When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

If you're going to ask trite questions then I'm not going to play.

No seriously, you believe it's immoral. But just cause you think so doesn't mean it is. Right? I mean once again you have made yourself the arbiter of morality. By what authority do you make that claim?

 

[Bradskii]

No seriously, you believe it's immoral. But just cause you think so doesn't mean it is. Right? I mean once again you have made yourself the arbiter of morality. By what authority do you make that claim?

I have no authority. That's been explained umpteen times for heaven's sake. It is my opinion that it is immoral. It is in your opinion immoral. The vast percentage of people would have the opinion that it is immoral.

Do you know who does have authority over certain harmful acts? Yes, you do. Remember? It was the legislative.

 

[o_mlly]

He has harmed the relationship between them by cheating on her ...

What evidence. ie., observable effects, demonstrate that his adulterous act harmed the relationship? None. He is not sorry, nor does he feel any remorse. Regarding his wife, he says to you, "Brad, ignorance is bliss; what she doesn't know can't hurt her (or me!). Why would I ever want to harm her (and me!) by telling her the truth?"

Now we are to decide if ... [the] lie is justified or not.

(Edited to avoid the confusion of unnecessarily conflating the acts.)

The above statement presumes that lying is objectively harmful. Is that what you want to say? In your moral system, prior to the necessity of justifying the lie we must have evidence that the act caused harm. We don't. The relationship only needs mending if it has been ruptured and that does not occur if he lies.

It's your couple so maybe you have a hypothetical outcome in mind. Do you think he should tell her the truth?

Adultery and lying are intrinsically evil acts. Neither a good intention nor any set of circumstances can make good an act that is evil in its object.

If you like, we can do it step by step. Maybe it'll be easier for you to follow. But that's up to you.

Firstly, do you agree that we are social animals?

If doing so makes it easier for you to make your prior post coherent, then go ahead ... as long as we don't have to visit the zoo.

I have already asserted that we are social animals. Next?

 

[Bradskii]

I have already asserted that we are social animals. Next?

So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given. But would you agree that we generally avoid acts that might result is us being excluded?

 

[partinobodycular]

So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given.

With at least one notable exclusion.

 

[Bradskii]

With at least one notable exclusion.

Ah, but you've always been the odd one out.

 

[o_mlly]

So we have a preference for being in a group. We feel bad if we are excluded. I won't ask if you agree with that as it's a given.

Slow down, I'm trying to keep up. I don't feel bad at all that an atheist group, out of spite, excludes me. We are social animals but unlike all other social animals we are also political animals establishing our group preferences based on rational values that are freely, not instinctively (aka genetically), determined. We don't need a DNA test and a grasp of calculus to identify our preferred group. Do you agree?

But would you agree that we generally avoid acts that might result is us being excluded?

In our preferred political groups, we are inclined to conform and avoid acts contrary to our rationally agreed values. At the extreme, one would certainly avoid the act that absolutely excludes one from the group, ie., suicide.

Next?

 

[Bradskii]

In our preferred political groups, we are inclined to conform and avoid acts contrary to our rationally agreed values.

Exactly. We avoid what might cause others to exclude us. What others may think of as undesirable characteristics. Such as cowardice. No-one, as I said, likes to be thought of as such. We'd feel shame if we abandoned a friend in adversity, rather than stand with him and help. You'd feel shame if someone bad mouthed your girl and you didn't say something. I mean, they used to shoot men who they thought showed cowardice in the face of the enemy.

I think it's pretty much a given that we'd try to avoid being considered a coward. So unless you disagree with that..?

 

[o_mlly]

We avoid what might cause others to exclude us. What others may think of as undesirable characteristics. Such as cowardice. No-one, as I said, likes to be thought of as such.

IFF the others are rational in their decision to exclude.

We'd feel shame if we abandoned a friend in adversity, rather than stand with him and help. You'd feel shame if someone bad mouthed your girl and you didn't say something.

Depends on the friend's act that provoked his adverse condition. I would feel no shame if my friend were justly in prison for violating the law. I would feel no need to defend a girl whose shameful act provoked justified "bad mouthing".

I think it's pretty much a given that we'd try to avoid being considered a coward. So unless you disagree with that..?

See above.

Have you abandoned your "no justified harm" moral system?

 

[Bradskii]

Depends on the friend's act that provoked his adverse condition. I would feel no shame if my friend were justly in prison for violating the law. I would feel no need to defend a girl whose shameful act provoked justified "bad mouthing".

