In law, a crime can be categorized as either malum prohibitum (“wrong because prohibited”) or malum in se (“wrong or evil in itself”). In a civilized community, murder, rape, theft, robbery, and kidnapping are generally perceived as mala in se regardless of where they were committed or even if there were no written laws punishing them. On the other hand, illegal possession of drugs or firearms and traffic and tax violations are mala prohibita – crimes in certain societies because their statutes made them crimes.
It isn’t hard to see why some acts were criminalized since they compromise public welfare. Offenses involving drugs, firearms (possession), and driving are mala prohibita because they “result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize”. A drug user may enjoy his ‘trip’ peacefully, but there is the possibility that later on his addiction will lead him to steal, rob or kill to support his habit. A man carrying a gun might be a very responsible owner, but what if ego and testosterone take over during an altercation? Beating the red light may not be the same as deliberately hitting another vehicle, but it greatly increases the risk of collision.
Other crimes, on the other hand, are debatable (and have actually been the subject of widespread debate) as far as their rationality, logic and sensibility are concerned. I just mentioned a possible reason behind drug laws, but marijuana advocates over the world are clamoring for legalization, insisting that it is very much harmless compared to other drugs, including alcohol.
In the novel Primal Fear, there is a part that mentions malum prohibitum and malum in se:
“Malum prohibitum is the way society defines the limits of acceptable behavior. So if everybody in the country wants to drink booze and booze is against the law, the law gets changed. But malum in se never changes. If everybody in the country suddenly went kill-crazy, they wouldn’t legalize murder.”
In the first half of the twentieth century there were certain periods in the United States and other countries when alcohol was illegal – not just the consumption in certain places or times, but also the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of it. But the people loved their drink, and through their elected representatives they eventually managed to have the prohibition lifted.
Now let us see how malum prohibitum and malum in se apply to religion by taking a look at the Ten Commandments:
1. “You shall have no other gods before me” – malum prohibitum and does not even compromise public welfare
2. “You shall not make for yourself an idol” – malum prohibitum
3. “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God” – malum prohibitum
4. “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” – malum prohibitum
5. “Honor your father and mother” – malum prohibitum. M. Scott Peck, MD said that this is probably the commandment that did the greatest damage (although I disagree with him because the term used was ‘honor’ and not ‘obey’) because there are psychologically sick parents who make their children do sick things, and a child who follows this ‘divine’ commandment would surely do what his/her parents say lest his/her days will not be long.
6. “You shall not commit adultery” – malum prohibitum but also touches on morality issues
7. “You shall not murder” – malum in se
8. “You shall not steal” – malum in se
9. “You shall not bear false witness” – malum in se, causing direct and immediate harm to a person’s honor and might even risk the his/her property, liberty, or life
10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or goods” – malum prohibitum. It is one thing to covet (immoderately desire), but it’s totally another thing to act on this desire.
Out of the Ten Commandments, only three can be considered mala in se – murder, theft, and bearing false witness. The rest are mala prohibita and do not even compromise public welfare. The Commandments do not mention rape, plunder, and child abuse, and these acts were clearly condoned and even commissioned in the Bible. Most of its ‘laws’ are about pleasing the religion’s deity, who is actually also guilty of murder and genocide (Sodom and Gomorrah, the great flood, killing of the firstborn, etc.).
Now all this begs the question: Is religion (and the Ten Commandments) an ideal basis for what is right and wrong? Should our society’s morality be based on what the Church declares as moral and immoral? Governments have created laws to punish and prevent every imaginable mala in se crime. However, religions seem to focus on malum prohibitum, and the things they prohibit do not even compromise public welfare, but simply undermine the source of their power and authority.
* * * * *
Related article: Malum In Se
http://www.sencha.com/forum/member.php?270115-bla…
http://www.ourstage.com/profile/zupmrebiwowv http://www.gamezebo.com/members/ampero http://spaceelephant.com/pg/profile/everlum
http://www.topo.com/users/219840
http://pledgie.com/campaigns/15253
http://creativebits.org/user/stobs
http://educationarcade.org/user/172118
http://www.tristanjarred.com/Forum/smf_1-1-3_inst… http://www.ulsantm.com/board/?doc=bbs/gnuboard.ph… http://forum.pinklinker.info/showthread.php?3478-… http://mybebook.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&… http://bmcgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17033.new#…
welcome.
same way i appreciate the "bullshit" comments by "freethinkers" in the article on karma. very mature, objective and insightful!
this article is bullshit! nonsense
Thank you for the very objective, very mature, and very insightful comment. I've learned a lot from it. 😀
"this article is bullshit! nonsense"
–> These kinds of comments are actually welcomed… As long as you have a good argument to back you up, and cite valid sources for it. Otherwise, you're just an uninteresting, stupid troll, and we'll be skewering your ass right before handing it back to ya.
Very nice post, I enjoyed reading it.
The fable of the "ten commandments" and the "ten commandments" themselves are poor, third hand rewrites of an earlier story and rules. They were not anything original, merely local versions of rules that travelled with traders.
The old testament dates back roughly 2500 years ago (not the 3500 that the religious will claim), while the Code Of Hammurabi dates back roughly 3800 years. Sumeria and Palestine are only 800 kilometres apart, and both were stops along the Silk Road from India and China to Europe (2000-2400 years ago). It should not surprise that history and fiction in one place travels and becomes entire fiction in another (see: the Indian name Krishna, warped into "kristos"). Other kingdoms of that region also had similar legal codes based on Hammurabi's.
As for the fable, in Sumeria, Hammurabi climbed a local mountain. The Sumerian "god" Marduk allegedly shone light from the sky, burning the code into stone, almost like a laser. Wow, that sounds nothing like the fiction of the buybull does it? (It's called the buybull because one must buy the bull**** to believe it.)
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
wow, i never thought that some commandments in the ten commandment are wrong because the normies said so. Because of this many died for their ideas and beliefs and i wish that they make rules concerning the lives of the people rather than praising their deity.
Malum in se means "wrong or evil in itself". Does it mean an action or an events is considered wrong or evil independent, separate and no connection to human beings? Can we say, for example, earthquake, typhoon, tsunami, and other natural calamity as evil in itself, separate, independent or not connected to human living here on earth? How about killing other person? What is the difference between killing during wartime and killing during peacetime? Does killing a person evil in itself without any connection to the person who did it and to the person being killed?; without any connections to the person why or what drives him to do it? Killing during the war, the reason is for self-defense against the enemy, the same reason during peacetime, for self-defense, retaliation and deterence against the use of physical force (This is the only function of the government: to protect individual right to his own life). Now we asked, is it good or evil to kill a person? As an objective atheist, my answer is: IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION AFFECTING YOUR OWN LIFE. But for the TEN COMMANDMENTS issued by religion, it is outright declared evil regardless of any reason or situations. This leads to injustice here on earth. But religion will tell you will have justice beyond or after this life on earth: the victim will be in heaven and the killer will be in hell.
My whole point is this: morality/ethics, the knowledge of what is good and evil is based on the facts of reality. (the relationship between existence and human life). The standard is LIFE, your own individual life. And the only function of the government is to protect that inallienable right to your own life.
@Brian:
Here's the problem that i see with your TOM:
1.)Euthyphro Dilemma
->Is what is moral commanded by TOM (God) because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by the TOM?
2.)Modern Issues
->How will the TOM face the modern issues?
3.)Identity (and the means)
->Who or what is this TOM? How will the TOm tell us the right choice?
