Needing justification for morality

[Jeremy E Walker]

This is shortsighted.

Following that logic, almost no evil takes place anywhere.
Hitler was quite convinced that he was doing some kind of moral duty.
Mohammed Atta was convinced that he was doing a heroicly moral deed when he flew an airplane into the WTC.
Every suicide terrorist is convinced to be fighting the "good" fight.

Clearly, one can be convinced to be doing morally good things, while in fact they are engaging in the biggest evils imaginable.

I agree.

You just misunderstood what I said.

 

[Chany]

The doctor doing what he did was a result of him intending to do it, whatever it is that he does.

It is absurd to say that intention/motivation is independent of the end consequences of a person's actions.

If there is no intention there is no doing.

You are trying to argue that an act can be good even though a person might have motivations for doing the act that are not good. I happily agree. I never argued that this could not be the case.

I simply said that a person's intentions or motivations for committing an act are key in determining whether the act is good or bad. I did not say that a person's intentions or motivations are THE ONLY THING that determines whether or not an act is good or bad. I never said that. That is clearly absurd.

A person may intend to do good by believing that God has ordered him to blow people into thousands of pieces with pipe bombs but just because he intends to do good, it does not follow that blowing people up with pipe bombs is good.

I'm disagreeing with the bolded. The only time intention and motivation comes into play is the determination for a course of action. I'm saying that intentions or motivations for committing an act have little to no bearing upon whether the act itself is good or bad. They play a role in determining what the proper outcomes of the action should be, but they do not affect the action itself. The major difference between the two child killers is the situational differences and the end consequences, not the motivations of the two agents. The motivations only favor certain actions over others; that's it. A person who aims to help and end the suffering of children and is of proper mind go with the first option. However, this has no bearing on the morality of the first option.

Your pipe bomb example furthers my point; it is not the intention or motivation of the agent that determines whether the action of blowing people up with pipe bombs in a specific situation, but the real consequences and outcomes of the action.

The little impact that motivation plays on the morality of the action is best illustrated by an analogy. Let's say that we in a republic and are currently considering an invasion of a oil-rich Middle Eastern country. One of the delegates goes out on the floor and gives a reasonable argument for invading the country, as a matter self defense for our country and the civilians of the country from a brutal dictatorship. Now, this delegate has major connections to major oil companies and military contractors. His constituents and he have a lot to personally gain from the invasion. In short, it is clear his motivation is entirely of self interest and he cares little for the things presented in his argument. The question is: does this invalidate his argument? No. Rejecting his argument based upon known bias alone is an ad hominem fallacy. His argument may be solid. Now, the bias of the delegate gives us a very good reason to suspect something is wrong with his argument, and may even give us some places to start looking for errors. However, the validity of the argument stands entirely independent of the person making the argument. If everything in the argument is sound and valid and no valid rebuttals are given, then the invasion should take place, even though one of the key agents involved in the invasion is performing the invasion for immoral and selfish reasons.

The same applies to the morality of an action. The goals of the agent only gives us hints of the actual morality in that the motives of the agent give us reason to question the morality of the action. We should question the doctor who pulled the child off life support if he somehow gets a lot of money and personal accolades for doing so. However, the moral quality of action itself is entirely independent from the agent committing it. If, after we examine the situation, pulling the child off life support was truly the moral thing to do, then the action should morally happen, regardless of the agents involved. Therefore, the intention and motive of the agent bears no connection to the actual morality of the action. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[juvenissun]

And it indeed doesn't work.

Is Jezus god?
Does he sacrifice himself on the cross?

Again, obedience to a perceived authority is the opposite of morality.

You cannot be "moral" if all you do is follow orders.

We call Him "Lord" Jesus, instead of God Jesus.
Jesus is first a man, then God.
Jesus calls God His "Father". So, they are different.

You better stop. Otherwise, we are not talking about morality any more.

 

[quatona]

I´m considering to declare me/my body/my mind a trinity. Seems to help with getting away with anything.

 

[Chany]

I´m considering to declare me/my body/my mind a trinity. Seems to help with getting away with anything.

Change "my body" to "my brain". Then it becomes even more fun.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm disagreeing with the bolded. The only time intention and motivation comes into play is the determination for a course of action. I'm saying that intentions or motivations for committing an act have little to no bearing upon whether the act itself is good or bad. They play a role in determining what the proper outcomes of the action should be, but they do not affect the action itself. The major difference between the two child killers is the situational differences and the end consequences, not the motivations of the two agents. The motivations only favor certain actions over others; that's it. A person who aims to help and end the suffering of children and is of proper mind go with the first option. However, this has no bearing on the morality of the first option.

