Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[keithprosser3]

In the first scenario the action is neither good nor bad because morality isn't involved but in the second scenario the action is good because morality is involved?

I would say that is the case. In the first scenario the husband did something that resembles a moral act. You see if everything happens in a flash and he had failed to react in time it cannot be said he did a bad thing by not blocking the bullet.

Only if there is time to think then would actual morality would come into it.

You must think I don't think before I post!

[Artie]

I would say that is the case. In the first scenario the husband did something that resembles a moral act. You see if everything happens in a flash and he had failed to react in time it cannot be said he did a bad thing by not blocking the bullet.

Only if there is time to think then would actual morality would come into it.

You must think I don't think before I post!

No, it's just that "Morality ... is the differentiation of ... actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." It doesn't say anything about the action having to be conscious and not instinctive. I would be interested if you could provide some links for me saying that the action had to be conscious. Just got me thinking.

"I was having a debate with a friend on the nature of morality. I suggested that a moral act is an act done with the intention of increasing someone else's well-being. He thought that the act does not require intentionality.

...

Additional Details
So, unconsciously holding a door open or dropping change in a donation box qualifies as an unconscious moral act. This sounds like an extreme example of a conscious act, repeated so often that it has become an unconscious habit. What about wishing someone, "Have a nice day"?

This is leading me to believe that morality does not require intentionality, it only requires a "good" action."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 026AA48gA8

So holding a door open for somebody of sheer reflex while thinking about something else entirely is not a "good" act but consciously holding the door open for somebody is a "good" act. Ok.

[instantc]

I agree - an instinctive act may resemble a moral act but conscious choice is essential for morality to be involved.

My last (I hope) question is if you will confirm that no consideration of cost or benefit enters into it - it is purely a question of what is 'abstractly' the right thing to do?

Correct.

[instantc]

I agree - an instinctive act may resemble a moral act but conscious choice is essential for morality to be involved.

Scenario one:
A husband jumps in front of his wife and takes a bullet meant for her and the whole thing happens so fast that he does it on pure reflex and pure instinct without making any conscious choice and doesn't even have a clue what just happened.

Scenario two:
A husband sees his wife about to take a bullet and makes in a split second the conscious choice to jump in front of her.

In the first scenario the action is neither good nor bad because morality isn't involved but in the second scenario the action is good because morality is involved?

Correct. Even according to law, a reflexive movement is not an act of a person. We don't hold people criminally responsible for the consequences of such unwilled movements. I don't see a reason to hold them morally responsible either.

[instantc]

I suggest that one of the reasons I gave, or one similar may still be in play. We are not always aware of our motivation, or all of the motives. If we do something 'just because it is the right thing to do,' that is likely because we have internalized the value. It has become OUR value. We act according to internalized values whether we are observed or not. This is in fact the goal of a moral education. We want our children and the next generation to internalize the values we see as proper.

I find this in fact a rather convincing explanation, it may well be the case. We certainly cannot always trust our experience. As you said, sometimes we are not aware of our true motivation.

[keithprosser3]

I'll respond to Artie soon... or should I say I'll respond to that respected philosophical oracle answers.yahoo soon.

@instantc
It seem you are genuinely nice chap - I hope not too good for your own good!

It would seem to me that you may be very 'in tune' with what I called elsewhere the 'Platonic form' of morality. I can't think of anything else to say!

Edit due to above post: I was assuming that you were not mistaken about your motivation. If you are mistaken then it can be put down to the altruistic instinct after all - but that is sooo boring!

[Artie]

Correct. Even according to law, a reflexive movement is not an act of a person. We don't hold people criminally responsible for the consequences of such unwilled movements. I don't see a reason to hold them morally responsible either.

That makes sense. An action is only moral or immoral if it is conscious. So whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends solely on the intention of the person and not on the act itself. A person who intends to save another person is doing "good" even though he happens to kill the other person instead because it is the intention and not the act itself that is "good" or "bad"? Just a thought.

[keithprosser3]

It raises the question of how useful considering non-human animals is when discussing morality, assuming most non-human animals can't make truly conscious decisions.

[Artie]

It raises the question of how useful considering non-human animals is when discussing morality, assuming most non-human animals can't make truly conscious decisions.

True. Chimps are perfectly capable of making conscious moral decisions though. At what species does it stop being "morality" and is just "instinct"?

[instantc]

Correct. Even according to law, a reflexive movement is not an act of a person. We don't hold people criminally responsible for the consequences of such unwilled movements. I don't see a reason to hold them morally responsible either.

That makes sense. An action is only moral or immoral if it is conscious. So whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends solely on the intention of the person and not on the act itself. A person who intends to save another person is doing "good" even though he happens to kill the other person instead because it is the intention and not the act itself that is "good" or "bad"? Just a thought.

Criminal liability follows from the combination of a wrongful act and a guilty mind, never from one of those alone. I find this a good approach to moral responsibility as well. A bad intention is not reprehensible unless it manifests itself in a wrongful act, and a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.