RE: The End of Theistic Morality
November 3, 2013 at 5:01 am
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2013 at 5:05 am by bennyboy.)
Failed to watch the whole thing, as fell asleep during WLC.
But here's a start:
9:30
Objective vs. Subjective morality
-assumes that the TERM is variable, rather than the moral idea. He defines moral behavior in terms of well-being, saying that we can scientifically study the things that harm us or bring us health. By this definition, he waves away the Christian question "Okay, why is it wrong to bring harm?" with "because morality means intending and causing well-being." This begs the question, as it's not necessary to define morality as the intention to bring well-being. What, for example, about the morality of justice? If someone has ALREADY intentionally caused harm to others, is it immoral to bring harm to him? I think many would accept capital punishment or corporal punishment merited. Don't believe me? Imagine a family member raped and murdered, and tell me the survivors are immoral if they intend (and cause) harm to the perpetrator.
17:40
Moral Triangle
He includes intent, consequence and values as a collective measure of whether something is moral or immoral. However, I disagree with his model. What if someone INTENDS to cause serious harm to others (say through a biochemical attack) but accidentally brings him superpowers? I would say that the action is immoral no matter what, simply because of the intent, and that the good result doesn't lessen that immorality.
If this is not the case, then what is the arbitrary scale of time in which we should delay in determining how moral/immoral an act is? A day? A year? Wait until the Big Crunch? How about: "Yes, I killed that girl, but it wasn't too immoral because eventually one of her offspring would have brought harm to others."
How about this example? I believe that most suffering in the US is due to a lack of inspiration, and of poor physical health. So I enter random houses with a gun, tell the occupants "Lose 20 pounds and go on a spiritual vacation within the next year, or I'll come back and kill you and my family." So they do, and their lives are enriched. Do I get to see myself as a dentist, harming in the short term to bring well-being in the long term? Is my behavior, in which I have good intent, and which brings good consequences, moral? I don't think so.
Harm vs. well-being isn't comprehensive enough. Morality involves many rights, the right not to be harmed by others being only one of them.
21:12
He's defined moral behavior as that which intends and brings well-being, and immoral behavior as that which intends and brings harm
-he waves away "subjective" differences as being actually objective: whether someone can feel pain, or is handicapped, or austistic or whatever changes what constitutes harm for them, or healthy. But I'm now agnostic, given a person I don't know, about what will bring well-being to that person, and therefore about what moral behavior should be. I have no choice only to do what I myself would want done to me (the Biblical do unto others). But what if I like getting spanked by strangers in public?
22:40 "Why is causing harm evil?"
He dismisses this argument by reflecting back to his own definition of immorality as causing harm.
25:00 What about absence of actions? Moral or immoral? What if, knowing that harm is occurring in the world, I fail to act to stop it? He talks about the secular definition of morality of selfishness, but hasn't mentioned passive or implicit non-acts as selfish (except in the example of criminal negligence). Every person in existence allows very many evils to persist; is this not immoral?
But here's a start:
9:30
Objective vs. Subjective morality
-assumes that the TERM is variable, rather than the moral idea. He defines moral behavior in terms of well-being, saying that we can scientifically study the things that harm us or bring us health. By this definition, he waves away the Christian question "Okay, why is it wrong to bring harm?" with "because morality means intending and causing well-being." This begs the question, as it's not necessary to define morality as the intention to bring well-being. What, for example, about the morality of justice? If someone has ALREADY intentionally caused harm to others, is it immoral to bring harm to him? I think many would accept capital punishment or corporal punishment merited. Don't believe me? Imagine a family member raped and murdered, and tell me the survivors are immoral if they intend (and cause) harm to the perpetrator.
17:40
Moral Triangle
He includes intent, consequence and values as a collective measure of whether something is moral or immoral. However, I disagree with his model. What if someone INTENDS to cause serious harm to others (say through a biochemical attack) but accidentally brings him superpowers? I would say that the action is immoral no matter what, simply because of the intent, and that the good result doesn't lessen that immorality.
If this is not the case, then what is the arbitrary scale of time in which we should delay in determining how moral/immoral an act is? A day? A year? Wait until the Big Crunch? How about: "Yes, I killed that girl, but it wasn't too immoral because eventually one of her offspring would have brought harm to others."
How about this example? I believe that most suffering in the US is due to a lack of inspiration, and of poor physical health. So I enter random houses with a gun, tell the occupants "Lose 20 pounds and go on a spiritual vacation within the next year, or I'll come back and kill you and my family." So they do, and their lives are enriched. Do I get to see myself as a dentist, harming in the short term to bring well-being in the long term? Is my behavior, in which I have good intent, and which brings good consequences, moral? I don't think so.
Harm vs. well-being isn't comprehensive enough. Morality involves many rights, the right not to be harmed by others being only one of them.
21:12
He's defined moral behavior as that which intends and brings well-being, and immoral behavior as that which intends and brings harm
-he waves away "subjective" differences as being actually objective: whether someone can feel pain, or is handicapped, or austistic or whatever changes what constitutes harm for them, or healthy. But I'm now agnostic, given a person I don't know, about what will bring well-being to that person, and therefore about what moral behavior should be. I have no choice only to do what I myself would want done to me (the Biblical do unto others). But what if I like getting spanked by strangers in public?
22:40 "Why is causing harm evil?"
He dismisses this argument by reflecting back to his own definition of immorality as causing harm.
25:00 What about absence of actions? Moral or immoral? What if, knowing that harm is occurring in the world, I fail to act to stop it? He talks about the secular definition of morality of selfishness, but hasn't mentioned passive or implicit non-acts as selfish (except in the example of criminal negligence). Every person in existence allows very many evils to persist; is this not immoral?
