Moral Argument Syllogism

[Lukamu]

When I was a small child my great grandmother was in a nursing home. Her daughter, my grandmother, had recently died after a long illness. The family decided not to tell my great grandmother because they feared the shock would kill her. The next time we visited the nursing home, my great grandmother asked me specifically how my grandmother was. At first I didn't respond, but she kept asking, becoming more upset as she asked. I finally said what I was told to say by my mother. I replied "She's ok. She's at home sleeping."

Given the fact that keeping silent would have tipped my great grandmother off (she was an intelligent woman), and given that even the doctors agreed she shouldn't know about my grandmother's death due to her own failing health and the shock it would be to her, the only moral thing to do in my mind was to lie to her.

And yes, this example was 40+ years age, but that really doesn't make a difference, now does it...

I am not the judge, especially because I don't know you or the situation very well aside from what you have told me. Only God knows all of the details. No human being can know every detail like God does, which is why we Christians "trust in the Lord..."
Thank you for the personal example
- Lukamu

 

[Lukamu]

I only require one example to make my point.
And I used an example that seemed to be so mega-obvious that I expected nobody to argue against it. I guess I was wrong about that. I don't see the point in giving you more examples if you can't even agree to this one.

Apparantly, you think saying "I don't know" when you actually do know to be "more evil" then to send people to certain death or torture chambers. Great.

I don't know how to respond to that. I can only question why I would discuss morality with a person who thinks like that.



It's not hypothetical at all. PLENTY of people lied to the gestapo about having jews hidden away in their basement. Today, we call those people HEROES.




I do. But as previously said, I see no point in bringing it up.
I used the nazi / jews example because, again, it seems to be mega-obvious. If you can't agree with the mega-obvious, what point is there to discuss more nuanced every-day-type scenario's?

First, there is a Christian virtue called "prudence", or discretion. Hence my response of remaining silent, one of several options that do not result in lying.
Second, your "WHAT IF the gestapo knocked on your door..." is hypothetical by definition because it starts with "what if". Note: technically you said "imagine" in your post, so you can contest it if you feel it will help.
Third, you don't have enough details to make an objective decision. Humans will never have all of the details, in the same way that God knows all of the details. This is why we Christians "trust in the Lord..." Even the person who is lying to save lives does not have all of the details. What if the Gestapo already know that you're hiding Jews, and they are just testing you so that they can make a public spectacle of you and your family when they hear your lie? What if they suspected your lie and searched the house, when they would have moved on if you had simply remained silent or given a different response? What if you do succeed in saving the lives of these Jews, but later in life they kill hundreds of people by blowing up a school? You don't have all of the details, and you cannot have all of the details - only God knows every outcome.
Finally, and most importantly (if you respond to ANYTHING, please respond to this), you should at least provide an example that applies specifically to your life. When has lying been the only "moral" option for YOU? I bet you can't prove your point with a personal example.
Respectfully,
- Lukamu

 

[Davian]

Hi.

Irony! I think it's great! ' The correct context of this quote reverses your intention, and ends up referring to you.

Now, I don't fully agree with Luther, but I do believe the truth should prevail.

By "truth" do you mean "religious opinion"? Whose?

In the same collection, "Table Talk" he states:
----
CCXCIV. [The Question Number]

[Question:] Why do Christians make use of their natural wisdom and understanding,
seeing it must be set aside in matters of faith, as not only not
understanding them, but also as striving against them?

Answer: The natural wisdom of a human creature in matters of faith,
until he be regenerate and born anew, is altogether darkness, knowing
nothing in divine cases. But in a faithful person, regenerate and
enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the Word, it is a fair and
glorious instrument, and work of God: for even as all God's gifts,
natural instruments, and expert faculties, are hurtful to the ungodly,
even so are they wholesome and saving to the good and godly.
----

This addresses the very quote you have above.

How so ? He makes no mention of "reason".

The "reason" he speaks of in your quote is not an all-encompassing term, but specifically the "reason" of "natural" people -- more bluntly, unsaved/non-Christians. Instead, he calls reason "glorious,"

And I am to agree with your re-interpretation of what he has said? On what basis?

but only in the hands of the "faithful" (Christians).

Do you find that only "faithful" Christians agree with you?

BTW, I do not completely agree with Luther in this context, but as I said, truth should prevail.

Whose "truth"?

So, the irony... You directed Luther's quote at a (claimed) Christian, but it actually refers to you, the "Ignostic."

