Inherently wrong actions?

[ArtieE]

Sure. When God sends one of Her Servants to rape someone as punishment/to teach them a lesson for a rape they have committed, either in this life or a previous life.

Additionally, if a community has agreed that the just punishment for a rapist is for the rapist to be raped. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

How do you know whether a rapist is a servant of God or not so you don't accidentally rape a servant of God?

 

[viole]

Sure. When God sends one of Her Servants to rape someone as punishment/to teach them a lesson for a rape they have committed, either in this life or a previous life.

A previous life? How do you know then that any rape that happens has not been been organized by God, because that girl raped someone else in her previous lives? You just check that the rapist has no wings?

Additionally, if a community has agreed that the just punishment for a rapist is for the rapist to be raped. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

That assumes that this form of justice is morally justified.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

So I am trying to argue that 'serving Satan' is itself an action - which can be performed in various ways - or perhaps more properly a 'family' of actions.

there is something that is objectively wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws. For example doing something that is detrimental to survival.

So, for me, these posts are similar in what they are arguing. Obviously not the same. Both though are stating (more than once in this thread) that there are inherently wrong actions based on a key indicator. Both, I think, are implying or perhaps asserting that any specific action may or may not fit given particular understandings, but are nonetheless inherently (universally, objectively) wrong.

The "may not fit (as wrong) given particular understandings" is, for me, challenging to explain, but I observe that is due partially, if not entirely, to the lack of clear, indisputable examples provided by either person arguing for these positions.

I personally see "detrimental to survival" as likely an appeal to emotion, and "serving Satan" as appeal to authority, for whatever (specific) action is argued as inherent wrong. I think, because the appeal is ultimately to something that is rather vague, or elusive, it fits more accurately with relative morality than notion of objective.

For "detrimental to survival" one might think killing is an obvious, fairly specific example, and yet like the "serving God" type argument, is seen as 'perfectly okay' for survival if done under guise of self defense. As God is the Supreme Self, then to me the argument is similar, as killing may otherwise be seen as okay or justifiable. Apparently, some hold to belief that God needs our defense actions to continue God's existence.

I think all of us who are arguing otherwise are essentially saying, "how would you/anyone know?" How do we know that an action is inherently detrimental or beneficial; or how do we know that an action is serving God or serving Satan? 2 people appear before you, are upset with each other, and decide to settle their differences in a cave away from your view. One emerges from the cave saying he had to kill the other. Everyone wonders why. One possible response is: because the other person threatened to kill me, proceeded to attack me, and yada yada yada, I killed them in self defense. Other possible response: because the other person made it clear they were serving Satan, so I put an end to that inherently wrong existence.

While intentionally set up as naivety is at work (from those standing outside the cave, observing), I do think this is how these positions are actually deemed justifiable to do an action that is otherwise, arguably, the primary example we have for possibly inherently wrong actions. Yet, if such an action is justifiable under these type of appeals, then I honestly don't see how any other conceivable action would be inherently wrong, other than using the appeal and hoping no one scrutinizes that. Essentially relying on the naivety of all other observers.

On the surface, I think the 'detrimental to survival' appeal is harder to argue against. Though less challenging when one realizes that everything in the physical, when even slightly abused (which is relative to the individual) appears to be leading to inevitable physical death. Essentially, every action is arguably detrimental to survival, but may not appear that way or not be known for perhaps many decades.

Theologically (or even philosophically), I see the greater challenge from the 'serving Satan' appeal. Though, for me, I don't generally have the same dilemma from my theological perspective as I understand all physical phenomenon/actions to be inherently neutral from Divine/God perspective. All actions that are allegedly serving 'not God' or Satan are actually inherently neutral from God perspective. This is also an appeal to authority, but one I'm mostly comfortable with as I see the righteous theological response to any perceived wrong doing as forgiveness. To elaborate on this though would be me preaching.

Like most things though, I think this comes down to perception of Self. And as long as that perception is filtered through logic of 'apparent separation from Creator God,' I think the appeal for any action will possibly justify 'ending the life' of anything that threatens the Self. Seemingly not realizing that the justification rests entirely on a 'self' that needs defense. I thank God there exists a rationale that overcomes this insane logic.

