Inherently wrong actions?

[Acim]

Vampire bats are social creatures who share their food with starving roost mates. This behavior evolved because it was beneficial for survival and so was selected for by evolution and natural selection. When we share food with starving people we call it the moral thing to do since we are a social species and the behavior is beneficial for survival. Beneficial = moral, detrimental = immoral.

I still don't understand what the object of your appeal is to, to actually determine what makes for beneficial and detrimental. I can guess, as I already have, but rather hear it from you.

Until then, I would observe that killing is beneficial (relatively speaking) as many creatures rely on killing other creatures for food. Though also detrimental as being killed for food is not so good for species survival if its members are being picked off one by one.

Side note: I routinely wish "natural selection" was referenced more accurately as "non man-made selection" for all man made actions/results are, without exception, naturally occurring (relative to physical existence, of course).

 

[Acim]

Yes, I was aware of the contradiction when I wrote this. I was merely trying to say, 'You seem to think my default position is that actions are wrong unless 'proven' otherwise, whereas actually my default position is more along the lines 'No action is wrong unless 'proven' otherwise.''

I think of your default position as along lines of: all actions are inherently right unless it is 'proven' that it the action serves Satan. In which case, the action is inherently wrong. How that determination of 'serving Satan' is determine is not exactly clear.

Like the appeal to beneficial/detrimental, I feel it is mostly subjective, but that doesn't mean unique to one individual. If a whole community determines (somehow) that an action was serving Satan, then it was (for you) likely serving Satan. Or if whole group of scientists determine action was detrimental, then it is likely detrimental for @ArtieE. If it were later learned the opposite was true (community realizes the action served God, scientists actually see the action was beneficial), I'm unclear how you all might respond other than to update that it was (always) inherently 'right.'

 

[Acim]

"the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors.

Interesting what was chosen to be left out.

Here, let me fill that in for you:

Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (although to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that

*bold emphasis mine.

Essentially, what you're conveying is hypothesis, not theory.

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.[17]

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is a natural phenomenon not something humans have subjectively invented. So acts that aid survival and reproduction are objectively moral and acts detrimental to survival and reproduction are objectively immoral.

All things humans have been up to since the beginning of their physical existence are natural phenomenon. The Holocaust was a natural phenomenon. Global thermonuclear war would be a natural phenomenon. Every conceivable thing that humans might invent, and put into physical form would be natural phenomenon. The items that are not in physical form, i.e. science and math are closer to subjective assertions, but (these along with other conceptions) tend to be the basis by which phenomenon is (subjectively) understood.

I'm unclear what acts are objectively moral if basing it only on "survival and reproduction." Particularly if it is being limited to individuals. Like if all human individuals were exclusively homosexual, I'm thinking we'd see homosexuality as wonderful, great and detrimental to our survival at the same time. Or if all human mothers chose abortion, we'd likely see it as detrimental to survival. But if 5% of the population engages in either act, we can fit that in and call it "objectively moral" because the species will survive regardless of that small percentage. Likewise, if we had a Holocaust (genocide) that sought to eliminate as much of the population as possible over the next 100 years, that probably would be detrimental to our species survival, but if we have one every 20 years that seeks to take care of the less wanted members of society, our survival will probably be fine. The idea that we've had a good 4 to 10 mass genocides in the past 100 years, and are still facing population explosion on the planet shows that genocides aren't inherently detrimental, historically speaking. I don't truly believe any person alive today thinks genocide is a good thing, but when I look at justifications for abortion, it isn't 100% clear that we as a species wholly think genocide is detrimental. I see us able to justify a whole lot of what is otherwise 'detrimental to species survival' under the guise of 'beneficial to species survival.'

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It was in post #331 that SSE chose to drop discussion with you. I'm speculating that it has something to do with SSE thinking you are being intellectually dishonest, but will try and confirm that by tagging @Satans_Serrated_Edge and specifically asking him to like this post if he feels my assertion (that post #331, by SSE) iswhere SSE thinks Nous showed up asintellectually dishonest.

Confirmed. I trashed his arguments point by point and he continually ignored all rebuttals and kept repeating himself. I don't know where you found the patience to continue to be honest.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I am just asking whether something is morally acceptable just because it has been decided by the community.

No.

You seem to indicate that this is not the case. That you need a crime before the tooth for tooth, eye for eye, becomes applicable.

There does indeed need to be a crime first, and the only things that should (in my opinion) be recognised as crimes should be certain kinds of aggression - unlawful encroachments upon a person's life, liberty or property - and breach of contract. And, just in case you might be thinking that I think this, I don't think that the 'law' of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth should necessarily apply to every crime always (it may be that some other, 'lesser' form of punishment is more suitable for certain crimes and/or in certain circumstances). I think whether it should apply should be for the community to decide. But I do think punishments should be proportionate to the crime committed, so that a punishment should never 'exceed' an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But now suppose that guy is a suicide terrorist (not necessarily Muslim). He kills a bunch of people and wants to die as well because that was his mission on earth.

