I had this very interesting discussion on the article Malum Prohibitum. My opponent was stressing that I had no right to declare any crime as malum in se (wrong or evil in itself) because I could not present an objective point of reference as to what constitutes right and wrong.
When I told him that malum in se can be objectively identified as those acts that “cause direct or immediate harm to person or property” – crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and robbery – he said that this is not objective enough.
I then said that using science and reason we can objectively measure the damage or harm certain things cause, like a bullet to a man’s head. He then replied that what if the bullet is put in the head of Hitler, wouldn’t that change anything? I’ll answer no; murdering Hitler would still be malum in se. But if my opponent’s question implies the death penalty, it does complicate the issue. If malum in se means “direct or immediate harm to person or property”, why do certain states execute (fatally harm) their criminals when malum in se is supposed to transcend laws and governments?
Now the good thing about being a freethinker is that discussions like this can be a great learning experience. For some people, discussions mean defending one’s position – and pride – to death. But for the freethinker, the ego only comes second to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And I must say that this had been a great learning experience for me, forcing me to think and read up on the topic.
Let us first try to come up with a truly objective reference for malum in se. “Direct or immediate harm to person or property” was mentioned earlier, and that we can observe and/or measure this harm using science and logic. Let’s take the five examples of malum in se mentioned above:
1. Murder – heartbeat can be measured, and a lack of it can be observed.
2. Rape – physical, physiological, and psychological damage can be measured and/or observed.
3. Kidnapping – psychological and sometimes physical damage can be measured and/or observed in the victim, and if it is kidnap for ransom, damage to property can literally be measured in terms of money.
4. Theft – also damage to property that can literally be measured in terms of money.
5. Robbery – psychological and sometimes physical damage can be measured and/or observed in the victim, and damage to property can literally be measured in terms of money.
This looks clear and objective enough – until we tackle the death penalty again. What differentiates murder from penal executions in the context of malum in se? They both cause direct and lethal harm. So why do some states have the death penalty? If someone answers that the death penalty punishes and prevents serious crimes, I would say that a state has the power and resources to hold a prisoner for life; there is no need to kill him. And this really had me stumped for a while.
Then it hit me: semantics. I realized that I might have taken for granted the definition of malum in se as simply “wrong in itself”, and Wikipedia’s article being a stub didn’t help much. So I tried the online legal dictionaries and found this:
It appears that malum in se is not absolutely objective after all but that which is considered generally wrong by a civilized society, and one of its differences with malum prohibitum (“wrong because prohibited”) is that civilized societies may sometimes disagree on what should be malum prohibitum, but not malum in se; no civilized society today condones murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and robbery. And so when it comes to the death penalty, civilized societies simply haven’t agreed on this one, or at least not yet. (Same with abortion; civilized societies still do not have a general concensus as to whether or not a fetus can be called a person.)
As such, our secular morality (what is right and wrong in the context of malum in se) is based on what is beneficial to our survival and welfare as a civilized society. Humans are subjective, but they try to become as objective as possible using the disciplines of science and logic, and they get better over time in living peacefully amid the growing population. Just imagine if the world was already this crowded in the Stone Age or even during medieval times. Also, imagine that our technology and weaponry were already this advanced, but not our civility. Without laws to protect the rights of the weak, there would be no stopping man’s territorial instincts and greed from doing harm to humanity’s survival and welfare.
My opponent said that he doesn’t agree that our morality has improved over the centuries. He wrote:
“what i am saying is that “better” or “worse” cannot be proved. yes slavery for the most part has been abolished, women were allowed to vote, etc etc. but what of kindness? or love? or respect of human dignity? what of the increasing suicidal rates among developed countries? what of drug abuse? or pornography? or pedophilia? truth is evil existed then and also now.”
What is drug abuse and pornography compared to slavery? Sure, pedophilia is really bad, but we have serious laws against that now. But as for slavery, centuries ago certain governments (and the Bible) actually condoned it. What I’m saying is, while there are individuals today who do not respect the rights of others, our society or government will punish them for doing harm. As for suicide, we now have groups that offer help through counseling and suicide hotlines. It may not be perfect, but isn’t that clear, observable progress?