 

[Nous]

Not entirely consistent, but entirely assuming.

Such a definition would mean pranks (that may harm a person, to whatever degree) would be immoral.

Because we could go back and forth on the 'does not, does too' type debate, I'm going to try and break down what I think you are saying based on definition(s) you are choosing to work with.

• "violating moral principles" is I think the primary aspect of this provided definition. Nothing in this definition says anything about harm, consent, or perpetrator's pleasure. These are all things I feel you are assuming are well agreed upon ideas of morality (and/or immorality). For purposes of this thread, they would need to be met with universal agreement to have chance of being inherently right/wrong.
  • looking at definition (from this source) of moral, to hopefully help in making case of 'moral principles' - it essentially repeats 'right conduct.' The definitions 1 thru 5 all use the words 'right conduct' without explaining what that is, nor do I think dictionary ought to do that. But does then lead to reasonable conclusion that if one is providing explanation for 'right conduct' (as you have attempted), that ought to be backed up beyond what is currently legal in the world. For even the third definition for moral says:
    • founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom
  • the 6th definition does actually present an example of moral conduct where it conveys:
    • virtuous in sexual matters; chaste
  • I am curious what you, or anyone reading this thread thinks of that provided example. Do you think it proper to say being (sexually) chaste is inherently moral?
• "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted" is where I see the definition making the case for relative morality.
  • basing this primarily on the use of the word "usually" and partially on the words "patterns of conduct"
  • the 'conforming' part may actually be the bigger indicator of relative morality, but I am assuming that these rarely, or have never stayed consistent
    • like, I'd bring up example of smoking indoors, say in an elevator. In today's world, I could see that being seen as wrong by most people. Thus, conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted would suggest no one would smoke in such an enclosed space. Yet, maybe 40 years ago, smoking in an elevator would've likely been seen as conforming to pattern of conduct that is usually accepted. Which would mean it was moral then, but immoral now. Same action.
      • We could ask then "what changed?" And as I'm very familiar with science and politics around this, I think the debate could get interesting, but me knowing that secondhand smoke 'science' has been debunked wouldn't help the people who might readily agree that 'what's changed' is the science, or what we (allegedly) 'know' happens when people are exposed to second hand smoke. I see the 'what's changed' is strictly political, which in some cases, even where harm is alleged, the idea of conforming could be as simple as normative behavior. Like not dating someone of the same sex, would've at one time been seen as 'the moral thing to do.' Whereas nowadays (in America, at least), it is not seen as immoral. Such that, really anything could be filtered through culture/legal system and with enough instances of it being accepted could establish a pattern whereby it is a generally acceptable conduct, or vice versa, restricted by law and new pattern of conduct emerges.
    • Since I am creating wall of text, I may as well work the 'rape of a child' thing in here. When I was younger, I recall people who were not related to me, and who in my mind are (or were) strangers being allowed (by my parents) to come up to me, hug me, and show what I took then and now as their sense of love for me. Yet, sometimes the way in which they hugged me, hurt. When it comes to 'rape of a child' I believe we (adults) are not strictly limiting the action of rape to penetration. That a whole lot of things could constitute rape, and likely would legally. The hug, probably not. Yet, it would fit with being 'immoral' based on definition you wish to go with. The hug was a human act that harmed a person (me). That was done without my consent, and was for the perpetrator's pleasure. I don't see it as rape, but I think it could fit in there. I honestly don't see that as a huge stretch. I also don't think if a child is (allegedly) incapable of consent, that it would necessarily ever be proper for an adult to hug a child, or possibly ever even touch a child.
      • I say all this cause to me this is how utterly convoluted the whole 'rape of a child' point gets if looking at it directly rather than just assuming one type of rape action suits all situations. With kids especially, the consent factor is really the bigger issue. There's really no way they could be seen by overwhelming majority of ever consenting to sexual relations. With adults, we like to pretend like we have the whole notion of 'sexual relations' worked out, but I rarely see anyone that demonstrates this. Many guys I know, myself included at one time, would think a female grabbing their arm in a friendly way meant that female was interested in them, and saw that simple action as a come on. I could easily go on, but the point I would make is that arguably all touching of a kid would be inherently violating a child's consent and would be plausibly a form of 'rape.'
        • But I'm around 100% sure that most adults don't wish to frame it that way, and instead rather wait till a worst case scenario of rape occurs before we get to place of being emotionally bent out of shape to determine the action to be (inherently) wrong. Whereas I really would love to challenge these notions we don't explore, and that are arguably relatively wrong at the very least. IMO, you can't have it both ways and say kids are inherently incapable of consent, but that we adults at times are okay to touch them.
        • Thus the 'conforming to patterns of conduct usually accepted' in this case, similar to the one(s) noted above this, are really adults just basing it on what they think is relatively okay, though not truly certain. And in case of kids, and idea that kids are inherently incapable of consent, then arguably all adults whoever touch a kid (in any fashion) are inherently immoral. I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, but majority of the time, I'd be interested in what type of dance the adult does to get around the notion that they see it as 'perfectly okay.'
• "or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics" is the part of the definition where inherent moral (or immoral) actions could find legs
  • if only we could find principles of personal and social ethics that were always consistent, everywhere, all the time.
  • seeing that I don't think we can, I believe this part of the definition may be fun to try and argue for inherent right/wrong actions, but I feel confident such a thing will not be presented in this thread.
  • for your P1 to be seen as true proposition that aligns with this definition, then my rebuttals in this post, namely pranks and hugging kids would have to be conceded as actions that are inherently immoral.
    • Are you willing to go along with that?
    • I'm sure I can think of other items that challenge your P1, and will hope you stay consistent with that.

