A question of morality

[A_Feeble_Mind]

As some of you may know, I am a somewhat recent deconvert from the Catholic faith. I have been rethinking many of the mandated claims of the chuch and have determined that some sins are obviously harmless. Masturbation is a mortal sin, yet who suffers from it?

And, obviously, some sins are not so harmless. Murder is wrong, god or no god.

But, what I wonder about are some of the sins that seem wrong, but, without an all seeing god, might not be. For example, if a spouse commits adultry and is never discovered, who is harmed? Instinctively, it seems like it is bad, yet, when I try to reason through it, I cannot determine the harm.

Any thoughts on adultery? Any examples of sins that are borderline good/not good?

P.S. I am not looking for justification to cheat on a spouse, so don't even suggest it. ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
As some of you may know, I am a somewhat recent deconvert from the Catholic faith. I have been rethinking many of the mandated claims of the chuch and have determined that some sins are obviously harmless. Masturbation is a mortal sin, yet who suffers from it?
I dont think the Catholic reasoning of "all eggs and all sperm are potential humans" is enough to make the justification that masturbation is a mortal sin.

Any thoughts on adultery? Any examples of sins that are borderline good/not good?
Adultery emotionally hurts another, adultery = big no-no.

Heres a common ethical question (Dont try to add any "what ifs" to the scenario I describe below, take it for how I describe):
Scenario - A 23 year old man has consentual sexual intercourse with his 22 year old sister. His sister is infertile and will never have children. The man and his sister have no regrets for what they did, in fact they consider what they did to be a positive experience. Is what they did morally wrong?

The only way I can make my justification is based on the fact that morality is subjective. Morality is commonly based on what we are offended by. Other than the fact that I think incest is disgusting, I really cant find any reason why siblings shouldnt have consentual intercourse if there is no way to produce children.

The scenario I described above is very morally ambigious. No one is hurt, its based on the "ick" factor of subjective morality. Now if I described an event where a little girl pushes a boy off a swing because she wants it, "helping ourselves at the expense of others" is much easier to judge.

[ceo_esq]

It's difficult to conclude that the morality of an act should be evaluated entirely ex post facto. The fact is that adultery is frequently discovered, resulting in emotional and other harms to spouses and children. If I elect to drive home when I know I've had too much to drink, I'm making a moral judgment (and one that most people would consider bad). If by good fortune I safely make it home without causing harm to life or property, is my moral judgment transformed retroactively into a morally neutral one? Of course not. It is primarily the unwarranted risk of harm that made my act immoral in the first place. By analogy, the decision to commit adultery is morally problematic a priori.

But even if the foregoing analysis is incorrect, the moral issue is not entirely resolved. Perhaps each moral code worth of the name begins with proscriptions on harmful conduct, but should it necessarily end there? Does your moral code include affirmative obligations? For example, do you have an affirmative moral duty to love and honor your spouse in accordance with your marriage vows, rather than just a negative duty to avoid causing harm to him or her?

[calladus]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind

But, what I wonder about are some of the sins that seem wrong, but, without an all seeing god, might not be. For example, if a spouse commits adultry and is never discovered, who is harmed? Instinctively, it seems like it is bad, yet, when I try to reason through it, I cannot determine the harm.

Any thoughts on adultery? Any examples of sins that are borderline good/not good?


Undiscoverd adultry is harmful - it changes the way that you think about your spouse. You may think less of your spouse, or act differently toward him or her. Your spouse may feel this, and feel hurt - without even knowing why.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by calladus


Undiscoverd adultry is harmful - it changes the way that you think about your spouse. You may think less of your spouse, or act differently toward him or her. Your spouse may feel this, and feel hurt - without even knowing why.

Yes. And to apply something like that to incest, taking that step with someone who is a family member can do emotional damage. Even if it is completely consensual. Not all concequences are physical or immediatley apparent.

[c4ts]

If you think about it, morality exists to keep society from collapsing.

[rustypouch]

I think that my morality is quite simple.

Please don't laugh, but it comes from Bill and Ted.

"Be excellent to one another, and party one, dudes!"

If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, be it physically, emotionaly, financially, et cetera; I don't see any problem in doing it.

As examples, I see no problems with masturabtion, drug use, or premarital sex.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by rustypouch
I think that my morality is quite simple.

Please don't laugh, but it comes from Bill and Ted.

"Be excellent to one another, and party one, dudes!"

If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, be it physically, emotionaly, financially, et cetera; I don't see any problem in doing it.