There indeed might be situations where you felt justified in not taking action. But I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about situations where you feel you should have done something. But didn't. And that others feel the same about your lack of action. They, and you, think that you should have acted but you showed a lack of moral fibre.

So we avoid that. We think less of those who appear to be cowards. And more of those who do stand with their friends. Who do say something to the drunk who insulted their girl. Who do show courage in the face of danger. Who wait for the train at high noon.

This is all pretty obvious, isn't it?

 

[o_mlly]

I'm talking about situations where you feel you should have done something. But didn't. And that others feel the same about your lack of action. They, and you, think that you should have acted but you showed a lack of moral fibre.

You use the word "feel" quite often. Animals are ruled by their instincts; some people are similarly ruled by their feelings or emotions. Virtue is the acquired habit of choosing to deny control of our actions to disordered feelings and allow reason to rule. In time the disordered feelings are suppressed, and reason autonomously and without reflections rules our actions. We become morally free from enslavement by our passions.

If "others" exclude me for acting virtuously then I think it's quite obvious who has a problem.

Let's speed up the exchange. You will eventually claim that like the animals, our genes control our actions. I disagree. We are rational beings with free will and our decisions are not determined by material things. We have a spiritual dimension.

Next?

How about a comment on "justified harm" as a moral concept?

 

[partinobodycular]

I think it's pretty much a given that we'd try to avoid being considered a coward. So unless you disagree with that..?

Ah, and thus the value of my indifference... I don't care what others think. Some view apathy as a flaw... I view it as a virtue. I will do what is right and what is good to the best of my ability, without regard to what others may think... and that includes God.

This freedom from concern about the judgment of others leaves me free to do what my heart longs to do... and not what my lesser human frailties might compel me to do.

 

[Bradskii]

If "others" exclude me for acting virtuously then I think it's quite obvious who has a problem.

Why do you think that you'd be excluded for 'acting virtuously'? You'd be excluded for acting without virtue.

Let's speed up the exchange. You will eventually claim that like the animals, our genes control our actions. I disagree.

Good grief. Whose posts are you reading? I can't remember the number of times that I've said that we are not individually controlled by our genes. They influence our thinking. They give us tendencies. But society has a greater role to play in how we decide to act.

So being courageous is seen as being a good thing in society (which we value, being a social animal). It enhances one's position in any given group. You are seen as someone who can be relied on. Someone who will watch your back. That propensity is encouraged. From a very early age. So we end up thinking that we need to 'do the right thing' when it's required of us.

And that 'right thing' in times of danger, in times when it is literally a case of do or die, of life or death, then many choose the latter. From standing back and letting the last lifeboat fill knowing that you won't survive, from climbing the stairs in the second tower after watching the first collapse to telling your comrade in the snowbound tent with limited rations that you're 'just going out for a while'. What are the options? Fight your way onto the last boat? Tell your mates that you're too scared to go into the building? Sometimes it's a choice between living as a coward or dying with honour.

You keep using the same example in all these type of discussions. As if it's something special. Something divine. But it happens constantly. You'll hear about the Medal of Valour winner. Or the guy who won the V.C. But you don't hear about the countless individual acts.

Now could it be that you are right instead? That it's God that has given us the love we have for our fellow travellers? And that is the reason for personal sacrifice? Well, it might be. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty certain that I'm not but at least you have explained it from your point of view. I just don't think you're right. And now I have explained it from my point of view.

And what is your response? I'm afraid it's the usual. You are unable to accept that anyone has different views that are honestly held. You seem incapable of accepting that others have thought a great deal about matters like this and have come to different conclusions than you. So rather than counter the explanations, you constantly claim that no explanation has even been given. You deny even the possibilty that other explanations could exist.

A forum is meant to be an exchange of ideas. A discussion about various views. A debate. I really have no idea why you are here.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, and thus the value of my indifference... I don't care what others think. Some view apathy as a flaw... I view it as a virtue. I will do what is right and what is good to the best of my ability, without regard to what others may think... and that includes God.

This freedom from concern about the judgment of others leaves me free to do what my heart longs to do... and not what my lesser human frailties might compel me to do.

You're quite the exception, part. Can I ask if you empathise with others?

 

[partinobodycular]

Can I ask if you empathise with others?

Yes, I do. But it's generally on an intellectual level and not an emotional level. In other words I understand what the other person is experiencing, and I may be able to relate to it, but I don't 'feel' an emotional connection the way that most people claim to do, and consequently I won't exhibit what may seem to be the appropriate emotional response.