So you are not able to articulate any argument that concludes that rape of a 4-year-old child is moral, that there is no objective fact relating to rape of a 4-year-old child, that rape of a 4-year-old child is consistent with the definition of "moral," or that people's moral judgments about rape of a 4-year-old child are relative to societies. Right?

 

[Nous]

Be clear on moral principles. Realize there will likely be instances that appear to violate the principle in some fashion without necessarily eliminating the desire for the principle to continue being a fundamental moral consideration. IOW, be willing to acknowledge that all moral principles are relative, not inherently right or wrong, not infallible.



Right. For relative morality. In some areas of the globe, homosexual activities (actions) are immoral and criminalized as such. Other places they are not. Would you then concede that this constitutes relative morality for those particular actions. Or are you trying to say that the action is inherently moral in one area, and inherently moral in another, and somehow that makes for 'objective moral fact?'

I don't think that's what you're saying, but gotta double check this stuff periodically. I see you wanting your P1 proposition to be true (in all cases) and as my previous post presented a few instances that challenge this, I just assume keep picking away at it so you do understand that while morality exists as an idea that is apparently intersubjectively shared, there are no truly inherently right or wrong actions.

So, again, all you can do is assert but cannot provide any argument that concludes that whether or not it is moral to rape a 4-year-old child is relative to societies.

 

[Nous]

So now you're saying that this sentence is not true: "Rape is evil."

Its not objectively true.

You're once again assuming that moral propositions can be either true or false.

You just asserted that the proposition, "Rape is evil," is "not objectively true". So obviously you seem to believe there is no problem with asserting whether a moral proposition is objectively true or not.

Again, at least I and other moral realists avoid the logical inconsistency of asserting the objective truth or falsity of moral propositions, and holding a belief that is directly contrary to what one has asserted to be true or false.

You do such an excellent job of demonstrating that moral anti-realism is pure incoherent nonsense.

 

[Acim]

So you are not able to articulate any argument that concludes that rape of a 4-year-old child is moral, that there is no objective fact relating to rape of a 4-year-old child, that rape of a 4-year-old child is consistent with the definition of "moral," or that people's moral judgments about rape of a 4-year-old child are relative to societies. Right?

