Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:16 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The End of Theistic Morality
#1
The End of Theistic Morality
Note: This video is a little over an hour long, but it's worth it in my book. You'll learn a lot about a potential moral framework for secularists, problems with theistic moral frameworks and usual issues in moral discussions between theists and nontheists. Smile





This is one of the reasons I find the maker of the video, KnownNoMore, to be the best YouTube atheist. He really knows his stuff, with regards to philosophy, science and such. Big Grin
Reply
#2
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
Anyone gotten to see it yet? Sad It's really good.
Reply
#3
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
Sorry, a bit long for me, but if I get time I might watch it.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Reply
#4
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
I'll watch the whole thing today. I've already watched bits and pieces, and I have a couple issues with his logic. But overall, I think it's a pretty good piece of work.
Reply
#5
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
What issues did you have? Smile
Reply
#6
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
(November 2, 2013 at 11:11 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: What issues did you have? Smile

Okay, starting video now. Check next post for time stamp to see if I really watched it all. Tongue
Reply
#7
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
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?
Reply
#8
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
(November 3, 2013 at 5:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

Huh? You always have to start by defining what you mean by terms. For example, it makes no sense to go to someone who defines knowledge as a "justified true belief" and ask "How do you know that's what knowledge is?" As he's a consequentialist, of course he's going to define morality in terms of the consequences to sentient life.

Secondly, I think it's a bad case to say that those affected by a tragic incident want to harm the murderer and say that because they want to do so something about morality in that instance. Would I? I can't see myself not doing it. But my point is that taking cases where people's emotions are going wild as your standard is inconsistent.

Quote: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.

He uses that model because he's a consequentialist and those are the facets involved in that type of moral theory. He uses a similar thought experiment, but I think it's less immoral because it didn't cause harm. In other words, I find intentions a bit less morally significant than what actually happens, and you probably do to in many cases.

Quote: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."

That seems like a straw man. If your intent nor your own motivated actions didn't directly cause something, I doubt you'd consider some ill result that happened as being as immoral. For example, if you sneezed on someone accidentally, and they ended up dying from a disease you unknowingly passed to them, would you consider that as immoral as if you had internationally infected them? Again, I highly doubt it.

Quote: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.

That fails because in that example your causing them mental non-well being purposefully on the chance that they'll believe you won't harm them or their family. And in the case of a dentist, there are no other ways to relieve that instance of pain without inflicting some necessary pain in the short term. The analogy of yours breaks down when you realize there are in fact better waysto do so than negatively impacting the individuals mental well-being.

Quote: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.

Rights can just as easily fit into consequentialism. As long as the right has utility with regards to improving well-being and/or preventing negative impacts to it.

Quote: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?

Then is that not bringing you mental well-being (pleasure) for relatively little pain? And are you not capable of informing people on what your pleasures are?

Quote:22:40 "Why is causing harm evil?"
He dismisses this argument by reflecting back to his own definition of immorality as causing harm.

That's what ALL discussions on morality have to do. Asking why your definition of morality is moral is a contradiction in terms, it's a failure to realize what is being done (as per my earlier example about defining knowledge).

Quote: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?

If they are capable of preventing it without inducing greater harm, then yes. For all your talk of things being waved away, did you not just wave away his exqmple of willful negligence still being immoral on consequentialism?
Reply
#9
RE: The End of Theistic Morality
(November 4, 2013 at 1:19 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I think it's a bad case to say that those affected by a tragic incident want to harm the murderer and say that because they want to do so something about morality in that instance. Would I? I can't see myself not doing it. But my point is that taking cases where people's emotions are going wild as your standard is inconsistent.
My point is that morality can't be based only on intent and harm starting just before the behavior. It has also to account for the motivations leading to the intent. If I intend to kill someone, and do, because I want his money, that's probably immoral. If I intend to kill someone, and do, because he killed my family, that's justice.