@Brian:
You said: you have proclaimed such whimsical commands as morally bad. by whose standard do you say so? note that apart from a TOM there can be no such other standard (since i have shown that all other things are subjective, innerminds agrees to this). your objection can only be valid under is a TOM exists. but that is the one which you are trying to disprove. your argument, apart from a TOM, is invalid.
—>I consider these acts (gratuitously inflict pain or sacrifice children or rape) immoral because they cause damage to another person. But these acts would be "good"/moral as long as your TOM commands it. Am I right? You did not respond if these acts are GOOD as long as it is commanded by the TOM.
You said: i am showing you that your judgments do not hold water until you posit a TOM. i have consistently argued this. you are asking for a proof of TOM; i am telling you that unless you posit TOM, your judgments there is no opportunity for objective debates.
—>I can only assume an X. But I dont think I will really base my morals into it.
You said: point taken, but this is hardly a proof of TOM’s non-existence. it doesn’t mean that since there are plenty of TOM claims, a singular TOM does not exist. that is why i say as intellectual seekers, it is therefore a noble pursuit to sift thru these TOMs and intellectually determine which stacks up to reality best.
—> Then finding/searching for a TOM would be subjective then. A person can have different TOM than you. For me searching for a "transcendent" objective morality is just a waste of time. We cant even identify it. As a freethinker (who values reason, knowledge, and logic), i would rather base what is good/bad on the commonality of human nature and our best understanding of our idividual and joint interests.
You said: why problematic? because there are many TOM’s proposed? the problem then is not to dismiss all TOM’s, but to *think* which is the most logical. 🙂
—> Even the existence of a TOM is illogical and very subjective (which many Freethinkers here agree). We do not know the identity AND the means on how to ask what is good or bad. We do not also even know if the command of a TOM is really good. You only assumed that it is good because it is the TOM. Instead of searching for the unknowable and unverifiable TOM, I (or we) would rather search for the most logical and reasonable basis for morality.
You said: apart from a TOM, there can *never* be a basis for good moral. THAT is the main contention. good moral depends on an objective morality (how can it be good unless it is subjective). objective morality must be transcendent. your statement, without a TOM, is not logical.
—> I beg to disagree. We can still be good even if there's no Transcendent basis for morality. I do not rape because I know that raping would cause damage to others and myself (in the future as a consequence). ANd i do not rape any1 NOT because I base that decision on a TOM.
Your TOM is also subjective.
I would really suggest we transfer this discussion on the forum @brian.
First you two have to have a Topic (like is there a TOM?) and then assign who will taje on the negative and postive. then someone neutral should facilitate the debate (moderator).
I think you two should also consider the number of words in each post and the time (days) it will be posted.
Good luck on the both of you 😀
@innerminds: i see… you have just pronounced judgment in your article, and i was wrong to think that you can defend those judgments. now you say that you *still* don't know whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality.
in this article alone, you have judged Bible-believing humans in the world as "wrong" in adhering to a moral code (the ten commandments), while in fact you are not sure where you get your sense of "wrongness". more to the point, you are still hoping in the future that somehow, somewhere, it will be revealed to you and finally you will have some bearing of a sound, objective morality.
tell me, my friend, and i ask you with all due respect as a fellow freethinker: how is that fair?
Just because I can't prove there is an absolute objective standard to define right or wrong doesn't mean I can't render my own judgment. I judged religion to be not an ideal basis for morality and I gave my reasons. And you are free to argue with them. Come to think of it, why don't you give your arguments as to why I was wrong to say that religion (and the Ten Commandments) is not an ideal basis for moral standards? 😀
Also, this will be the third time that I ask you to support this assertion of yours with evidence: “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.”
You have avoided this twice already. Now tell me, my friend, and I ask you with all due respect as a fellow freethinker: how is that fair? 😀
ADDENDUM: Was I wrong to think that you can actually defend your assertion of a transcendent, perfectly-moral objective reference point for morality? 😀
Hi Brian,
So if "it is willed" therefore good, then again it is very problematic. The TOM's command are arbitrary (based on pure whimsy and caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons. Also if "it is willed", anything goes. Anything could be "good" or "bad". "To gratuitously inflict pain" or "to hold an annual sacrifice of children" could be good if it is commanded by the TOM. These are still morally bad. And we would be obligated to do so because it is commanded/told to be true/good (assuming if we base our actions on TOM).
Now you can argue that the TOM would not command/promote slavery/killing homos because they are immoral, but then it would show that morality is independent from the TOM.
You said "this really depends on the nature of TOM’s revelation. prayer or written revelation could work if the TOM chooses to reveal it as such.",
–>how will the command reveal? Sacred texts? Again, @Brian, if you cannot show us the means and importantly its identity, then your TOM would be useless. No one can use it. We cannot use it. Are we just gonna ask X for the answers and wait?
You said "when there is a claim for TOM from another, only one could be the true TOM. otherwise, everything is subjective, which defeats the whole idea of TOM.",
–>but the reality Brian is that many claim to have TOM's. Each religion has its own TOM wherein they base their morality.
You said "you are right! the default position therefore is unethical-ness. there is a need therefore to posit TOM in order for us to make credible judgments on anything. this is exactly the problem of innerminds: because he does not posit a TOM, he can only be unethical, and whatever moral judgments he gives does not hold water.",
–>I am not saying that we should have a TOM to make judgments. I am also not defending subjective morality. I am just opposing to your TOM. I just find your TOM problematic. You may find other basis for morality (say Reason and Logic) problematic, but I find TOM more problematic than the other moral philosophies/basis (or i find other philosophies as better).
Our job as freethinkers is not to seek this TOM but to seek a good moral basis for our actions. Unfortunately, I find your TOM problematic based on my reasons I gave and the issues it faces.
You said: “To gratuitously inflict pain” or “to hold an annual sacrifice of children” could be good if it is commanded by the TOM. These are still morally bad. And we would be obligated to do so because it is commanded/told to be true/good (assuming if we base our actions on TOM).
–> you have proclaimed such whimsical commands as morally bad. by whose standard do you say so? note that apart from a TOM there can be no such other standard (since i have shown that all other things are subjective, innerminds agrees to this). your objection can only be valid under is a TOM exists. but that is the one which you are trying to disprove. your argument, apart from a TOM, is invalid.
You said: Now you can argue that the TOM would not command/promote slavery/killing homos because they are immoral, but then it would show that morality is independent from the TOM.
–> i will not argue that 🙂
You said: how will the command reveal? Sacred texts? Again, @Brian, if you cannot show us the means and importantly its identity, then your TOM would be useless. No one can use it. We cannot use it. Are we just gonna ask X for the answers and wait?
–> i am showing you that your judgments do not hold water until you posit a TOM. i have consistently argued this. you are asking for a proof of TOM; i am telling you that unless you posit TOM, your judgments there is no opportunity for objective debates.
you said: but the reality Brian is that many claim to have TOM’s. Each religion has its own TOM wherein they base their morality.
–> point taken, but this is hardly a proof of TOM's non-existence. it doesn't mean that since there are plenty of TOM claims, a singular TOM does not exist. that is why i say as intellectual seekers, it is therefore a noble pursuit to sift thru these TOMs and intellectually determine which stacks up to reality best.
you said: I am not saying that we should have a TOM to make judgments. I am also not defending subjective morality. I am just opposing to your TOM. I just find your TOM problematic. You may find other basis for morality (say Reason and Logic) problematic, but I find TOM more problematic than the other moral philosophies/basis (or i find other philosophies as better).