-Pie

Provide citations to support your claim that Luther was specifically addressing ignosticism, or retract.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am not the judge, especially because I don't know you or the situation very well aside from what you have told me. Only God knows all of the details. No human being can know every detail like God does, which is why we Christians "trust in the Lord..."
Thank you for the personal example
- Lukamu

Thanks for your cop out.

 

[EatingPie]

Hi again.

Before going on, I see that terminology has become a small issue. I use "Christian" and "non-Christian" for brevity's sake, even though Luther did not use those exact words.

Christian: One who is "regenerate and born anew"; "a faithful person... enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the Word"

non-Christian: One who lives "Before faith and knowledge of God"; "a human creature..., [before] he be regenerate and born anew."

By "truth" do you mean "religious opinion"? Whose?

Hmmm, I wasn't actually talking about "religious opinion." I simply attempt to put your citation in its proper context so you can understand what Luther actually meant. Thus it would be "the truthful meaning of Luther's words." As opposed to words quoted out-of-context, perverting their meaning into something Luther did not intend.

How so ? He makes no mention of "reason".

Nope. He certainly did not use the word reason. He uses "natural wisdom," synonymous with the "reason" he refers to as a "harlot" in your citation.

But rather than argue terminology ad infinitum, I shall instead meet your requirement that "reason" be mentioned.

---
LXXVI.

Dr. Henning asked: "Is reason to hold no authority at all with
Christians, since it is to be set aside in matters of faith?" The
Doctor replied: Before faith and the knowledge of God, reason is mere
darkness; but in the hands of those who believe, `tis an excellent
instrument. All facilities and gifts are pernicious, exercised by the
impious; but most salutary when possessed by godly persons.
---
Reason! Okay!

Similar to my previous citation, Luther separates reason applied by people "before faith and knowledge of God," (non-Christians) and reason "in the hands of those who believe" (Christians). For the former, its use is "mere darkness." Yet for the latter "'tis an excellent instrument."

So, once more, when contextualized properly, "Reason is a harlot" in the hands of non-Christians.

And I am to agree with your re-interpretation of what he has said? On what basis?

On the correct context for your badly out-of-context quote.

Provide citations to support your claim that Luther was specifically addressing ignosticism, or retract.

I think it would be more accurate to say he was generally addressing ignosticism.

In the two citations I've provided, Luther delineated between the use of reason by non-Christians (darkness; knowing nothing of divine cases; a harlot), and by Christians (a fair and glorious instrument; an excellent instrument; most salutary).

Now, is ignosticism Christianity? No. Thus Luther is referring to ignosticism under the umbrella of "non-Christians."

So, I return to your original citation being ironic because it actually meant your "reason" in spiritual matters is a "harlot."

-Pie

 

[Davian]

Hi again.

Before going on, I see that terminology has become a small issue. I use "Christian" and "non-Christian" for brevity's sake, even though Luther did not use those exact words.

Terminology should be a big issue. Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

Christian: One who is "regenerate and born anew"; "a faithful person... enlightened by the Holy Spirit, through the Word"

non-Christian: One who lives "Before faith and knowledge of God"; "a human creature..., [before] he be regenerate and born anew."


Hmmm, I wasn't actually talking about "religious opinion." I simply attempt to put your citation in its proper context so you can understand what Luther actually meant. Thus it would be "the truthful meaning of Luther's words." As opposed to words quoted out-of-context, perverting their meaning into something Luther did not intend.

So often it appears that the religionist uses words like "truth" and "truthful", when in context it is apparent that they mean "their religious opinion". "Jesus is truth", and all that.

Nope. He certainly did not use the word reason. He uses "natural wisdom," synonymous with the "reason" he refers to as a "harlot" in your citation.

In your opinion.

But rather than argue terminology ad infinitum, I shall instead meet your requirement that "reason" be mentioned.

---
LXXVI.

Dr. Henning asked: "Is reason to hold no authority at all with
Christians, since it is to be set aside in matters of faith?" The
Doctor replied: Before faith and the knowledge of God, reason is mere
darkness; but in the hands of those who believe, `tis an excellent
instrument. All facilities and gifts are pernicious, exercised by the
impious; but most salutary when possessed by godly persons.
---
Reason! Okay!

Similar to my previous citation, Luther separates reason applied by people "before faith and knowledge of God," (non-Christians) and reason "in the hands of those who believe" (Christians). For the former, its use is "mere darkness." Yet for the latter "'tis an excellent instrument."

