Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RobertUrbanek
Apprentice
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:51 pm
Location: Vacaville, CA

Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

Post #1

Post by RobertUrbanek »

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?
Untroubled, scornful, outrageous — That is how wisdom wants us to be. She is a woman and never loves anyone but a warrior — Friedrich Nietzsche

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #61

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
Uh huh. The difference between the two positions (yours and mine) seems to me to be this:

Position A. Moral positions can be known by simply observing human behaviour, and, indeed, humanity already knows what is moral, 99% of the time. There is no need for further explanation.

Would you agree this is a fair assessment of our differences?

No. First, you continue to repeat I think we can know right from wrong 99% of the time, when I actually said it is always possible for human beings to know right from wrong (this doesn’t mean they always do the right thing. You understand the difference, right?). Man is able to know what is a moral good/right vs. what is bad/wrong. You don’t think human beings can know rape is wrong?

Also, I did not say morality is something that can be known by simply observing human behavior. I said man can know right and wrong by observing and acknowledging the world we live in and recognizing man’s relationship with this world we live in.

And clearly man knows what is right and wrong because it is what we expect from others on a daily basis in all times in all cultures.
Position B. Moral positions cannot be known simply by observing behaviour, only by assigning a moral worth to that behaviour, an assignment that is inevitably subjective.
And how does one assign this moral worth? Is it not based on what we see/observe/acknowledge (in other words – facts/observation/what IS). So, no it is not subjective or internal – rather an acknowledgment of an external objective.

However, differing subjective opinions may be more or less accurate
Yes. And yet we compare them to like you say – that which is accurate – recognizing and acknowledging that accuracy exists and is the standard.


,
depending on how far they coincide with God's opinion.
Man can know morality (what is right and good vs. wrong and bad) regardless of acknowledging God. And I’m not sure I would say God has an opinion. God is truth – again, not an opinion/subjective – rather objective. Also, morality does not really apply to God. Morality is something men are subject to.
Just as humanity does not know God's omniscient opinion, aka moral or 'natural' law
There is no need to know God’s “opinion�. All men can know right/wrong via natural law.
, humanity does not (yet) know what is moral in all situations and circumstances.
Sure we do. We just differ on what evils we will claim excusable.

However, we can use certain metrics to guide us, such as the amount and risk of harm any given behaviour might cause, versus the amount and likelihood of any benefits that might accrue.
Hmmmmm . . . kind of like observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world?
Would you agree this is a fair assessment of our differences?
Now it is. O:)

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #62

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to 2ndRateMind]
Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, Justice, etc: No, I don't think God designed the world such that they would be easily found, if ever found at all. In fact, I rather think God so designed the world such that they would be humanity's enduring quest.
Hmmmm . . . . sounds a bit cruel. You really don’t think human beings are capable of knowing right from wrong? What is the purpose/meaning of anything? Why should we expect anything from anyone? Sorry, I don’t buy it – that theory seems illogical and does not corroborate human behavior.
OK, it may seem cruel. At first sight. But I think it would be more cruel to leave humanity with nothing else meaningful to do, and simply grow bored of the trivial exercise that our lives would otherwise be.

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #63

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 62 by 2ndRateMind]

I've been wondering about how to explain why our moral judgments are subjective, and matters of opinion. And I have arrived at a cunning plan:

Let us first suppose I am your friend. Your best friend, and you love me like a brother. Then you would presumably think that anything good that happens to me is objectively good, and anything bad that happens to me is objectively bad. And so you deal good to me whenever you can, because you think that to be good and right.

Next, let us suppose I become your enemy. Perhaps this occurs through some misunderstanding or other, such as are caused by involvement with womenfolk. Maybe your girlfriend has decided to become my girlfriend. Whatever, I am now your enemy, and your most bitter enemy, and you hate me like poison.

Now, presumably you would think that anything good that happens to me is objectively bad, and anything bad that happens to me is objectively good. And so you now deal evil to me whenever you can, because you now think that to be good and right.

The important thing is, I have not changed, and you have not changed, only the relationship between us. But that difference between us has led to a diametrically opposed point of view as regards what is good and bad, and what is right and wrong.