–> why problematic? because there are many TOM's proposed? the problem then is not to dismiss all TOM's, but to *think* which is the most logical. 🙂
you said: Our job as freethinkers is not to seek this TOM but to seek a good moral basis for our actions.
–> apart from a TOM, there can *never* be a basis for good moral. THAT is the main contention. good moral depends on an objective morality (how can it be good unless it is subjective). objective morality must be transcendent. your statement, without a TOM, is not logical.
@Discreet Infidel: you raise very good points, i have to say 🙂
you said, "That above is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is what is moral commanded by T.O.M. (God or X) because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by the T.O.M.?"
it is moral because it is commanded by TOM. and anything commanded by TOM is moral. this is possible when we posit that the nature of this TOM is morality itself. there is therefore none good but this TOM. it doesn't have to be a dilemma. 🙂
you said, "How do we know that the T.O.M.’s decision/command is really good?"
if we accept that TOM is itself morality, there is no need to verify its claims. this is logical, because if we still need to verify, the proposed TOM is not a TOM therefore. by definition, TOM is absolutely objective.
you ask, "How can we “ask” the T.O.M.? Praying? Wishful thinking? How? "
this really depends on the nature of TOM's revelation. prayer or written revelation could work if the TOM chooses to reveal it as such.
you said, "Then the T.O.M. is debatable. I mean you can have your own T.O.M. and others can reasonably argue theirs."
when there is a claim for TOM from another, only one could be the true TOM. otherwise, everything is subjective, which defeats the whole idea of TOM.
you said, "We cannot face ethical issues if we do not know these things. So are you gonna be unethical until you can know or find who/what is the TOM?"
you are right! the default position therefore is unethical-ness. there is a need therefore to posit TOM in order for us to make credible judgments on anything. this is exactly the problem of innerminds: because he does not posit a TOM, he can only be unethical, and whatever moral judgments he gives does not hold water.
in order for morality to make sense therefore, there ought to be a TOM. now certainly there are different claims for which is a true TOM. as truth is exclusive in nature, there can only be one TOM.
our job, as true freethinkers, is to seek this TOM, with all intellectual humility we can muster. it is only reasonable.
@innerminds: you said, "Just because I can’t prove there is an absolute objective standard to define right or wrong doesn’t mean I can’t render my own judgment."
please read your statement again. read it carefully. not only is it illogical, it is highly dangerous.
my main contention:
1. humans have a sense of right or wrong (morality)
2. this right or wrong is absolute because truth by definition is absolute; it cannot be subjective or relative
3. if there is a moral law, there ought to be a moral law giver — one who is apart from humans in order for it to be truly objective
you have pronounced this line of thinking as reasonable. and then you finally reveal that you are not sure of premise number 2. by doing so, you have indirectly said that you reserve the right to say that you may have been wrong in your article (in the future, when you shall have known whether morality is right or wrong). this is very unfair to all the humans you have judged — humans who, unlike you, are sure that morality is absolute and is revealed in the bible. to me, this is a cop out. and intellectually, this is just… sad.
you have waited for me this whole time to fall in your trap and pronounce God as the moral law giver. i will pronounce it as so, by virtue of point 3 (again, sound reasoning in your own words). note that this is not proof of His existence, but if there is any hope of your article (malum prohibitum, malum in se) making a semblance of sense, you will have to agree to a moral law giver.
i'm sure your will judge some more. and pass around judgments of "rightness" or "wrongness". but i would like to remind you, upon the very framework you have confessed to operate: you still don't know for sure where you get your judgments from. 🙂
@ Brian: How about we take this discussion to the FF forum because it will be easier to trace the progress of the thread and quote from certain parts of what the opponent wrote. I invite you to a formal debate. 😀
This is what I suggest for the structure:
1. The 1st post will be made by me, asserting my points (which should not be inconsistent with what I have asserted in my article "Malum Prohibitum").
2. The 2nd post will be made by you, asserting your points.
3. The 3rd post will still be yours, arguing against my assertions in Post #1.
4. The 4th post will be mine, arguing against your assertions in Post #2.
5. The 5th post will still be mine, defending my points in Post #1 against your arguments in Post #3.
6. The 6th post will be yours, refuting my arguments in Post #4.
7. The 7th post will still be yours, refuting my points in Post #5.
And so on.
Are you willing to join me in such formal debate? I could start a thread at the forum tonight. 😀
@innerminds: in that debate will you be making any judgments as to why i am right or wrong? because if you will, i would like to remind you that you still don't know why things are right or wrong in the first place (and you are still waiting in the future to be sure). 🙂
please be so kind as to save both our time and continue to think this through. intellectually, you have positioned yourself in a "wait and see" mode. you have to come into grips with morality, innerminds, and until then please reserve your judgments until you are sure. 🙂
In the debate I will be making FINAL and DEFINITE statements that you can refute. No more "wait and see" modes. 😀
Brian, here's the link to the formal debate thread at the FF Forum:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.p…
sorry, by saying there is more "wait and see" mode, are you abandoning your previously advertised stand of "waiting for a TOM to hit you" — ie, option 4?
if so, please clarify which stand you subscribe to now?
@ Brian:
I must admit that I took malum in se for granted. I never considered a TOM before, and this challenge of yours for me to present one in order objectively define what constitutes malum in se surely stumped me, and that's why I said I still didn't know.
But the good thing about being a freethinker is that discussions can be a great learning experience. For some people, discussions mean stubbornly defending one’s position – and pride – with every bit of argument one can come up with. But for the freethinker, the ego comes second to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. And I must say that this has been a great learning experience for me, forcing me to think and read up on the topic.
And because of this thinking and reading, I was able to come up with a definite stand on the TOM (thanks to you), which I will be presenting in the debate. And I assure you that the debate will not be a "wait-and-see"; I will be stating definite and final points that are not inconsistent with my assertions in the article Malum Prohibitum, and I will be taking a definite position on the TOM. In short, the formal debate will be not anything like this "learning" discussion; in the debate I will be putting everything I have learned from this discussion and state it in final, definite terms.
So let's start the debate already! 😀 I already started a thread and made an introductory post, stating a few formal guidelines to which I asked if you were okay with them or if you had other suggestions. Please put your next post in the forum instead of here in the blog site because it is easier to closely follow the progress of the thread there and to quote parts from the opponent's posts.
http://www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com/forum/viewtop…
@innerminds: thank you very much for making it clear, innerminds. i believe we can now move on with our discussion. let me break down you points if i may:
1. mala prohibitum crimes are subjective, depending on "popular belief". this calls for a definition of "popular belief" but as far as our discussions have gone, i assume this is a combination of statistical preference + custom of the land.
2. mala in se crimes are objective, in that they can be known by human reason based on the following factors:
2.1 science, and logic
2.2 survival and welfare (Fletcher)
here are my arguments:
1. you have judged Commandments 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 10 as mala prohibitum. i assume you are doing so because it is your preference and it is the custom of your land. you have also admitted that you may be wrong (in describing subjective morality, you said, "I could be wrong about my judgment.") in that case: i rest my case.
2. i have argued that science (and empiricism) are descriptive in nature. they tell us the nature of something. however, they cannot be used as a moral framework. for example, science will tell us that water at a temperature of 100 degrees celsius is hot. but it is beyond its role to dictate whether this fact is "right" or "wrong".
therefore, the mala in se crimes you claim to be objective are in fact so, because of your own judgement (as guided by criteria 2.1 and 2.2 above). based on your own reason, you have deemed these crimes as not giving "welfare" to humanity.
but i have argued at length that human reason is not objective. (see points above)
therefore: for mala in se crimes, you have deemed them absolute based on something that is not objective (human reason). logically, this cannot be true.