As examples, I see no problems with masturabtion, drug use, or premarital sex.

Yes, but marriage exists to prevent incest, which leads to the formation of tribes, and tribes in your city could start a civil war with each other.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c4ts
If you think about it, morality exists to keep society from collapsing. Exactly. And if you don't think about it, morality exists because God says so.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I dont think the Catholic reasoning of "all eggs and all sperm are potential humans" is enough to make the justification that masturbation is a mortal sin.

I thought that that was just the Catholic interpretation of the `Sin of Onan', which was of course coitus interuptus, not masturbation. What's interesting to note about that particular incident is that Onan was with his sister-in-law at the time, on Gods orders (God ordering one of his followers to commit adultery! :wink: ), and decided at the last second that impregnating her would be immoral!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by rustypouch
I think that my morality is quite simple.

Please don't laugh, but it comes from Bill and Ted.

"Be excellent to one another, and party one, dudes!"

If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, be it physically, emotionaly, financially, et cetera; I don't see any problem in doing it.

As examples, I see no problems with masturabtion, drug use, or premarital sex.


If it were only that simple.. You have to insure your drug use and premarital sex does not inflict inconvenience on the rest of society such as the spread of disease or unwanted pregnancies..

Masturbation looks to be free and clear, unless it taxes the laundry accomplishing resources of the one designated to fulfill such duties....

[Dancing David]

Morality comes down to harm, while in the case of adultery, you can argue there is no harm. There is a major violation of trust. Then there are always those pesky STDs and the potential for a child, the adulterer's companion calling. There is no free lunch, if you have an agreement to not have sex with another person, then there is the potential for harm.


No harm, or consensual then no immorality.

For example prior to my relationship with my wife I had been in a seven year monogamous relationship. My partener decided she really wanted to have sex with another guy, we discussed guideline and agreed that it would be okay. Turns out that he became jealous of my and that she ended up dumping me. But I made a consensual choice to accept the consequences of the choice. Even though it made me very unhappy. So there was harm, but because it was agreed to and fully aware there is no moral issue.

[kedo1981]

hey rustypouch, pass that dooby this way (AFTER YOU WASH YOUR HANDS)

[calladus]

Originally posted by rustypouch

If it makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, be it physically, emotionaly, financially, et cetera; I don't see any problem in doing it.

As examples, I see no problems with masturabtion, drug use, or premarital sex.
This sounds a lot like the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what thou will."

But it isn't quite - the Rede can actually be pretty strict. 'An it harm NONE' - as long as no-one gets hurt. It means yourself too.

Drug use could be harmful to you and to others - at the least it might lead to risky behavior. At worst, your imparement could be dangerous to yourself or to someone else.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Morality comes down to harm, while in the case of adultery, you can argue there is no harm. There is a major violation of trust. Then there are always those pesky STDs and the potential for a child, the adulterer's companion calling. There is no free lunch, if you have an agreement to not have sex with another person, then there is the potential for harm.


No harm, or consensual then no immorality.

For example prior to my relationship with my wife I had been in a seven year monogamous relationship. My partener decided she really wanted to have sex with another guy, we discussed guideline and agreed that it would be okay. Turns out that he became jealous of my and that she ended up dumping me. But I made a consensual choice to accept the consequences of the choice. Even though it made me very unhappy. So there was harm, but because it was agreed to and fully aware there is no moral issue.

When she decided, what options did you have? If you were pressured into agreeing to her request, couldn't it be argued that it is just as bad as going behind your back?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


When she decided, what options did you have? If you were pressured into agreeing to her request, couldn't it be argued that it is just as bad as going behind your back?

Uh, as an adult I could have siad, no I don't think so, and then accepted the consequences of that choice. Instead I said ,okay, and I accept the consequence of that choice.


As someone who works in the domestic violence field, I am very familar with the idea that people might and are coerecd into all sorts of sexual behaviors against thier will. In that case there is harm and therefore immoral.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by calladus

This sounds a lot like the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what thou will."

But it isn't quite - the Rede can actually be pretty strict. 'An it harm NONE' - as long as no-one gets hurt. It means yourself too.

Drug use could be harmful to you and to others - at the least it might lead to risky behavior. At worst, your imparement could be dangerous to yourself or to someone else.

Of course if you go out and try to drive loaded, baked, fried, etc., it is bad, because there is a very good chance of hurting someone esle.

But I don't see the problem if you are chilling in your basement, smoking your narcotic of choice, and mellowing down easy.

