Atheism and Christianity: a Third Way?

[The Atheist]

sex and drinking probably gave you more enjoyment that partial differentials and sums to infinity ever could

Haha! I always thought so, compared to my buddies who went straight to uni and lived on instant noodles and got shagged about twice a year!

Magnificent arguments you're putting forward here. Pleasure to watch!

 

[VanillaCone]

*sigh*

How do you propose that an individual crosses that line between being able to participate in a mutually gratifying act and an exploitative act? That there is *an instant* A in which it's exploitative and *an instant* B in which it's not? And that gap between those two instants doesn't actually exist? You can not decouple time from a shift between two differing mental/physical states - it requires that time passes to get you from one to the next!

This is not an argument for absolute morality - but at what age a society should set the legal limits.

We're not talking about rape - nor was the suggestion made that considerations of time are relevant in deciding every moral dividing line.

Yes - i agee. This is however irrelevant to absolute morality.

I agree. This is also irrelevant to absolute morality.

I'm getting tired of asking the moral absolutists the same question and not getting any answers, but one more time. If you believe in moral absolutism in which there is an instant A in which an act is immoral and there is an instant B in which an act is moral, at what point between those two instants does the dividing line exist? You can not pretend that time does not exist. Time does exist. It is required to get you from A to B. The dividing line must exist if you believe in moral absolutism. Does the absolutist subscribe to a planck level divide? That we can draw a line to the level of 5.3x10^-44 seconds? Or does the absolutist simply ignore this because they are unable to reconcile this problem with their own absolutely held beliefs?

It is not the burden of the moral relativist to prove their position - moral relativism simply requires that an individual draws judgements - and that his judgements are influenced by biology and society. This is not a remarkable claim. The burden is on the moral absolutist to prove their position - that there is an immutable,objective line, distinct from human consciousness which actually exists and divides moral from immoral. This is a truly remarkable claim which requires recourse to something akin to the supernatural. I have yet to see any remarkable evidence to support that remarkable claim.

Please, sir, I implore you to step into your ivory elevator, press the "L" button and meet me on the ground floor.

I reject your premise that in order to know absolutely when sex is moral and when it is immoral that one has to prove there's an Instant A in time when it's always moral, and an Instant B in time when it's always immoral.

This is not a math problem. The ONLY relevant thing is the frame of mind of the participants. If one participant did not consciously choose to have sex, then the sex is immoral. ABSOLUTELY.

ETA -- If I am wrong, PLEASE describe to me a situation that does not apply to the above statement. If you cannot, then doesn't that mean I have described a moral absolute?

 

[andyandy]

Please, sir, I implore you to step into your ivory elevator, press the "L" button and meet me on the ground floor.

I reject your premise that in order to know absolutely when sex is moral and when it is immoral that one has to prove there's an Instant A in time when it's always immoral, and an Instant B in time when it's always moral.

This is not a math problem. The ONLY relevant thing is the frame of mind of the participants. If one participant did not consciously choose to have sex, then the sex is immoral. ABSOLUTELY.

perhaps you should outline what it is you understand by absolute morality -because absolute morality requires that you can draw a line. If you reject that a line has to be drawn then you reject absolute morality.
You keep pretending that time does not exist. That time does not mark the evolution from point A "exploitation" to point B "gratificational." This is simply disingenuous. You keep trying to shift the burden from consensual sex to rape. This is disingenuous. And you still have yet to offer any proof of absolute morality beyond your say so. Putting words in capital letters does not make an argument TRUE.

One more time, it is not the burden of the moral relativist to prove their position - moral relativism simply requires that an individual draws judgements - and that his judgements are influenced by biology and society. This is not a remarkable claim. The burden is on the moral absolutist to prove their position - that there is an immutable,objective line, distinct from human consciousness which actually exists and divides moral from immoral. This is a truly remarkable claim.

Where is your evidence?

 

[VanillaCone]

And saying my argument is "disingenuous" does not prove my argument is wrong, either.

Maybe this is just one of those "agree to disagree" moments.