Do you now see why I think morality subjective, and a matter of opinion?

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #64

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote:
Hmmmmm . . . kind of like observation and acknowledgment of the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world?
A little like that. The difference being that we not only observe facts, but also, importantly, interpret them according to our world-views. Nevertheless, I think we are beginning to converge on an agreement concerning utilitarianism, which is well known by the maxim that morality is decided by 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', or more directly and profoundly, simply that it is the outcome of some behaviour that determines it's morality.

I wonder what you think about that?

Best wishes, 2RM.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #65

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 63 by 2ndRateMind]


K, it may seem cruel. At first sight. But I think it would be more cruel to leave humanity with nothing else meaningful to do, and simply grow bored of the trivial exercise that our lives would otherwise be.
I don’t understand why you think morality needs to be or even could be subjective in order for man’s life to have meaning/purpose. I think there is plenty for man to explore, discover, create, etc that makes life interesting. And in my opinion, it is precisely because morality is objective that makes such endeavors possible, productive, and awesome.

There remains plenty of subjectivity in the world from art, music, entertainment, child raising, management, economics, medical care, agriculture, industry, etc. to keep us from growing bored. Things like whether rape is right or wrong is not one of them. The fact that humanity has to ponder whether torturing babies is good or bad is not exactly something I would say is what gives our lives meaning and prevents us from growing bored. This world would not be a boring place if we all decided to stop killing each other.
I've been wondering about how to explain why our moral judgments are subjective, and matters of opinion. And I have arrived at a cunning plan:

Let us first suppose I am your friend. Your best friend, and you love me like a brother. Then you would presumably think that anything good that happens to me is objectively good, and anything bad that happens to me is objectively bad.
You already lost me. I could easily think if say you were building a house, but were doing so on a faulty foundation and your house collapsed (a bad thing) actually good because it would teach you a lesson to build your future house on a good foundation, but I digress. . .
And so you deal good to me whenever you can, because you think that to be good and right.
Yes, of course. I would hope I would do this.
Next, let us suppose I become your enemy. Perhaps this occurs through some misunderstanding or other, such as are caused by involvement with womenfolk. Maybe your girlfriend has decided to become my girlfriend. Whatever, I am now your enemy, and your most bitter enemy, and you hate me like poison.
But even most human beings know this would be wrong (especially over a girl). Most human beings recognize that often are best friends can hurt us or even betray us, but that wouldn’t justify revenge or wishing bad upon someone. Most also know that time has a tendency to heal wounds like this. Maybe in another year when she leaves you too, we both would go out for beers and realize what fools we both were for love.

Anyway, my point is right and wrong has not changed just because I’m mad at you. Once the green eyed monster inside of us settles down, most human beings realize this.
Now, presumably you would think that anything good that happens to me is objectively bad, and anything bad that happens to me is objectively good. And so you now deal evil to me whenever you can, because you now think that to be good and right.
Naaah . . . I’m pretty sure I would recognize that if I did now think if something bad were to happen to you and that that was good, I would know I am being subjective and not objective and that that is wrong. Because it would be reducing what is right/wrong to feelings and emotions, which it is not.
The important thing is, I have not changed, and you have not changed, only the relationship between us. But that difference between us has led to a diametrically opposed point of view as regards what is good and bad, and what is right and wrong.
No, what is right/good vs bad/wrong has not changed at all. If you were murdered, that would be objectively wrong and hardly dependent on whether I would like to see you murdered. In fact, me even temporarily hoping you would get murdered would be wrong too. Because the wrongness of murder or wishing someone else harm is not dependent on one’s point of view. It is objectively wrong.

Do you now see why I think morality subjective, and a matter of opinion?
I was just going to ask you the opposite.
A little like that. The difference being that we not only observe facts, but also, importantly, interpret them according to our world-views. Nevertheless, I think we are beginning to converge on an agreement concerning utilitarianism, which is well known by the maxim that morality is decided by 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', or more directly and profoundly, simply that it is the outcome of some behaviour that determines it's morality.