So you move the goalposts as you see fit, redefining the words as you need to.

So, once more, when contextualized properly, "Reason is a harlot" in the hands of non-Christians.


On the correct context for your badly out-of-context quote.

In your opinion.

I think it would be more accurate to say he was generally addressing ignosticism.

Did you look up the theological stance of ignosticism at any point?

In the two citations I've provided, Luther delineated between the use of reason by non-Christians (darkness; knowing nothing of divine cases; a harlot), and by Christians (a fair and glorious instrument; an excellent instrument; most salutary).

Now, is ignosticism Christianity? No. Thus Luther is referring to ignosticism under the umbrella of "non-Christians."

Or, he wasn't, and you don't know what the word means.

So, I return to your original citation being ironic because it actually meant your "reason" in spiritual matters is a "harlot."

-Pie

Other than as an attempt at a veiled insult, I still do not see the connection you are trying to make. The concept of "harlot" implies promiscuity, whereas reason, from the perspective of the ignostic, promotes parsimony. You missed the target completely.

 

[Lukamu]

I do. But as previously said, I see no point in bringing it up.
I used the nazi / jews example because, again, it seems to be mega-obvious. If you can't agree with the mega-obvious, what point is there to discuss more nuanced every-day-type scenario's?

Even in the Kantian view, an argument can be made that it is permissable to lie to frustrate a coercer or deceiver, whose means involve you as a hapless tool to some end, and so fail to respect your capability as a rational agent capable of independent choice - i.e. a human being (see Korsegaard, above). Whether lying is the only moral thing to do is more a consequence of the particular moral philosophy one espouses...

Either always is always or it isn't. Even one example is good enough to show the latter.

Since we're stuck on the Nazi-Holocaust scenario, let's continue to look at it. Since you didn't respond to my last argument that we don't know all possible outcomes in a given situation, let's pretend that we DO know all of the outcomes. To rephrase (and clarify) your original question: "What if Jews were hiding in your house, the Nazi Police asked you if you were hiding any Jews, you are not able to remain silent or skirt the issue, and the ONLY way to save their lives was to lie about it?" You are arguing that to tell the truth is obviously the wrong choice, and therefore lying is justified, which contradicts the biblical principle that lying is always wrong.
My argument is that according to the biblical definition of right and wrong, and regardless of the situation, lying is always a sin. The main passages about lying in OT and NT scripture are Exodus 20:16, Matthew 19:18, and there are many more that can be referenced and compared. God is clear: there is no such thing as a righteous lie. Of course, there are situations when lying is justified - by man's definition - but lying is never "right" in the black-and-white sense of the word. I don't think we are arguing about whether giving up the Jews would be right or wrong, I think we are disagreeing on the definition of "right" and "wrong".
By your secular definition of right and wrong, your argument is correct. Why wouldn't you lie to save someone's life?! After all, letting someone die is obviously worse than telling a lie. In your eyes, the ends justify the means and there is no way to logically argue against that - anyone who disagrees is automatically an idiot. And so you foolishly blind yourself to anyone's opinions but your own (and those who agree with you).
Your Nazi-Holocaust scenario brings up a difficult issue: Do I "sin" before God and do what is "right" before Men? Obviously, if you have no God. . . But if you believe in what God says. . ?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By your secular definition of right and wrong, your argument is correct. Why wouldn't you lie to save someone's life?! After all, letting someone die is obviously worse than telling a lie. In your eyes, the ends justify the means and there is no way to logically argue against that - anyone who disagrees is automatically an idiot. And so you foolishly blind yourself to anyone's opinions but your own (and those who agree with you).

Identifying secularism with extreme utilitarianism, and the idea that other opinions would automatically be seen as idiotic, seems childishly naive. I assume that it's some kind of rhetorical device?

 

[Lukamu]

Identifying secularism with extreme utilitarianism, and the idea that other opinions would automatically be seen as idiotic, seems childishly naive. I assume that it's some kind of rhetorical device?