Is "immediate and direct injury to person and property" not objective enough for you as basis for malum in se? Injury can be measured by science, e.g., we can objectively measure the injuries caused by a bullet to a man's head.
Now let's hear this objective and transcendental moral reference point of yours. 😀
@innerminds: unfortunately, it is not enough. science can in fact measure a bullet inside a man's head. but it cannot determine such moral questions as: does it make it right if the head is Adolf Hitler's or Robert Mugabe's. such moral claims does not belong to science.
here is my claim: 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.
before i answer your question, let me ask: do you understand my reasoning? you might not subscribe to it, but i am curious if i make sense to you. 🙂
Your reasoning makes sense to me, and now that you phrased it that way, I actually subscribe to it! 😀 With a few minor points of disagreement, of course.
Brian wrote: "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."
– Agreed. Unfortunately, while it would be ideal to have a truly objective and perfectly moral reference point for morality, there simply isn't one. Now if you're going to bring up God, I must say that 'revealed' religions disagree with one another as to what God 'revealed' to them. How do we know which one is true? 😀
Let me share with you what the deists have to say about 'revelation':
"Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true."
To drive my point, can you modify your 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."
Are you willing to assert that statement or a similar version of it? 😀
i will assert that statement. and it is good know that you find it reasonable and are willing to subscribe to it. 🙂
now you said, "Unfortunately, while it would be ideal to have a truly objective and perfectly moral reference point for morality, there simply isn’t one."
may i know what made you arrive at this conclusion of its non-existence? is it because "‘revealed’ religions disagree with one another as to what God ‘revealed’ to them"? kindly clarify 🙂
Brian wrote: "i will assert that statement. and it is good know that you find it reasonable and are willing to subscribe to it. :)"
– Not so fast. What I am willing to subscribe to is your original statement: "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.”
But if you say, "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" – I am not willing to subscribe to that.
Brian wrote: "may i know what made you arrive at this conclusion of its non-existence? is it because “‘revealed’ religions disagree with one another as to what God ‘revealed’ to them?”
– 'Revealed' religions disagreeing with one another is only secondary to the fact that not one of them has ever proved that their deity exists, much less that their deity is perfectly moral. But I can't wait to see you try. 😀
I would choose a 4th option: We (or at least I) still don't know, and I am not ruling out the possibility that we might be able to know in the future.
Now as for to assertion: “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.”
Care to support that extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence? 😀
aha… maybe the question then for you is: do you agree that there is such a thing as objective morality? that is to say, are there ever statements that are truly "true" or "false"?
logically, you have 3 options:
1. agree that everything is subjective
2. agree that we can never know
3. agree that there is such a thing as objective morality
if you say 1, we will end our discussion. since by that assumption, you assert that sometimes our answers are right, sometimes wrong. i am not interested in an argument that ultimately will not ascertain anything.
if you say 2, i encourage you to continue to think this through. intellectually, you shall have resigned. and there will be no point arguing.
if you say 3 (and i was wrong to assume that you do), then you will have to give me a transcendent X. one that is purely objective. since you agree with my statement "apart from a transcendent entity (one apart from us humans), there cannot be a truly objective point of reference for morality", then you will have to posit entity X — ie, agree to its existence.
what do you think?
@innerminds: you said, "Also, you haven’t refuted or even denied Justin’s historical evidence that our morality standards are getting better."
Please refer to my comment in: January 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm. justin gave an arguable assertion. it hardly constitutes a proof. it seems to me that branched topic has reached an end.
you said, "Now as to your first paragraph, how about you define and describe this objective reference point of yours?"
in my thinking, morality cannot exist without an objective point of reference. as reference, some have proposed Human Reason, Statistics, 'Custom of the Land', and more recently, Happiness (with long term effects in mind). i have said my piece that all of them cannot be objective. before i answer your question, let me ask one first: do you then believe that morality has to be objective or do you say it is subjective?
note that your question already assumes that is is objective, and that we only need to know who is this moral law giver.
No. I don't believe that morality has to be objective. More importantly, I don't believe that morality IS objective. Most important of all, I don't believe that morality should be based on one religion's claims of 'divine revelation'.
But please indulge me with this objective morality reference point of yours. Who knows, I might change my mind. 😀
innerminds, if you don't believe morality is objective, why do you go around saying Commandments 6,7,8 are mala in se? if there is no such thing as objective morality, what makes you sure you are right?
🙁
intellectually, you have placed yourself in a position where your judgments and opinions do not hold water. if your judgments are just as true as everyone else's, who says killing is bad? or rape?
Commandments 6,7, and 8 are mala in se because they do immediate and actual harm to person or property. They have negative effects to survival and welfare.
You're right; by saying that some acts are malum in se, I am actually subscribing to an objective reference point – that of survival and welfare.
So let me to clarify my statement: I don't believe in an objective point of reference when it comes to malum prohibitum, especially for those acts that do not threaten or compromise welfare. 😀
Brian wrote: "do you believe that morality is subjective — ie, there is noone who can say absolutely what is right or wrong?"
– I believe morality is relative as far as malum prohibitum laws are concerned.
Brian wrote: "do you believe that morality is objective and can be dictated by 3 points of references: science, reason and logic, as you have raised above?"
– This is for malum in se crimes, those that cause direct or immediate harm to person or property. We can use science, reason, and logic to determine if certain acts are indeed directly or immediately harmful to person or property.
Brian wrote: "do you believe that morality is objective and is dictated by 2 points of references: survival and welfare (Fletcher)?"
– This goes for malum in se crimes. We have an objective reference point as to what constitutes malum in se, and that is survival and welfare.
Brian wrote: "all of the statements above you have invoked in one of your arguments. in order for us to have a truly constructive discussion, kindly clarify which view you subscribe to."
– My point is this: Malum in se is based on the objective reference points of survival and welfare. Malum prohibitum, on the other hand, should be based on popular belief.
Brian wrote: "based on your article, you have raised the questions: “Is religion (and the Ten Commandments) an ideal basis for what is right and wrong? Should our society’s morality be based on what the Church declares as moral and immoral?” you confessed later on that you do not believe so. you have outright relieved God of the responsibility to describe morality absolutely."
– Okay, how about you tell us how God describes morality absolutely? 😀
Sorry, you will have to clarify your stand for the rest of us who have read your article.
1. do you believe that morality is subjective — ie, there is noone who can say absolutely what is right or wrong?
2. do you believe that morality is objective and can be dictated by 3 points of references: science, reason and logic, as you have raised above?
3. do you believe that morality is objective and is dictated by 2 points of references: survival and welfare (Fletcher)?
all of the statements above you have invoked in one of your arguments. in order for us to have a truly constructive discussion, kindly clarify which view you subscribe to.
based on your article, you have raised the questions: "Is religion (and the Ten Commandments) an ideal basis for what is right and wrong? Should our society’s morality be based on what the Church declares as moral and immoral?" you confessed later on that you do not believe so. you have outright relieved God of the responsibility to describe morality absolutely.
now, what do you truly believe, innerminds? 🙂
But if you will look an objective transcendent point out there(if there is any), i think it is still no good. I mean, how do we know that a certain objective transcendent point is really telling us that a certain act is "good" or "bad"? Is it good/bad because that certain transcendent point says so? Or is an act good/bad because that objective transcendent point willed it to be good/bad?