Sure, it might be risky, but I like having the opportunity to do risky things if I so chose.

After all, it is my body and life, and I want to have the choice.

I do partake of many dangerous activities, and I get a rush from the excitement. I have hurt myself a few times, but it was my fault and I don't regret it.

I like having the option to do stupid this, and I don't like anyone telling me what I can and can't do.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
But, what I wonder about are some of the sins that seem wrong, but, without an all seeing god, might not be. For example, if a spouse commits adultry and is never discovered, who is harmed? Instinctively, it seems like it is bad, yet, when I try to reason through it, I cannot determine the harm.Personally, I believe that something's "wrongness" does not hinge upon whether or not you get caught.

Breaking a vow you have made to be faithful is wrong. Period.

Would you say that stealing was okay, as long as nobody ever misses the stolen property?

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont think the Catholic reasoning of "all eggs and all sperm are potential humans" is enough to make the justification that masturbation is a mortal sin.Does this mean that Catholics think that female masturbation is okay, because no eggs are used?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Personally, I believe that something's "wrongness" does not hinge upon whether or not you get caught.

Breaking a vow you have made to be faithful is wrong. Period.

Would you say that stealing was okay, as long as nobody ever misses the stolen property?


This is the very question I am trying to work through. Instinctively, it does seem wrong. But, what does it matter if a vow is broken if no one knows about it? If something is stolen, and it is not missed or needed, why is it wrong? Claiming it is wrong "just because" doesn't quite answer the question.

[drowden]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
And, obviously, some sins are not so harmless. Murder is wrong, god or no god.

Actually, murder is only contexually immoral. We committ and morally justify murder all the time.

Of course, one could argue that the definition of murder is "killing without moral justification", but whose justification are we talking about? Most murder is justified by the person committing the act.

It's like Nietzsche said: "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena."


Dan Rowden

[Ladewig]

This is the very question I am trying to work through. Instinctively, it does seem wrong. But, what does it matter if a vow is broken if no one knows about it? If something is stolen, and it is not missed or needed, why is it wrong? Claiming it is wrong "just because" doesn't quite answer the question.

The adultery question includes the moral obligation to respect a vow, but there is also a legal obligation. I am refering to the marriage contract. Furthermore, in over 27 states, adultery is illegal (most classify it as a misdemeanor, seven a felony).

Your stealing example requires quite a bit of prescience to justify its morality. I believe that lacking this certain knowledge of the future drops the situation back into the realm of ordinary, immoral stealing. Unless, of course, you are suggesting stealing from someone's garbage can, which has been declared legal in the U.S.

[Cinorjer]

The quest for answers to a moral foundation in your life absent an external appeal to a set of "God's laws" requires you to simply accept that there is no hard-and-fast rule that applies in every occasion. For one thing, in spite of what "revealed truth" believers might say, all morality IS situational. And that's not a bad thing, but an acceptance of reality. Pretending otherwise leads to atrocities committed in the name of "God's law".

We Buddhists manage to define morality as behaving in a way that minimizes harm to yourself and others, and by understanding the primary law of cause and effect: actions have consequences. Certain behavior should have warning signs that say "Danger Ahead", and your example of adultery is one of them. We Buddhists don't have a list of rules, but instead guidelines, and one says, in effect, "Refrain from inappropriate sexual behavior." The bond between husband/wife is built on trust, and by cheating you have harmed your mate, even if they aren't aware of it immediately. Moral behavior isn't just about immediate consequences, but what happens down the road because of the direction your actions have taken you.

[calladus]

Originally posted by rustypouch


Of course if you go out and try to drive loaded, baked, fried, etc., it is bad, because there is a very good chance of hurting someone esle.

But I don't see the problem if you are chilling in your basement, smoking your narcotic of choice, and mellowing down easy.

Sure, it might be risky, but I like having the opportunity to do risky things if I so chose.

After all, it is my body and life, and I want to have the choice.

I do partake of many dangerous activities, and I get a rush from the excitement. I have hurt myself a few times, but it was my fault and I don't regret it.

I like having the option to do stupid this, and I don't like anyone telling me what I can and can't do.

Hmm - I'm not sure I can totally agree here.

I tend to look at things in terms of cost to family, or to society's resources.

If you get fried in your basement and die of a heart attack, does your family suffer due to your loss of income? Does the state suffer due to the cost of emergency services that try to save your butt? Does your landlord suffer because now your residence has a stigma? (You know the woo-woo's will be crying 'haunted!')