By the way, my opponent had also said:
“apart from a transcendent entity (one apart from us humans), there cannot be a truly objective point of reference for morality (what is right or wrong). this transcendent must describe morality, is highly moral (perfect, if you may), and must reveal itself to us so that our reasons are guided by its morality.”
I told him that I agreed but unfortunately, while it would be ideal to have a truly objective and perfectly moral reference point for morality, there simply isn’t one. To drive my point, I then asked him if he was willing to modify his statement into something like this:
“There is a transcendent entity (one apart from us humans) that is truly an objective point of reference for morality (what is right or wrong). This transcendent describes or has described morality, is highly moral (perfect, if you may), and reveals or has revealed itself to us so that our reasons are guided by its morality.”
And he said that he will assert that statement. Now I can’t wait to see him support that with hard evidence.
Some additions:
Innerminds wrote: " I told him that I agreed but unfortunately, while it would be ideal to have a truly objective and perfectly moral reference point for morality, there simply isn’t one." In other words, you have not find any reference where to based your knowledge about good and evil, right and wrong, true and false. It will be difficult for you to defend where you stand. Your opponent has a point reference which is "transcendent entity" or in common term called "God". But on your part, you have not find any. As an objective atheist, the point of reference of morality is REALITY (existence). This will lead us to the concept reality, existence. and needs a definitions or an understanding or grasp of what it is. (If we can't find the identify of God in reality, thus it does not exist. If God does not exits, then the point of reference of does not exist also, thus morality is irrational, subjective, intrinsic.) How about that?
Suicide is an act of choice by an individual alone. There are good reasons for committing suicide: a diseases, physical disability making your life miserable and others too; when you are in concentration camp,no freedom due to dictatorship like Hitlers making life impossible to be enjoyed freely. Life should not be like that and if there are no other possible means to enjoy life for the respect of it (life) suicide is good.
With regards to climate changes, I think we still enjoy our life. And we can still figure out how to cope for its changes. There are many factors affecting our climate. One major factor comes from our neighboring Sun; scientist has discovered the Sun's changes affeting our home planet Earth. The human factor is a minuscule compared to that.
The concept of GOOD and EVIL is a moral or ethical concept. Ethics is a general guide for human choices and actions; because every actions and choices of man affects his own individual life. Thus, the standard of ethics is HUMAN LIFE. By looking at reality, we can determined what is good and evil for our LIFE. Without life, there could be no morality or ethics or no need for any knowledge of what is good or evil. All natural events: earthquake, typhoon, tsunami, comets hitting the face of the earth are ALL NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL if there are no living organism in existence(Human is the highest form of living organism). Since we human exist we need to discover and learn the knowledge of what is good and bad for us. We must discover and learn morality in living with each other humans. We created and organized a government with a charter protecting an individual person from the government itself and from the mob or crowd for using physical force. The basis of it all is the absolute (definite)reality, existence.
In short my point is: LIFE IS STANDARD OF GOOD AND EVIL. Humans must discover,identify,learn and understand that morality or ethics is connected to our individual life.
I myself don't believe in pure evil and pure good, pure right and pure wrong. I don't want to judge things in absolutes, or black and white, but subjectively depending on the situation. For example, killing is bad when it takes lives, but good when it saves them (like when done in self-defense or when protecting others). I'm sure "malum in se" as the law terminology has its uses. But I'm leaning on the idea that in this world, there is no such thing as inherently good or inherently evil or "malum in se".
another question, what about intergenerational justice. is the lack of intergenerational justice also an example.
intergenerational justice is when one generation of humans gain while another generation loses (or will likely lose). an example is climate change — the story is that people today enjoy the benefits of polluting, while the bad effect of pollution, climate change, will be a problem the next generation will largely face.
is this an example too?