Hugging of a child as permissible, without child's consent would plausibly be argument that concludes rape of a 4 year old child is objectively moral. Though, of course, the huggers would disagree that equals rape. Suddenly, it wouldn't be about the consent part, but about what adults want to do to show their version of affection.

 

[Nous]

Hugging of a child as permissible, without child's consent would plausibly be argument that concludes rape of a 4 year old child is objectively moral.

State that argument.

 

[Acim]

State that argument.

I believe I just did in informal fashion.

You previously said "any argument" and I provided informal argument that I believe is commonly understood as permissible among many adults. Seen as not morally objectionable to hug a child. I'm not sure what the formal argument would look like without making same erroneous leaps in logic, via assumptions, that you made. So, I don't care to make the formal argument.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

How do you know whether a rapist is a servant of God or not so you don't accidentally rape a servant of God?

If you are referring to the second part of my argument, and the rapist to be punished by rape is one of God's Servants that They have sent to punish/teach a lesson to another rapist, and they have been 'caught out' (many won't be), then that's not going to be a problem for either God or the Servant in question.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

A previous life? How do you know then that any rape that happens has not been been organized by God, because that girl raped someone else in her previous lives? You just check that the rapist has no wings?

You don't. But this is not a question for us to worry about at a practical level - see my post #550 above. The point I am making in my earlier post is how rape can sometimes be right from God's Perspective (and therefore not inherently wrong).

That assumes that this form of justice is morally justified.

Right. In this case, I am arguing that it is morally justifiable if that is what the community have decided.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Both, I think, are implying or perhaps asserting that any specific action may or may not fit given particular understandings, but are nonetheless inherently (universally, objectively) wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that one or both of us believes that any specific action is inherently wrong, except in certain situations. That is one way of looking at it. The flip side of that coin is that no specific action is inherently wrong, except in certain situations (in my case, unless it is perpetrated by one of Satan's servants). I am more naturally inclined to the latter way of thinking about this, but it's ultimately the same thing.

I think, because the appeal is ultimately to something that is rather vague, or elusive, it fits more accurately with relative morality than notion of objective.

Can you please expand on this argument?

"how would you/anyone know?" How do we know that an action is inherently detrimental or beneficial; or how do we know that an action is serving God or serving Satan?

In my case, the essential point I am making is that God knows. It is not generally given for us to know. But that doesn't matter as far as 'proving' the point that something can be inherently wrong (or not). From God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong. And God knows whether someone is serving Herself or serving Satan. Whether we know or not is irrelevant here.

Theologically (or even philosophically), I see the greater challenge from the 'serving Satan' appeal. Though, for me, I don't generally have the same dilemma from my theological perspective as I understand all physical phenomenon/actions to be inherently neutral from Divine/God perspective. All actions that are allegedly serving 'not God' or Satan are actually inherently neutral from God perspective. This is also an appeal to authority, but one I'm mostly comfortable with as I see the righteous theological response to any perceived wrong doing as forgiveness. To elaborate on this though would be me preaching.

Like most things though, I think this comes down to perception of Self. And as long as that perception is filtered through logic of 'apparent separation from Creator God,' I think the appeal for any action will possibly justify 'ending the life' of anything that threatens the Self. Seemingly not realizing that the justification rests entirely on a 'self' that needs defense. I thank God there exists a rationale that overcomes this insane logic.

Preach (sorry, debate) away!

 

[Nous]

State that argument.

I believe I just did in informal fashion.

No, you haven't stated any argument "in informal fashion," much less an argument that concludes that raping a 4-year-old child is an "objectively moral" act.

Enumerate your premises, like this:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

I'm not sure what the formal argument would look like without making same erroneous leaps in logic, via assumptions, that you made.

No one has pointed any "leaps in logic" or any other error in the argument I stated. Just state an argument that has no more "leaps in logic" than my argument.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't. But this is not a question for us to worry about at a practical level - see my post #550 above. The point I am making in my earlier post is how rape can sometimes be right from God's Perspective (and therefore not inherently wrong).