Your pipe bomb example furthers my point; it is not the intention or motivation of the agent that determines whether the action of blowing people up with pipe bombs in a specific situation, but the real consequences and outcomes of the action.

The little impact that motivation plays on the morality of the action is best illustrated by an analogy. Let's say that we in a republic and are currently considering an invasion of a oil-rich Middle Eastern country. One of the delegates goes out on the floor and gives a reasonable argument for invading the country, as a matter self defense for our country and the civilians of the country from a brutal dictatorship. Now, this delegate has major connections to major oil companies and military contractors. His constituents and he have a lot to personally gain from the invasion. In short, it is clear his motivation is entirely of self interest and he cares little for the things presented in his argument. The question is: does this invalidate his argument? No. Rejecting his argument based upon known bias alone is an ad hominem fallacy. His argument may be solid. Now, the bias of the delegate gives us a very good reason to suspect something is wrong with his argument, and may even give us some places to start looking for errors. However, the validity of the argument stands entirely independent of the person making the argument. If everything in the argument is sound and valid and no valid rebuttals are given, then the invasion should take place, even though one of the key agents involved in the invasion is performing the invasion for immoral and selfish reasons.

The same applies to the morality of an action. The goals of the agent only gives us hints of the actual morality in that the motives of the agent give us reason to question the morality of the action. We should question the doctor who pulled the child off life support if he somehow gets a lot of money and personal accolades for doing so. However, the moral quality of action itself is entirely independent from the agent committing it. If, after we examine the situation, pulling the child off life support was truly the moral thing to do, then the action should morally happen, regardless of the agents involved. Therefore, the intention and motive of the agent bears no connection to the actual morality of the action. That's what I'm trying to say.

In response to my two hypotheticals, you responded thus:

"The end result of the first is a decrease in suffering of a terminally ill patient.
The end result of the second is senseless killing."

How do you determine the first right and the second wrong?

P.S. In relation to the argument about intention's role, research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) at your leisure.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you get at least one moral code for theists: thou shalt not steal. This code is not arguable (no reasoning).

This code does not always apply among atheists. And I would say, in most cases, it does not apply.

Ok, lets use this as a thought experiment then:


Why should you not steal?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

...taxes will go to those who can't help themselves. Such a pain huh? I mean, it's not like some guy 2000ish years ago said to help those in need. It's not like it's a basic Christian belief that a person should help out their fellow man (or woman or child) right?

Can you find me the passage where Jesus taught it was proper to forcibly take money from some in order to give it to others? Show me.

The government controlled 'welfare' is the antithesis of what Jesus taught. Jesus commanded his followers to be personally involved in helping people. What you are defending in your statement is a removal of personal involvement and replacing it with third party force.

Just to be clear, this is NOT what Jesus taught. This is what Marx taught.

And I did say I could not challenge your comment correct?

You're showing promise. You're actually showing some thought. I want you to understand that's not sarcasm, nor patronizing. I want you to think through the rest.

... people do abuse that system. But should we just scrap the whole thing?

Yes. We should. The US should go back to pre-WWII standards and functions for 'assistance'. Poor people did get help from others, those 'others' were non-governmental and mostly outgrowths of various Christian organizations. The real value they had in contrast with federal government programs was those groups could actually evaluate and determine who really needed help and who was attempting to scam the system.

I know that's a difficult thought with which to deal. All your life you've been taught ONLY the government has the solution to poverty. I suggest that is not true. Think about it yourself.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

So, if god says to commit genocide on a certain people, then it's morally just to commit genocide?

...Yes...If you have question about that (like I had for a good while), then you need to ask: why.

It doesn't matter. There is no context in which genocide is a-okay.

So the Dogma Hunter declares God to be wrong, unconditionally. I think Dogma Hunter has found his dogma.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Stuffing your fingers in your ears while screaming "LALALA" is not dealing with arguments.

DH, your self-contradiction is beyond belief!

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. You don't even listen to yourself, why should I?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So the Dogma Hunter declares God to be wrong, unconditionally. I think Dogma Hunter has found his dogma.