Further, how about cloning, stem cell research, and genetic engineering? [How] can an objective transcendent point react to these issues? I think we must think these through independently.
@Discreet Infidel: finally, i think our discussion is moving along. 🙂
your raised 2 good points:
1. how do we know if the transcendent says one thing is right or wrong?
— my answer would have to be "because that certain transcendent says so" or it "willed it to be" so. we need to believe this since there will be no point in his objective-ness apart from it.
2. how can an objective transcendent react to such modern issues as stem cell research, cloning, etc?
— the transcendent should reveal it. otherwise, there is no point in his being the objective moral law giver unless he reveals what is truth. he can't be all too secretive. 😛
@Brian
If "because that certain transcendent says so", then it only shows that morality is independent from that transcendent point. It is not the source of morality. Its just the 'soucre of information of morality'.
Also, if "it willed it to be", then we still do not know if it is still really the "good". I mean what if it commands to kill or to discriminate or slavery?? Anything could be good/bad upon its commands.
Re: So this certain transcendent already know what to do with these issues (cloning, stem cell res., RH Bill)? Then what? Again, in order for us to solve these issues, we must think it through independently.
Lastly, i think there's really no point in believing in this transcendent objective point because we still do not know what/who it is. So, we'll just ask "X" if we want to know what is good/bad? 😀
all very good points, Discreet Infidel. 🙂
in fact if you follow your line of reasoning it will lead you to the following conclusions:
1. the only "good" therefore is the transcendent. it describes what "good" is, it is the source of what is "good", it is in fact the source of information for what constitutes morality (you worded it quite well). and anything is in fact good or bad according to its commands.
2. solving modern issues would require thinking through *and* asking the transcendent what is its will for this situations.
now, you can accept or deny these 2 conclusions. but logically speaking, our line of thinking has reached that final state.
you said, "i think there’s really no point in believing in this transcendent objective point because we still do not know what/who it is".
and so we seek it. we think who it may be (or what it is). there are many worldviews available, if we are truly committed to this line of thinking, and we accept intellectual fairness, it will only be fair to exam each of the worldview's claim if they stack up to reality.
@Brian I beg to disagree.
You write:
1. the only “good” therefore is the transcendent. it describes what “good” is, it is the source of what is “good”, it is in fact the source of information for what constitutes morality (you worded it quite well). and anything is in fact good or bad according to its commands.
My reply above: That transcendent objective morality (T.O.M.) is NOT the source of morality but merely a 'source of information' about morality. Do you see the difference? If the T.O.M. commands the good, then the T.O.M. bases its decision what to command on what is already morally good. Moral goodness here is independent of T.O.M. It is not really the source of morality because goodness already exist before the TOM issues any commands.
Further, if the T.O.M. "willed it to be good", then we really cannot determine if its will is good/bad. You only assumed that it always wills what is good. How do we know that its will is either good or bad? Are we gonna say that an act is good because the T.O.M. says so?
That above is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is what is moral commanded by T.O.M. (God or X) because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by the T.O.M.?
You write:
2. solving modern issues would require thinking through *and* asking the transcendent what is its will for this situations.
My reply: How can we "ask" the T.O.M.? Praying? Wishful thinking? How? How do we know that the T.O.M.'s decision/command is really good?
You write:
now, you can accept or deny these 2 conclusions. but logically speaking, our line of thinking has reached that final state.
My reply: I think this is far from the end. There are still issues above re: the T.O.M. that you need to face.
You write:
and so we seek it. we think who it may be (or what it is). there are many worldviews available, if we are truly committed to this line of thinking, and we accept intellectual fairness, it will only be fair to exam each of the worldview’s claim if they stack up to reality.
My reply: Then the T.O.M. is debatable. I mean you can have your own T.O.M. and others can reasonably argue theirs.
Thank you and good night 😀
Another problem that i see re: T.O.M. is that you (or we) do not know its identity and the means on how to ask what is good/bad.
Where/Who is this TOM? Which TOM should we follow? Why? How can we "ask"? (Since you said that we can face the modern issues by… and by "asking" the TOM)
We cannot face ethical issues if we do not know these things. So are you gonna be unethical until you can know or find who/what is the TOM?
yey brian!
How about this for a transcendent point of reference: Our survival as a species and the welfare of society. Survival and welfare are programmed in our physiology, so whatever harms or threatens to harm our species or society should be considered wrong, and whatever benefits our species or society should be considered right.
@innerminds: that's a good one. and in fact it has been proposed before by Joseph Fletcher (and quoted by pinoyatheist in https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/24/good-w….
my problem with this point of reference is that it is not entirely objective, isn't it? when it uses words like 'harm' or 'benefit' or 'safety' (Fletcher) it still opens itself up for human judgment to determine its rightness. for example, given this point of reference, how do we judge pornography? some will argue it is beneficial to humanity (i think most guys will), while other will say it is harmful (my girlfriend would… hehe) by virtue of its potential to generate unhealthy feelings of jealousy and hurt feelings (both of which are real undeniable feelings).
with this reference, abortion would probably be wrong, unless someone argues that a fetus is not a human.
so while this reference is transcendent, it might not entirely be objective.
As to the issue of pornography, society (or the majority) will decide whether it's beneficial, harmful, or harmless. Of course, we simply can't please everybody, but we need to please the majority. As I quoted from Primal Fear: "Malum prohibitum is the way society defines the limits of acceptable behavior."
Fortunately, our moral standards seem to get better over time as far as survival and welfare are concerned. A simple test: compare the average lifespan today with the average lifespan 1,000 years ago. And if you say that it's because of modern medicine, it was our desire for survival and welfare that drove us to continuously develop medicine in the first place instead of depending on faith healing.
sorry, innerminds, i have already argued the concept of 'majority rules' above. i said and i repeat: if the electorates’ preference changes (after all, what is election but statistics), rightness or wrongness now moves with time. therefore, 'majority rules' is hardly objective.
as to your second point: 'our moral standards seem to get better over time'. i have argued at length that there is no exhaustible proof to this statement. i will not argue some more as we are going in circles. 🙂
As to your second paragraph, I'll just have to point you to Justin's article and especially to the attached comic strip:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/28/war-we…
Also, you haven't refuted or even denied Justin's historical evidence that our morality standards are getting better.
Now as to your first paragraph, how about you define and describe this objective reference point of yours? 😀
Brian wrote: "how do we judge pornography? some will argue it is beneficial to humanity (i think most guys will), while other will say it is harmful (my girlfriend would… hehe) by virtue of its potential to generate unhealthy feelings of jealousy and hurt feelings (both of which are real undeniable feelings)."
– Just because your girlfriend (or other people's girlfriends) gets jealous or hurt if you watch porn doesn't mean it should be banned. Just don't watch it, or at least don't let her find out. 😀 Because some couples actually enjoy watching porn together. 😀
To add, why can't happiness be a measuring point. Rights were not something people fought because it was "owed" to them, people fought for rights because they were essential in allowing them to pursue happiness.
Slaves didn't initially fight for their freedom because it was some right, they fought because someone controlled them and they could not what was best for themselves.
The Philippine Revolution, is a classic example. People were not happy under spain because of the abuses and the unfairness inherent in not just the system but the culture. Thats why we had the revolutionaries and the reformers.