 

[andyandy]

Maybe this is just one of those "agree to disagree" moments.

fair enough....

sorry if i came across condescending....having come late into a debate that's spanned several days and a couple of threads I think you were just an unfortunate target of frustration - apologies

Edited to respond to edit...

The ONLY relevant thing is the frame of mind of the participants. If one participant did not consciously choose to have sex, then the sex is immoral. ABSOLUTELY.

ETA -- If I am wrong, PLEASE describe to me a situation that does not apply to the above statement. If you cannot, then doesn't that mean I have described a moral absolute?

Do you want to carry on? I thought you'd agreed to disagree

The statement you make would be agreed upon by the majority of people - it does shift the debate in two significant ways -

away from a measurable and quantifiable divisor (ie time) to an amorphous descriptor (consciously choose),

and also away from consensual sex where person A consciously chooses to have sex, but is not emotionally/physically mature enough for person B to morally rely upon their conscious choice.

Both shifts are required because an absolutist is unable to frame his argument in the time specific and quantifiable world...a personal descriptor such as "consciously choose" is rooted wholly in the subjective - immeasurable in any objective sense and a strange relative foundation for an absolute morality...

In any case, certainly there are certain areas of "morality" which enjoy strong general consensus - rape, child abuse incest and child murder. These are areas in which we come as close as we can to what one might term an absolute morality. I think it's a mistake however to actually talk in terms of absolute morality even in such extremes - there is no objective moral yardstick which exists independent of human consciousness against which acts however heinous can be measured - without recourse that is, to the supernatural. What we have instead is an individual processing such actions within his own consciousness. After processing one can arrive at a moral judgment - and that there should be broad agreement on stark issues should not be a surprise - we are after all influenced by bell-curve biological compunction and semi standardized societal influence. The absolutist is always forced into the starkest areas of humanity in order to "prove" absolute morality - but even here there is no proof beyond general consensus.

To choose the least morally abhorrent item on the list, that of incest - Haidt makes a case for moral judgment being like aesthetic judgment in the Happiness Hypothesis;

in studies a short story in which a brother and sister decide to have sex is read to students, who are then asked to comment on their reactions and their reasons why. Everyone will say that it's immoral, unacceptable. When pressed as to why, the standard answer is that it leads to children with genetic abnormalities - but he then points out that they used contraception. Rather than say "oh well, that's ok then." They search for other arguments - "it's going to harm their relationship" - he points out that it's made their relationship stronger, and most finally with no arguments left just conclude "i know it's wrong - but can't explain why."

here is a classic form of confabulation in action - the interpreter module of the brain is skilled at making up reasons for a belief, but those decisions often have already been made on a subconscious level - gut feelings, intuition and snap judgments happen constantly and automatically, and the interpretor simply serves as a justifier for those beliefs. That which we regard as moral is inseparable from the subjective in which it was formed - and just because moral relativists can often agree does not mean that morality should be regarded as absolute

 

[ChristineR]

Some philosophy is too deep for me....

AndyAndy: is there such a thing as an apple? Can I put something into your hand, and have you say "That is is an apple?" Can I also give you two, four, or thirty-seven apples? Do you feel that the concept of 37 apples is meaningful? In general, all humans who can count will come to an agreement over the presence of 37 apples? Does this agreement mean that 37 apples is an absolute concept?

 

[VanillaCone]

fair enough....

sorry if i came across condescending....having come late into a debate that's spanned several days and a couple of threads I think you were just an unfortunate target of frustration - apologies

No apology necessary. I think I was the one who initiated the snarkiness with my crack about the ivory elevator.

 

[VanillaCone]

I do have one more question, which I am not at all asking in a confrontational way but simply seeking information:

If, hypothetically, the morality or immorality of Act X could only be determined by knowing the intent of the person committing Act X, can there not be a moral absolute that says if the intent is bad then Act X is always immoral, and if the intent is good then Act X is always moral?

I ask this because in the situation I describe above, there is no weighing of cultural norms or consideration of the situational context. However, it does require consideration of "human consciousness." But when determining the morality of a human action, how can one reasonably argue that to prove a moral absolute, one must prove the moral law existed before human consciousness?