If your risky behavior results in an overall negative cost to society, then should society support it? And how should we measure the recreational benefits against the potential costs? Maybe we should start doing Return On Investment investigations on risky behavior?

What if you intend to Kayak to Hawaii? Who pays when the Coast Guard spends a million dollars looking for you, lost at sea? How much resources has your selfish, risky behavior soaked up?

I would feel bad if my behavior cost anyone else - I would feel terrible if my family had to bail me out because of my thoughtlessness.

[calladus]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


This is the very question I am trying to work through. Instinctively, it does seem wrong. But, what does it matter if a vow is broken if no one knows about it? If something is stolen, and it is not missed or needed, why is it wrong? Claiming it is wrong "just because" doesn't quite answer the question.
The damage is done to yourself. Your own psyche is warped, maybe just a little, but enough to make it a little easier the next time. As Aristotle pointed out, you are learning habits - these can be bad habits, or good habits, but they become HABITS!

The next time you have an opportunity, you may steal again. Maybe something a little larger? A little more expensive? Maybe you start to make your own opportunities?

Even if you get in the habit of thinking about someone in a negative manner, maybe assigning a label, or a derogatory name to them in private, after a time this warps your thinking in bad ways. At some point you may unthinkingly treat that person as less than human. Your 'private' name may slip out. At the very least this person might feel that something is wrong.

To use my professors as an analogy, "If you cheat, you are only hurting yourself." Even if you don't get caught!

Bad habits are like pototato chips.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
It's difficult to conclude that the morality of an act should be evaluated entirely ex post facto. The fact is that adultery is frequently discovered, resulting in emotional and other harms to spouses and children. If I elect to drive home when I know I've had too much to drink, I'm making a moral judgment (and one that most people would consider bad). If by good fortune I safely make it home without causing harm to life or property, is my moral judgment transformed retroactively into a morally neutral one? Of course not. It is primarily the unwarranted risk of harm that made my act immoral in the first place. By analogy, the decision to commit adultery is morally problematic a priori.

But even if the foregoing analysis is incorrect, the moral issue is not entirely resolved. Perhaps each moral code worth of the name begins with proscriptions on harmful conduct, but should it necessarily end there? Does your moral code include affirmative obligations? For example, do you have an affirmative moral duty to love and honor your spouse in accordance with your marriage vows, rather than just a negative duty to avoid causing harm to him or her?


But on what are we to base these standards Ceo?

Are we to arbitrarily invent them, inherit them or can we somehow deduce them in a purely cognitive manner?


Also the issue seems a bit situational. Perhaps sometimes its wrong to do something even if it hurts nobody, I would say because it reveals character.

Just by drinking for example I take a risk of becoming so intoxicated that I may hurt somebody, just by smoking I take a risk of killing myself and commiting a sort of suicide, just by driving while I'm tired a take a risk of making an accident. So is merely the possibility of risk reason enough to declare an act immoral or is probability involved?


Like I said again it is situational, lets say someone elected to sell a medicine which has a small risk in causing an allergic reaction in people and killing them, should they withhold it even if millions of people were dying of a deadly disease or should they risk being an indirect killer?

[Some Friggin Guy]

When dealing with what is moral and what is not, I refer to one part of the hippocratic oath (I try to live my life by this particular axiom)

Do no harm.

I feel it is as simple as that.

And as complicated, since it is sometimes difficult, or even impossible, to tell when an action will do harm. Thus, we can only use our best judgement, which is often flawed, since we are only human.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yet I think one must include affirmative obligations, CEO made a good point here:

For example, do you have an affirmative moral duty to love and honor your spouse in accordance with your marriage vows, rather than just a negative duty to avoid causing harm to him or her?


I believe moral values evolved, or rely on biological anbd evolutionary mechanisms to an extent. And if this is the case, why should we expect them to be limited to negative prescriptions?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind

But, what I wonder about are some of the sins that seem wrong, but, without an all seeing god, might not be. For example, if a spouse commits adultry and is never discovered, who is harmed? Instinctively, it seems like it is bad, yet, when I try to reason through it, I cannot determine the harm.
Reminds me of the ring of Gygas story in the Republic.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But on what are we to base these standards Ceo?

Are we to arbitrarily invent them, inherit them or can we somehow deduce them in a purely cognitive manner?


Also the issue seems a bit situational. Perhaps sometimes its wrong to do something even if it hurts nobody, I would say because it reveals character.

