Moral Luck

[Talishi]

Two men get drunk, then get in their cars and attempt to drive home.

One of them blacks out and runs off the road to the right, where he sleeps it off in the ditch.

The other one blacks out and runs off the road to the left, where he kills a pedestrian.

Both men performed precisely the same actions, except that chance intervened in the latter case, making him culpable for manslaughter.

The lesson is that the world is a chaotic place where simple black and white moral rules like “Yer either with me or yer with Qaeda!� handed down from on high are not cut out to deal with it. Divine command theory is as ineffective as central planning proved to be in managing a nation’s economy. In reality, even morals and ethics are subject to the principle of the market, also known, in a biological context, as natural selection.

In places like Ireland, where the Catholic Church was the final moral authority for centuries, the people have risen up to strip the Church of power when the sexual abuse of their children by the very arbiters of that moral authority reached a tipping point. From time immemorial, neighbors have risen up to deal with wife abusers or cat burglars when the local constable refused to do anything about them.

For debate:

Is morality handed down from on high, as a black and white proposition, or is morality subject to the uncounted variables that form the fabric of life as we know it?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

I'm not sure I understand your question, and from the lack of responses, I don't think others do either. Are you asking is there a moral law giver, a god, or do we make up our own morals?
Maybe you could rephrase your question. As to the scenario about the drunk drivers, my thoughts are this: In modern society, it is considered wrong to drink and drive and there are laws forbidding it, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral by any religious laws. Both drivers broke traffic laws. One was a lot more fortunate than the other. Stuff happens.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

Two men get drunk, then get in their cars and attempt to drive home.

One of them blacks out and runs off the road to the right, where he sleeps it off in the ditch.

The other one blacks out and runs off the road to the left, where he kills a pedestrian.

Both men performed precisely the same actions, except that chance intervened in the latter case, making him culpable for manslaughter.

The lesson is that the world is a chaotic place where simple black and white moral rules like “Yer either with me or yer with Qaeda!� handed down from on high are not cut out to deal with it. Divine command theory is as ineffective as central planning proved to be in managing a nation’s economy. In reality, even morals and ethics are subject to the principle of the market, also known, in a biological context, as natural selection.

In places like Ireland, where the Catholic Church was the final moral authority for centuries, the people have risen up to strip the Church of power when the sexual abuse of their children by the very arbiters of that moral authority reached a tipping point. From time immemorial, neighbors have risen up to deal with wife abusers or cat burglars when the local constable refused to do anything about them.

For debate:

Is morality handed down from on high, as a black and white proposition, or is morality subject to the uncounted variables that form the fabric of life as we know it?

Replace "subject to" with "are a product of" and I'm on board.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

I'm not sure I understand your question, and from the lack of responses, I don't think others do either.

Then you are jumping to your conclusion.
You might not understand the question.

I thought it was exceptionally clear.

To imagine that you know the reason why people aren't flocking.. is to imagine that you have all of that data.

I'm really very skeptical of that.

I think that you are JUMPING from YOUR confusion TO "everyone is confused, too".
That's a leap too far for me.


In modern society, it is considered wrong to drink and drive and there are laws forbidding it, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral by any religious laws. Both drivers broke traffic laws. One was a lot more fortunate than the other. Stuff happens.

[/quote]

You missed the point of the question.

Is that moral issue dictated from on high... say, from God of the Bible, or from people, who have to decide, case by case, what is wrong and what is right?

Many fundamentalist Christians, for example, will debate that morality MUST come from God... and they know what's right or wrong by reading the Bible.

If it's NOT ok in the Bible, it's wrong.
If it's OK in the Bible, it's right.

I think they might want to refer to the Ten Commandments, that supposedly come direct from God, for example. These people will say something is MORAL because it's from God.

[bluethread]

Your example ignores the facts of the judgement. In the one case a man was slaughtered, in the other case, one was not. The difference is not a matter of chance, but a matter of subordinating one's judgement to factors that are within ones control. The one did not go left and the other right for no reason. Whatever the factors, the driver in both cases decided to subordinate his judgement to those factors. In the one case the decision was justified, in the other it was not. If each driver was sober and just let go of the steering wheel, we would not say the results were a matter off chance.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

The difference is not a matter of chance, but a matter of subordinating one's judgement to factors that are within ones control.

If a person has blacked out, there is no control.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 4 by Blastcat]

"To imagine that you know the reason why people aren't flocking.. is to imagine that you have all of that data."

I was stating my opinion, not declaring a fact.
____________________________________________________________________

"You missed the point of the question.

"Is that moral issue dictated from on high... say, from God of the Bible, or from people, who have to decide, case by case, what is wrong and what is right?"

If you will go back and read my response you'll see that happens to be the same question I asked Talishi in post 2. I was seeking clarity. I maintain that Talisha's debate question lacks that. She asks:

"Is morality handed down from on high, as a black and white proposition, or is morality subject to the uncounted variables that form the fabric of life as we know it?"

I suppose my one-cell brain had trouble processing that last part. To me, that phrase is wordy and vague. You paraphrased the question much better and Plumbus Grumbo in post 3 made a good suggestion.

At any rate, thanks for your response!

[Blastcat]

"To imagine that you know the reason why people aren't flocking.. is to imagine that you have all of that data."

I was stating my opinion, not declaring a fact.

Oh,... ok.
You're entitled to that.

I suppose my one-cell brain had trouble processing that last part. To me, that phrase is wordy and vague. You paraphrased the question much better and Plumbus Grumbo in post 3 made a good suggestion.

At any rate, thanks for your response!

Yw.
I think the last part was a little bit vague too.
Happens all the time.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Talishi]

Morally both are murderers. It's like shooting a gun and missing, the intent was there, and by getting drunk their intent to kill was there.

By intent I mean that they were willing to risk the consequences of drunk driving.

Legally the punishment has to fit the crime and drink driving should be less than drink driving with manslaughter.

I feel you jumped from an interesting philosophical point to your conclusion too quickly. Certainly your case wasn't made.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by Wootah]





[center]Let's reason this out[/center]

I feel you jumped from an interesting philosophical point to your conclusion too quickly. Certainly your case wasn't made.

I think that's a very good point.
The moral dilemma is a good one.

It raises the issue how to SOLVE it.
I think it's going to take reasoning, and NOT any Bible verse, or prayer or divine inspiration.

In fact, perhaps the Christian might be at a disadvantage if he has to scour the Bible for inspiration first. The secular moralist can just go ahead and reason it out unencumbered by "backing it up in scripture", too.



I think that we can at least say that both drivers are guilty of SOMETHING.


They both drink and drive to the point of blacking out.
That's a LOT of booze right there.

Our modern cars are like deadly weapons at that point.
Makes a real good case for driverless cars.
I'm all for it.

Then people could get as loaded as they wanted to get. Some of the features to those cars might be a front seat bucket and a washroom in the back.

( I'd like a mini bar )

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Who has the moral advantage in figuring this out?
  The Christian or the non-believer?
  
  

____________