Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[Quid est Veritas?]

Inactivity is a neutral position.

Let us say a woman is about to be raped and she struggles past you into a room for which you have the key. You can give it to her or by your inaction, allow the man to force his way in and rape her. Inactivity is surely not neutral here?

Let us say you know someone to be a murderer and plotting another, and you choose to ignore this as no concern of yours.

Let us say there is a starving child on a street corner begging for food and you just blithely stand there and eat your sandwich?

Or in another sphere, say someone collapses in front of a doctor and he chooses to do nothing. Depending where you are, for instance in a hospital, inactivity here could be even regarded as legally culpable - even if not that specific patient's doctor.

You could introduce a sense of degree here, if you wish, but it is obvious to me in such proximate effects that inactivity is not neutral - and the implication is that though perhaps a lessened immediacy, an effect remains regardless. In certain specific cases, such as the medical profession, omission itself is a moral choice, and I see no reason why this is limited by scope. Feel free to argue why inactivity is neutral, but just asserting it does not make it so.

It's essentially saying that unless a person takes a stance against immoral behavior they are in fact "potentiating" that behavior. But isn't this presuming that the behavior is immoral in the first place? Something that the person is specifically not doing.

The OP's point was to question the existence of 'sidelines' outside a moral sphere, so we are presupposing a concept of morality. Even if you do not believe in that concept, you can surely see from its own internal logic what constitutes moral choice.

If we set up any duality, everything is either the thing or it is not. With us or against us. This is as true for morality as for Race Theory or Communism or what have you. This is why race campaigners say 'silence is violence' or why the Soviets could throw people in the gulag for insufficient enthusiasm or cultivating a separate plot of land on their own time.

If we accept a behaviour is unacceptable, not intervening is tacit acceptance is it not?

Except that even then our inaction in regards to something doesn't by necessity amount to our approval of it.

You are introducing a different sphere here and it depends what you mean by approval. Do you mean that it is good, introducing the moral sphere? Do you mean you subjectively like it? Do you mean its ultimate affects will be positive with regard to some aim?

Say I want to be healthy. I could exercise, eat well, and certainly approve of a healthy body, or I could choose to do nothing. Am I approving of being unhealthy then in the latter case? Of illness and obesity? No, but that remains the result.

It goes back to acceptance. If my son is screaming, I may say it is unacceptable, but if I don't chastise him for it, I am accepting it in a sense. Or how slavery was accepted in society in the past, though deemed an undesirable state.

To potentiate means to increase the likelihood of something happening. So for me to potentiate rape would be saying I am increasing the likelihood of this person being raped. IOW He is saying by me doing nothing I am increasing the likelihood of someone being raped; do you agree with this

Let us say you were going about driving drunk girls home at night. Would this decrease rapes? Let us say we don't do this, will there consequently have been more rapes? Is our inaction here, choosing to stay safe in our own homes, not potentiating those rapes? Now this is a bit of a far-fetched example, but the same is true of other actions or inactions - voting for a specific candidate that cuts police funding, watching pornography that pays for sex-trafficking, etc.

We may choose to do nothing on a certain topic, but the very fact of our not exerting energy to aid that cause is by necessity facilitating the opponents thereof, by us doing nothing to hinder them.

Environmentalism is really the best example here to get the point across. If I ignore it and go about my day, I am still doing environmentally damaging things. The pragmatic effects of action or inaction remain, even if I choose to not engage with the thought system underlying it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sure, I think that is a workable definition. Namely, if I do nothing with regard to sex trafficking, then sex trafficking will be more likely than it would have been if I had done something to oppose it. How does this support your claims about rapists and murderers?

No; to potentiate means to actively contribute. Inactivity is not actively contributing. Besides; it is impossible to actively fight every single evil action happening on Earth. How does this inability make someone bad?

 

[Ken-1122]

Let us say a woman is about to be raped and she struggles past you into a room for which you have the key. You can give it to her or by your inaction, allow the man to force his way in and rape her. Inactivity is surely not neutral here?

Let us say you know someone to be a murderer and plotting another, and you choose to ignore this as no concern of yours.

Let us say there is a starving child on a street corner begging for food and you just blithely stand there and eat your sandwich?

Or in another sphere, say someone collapses in front of a doctor and he chooses to do nothing. Depending where you are, for instance in a hospital, inactivity here could be even regarded as legally culpable - even if not that specific patient's doctor.

In those scenarios, I believe you will have a moral obligation to help them if you can. But how about if someone is about to be harmed and you don't know about it? That is inactivity/neutral as well!