Right. In this case, I am arguing that it is morally justifiable if that is what the community have decided.

And what are the criteria the community uses to determine whether rape was morally justifiable?

 

[Acim]

No, you haven't stated any argument "in informal fashion," much less an argument that concludes that raping a 4-year-old child is an "objectively moral" act.

Yes, I have stated in informal fashion.

No one has pointed any "leaps in logic" or any other error in the argument I stated. Just state an argument that has no more "leaps in logic" than my argument.

Many have pointed to your leaps in logic.

 

[Acim]

Enumerate your premises, like this:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . ]

With the formal argument, I don't exactly understand how to justify anything that can be done with relation to a minor by a non-minor and conclude that as moral or immoral. To me, the bias is self evident. But since you won't let this go, I'll make an attempt and just state that I think the informal argument is likely superior to the formal one. If you disagree with this, then perhaps you can help phrase the formal one, even if you come to a different conclusion.

P1: Morality is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
P2: Showing physical affection toward other humans is always considered good behavior; morally permissible
C: Therefore hugging a minor (showing physical affection), who is unable to consent to such an action, is morally permissible, relatively speaking.

(Yep, the informal argument is, IMO, superior. I see P1 as accurate, P2 as debatable/leap in logic, and C introducing consent as my intention to be true to the informal argument, while also realizing how debatable that conclusion - and the preceding point - actually are. Though it is extremely rare that I find a formal argument that I think is not disputable.)

 

[Nous]

Yes, I have stated in informal fashion.

False. You haven't stated anything resembling a logical argument.

Many have pointed to your leaps in logic.

False. No one has pointed out any logical error in the argument I've stated:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral.

M = P.
S = M.
Therefore, S = P.

If you disagree, then point out the logical error forthwith.

 

[Nous]

P1: Morality is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
P2: Showing physical affection toward other humans is always considered good behavior; morally permissible
C: Therefore hugging a minor (showing physical affection), who is unable to consent to such an action, is morally permissible, relatively speaking.

So are you saying that you believe you have stated a deduction here?

Identify your Predicate, Middle and Subject terms.

With the formal argument, I don't exactly understand how to justify anything that can be done with relation to a minor by a non-minor and conclude that as moral or immoral.

Apparently what you're trying to say here is that you don't know how to use logic in order to deduce a proposition.

 

[viole]

Right. In this case, I am arguing that it is morally justifiable if that is what the community have decided.

So, if a community decides they should exterminate , or expel, all Muslims, or whatever minority, is that morally justified?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

You seem to be suggesting that one or both of us believes that any specific action is inherently wrong, except in certain situations.

Close. I believe you both are asserting any specific action may or may not be wrong depending on your subjective determinations of the key indicator (in your case, whether the action serves God, or serves Satan.) So, is inherently wrong in all cases if action is said to serve Satan, as subjectively determined by you, or believed by you to be objectively determine by God. With ArtieE, it is inherently wrong in all cases if it is said to be detrimental to society, as subjectively determined by him, or believed by him to be objectively determined by society (however that occurs, not really explained). If the EXACT SAME action is not said to meet the key indicator, then it could be flipped to opposite end of spectrum, in vein of inherently right or morally write. For you, if same action is determined (by you, or your belief that God has determined it) to serve God, then inherently right. For ArtieE, if same action is determined (by ArtieE, or his belief that society has determined it) to be beneficial, then it is morally okay/right.

That is one way of looking at it. The flip side of that coin is that no specific action is inherently wrong, except in certain situations (in my case, unless it is perpetrated by one of Satan's servants).

I don't see how you used the words "inherently" and "except in certain situations" so closely together and can't see that for the relative morality that it is. But it just comes back to the key indicator and your subjective opinions about it.