I identify secular as anything that is not sacred. Whether secular means utilitarian, or personal judgement, or tradition, or decided by the majority is up to you. The "automatically idiotic" comment is directed towards Dogma's response - not yours. Again, here is where we stand:
Since we're stuck on the Nazi-Holocaust scenario, let's continue to look at it. Since you didn't respond to my last argument that we don't know all possible outcomes in a given situation, let's pretend that we DO know all of the outcomes. To rephrase (and clarify) your original question: "What if Jews were hiding in your house, the Nazi Police asked you if you were hiding any Jews, you are not able to remain silent or skirt the issue, and the ONLY way to save their lives was to lie about it?" You are arguing that to tell the truth is obviously the wrong choice, and therefore lying is justified, which contradicts the biblical principle that lying is always wrong.
My argument is that according to the biblical definition of right and wrong, and regardless of the situation, lying is always a sin. The main passages about lying in OT and NT scripture are Exodus 20:16, Matthew 19:18, and there are many more that can be referenced and compared. God is clear: there is no such thing as a righteous lie. Of course, there are situations when lying is justified - by man's definition - but lying is never "right" in the black-and-white sense of the word. I don't think we are arguing about whether giving up the Jews would be right or wrong, I think we are disagreeing on the definition of "right" and "wrong".
By your secular definition of right and wrong, your argument is correct. Why wouldn't you lie to save someone's life?! After all, letting someone die is obviously worse than telling a lie. In your eyes, the ends justify the means and there is no way to logically argue against that - anyone who disagrees is automatically an idiot. And so you foolishly blind yourself to anyone's opinions but your own (and those who agree with you).
Your Nazi-Holocaust scenario brings up a difficult issue: Do I "sin" before God and do what is "right" before Men? Obviously, if you have no God. . . But if you believe in what God says. . ?

 

[EatingPie]

Terminology should be a big issue. Pretend that you are in a philosophy forum.

Wow. There's no need to be rude.

I also must point out that you began your reply with a fallacy: Ad Hominen. In fact, every statement you make in your post is fallacious (except for one, which is merely factually untrue).

So often it appears that the religionist uses words like "truth" and "truthful", when in context it is apparent that they mean "their religious opinion". "Jesus is truth", and all that.

This one borders "Ad Hominem," but definitely nails "Hasty Generalization."

I am not making any religious argument. I am arguing for the truthful interpretation of Luther's words. I will also say "accurate interpretation" or "his intended meaning." Because they all say the same thing: Luther meant something, and what he meant is the truthful/accurate/intended meaning of his words.

So you move the goalposts as you see fit, redefining the words as you need to.

Factually untrue.

You rejected my first citation because it didn't use the exact term "reason." Rather than argue terminology, I merely provided a different citation from the same text, one that does use the exact term "reason."

This 2nd citation further clarifies Luther's intended use of the term "reason" even better than the first. Yet you did not address the citation it at all.

In your opinion.
...
In your opinion.

Once again, Ad Hominen. Whether it's my "opinion" or not has no relevance. Am I right or wrong? Is my reasoning valid? If not, why not?

Please address the citations and the argument. Making things personal gets us nowhere.

Did you look up the theological stance of ignosticism at any point?

Yep. But why does it matter? All that matters to the point at hand: is it Christianity or not? I see that you did not answer that question. Or even address the argument. Once more, a Non sequiter.

...Luther was referring to ignosticism under the umbrella of "non-Christians."

Or, he wasn't, and you don't know what the word means.

Man, you are really using that Non Sequitur for all it's worth!

Whether I know what the word means has no bearing on the logic of my argument. Did I use the word correctly? You make no claim either way. Indeed, you actually say nothing at all. The definitive example of Non Sequiter.

So, I return to your original citation being ironic because it actually meant your "reason" in spiritual matters is a "harlot."

Other than as an attempt at a veiled insult, I still do not see the connection you are trying to make. The concept of "harlot" implies promiscuity, whereas reason, from the perspective of the ignostic, promotes parsimony. You missed the target completely.

Okay, this one may not be a Non Sequiter, but I'm pretty sure it is. And here's why I think so.

The above suggests that I am the one who equated "reason" and "harlot," which is certainly not the case. Martin Luther did.

It also matters not what the ignostic perspective is on "harlot" or "reason." In determining the true/accurate/intended meaning of Luther's words, it only matters what he meant.

But I will rephrase my statement, quoted above, for clarity's sake:

I return to your original citation of Luther being ironic. Because in it, Luther actually meant your (the non-Christian's) "reason" in spiritual matters is a "harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." But it seems that you intended the quote to refer to the claimed Christian you posted in reply to.

Finally, as I said in the beginning of this post, every reply you made: a Fallacy. Except one, which is merely Factually Untrue.

-Pie

 

[Davian]

Wow. There's no need to be rude.

And no need for your condescending tone.