 

[andyandy]

Some philosophy is too deep for me....

AndyAndy: is there such a thing as an apple? Can I put something into your hand, and have you say "That is is an apple?" Can I also give you two, four, or thirty-seven apples? Do you feel that the concept of 37 apples is meaningful? In general, all humans who can count will come to an agreement over the presence of 37 apples? Does this agreement mean that 37 apples is an absolute concept?

can you put 37 concepts of morality in my hand?

 

[JJM 777]

there appear to be only two positions: a) the traditional Christian one ie. that there is a moral imperative
(...)
and b) moral relativity, ie. that there are no "given " norms, and morality is determined solely by biology and environment

If you care to read this discussion about objectively defined ethics, you might get a good general idea of what ethics is and how many different factors are involved in it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85348

The system discussed in that thread is neither your option a) nor option b), so more alternatives are evidently possible.

Morals is not about "good" and "evil" only, there are more shades of grey out there. Also in your Bible, if you care to read it more carefully: the expression "you have heard people say... but I say to you..." already mentions two different moral norms (of different levels), which makes three different shades of grey instead of two: "good" - "worse" - "worst".

If the linked discussion is too heavy stuff for you to browse through, we can also discuss the different levels of morals found within the Bible.

 

[VanillaCone]

Edited to respond to edit...

Do you want to carry on? I thought you'd agreed to disagree

For the record, I added that edit BEFORE submitting the post about agreeing to disagree.

 

[VanillaCone]

fair enough....

sorry if i came across condescending....having come late into a debate that's spanned several days and a couple of threads I think you were just an unfortunate target of frustration - apologies

Edited to respond to edit...



Do you want to carry on? I thought you'd agreed to disagree

The statement you make would be agreed upon by the majority of people - it does shift the debate in two significant ways -

away from a measurable and quantifiable divisor (ie time) to an amorphous descriptor (consciously choose),

and also away from consensual sex where person A consciously chooses to have sex, but is not emotionally/physically mature enough for person B to morally rely upon their conscious choice.

Both shifts are required because an absolutist is unable to frame his argument in the time specific and quantifiable world...a personal descriptor such as "consciously choose" is rooted wholly in the subjective - immeasurable in any objective sense and a strange relative foundation for an absolute morality...

In any case, certainly there are certain areas of "morality" which enjoy strong general consensus - rape, child abuse incest and child murder. These are areas in which we come as close as we can to what one might term an absolute morality. I think it's a mistake however to actually talk in terms of absolute morality even in such extremes - there is no objective moral yardstick which exists independent of human consciousness against which acts however heinous can be measured - without recourse that is, to the supernatural. What we have instead is an individual processing such actions within his own consciousness. After processing one can arrive at a moral judgment - and that there should be broad agreement on stark issues should not be a surprise - we are after all influenced by bell-curve biological compunction and semi standardized societal influence. The absolutist is always forced into the starkest areas of humanity in order to "prove" absolute morality - but even here there is no proof beyond general consensus.

To choose the least morally abhorrent item on the list, that of incest - Haidt makes a case for moral judgment being like aesthetic judgment in the Happiness Hypothesis;

in studies a short story in which a brother and sister decide to have sex is read to students, who are then asked to comment on their reactions and their reasons why. Everyone will say that it's immoral, unacceptable. When pressed as to why, the standard answer is that it leads to children with genetic abnormalities - but he then points out that they used contraception. Rather than say "oh well, that's ok then." They search for other arguments - "it's going to harm their relationship" - he points out that it's made their relationship stronger, and most finally with no arguments left just conclude "i know it's wrong - but can't explain why."

here is a classic form of confabulation in action - the interpreter module of the brain is skilled at making up reasons for a belief, but those decisions often have already been made on a subconscious level - gut feelings, intuition and snap judgments happen constantly and automatically, and the interpretor simply serves as a justifier for those beliefs. That which we regard as moral is inseparable from the subjective in which it was formed - and just because moral relativists can often agree does not mean that morality should be regarded as absolute

Aw, crap. Here I am responding again. I really do understand your point, but I still feel that my view of moral versus immoral sex is based on an absolute -- maybe it's just not the same sort of absolute typically associated with the concept of moral absolutism.

