Let us assume for debate that morality is objective. For example, that it is wrong to kill except in self defense or defense of another. Are there any constraints upon this?
assuming that killing is wrong by objective morality, for each question: A) are YOU wrong for doing it under the following circumstances? B) can/should you be held responsible?
1) What if you don't know it's wrong, and you kill? (Ex. you are trained from birth in isolation to be an assassin, and taught that it is good to kill people, and never given any indication that it is wrong)
2) What if you had no reason to assume that your actions had any connection with killing? (Ex. You are cooking for a guest, and you are given an incorrect list of allergies, so you unintentionally include an ingredient that kills the victim)
3)What if you thought you were committing fake murder, but it was really real murder? (Ex. your fake knife prop was replaced with a real one without your knowledge)
4) what if you thought you were killing fake people? (Ex. You are using a 'training simulator' and screwing around and crash a plane for the hell of it, but you were actually remotely controlling a real plane and didn't know it)
Objective Morality
Moderator: Moderators
- FinalEnigma
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 2329
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Bryant, AR
Objective Morality
Post #1We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Objective Morality
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]
1A) Yes. 1B) Yes.
2A) Yes. 2B) No.
3A) Yes. 3B) No.
4A) Yes. 4B) No.
A) If it is objectively wrong, then it is wrong full stop. Circumstances was not mentioned in the criteria.
B) the latter three scenario makes it clear that an honest mistake was made in an act that resulted in killings.
1A) Yes. 1B) Yes.
2A) Yes. 2B) No.
3A) Yes. 3B) No.
4A) Yes. 4B) No.
A) If it is objectively wrong, then it is wrong full stop. Circumstances was not mentioned in the criteria.
B) the latter three scenario makes it clear that an honest mistake was made in an act that resulted in killings.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Objective Morality
Post #3I think you bring up a really good question because there is clearly a difference between something being objectively "wrong", and being held responsible for having done a "wrong" action.FinalEnigma wrote: assuming that killing is wrong by objective morality, for each question: A) are YOU wrong for doing it under the following circumstances? B) can/should you be held responsible?
I would personally not hold the person responsible in any of the scenarios you've described including #1. Even a trained assassin should not be held accountable for murder if it could genuinely be shown that they honestly believed that what they were doing was right. After all, we don't hold soldiers accountable for murder we we tell them to kill the enemy. On the contrary we consider them to be heroes for doing so. The assassin you described in your scenario #1 would basically be no different from a solider if they were taught by an authority they trust that performing these assassins was the right thing to do.
I think your topic here is a very important topic for theologians to consider. And I've held this position for many decades. "Sins" cannot be mere actions. The concept of "sin" necessarily must take into consideration intent. This is why I say that what might be a sin for one person may not be a sin for another (assuming there exists an almighty judge who will judge them in the end).
Therefore we can't point to actions alone and proclaim that the person performing the action is a "sinner", because we can't know that. Only a divine mind could know whether the actor is actually a "sinner".
And even more importantly, and divine deity would fully understand this, and because of this understanding, a real divine deity would never instruct men to stone "sinners' to death because there is no way that any mortal man could ever determine whether or not someone was a "sinner". All that could be determined is whether or not they had conducted a given action. But actions alone would not constitute "sin".
So we can know for certain that any religion that proclaims that its God deity had ever instructed men to stone sinners to death is indeed a clearly false religion.
Actions alone would not constitute a "sin". Intent must also be known. And mortal men can never know the intent of another mortal man or woman. So no mortal man is in a position to be judging anyone to be a "sinner".
Any "real" God would know this.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Re: Objective Morality
Post #4How fortunate then that the Mosaic Law doesn't ask mortal men to go around trying to search hearts and stone any "sinners" found, but merely to stone those that have broken certain laws.Divine Insight wrote:
And even more importantly, and divine deity would fully understand this, and because of this understanding, a real divine deity would never instruct men to stone "sinners' to death because there is no way that any mortal man could ever determine whether or not someone was a "sinner".
