Motivation in Morality

Treeplanter

Active Member
Jun 9, 2021
372
47
50
Southwest Florida
✟15,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If I run around trying to convince people to abide by my view of morality then I am no different to other people running around trying to convince people to abide by their view of morality.
Yes, you are!

Your morality is right and theirs is wrong!!

Your morality is based upon a directive to not do harm
{because to do so is detrimental to society}

This is a right and good and virtuous and just standard

The moralities of those who care not for society are wrong, bad, immoral, and evil

It's a fool's errand. There is no way to resolve moral disputes.
I don't accept this!

If there were no way to reason with one another than we might just as well give up all pretense of civilization and devolve into utter and total chaos

If I were to run around saying X is dangerous, I would do just that. I wouldn't veil it in moral vernacular.
No, you'd prefer to leave it in a vernacular that supports a position wherein 'X' {despite being dangerous and detrimental to society} is regarded as equally valid a choice as any other from 'A' to 'Z'


I wouldn't be proposing for a moral society.
And yet you ARE proposing for a moral society!

You advocate for a "safe" society

This is the makings of a moral society

Those that stand in the way of a safe society are wrong, bad, immoral, and evil

I am unconcerned as to whether actions are defined by others as being moral or not.
In the sense that I am right and they are wrong -
I, too, am unconcerned as to whether actions are defined by others as being moral or not

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
All else is moral or, at the very least, morally neutral

I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is simply wrong

The kicker?
You agree with me!

You know that actions leading to danger/violence are wrong
You know that actions which do not lead to danger/violence are acceptable

You just refuse, for some inexorable reason, to call wrong, bad, immoral, and evil that which is wrong, bad, immoral, and evil...

What would be the point in me defining "good" in such away and talking about good with another person who defines "good" differently? This will just lead to miscommunication.
Better to cut out the middle man and discus threats and danger rather than "good" and "moral" or "immoral"
"Good" is a vague term, according to you, because different people define the word differently...

Will you have me believe, then, that all people mean precisely the exact same thing when they use the words "threat" and "danger"?

You can't have it both ways!

But the person hasn't intentionally inflicted harm, that wasn't their intent at all. Harm might be an inevitable consequence but it isn't an intended consequence.
Irrelevant

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

It doesn't matter that harm is not the intent

To consciously and purposefully do that which results in needless harm is immoral because one knows better and chooses to behave poorly anyway

But then we would need to workout how to define if the harm is needless or not?
Needless is that which is not required and necessary

Needless is that which is by conscious and purposeful choice despite not being required and necessary

If stealing from someone has the inevitable consequence of harm then the harm isn't needless.
The need is to steal, the harm is an inevitable and needed consequence in order to steal.
Yes, the consequence of stealing is, inevitably, harm upon the victim
The harm, however, is needless because the thief is not required to steal

There is no need to steal
Stealing is a conscious and purposeful choice that wrong/bad/immoral/evil people make
 
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
In the minds of millions of people, God DOES exist

It is you/them that I am engaging with - not God, not the 'non-existent'!

In that case, you and I should be perfectly ok, given that the 'God' in my mind, doesn't advocate slavery at all. As for the other Christians, well I can't speak for the 'God' in ALL their minds, but meh...what that heck...sure I can...I don't think I have met any who really think that their internal 'God' advocates slavery, although sure you might be able to cause them to question what they think.

I don't really think you have much of an interest in what God thinks about slavery, other than as grounds, for building a moral case against the 'God described in scripture', the one that, in your estimation, Christians evidently don't worship.

For that matter, I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist anyway

I think as you implied, the existence/non-existence of God, is somewhat irrelevant to you, what is relevant, is the minds of the millions of people who think that he does, that you are forced to share a planet with.

All I know for a fact is that God, as described in scripture, transgresses against our collective standard of human morality and, as such, is unworthy of our devotion

1. You don’t need to visit many threads around here to discover that there is no 'collective standard of human morality', in fact there are not really any individual ones.

2. The nearest humans get to such a thing as a 'collective standard' are competing consensuses, that change and adapt over time. - Do you require God to conform to all, or just some of these?

3. God is described to some degree in the bible, but according to the bible, no-one has ever seen Him, apart from the son (Jesus) so they're not really in a position to describe him. The role of the prophets was to speak on his behalf, but it's not like they were possessed, everything they uttered was mediated by their ability to perceive and understand - so subject to limitation. I’ve said already that according to the Book of Hebrews, ‘Jesus himself’ was the closest we get to a ‘description of God’, clearly that is a uniquely Christian perspective.

4. Gods worth is not determined by my valuation, it is self-determined, and it is this self-determined value that God projects on to humans, that according to the bible are his image bearers.

5. The Irony is that it is this unique status applied to humans that gave rise, in the West, to the very concept of ‘Human Rights’ that you accuse the God of the bible of violating.

You are quite literally (or maybe historically/philosophically) biting the hand that feeds you!