How do you punish him, then?

Assuming that the people he has killed were innocents (i.e. that a crime has been committed), that would be for the community to decide.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think of your default position as along lines of: all actions are inherently right unless it is 'proven' that it the action serves Satan. In which case, the action is inherently wrong.

Not quite. The only actions I believe are inherently right are those that are (truly) done in God's Service. And the only actions that are inherently wrong are those that are (truly) done in Satan's service. Actions which are neither done in God's Service nor in Satan's service are neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. They may be right, they may be wrong, depending on all sorts of circumstances/factors.

How that determination of 'serving Satan' is determine is not exactly clear.

Like the appeal to beneficial/detrimental, I feel it is mostly subjective, but that doesn't mean unique to one individual. If a whole community determines (somehow) that an action was serving Satan, then it was (for you) likely serving Satan. Or if whole group of scientists determine action was detrimental, then it is likely detrimental for @ArtieE. If it were later learned the opposite was true (community realizes the action served God, scientists actually see the action was beneficial), I'm unclear how you all might respond other than to update that it was (always) inherently 'right.'

Judgments about whether something has (truly) been done in Satan's service or not - or (truly) in God's Service or not - and therefore whether something is inherently wrong, inherently right or not - are generally God's Preserve, rather than the preserve of humankind. So I am not arguing for an individual or community's determination on this score.

 

[viole]

There does indeed need to be a crime first, and the only things that should (in my opinion) be recognised as crimes should be certain kinds of aggression - unlawful encroachments upon a person's life, liberty or property - and breach of contract. And, just in case you might be thinking that I think this, I don't think that the 'law' of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth should necessarily apply to every crime always (it may be that some other, 'lesser' form of punishment is more suitable for certain crimes and/or in certain circumstances). I think whether it should apply should be for the community to decide. But I do think punishments should be proportionate to the crime committed, so that a punishment should never 'exceed' an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I think we will need to agree to disagree here, for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove each other wrong about something that, in my opinion, is not objective.

I believe that the view of punishment that contains elements of revenge or retaliation are no more acceptable today. Emotionally understandable, but no more applicable in modern societies.

I find, for instance, the idea of capital punishment, especially in front of an audience (e.g. relatives of the victim killed by the perp), frankly unacceptable, today. At least here in North Europe.

You can imagine what I think of the rape of a rapist. Or cutting the hands of a thief and stuff like that.

We prefer to think in terms of removal of a dangerous individual from society plus a program of recuperation of that individual back into said society. And this is why prisons in Scandinavia look like Hotel rooms with all comforts, independently from the crime committed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Judgments about whether something has (truly) been done in Satan's service or not - or (truly) in God's Service or not - and therefore whether something is inherently wrong, inherently right or not - are generally God's Preserve, rather than the preserve of humankind. So I am not arguing for an individual or community's determination on this score.

Guess what, I agree that it is 'God's Preserve' though not wording I might use, but I think my wording would be similar.

But also think this makes for 'relative morality' as far as humankind is concerned.

We do, I think, strongly disagree on idea of punishment as that too would strike me as God's domain rather than something humans are righteous enough to take up. I see humans that do take this up as, using your words, serving Satan.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Which things?What does that mean exactly?

Items related to moral understanding, of course.

The OP says and I quote: "I do mean wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws." Yes there is something that is objectively wrong regardless of geographic location or local laws. For example doing something that is detrimental to survival.

Perhaps the OP did not encompass a grand enough arena by which to take stock of what is "judged" or how it is judged, and I simply assumed that we were talking about "wrong" as pertains to an action regardless of the perspective. I agree that there are things that are human activities that are intrinsically wrong TO HUMANS, when viewed from a HUMAN perspective. However, they are not intrinsically wrong at any grander scope.

In fact, I already made the point that even taking into account a smaller scope, such as the perspective of a common house fly, no human interaction is "wrong". Murder? Fine. Genocide? Fine. Rape? Fine. What does the house fly care? Besides some of those events providing a potential meal for its young, it does not.

My ultimate point being - the universe does not cringe at the death of any number of humans - or even all of them. The course will be stayed, regardless our outright existence. It is conceit to claim otherwise.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think we will need to agree to disagree here

Agreed!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

We do, I think, strongly disagree on idea of punishment as that too would strike me as God's domain rather than something humans are righteous enough to take up.

So you disagree with any and all forms of punishment?

 

[Acim]

So you disagree with any and all forms of punishment?

Yes.

But am still hypocritical enough to engage in some tactics by which my grudges toward others may amount to a desire I hold for them to be punished.

That (thinking by me) and all forms of punishment I'm familiar with, strike me as inherently insane.

I thank God there is another way to overcome perceived problems in relationships without resorting to such insanity.

 

[guate magee]

so an issue on homosexuality. in the bible, and in most religions homosexuality is deeply frowned upon. is there anything truly immoral that can be mentioned about homosexuality?

 

[Acim]

so an issue on homosexuality. in the bible, and in most religions homosexuality is deeply frowned upon. is there anything truly immoral that can be mentioned about homosexuality?

I'm honored your first post on the forum is in this thread.

Are you asking whether there is anything inherently immoral about homosexual (actions)? Or are you asking something else?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes.

But am still hypocritical enough to engage in some tactics by which my grudges toward others may amount to a desire I hold for them to be punished.

That (thinking by me) and all forms of punishment I'm familiar with, strike me as inherently insane.

Why 'inherently insane'?

I thank God there is another way to overcome perceived problems in relationships without resorting to such insanity.

What do you mean by 'perceived problems in relationships' here? And what 'other way' to overcome them?

 

[ArtieE]

In fact, I already made the point that even taking into account a smaller scope, such as the perspective of a common house fly, no human interaction is "wrong". Murder? Fine. Genocide? Fine. Rape? Fine. What does the house fly care? Besides some of those events providing a potential meal for its young, it does not.

But what a house fly cares about has nothing to do with what is inherently wrong for humans...

 

[Acim]

Why 'inherently insane'?

Not sure I can back that up.
I think punishment is insane because of my understanding of the Golden Rule being causal, such that punisher is really punishing themselves. Or think of it karmically.
I also think after having a taste of (God's) Grace, and having zero desire to punish, that the mindset that justifies punishment as warranted is literally unaware, namely of own Self, but for sure others.
Theologically, I understand punishment as attempt to reinforce fundamental error. Or in way you might understand it, calls for punishment are (universal) appeals to protecting a desire to serve Satan.

What do you mean by 'perceived problems in relationships' here? And what 'other way' to overcome them?

Perceived problems in relationships means someone has done something wrong in relation to another, perhaps rising to level of fear (likely) or worthy of having a grudge held against them (at least). Something that upsets the balance of harmony between two (or more).

Remembrance of Love being way to truly overcome such problems, or reminder to forgive and restore mind to default state where Love is no longer kept at bay as ineffective and unworthy of correction / healing. IOW, recognizing God's Redeemer (aka Holy Spirit) would have me look, honestly and earnestly, upon a brother as myself. Undoing allegiance to such problems and reasserting the natural state of each relationship as inherently Holy.

 

[Acim]

But what a house fly cares about has nothing to do with what is inherently wrong for humans...

I see what @A Vestigial Mote is conveying is that nothing in the physical universe, other than human thinking, cares about what humans consider (inherently) wrong. And for other creatures, it might be inherently good if humans engaged in self extinction, to provide them with bounty of food.

Like how dinosaur extinction is inherent good for humans, in several ways.

I'm additionally thinking how environmentalists present cases for how extinction of say a bumble bee would disrupt entire ecosystem - and wondering if from other animal's perspective, if extinction of humans would be inherently beneficial for their long term survival. Such that all other creatures are plausibly hoping for wrong human actions (toward each other). Given that we can be excellent caretakers, when we want to, I'm thinking that's perhaps not all that accurate. Partially accurate, but not entirely.

Thing is, human thinking about 'inherently wrong actions' is very challenging to find, among humans. This thread indicates that many of us, I'd say majority, don't think there is such a thing as inherently wrong actions. And among those that do, you'd have likes of @ArtieE and @Ya'quub coming at that from such diverging frameworks that it might be very challenging to find consistency in the merging of what appears to be same endpoint (that there are in fact inherently wrong, human actions).

 

[Acim]

Another thing this topic brings up for me, periodically, is that even if there are inherently wrong actions, so what? As in, awareness around that could conceivably mean we'd stop doing those actions, but would we, really? Let's say killing in self defense is inherently wrong, would we stop killing in self defense?

And if we don't (or even if we do), what's the rationality that justifies doing anything in relation to 'wrong actions' without that itself becoming, plausibly, inherently wrong? Which is where punishment I feel enters the picture. If killing is inherently wrong, and we kill the killers, it's so bizarre that we'd justify that as inherently right(eous). But that's just the obvious, extreme example. All/any actions in relation to a wrongdoing are questionable, at the very least. But I observe they become less questionable / more righteous under relative wrongness. Wrong to murder? Sure. But not when we do it to killers.

I could say more, but feel I've already stated this before, and not sure if I'm adding something new. The "so what" with regards to (allegedly) inherently wrong actions was main purpose of this post. The "so what" is same feeling/thought I have when I consider that what we experience here is perhaps already anarchy, but we pretend 'real anarchy' would be vastly different, much worse. Yet, if there are inherently wrong actions, and there's nothing to really stop that (which in itself is arguably inherently wrong), then perhaps we are experiencing managed anarchy?

 

[ArtieE]

I see what @A Vestigial Mote is conveying is that nothing in the physical universe, other than human thinking, cares about what humans consider (inherently) wrong.

So what? Evolution and natural selection evolved organisms with instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate so survival and procreation were right for organisms long before humans and human thinking even appeared on the scene.