|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I like to think that harm/benefit is the same thing as unloving/loving... just defined using different words.
The caveat to me is... who gets to decide what's harmful and what's beneficial?To me, this can only be decided by the one being acted upon... not the one doing the action, and not any 3rd party observing the actions. For a simple and obvious example, take the song "Baby Shark." Some people (mostly kids) like to sing/listen to Baby Shark over and over and over and over...Some people (mostly adults) do not like to sing/listen to Baby Shark much at all. So, is singing Baby Shark to someone loving or unloving? Beneficial or harmful? It all depends on who you're singing it to, and how they judge the effects of the action upon themselves. For a complex and difficult example, take helping someone commit suicide. Some people (most?) will regret attempting suicide as shown by many who have gone through the process and later changed their minds.However, I'm sure it's not impossible to want to commit suicide without any sort of regret ever (and if you did live, only regretting living for all or your remaining time.) Think of someone with a terminal, degenerative illness who doesn't want to be a burden on those who devote their time to taking care of them. Again, it all depends on who's doing the suicide and how they feel about it.Perhaps they themselves can't even "see the future" enough to know if they'll regret it or not - but this is an issue with "being able to see the future." Not an issue with who's going to know if it's loving or unloving... beneficial or harmful. So, I agree that harm/benefit is the determination of what's moral and not.But only if the decision of what is harm vs what is beneficial is done by the one affected by the situation. If you're the one causing the situation, or a 3rd party altogether... your judgement only counts for if the situation was happening to you... it is meaningless to person being affected by the situation in question. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
AZPaul3 writes:
No it does not. The point, GDR, is that doing a moral thing can have negative consequences so therefore it isn't as simple as loving and unloving.In your view you do a moral thing out of love. Tangle does the same thing out of benefit. You try to negate Tangle's good because of an unseen future negative, yet your good suffers the same consequence. Does this negate the moral reasonings behind the initial action? We are essentially on the same page. As I read what Tangle wrote using strictly harm and benefit as the criteria, then the emphasis is on the outcome and not on the motivation. By making the criteria loving or unloving then the end result has no impact on the morality of the act.
AZPaul3 writes:
Absolutely He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think Tangle, as you do, assigns the morality to the reason for the initial action. In neither of your cases would either of you perform the initial action knowing of the negative outcome. So you're back to square one. Tangle's morality comes down to the benefit expected from an action. Immorality comes down to the harm expected to be done by an action. If the intention is to give benefit then it is a moral good. If the intent is to do harm then it is a moral bad.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Tangle writes: Yes really. Morality is about intent. If the person gave the cash wanting/expecting to improve the guy's life it was a good moral act. If he gave the cash wanting/expecting him to buy drugs and kill himself it was an immoral act. Yes, but if the criteria is harm or benefit then you can't know whether it was harmful or beneficial until later or maybe never. In my example it was a loving act when the money was given but when the money was given it was an unknown as to whether or not it was harmful or beneficial.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1703 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Are you talking about actual harm or benefit as the criteria? Isn't it about MOTIVE to do harm or benefit? Tangle seems to be talking about motive, you seem to be talking about what actually happens, but it's only the motive that counts morally.