What makes you think that an applied value equates to "making more of it than there really is"

Perhaps because value is a relative term, that ceases to exist when the valuer does.

Value is a relative term - if there is no one to consider 'X' valuable then 'X' is of no value!

I agree value is a relative term, within religion the ultimate valuer is God.

What makes you think that an applied value necessarily leads to entropy?

What makes you think that an inherent value doesn't lead to entropy?

I wasn’t thinking about any relationships between value and entropy.

I’m guessing that maybe you thought I was making reference to information theory. - I wasn't

I was just reflecting on the ultimate futility of living and reproducing in a 'dying universe'.

The moral standard, itself, to which I {and most every other human being} adhere to is one born of logic

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another human being is immoral

{Anything else is, by definition, either moral or, at the very least, morally neutral}

This is perfectly rational

So essentially the 'Golden Rule'? which is logical in the sense that it is mutually beneficial.

You are right to point out that Jesus was not the only person to promote the idea, although not always with as much equity.

Wikipedia said:
Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BCE–200 CE) expressed the Golden Rule in his essay regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."

It was also the well-intentioned (but infinitely more condescending) motivation behind Sir Francis Galton's Eugenics - the Darwinistic, Enlightenment-inspired approach to the betterment of the human race (and reduction of 'needless' suffering) through the 'scientific racism' that ultimately found its most unflinching expression in Auschwitz.

To be fair, this is not the only thing that Sir Francis Galton should be remembered for, he coined the phrase ‘nature versus nurture’, created the field of ‘psychometrics’, invented statistical correlation, and perhaps ironically, invented the Dog Whistle.

It also perfectly rational to experience a "physiological" response of disgust and loathing when a human being consciously and purposefully inflicts needless harm

It is although “physiological” responses of disgust and loathing are not dependent upon an accurate evaluation of intention, or necessity.

What's even more repugnant is when God, Himself, consciously and purposefully inflicts needless harm!

That would typically be called cruelty and I don’t think this accusation is justified.

"Every bit as owned" as an actual slave?

I suspect that a great many people, of all colors, would take great offense at this assertion

And rightly so...

What was I saying about dog whistles? Oh never mind I can’t recall.

YOU are NOT a piece of property!

If you don't think that you are owned, try and avoid a military draft and see how that works out for you.

You may never be able to successfully 'extricate' yourself from the clutches of governments and corporations, but you are certainly free to try

I wouldn't stand a chance, I could go 'off grid' and attempt to leave the country(so long as I am in possession of 'my' (government-owned) passport and am not living in the midst of a pandemic), but I'd have to leave the planet to truly escape - which according to UN Outer Space Treaty 1967, I'd need governmental authorization to do, legally.

Not true of a true slave

Absolutely not true of a 'true slave', what they would need to do, is break some chains and run fast/far enough.

Slave to your "dopamine response"?

In other words, a slave to yourself

Again, isn't it horribly offensive to compare yourself

{as a slave to yourself}

to an actual slave

{i.e. piece of property owned by another person}?

Is it? Are you horribly offended?

If so, am I obliged to restrict my words or thoughts, to ones that might be deemed sufficiently unlikely to cause offence? And if so, then to which authority must I submit, to gain clarification on what words or thoughts, are to be properly deemed offensive?

Or else am I free, to speak as one unshackled, from such psychological ironmongery?

So God regarded captivity to one's human nature as an offense to Himself, but not the captivity of one human being to another

Sorry, but God clearly propagated slavery when He gave explicit instruction upon how one human being should own another human being as a piece of property

Paul describes Sin as a form Slavery, the concept of 'redemption' is one that relates directly to slavery, to 'redeem' someone was to pay the purchase price due to their owner, so that you could then release them from their owners control.

According to the New Testament, God is very much in the business of 'redemption'. Although, Paul describes himself as a 'Slave to Christ' or a 'slave to righteousness'

It's all very abstract and reliant upon an awareness of theological themes, but don't worry all this stuff will be covered in far greater accuracy and detail, in your non-existent ‘Soteriology 101’ module.

Christianity:

A faith that teaches that mankind is inherently wicked and deserving, from birth, of eternal damnation...

Again, ‘Soteriology 101’ will compare and contrast, the above theory of salvation, against competing ones, and you might find yourself arriving at a better, more refined one, or in the very least just be able to trace the philosophical/theosophical ideas and thinkers that had a role in its formation.

Christianity (arguably) teaches that mankind is born into a form of slavery (to sin / Satan) and that the only way to break free of this slavery, is 'redemption' - which (as I have mentioned) is a technical term relating to the purchase of slaves, the price of this 'redemption' is the death of God incarnate, so there is way in which this transaction between God and Satan takes place on the cross. The concept of 'slavery' is right at the heart of Christian theology.

It was this concept of slavery that was eventually discovered by John Newton the Anglican Cleric and 18th century Abolitionist, Hymn writer (of Amazing Grace)

If anyone understood slavery from a practical perspective it would be this ex-Royal Navy conscript(pressed into service at 18), ex-slave (yes that is correct! – he was enslaved to an African Princess - Princess Peye at 20) and ex-slave ship captain, who said this when describing the moral state that he found himself to be in.