Just by drinking for example I take a risk of becoming so intoxicated that I may hurt somebody, just by smoking I take a risk of killing myself and commiting a sort of suicide, just by driving while I'm tired a take a risk of making an accident. So is merely the possibility of risk reason enough to declare an act immoral or is probability involved?


Like I said again it is situational, lets say someone elected to sell a medicine which has a small risk in causing an allergic reaction in people and killing them, should they withhold it even if millions of people were dying of a deadly disease or should they risk being an indirect killer? What the standards are (or should be) based on is a very difficult question. But I don't think you need to have a complete answer to it in order to be able to address some of the things we've been talking about.

Limiting the case to just the moral implications of harming other people, I think that most people (if they take the time to think about it) intuitively agree with a sort of moral equation in which, very loosely speaking, multiplying the seriousness of the possible harm by the probability that it will actually occur yields an idea of how immoral a specific act is. I'm simplyifing, obviously (leaving out, among other things, potential moral good that might come from the same act), but you see the point.

The point in my first post about adultery is that we can't (or at least, most people don't) judge the morality of acts solely according to whether harm actually materializes. If I fire a gun blindfolded into a crowd and the bullet lands harmlessly, my act was still immoral because of the (degree of potential harm) x (probability of potential harm) equation at the moment I pulled the trigger.

Likewise, at the moment you choose to commit adultery, you can't really know for sure that your spouse won't find out. Even you yourself might do something to reveal it in the future, either unintentionally or in a fit of remorse. You can't know for sure. It's very difficult to quantify the risk, and even harder to reliably put it near zero.

Another point to consider is is that we have a general moral duty not to cause harm to any person if we can avoid it, but I think there are certain people toward whom we have an elevated duty to keep from harm (like our spouses and children).

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What the standards are (or should be) based on is a very difficult question. But I don't think you need to have a complete answer to it in order to be able to address some of the things we've been talking about.

Limiting the case to just the moral implications of harming other people, I think that most people (if they take the time to think about it) intuitively agree with a sort of moral equation in which, very loosely speaking, multiplying the seriousness of the possible harm by the probability that it will actually occur yields an idea of how immoral a specific act is. I'm simplyifing, obviously (leaving out, among other things, potential moral good that might come from the same act), but you see the point.

The point in my first post about adultery is that we can't (or at least, most people don't) judge the morality of acts solely according to whether harm actually materializes. If I fire a gun blindfolded into a crowd and the bullet lands harmlessly, my act was still immoral because of the (degree of potential harm) x (probability of potential harm) equation at the moment I pulled the trigger.

Likewise, at the moment you choose to commit adultery, you can't really know for sure that your spouse won't find out. Even you yourself might do something to reveal it in the future, either unintentionally or in a fit of remorse. You can't know for sure. It's very difficult to quantify the risk, and even harder to reliably put it near zero.

Another point to consider is is that we have a general moral duty not to cause harm to any person if we can avoid it, but I think there are certain people toward whom we have an elevated duty to keep from harm (like our spouses and children).

Well what partial answer can you give us then? And are you then saying we cannot yet establish an ultimate basis for morality?

But also a bigger question is here if you think about it, namely why should adultery be considered something harmful at all?

Also my point about risk was that there was more to the act being condemned then just that it was risky. There was a matter of degree i.e. firing a shot in the air in a secluded area blind folded is obviously not immoral: but firing a shot blind folded in a populated area is.

Also that we judge not just on harm but on character(as bad characters will likely cause more harm/less good in the future) and doing such reckless acts which endanger human life reveal something about a person's character.


Also may there be different kinds of harm, with some relating to morality more then others?

If someone forgets to put on deoderant and bathe, so ends up smelling really bad, he has harmed my senses but I would hardly call that immoral.

Hence morality I do not believe can be merely limited to that which causes harm, as there seems to be far more standards of evaluation in regards to it.

[Cinorjer]

Also my point about risk was that there was more to the act being condemned then just that it was risky. There was a matter of degree i.e. firing a shot in the air in a secluded area blind folded is obviously not immoral: but firing a shot blind folded in a populated area is.

You're talking about reckless behavior, behavior that might lead to harming others, even if you had no intention of doing so. At what point do we draw a line, and say "Here's where you should consider what you are doing is morally wrong"? Something like driving drunk certainly falls in the moral wrong side. But for instance, that secluded area in your example might have some kids trespassing you aren't aware of, and you accidentally shoot one. Firing a gun is inherently dangerous. Does that mean in moral terms it's wrong to take the risk of owning a gun, no matter how careful you are? Some people take this very point of view. If your moral compass includes eliminating all risky behavior, then that's the logical conclusion.