I also must point out that you began your reply with a fallacy: Ad Hominen.

Explain.

In fact, every statement you make in your post is fallacious (except for one, which is merely factually untrue).

Then you need to explain how each occurrence is fallacious.

This one borders "Ad Hominem," but definitely nails "Hasty Generalization."

How so?

I am not making any religious argument.

Where did I say that you were?

I am arguing for the truthful interpretation of Luther's words. I will also say "accurate interpretation" or "his intended meaning." Because they all say the same thing: Luther meant something, and what he meant is the truthful/accurate/intended meaning of his words.

And who is to be the arbiter of his intentions?

Factually untrue.

You said "Similar to my previous citation, Luther separates reason applied by people "before faith and knowledge of God," (non-Christians) and reason "in the hands of those who believe" (Christians). For the former, its use is "mere darkness." Yet for the latter "'tis an excellent instrument."

That is two different meanings right there.

You rejected my first citation because it didn't use the exact term "reason." Rather than argue terminology, I merely provided a different citation from the same text, one that does use the exact term "reason."

This 2nd citation further clarifies Luther's intended use of the term "reason" even better than the first. Yet you did not address the citation it at all.

That was not the quote I used.

Once again, Ad Hominen.

How so?

Whether it's my "opinion" or not has no relevance. Am I right or wrong? Is my reasoning valid? If not, why not?

If it is only your opinion, it has no relevance.

Please address the citations and the argument. Making things personal gets us nowhere.

You have yet to explain where I have made things personal.

Yep. But why does it matter?

Because if you use the word in a manner that does not fit the common definition of the word, your post will appear incoherent.

All that matters to the point at hand: is it Christianity or not? I see that you did not answer that question. Or even address the argument. Once more, a Non sequiter.

Ignosticism is a theological position that is completely at odds with Christianity, so your asking of "is it Christianity or not?" is like asking if walking is like driving a car.

Man, you are really using that Non Sequitur for all it's worth!

Whether I know what the word means has no bearing on the logic of my argument. Did I use the word correctly? You make no claim either way. Indeed, you actually say nothing at all.

I am not your dictionary.

The definitive example of Non Sequiter.

How so?

Okay, this one may not be a Non Sequiter, but I'm pretty sure it is. And here's why I think so.

The above suggests that I am the one who equated "reason" and "harlot," which is certainly not the case. Martin Luther did.

You were the one that attempted to point the "harlot" comment at ignosticism. You are mistaken, or have misrepresented what I have written.

It also matters not what the ignostic perspective is on "harlot" or "reason."

Ignosticism is only a theological position on the subject of deities. It makes no other statements.

In determining the true/accurate/intended meaning of Luther's words, it only matters what he meant.

And who is to the the arbiter of that? You?

But I will rephrase my statement, quoted above, for clarity's sake:

I return to your original citation of Luther being ironic. Because in it, Luther actually meant your (the non-Christian's) "reason" in spiritual matters is a "harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." But it seems that you intended the quote to refer to the claimed Christian you posted in reply to.

Where did I say that the Luther quote was ironic?

Finally, as I said in the beginning of this post, every reply you made: a Fallacy.

Keep in mind your post, where you commit the fallacy fallacy.

Except one, which is merely Factually Untrue.

Not a fact, as previous noted.

-Pie

Have you anything other than being argumentative?

 

[EatingPie]

Well, I could continue this in-line argument, but it would be time-consuming, and already delves into multiple issues, each probably requiring their threads of their own. Instead I cut to the heart of the matter.

You said "Similar to my previous citation, Luther separates reason applied by people "before faith and knowledge of God," (non-Christians) and reason "in the hands of those who believe" (Christians). For the former, its use is "mere darkness." Yet for the latter "'tis an excellent instrument."
That is two different meanings right there.

Here you are actually telling me the primary point I've been trying to make this whole time: that Luther means one of two different things when he uses the term "reason."

In the two citations I've provided, Luther delineated between (1) the use of reason by non-Christians ("darkness"; "knowing nothing of divine cases"; "a harlot"), and (2) by Christians ("a fair and glorious instrument"; "an excellent instrument"; "most salutary").

And that leads to...

Now, is ignosticism Christianity? No. That makes an ignostic a non-Christian.

You used Luther's quote in a reply to a Christian, implying that Luther meant his use of reason being a "harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has." But, in actuality (per Luther's "two different meanings" as you yourself said above), Luther was referring to any non-Christian's use of reason: The quote you used actually said your (the non-Christian ignostic's) use of reason was a harlot.

