fast is X moving" until there is an agreed upomn frame of reference.


I have answered this several times. I am not sure what repeating my answer will accomplish. But I am somewhat flummoxed that I am called on constantly repeating myself, and no one thinks it odd to have the same question repeated over and over again.

Correct, in your world there is no right answer

I also know of no moral code that is "based on ignorance." That is a mischaracterization. Because of our finite, time-bound, mortal natures, our morals codes ARE based on the limited information set we are privy to.

Right based on ignorance.

As I believe there is no god, my objection is that you are taking your moral framework and projecting it on a supreme being to give it authority, which is not binding on me. Indeed - no moral codse is binding on me. I am the arbiter of my moral framework. For me to accept a moral statement, it has to align with the rest of my framework without contradiction.

But that does not answer the question. And I just don't see how your PC culturally induced framework has any legs. Given that you could have believed just the opposite on this issue except for the place and timing of your birth.

If you, as a person, want to argue that homosexuality is immoral, then I am going to have to ask you for your rationale for this belief. If your answer is "god says so," see my previous answer. If you have another rationale, I will listen to it and see if it make logical sense and fits into my overall moral framework without contradiction. If it does, I'll accept it. If it doesn't, I'll reject it.

Why do I need a rational? Perhaps I just believe it is disgusting and immoral? Why wouldn't that be a valid opinion?

[carpedm9587]

Correct, in your world there is no right answer

Again - providing the word you left out, "there is no absolutely right answer. I'm not sure that would surprise you given we are talking about a moral framework with no absolutes. Yet another example if attempting to assess the internal consistency of a framework from the presuppositions of your own...

Right based on ignorance.

Another example of your binary thinking, Seer. The absence of "all information" is not synonymous with "ignorance." No information at one end, all information at the some, a whle range of "some information" in between. We make moral decisions based upon the information available to us. That does not make them based on ignorance - but it does make them based on finite information.

But that does not answer the question. And I just don't see how your PC culturally induced framework has any legs. Given that you could have believed just the opposite on this issue except for the place and timing of your birth.

PC?

And again you are assessing the internal consistency of a framework from your own presuppositions - which is not, IMO, a rational act. My moral framework is what it is. It could be something different - and may be something different in the future. It is not identical to anyone else's. It is not more or less valid in any "absolute" sense to anyone elses. I am not claiming for it anything more than what it is. That you cannot make it align with your need for absolutes and universals is, frankly, not my concern. That it describes how moral frameworks are arrived at, and aligns with how moral frameworks are played out in society, is adequate for me.

Why do I need a rational? Perhaps I just believe it is disgusting and immoral? Why wouldn't that be a valid opinion?

I have no idea what the word "valid," as you are using it, means. If you make a moral proposition that runs counter to mine, I will ask you for your rationale. If your rationale is "it's just disgusting and immoral" and that's the best you can do, so be it - but I'm likely to reject your moral claim as lacking substance and it will not become part of my moral framework.

I don't spend my time trying to determine whose moral framework is or is not valid. I seek to maintain my own moral framework, and then use that to make decisions on actions, who I "hang" with, what societies/groups I am comfortable being part of, etc. If you want to make a case about something being moral or immoral to me, you're going to have to do better than "disgusting" and "because it is." You're also going to have to do better than "god says so."


Out of morbid curiosity - is there a specific point you are trying to drive to with all of this?

[seer]

I have no idea what the word "valid," as you are using it, means. If you make a moral proposition that runs counter to mine, I will ask you for your rationale. If your rationale is "it's just disgusting and immoral" and that's the best you can do, so be it - but I'm likely to reject your moral claim as lacking substance and it will not become part of my moral framework.

I don't spend my time trying to determine whose moral framework is or is not valid. I seek to maintain my own moral framework, and then use that to make decisions on actions, who I "hang" with, what societies/groups I am comfortable being part of, etc. If you want to make a case about something being moral or immoral to me, you're going to have to do better than "disgusting" and "because it is." You're also going to have to do better than "god says so."