Hence morality I do not believe can be merely limited to that which causes harm, as there seems to be far more standards of evaluation in regards to it.

I agree, for the reason that, while "Do no harm" is a good yardstick and the foundation of morality, life is not that simple. First, it is sometimes necessary to do harm to someone for the greater good. We lock some people away, harm them by taking away their liberty, in order to keep ourselves safe. If we punish a child, we're harming them, but if we don't punish their behavior are we doing worse harm by letting them grow up without discipline? Sometimes we are faced with choices that cannot be reasoned through using the "harm" yardstick. A man knows a fellow worker is stealing from the company. It's his moral duty to report this. Yet, the man's family is counting on the paycheck to eat and pay the bills. Doing the "right" thing is going to harm people.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
Also my point about risk was that there was more to the act being condemned then just that it was risky. There was a matter of degree i.e. firing a shot in the air in a secluded area blind folded is obviously not immoral: but firing a shot blind folded in a populated area is.

You're talking about reckless behavior, behavior that might lead to harming others, even if you had no intention of doing so. At what point do we draw a line, and say "Here's where you should consider what you are doing is morally wrong"? Something like driving drunk certainly falls in the moral wrong side. But for instance, that secluded area in your example might have some kids trespassing you aren't aware of, and you accidentally shoot one. Firing a gun is inherently dangerous. Does that mean in moral terms it's wrong to take the risk of owning a gun, no matter how careful you are? Some people take this very point of view. If your moral compass includes eliminating all risky behavior, then that's the logical conclusion.

Hence morality I do not believe can be merely limited to that which causes harm, as there seems to be far more standards of evaluation in regards to it.

I agree, for the reason that, while "Do no harm" is a good yardstick and the foundation of morality, life is not that simple. First, it is sometimes necessary to do harm to someone for the greater good. We lock some people away, harm them by taking away their liberty, in order to keep ourselves safe. If we punish a child, we're harming them, but if we don't punish their behavior are we doing worse harm by letting them grow up without discipline? Sometimes we are faced with choices that cannot be reasoned through using the "harm" yardstick. A man knows a fellow worker is stealing from the company. It's his moral duty to report this. Yet, the man's family is counting on the paycheck to eat and pay the bills. Doing the "right" thing is going to harm people.


In regards to your first point you can't draw any specific line. Where do you draw the line between a mountain and a hill? Art and pornography? At what exact dollar does a man cease being average and become what we consider wealthy?

The point is in our messy reality we rarely if ever have exact lines, what we have is approximation and degree.

And there is simply no way one can take into account every possible or even plausible contingency before commiting to an action for fear that it may be reckless. Take something as simple as shooting for self-defense or even pulling out of your drive way. Maybe there could be a kid back there...it's possible. He could dash put while you aren't looking, does that mean you should not drive?
Or maybe when you shoot for self-defense you may hit some kid hiding behind the man after you miss. A doctor when delivering medicine may cause an allergic reaction, does that mean he needs to do an in depth DNA test before he ever delivers a single shot?


There really is no such thing as pure caution and I dare to say pure recklessness. Every single action a human can take has the possibility of risk. Stepping on the sidewalk tomorrow could somehow wake an angry dragon that would devour millions of people, or break a test tube containing a deadly virus under my foot. Very, very, very, unlikely? Yes. But possible. One would hardly call such normal activity "reckless" though as the scenerios above are extremely improbable. Reckless action is ultimately, like most things, a matter of degree.

So my point is that while a kid may just unexpectedly pop up in the middle of the woods, that is so unlikely as to be rejected as reckless. In this world there are few absolutes, and when we commit to action we more often then not base our actions on probability. In the case of the blind folded man in the woods, I would say probability was so much with him that his behavior cannot be reasonably seen as reckless.



In regards to your second point, I agree with you overall.

However I must point out a possible objection to your argument, namely that the harm axiom can still be seen as sufficient given the above actions prevented more harm then they caused.

Telling on the man cheating sets a precedence for the future, causing less cheating and hence in the end less harm. Punishing the child aids long-term success and deters the child from behavior that would harm others.


In essence then harm is merely done to avoid harm.

I'm not disagreeing to be disagreeable, and think your second point illustrates well how messy a thing moral choices can be. I'm merely pointing out that such an objection by itself seems insufficient in respect to disproving the "morality merely equals no harm" school of morality.