The Filipino was not pissed at the spaniards because they had rights, they were pissed because no one would enforce these rights when they wanted to start businesses, enter higher office, own land, get out of forced labor to work on their farm.
Filipinos were not pissed of at the friars because they were harmless people concerned with the very welfare of the flock; they were pissed because friars were free to steal land, have mistresses, force tithes, get into politics, slander them freely on the pulpit, and hold their eternal happiness hostage.
BTW, When Filipinos founded a church that would allow the freedom to pursue happiness, the church and Spain slaughtered 2000 civilians (The Hermano Pule massacre).
happiness cannot be a measuring point because it is not objective. it is difficult to defend hedonism as framework for morality.
case in point, cocaine addicts are happiest when they are under the influence. is an addict entitled to drugs because it makes him happy, making the whole act 'right'? can 'free drugs for all' be a viable ground for an uprising?
just to be clear: i am not in any way belittling the hard-earned freedom of the Filipinos. i will gladly sacrifice also for our country. all i am saying is 'happiness' alone cannot make an objective point of reference for morality.
Happiness, especially short-term happiness (as in the case of cocaine addicts), cannot be the SOLE measuring point. It has to be balanced with the general long term effect. And because of the capacity for reason, it is possible for humans to see beyond the here and now.
Agree… sadly, we just can't agree on what we see beyond the here and now. 🙁
once more: we need an objective point of reference apart from us.
Remember Desiderata? "Enjoy your achievements, as well as your plans." For humans, happiness doesn't have to rely on the present. We have the capacity to enjoy our past (achievements) as well as our future (plans). So like I said earlier, short-term happiness cannot be the SOLE measuring point, but it can be ONE of the measuring points, along with the medium- and long-term effects on self, society, and survival of the species.
Humans, with their reason, have the capacity to do just that – carefully weigh and balance the effects and even get better at it over time. We don't need an absolute standard. In fact, an absolute standard would even be detrimental.
Case in point: If we use the Bible as the sole objective point of reference in moral standards, we wouldn't have laws against rape today.
Brian wrote: "you are saying that what is right or wrong does not have to be true for everyone else."
– Remove the "else". What I'm saying is, right or wrong may not be beneficial or harmful for everyone, but it should be beneficial or harmful for the general majority.
Brian wrote: "in your article you have clearly judged commandments 7, 8 and 9 as malum in se, or “evil in itself”
– Yes, because they do immediate and actual harm to person or property. Your point is?
Brian wrote: "if there is no absolute standard, you might be wrong about your judgment."
– Correct. I could be wrong about my judgment. But the good thing is that my assertions and arguments are fair game and open for review and criticism by everybody else. And as long as we base our arguments on science, logic and reason, we continuously improve our methods and standards for seeking the truth.
Brian wrote: "by saying there is no absolute standard, you have deprived the world of truth."
– Care to explain what you mean by that? 😀
Brian wrote: "my judgments do not make sense. your judgments do not make sense. nobody else’s make sense."
– They can only make no sense if they are not based on science, logic and reason. We can both support our judgments with empirical evidence and logic. As long as we play along the rules of science and logic, we will make sense. Oh, it just hit me, how about this for an objective reference point for morality: science, reason and logic?
Brian: "so what is your article really saying then? it might just as well have said nothing."
Uhm…my article is saying that religion is not an ideal guide for malum prohibitum or for what should be prohibited. Care to refute that? 😀
innerminds, with this reply, i think you have answered my question below.
let me get this clear: you are now saying that morality does not have to be absolute. you are saying that what is right or wrong does not have to be true for everyone else. in fact you go so far as to say that "We don't need an absolute standard" and that it will be detrimental.
in your article you have clearly judged commandments 7, 8 and 9 as malum in se, or "evil in itself".
if there is no absolute standard, you might be wrong about your judgment. by saying there is no absolute standard, you have deprived the world of truth.
my judgments do not make sense. your judgments do not make sense. nobody else's make sense.
so what is your article really saying then? it might just as well have said nothing.
Still my point is not fully address. What disquaifies happiness. Really, if happiness cannot be a factor in measuring good, then why not just follow the zealots and get it over with?
Isn't the empirical method objective? The good and happiness of people can measured and the data collected. Where is the relative aspect there?
I'm not suprised about a world view that doesn't factor in the happiness of others as well as themselves, thinking that there Must be something beyond that. Something that cannot come from reason… because it is an argument that removes reason from the entire equation.
Without Reason, one might as well do what the zealots say.
"What disquaifies happiness."
— it is disqualified as a measuring stick because it is not objective
"Isn’t the empirical method objective?"
— empirical method is *desriptive*. it does not say what is right or wrong, it only shows what *is*. it still opens itself up for human judgement, which is subjective and not objective.
"Without Reason, one might as well do what the zealots say."
— think of it this way: if human reason is our 'measuring stick', how do we compare human reasons? there are billions of people in the world each with his own reason. surely, some are wrong about some things and some are not. that means, there ought to be a final 'measuring stick' which can even be used to check upon human reason. what do you think?
“Isn’t the empirical method objective?” – Justin
– "empirical method is *desriptive*. it does not say what is right or wrong, it only shows what *is*. it still opens itself up for human judgement, which is subjective and not objective."
Brian what is your definition of objective? I'm using the defintion that it is impartial, accurate and precise. I'm confused what you are applying as "Objective".
If a Scientist proves with empiricism that something will lead to : more abortions, more deception, more abuse of power isn't that Objective? Why is it that you need Popular opinion?
Its interesting that despite scientific evidence of an action will prove bad for the future of people you would still consider facts and evidence not enough and arbitrary. But these facts and evidence can only come by the mental discipline and rigorous process of science (see scientific method).
@Brian, below is the short version of The Case for Objective Morality by Francois Tremblay wherein he defends secular objective morality against religious absolutism and skeptic subjectivism and relativism. For the long version, click here http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/c….
"The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).
The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.
By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system – we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail."
@Discreet Infidel: thanks for the quote!
"By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context,we can express a sound moral judgment on that action."
herein lies the problem. basically, Tremblay's main premise is that using human reason alone (weighing in the consequences of our actions) we are able to arrive at a moral judgement (ie, whether an action is right or wrong). i wish he was right, i sincerely do. however, we immediately see that this is not as simple as it sounds.
take abortion for example, no matter how we have tried to debate, discuss, dissect this issue, why isn't there a consensus to its right/wrong-ness? or pornography? or (as is being argued above) suicide?
it seems to me that the question is not so much "what does reason tell us?" but "whose reason do we follow?". clearly, we all have different preferences — some societies will gladly kill, some will never do.
i reiterate my primary premise: we need a transcendent point of reference because otherwise we will never agree. only then can there be objective morality.