I wonder what you think about that?
Ooh . . . you do have some great questions. More on this when I get a chance.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #66

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
The difference being that we not only observe facts, but also, importantly, interpret them according to our world-views.
Of course, but all human beings value loyalty, friendship, love, etc. And devalue betrayal and hate. This is universal and doesn’t change with regard to if one is religious or non, Republican or Democrat, foreign or domestic, etc.
Nevertheless, I think we are beginning to converge on an agreement concerning utilitarianism, which is well known by the maxim that morality is decided by 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number', or more directly and profoundly, simply that it is the outcome of some behaviour that determines it's morality.
No, I don’t believe we are, because I actually find utilitarianism immoral. If I had to kill one innocent person in order to save a thousand people, it would still be wrong to kill that one innocent person. Now you can rationalize or justify yourself, but it doesn’t make the act right or good. It isn’t about the outcome. Heck, little babies are adorable, but that doesn’t make two unwed 14 year olds having sex and getting pregnant good. Their behavior is still immoral, even if good results.
I wonder what you think about that?
I think you still aren’t getting my argument. It’s not simply about the greater good. It’s about the individual human person. It’s because we are individuals and not just statistics. It’s because we are all unique individuals with dignity and value why we know right and wrong exist. It isn’t a survival of the fittest or even creating some eventual utopia at the expense of others in the process. All morality comes down to how we view/treat the human person right here and now. If we recognize the dignity in one another, then we will know what is right/good.

Our value is in being a human person. Full stop. It isn’t dependent on our intelligence or what we are able to contribute or the color of our skin or our gender or our stage of development (elderly, toddler, or unborn). If we value all human persons then right and wrong isn’t really difficult to know. We get into difficulty when we start to value some human beings over others, or when we decide that the value of a human person is dependent on subjective opinion.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #67

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 66 by RightReason]
RightReason wrote:... I actually find utilitarianism immoral. If I had to kill one innocent person in order to save a thousand people, it would still be wrong to kill that one innocent person...
OK. So I think you would agree with Kant, that humans should always be treated as ends in themselves, and never as means to ends. That is a solid position, and really quite respectable.
...If we value all human persons then right and wrong isn’t really difficult to know. We get into difficulty when we start to value some human beings over others, or when we decide that the value of a human person is dependent on subjective opinion...
But I want to ask, do you think it would it have been moral to assassinate Hitler in, say, late 1939, and bring to an end the second world war, and prevent the holocaust, and effectively save millions of lives? If so, we are agreed that outcomes, if not deciding, at least have traction on the morality of an action. If not, what makes Hitler's life more morally weighty than the 6 million or so Jewish, and the countless other communist, and gypsy, and homosexual, and mentally and/or physically disabled victims of his regime?

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #68

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote:
I don’t understand why you think morality needs to be or even could be subjective in order for man’s life to have meaning/purpose.
Hmmm. That is not quite my position.

I actually think morality is objective, too. I think that God, who loves us, wants our best interests realised, and His Will for us is objective morality.

Our differences lie in the observation that He is omniscient, and knows our best interests, and how to bring them about, and we humans are not omniscient, and most often do not know our best interests, and even if we did, most often do not know how to bring them about. That gives us something of a puzzle to solve, even before we tackle the project of how best to live our lives. And that makes of our lives a non-trivial exercise. And that makes them constantly interesting.

But it does also mean that in order to make progress we have have to approach ethics with a becoming humility, which means admitting our ignorances, and the subjectivity of our conclusions.

Best wishes, 2RM

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #69

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 68 by 2ndRateMind]


But I want to ask, do you think it would it have been moral to assassinate Hitler in, say, late 1939, and bring to an end the second world war, and prevent the holocaust, and effectively save millions of lives?
Well, sure – actually, because it would fall under just war theory. It isn’t immoral to kill someone that is attacking you or those you love during times of war.
what makes Hitler's life more morally weighty than the 6 million or so Jewish, and the countless other communist, and gypsy, and homosexual, and mentally and/or physically disabled victims of his regime?
Nothing. It isn’t. All lives matter.

I don’t understand why you think morality needs to be or even could be subjective in order for man’s life to have meaning/purpose.


Hmmm. That is not quite my position.