“I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”

Nope, I'd say that we live in a less brutal time in spite of Christianity - not because of it!

Unfortunately, that’s not how ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ works.

You could attempt to demonstrate that something other than Christianity, has been more influential in shaping the beneficial aspects of western society, that we have inherited today, but good luck with that.

We, the human race, according to scripture, are saddled with the IMMENSE limitation of fallen natures that compel sin and yet God doesn't hesitate to condemn the sins of murder, stealing, lying, adultery, blasphemy, etc

Is this an interpretation of scripture? or a description of how humans commonly behave?

Why, then, does He make an exception for slavery???

You understandably have an objection to the concept of people being owned by other people, as do I.

But I’m guessing that you don’t have a problem with people owning land, cattle and natural resources.

I’m descended from peasant stock, servitude is in my DNA, I will spend most of my adult life slaving away, hopefully gathering up enough resources to pay for my own cremation.

My ancestors owned no land, cattle or natural resources(this isn't speculation, I've researched this out of interest), they subsisted by working the land, cattle and natural resources of others.

In a feudal society, there are no rules more basic than the rule to seize what you can, by whatever means that you can, from whoever you can.

There is no distinction made between land, cattle, people, and resources. They are all one and the same, and sadly from a practical perspective that is absolutely correct, what life, freedom and liberty does a person with no access to land, cattle and resources have?

In what way do our western capitalist societies diverge from this model?

Answer – They do not!…apart from that the ‘Slaves’ get paid a ‘wage’ to feed, house and clothe themselves, so liberating the ‘Slave-owners’ from having to shoulder these burdens directly.

Do you have better judgement than God?

Yes, you do!

Most every one of us does

Want proof?

Easy...

You would never, ever morally sanction one human being owning another human being as a piece of property

You know better

God does not

I respectfully beg to differ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm on this forum, giving specific example, giving facts about why something might be dangerous to me, to my loved ones, to people in society, to the stability of society.
So given this criteria, in principle there wouldn't seem to be any harm in society allowing the ownership of slaves. In fact society might be better off for it. Heck, if it wasn't for all those people with morals the U.S. might still allow slavery. Dang those people with morals, I want me a slave. Keep your morals out of my government.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But isnt this a nihilists position.

Not in the sense that the poster refuses to acknowledge that objective (or even relative) morality doesn't exist. Or that he denies that knowledge can exist. Or that life has no value. Someone can be the most ardent nihilist on the planet but if I smack him upside the head then he's not going to appreciate it and might suggest that I cease and desist. Why?

If I ask him if he thought I was doing something wrong, would anyone say 'Well, it's not wrong as such - I'd just prefer it if you didn't do it'.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not in the sense that the poster refuses to acknowledge that objective (or even relative) morality doesn't exist.
I've already said to another poster that objective morality doesn't exist and that subjective morality is nonesense, other than just beliefs of each individual.
But perhaps you missed that somehow.


Someone can be the most ardent nihilist on the planet but if I smack him upside the head then he's not going to appreciate it and might suggest that I cease and desist. Why?

If I ask him if he thought I was doing something wrong, would anyone say 'Well, it's not wrong as such - I'd just prefer it if you didn't do it'.
This is just utter nonsense, and shows that you haven't been listening at all to anything that I have said.
You have your preconceived ideas of what a Moral nihilist is, but refuse to listen to one when he explains it to you.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is just utter nonsense, and shows that you haven't been listening at all to anything that I have said.
You have your preconceived ideas of what a Moral nihilist is, but refuse to listen to one when he explains it to you.

You refused to acknowledge that someone beating you up for the fun of it was wrong. You refuse to use the word. Nuff said, I think.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, you are!

Your morality is right and theirs is wrong!!
Oh boy.

Your morality is based upon a directive to not do harm
{because to do so is detrimental to society}
Not mine, sorry.

This is a right and good and virtuous and just standard
Oh my. Nothing is virtuous.
Right and good are ill defined and useless terms

The moralities of those who care not for society are wrong, bad, immoral, and evil
I accept that this is your belief. It is not my belief.


No, you'd prefer to leave it in a vernacular that supports a position wherein 'X' {despite being dangerous and detrimental to society} is regarded as equally valid a choice as any other from 'A' to 'Z'
Don't understand what you are saying here

And yet you ARE proposing for a moral society!
If you say so

You advocate for a "safe" society
I want some practical laws not righteous ones.

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
All else is moral or, at the very least, morally neutral
You aren't the world's authority on this matter. You don't get to define this for everyone.

I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is simply wrong
LOL


The kicker?
You agree with me!
I completely disagree with you.
But feel to tell me what I believe, what my morals are, and that I agree with you despite me telling you otherwise.

You know that actions leading to danger/violence are wrong
No, not at all.
Define wrong in a way that it applies to everyone's belief in that term.