@innerminds: it's fine, innerminds, i don't mind 🙂
You said: "I think it’s a good thing that we never agree because this will cause us to continually check and improve our standard of morality. If we agree on everything, we stagnate."
i think i understand what you mean here. by saying that something can be "improved" it means there is something you aspire for. say, i work on my bike to "improve" it. i am working under the assumption that there is something i aspire for it to become — a Ducati for example. if there is nothing i aspire for, how else do i know what to improve, right? i might just end up working it to look like a Suzuki. 😛
"to continually check and improve our standard of morality"… what do we aspire for? what is that final barometer against which we test our standards?
again: we need a transcendent point of reference that will objectively describe morality
i think we should transfer this discussion at the forum 🙂 so that others can also participate and it would not be difficult to reply
@justinaquino:
it's a little crowded up there justin, and there's no reply link anymore, so let me reply to you from down here. 🙂
OK, let's take suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC14147… the study shows that "A rising trend of suicide in young males was observed from 1965 to 1999." i hope this is empirical enough. i can argue based on this that humanity has become more evil.
but of course i can't. it will not be a fair statement. as i said above in my discourse with innerminds: "these are really arguable assertions that we both made. truth is, it is very rather difficult to gauge the ‘moral temperament’ of the times. one thing is true though: there is always evil."
in fact this little exchange of ours only proves the point that better or worse, there ought to be an objective way to measure morality. going back to your original point, you have singlehandedly put your 'objectivity' upon a book published by Nick Joaquin and others. i will accept your thesis. and i am glad that you have used an entity X to support your claim. but i doubt if that book alone can prove your point that humanity has become better morally.
i hope i made myself clear this time: we cannot prove or disprove this 'better or worse moral trend' exchange. but i am glad one this is made clear: there ought to be an objective point of reference.
I cited Nick Joaquin because he has many reflections about Philippine Identity, Culture and history. He is a great source of perspective when you have a lot of historical data to sort. I'm sorry if you were not able to experience his contributions to Philippine culture.
As for you link, did you read its entirety? It doesnt give any causes. I would be irresponsible of me to make an oversimplification of the factors, particularly a sweeping statement as "morality has gotten worse". Particularly when you consider the other relative factors that affect suicide: socio-economic condition, culture, social pressures, current economic situation, access to self-help services, etc…
If you read the study, it just sums up more suicides. When you consider population growth of 1965-1999 when compared to population growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population (look at the references and sources).
It is not very constructive to deal with topics that are hard to quantify, it is better if you can give a claim that implies existing data that can clear up your perspective. Data is a very tricky thing, it abstracts different with different people because of their experiences and other sources of knowledge. I have my own ideas and standards of credibility and I assume its not the same as yours. So please lets move it to some way where we can dig up some data that may both enlighten us.
"As for you link, did you read its entirety? It doesnt give any causes. I would be irresponsible of me to make an oversimplification of the factors, particularly a sweeping statement as “morality has gotten worse”"
oversimplification of the factors in suicide?
you mean there are factors that make suicide OK? meaning, using innerminds terms, suicide is malum prohibitum?
If you read the study the quote was based on, you would find out that I was reiterating the disclaimer the paper made about the complexity of the factors that contribute to suicide.
General increase on number of people committing suicide is has very little value when you consider that it is needs to be bench-marked against something like population growth, economic situation, over-all happiness, and other factors of of a given country. The interpretation of statistics and data need benchmarks.
Also Connecting Morality with Suicide is a claim that needs to be quantified. Its not very objective or constructive if you argue Ad vericundum when comparing suicide to morality. Some cultures, suicide is an accepted "moral" life choice as a way to take responsibility to actions.
@justinaquino: you said, "It is not very constructive to deal with topics that are hard to quantify, it is better if you can give a claim that implies existing data that can clear up your perspective. Data is a very tricky thing, it abstracts different with different people because of their experiences and other sources of knowledge. I have my own ideas and standards of credibility and I assume its not the same as yours."
i wholeheartedly concur. thank you very much. you just summed up my whole point in this thread. no further comments on this.
i reiterate my primary premise: we need a transcendent point of reference because otherwise we will never agree. only then can there be objective morality.
—-
by the way, i never claimed that the rising suicide rate determines moral temperament. in fact, i explicitly stated this is an unfair statement — as it is also unfair for anyone to say we have an improving morality. please kindly, respectfully, read my comments first. thanks, justin.
@ Brian: sorry for butting in on your discussion with Justin, but I just have a small point to make:
You said: "i reiterate my primary premise: we need a transcendent point of reference because otherwise we will never agree. only then can there be objective morality."
I think it's a good thing that we never agree because this will cause us to continually check and improve our standard of morality. If we agree on everything, we stagnate.
oh, i agree with the fact that there are many reasons for suicide.
i also agree that one has to benchmark something to be able to say if something is getting worse or better.
but it points to a fundamental problem with the point of this point, which i understand as: is it possible to have a humanity-wide consensus on the evilness of certain actions, events.
in the case of suicide — the answer seems to be NO.
is my reading of the thread right? the answer is NO?
if the answer is in fact NO, then we arrive at a problem — suicide is murder also. the claim by innerminds is that murder is something that we agree, secularly, is bad.
this is the point of the post, right? we can have a "moral" society without God/religion.
so i'm wondering, from a secular POV, is it possible to come up with a clear, unequivocal stand on suicide?
put in another way, is this secular world permissive of suicide?
i'm confused by the point of this post. who ever said that the ten commandments is the "ideal basis for what is right and wrong"? why are you attacking a strawman?
Uhm…how about 'God' as he 'revealed' it to Moses? These are his commandments set in stone, to be followed by his people. If a deity sets some laws in stone, it should be the basis for what is right and wrong, right? 🙂
but its not like xtianity begins and ends with the ten commandments.
the ten commandments, while important, is not the most important event in the history of xtianity. moreover, the exact text of the commandments are of second order importance to the significance of it in the whole history (i.e. "salvation history") of xtianity.
so, really, thats it? this is thin gruel innerminds…
so ok… you "win". the ten commandments is not the ideal moral code. well done debating a phantom contention.
Okay, what then is the most important event in the history of Christianity as far as the concept of right and wrong is concerned? And then we'll try to analyze that in the context of malum prohibitum and malum in se. 🙂
the most important event in christianity is the life, death and resurrection of jesus christ.
I mean, what is the most salient teaching of Christianity as far as morality is concerned?
As for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, I will not be debating with you whether those things (especially the resurrection part) actually happened or not, because they have nothing to do with the original issues in this post (malum prohibitum and malum in se). However, since you brought that up, I would like to share a link to Igme's article that talks about the significance of Jesus' sacrifice:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2009/09/02/sacrif…
i commented at length on another post RE the notion of sacrifice.
regarding the teaching:
jesus wasnt interested in establishing rules/laws in earth. ALL (as in 100%) of his teachings stress that he isnt interested in kingdoms of the world, even as others( his followers) wished otherwise. he was interested in the concept of salvation.
but for the sake of discussion, there is one passage that comes to mind as a "idiots guide" to jesus' ideas:
Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
as further elaboration, note that in this passage, the speaker (a lawyer!!) sought to test jesus. he wanted jesus to name a specific judaic law. jesus didnt fall for it.
What exactly does Jesus mean by 'love' here? 🙂
Well, the 'commandment' to love is too general to be analyzed in the context of malum prohibitum and malum in se. Besides, it commands us to do instead of "not do". Care to give specific examples of Jesus' teachings that prohibit or declare certain acts as wrong? 🙂
How about Matthew 5:27-30:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
This is definitely malum prohibitum, and it's not even the kind that compromises public welfare. And it was Jesus himself who said that, so don't tell me that I'm attacking a straw man here. Now, is this the kind of morality that appeals to you? 🙂
that passage is not really about adultery. be careful not to take in passages in piecemeal. this isnt about setting up laws, or being legalistic.
this is an example of the thinking i've been espousing…
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/fulfils_arl…
check it out…
as you know, love is a complex thing. the gospels contain specific examples. its roughly what you expect, tho (i.e. its not sex)
What do you mean the passage isn't about adultery? Jesus made it clear: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." If you're using a red-letter Bible, that passage will appear in red, meaning it was Jesus himself who said it. Now are you saying that Jesus is wrong?
check it out innerminds. its a bit involved, and i cant write it out now.