Well, to defend his example, given that god could technically choose to isolate problem people or deal with them nonviolently, but decides instead to kill them all, I would say genocide on god's part would still be immoral.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, lets use this as a thought experiment then:

Why should you not steal?

An obvious answer is: Because God says so.

Why does God say so? Because it is for our benefit. God loves us and tells us what to do and what not to do.

Whatever God tells us to do is for our benefit. That is the practical function of morality.

So, the answer to your question is: To steal IS harmful, even not get caught.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, to defend his example, given that god could technically choose to isolate problem people or deal with them nonviolently, but decides instead to kill them all, I would say genocide on god's part would still be immoral.

Let me say this one more time:

Genocide, in general, is absolutely not moral.
The particular genocide, ordered by God 4000 years ago, is absolutely moral.

Both, are God's word. No conflict, perfectly logical.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let me say this one more time:

Genocide, in general, is absolutely not moral.
The particular genocide, ordered by God 4000 years ago, is absolutely moral.

Both, are God's word. No conflict, perfectly logical.

God has ordered for more than 1 genocide. Sure, the flood one is pretty dramatic, but there are actually ones which are graphically worse. And when I say graphic, I mean stuff like cutting open pregnant women so that you can kill the fetus inside them in front of the women before killing them too (or did god drive the women mad so they did that to each other and ate their babies? Maybe both happened? I know it was at least one of these).

 

[Eudaimonist]

An obvious answer is: Because God says so.

Why does God say so? Because it is for our benefit. God loves us and tells us what to do and what not to do.

I think that you have a problem communicating your ideas.

There is a vast difference between saying that:

1) Theft is wrong because God says so.
2) Theft is wrong because that is contrary to our benefit.

The first is divine command theory and morally bankrupt, and the second is some other ethical stance. The idea that you communicate above isn't that we shouldn't steal from others because God says so. Stealing is wrong because it is contrary to our natural benefit as human beings.

However, that doesn't really save you. It's easy to see how stealing is immoral because it is not to our benefit. Destructive acts, such as theft, should be avoided. Genocide, however, is an enormously destructive act. If destructive acts should be avoided, then so should genocide. If stealing is immoral, how much more immoral is killing a group of people?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

An obvious answer is: Because God says so.

Why does God say so? Because it is for our benefit. God loves us and tells us what to do and what not to do.

These two paragraphs are in conflict with each other.

 

[juvenissun]

These two paragraphs are in conflict with each other.

Not at all. It shows the wisdom and love from God.

 

[juvenissun]

I think that you have a problem communicating your ideas.

There is a vast difference between saying that:

1) Theft is wrong because God says so.
2) Theft is wrong because that is contrary to our benefit.

The first is divine command theory and morally bankrupt, and the second is some other ethical stance. The idea that you communicate above isn't that we shouldn't steal from others because God says so. Stealing is wrong because it is contrary to our natural benefit as human beings.

However, that doesn't really save you. It's easy to see how stealing is immoral because it is not to our benefit. Destructive acts, such as theft, should be avoided. Genocide, however, is an enormously destructive act. If destructive acts should be avoided, then so should genocide. If stealing is immoral, how much more immoral is killing a group of people?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Not ethical, but practical.
If steal is proven beneficial to us in every case, then God would say: Steal.
God loves us. He will not tell us to do anything which is harmful to us. That is the function of morality.

---------

There are many people whole steal big and die in richness and in full age. You know it is true. That is why people steal thousands years ago and still steal today.
Steal can be fully justified super easy in humanism. Obama (or communist) steals money from riches. Poor people love him.

 

[juvenissun]

God has ordered for more than 1 genocide. Sure, the flood one is pretty dramatic, but there are actually ones which are graphically worse. And when I say graphic, I mean stuff like cutting open pregnant women so that you can kill the fetus inside them in front of the women before killing them too (or did god drive the women mad so they did that to each other and ate their babies? Maybe both happened? I know it was at least one of these).

Yes, several battles. But it was ONE order for ONE purpose. Like the Flood, it never happened again. The Bible repeats that order several times in the Pentateuch because Israelites did not listen to God.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

An obvious answer is: Because God says so.

Why does God say so? Because it is for our benefit. God loves us and tells us what to do and what not to do.

Whatever God tells us to do is for our benefit. That is the practical function of morality.

So, the answer to your question is: To steal IS harmful, even not get caught.

Your god also supports slavery (Both old and new testament, and not just as indentured servitude).

How is slavery to our benefit? Do you think slavery is moral?