And I must be honest here and acknowledge that according to my definition, consensual sex between a brother and a sister is not immoral.

But that doesn't mean it isn't creepy.

 

[andyandy]

For the record, I added that edit BEFORE submitting the post about agreeing to disagree.

I didn't see it til afterwards

 

[Jon.]

Aw, crap. Here I am responding again. I really do understand your point, but I still feel that my view of moral versus immoral sex is based on an absolute -- maybe it's just not the same sort of absolute typically associated with the concept of moral absolutism.

I don't think your definition gets you as bright a dividing line as you might think.

For one thing, there is the question of consent induced by fraud. Which of the following statements, if false and made in order to induce a person to consent to sex, would vitiate the consent sufficiently to make the sex act immoral?

(a) "I do not have AIDS."
(b) "If you have sex with me, you will get a promotion."
(c) "If you have sex with me, I will give you the best orgasm of your life."
(d) "I am not married."
(e) "I am sixteen."
(f) "Of course I won't tell anybody."

There are innumerable other examples. Each of them raises questions that cannot be answered by your simple test. I think most people would agree that (a) would vitiate consent and make the sex act immoral, but (f) would not. How do you draw a bright line here?

 

[andyandy]

If, hypothetically, the morality or immorality of Act X could only be determined by knowing the intent of the person committing Act X, can there not be a moral absolute that says if the intent is bad then Act X is always immoral, and if the intent is good then Act X is always moral?

Intent is one of the main external determiners we use for morality - but with intent, utilitarianism rears its ugly head - Ones' intent could be good - (eg. to save a life) but that wouldn't necessarily mean that that action (eg. by comitting torture) would be determined moral. Indeed, one can regard the intent of communism as good, but in acting for that "greater good" Maoist China and Stalinist Russia comitted atrocities as great as any by dictators with the worst of intentions....

 

[andyandy]

If you care to read this discussion about objectively defined ethics, you might get a good general idea of what ethics is and how many different factors are involved in it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85348

The system discussed in that thread is neither your option a) nor option b), so more alternatives are evidently possible.

interesting thread and ideas - have you had anything published/plan to?

 

[VanillaCone]

I don't think your definition gets you as bright a dividing line as you might think.

For one thing, there is the question of consent induced by fraud. Which of the following statements, if false and made in order to induce a person to consent to sex, would vitiate the consent sufficiently to make the sex act immoral?

(a) "I do not have AIDS."
(b) "If you have sex with me, you will get a promotion."
(c) "If you have sex with me, I will give you the best orgasm of your life."
(d) "I am not married."
(e) "I am sixteen."
(f) "Of course I won't tell anybody."

There are innumerable other examples. Each of them raises questions that cannot be answered by your simple test. I think most people would agree that (a) would vitiate consent and make the sex act immoral, but (f) would not. How do you draw a bright line here?

That is a very good point I was actually hoping someone would raise. Here's my take on it: Assuming that all of the above statements are lies, I agree that each situation would involve some type of clearly immoral behavior, with the possible exception of (c). But would the sex itself be immoral?

I'll try to explain my take on each one:

(a) Knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease to another person is immoral, whether through sex or some other means. It's not sex, per se, that's immoral here; sex just happens to be the method by which the immoral act was carried out.

(b) It is immoral to intentionally deceive someone into thinking they will be rewarded if they do what you tell them. In this case the "what" happens to be sex, but the immoral act is the deception, not the sex.

(c) Since there is no possible way the claimant in this case could know in advance whether his statement will prove to be true or false, I have a hard time agreeing that it's immoral. Unless having an inflated ego is immoral.

(d) Again, it's the act of deception that's immoral here, and perhaps the setting of false expectations. (That the sex may lead to a relationship.) But the sex itself is not the immoral act.

(e) Deception. (Tricking someone into unwittingly breaking the law.)

(f) Deception. (Falsely claiming you will protect someone's privacy in order to get you what you want.)