This lack of an emotional response has both a good side and a bad side. The good side is that I tend to avoid emotional responses. The bad side is that I tend to avoid emotional responses. In other words I'll calmly analyze the situation and determine what the appropriate response should be. In situations such as the slaughtering of innocent children in Israel and Palestine some may see this as cold and heartless, while others may interpret it as being calm and cool headed. But I really don't see it as being either, it's just me being me. I'm not going to get distraught and I'm not going to get angry. I'm simply going to do what my heart and my conscience tells me I need to do.

This lack of an emotional response doesn't mean that I won't do everything that I can to help when help is needed, but what it does mean is that I'm less likely to do harm when harm isn't needed. Hence I see this lack of emotion as a virtue and not a flaw.

It doesn't mean that I don't care. It means that every action that I take is precisely because I do care.

 

[Kylie]

Why would you see it in other species if it didn't develop until Humans had already evolved?

@o_mlly , I think you may have missed this response from me.

 

[o_mlly]

I can't remember the number of times that I've said that we are not individually controlled by our genes. They influence our thinking.

So, you agree that we are not determined solely by materials? That's an odd statement from a professed materialist.

And that 'right thing' in times of danger, in times when it is literally a case of do or die, of life or death, then many choose the latter. ... Sometimes it's a choice between living as a coward or dying with honour.

And here is the nonsense in your argument to explain the self-sacrificial act. You say at times we act against our own interests in order to belong to the group. However, one who commits the self-sacrificial act by definition absolutely and forever separates themselves from the group. That's a classic non-sequitur.

Now could it be that you are right instead? That it's God that has given us the love we have for our fellow travellers? And that is the reason for personal sacrifice? Well, it might be. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty certain that I'm not but at least you have explained it from your point of view. I just don't think you're right. And now I have explained it from my point of view.

I contend that your explanation of the self-sacrificial act as a rational atheist is, well, irrational. That's how debate works.

I'm afraid it's the usual. You are unable to accept that anyone has different views that are honestly held.

I do not doubt your view is held honestly; I contend your view is irrational. Nothing personal is implied. Why would you infer that?

I really have no idea why you are here.

The site is the Christian Forum. I'm a Christian.

Perhaps the better question is why are you here? Is Fred also here under another alias?
______________________________
Still nothing on "justified harm" morality?

 

[Bradskii]

So, you agree that we are not determined solely by materials? That's an odd statement from a professed materialist.

You'd be better off arguing against what I actually said.

And here is the nonsense in your argument to explain the self-sacrificial act. You say at times we act against our own interests in order to belong to the group. However, one who commits the self-sacrificial act by definition absolutely and forever separates themselves from the group. That's a classic non-sequitur.

As I said, a point is often reached when it is preferrable to sacrifice oneself honourably rather than to live in shame. If you don't agree then counter that position. Argue that it never happens. Address the point.

I contend that your explanation of the self-sacrificial act as a rational atheist is, well, irrational.

Your post consists of nothing more than 'that's an odd statement' and 'that's a non sequitur' followed by 'it's irrational'.

I'm repeating myself too often. You are not addressing what I'm saying. You are not countering any points I make. You are not, in effect, listening. I'll give you one more shot but if it's not worth my time then you'll get a closing 'thanks for your input'.

 

[o_mlly]

You'd be better off arguing against what I actually said.

I am.

You have posted that the genetics does not explain the self-sacrificial act. You are a professed materialist. So, where is the material cause for the self-sacrificial act?

As I said, a point is often reached when it is preferrable to sacrifice oneself honourably rather than to live in shame.

That is not in question. I know why a Christian would self-sacrifice. The question is why an atheist (no belief in an afterlife) would self-sacrifice when, in his worldview, that is all that there is?

Argue that it never happens. Address the point.

Sure. Give us a verifiable example of a professed atheist who self-sacrificed for the sake of an "acquaintance".

I'm repeating myself too often.

Yes, I agree. The only explanation for your repetition of this nonsense is the aforementioned Goebbels method.

Please address the illogic of your positions. Or is this the way as usual (cf. "justified harm") that when you have no logical reply you wish to exit the thread.? I explained to Fred some time ago the atheist's playbook for debate. Seems you may need a refresher course.

You may now exit the thread. We'll let the readers decide.

 

[partinobodycular]

You may now exit the thread. We'll let the readers decide.

I'm siding firmly with @Bradskii.