Is there such self-evident morality?

[OccamsRazor]

I came across these statements from a new member:

The self-evident rules of Morality:
1. Respect for all life, but especially human life, is moral.
2. Aggressive (not defensive) first use of force is immoral.
3. Taking unearned value --theft -- is immoral.
4. Threat of use of force for gain of unearned value is immoral.
5. Deceit for gain of unearned value is immoral.

This immediately brought to mind two old dilemmas.

1. The classic Kohlberg Dilemma:

In Switzerland, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid EUR100 for the radium and charged EUR1,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about EUR500, which is half of what it cost but 5 times its cost of manufacture. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. Unfortunately the pharmacist rejected this. So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store, steal the drug for his wife and leave the EUR500.

2.

You are in an aeroplane which crashlands into the ocean. There are few survivors but you make it onto one of the inflatable liferafts. Unfortunately one of the passengers is seriously injured and he is losing blood, you may be able to save his life if you can get him to a hospital. Additionally there are too many people on the raft and it is taking on water. You think that you are likely to sink before you are all rescued. Are you justified in pushing the injured man overboard?

Based on these two scenarios, can we really say that there are self-evident rules of morality?

[McCulloch]

This immediately brought to mind two old dilemmas.

1. The classic Kohlberg Dilemma:

In Switzerland, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid EUR100 for the radium and charged EUR1,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about EUR500, which is half of what it cost but 5 times its cost of manufacture. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. Unfortunately the pharmacist rejected this. So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store, steal the drug for his wife and leave the EUR500.

Fortunately, this one does not apply to bible-believing Christians.

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.

Disease is caused by unforgiven sin. Prayer offered in faith will heal sickness.

[McCulloch]

You are in an aeroplane which crashlands into the ocean. There are few survivors but you make it onto one of the inflatable liferafts. Unfortunately one of the passengers is seriously injured and he is losing blood, you may be able to save his life if you can get him to a hospital. Additionally there are too many people on the raft and it is taking on water. You think that you are likely to sink before you are all rescued. Are you justified in pushing the injured man overboard?

[Jesus said] This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you.

The follower of Jesus would vacate the boat in order to save the life of his friends.

[OccamsRazor]

Disease is caused by unforgiven sin. Prayer offered in faith will heal sickness.

Ahh so that's why Christians are all immortal.

The follower of Jesus would vacate the boat in order to save the life of his friends.

Ahhh good point. So, what if I added this:

In the liferaft scenario, there are a few other passengers with less immediately life threatening injuries. You happen to be a doctor and the only person on the raft to help them

[George S]

I came across these statements from a new member:

The self-evident rules of Morality:
1. Respect for all life, but especially human life, is moral.
2. Aggressive (not defensive) first use of force is immoral.
3. Taking unearned value --theft -- is immoral.
4. Threat of use of force for gain of unearned value is immoral.
5. Deceit for gain of unearned value is immoral.

This immediately brought to mind two old dilemmas.

1. The classic Kohlberg Dilemma:

In Switzerland, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid EUR100 for the radium and charged EUR1,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about EUR500, which is half of what it cost but 5 times its cost of manufacture. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. Unfortunately the pharmacist rejected this. So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store, steal the drug for his wife and leave the EUR500.

2.

You are in an aeroplane which crashlands into the ocean. There are few survivors but you make it onto one of the inflatable liferafts. Unfortunately one of the passengers is seriously injured and he is losing blood, you may be able to save his life if you can get him to a hospital. Additionally there are too many people on the raft and it is taking on water. You think that you are likely to sink before you are all rescued. Are you justified in pushing the injured man overboard?

Based on these two scenarios, can we really say that there are self-evident rules of morality?

All systems of morality and ethics have the same problem with the ethical dilemmas.

The five principles establish the prima facie case.

On the face of it, theft is immoral. On the face of it, maintenance of family is always moral.

Individuals must weigh and balance on an individual basis.

There are more examples, of course, as many as you want. Trapped on a deserted Arctic island, the only source of food is fellow travelers. Rescue is expected in one month. Everyone will die unless someone practices cannibalism.

Believing all other humanity has been destroyed the only two people left are father and daughter. Is incest justified to preserve humanity.

These artificial situation are paradoxical. They must each be handled on their own as a special case should the situation actually arise. The examples are all simple, and yet, I would really expect, quite rare. So rare that we need not contemplate them until necessary.

These five principles work as a test -- a first test -- as to the implicit morality of a given act.

The fact that there are questions like: Is it moral to X (an immorality) if the only way to avoid Y (another immorality) is to do X? are matters for judges and is why we need them.

We as a society tend to rank immoral acts, having decided that one immorality is worse than another. And immorality is not judged upon those who had no choice in the matter. An insane person is forgiven if he had no choice -- was compelled. A drunk person is forgiven what he says; it was the booze talking (but not what he does). This is why we need judges. Judges who consistently apply the above rules.

[OccamsRazor]

I agree with what you have said George.

My main concern is really, does this not mean that there is no such thing as self-evident morality and that, as you rightly point out, moral decisions must be made in context?

So rare that we need not contemplate them until necessary.

I am also thankful that most of us never need to contemplate these things.

The fact that there are questions like: Is it moral to X (an immorality) if the only way to avoid Y (another immorality) is to do X? are matters for judges and is why we need them.

Possibly, but judges also act on legislation, which ultimately looks to public opinion. I do not see that decisions of higher morality are purely left to judges.
We must consider such higher morality when we look at subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem-cell research. Judges to not make such decisions in these cases, they rather await guidance as to how they should proceed.

[George S]

It is that the arificial ethical dilemmas do not actually arise in daily life.

For general use the five principles are self-evident. At least an 80-20 rule applies. At least 80 percent of situations may be accurately judged using these five principles. That has to be worth something.

Check these five principles against any religion's. You will find concordance if not explicit agreement. Sure, some religions advocate these practices only for co-religionists (ala Islam), but still they are the self-evident morality.

1. Respect for all life, but especially human life, is moral.
This is the biological imperative. It means that the taking of human life must be done with the very best justification. It means that taking non-human life must be done with some justification.


2. Aggressive (not defensive) first use of force is immoral.
It is not okay to bash someone else just because one wants to. It is not okay to strike first and ask questions later.


3. Taking unearned value --theft -- is immoral.
It seems so obvious, doesn't it. Yet religious system after religious system has authorized the taking of land occupied by non-religionists. Tsk tsk.

4. Threat of use of force for gain of unearned value is immoral.
Even a child recognizes that bullying is immoral.

5. Deceit for gain of unearned value is immoral.
To lie to save yourself from punishment, to lie as a means of theft, is immoral. To lie to save yourself, to lie as a means of kindness, is moral.