Out of morbid curiosity - is there a specific point you are trying to drive to with all of this?

Yes it is obvious, your moral sense is relative and culturally induced, yet you demand a rationale for why one might find homosexuality disgusting. Yet the main reason you don't find it disgusting is because you just happened to be born in the place you were at the time you were - how on earth is that substantive? Go at this way, as I mentioned earlier, do you find beastality to be immoral? Why? What is the rationale - I bet it won't hold up. Yet you will still find it immoral.

[carpedm9587]

Yes it is obvious, your moral sense is relative and culturally induced, yet you demand a rationale for why one might find homosexuality disgusting. Yet the main reason you don't find it disgusting is because you just happened to be born in the place you were at the time you were - how on earth is that substantive? Go at this way, as I mentioned earlier, do you find beastality to be immoral? Why? What is the rationale - I bet it won't hold up. Yet you will still find it immoral.

Let me fix your post to make it actually align with what I am saying. Underlined words are my replacements...

Yes it is obvious, your moral sense is relative and culturally influenced, yet you demand a rationale for why one might find homosexuality disgusting before you will incorporate the proposition into your moral framework. Yet one of the many reasons you don't find it disgusting may be that you just happened to be born in the place you were at the time you were. That is not substantive to someone like me, who needs an absolute moral framework

Go at this way, as I mentioned earlier, do you find beastality to be immoral?

Not particularly.

Why?

Because my moral code is largely associated with avoiding actions that do harm. I cannot say I've given this one a great deal of thought - so I am open to exloring it, but I do not see the harm being done if someone has sex with a cow. Personally, it's not on my bucket list - but there is nothing I can think of in my moral framework that makes "bestiality" a "moral evil." I suppose if it's someone else's animal, or if someone could show the animal is being needlessly harmed by the act - that would be immoral in my book, but that would be about the harm - not the sex.

What is the rationale - I bet it won't hold up. Yet you will still find it immoral.

Surprise, surprise...

[carpedm9587]

Yes it is obvious, your moral sense is relative and culturally induced, yet you demand a rationale for why one might find homosexuality disgusting. Yet the main reason you don't find it disgusting is because you just happened to be born in the place you were at the time you were - how on earth is that substantive? Go at this way, as I mentioned earlier, do you find beastality to be immoral? Why? What is the rationale - I bet it won't hold up. Yet you will still find it immoral.

I made a mistake in my post by not replacing the word "disgusting." The word "disgusting" has nothing to do with my morality. "Disgust" is a visceral, emotive word. It has no direct relationship to morality. I am disgusted at the thought of eating a worm. That has no impact on its moral implications. A thing that is immoral may or may not be disgusting to me - and a thing that is disgusting is not necessarily immoral.

[seer]

Not particularly.

Because my moral code is largely associated with avoiding actions that do harm. I cannot say I've given this one a great deal of thought - so I am open to exloring it, but I do not see the harm being done if someone has sex with a cow. Personally, it's not on my bucket list - but there is nothing I can think of in my moral framework that makes "bestiality" a "moral evil." I suppose if it's someone else's animal, or if someone could show the animal is being needlessly harmed by the act - that would be immoral in my book, but that would be about the harm - not the sex.

At least you are consistent.

[seer]

I made a mistake in my post by not replacing the word "disgusting." The word "disgusting" has nothing to do with my morality. "Disgust" is a visceral, emotive word. It has no direct relationship to morality. I am disgusted at the thought of eating a worm. That has no impact on its moral implications. A thing that is immoral may or may not be disgusting to me - and a thing that is disgusting is not necessarily immoral.

I think my point is clear. Whether one finds homosexuality disgusting or immoral on its face, with no other rationale, is just as substantive (or not) as one who accepts the behavior as moral just because he happened to be born in a particular culture at a particular time. Throwing out the idea that a rationale is necessary does not change that, since reasons are often just as subjective and culturally relative.