 

[VanillaCone]

Intent is one of the main external determiners we use for morality - but with intent, utilitarianism rears its ugly head - Ones' intent could be good - (eg. to save a life) but that wouldn't necessarily mean that that action (eg. by comitting torture) would be determined moral. Indeed, one can regard the intent of communism as good, but in acting for that "greater good" Maoist China and Stalinist Russia comitted atrocities as great as any by dictators with the worst of intentions....

In my opinion there is a difference between true intent and making a rationalization to attempt to justify immoral actions. I could rationalize lying to a woman to get her to have sex with me by telling myself she will enjoy the sex and thank me for it later, but my intent is still to deceive her.

 

[Jon.]

That is a very good point I was actually hoping someone would raise. Here's my take on it: Assuming that all of the above statements are lies, I agree that each situation would involve some type of clearly immoral behavior, with the possible exception of (c). But would the sex itself be immoral?

Thank you. Now you have raised some new types of immorality, about which you presumably would say there are objective sources or bases. Let's have a look.

I'll try to explain my take on each one:

(a) Knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease to another person is immoral, whether through sex or some other means. It's not sex, per se, that's immoral here; sex just happens to be the method by which the immoral act was carried out.

I would agree that knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease to someone without their consent is usually an immoral act, and at present I cannot think of an example where this might not be true.

(b) It is immoral to intentionally deceive someone into thinking they will be rewarded if they do what you tell them. In this case the "what" happens to be sex, but the immoral act is the deception, not the sex.

Is deception in this fashion always immoral? What if it is "for your own good"? I'm thinking of telling a child that an inoculation won't hurt, in order to get them to sit still, because you know that, in the long run, the protection offered by the immunization is worth the transient pain of the injection. However, you are still deceiving the child.

(c) Since there is no possible way the claimant in this case could know in advance whether his statement will prove to be true or false, I have a hard time agreeing that it's immoral. Unless having an inflated ego is immoral.

I take it you are assuming that the claimant sincerely believes that s/he can give the partner the best orgasm of his/her life. If not, then it is clearly a form of knowing deception. How certain does the claimant have to be in order to escape immorality?

(d) Again, it's the act of deception that's immoral here, and perhaps the setting of false expectations. (That the sex may lead to a relationship.) But the sex itself is not the immoral act.

(e) Deception. (Tricking someone into unwittingly breaking the law.)

(f) Deception. (Falsely claiming you will protect someone's privacy in order to get you what you want.)

Do you think that deception is always wrong?

 

[VanillaCone]

Thank you. Now you have raised some new types of immorality, about which you presumably would say there are objective sources or bases. Let's have a look.

I would agree that knowingly spreading a potentially deadly disease to someone without their consent is usually an immoral act, and at present I cannot think of an example where this might not be true.

Is deception in this fashion always immoral? What if it is "for your own good"? I'm thinking of telling a child that an inoculation won't hurt, in order to get them to sit still, because you know that, in the long run, the protection offered by the immunization is worth the transient pain of the injection. However, you are still deceiving the child.

I take it you are assuming that the claimant sincerely believes that s/he can give the partner the best orgasm of his/her life. If not, then it is clearly a form of knowing deception. How certain does the claimant have to be in order to escape immorality?

Do you think that deception is always wrong?

I don't think all forms of deception are by definition immoral, but I do think self-serving deception is nearly always immoral.

Personally I believe lying to a child to get him to do something that's "for his own good" is also immoral. It's certainly a very lazy way to solve the problem of an uncooperative child, and there are far better alternatives. Sure, he'll agree to the shot if you fool him. Once. After that he'll be far more likely to distrust you and every other authority figure in his life. Is that really "for his own good?"

At any rate I'm not sure it matters to this discussion whether all deception is immoral. The only pertinent question here is whether the deception in all of the examples you mentioned is immoral. The only reason I hesitated on (c) is that the statement "you're going to have the best orgasm of your life" could end up being true. But if it was said in an attempt to deceive, then I agree it would be immoral to say it.

Still, how does that support or refute my previous post? I think you disagree with what I said, but at this point I'm not sure why.