[Cinorjer]

The point is in our messy reality we rarely if ever have exact lines, what we have is approximation and degree.

And there is simply no way one can take into account every possible or even plausible contingency before commiting to an action for fear that it may be reckless. Take something as simple as shooting for self-defense or even pulling out of your drive way. Maybe there could be a kid back there...it's possible. He could dash put while you aren't looking, does that mean you should not drive?

That's entirely true, and the reason that people so readily cling to a set of moral rules provided by whatever religion they buy into. Many people try to live a moral life. The trouble is, life is messy, there are no absolutes, and the dividing line between good and bad is not so clear-cut as to be obvious in many cases. But a list of "Thou shalt not"s takes away that uncertainty. The abuse of the free thinker is to act as if morals are entirely subjective and anything goes. The abuse of the religious is to act as if the rules are more important than people, and the harm these rules do is irrelivant.

In regards to your second point, I agree with you overall.

However I must point out a possible objection to your argument, namely that the harm axiom can still be seen as sufficient given the above actions prevented more harm then they caused.

Telling on the man cheating sets a precedence for the future, causing less cheating and hence in the end less harm. Punishing the child aids long-term success and deters the child from behavior that would harm others.

In essence then harm is merely done to avoid harm.

It's the justification for wars, certainly. It's the justification for much harm done in the world when abused. "For the greater good" and all that. I'm not saying it's wrong, because I agree with you. Morality requires we acknowledge that we are a society, and that we must enforce a degree of moral behavior on others for the good of everyone. Without laws and enforced behavior, it would be a brutal world of the strongest preying on the weakest. It's happening right now in certain third-world countries. So the question becomes, who decides that harm done now is necessary to prevent a greater harm later?

I'm not disagreeing to be disagreeable, and think your second point illustrates well how messy a thing moral choices can be. I'm merely pointing out that such an objection by itself seems insufficient in respect to disproving the "morality merely equals no harm" school of morality.

I'm not disproving, simply being long-winded in pointing out that it might be a basis for moral conduct, but is insufficient as a practical guide to individual behavior. It's still a rule, and ultimately all rules require interpretation. Yet, a good moral life must also be a spontanious one. We can't go through life analysing every action and trying to determine how it applies to one or ten or a hundred different rules. Might I suggest that a moral life is not a matter of any rule, but a state of mind. People have the ability to feel compassion. Instead of trying to fit life into rules, cultivate this compassion and let that guide your everyday actions. We're going to make mistakes no matter what, but if you err on the side of compassion, then you minimize the harm you might do, and compassion is spontanious and requires no thought.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by calladus


Bad habits are like potato chips.

Seems apt to me; at heart any act is "immoral" if it is decided by any specific individual in a way that is at odds with the interpretation "society at large" agrees upon.

IMO a moral judgement is basically a question of self-control, not legal control.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by calladus


Undiscoverd adultry is harmful - it changes the way that you think about your spouse. You may think less of your spouse, or act differently toward him or her. Your spouse may feel this, and feel hurt - without even knowing why.

But you have to ask this - would anyone who was happy in their relationship commit adultry? or at least, wouldn't someone who commits adultery be looking for some sort of happiness or fulfillment they don't presently have? Relationships go bad and people are unfaithful in relationship because one or the other is not getting something they need or think they need in the relationship. I honestly don't think that adultry is a moral issue. there are, of course, people out there who are just weasles and who have no empathy or genuine compassion for their partner, but what is the good in clinging to a person who is like that. It is very hard for me to imagine someone who is happy and fulfilled in a relationship even considering commiting adultery.

[triadboy]

Masturbation has recently found to be a healthy thing to do. (Cleans out your pipes and prevents prostate cancer) Red wine is also known to be healthy.

So to recap: Red Wine and Masturbation

[calladus]

Originally posted by billydkid


But you have to ask this - would anyone who was happy in their relationship commit adultry? or at least, wouldn't someone who commits adultery be looking for some sort of happiness or fulfillment they don't presently have? Relationships go bad and people are unfaithful in relationship because one or the other is not getting something they need or think they need in the relationship. I honestly don't think that adultry is a moral issue. there are, of course, people out there who are just weasles and who have no empathy or genuine compassion for their partner, but what is the good in clinging to a person who is like that. It is very hard for me to imagine someone who is happy and fulfilled in a relationship even considering commiting adultery.