You know that actions which do not lead to danger/violence are acceptable
Nope. Acceptable to who???

You just refuse, for some inexorable reason, to call wrong, bad, immoral, and evil that which is wrong, bad, immoral, and evil...
I refuse to be vague
I refuse to project my own beliefs onto others and tell them they are stupid if they don't believe what I believe.



"Good" is a vague term, according to you, because different people define the word differently...
Because if someone says X is good, you need to follow that up with question as to what they mean when they say good in this context.


Will you have me believe, then, that all people mean precisely the exact same thing when they use the words "threat" and "danger"?

No, threat and danger aren't based on a belief system that is open wide up.


To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral

It doesn't matter that harm is not the intent
Purposefully equates to intent.


To consciously and purposefully do that which results in needless harm is immoral because one knows better and chooses to behave poorly anyway
Then a person cheating on their wife and going to measures to ensure she never know is not immoral.
This person has his fun and makes sure his wife doesn't get hurt.


Yes, the consequence of stealing is, inevitably, harm upon the victim
The harm, however, is needless because the thief is not required to steal
Oh, wow.
So what would be an example of needed harm?


There is no need to steal
Stealing is a conscious and purposeful choice that wrong/bad/immoral/evil people make
Some people steal because their children are starving to death. Are they evil people?
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You refused to acknowledge that someone beating you up for the fun of it was wrong. You refuse to use the word. Nuff said, I think.
Why do I have to say it is wrong?
I said that it is harmful to my health. Isn't that more clear than it is wrong?
Why do you insist I be vague when I have been clear?
What so excites you about whether people use the word "wrong" or not?
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why do I have to say it is wrong?
I said that it is harmful to my health. Isn't that more clear than it is wrong?
Why do you insist I be vague when I have been clear?
What so excites you about whether people use the word "wrong" or not?

'Excites' me? Do you mean I get physically aroused by it? Mentally aroused? Does it bring me pleasure? Am I enthusiastic about it? Does it increase my interest? I'm really not sure exactly what you mean. Why use so vague a term when you could be more specific?

And when you say 'people' do you mean some people? All people? Just people that you know? A certain section of people with specific views similar to yours?

Don't hit your little sister. It's wrong.
Sorry dad. Bit too vague for me.
OK. Don't hit your little sister because it's harmful to her health.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Don't hit your little sister. It's wrong.
Sorry dad. Bit too vague for me.
OK. Don't hit your little sister because it's harmful to her health.
If your kids were intelligent they would challenge you.
Why is it "wrong", because YOU say so????

They will rebel against your authority on these matters before long, it makes sense to me that they would as they grow up and start thinking for themselves.

I bring up my kids in a different approach to this. I get them to think, rather than tell them what to think. But each to his own. Parenting is difficult at the best of times
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If your kids were intelligent that would challenge you.
Why is it "wrong", because YOU say so????

They will rebel against your authority on these matters before long, it makes sense to me that they would as they grow up and challenge your authority.

Not because I say so. Because I gave a reason. So next time it happens and I tell my kid that what he's doing is wrong, then he'll understand that he's doing something which he shouldn't be doing. We can go into the details later if he want to know why I think it's wrong.

So when he grows up and decides to beat you up for fun and asks you 'Is this OK?' then you can say 'Hey, no. That's wrong' and he'll know what you mean.
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why do you insist I be vague when I have been clear?
So let's be clear, there's nothing inherently harmful in a society allowing slavery, or in the torture, rape, and murder of said slaves. In fact the abuse of one's slaves might actually make the others more compliant, thereby being beneficial to society. Yup, what an idyllic world we can build if we don't have to worry about those pesky morals.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Consider this:

Were I to donate my time and energy helping to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, I think we can all agree that this would be a good and moral thing

Regardless of my motivation/reason for being there - it is a moral ACTION because there is good coming from it, right?

Hungry people are being fed
That's good

It is my contention, though, that my status as a moral PERSON hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action

If I help to feed the hungry primarily because I care about people and I desire to alleviate their suffering and to benefit their lives then I am a moral person on the basis of doing so

If, on the other hand, I help to feed the hungry primarily because my boss at work is pressuring me to do so and I am angling for a promotion then I am NOT a moral person on the basis of donating my time and energy to a soup kitchen

I would say you should not be too hard on yourself. At least you'd be doing something helpful and while you were there doing it your motives could change for why you're there.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Consider this...

Let me offer an answer from a Catholic perspective. This answer comes from the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, a tradition which has become mainstream in Catholic moral philosophy. (Note that I have read the first few pages of the thread so I have a fair understanding of your position.)

Answer

According to Catholicism all moral or intentional acts have three aspects:

1. The Object (what you are doing)
2. The End (why you are doing it)
3. The Circumstances (the various things that surround the act)​

For an act to be good all three aspects must be good. If even one of them is bad, then the act is bad. Since your question deals primarily with the object and the end, we can ignore the circumstances for the time being.

You are considering two separate acts:
  • Act1:
    • Object = Volunteering at a soup kitchen
    • End1 = To care for others and alleviate suffering
  • Act2:
    • Object = Volunteering at a soup kitchen
    • End2 = To achieve a promotion at work

The object is good. There is nothing wrong with volunteering at a soup kitchen. End1 is also good. There is nothing wrong with caring for others and alleviating suffering. In fact it is good to do so.

What about End2? We should begin by noting that there is nothing wrong with acting on the basis of achieving a promotion. In this case we would have to look at the circumstances and everything that is going on to determine whether Act2 is a bad act. The main problem here would be dissimulation or false acting. That is, if the person is attempting to deceive their boss, their coworkers, the workers at the soup kitchen, or the people being served at the soup kitchen into thinking that they are acting on altruistic motives when in fact they are not, then their deceit and dissimulation vitiates the act. It is not bad that they are volunteering, and it is not bad that they are trying to secure a promotion, but it is bad that they are deceiving and dissimulating. If they were to tell their boss and everyone involved that their intention is based on End2 rather than End1 then the act would not be bad, even though in that case Act1 would still be better than Act2 (and their boss would probably not give them a promotion).


Critiques

Let me offer a critique of your own view. First, you claimed that selfless acts are good and selfish acts are bad. The Catholic tradition following Thomas Aquinas—Thomism—would disagree. Just as it is good to help others, so too it is good to help oneself. It is not a bad thing to try to better oneself with a promotion. Indeed, such a “selfish” act is a good thing. Acts favoring oneself only become bad when they are disproportionately self-oriented, such as when the glutton will not share food even when others are starving.

Second, you claimed that morality “hinges entirely upon my motivation/reason for undertaking said action.” This is incorrect because it ignores the object and the circumstance. The end/intention is important, but it isn’t the only thing that matters. Regarding the object, “The end doesn’t justify the means.” This comes up all the time with eugenics. Eugenicists like Hitler generally have a good end/intention: the (genetic) betterment of the human race. But eugenicists have historically tended to use evil objects to achieve their end, such as forced sterilization, racial discrimination, or even genocide.

Regarding the circumstance, suppose a man sets up a target, takes out his gun, and starts practicing his shooting. There is nothing wrong with this. His object is to shoot a target and his end is to improve his proficiency. But now suppose he does this on a childrens playground. His intention is still good, but the bad circumstance vitiates the act.

It may be an exaggeration to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but a good intention is not enough to ensure a good act.

Best,
Zip
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes we can live our lives without painting people's decisions and actions with labels "good", "bad", "neutral"
I don't do that. Seems a waste of time to me. It's not my job to judge.
Then how do you label peoples actions. Surely you would not approve of certain actions. You would regard them as not being appropriate or even unruly etc.

I don't see the point in claiming it to be objectively wrong.
The point is you can take a confident and clear stand against that behaviour. If you claim that there is no morality then you haven’t got grounds to say anything and if you’re a subjectivist any objection to the act only applies to you so it doesn’t really apply to the person abusing the child. It's sort of a wimpy way to object to acts that we all know are just wrong.

Otherwise I guess you can object that the behaviour is not very nice or threatens your idea of safety but that doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. You want to make it clear that it’s wrong regardless of feelings or the perceptions of others.

People claim all sorts of stuff, some crazy, some not, so what?
Yeah that’s true. But I think we need to draw the line on the more crazy stuff that can lead to people being harmed or causing disorder and disruption in society. Therefore we need to determine what the line is otherwise we have no grounds to do so.

Depends on the purpose of government. If you determine that it is government's purpose to ensure a moral society then you are giving them an obligation to define things as moral or immoral and to then outlaw immoral things. Problem comes when you personally don't agree with what your politician leaders have defined as immoral. You have really no capability to discover together the truth of whether it is moral, immoral or neutral. Both sides are just stating their own personal beliefs.
The problem is laws are often underpinned by morals and Governments are meant to ensure law and order. Take stealing and killing. Both are morals. So if the foetus is regarded as human life then aborting it would be classed as killing. After all some governments do charge people with murder or at least manslaughter if they kill a pregnant women and the baby dies.

Maybe, depending on your moral beliefs. But if we take morality out of the picture then it is unimportant to determine the status of the fetus.
It is no less important than having a law about killing adults. Are you suggesting we don't have a law against murder. Killing a human is a moral issue as well.
I don't agree with all the laws that governments impose on people.
Either do I. But you said you disagreed with the government having governance over women’s wombs. I listed examples where the government has governance over people’s entire bodies and lives and for good reason as this keeps law and order and reduces harm to the perpetrator and victim.

If the foetus is ever determined as a human life then the government should intervene and protect the unborn foetus. It’s just like they protect all human life from harm and death with laws.

I accept that a human fetus is human and I accept that it is alive. I accept that abortion is the intentional act of killing the fetus. I am still pro choice because I don't consider it to be the purpose of government or society to interfere just for the sake of it. Abortions don't make society dangerous or unstable.
In some ways it does. If the foetus is human life and abortion is killing the foetus then the government is allowing murder by not intervening. They don't usually allow murder in any other situation. They don't even allow assault. If we allow a society to turn a blind eye to murder then we have become a less caring society and this can have a knock on effect which undermines peoples trust and respect in that society. It is already happening in some ways.

I think governments should change. I think they should reduce the amount of laws and only interfere when absolutely necessary.
I agree. But maybe not with what you may consider less intervention. I think we need law and order and to keep people safe and well. But I agree that the government is slowing creeping into peoples and family life and with identity politics and PC for example. This can often be morally motivated.

I don't think it is impossible. I think they can do this and be more effective and give people more choices.
Yeah I guess so. It is always good to have more choices.

This is not what I want. People will disagree with each other on what is the best moral position. This will cause a lot of fighting.
Actually I think that is what happens now without a clear position on morality. There are too many conflicting views when we need clear recommended moral values that will give us the best chance of success. That doesn’t' mean people are forced to follow those morals. But just like health where the government will put out a recommended diet for healthy living where people can know what is the best we should do that with morals. In fact I think this is Sam Harris's view with his Moral landscape.

For example strong marriages and families are the bedrock of a healthy society. This is based on moral values like respect, trust, honesty ect. But if we have little regard for marriage and family by allow easy divorce and no support for keeping relationships and families together then we undermine these things and society in the long run.

If we want a thriving society, maybe we are best to support people with problems, help them out of those problems so that they can become productive rather than be thieves.
Yes I agree. But then the question is, in what way do we help them out. Those being helped have to also take responsibility. But what is the level of responsibility we should set. That requires some objective measures because just helping people out all the time without setting requirements will change nothing and may even create a worse situation.

I think we as a scoiety would be better off if we cast away that belief.
That would be impossible. Here is a little example. During our debates we assume each person is participating honestly. We are not misrepresenting each others position or making things up. Honesty between people is an important moral value and without it people could not have meaningful interactions. Everyone would be going around suspicious and paranoid and we could not trust anyone. Society would break down as we rely on a degree of honesty.

It wouldn't change my view of abortion.
So if you knew someone was in pain would you not want to try and stop that.

I'm OK with that. Not my place to judge.
Except in democratic nations we can determine who rules over us. It could be the difference between allowing some narcissist ruling over us and making our lives horrible or a decent government making life better. Usually governments that allow murder are the same governments that will interfere with people’s lives.

Yes, we need rules to maintain a safe, stable and thriving society.
Including stopping people killing humans which is a safety issue but also a stability issue as a government that allows murder will be a destabelising government.

Yeah, all sorts of things would happen, you would also get vigilante justice, and gangs and gang warefare etc. So some rules are necessary to maintain a stable society.
But laws against abortion are not necessary, we don't get mayhem when pregnant women have abortions.
It’s not just about mayhem. Little wrongs can eventually grow into bigger ones. For example if aborting the foetus is killing human life then this lowers society’s value of human life and desensitizes society about life generally. Before too long we are also allowing killing off of humans in other ways and not caring as much. That’s sort of happening now with the way people are so cruel and brutal towards each other and how we are willing to allow older people to dies with covid.
Might end it there this was a long post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Then how do you label peoples actions. Surely you would not approve of certain actions. You would regard them as not being appropriate or even unruly etc.
What does it matter if I approve or not?

I am not a god, I have no obligation to judge and if I judge, will others even be interested to hear my judgement on them?

The point is you can take a confident and clear stand against that behaviour. If you claim that there is no morality then you haven’t got grounds to say anything and if you’re a subjectivist any objection to the act only applies to you so it doesn’t really apply to the person abusing the child. It's sort of a wimpy way to object to acts that we all know are just wrong.
In my country it is illegal to smack your child. We had a referendum on this. The people overwhelmingly voted to allow parents to smack their children. But the government made it illegal anyway.
If I saw an adult accompanying a child smack their child I wouldn't interfere. If I saw an adult punch a child in the head, knocking it to the ground then kicking it several times, then I would interfere.
Just because I don't label things as right or wrong, doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or wouldn't seek to help the weak when they are in danger. It also doesn't mean I don't want some laws governing society. I am not an anarchist. I'll try to help the kid out but I wont be claiming moral superiority.

Otherwise I guess you can object that the behaviour is not very nice or threatens your idea of safety but that doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. You want to make it clear that it’s wrong regardless of feelings or the perceptions of others.
No I don't need to do this.

Yeah that’s true. But I think we need to draw the line on the more crazy stuff that can lead to people being harmed or causing disorder and disruption in society. Therefore we need to determine what the line is otherwise we have no grounds to do so.
The line for laws would be that which makes society unsafe unstable and hinder us thriving.


The problem is laws are often underpinned by morals
They don't have to be. In my country prostitution is now legal. This isn't to say that prostitution isn't immoral, it is to say that prostitution isn't dangerous, doesn't threaten the stability of society.