Anyway, it's EXACTLY when people are feeling "full tilt" due to emotional influences that morality is most tried. Anyone can behave morally when they're standing in a bank line waiting to cash their pay check. It's when they are up against dire circumstances that their will to form a non-selfish intent, and act on it, means the most.

Quote:He uses that model because he's a consequentialist and those are the facets involved in that type of moral theory. He uses a similar thought experiment, but I think it's less immoral because it didn't cause harm. In other words, I find intentions a bit less morally significant than what actually happens, and you probably do to in many cases.
I think intent is at the core of morality, and the lack of intent to do a necessary good I take as roughly equivalent to a deliberate attempt to do bad. So someone who steps over a choking person, or ignores cries of "rape" is behaving immorally just by the simple act of continuing to walk down the street. Whether the person is really choking or pretending to, or really being raped or pretending to, has nothing to do with the morality of that non-act.

Quote:That seems like a straw man. If your intent nor your own motivated actions didn't directly cause something, I doubt you'd consider some ill result that happened as being as immoral. For example, if you sneezed on someone accidentally, and they ended up dying from a disease you unknowingly passed to them, would you consider that as immoral as if you had internationally infected them? Again, I highly doubt it.
You're arguing my point very well. It is the intent that is moral/immoral, not the consequence.

Quote:That fails because in that example your causing them mental non-well being purposefully on the chance that they'll believe you won't harm them or their family. And in the case of a dentist, there are no other ways to relieve that instance of pain without inflicting some necessary pain in the short term. The analogy of yours breaks down when you realize there are in fact better waysto do so than negatively impacting the individuals mental well-being.
And this is where, despite the video-maker's claims, the DEFINITION of morality, as well as how to act morally, are in fact subjective, not objective. In my example, the person clearly has the intent to do good by committing a relatively lesser and temporary harm. Maybe he sees himself as a kind of dentist of souls, and believes only his course of action will knock fat uninspired people out of their gluttonous stupor.

Quote:Rights can just as easily fit into consequentialism. As long as the right has utility with regards to improving well-being and/or preventing negative impacts to it.
Who gets to decide what constitutes well-being? The actor? The recipient of the act? The majority of a population? The most educated in that population?

The video argues that the definition of morality is objective. It's not. It's just been made so over-generalized that it has no specific meaning. "Morality is doing what is good to do, and not doing what is bad to do." No kidding.

(November 4, 2013 at 1:19 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Then is that not bringing you mental well-being (pleasure) for relatively little pain? And are you not capable of informing people on what your pleasures are?
The point is given lack of knowledge of what is harmful or beneficial to others, many would turn to their own needs, and project them onto others. It's not wrong for me to be spanked. But what if I see spanking as generally good, and run around spanking others?

What, on the other hand, if an unattractive person in my office announces that he/she can only be happy if he/she is spanked daily. Is it immoral for me to refuse their request, since it does me no real harm and helps someone else?

Quote:If they are capable of preventing it without inducing greater harm, then yes. For all your talk of things being waved away, did you not just wave away his exqmple of willful negligence still being immoral on consequentialism?
Intent is the core of morality, not consequence. You are not DOING anything to starving children in Africa, or poor people in your own community. Your non-action has no real consequence to people you've never met.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Beauty, Morality, God, and a Table FrustratedFool 23 1756 October 8, 2023 at 1:35 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Is Moral Nihilism a Morality? vulcanlogician 140 10151 July 17, 2019 at 11:50 am
Last Post: DLJ
  Subjective Morality? mfigurski80 450 34892 January 13, 2019 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Acrobat
  Law versus morality robvalue 16 1327 September 2, 2018 at 7:39 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions? robvalue 42 8219 May 5, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Last Post: SaStrike
  dynamic morality vs static morality or universal morality Mystic 18 3501 May 3, 2018 at 10:28 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality? Aegon 19 4409 March 14, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Morality WinterHold 24 2791 November 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Does the end ever justify the means? ErGingerbreadMandude 34 7021 October 12, 2017 at 11:19 pm
Last Post: Court Jester
  What is morality? Mystic 48 6896 September 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)