That is why I called it an irony.

-Pie

 

[Davian]

...
Have you anything other than being argumentative?

Well, I could continue this in-line argument,

I didn't think so.

but it would be time-consuming, and already delves into multiple issues, each probably requiring their threads of their own. Instead I cut to the heart of the matter.

You called virtually every statement I made in that post fallacious, and when pressed to justify your accusations, all you can do is make excuses for why you can't. How sad.

Here you are actually telling me

No, I was quoting your own words back to you to show that your accusation of me making untrue statements was unsupported.

the primary point I've been trying to make this whole time: that Luther means one of two different things when he uses the term "reason."

You mean, you believe so. I do not acknowledge that you speak for him.

In the two citations I've provided, Luther delineated between (1) the use of reason by non-Christians ("darkness"; "knowing nothing of divine cases"; "a harlot"), and (2) by Christians ("a fair and glorious instrument"; "an excellent instrument"; "most salutary").

And that leads to...

Now, is ignosticism Christianity? No. That makes an ignostic a non-Christian.

Your question is incoherent. You are, in effect, asking "is atheism Christianity?" I made no such insinuation. Why would anyone anywhere ever form such a question?

You used Luther's quote in a reply to a Christian, implying that Luther meant his use of reason being a "harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has." But, in actuality (per Luther's "two different meanings" as you yourself said above)

No, those were your words being quoted back to you. Do you typically have difficulty following conversations like this?

, Luther was referring to any non-Christian's use of reason: The quote you used actually said your (the non-Christian ignostic's)

You have not established that Luther intended to direct his comment specifically at ignosticism.

use of reason was a harlot.

You have still not established how the word "harlot" might apply to a theological position, outside of an attempt at a veiled insult. Do you typically insult those that disagree with you?

That is why I called it an irony.

-Pie

Then you have used the label in error.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think we are arguing about whether giving up the Jews would be right or wrong, I think we are disagreeing on the definition of "right" and "wrong".
By your secular definition of right and wrong, your argument is correct. Why wouldn't you lie to save someone's life?! After all, letting someone die is obviously worse than telling a lie. In your eyes, the ends justify the means and there is no way to logically argue against that

Exactly.

Yet, I have a feeling that you're gonna try and do exactly that: argue against that.
I also expect you not to use any valid reasoning. You even agree that logically, you can't argue against that. So if you're gonna try, you're by definition going to use illogical arguments.

And so you foolishly blind yourself to anyone's opinions but your own (and those who agree with you).

No, I don't. I'll happily accept a solid argument against it. But as I've said, I don't expect you to come up with any logical solid argument. I expect you to start quoting some religious book from the bronze age and not present me with any real argument at all.

You're just gonna start quoting from authority. Indeed, we very much disagree on what "right and wrong" means. "Right", to you, means just mere obedience to a perceived authority.

This is exactly why I consider "divine command theory" to be morally bankrupt.

Your Nazi-Holocaust scenario brings up a difficult issue: Do I "sin" before God and do what is "right" before Men? Obviously, if you have no God. . . But if you believe in what God says. . ?

No. The real difficult issue is to dare to ask the question why this supposed god is going to reward you for sending jews to meet certain death instead of trying to protect them by lying to the most inhuman criminals of the last centuries.

This is just one of the many many reasons why I am an atheist. An all-knowing, all-loving god simply would not value inconsiderate cruelty over naive honesty.

Your entire "argument" boils down to blindly and unquestionably following a perceived authority that can't even be shown to exist. And as per your own quote above, you need to build an illogical argument to defend this position.

It seems as if when I ask you "Why is X right or wrong?", your only answer basically is "cuz' god says so".

There is no point in discussing morality when you think like that.

 

[Lukamu]

The main issue that we are debating is whether or not it is right to lie in order to save lives, and furthermore, how we define "right" and "wrong".

You're just gonna start quoting from authority. Indeed, we very much disagree on what "right and wrong" means. "Right", to you, means just mere obedience to a perceived authority.

This begs the question, what does right mean to you? Here is what you said in earlier posts (#49 and #51):

In any case, I'ld say that I try to use an objective methodology to decide between right and wrong. But the only way I can do that is by taking on subjective premises. In a major nutshell, and to paraphrase Sam Harris, these premises are:
- best possible well-being for sentient beings: good
- worst possible suffering for sentient beings: bad

From there, you are able to "objectively" make moral decisions based on the information at your disposal. But at best, i'ld call that "pseudo-objective", since it still all boggles down to rather subjective, and perhaps even arbitrary, premises.