Actually, I can easily imagine a spouse, happily married and 'fulfilled' committing adultry. I find a Chris Rock quote to be apt here, "Most guys haven't cheated because they never had the opportunity." He mentions that guys don't go out of their way to make an opportunity either.

But if opportunity fell into his lap, (if you will excuse the bad pun) then, according to Chris, the guy would take it.

Now I certainly don't consider Chris Rock to be any sort of scientist or researcher - but I have read of theories of 'biological imperatives' - the theory that males, by their nature, want to spread their genes as far as possible, thereby ensuring survival of their line.

I believe that it is natural for a man who is 'happy and fulfilled' to feel tempted from time to time. He may not follow through due to guilt, or due to lack of opportunity. If he believes that his urges are due to a lack in his relationship, then he may seek opportunity (or divorce).

I think that if a man realizes that basic biology plays a part in his wants, then he can more easily ignore it, realize that he is happy, and continue with his life.

I dunno if my theory holds water - my 'research' includes viewing nature documentaries and reading "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." I have little idea what motivates women to cheat on thier husbands.

I do believe that if one spouse cheats, even if the other spouse NEVER finds out, then the marriage suffers, or at the very least is altered.
Unfair comparisons are being made, the spouse is treated differently. As a crude analogy, what if Michelangelo had the chance to study Salvador Dali? In what way would this have affected his style? A good art critic should be able to detect the influence.

[calladus]

Originally posted by triadboy
Masturbation has recently found to be a healthy thing to do. (Cleans out your pipes and prevents prostate cancer) Red wine is also known to be healthy.

So to recap: Red Wine and Masturbation It's supposed to be erotic when you play with your food! :D

Sorry - the connection seemed so obvious to me!

:wink8:

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Cinorjer

In regards to your second point, I agree with you overall.

However I must point out a possible objection to your argument, namely that the harm axiom can still be seen as sufficient given the above actions prevented more harm then they caused.

Telling on the man cheating sets a precedence for the future, causing less cheating and hence in the end less harm. Punishing the child aids long-term success and deters the child from behavior that would harm others.

In essence then harm is merely done to avoid harm.

It's the justification for wars, certainly. It's the justification for much harm done in the world when abused. "For the greater good" and all that. I'm not saying it's wrong, because I agree with you. Morality requires we acknowledge that we are a society, and that we must enforce a degree of moral behavior on others for the good of everyone. Without laws and enforced behavior, it would be a brutal world of the strongest preying on the weakest. It's happening right now in certain third-world countries. So the question becomes, who decides that harm done now is necessary to prevent a greater harm later?


There is no one single person or method of deciding the issue I believe, each person must just use the best judgement to decide as best he can based on approximations at the moment. We do this all the time, when we figure out what to do with our free time, who to vote for, etc. We don't have one person choose for us or base our decision on one standard of a whole multitude of standards.

And system must likewise when they create mechanisms for laws must base themselves on a variety of mechanisms to insure the best possible satisfaction of moral values.

Who decides it ultimately? People based on the best information they have available, meaning that perhaps those best informed may give the best advice, but ultimately each person must figure out what to do for his or her self.


I'm not disproving, simply being long-winded in pointing out that it might be a basis for moral conduct, but is insufficient as a practical guide to individual behavior. It's still a rule, and ultimately all rules require interpretation. Yet, a good moral life must also be a spontanious one. We can't go through life analysing every action and trying to determine how it applies to one or ten or a hundred different rules. Might I suggest that a moral life is not a matter of any rule, but a state of mind. People have the ability to feel compassion. Instead of trying to fit life into rules, cultivate this compassion and let that guide your everyday actions. We're going to make mistakes no matter what, but if you err on the side of compassion, then you minimize the harm you might do, and compassion is spontanious and requires no thought. [/B]

I would say a moral life for us requires both a good state of mind i.e. good character and good rules. Ultimately the rules are just applied because they lead to consistent consequences and give us a nice basis for deciding, issues all things being equal, in an efficient manner.

I also believe that building good character demands you try to follow certain rules and teach others to do the same. For it is in part upon such things that our character or state of mind is built and hence such things lead to the state of mind.

The relationship as I see it is somewhat reciprocal, good rules can help a society raise or a person become a good character(as we evaluate it) and good character provides the very ground on which good rules are to be created, justified and maintained.

Also may not our ultimate or the highest moral goals be themselves merely the highest of our guiding rules? In your above case an ultimate rule then would be to "be compassionate" and on that basis we try to develope compassionate dispositions. Might all of our other overriding goals be seen in a similar way?