Let us say you were going about driving drunk girls home at night. Would this decrease rapes? Let us say we don't do this, will there consequently have been more rapes? Is our inaction here, choosing to stay safe in our own homes, not potentiating those rapes?

If you drive them home vs them taking a cab home, I doubt that would have an effect on rapes.[/quote]

Now this is a bit of a far-fetched example, but the same is true of other actions or inactions - voting for a specific candidate that cuts police funding, watching pornography that pays for sex-trafficking, etc.

Those are actions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In those scenarios, I believe you will have a moral obligation to help them if you can. But how about if someone is about to be harmed and you don't know about it? That is inactivity/neutral as well!

Exactly. Even if you don't know, you can surmise it is or might be occuring. Are we not aware that evil is happening out there as we speak? In the medical example for instance, the doctor that does not check the pulse is negligent, but before he does, we don't know if intervention is even warranted. Regardless, he has a moral obligation to act. Inaction is not neutral, but against it.

 

[zippy2006]

No; to potentiate means to actively contribute. Inactivity is not actively contributing.

That's a very strange claim to make. Your quote of Quid that started all of this uses inactivity as the example (link).

"If I do nothing against child trafficking say, I am in effect potentiating its continuation."

 

[Ken-1122]

Exactly. Even if you don't know, you can surmise it is or might be occuring. Are we not aware that evil is happening out there as we speak?

Yes. But if you are not in a position to stop it, you can’t be faulted for that.

In the medical example for instance, the doctor that does not check the pulse is negligent, but before he does, we don't know if intervention is even warranted. Regardless, he has a moral obligation to act. Inaction is not neutral, but against it.

The medical field is different because all doctors take an oath.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's a very strange claim to make. Your quote of Quid that started all of this uses inactivity as the example (link).

"If I do nothing against child trafficking say, I am in effect potentiating its continuation."

would you mind providing the post number where I said that? The link you provided doesn't take me there

 

[zippy2006]

would you mind providing the post number where I said that? The link you provided doesn't take me there

I linked to the post where you are quoting Quid as he says that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let us say a woman is about to be raped and she struggles past you into a room for which you have the key. You can give it to her or by your inaction, allow the man to force his way in and rape her. Inactivity is surely not neutral here?

I didn't rape her....nor can I know what occurred before it occurred.

Let us say you know someone to be a murderer and plotting another, and you choose to ignore this as no concern of yours.

I didn't murder anyone.

Let us say there is a starving child on a street corner begging for food and you just blithely stand there and eat your sandwich?

I'm not causing their starvation.

By the way, in your city, in your town...there are pedophiles currently devising ways to assault children.

Why don't you hunt them down? Are you supporting pedophilia?

Even if you did spend your time in this pursuit....you can't also be spending that time fighting racial injustice. Are you supporting racial injustice?

It's a position so mind bogglingly silly it's hard to imagine anyone taking it. For any good you pursue, any wrong you intend to right, there's a million others that you don't.

Your view is that we are all pure evil and cannot be otherwise.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The medical field is different because all doctors take an oath.

Most doctors nowadays only pledge the Declaration of Geneva, and even then, it focusses on your patient and not the selflessness generally expected, and often considered legally culpable if not done, by the public. It is therefore a good indication of the type of behaviour considered morally binding.

Yes. But if you are not in a position to stop it, you can’t be faulted for that

That is the point though. You are accepting the principle that it is immoral not to intervene if you are able to do so. I put it to you that there is no point where we are completely unable to intervene, even if our intervention might be one of the most marginal ones. Incremental gains are how the slave trade ended, through years of abolitionist agitation until it gained momentum. If you accept that it is immoral to remain inactive in the face of immoral actions, you cannot argue a neutral position can exist. Below Ana is taking the opposite, that you can stand idly by while others do evil. That is a consistent position, but seems to me axiomatically wrong in the immediate sphere, and therefore by extension of the principle elsewhere as well.

I didn't rape her....nor can I know what occurred before it occurred.



I didn't murder anyone.



I'm not causing their starvation.

By the way, in your city, in your town...there are pedophiles currently devising ways to assault children.

Why don't you hunt them down? Are you supporting pedophilia?

Even if you did spend your time in this pursuit....you can't also be spending that time fighting racial injustice. Are you supporting racial injustice?

It's a position so mind bogglingly silly it's hard to imagine anyone taking it. For any good you pursue, any wrong you intend to right, there's a million others that you don't.

Your view is that we are all pure evil and cannot be otherwise.

I am Protestant. My view is very much that we are evil and cannot be otherwise. Hence we require salvation by the Grace of God, through which we can be justified and begin the process of salvaging our fallen selves. By our own effort we cannot evade our sin, and we cannot idly allow sin either.