If you intend to do good to the person you are morally in the right. BUT in the case of giving money to a street person I've known for years that it probably will go to drugs or alcohol and knowing that it won't benefit them as I intend I won't give it. I may give them a bag with a sandwich and a drink and snacks, but not money. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Faith writes:
I'm sure you're right. I think though it rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit. Are you talking about actual harm or benefit as the criteria? Isn't it about MOTIVE to do harm or benefit? Tangle seems to be talking about motive, you seem to be talking about what actually happens, but it's only the motive that counts morally.If you intend to do good to the person you are morally in the right. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit. Semantics. Would you say your action is taken with the intent to be loving or with the intent to be unloving? Does it matter that the adjectives are loving/unloving or beneficial/harmful? Are you trying to sneak in a religious connotation? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
AZPaul3 writes:
If we use the term loving then intent is implied. That isn't really the case with beneficial. Would you say your action is taken with the intent to be loving or with the intent to be unloving? Does it matter that the adjectives are loving/unloving or beneficial/harmful? Are you trying to sneak in a religious connotation?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
GDR writes: Yes, but if the criteria is harm or benefit then you can't know whether it was harmful or beneficial until later or maybe never. In my example it was a loving act when the money was given but when the money was given it was an unknown as to whether or not it was harmful or beneficial. All you're doing is substituting love - and by inference - hate, for benefit and harm. If you give the panhandler money out of love and he then buys drugs and overdoses you have an hateful outcome. Intent.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
GDR writes: I'm sure you're right. I think though it rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit. I think insisting on either over the other is missing the point.Like insisting that hitting a single is somehow "greater" than taking a walk. If you're on base, then you're on base. Intent is for judging the "morality of the person" doing the action... did they want a loving/beneficial outcome? If so - good try. If not - screw them.Of course, the judgement is made manifest by the reaction of the person to the end result. If the end result was good - does the person continue to try and do the same action? Perhaps tweak for a better result? if the end result was bad - does the person continue to try and do the same action without in-spite of the bad result? The result is for judging the "morality of the action" itself... without commenting on what was intended, was it a good or bad thing to do it at all?-This information can be used by the person doing the action to continue or change their methods - depending on whether or not they care about being a good person for the situation in question. They are both important aspects, and part of "morality" in their own way.They both have their own specifics, and their own details. But conflating the two, or trying to say one out-classes the other, is a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Gospel Preacher writes: If, as atheists claim, morality is relative, then by definition there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, atheists have no basis for complaining about moral wrongs, because they cannot appeal to anything to prove that it is wrong. I am an atheist, and I think morality is subjective. Morality is based on human needs and wants, and that is what I base morality on. Therefore, it is entirely proper to claim that something is morally wrong if it goes against the subjective needs and wants of human society and individuals.
All they can do is appeal to their own feelings, but without an absolute standard their feelings don't matter, because only an absolute standard can say that the feelings of humans beings ought to matter to every other human being. Our emotions absolutely do matter to us. That's the whole point. In fact, it could be argued that our emotions are some of the most important things.
When the morals of one human contradict the morals of another human, which human is right, since there is no absolute standard? If they both are offended, whose feelings do we base our morals on? There will be occasions where this is hard to figure out. This is why morality has long been a heavily debated topic. The problem for you is determining what is moral in the face of two people who claim to have absolute standards, but those standards disagree with one another. What happens then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1703 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
...it is entirely proper to claim that something is morally wrong if it goes against the subjective needs and wants of human society and individuals. Um, some individuals have a strong need and want to have sex with children. Some individuals have a strong need and want to commit murder: study the cases of serial killers, it's a strong need they have. Same with needs and wants to hurt and humiliate others, some to torture and kill animals. These things subjectively feel to these people as strong needs and wants. You have a very nave idea of what lurks in the human soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Faith writes: Um, some individuals have a strong need and want to have sex with children. The majority of human society doesn't have those needs or wants. In fact, they have the opposite. They have a need and want to protect their children from sexual predators. If someone said that God told them it was ok to have sex with children, would you be fine with that?
You have a very nave idea of what lurks in the human soul. You have a serious misunderstanding of what human society is. Human society is not the immoral needs of a tiny minority. Human society is the common thread that runs through the vast majority of human society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
There are two blog posts that really helped me solidify my thinking on this topic.
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Tangle writes: All you're doing is substituting love - and by inference - hate, for benefit and harm. If you give the panhandler money out of love and he then buys drugs and overdoses you have an hateful outcome. Intent. I agree that intent is the point. Firstly being hateful and unloving are two different things. Hatred is unloving but it is only one aspect of it. In a broader sense unloving is simply indifference to the well being of others. My point was that you can have a negative outcome from a loving moral act. Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
GDR writes: I agree that intent is the point. Firstly being hateful and unloving are two different things. Hatred is unloving but it is only one aspect of it. In a broader sense unloving is simply indifference to the well being of others. I think you've just explained why this business of love and heart and sacrifice and so on is really just well meaning religious waffle. What our sense of morality is built on is the wellbeing of others, which means reducing harms and increasing benefits.
My point was that you can have a negative outcome from a loving moral act. Unlikely but possible but also irrelevant. Morality is an attempt to do the right or wrong thing. Help or harm.
Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent. Nope, it's the intent to harm or help that matters and usually it will result in the intended outcome.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024