Take stealing and killing.
I understand that many people would consider these as immoral. But lets just see if there is another reason why these need to be made illegal.
Perhaps they threaten the safety and stability of society.
Society would quickly fall apart if we let people kill each other or steal from each other.
So in order to have a society we are obligated to make these illegal.

Both are morals. So if the foetus is regarded as human life then aborting it would be classed as killing.
If we ignore moral responsibility then government has no obligation to protect the fetus. Just like they have no obligation to stop people having affairs or paying for prostitutes, or lying, or having sex outside of marriage. Actually it seems we don't want our politicians and government and police telling us what is moral or not, we don't actually want this enforced by law.

It is no less important than having a law about killing adults. Are you suggesting we don't have a law against murder. Killing a human is a moral issue as well.
Perhaps if killing human life were immoral and if government's purpose was to force a society to be moral then you would be right in saying government should make abortion illegal.
But, I don't want a moral society and I don't want government forcing someone's moral beliefs onto society.
I am only concerned about the safety and stability of society. So if people go around killing each other then society becomes quickly unsafe for all.
If pregnant women sometimes kill their own fetus in an abortion it does not make society unsafe or unstable.
I have no problems with people who think abortion is immoral to try and teach others to think this way too, but I do have problems with making this illegal.

If the foetus is ever determined as a human life then the government should intervene and protect the unborn foetus.
You are obviously entitled to that opinion. I don't agree with it for reasons I have already explained. I'm not saying that I am right and you are wrong.
My question to you.
If you think government is obligated to force morality onto people, how do you think that government should come about the moral standard that they are to force onto you?
What if you get a Muslim leader or an atheist leader whose morals are different from yours. Will you be happy with them setting laws forcing you to comply with their morals?
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The line for laws would be that which makes society unsafe unstable and hinder us thriving.
And just who is it that's going to determine what makes society unsafe, unstable, and hinder its thriving? You? The moral majority? The government? Just who are we to trust to pull off this miraculous feat?
Society would quickly fall apart if we let people kill each other or steal from each other.
But what if the above mentioned miracle workers decide that illegal immigrants detract from the the safety, stability, and thriving of society...what then? Perhaps we should just imprison them? No, the cost would detract from the thriving of society. Better that we enslave them, make them an asset to society. Or having no concern for morality, maybe we should just kill them, they're not "society" after all, we are. They're criminals. Whatever helps "us" thrive...right?

Anyway, not to worry, because we've got the moral-less among us to tell us what to do, how could it possibly go wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And just who is it that's going to determine what makes society unsafe, unstable, and hinder its thriving? You? The moral majority? The government? Just who are we to trust to pull off this miraculous feat?
In USA they have a constitution. It is used as a constraint on the powers of government. They have a Supreme Court and constitutional disagreements are brought before the Supreme Court. Lawyers make arguments for and against and the court decides.
Same thing would happen in this case.
It would be out of the politicians hands and into the Courts, the courts would base it on the foundational document.


But what if the above mentioned miracle workers decide that illegal immigrants detract from the the safety, stability, and thriving of society...what then?
The govt would attempt to block the immigrants, people would challenge this through the courts, they would need to show in court why they believe it would make society unsafe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What does it matter if I approve or not?
I am not a god, I have no obligation to judge and if I judge, will others even be interested to hear my judgement on them?
If you allow someone to abuse a child and you are not acting in the best interest of the child. If you allow someone in your house to cause mayhem that affects the household. You allow unruly people in society and is disrupts the society. So from the individual situation to the government we have an obligation to act. Many of these situations don't need judgements just actions as they are obvious and not acting is actually contributing to making things worse.

In my country it is illegal to smack your child. We had a referendum on this. The people overwhelmingly voted to allow parents to smack their children. But the government made it illegal anyway.
If I saw an adult accompanying a child smack their child I wouldn't interfere. If I saw an adult punch a child in the head, knocking it to the ground then kicking it several times, then I would interfere.
First by you stepping in you can now understand why governments have to sometimes step in to situations to protect people and keep the order. Second smacking children are a contentious issue and divides society. I can see both sides.

I guess the government decided that for the small number of kids who are smacked where adults go too far that was enough to stop everyone. Though I agree this is government overstepping the mark. Its the PC culture society is becoming where it seems governments are making silly rules that lack common sense.

Just because I don't label things as right or wrong, doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or wouldn't seek to help the weak when they are in danger. It also doesn't mean I don't want some laws governing society. I am not an anarchist. I'll try to help the kid out but I wont be claiming moral superiority.
Fair enough. So obviously you don't want to see the kid harmed. So what difference does that make for an unborn kid who you say is being killed by abortion. Isn't death a greater harm? In both situations the women is exercising her right to determine what should happen to the kid they are responsible for.