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR
Re: Objective Morality
Post #5Under the premises you provide 'that it is wrong to kill except in self defense or defense of another', there are clearly no constraints than those already stated (as Bust Nak has pointed out). So what you're asking is whether readers feel or intuit or whatever that there should be some additional constraints.FinalEnigma wrote: Let us assume for debate that morality is objective. For example, that it is wrong to kill except in self defense or defense of another. Are there any constraints upon this?
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Objective Morality
Post #6But that would still require stoning people to death based on mere acts alone without taking into consideration motive or intent.Paprika wrote:How fortunate then that the Mosaic Law doesn't ask mortal men to go around trying to search hearts and stone any "sinners" found, but merely to stone those that have broken certain laws.Divine Insight wrote:
And even more importantly, and divine deity would fully understand this, and because of this understanding, a real divine deity would never instruct men to stone "sinners' to death because there is no way that any mortal man could ever determine whether or not someone was a "sinner".
For example, you could have a poor fellow who was very loving and actually believed in a fair, just benevolent God. Yet because he was cold and needed heat he was gathering firewood on the Sabbath. According to Mosaic law he should be stoned to death, without regard to his intent.
Perhaps he even prayed to God first and got special permission.
The problem is that as soon as laws are based solely on acts where intention is ignored then things become extremely dangerous, and certainly not just.
In fact, if this were the case in our legal system then all that would need to be determined is whether a person actually committed an act. There would be no need for any jury to decide "guilt or innocence" based on any other factors.
A prime example of this is a wife killing her abusive husband. Is this an act of "murder", or is it an justified act of "self-defense"?
I would personally lean toward the latter since I have no sympathy for abusive husbands. I think abused women are justified in killing their abusive husbands.
Who should a merciful God have mercy on? The abusive husband, or the abused wife? I think a truly merciful God would be more inclined to have mercy on the latter.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Re: Objective Morality
Post #7How interesting that you mentioned that given that in the only recorded case of stoning for gathering sticks God was consulted before the stoning. And iirc if the judges felt the case was not judgeable by them they could refer it to God through divine lot.Divine Insight wrote:But that would still require stoning people to death based on mere acts alone without taking into consideration motive or intent.Paprika wrote:How fortunate then that the Mosaic Law doesn't ask mortal men to go around trying to search hearts and stone any "sinners" found, but merely to stone those that have broken certain laws.Divine Insight wrote:
And even more importantly, and divine deity would fully understand this, and because of this understanding, a real divine deity would never instruct men to stone "sinners' to death because there is no way that any mortal man could ever determine whether or not someone was a "sinner".
For example, you could have a poor fellow who was very loving and actually believed in a fair, just benevolent God. Yet because he was cold and needed heat he was gathering firewood on the Sabbath. According to Mosaic law he should be stoned to death, without regard to his intent.
Perhaps he even prayed to God first and got special permission.
Weren't you arguing that "mortal men can never know the intent of another mortal man or woman. So no mortal man is in a position to be judging anyone?" How then do you propose any crime be judged, since according to you the person might have innocent intent but we can "never know"?The problem is that as soon as laws are based solely on acts where intention is ignored then things become extremely dangerous, and certainly not just.
In fact, if this were the case in our legal system then all that would need to be determined is whether a person actually committed an act. There would be no need for any jury to decide "guilt or innocence" based on any other factors.
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Objective Morality
Post #8Right, I propose that a more interesting scenario would be, what if someone really hated someone and killed that person out of malice, but just so happened to have resulted in the defense of a third party. Is he wrong, and should he be held responsible?Paprika wrote:Under the premises you provide 'that it is wrong to kill except in self defense or defense of another', there are clearly no constraints than those already stated (as Bust Nak has pointed out). So what you're asking is whether readers feel or intuit or whatever that there should be some additional constraints.FinalEnigma wrote: Let us assume for debate that morality is objective. For example, that it is wrong to kill except in self defense or defense of another. Are there any constraints upon this?