Here, you contradict your own argument of making "objective" decisions by explicitly stating that your definition of objective, and therefore your definition of "right", is arbitrary. It seems like your shaky definition of "right" leans mostly towards utilitarianism, or "whatever is the best for the most people".

The "methodology" I shared is the only way I know of to get to a somewhat "objective" morality.

"objective" to me means free of emotions or personal preferences.
In that sense, it boggles down to "here are the facts, so here is the conclusion".

And the only requirement is a solid premise in which one recognises that suffering is bad and well-being is good. If one can't agree to such a premise, then the idea of "morality" is meaningless imo.

Here is the problem with your argument about "suffering is bad and well-being is good": suffering is not always bad. For example, an athlete suffers during training so that they become a stronger and better athlete. Again, your "solid premise" seems pretty shaky.

However, moral dilemma's are very real and sometimes there simply is no "correct" answer... Sometimes, one is left to choose for the lesser of two evils...

How are you going to make a decision, if not by choosing the lesser of two evils (which translates into maximizing the well-being for the most amount of people while trying to minimize the amount of suffering)?

Morality and moral decision making is anything but a black and white world. Which, imo, is also the reason that the idea that an "objective morality" is complete nonsense.

Here, your own position is what weakens your own argument. You are saying that the lesser of two evils is good, foolishly calling something both "evil" and "good" in the same sentence. As a Christian, I believe that what is "good" is "good", and what is "evil" is always "evil". Consider the story of the wise and the foolish builders: Matthew 7:24-27. A wise man builds his house upon a firm foundation which does not move, while a foolish man builds his house upon the shifting sand.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This begs the question, what does right mean to you? Here is what you said in earlier posts (#49 and #51):

Here, you contradict your own argument of making "objective" decisions by explicitly stating that your definition of objective, and therefore your definition of "right", is arbitrary.

No, that is not what I said. You should read it again, because it's right there in the part you quoted.

I said that the premises are subjective. But once you agree/decide on the premises, you CAN make objective decisions.

Which is why I call it "pseudo-objective".

It seems like your shaky definition of "right" leans mostly towards utilitarianism, or "whatever is the best for the most people".

No, not exactly. You should understand that part in the most broad way possible. I said it was a "major nutshell", so you should treat it as such.

In the end, the goal is to try and organize ourselves so that, ideally (and perhaps unrealisticly) everybody (=sentient beings) is able to enjoy security, happiness, comfort, health, justice...

If that is not the goal of morality, then what is?
Like Sam Harris said in his book the Moral Landscape, if you are going to argue against that... then I don't know what you are talking about...
I'll be happy to hear your argument though.

Here is the problem with your argument about "suffering is bad and well-being is good": suffering is not always bad. For example, an athlete suffers during training so that they become a stronger and better athlete. Again, your "solid premise" seems pretty shaky.

That's a very juvenile response, as it should be quite clear upon thinking it through a bit, that that is not the type of suffering I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the suffering inflicted on people by others by things like rape, theft, murder, abuse, exploitation, oppression, etc.

I would have expected that to be clear. Kind of weird that I had to explain it.

Here, your own position is what weakens your own argument. You are saying that the lesser of two evils is good, foolishly calling something both "evil" and "good" in the same sentence.

No, I didn't say that either.
At best, what I said was that the lesser of two evils is better then the worst of two evils. Which is not the same at all.

I even started the quote by saying that sometimes there is "no correct answer", meaning literally that there is no "good" answer and you are left having to choose between a "bad" thing and a "very bad thing".
If faced with those two options, how can you state that choosing the "bad" thing over the "very bad thing" is not the better option? Assuming you HAVE to choose, off course.

As a Christian, I believe that what is "good" is "good", and what is "evil" is always "evil".

So, in your little bubble universe, moral dilemma's don't exist?

Also, as a christian, how do you define what "good" is?
Could it perhaps be that you consider "good", whatever you believe your god to say is "good"?

So I take it that you consider "lying" to be "always evil".
So when the Gestapo asks you where the jews are hiding and you know where they are hiding.... You tell the truth, knowing they'll all be send into gas chambers, and then take pride in having done "the right thing"????

 

[Lukamu]

No, that is not what I said. You should read it again, because it's right there in the part you quoted.

I said that the premises are subjective. But once you agree/decide on the premises, you CAN make objective decisions.

Which is why I call it "pseudo-objective".



No, not exactly. You should understand that part in the most broad way possible. I said it was a "major nutshell", so you should treat it as such.

In the end, the goal is to try and organize ourselves so that, ideally (and perhaps unrealisticly) everybody (=sentient beings) is able to enjoy security, happiness, comfort, health, justice...

If that is not the goal of morality, then what is?
Like Sam Harris said in his book the Moral Landscape, if you are going to argue against that... then I don't know what you are talking about...
I'll be happy to hear your argument though.



That's a very juvenile response, as it should be quite clear upon thinking it through a bit, that that is not the type of suffering I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the suffering inflicted on people by others by things like rape, theft, murder, abuse, exploitation, oppression, etc.

I would have expected that to be clear. Kind of weird that I had to explain it.



No, I didn't say that either.
At best, what I said was that the lesser of two evils is better then the worst of two evils. Which is not the same at all.

I even started the quote by saying that sometimes there is "no correct answer", meaning literally that there is no "good" answer and you are left having to choose between a "bad" thing and a "very bad thing".
If faced with those two options, how can you state that choosing the "bad" thing over the "very bad thing" is not the better option? Assuming you HAVE to choose, off course.



So, in your little bubble universe, moral dilemma's don't exist?

Also, as a christian, how do you define what "good" is?
Could it perhaps be that you consider "good", whatever you believe your god to say is "good"?

So I take it that you consider "lying" to be "always evil".
So when the Gestapo asks you where the jews are hiding and you know where they are hiding.... You tell the truth, knowing they'll all be send into gas chambers, and then take pride in having done "the right thing"????

So you are a believer in Sam Harris, then? The man who began his philosophical journey, according to Wikipedia:

"In 1986, as a young student at Stanford University, Harris experimented with the drug ecstasy, and has since written and spoken about the powerful insights he felt psychologically under the drug's influence.[15][16]"​

And also says:

"He goes on to say that the term atheist will be retired only when "we all just achieve a level of intellectual honesty where we are no longer going to pretend to be certain about things we are not certain about".​

When clearly we are not "certain" about some big issues such as the origins of the universe, of the origins of life, the meaning of life, or what happens to the spirit after death. Yet you would rather trust in someone who found his calling when using ecstasy, and has not even lived to be 50 years old?

As for me, I believe in the eternal God: "Before the creation of the universe, I AM." I do not have to experiment with science to find my moral compass - there it is, in the Bible. Contrary to what you have said, it is not "blind and unquestioning" faith. I see the effects of living according to Biblical morals, and I am free to question God (questioning God is not a sin - disobeying clear commands is a sin). Your problem is that you think you know enough about God to make all of these claims against Him. Your argument seems logical to you, yet blindly you do not have all the facts.

As for your argument, you have already defeated yourself. You claimed that lying is "better", and that "better" is the lesser of two evils - that "better" is not always the same as "right". I claimed that lying is not the "right" thing to do, which you have just agreed to. When I look at the "moral dilemmas" that come up with a google search, they are all answerable by principles in the Bible. In a Christian world-view, the difficulty is not deciding what is right and what is wrong - the difficulty is deciding whether or not to do what is right or wrong. As they say, knowing is half the battle. However, it seems as if you and Sam Harris are still stuck in the first half of the battle, trying to decide right from wrong.

Your last sentence deserves some comment. Do some research on what happened to non-Jews who were caught helping Jews. To tell the truth would also mean death for the non-Jew. I don't think that "pride" is the word you meant to use...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So you are a believer in Sam Harris, then? The man who began his philosophical journey, according to Wikipedia:

"In 1986, as a young student at Stanford University, Harris experimented with the drug ecstasy, and has since written and spoken about the powerful insights he felt psychologically under the drug's influence.[15][16]"​

And also says:

"He goes on to say that the term atheist will be retired only when "we all just achieve a level of intellectual honesty where we are no longer going to pretend to be certain about things we are not certain about".​

When clearly we are not "certain" about some big issues such as the origins of the universe, of the origins of life, the meaning of life, or what happens to the spirit after death. Yet you would rather trust in someone who found his calling when using ecstasy, and has not even lived to be 50 years old?

Since you're in the Philosophy section and all, you should probably know this is a big 'ole Ad Hominem fallacy.

Oh, and the rest of it is a total dodge...