I do wish to expand on this as I do think many people, perhaps everyone (includes me) does have their own 'key indicator' when it comes to moral judgments. I see realizing this as a step toward the profound realization I spoke of in OP. For theists types, of which I am one, it is profound conclusion to understand that Creator God has no judgment either way about actions and is instead neutral. How one gets to that conclusion is fascinating, but perhaps impossible to account for in all cases, thus I'm not sure how to argue for the realization other than to state the conclusion or have a 28+ thread that explores these things in more depth. For the non-theist, the conclusion is possibly less profound, perhaps taken for granted as 'obvious' though I'm not seeing that so much in this thread. The conclusion being that the physical universe is neutral on judgment of actions - though that to me is fairly obvious, but less obvious - that society is collectively neutral on what is actually beneficial and detrimental to society. Perhaps not best choice of words as 'neutral' isn't how I'd characterize the the judgment of the multiple individuals that make up the set known as society. But is IMO better/more accurate assertion than thinking society as a whole has universal agreement one way or the other. Really, the more my non-theist self speaks to this point, the more I see it as vague and truly based on whatever a single individual thinks society ought to believe.

Can you please expand on this argument?

I did above. But I'll do so here using different wording.

Morality (as right, acceptable, okay) relies on appeals to righteousness as determined by the individual. I do think this isn't inherently subjective, but also don't think there is a collective set of all members who agree with the object of the appeal. Like you and I are both theists, but disagree on "God's perspective." I'm fairly certain we are not the only two theists that have this type of disagreement. Likewise, I think non-theists make appeals to concepts (i.e. beneficial to society) that are not inherently objective. But, to me, ArtieE is demonstrating there is as much righteousness in that appeal as there is in a theist's appeal to God. I have seen very little indication from ArtieE that he thinks his appeals to "beneficial or detrimental to society" are anything but objectively known data. And by 'very little' the thing I do see him conceding on is that individuals may disagree on what is beneficial or detrimental, but these concepts surely do (objectively) exist.
I see that as highly elusive because I'm unsure how anyone could ever tune into this, and remain righteous. I honestly see the appeal as not much different than your assertion that from God's perspective, some actions (i.e. rape) are inherently right if they serve God. I think for me, and I'd like to think for even non-theists your assertion is actually easier to relate to than ArtieE's, even while your specific understandings of "God's perspective" may be a matter of dispute, even among fellow theists. With ArtieE, I don't actually know what the appeal is to, other than assumption that society, universe, existence (really I'm unclear) is determining what is actually beneficial and what is actually detrimental. But in having a few exchanges with ArtieE, I do think he believes he has grasp on certain actions that are objective so, either way. Thus, his (moral) judgments are ones that, I believe he thinks, are righteous. As much as I'm singling ArtieE out in this long winded point, I don't think he is alone in this, nor do I think appeals to God are operating on an entirely different level of appeal. I just think it is easier to relate to the God ones because it then becomes about collective understanding(s) of that God.

In my case, the essential point I am making is that God knows. It is not generally given for us to know. But that doesn't matter as far as 'proving' the point that something can be inherently wrong (or not). From God's Perspective, serving Satan is inherently wrong. And God knows whether someone is serving Herself or serving Satan. Whether we know or not is irrelevant here.

Again, I see this as theological disagreement we have. And again, I don't think it is strong disagreement if I'm being honest. I don't see it as Satan because I truly believe God created Satan and has far different perspective of Satan than we think God must have about Satan. In some ways, this may be profound disagreement that you and I have, but does perhaps rest on our own speculation on God's (actual) perspective on Satan. I like to believe that God stays consistent, meaning that God's Perfect Love isn't magically broken by whatever Satan thought would somehow be way to oppose/overthrow God. At same time, I do think there is an 'inherently wrong' conceptualization when it comes to how we might approach God, as if we (Creation) are interacting with our Creator. Thing is, I see that entirely on us, and not on God. I truly think God is so amazing that there is literally nothing that can oppose God. Yet, our perception is that this is possible AND has occurred, is occurring. And we are experiencing that in this (so called) existence, such that God isn't (allegedly) anywhere to be found in this existence. Because of how amazingly erroneous this perception is for us to hold, and how it does try to remove God's perspective from us as act of 'complete' irresponsibility, I think some of us (arguably all of us) need a scapegoat to fathom what we have (allegedly) done. Enter Satan.