I actually think morality is objective, too.
Good. That is the logical conclusion. So, you think morality is objective, but is not something man can know?

I take issue with this, because we act the very opposite. We in fact all operate with an understanding that truth is something we can know and what allows us to expect and in some cases even demand certain behavior from others.

In believing that truth exists, but human beings in their limitations are unable to know for sure if they are getting it right, causes or allows the kind of fallacious thinking of concluding therefore all we have are opinions. But that isn’t true. Imperfect knowledge is still knowledge and not simply opinion.

Simply admitting objective moral truth exists means by de facto that we can deviate from that truth. So, by claiming man can make mistakes and not get truth right, you are admitting there is a standard against which to judge that which is right and that which is wrong. If we couldn’t or didn’t know that than we couldn’t even be having this conversation. So, in fact it means we can and do know.

I think that God, who loves us, wants our best interests realized
I couldn’t agree more. And don’t you think He designed the world in a way in which we can know right/good from wrong/bad? As human beings, aren’t we able to figure out, based on this world we live in, what makes sense? Aren’t we capable of observing that say the lungs were designed to take in oxygen and help us breathe and that if say we smoke cigarettes that could actually have negative consequences on our body and so therefore could conclude based on design/purpose/function/man and his relationship with this world, cigarette smoking isn’t the best/smartest behavior for human beings? The conclusion in admitting and even declaring the harms of cigarette smoking is not subjective opinion or something only God could know. It is something via reason and observation all men can know.



,
and His Will for us is objective morality.
I agree – not so much that doing moral good for the sake of doing moral good is the end goal, rather doing moral good is Truth so yes, His will for us is Truth because He is Truth.

So, even though doing the right thing isn’t always easy, I think it is doable and it could only be doable if it is knowable.
Our differences lie in the observation that He is omniscient, and knows our best interests, and how to bring them about, and we humans are not omniscient, and most often do not know our best interests, and even if we did, most often do not know how to bring them about.
But we do most often know our best interests. It’s why as parents we can confidently tell our children to do this or that, because we in fact know it is in their best interest to do so. All human beings know it is not in our best interest to smoke crack cocaine every day. We all know it is not in our best interest to have sex with random strangers in public restrooms. We also know what can bring about good behavior vs. bad behavior. We know a kid that is encouraged to read the classics every day is more likely to have a brighter future than a child encouraged to watch porn every day. This is not subjective opinion.

But it does also mean that in order to make progress we have have to approach ethics with a becoming humility, which means admitting our ignorances, and the subjectivity of our conclusions.
Absolutely! And how does one admit what one is ignorant about if one does not acknowledge that we can know what we ought to know? You can only be ignorant of not knowing something if we know what that something is. And we do know, don’t we? Like I said, it isn’t always easy to do the right thing, even when we know what the right thing is, but it is something we can know.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #70

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote:If we value all human persons then right and wrong isn’t really difficult to know. We get into difficulty when we start to value some human beings over others, or when we decide that the value of a human person is dependent on subjective opinion.
RightReason wrote:
But I want to ask, do you think it would it have been moral to assassinate Hitler in, say, late 1939, and bring to an end the second world war, and prevent the holocaust, and effectively save millions of lives?
Well, sure – actually, because it would fall under just war theory. It isn’t immoral to kill someone that is attacking you or those you love during times of war.
RightReason wrote:
what makes Hitler's life more morally weighty than the 6 million or so Jewish, and the countless other communist, and gypsy, and homosexual, and mentally and/or physically disabled victims of his regime?
Nothing. It isn’t. All lives matter.
So, do you spot the inconsistency between these two positions? You think, in my opinion rightly, that we should value all lives. But you also think, in my opinion also rightly, that we should have assassinated Hitler the moment we declared war and had the chance. So, obviously, we do not value his life very highly, at all.

This, to my mind, is one of the problems with Kantian and deontological (rule based) ethical systems. For every rule made to cope with a complex phenomenon such as morality, and provide us guidance in a complex world, there seems to be one or more exceptions. And exceptions to the exceptions. And so on, ad infinitum. So that's an awful lot of rules to learn.

It might be easier just to find some principle that works invariably. If there is one.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Post Reply