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Objective Morality
Post #9Because there is an extremely important difference here.Paprika wrote: Weren't you arguing that "mortal men can never know the intent of another mortal man or woman. So no mortal man is in a position to be judging anyone?" How then do you propose any crime be judged, since according to you the person might have innocent intent but we can "never know"?
In the first case I was referring to a "God" who supposedly commanded men to do this. In the second case you are asking about how humans might judge each other based on their own limitations.
What I am saying is that in the first case an all-knowing "God" should know better. In the second case, humans really have no choice but to work within their own limitations.
So in the first case, we're addressing a concept of "absolute morality".
In the second case, the concept of "morality" doesn't even really need to enter the picture at all. In fact, we as humans make a very grave mistake in even thinking that morality should even be considered in legal cases. All we truly need to consider is whether or not the person is likely to do it again, and whether or not that might be a threat to the rest of society.
Our human legal systems don't even need to be about "morality" at all. Morality is a totally useless concept unless we're talking about an "absolute judge" who is going to be judging humans on "absolute moral grounds".
So human legal systems and the concept of judgmental "Gods" are not even remotely similar.
~~~~~
In an attempt to try to make this crystal clear:
1. My position on theology is totally different from my position on secular law.
2. I totally disagree with the theological concept of morality in Christianity.
3. I don't even agree with our secular laws or system of social "justice" either.
~~~~~
Finally, I would like to point out that what you have proposed here is a very common mistake that many theologians make in their arguments. They attempt to argue that because humans do certain things that this "justifies" that a God would do the same types of things.
However, the grave failure of those arguments is that humans have limitations, and are far from perfect. They also aren't blessed with omniscience and therefore they need to guess and make the best guesses they can come up with. So to compare human systems with a supposedly omniscient God who is perfect in every way is to do nothing more than suggest that the God in question is just as limited and inept as humans.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Re: Objective Morality
Post #10My dear chap, you wrong me: I am not comparing one to the other to justify one by the other. I am merely wondering how you would have laws ordered and punishments executed since you claim that "mortal men can never know the intent of another mortal man or woman. So no mortal man is in a position to be judging anyone?"Divine Insight wrote:Because there is an extremely important difference here.Paprika wrote: Weren't you arguing that "mortal men can never know the intent of another mortal man or woman. So no mortal man is in a position to be judging anyone?" How then do you propose any crime be judged, since according to you the person might have innocent intent but we can "never know"?
In the first case I was referring to a "God" who supposedly commanded men to do this. In the second case you are asking about how humans might judge each other based on their own limitations.
What I am saying is that in the first case an all-knowing "God" should know better. In the second case, humans really have no choice but to work within their own limitations.
So in the first case, we're addressing a concept of "absolute morality".
In the second case, the concept of "morality" doesn't even really need to enter the picture at all. In fact, we as humans make a very grave mistake in even thinking that morality should even be considered in legal cases. All we truly need to consider is whether or not the person is likely to do it again, and whether or not that might be a threat to the rest of society.
Our human legal systems don't even need to be about "morality" at all. Morality is a totally useless concept unless we're talking about an "absolute judge" who is going to be judging humans on "absolute moral grounds".
So human legal systems and the concept of judgmental "Gods" are not even remotely similar.
~~~~~
In an attempt to try to make this crystal clear:
1. My position on theology is totally different from my position on secular law.
2. I totally disagree with the theological concept of morality in Christianity.
3. I don't even agree with our secular laws or system of social "justice" either.
~~~~~
Finally, I would like to point out that what you have proposed here is a very common mistake that many theologians make in their arguments. They attempt to argue that because humans do certain things that this "justifies" that a God would do the same types of things.
However, the grave failure of those arguments is that humans have limitations, and are far from perfect. They also aren't blessed with omniscience and therefore they need to guess and make the best guesses they can come up with. So to compare human systems with a supposedly omniscient God who is perfect in every way is to do nothing more than suggest that the God in question is just as limited and inept as humans.
Very well, you disagree with the system you're in but that's not telling me what system you envision should be in place.
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR