Inherently wrong actions?

[Sonofason]

The thing is, 'wrong' and 'evil' are subjectively defined. They have to be unless you have infinite knowledge of the universe.

Anyone here have infinite knowledge of the universe?

Hmmm?

Is God present? My perception is that He is.

 

[Acim]

You had said, "I honestly see some (arguably most) adults using same logic with regards to kids and drawing different lines. I think most have the same lines in mind of where it becomes not okay. But it is really based on what adults think, and what amounts to relative morality. Essentially justifying that it is okay to touch kids, without their consent, as if an unspoken consent exists because they appear to enjoy it."

There was nothing written about hugging in this comment you wrote. And so I took it to mean improper touching.

Okay. But "hugging" without consent is improper touching, is it not? I feel we already covered that ground.

So, your comment "Yeah if you're a rapist" is where you jumped to something that also wasn't mentioned and yet is how you took what was being said. My point was that I think all adults justify that it is okay to touch kids without their consent as if an unspoken consent exists. I really do mean all adults. But I do think there are possibly some hypersensitive adults who don't touch anyone if they can help it. Yet, if those same people either had kids or had to watch over kids (for say a night), I really believe they would touch the kids at some point, without the kids consent, thinking it perfectly okay. To the degree I may be mistaken on that last point is where I'd change "all" to "overwhelming majority of adults."

 

[Acim]

I am wondering...considering that you do not believe that there is anything that is inherently wrong, I am supposing that you do not believe that there is anything inherently evil?

Definitely not. I don't even think there is relative evil. But I'll admit that in some moment of ignorance, perhaps even within last month, I've slipped up and claimed something to be "evil." If I had opportunity to review that, I would most certainly say that was an error on my end.

The better my understanding of how forgiveness works, the less I see any need for filtering anything through idea of evil existing.

 

[serp777]

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

False. I have not stated any invalid argument anywhere (ever) in which a premise is merely repeated as the conclusion.

Well, you have asserted to rape is "evil," then you asserted that such propositions are not true. At least I am avoiding the logical inconsistency of asserting that I believe something that I know to be false.

In the argument I stated, I did not deduce that conclusion ("rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral") from the premise that moral propositions are true or false. The conclusion is deduced from the conditions that make up the middle term ("acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure"), which are consistent with the definition of "immoral".

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.

That is one of the objective criteria included in the middle term of my argument, which deduces that rape of a 4-year-old is immoral. Those criteria are consistent with the definition of "immoral," and are how we can determine that an act is objectively immoral.

Unless you can find that one of the premises of my valid is not true, then the proposition that is the conclusion is a true proposition. Right?

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

Its not objectively true. Like I said, its consistent with my moral framework, which of course is based on an opinion.

Well, you have asserted to rape is "evil," then you asserted that such propositions are not true. At least I am avoiding the logical inconsistency of asserting that I believe something that I know to be false.

You're once again assuming that moral propositions can be either true or false. Its still begging the question. Saying its evil is consistent with my moral framework, opinions, and empathy but that doesn't mean I have the authority to dictate true or false moral propositions. Saying its evil doesn't mean I think its true or false; i simply don't put "in my opinion" every time, but I definitely didn't say anything with certainty.

So i don't make any fact claims of my morality, I merely make it known what my moral opinions are. There is no logical inconsistency here because I don't rely on objective/factual morals. I can make claims about morality without accepting true or false moral propositions.

In the argument I stated, I did not deduce that conclusion ("rape of a 4-year-old child is immoral") from the premise that moral propositions are true or false. The conclusion is deduced from the conditions that make up the middle term ("acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure"), which are consistent with the definition of "immoral".

Actually you are basing it on the premise that moral propositions are true or false. You're saying its objectively true that "acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure" are in fact immoral. This is a moral assumption. You don't have any factual or logical reason to conclude that this moral assumption is itself objectively moral. Its like trying to show that its objectively wrong to harm. You can't do it; its a matter of opinion. On the other hand, if you say that this moral assumption isn't objectively true, then its just a matter of opinion and the rest of your morality then is also just a matter of opinion. So logically you can't win here. In order to show that something is objectively moral it must rely on objectively moral assumptions.

Moreover, the definition of immoral is not that. It simply means: "not conforming to accepted standards of morality." I just grabbed the first definition of google but you can't define immoral and then use that to justify that moral propositions are true because that's how you've defined the meaning of immoral. I should make a note that there are many definitions of "immoral" that depend on philosophies, religions, culture, and etc. Picking a definition we can agree on will be quite challenging.

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.

P1 assumed human acts that harm are inherently immoral. I see no evidence or reason this should be objectively true. I also see no objective reason why a perpetrator's pleasure takes a lower moral place than a person's consent. What objective reason is there that consent is inherently moral? P1 is essentially just moral assumptions based on 21st century society and how our culture has developed. We believe these things but an alien species might not. P2 relies on moral assumptions for the same reason.

 

[serp777]

I didn't subjectively choose to be born with a survival instinct. It's inherent in my nature. And since it's inherent in my nature it's inherently wrong/bad/immoral to do something to me so that I don't survive.I have no idea what our societies would look like now in an alternate world with a different development.

That sounds very debatable. Why is something objectively moral or immoral just because its in your nature? You haven''t established that things are inherently moral or immoral just because you're predisposed to certain instincts. Instincts aren't moral or immoral.

 

[serp777]

No serp, this thread was started by someone who believes that there are no inherently wrong actions. And I see many of you advocating that point of view.

You are wrong. Children get raped all the time, and it is a terrible crime, and it is always wrong. No civilization has ever suffered horrible deaths and extinction because someone prevented a rape. It was a stupid and ridiculous hypothetical, and I'm not buying into it. There has not been a case that I know of where stopping the rape of an 8 year old girl was the lesser of two evils, such that the rape ought not have been prevented. If there is such an existing case, or if there ever has been one, please inform me of it.

Do you understand what a hypothetical is? A hypothetical doesn't have to be realistic to be a valid hypothetical. In this case its meant to explore certain moral actions based on certain conditions. Why would you ever need a hypothetical if it was a real world situation? Your explanation for this hypothetical is completely fallacious. I'd recommend reviewing merriam webster on hypotheticals:

• involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis
  
  
• : not real : imagined as an example
  

The fact that you're ducking the hypothetical suggests that you can't answer it because you know you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice 7 billion lives just to prevent one immoral action. Is 7 billion human lives > or < or == to 1 rape? How about a more realistic example though since apparently you don't understand hypotheticals:

Is it better to euthanize 10,000 people in some country to prevent over utilization of the land and depletion of food that would soon lead to the horrible deaths and starvation of the entire country? So basically the question is: is it moral to sacrifice a smaller immorality to prevent a much larger immorality?

 

[serp777]

Your bigotry is loud and clear. So you are saying that all Muslims, and all Protestants, and Calvinists and Buddhists are untrustworthy. This is very good to know. I will remember this.

Please name the religion which declares that raping an 8 year old child is morally good.

Your constant use of strawmen is making you look like a fool. I never said they were untrustworthy, I said they were as trustworthy as you were. I simply have no reason to believe one over the other. That doesn't mean they're inherently untrustworthy though. I don't know if they're trustworthy or not since trust has to be earned.

Also you ignored the rest of my post and brought up a red herring. Also what was the point of your last sentence? Nobody is saying that a religion or anyone else thinks raping an 8 year old is morally good. This is just another foolish strawmen.

 

[serp777]

There were eight questions in that post alone I'll focus on one. Obviously it is more detrimental to a society if it's citizens unlawfully go around murdering other citizens than any benefit the society might reap from the death of one person. A society can't allow it's citizens to go around murdering other citizens no matter how beneficial it might be for the society to get rid of some of the murdered individuals.

Why can;t a society allow it? What if it turned out that it benefited the society since most people were non violent but a few were willing to take out huge criminals and other scum? You said earlier that its moral as long as it benefits the society.

 

[ArtieE]

I think the 'survival instinct' could as easily be shown as the 'killer instinct.' Seems many animals, including us, appear to have such an instinct

I have not answered the rest of your post since I am unable to find any reference to any killer instinct in any list of instincts online. Would you mind linking to some references?

 

[ArtieE]

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?'

What is moral is what is beneficial for the society and it's citizens. There is no relative morality. People don't disagree on what is MORAL, because that is what is beneficial for society. People disagree on what is BENEFICIAL. In some areas they think homosexual practices are detrimental to society in other places they don't. They don't have different conceptions of what is MORAL, they all want to do the moral thing, that which is beneficial to their society, but they have different opinions of what is beneficial or detrimental. Unless you understand the difference you'll always be confused.

 

[ArtieE]

Why can;t a society allow it? What if it turned out that it benefited the society since most people were non violent but a few were willing to take out huge criminals and other scum? You said earlier that its moral as long as it benefits the society.

I guess a government could say to it's citizens: "Those of you who are violent please take out huge criminals and other scum". As a non-violent citizen I wouldn't dare go out the door in case a violent person is trying to take out a huge criminal and I get caught in the crossfire.

 

[JoStories]

It is wrong because it is detrimental to the children themselves, society and it's continued existence if we damage our children.

I didn't say that it wasn't however there is a big difference between subjective and objective.

 

[JoStories]

Sorry Jo, but I did say thank God for " those on this thread who have finally convinced me..." I did not suggest that you were one of "those" people. For the record, I have noticed that you have not submitted to the false claim that raping an 8 year old child is not inherently wrong. When one is reading a comment by another person, especially with regard to important matters, I believe it is important to read every single word. I assure you, I do not say anything I do not intend to say. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

ok...mea culpa.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well, I am not a moral realist. So, I think that the concept of objective morality is nonsensical.

But to address your question, with another question, under the assumption that objective morality exists: is that objectively moral to create a morally suboptimal world when you have the power to do otherwise?

It's a bad assumption that the world is morally suboptimal. Given that the universe is rational in order to enable our rational moral choices, and that the presence of God must be a neutral, unknowable proposition, this could well be THE optimal universe.

If you aren't going to respond to any of my refutations and just keep chanting the same mantra, there is no sense in continued dialogue.

I've already thoroughly dealt your weak sauce.

Looks like accusing the accuser.

Many of those things were not considered immoral in humanity's ancient past.

And still aren't to this day. What's your point? You're just showing that morality isn't determined by subjective majority rule, but rather by can only be rational by protecting a very few individual rights (life, liberty, property and self-defense).

You're assuming that humans today are capable of determining moral absolutes. How are you certain that we have superior morals to the point where we can claim we have the authority to declare objective morals?

By applying the same rules equally to all. We err when we allow any kind of double standard, or pile on all kinds of non-moral issues onto the few actual moral prohibitions. A legal/moral double standard is the root of all evil. But of course those who want to justify their immorality (especially an elite ruling class typical of socialism--which should be a dead giveaway) must nullify the concept of a double standard. A double standard is a license to murder, enslave, rob and disarm your political/moral opponents.

The thing is, 'wrong' and 'evil' are subjectively defined. They have to be unless you have infinite knowledge of the universe.

Anyone here have infinite knowledge of the universe?

Hmmm?

That's the same thing as saying you have to have infinite knowledge in order to accept Evolution or Relativity. Those are virtually proven because we have massive evidence for them with none against or at least only overall inconsequential questions to be answered. Quantum mechanics is proven over and over again, but we're only now beginning to understand how it works, and still have no idea why.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Looks like accusing the accuser.

Huh?

It's more like, bringing rationally to raith believers is like trying to make a horse eat steak.

That's the same thing as saying you have to have infinite knowledge in order to accept Evolution or Relativity. Those are virtually proven because we have massive evidence for them with none against or at least only overall inconsequential questions to be answered. Quantum mechanics is proven over and over again, but we're only now beginning to understand how it works, and still have no idea why.

Only they are categorically different. Good/evil/right/wrong are matters of philosophy, not science.

 

[Sonofason]

Okay. But "hugging" without consent is improper touching, is it not? I feel we already covered that ground.

So, your comment "Yeah if you're a rapist" is where you jumped to something that also wasn't mentioned and yet is how you took what was being said. My point was that I think all adults justify that it is okay to touch kids without their consent as if an unspoken consent exists. I really do mean all adults. But I do think there are possibly some hypersensitive adults who don't touch anyone if they can help it. Yet, if those same people either had kids or had to watch over kids (for say a night), I really believe they would touch the kids at some point, without the kids consent, thinking it perfectly okay. To the degree I may be mistaken on that last point is where I'd change "all" to "overwhelming majority of adults."

Yes, I believe hugging without consent, whether it be verbal consent or unspoken consent is wrong.

Well, I would never touch someone else's child without either that child's consent or that child's parent's consent, unless of course that touching were related to protecting that child from some form of endangerment, such as if a child were about to step out into oncoming traffic, step of a ledge, or were drowning in the water, etc. In fact, I do not find occasion to ask for such consent to touch other people's children, as I have not run into a circumstance where I felt a compulsion or need to do so.

I get what you are saying with regard to your own children, or those circumstances where you might be watching other people's children. Even so, I believe without consent touching them is wrong. But there are of course degrees of wrongness. While a person may not want to be touched, the sort of touching could be so minimal, so inconsequential that that person gives their immediate forgiveness. But other sorts of touching could result in a lifetime of ill feelings toward the one doing the touching. In general, I would say, don't touch anyone in any way unless you are certain that they consent. And then you shall have done nothing wrong.

 

[Sonofason]

Definitely not. I don't even think there is relative evil. But I'll admit that in some moment of ignorance, perhaps even within last month, I've slipped up and claimed something to be "evil." If I had opportunity to review that, I would most certainly say that was an error on my end.

The better my understanding of how forgiveness works, the less I see any need for filtering anything through idea of evil existing.

I must say Jesus was big on forgiveness, but he certainly perceived the existence of evil.

 

[Sonofason]

Do you understand what a hypothetical is? A hypothetical doesn't have to be realistic to be a valid hypothetical. In this case its meant to explore certain moral actions based on certain conditions. Why would you ever need a hypothetical if it was a real world situation? Your explanation for this hypothetical is completely fallacious. I'd recommend reviewing merriam webster on hypotheticals:

• involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis
  
  
• : not real : imagined as an example

The fact that you're ducking the hypothetical suggests that you can't answer it because you know you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice 7 billion lives just to prevent one immoral action. Is 7 billion human lives > or < or == to 1 rape? How about a more realistic example though since apparently you don't understand hypotheticals:

Is it better to euthanize 10,000 people in some country to prevent over utilization of the land and depletion of food that would soon lead to the horrible deaths and starvation of the entire country? So basically the question is: is it moral to sacrifice a smaller immorality to prevent a much larger immorality?

I understand fully what a hypothetical is. I do not care if hypotheticals are realistic or completely imagined.
Lets modify your hypothetical for a moment. Suppose I was told to rape an 8 year old child, and if I didn't rape the 8 year old child, 7 billion human lives would be lost. I can tell you right now that 7 billion lives would be lost. You are all going to die, some sooner and some later. But no one has to be raped, not ever. So I would not rape a child to save your life. I would not rape a child to save my life. I would not rape a child to save my daughter's life. I would not rape a child to save the lives of 7 billion people. Given that certainty, I would prevent a rape, even if I knew that in doing so 7 billion lives would be lost.
I would not be the one responsible for the extinction of every human being. That blame would go to the entity who physically caused their deaths. Although I would be doing no wrong if I did not stop the rape, I would try to stop it because rape is inherently wrong in all cases. Dying is not wrong. There is nothing wrong with people dying. There is something wrong with rapists raping, and so I would try to stop them if I could.

Are you sure you're not talking about murdering 10,000 innocent people? I would not put to death 10,000 innocent people against their will for the sake of every single person on the planet. I honestly do not value human life as you seem to think I do. There is nothing wrong with starving to death. There is nothing wrong with dying. There is something wrong with killing innocent people against their will. There is something wrong with raping people. I will prevent wrongs when I can. If there should be unfortunate consequences, so be it. I'm willing to take that chance.

 

[Sonofason]

Your constant use of strawmen is making you look like a fool. I never said they were untrustworthy, I said they were as trustworthy as you were. I simply have no reason to believe one over the other. That doesn't mean they're inherently untrustworthy though. I don't know if they're trustworthy or not since trust has to be earned.

Also you ignored the rest of my post and brought up a red herring. Also what was the point of your last sentence? Nobody is saying that a religion or anyone else thinks raping an 8 year old is morally good. This is just another foolish strawmen.

I don't think so. I did not offer that if raping a child is not inherently wrong that it can only be morally good, I offered another possibility, though it is also false, that a rape might be neutral. But that is not the case. Rape is always wrong. It is inherently wrong. Rape is objectively wrong. Once again you're trying to put words in my mouth, or you are taking portions of my comments and placing them out of context. But then again, why would I expect anything less from you?

 

[Sonofason]

ok...mea culpa.

No worries Jo, they're wrong, and we know it.