No I don't need to do this.
So stepping in to save a kid from being bashed and harmed you obviously see something is not right in that situation even if that’s based on the kids wellbeing and safety. So you see other situations where a kid or someone is being bashed and harmed and you think this is also not right for the victim.

At what point do you think the people doing the bashing should be stopped. Or do you keep coming to the rescue. Isn't coming to the rescue all the time a bit late? What if the bashing causes a kid brain damage? So therefore it makes sense to draw the line and say that people who bash kids should be stopped in the first place. Therefore we have to intervene for people’s safety and make a distinction that bashing kids is wrong.

The line for laws would be that which makes society unsafe unstable and hinder us thriving.
So therefore a line is drawn. But who determines what is unsafe, unstable and hinders thriving. Statistics show that stable marriages make families and society safe and stable and help children thrive. But as a society we promote the opposite through easy divorce laws. Should we promote policies and guidelines that help marriages stay together. Isn’t that making a moral judgement either way? Or should we just stay out of marriages altogether.

They don't have to be. In my country prostitution is now legal. This isn't to say that prostitution isn't immoral, it is to say that prostitution isn't dangerous, doesn't threaten the stability of society.
Who determined that it wasn't dangerous and destablilizing for society. Stats show where there is prostitution there is also other problems even when its legal.

I understand that many people would consider these as immoral. But lets just see if there is another reason why these need to be made illegal. Perhaps they threaten the safety and stability of society. Society would quickly fall apart if we let people kill each other or steal from each other.
So in order to have a society we are obligated to make these illegal.
In many societies killing is accepted such as abortion, and euthanasia, execution, in war etc. so a moral judgement has to be made in each of these cases. I agree that laws also keep order and peace.

But what about in all those less obvious situations like smacking/abusing kids, easy or hard divorce laws, stay at home motherhood or be pushed into work, marriage laws etc. where it depends on how a society rules on these things as to whether they cause unsafe and destabilizing situations.

If we ignore moral responsibility then government has no obligation to protect the fetus.
The only reason we would have moral obligation is if the fetus was human life because then abortion would be murder of an innocent life. This is a good point for morality in that human life is regarded as precious and should be protected. Not every situation is related to safety and stability. In the US constitution human life is upheld as an important value because it was recognised that it came with certain rights.
Just like they have no obligation to stop people having affairs or paying for prostitutes, or lying, or having sex outside of marriage. Actually it seems we don't want our politicians and government and police telling us what is moral or not, we don't actually want this enforced by law.
Lying is against the law if it involves fraud, covering up a crime, hiding evidence etc. Prostitution is against the law in many countries. Sex before marriage is a good example of a social issue which I agree the government should not get involved with.

But a case could be made that some social issues can destabilize and make society unsafe. Many illegal acts are the result of social issues. For example the MeToo movement and rape allegations which has seen some men charged with sex crimes is the result of a societal attitude that women a sex objects and that sex without any rules was OK.

Perhaps if killing human life were immoral and if government's purpose was to force a society to be moral then you would be right in saying government should make abortion illegal.
But, I don't want a moral society and I don't want government forcing someone's moral beliefs onto society.
I am only concerned about the safety and stability of society. So if people go around killing each other then society becomes quickly unsafe for all.
If pregnant women sometimes kill their own fetus in an abortion it does not make society unsafe or unstable.
I have no problems with people who think abortion is immoral to try and teach others to think this way too, but I do have problems with making this illegal.

You are obviously entitled to that opinion. I don't agree with it for reasons I have already explained. I'm not saying that I am right and you are wrong.
Ok so if you think we shouldn’t go around killing to make a safe and stable society, don't you think that allowing killing with abortion undermines any position to make killing illegal. Killing is killing to a greater and lesser degree but it’s still killing.

Otherwise you setup a situation where people begin to say I want to kill my grandma or child because they are a burden to my life because they depend on me. They are a drain on my body because they zap my energy and control my life.

My question to you.
If you think government is obligated to force morality onto people, how do you think that government should come about the moral standard that they are to force onto you?
What if you get a Muslim leader or an atheist leader whose morals are different from yours. Will you be happy with them setting laws forcing you to comply with their morals?
This is a good question. First I am not saying that we should have a theocracy. I am saying that a society that requires governance cannot help but involve morality in some of their governance as morality is interwoven throughout everything we do. Governments have to step in otherwise we will end up having all sorts of groups claiming the moral high ground.

All I am saying is that when governments do step in they should carefully consider what is the best moral value to take which is often as you say what is best for safety, stability and wellbeing. But what I find happens is when governments don't step in because they are trying to be all things to all people morality ends up being determined by whoever can weld the most power and influence.

In most western nations they don't allow Muslim moral rule if you notice. Is this a moral stand. They often seem to go with Christian values if anything. So this shows that morality is part of society and we have no choice but to side with one way or another.

Because morality is a real thing in life when we don't have a clear set of morals those in power will usually end up dictating what is moral or not which is usually governments. So I agree with you on that. But they often have selfish motives for what is right and wrong which is usually dictated by money.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0