Love the Lord your God and your Neighbour as yourself. I certainly would want help, and it is a moral and Christian obligation to help your neighbour wherever and however you can. To sit idle would be to sin, although there are times where idliness would help the longer aim of charity, such as the physiological need for sleep, so there is some nuance there.

 

[partinobodycular]

My view is very much that we are evil and cannot be otherwise.

Based upon this position any action that one takes to perpetuate humanity is by extension evil.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Based upon this position any action that one takes to perpetuate humanity is by extension evil.

Radioactive material by its nature produces radiation, which left to its own devices, produces deleterious effects in living tissue. But harnessed correctly, it can be used for radiotherapy or diagnostic tests or xrays, etc.

Humans are the same. Left to our own devices we produce evil like bees produce honey, in Golding's phrase. Harnessed correctly, in the image of Christ for one another instead of ourselves, we can do great things. The world is Good, just fallen.

 

[partinobodycular]

Harnessed correctly, in the image of Christ for one another instead of ourselves, we can do great things. The world is Good, just fallen.

But following your line of reasoning:

The world has had nearly 2000 years to "harness" itself correctly, and has seemingly failed. Therefore, any acts, no matter how well intentioned, which lead to the continued existence of humanity, do by default lead to the continued existence of evil. So it would seem that the only logical course of action is to take no actions which are in any way beneficial to the survival of humanity.

Following your reasoning, absent any evidence for divine intervention the logical course of action is to not engage in any actions which are beneficial to others. Faith it would seem has only served to prolong the existence of evil.

The only other option is "The Repugnant Conclusion".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most doctors nowadays only pledge the Declaration of Geneva, and even then, it focusses on your patient and not the selflessness generally expected, and often considered legally culpable if not done, by the public. It is therefore a good indication of the type of behaviour considered morally binding.


That is the point though. You are accepting the principle that it is immoral not to intervene if you are able to do so. I put it to you that there is no point where we are completely unable to intervene, even if our intervention might be one of the most marginal ones. Incremental gains are how the slave trade ended, through years of abolitionist agitation until it gained momentum. If you accept that it is immoral to remain inactive in the face of immoral actions, you cannot argue a neutral position can exist. Below Ana is taking the opposite, that you can stand idly by while others do evil. That is a consistent position, but seems to me axiomatically wrong in the immediate sphere, and therefore by extension of the principle elsewhere as well.


I am Protestant. My view is very much that we are evil and cannot be otherwise. Hence we require salvation by the Grace of God, through which we can be justified and begin the process of salvaging our fallen selves. By our own effort we cannot evade our sin, and we cannot idly allow sin either.

Love the Lord your God and your Neighbour as yourself. I certainly would want help, and it is a moral and Christian obligation to help your neighbour wherever and however you can. To sit idle would be to sin, although there are times where idliness would help the longer aim of charity, such as the physiological need for sleep, so there is some nuance there.

Then what are you doing on a forum discussing morality and droning on about good?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most doctors nowadays only pledge the Declaration of Geneva, and even then, it focusses on your patient and not the selflessness generally expected, and often considered legally culpable if not done, by the public. It is therefore a good indication of the type of behaviour considered morally binding.


That is the point though. You are accepting the principle that it is immoral not to intervene if you are able to do so. I put it to you that there is no point where we are completely unable to intervene, even if our intervention might be one of the most marginal ones. Incremental gains are how the slave trade ended, through years of abolitionist agitation until it gained momentum. If you accept that it is immoral to remain inactive in the face of immoral actions, you cannot argue a neutral position can exist. Below Ana is taking the opposite, that you can stand idly by while others do evil. That is a consistent position, but seems to me axiomatically wrong in the immediate sphere, and therefore by extension of the principle elsewhere as well.


I am Protestant. My view is very much that we are evil and cannot be otherwise. Hence we require salvation by the Grace of God, through which we can be justified and begin the process of salvaging our fallen selves. By our own effort we cannot evade our sin, and we cannot idly allow sin either.

Love the Lord your God and your Neighbour as yourself. I certainly would want help, and it is a moral and Christian obligation to help your neighbour wherever and however you can. To sit idle would be to sin, although there are times where idliness would help the longer aim of charity, such as the physiological need for sleep, so there is some nuance there.

Furthermore, from your position, you can do no good at all....only sin.

Even if you spend all your time doing good, it doesn't compare to the vastness of good you didn't pursue....and since you don't believe anyone nuetral in such matters, we cannot even do good.