From the moment we discovered fossil fuel and invented synthetic substances and materials we were already starting to pollute our planet. But as population exploded and industrialization boomed, we got 'better' at destroying our planet.
Decades ago very few people took climate change seriously. Now it is a topic of discussion among state leaders. Scientists are closely studying the effects of every source of pollution and its damage to the environment. More importantly, governments now have laws against pollution.
Decades ago it was not so hard to cut trees for lumber, or to dump garbage into the oceans and rivers. Try doing that now.
is suicide an example too? isnt suicide murdering one's self?
Hi GabbyD! Legally, murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of ANOTHER human being without justification or excuse". Taking one's own life does not fall under murder in this definition.
But let's say that in layman's terms suicide can be called 'murdering' oneself. So what? If I committed suicide, would I be physically harming others? Also, like I said in the article, we now have groups that offer help through suicide hotlines and counseling. And that is a clear sign that civilized societies are taking suicide seriously.
so, physically harming others is the criterion?
so theft isnt an example? after all, its just material possessions, right?
or is monetary damage the criteria? if so, suicide would also be a problem, if say, suicide happens to hurt other people monetarily. its easy to come up with examples — say a father kills himself, leaving his children without a father.
setting aside that example, consider people who dont have connections to other people. say the most contact with others is buying a burger from a fast food restau, and he lives by himself. if he kills himself, he is still hurting others by not being alive to help them. i.e. the principle is, while u are alive, u retain the power to be a positive influence on those around you, which will end when he kills himself.
The point is, civilized societies try to prevent suicide through hotlines and counseling. And anybody 'caught' in an attempted suicide will be closely monitored (usually in a hospital or clinic) to prevent him/her from doing it again. But unfortunately we simply cannot punish 'successful' or 'consummated' suicides. What do we do, arrest them?
at this point, i'm just trying to understand the concept of malum in se by working thru specific acts.
ex. suicide?
ex. climate change?
There are some people have a weak grasp of consequences. I cannot fault them because the system of education is seriously flawed, and only the first arbiter of their failure to apply reason is themselves.
Its sad that the time to reflect on the iteration of consequences of certain actions have to compete with "metaphysical" contemplations.
To observe even the simplest leap of reason, surpassing the first consequence in the chain of events, difficult to realize. Working back, at several links of causality leads back to the church and their crusade of authority against reason.
No other link perpetuates flawed reasoning with such potency.
Awesome work Innerminds!
Thanks, Justin! Pinahirapan ako ng kaibigan natin eh. 😀
On the other hand, those who claim to have a "transcendent" objective morality where they base their morality were the ones who committed a lot of atrocities and malum in se. Even the transcendent point committed or permitted atrocities and malum in se. That's the irony.
Of course, one could argue that that transcendent objective morality who permitted and committed these atrocities is not the REAL transcendent objective morality.
😀
There were many people before (mostly freethinkers and godless with respect to the traditional gods [atheists, agnostics, pantheists, deists]) who had a very peaceful, meaningful, moral lives. They had contributed a lot of good to society (and in sciences, & philo). They did not commit any atrocities or any malum in se. AND they dont have (at least in my knowledge) a "transcendent" point (God) to base their morality.
@f241vc15, Igme – Hope they don't have to cgi his muscles. Also hope Nat Portman doesn't come across whiny like she was in Episode III. lol. I'm pretty sure it will be worth seeing.
Were we also discussing polytheism? There is so much paganism in modern day religion – particularly catholicism – that it has to amount to polytheism. So fundamentally speaking, it seems a small departure from the other 'isms' the world has come to know.
Twin-skies clarified the catholic position well, though. The problem with many catholic followers, however, is that they have a hard time drawing the line between veneration and worship. To me, the Church kind of encourages that behavior.
I forgot to add that, it would have even been better if you made the case for utilitarianism.
Thanks, Soulgasm! 🙂 As for utilitarianism, I think I will tackle that in another article that focuses on what should be right instead of what should be wrong (malum). Or would you care to write one yourself? 🙂