There's ultimately no difference between sitting idly by and any other position.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But following your line of reasoning:

The world has had nearly 2000 years to "harness" itself correctly, and has seemingly failed. Therefore, any acts, no matter how well intentioned, which lead to the continued existence of humanity, do by default lead to the continued existence of evil. So it would seem that the only logical course of action is to take no actions which are in any way beneficial to the survival of humanity.

Following your reasoning, absent any evidence for divine intervention the logical course of action is to not engage in any actions which are beneficial to others. Faith it would seem has only served to prolong the existence of evil.

The only other option is "The Repugnant Conclusion".

You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that evil is a thing itself. Evil is only the shadow of the Good, a misapplied attempt to achieve a good thing. Even serial killers are chasing renown or pleasure, say, not specifically 'evil'. Engaging in activities beneficial to others is however a good itself, the virtue of Charity. Besides, not engaging in beneficial actions are themselves immoral, and the general rule is Sin begets Sin. I vehemently disagree it logically follows, as you claim it would be logical to commit evil to end evil? This is the same reasoning that you cure depression by comitting suicide. That is rather following evil to its logical conclusion, the Buddhist path in a way, of non-attachment and seeking an end to existence to escape suffering. It is similar to how some people nowadays refute all altruistic behaviour as merely for the benefit of the altruist, using some-sort of evolutionary or psychological trick. These are profoundly dark ways of looking at the world, far more Total Depravity than anything a Calvinist ever dreamed up. Every child fed, every slave freed, every disease cured, is a human being harnessed correctly.

The biggest error you make though, is saying 'absent any evidence for divine intervention': We literally just had Easter. You may disagree with all the evidence humans present of divine intervention, from prophets to spirituality to the Incarnation, but there is no absence thereof. Even the very fact of being able to make choices is in some sense divine, since a materialist universe would be a largely deterministic or clockwork one. Axiomatically, the second I divine one action to be better than another, feeding rather than killing a child say, the logical framework of morality clicks into place. Christians are told to take up the Cross and follow Jesus to Calvary, not go sit under a tree and wish no-one had ever been born.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Then what are you doing on a forum discussing morality and droning on about good?

"All the world's a stage, and each man in his time, plays many parts."

Furthermore, from your position, you can do no good at all....only sin.

Even if you spend all your time doing good, it doesn't compare to the vastness of good you didn't pursue....and since you don't believe anyone nuetral in such matters, we cannot even do good.

There's ultimately no difference between sitting idly by and any other position.

Oh yes, I can do no good by myself. But my friend, it is not about me but Him. The I must be surrendered and the path is trod by Someone else. It is not always clear to us what we should be doing - even Biblically oil is poured on Jesus' feet that could have been sold to feed the poor - but we can see and know when we are meant to. I know that if I have a sandwich and someone next to me is hungry, that I am to share. All our good actions make the world a little better, the opposite also true though.

I think we have deep axiomatic differences on this point, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, so I don't think our discussion will go very far. If you are interested though, Dostoyevsky goes into this idea of all being partially to blame for all sins, so a good literary adaptation of it would be his Brothers Karamazov (Father Zosima and Dmitry) or in Devils (Stavrogin when he visits Father Tikhon).

Anyway, best of luck to you.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is the point though. You are accepting the principle that it is immoral not to intervene if you are able to do so. I put it to you that there is no point where we are completely unable to intervene, even if our intervention might be one of the most marginal ones.

I disagree! My father was alive when John F Kennedy was shot. He was 2000 miles away from the incident, and had no idea it was going to happen. IOW he was not in a position to intervene, not even at the most marginal level.

Incremental gains are how the slave trade ended, through years of abolitionist agitation until it gained momentum. If you accept that it is immoral to remain inactive in the face of immoral actions, you cannot argue a neutral position can exist.

I disagree. It is humanly impossible to intervene in every evil action going on in the world. Actions you don’t know about, or in no position to intervene, are actions you have remained neutral about.

 

[Ken-1122]

Furthermore, you can fight evil by doing good works/doing good work on yourself. This is called shining a light on the darkness/posessing the absence of evil.

I disagree! Doing good, may promote goodness, but it isn’t gonna stop much of the evil that goes on.

Quid est Veritas' example of the slave trade is good, too; slavery can only exist in a world where morally neutral people are the majority since for good people it's reprehensible and unacceptable. It would never have started to begin with.

I disagree; the Slave trade (or other such evil acts) will exist in a world where evil people are in a position of power.

 

[partinobodycular]

However, there are ways in which good people can fight the forces of evil.

Wait a minute...aren't people the source of that evil in the first place?