It would have been nice if you quoted a few passages to drive your point and contribute to this discussion on malum prohibutum and morality, instead of making me read a 13-page document. Anyway, I'll check it tonight. But for the meantime, you still have not properly answered my previous post regarding the morality of Jesus' teachings on 'adultery'. I brought that up because you said that I was attacking a straw man by focusing on the Ten Commandments (by the way, I did not write the Ten Commandments, hence, I did not 'build' a straw man to attack).
@innerminds: i agree that it does represent quite a jump, doesn't it? i think i went ahead of myself there. well, for now we don't have to call X God yet. we can still just call it X.
the question is whether there is an objective point of reference for morality among humans. i think no, unless we posit an X; where X is something which describes morality and is something apart from humans.
as to how we define X or begin to know X, that belongs to a different thread i think. one that covers a wider topic than malum prohibitum and malum in se. but because of malum prohibitum and malum in se, we find the possibility of X.
and so now we search.
is it Allah? is it Christ? is it Jehovah? is it Supreme Being? we search.
after all, they can't all be right 😀
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying:
X = objective point of reference
X = describes morality
X = is apart from humans
X = is possible because of our concepts of malum prohibitum and malum in se
X = Allah/Christ/Jehovah/Supreme Being
Why should there have to be an objective point of reference for morality? In chess and Go they have this Elo Rating where the real value of a player's official rating is always relative to everybody else's rating. And as players increase in numbers and get better, the standards increase. It may have been quite an achievement to get a certain Elo Rating a decade ago, but that same figure would not mean much today because its relative value has already gone down.
In short, standards (and we could also imply moral standards) continue to improve if they are based on a relative instead of an absolute point of reference. Compare the moralities of 'civilized' societies today and a few centuries ago: in the Dark Ages, kings and knights took their subjects' properties, liberty, honor, and even lives at will; today, women, children, minorities, prisoners, and even animals have rights. Now if we had an "objective point of reference" or absolute standard, e.g., the Bible, we might still be stoning adulterers today. Oh, some societies still do. And they're the ones with an absolute, unchangeable standard.
first of all, i don't agree that humanity has improved (or is improving) its morality. i don't think that people today are 'less evil' than centuries ago. one can even argue that humanity has lost its moral bearings — blurring the lines between right and wrong.
so, respectfully, i would have to disagree that morality "continue to improve if they are based on a relative instead of an absolute point of reference". by definition, morality (since it describes what it truly right or wrong) is absolute.
i agree that GM So plays better chess than i do. undoubtedly his rating is higher than mine. but we can only compare ratings if we abide by the same chess rules. chess, by definition is a game of absolute rules. if we change the rules 10 years from now, we can no longer compare ratings.
in short, morality requires absolutes.
"first of all, i don’t agree that humanity has improved (or is improving) its morality. i don’t think that people today are ‘less evil’ than centuries ago. one can even argue that humanity has lost its moral bearings — blurring the lines between right and wrong." – brian
@ brian by what reference do you base this opinion? My hobby is in Philippine and Medieval history and I can cite several sources for you to check regarding Moral Standards if you would want to have a more informed opinion.
The works of Zoe Oldenbourg, the most prolific and one of the best in her field, (i have a 2 pages of biblio i can send regarding Ancient to Medieval ways of life). As to moral standards that have changed in as much as 200 years: Crime, Society, and the State in the 19C century Philippines by Greg Bankoff, Writings of Nick Joaquin, An Anarchy of Families… etc.
Also reading up on emancipation, women's sufferage movement, racism and racial equality are also topics to touch on when anlayzing if human behavior or morality has changed over time.
@justinaquino: hello. thanks for the references. oh yes, there is no question morality has indeed changed over time. even between generations our sense of right or wrong changes. we only need to look at ourselves and our fathers and lolos.
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 voted, 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.
as to the question, has humanity become morally better? i'm afraid this depends on who is answering the question. depends on his definition of better also.
which only stresses the point that there ought to be an absolute standard in how we measure up ourselves. one that is apart from us.
"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 voted, 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." – Brian
Better or Worse can be opinions or be based on actual facts. It really depends on what you read and how much one is willing to really answer these questions objectively.
Brian, noting pornography, suicide rate and drug abuse, pedophilia would be more constructive in the discussion if you actually had facts and ratios for comparison.
Maybe you can make a more constructive claim first before going into that conclusion of yours. Phrasing that your claim in a way that someone can give you empirical facts that will satisfy you instead of a comparison of point of views which will extend the argument unnecessarily.
The claim: "what i am saying is that “better” or “worse” cannot be proved…" I think if this can be first established everyone else would follow almost the same conclusion.
Hmmm…good point in mentioning absolute chess rules in addition to relative ratings. 🙂
You said that you don't agree that humanity has improved (or is improving) its morality, or that people today are ‘less evil’ than centuries ago. You even suggested that humanity has lost its moral bearings – blurring the lines between right and wrong. In short, you're refuting my statement that our morality today is way better than in the Dark Ages. Care to support that with facts? 🙂
Brian wrote: "i think i can no more prove my point than you can (Dark Ages vs Modern Society)."
– So you don't believe that centuries ago kings and knights took their subjects' lives, honor, liberty, and property at will?
Now about this absolute morality, would you care to discuss it further? 🙂
hehe, i will not even try. i think i can no more prove my point than you can (Dark Ages vs Modern Society). i said "one can even argue" because these are really arguable assertions that we both made. truth is, it is very rather difficult to gauge the 'moral temperament' of the times. one thing is true though: there is always evil.
which really drives home the point that morality is best discussed in absolute terms and not in relative — ie, improving or degrading in time. 🙂
Even if we assume there is a "God", and he dictates morality, where did he dictate these. The bible? The bible only existed a blip in the long history of humanity. Does that mean morality only existed after the bible was created? Or if one would say God has placed morality in our brains, then that is just another way of saying that moral judgment is part of our nature.
As for the development of morality in history, I think we've made great improvements concerning slavery and misogyny in recent history. They are not totally gone, but these 2 items already show that society's view on what is right and wrong is much better than before.
That movements against slavery and misogyny didn't come from religion already makes religions questionable as a guide to people's morality. And the bible didn't have a problem with these as well.
Btw, here's an interesting video on morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo&fe…
There is no one code of law that is perfect. There is just that one code of law that the certain society deems applicable to their standards and morality.
Using the Ten Commandments as our basis of law would be crazy as it was only applicable to the Jews, who at the time received such commandments.
We have our Penal Code, based mostly on the American Penal Code.
Some Muslim countries abide by the strict interpretation of the Koran of their church.
Still other countries, like China, have an entirely different set of standards.
Any code of laws that is recognized by majority of the society, is for the greater good of all and prevents the least evil, should be the one adopted by the said state.
@brian, why should it be a "transcendent" being? why should it be apart from humans?
Again, one can base what is good/bad on society. Or on ethical committees. There are also objective philosophies out there that do not need God to define what is good/bad like Utilitarianism or humanism or objectivist philo. I do not see why should one base it on a God/transcendent being. it doenst have to be christ or allah or jehovah. that kind of basis (christ/allah/jehova) is very limited and outdated and morally intolerable (due to committed atrocities they permitted).
hi Discreet Infidel. if one society eats its children, while another nourishes them, which society is better?
answering this question requires that we base morality upon something else more than our individual preferences. if we do not believe so, then we have to reject absolute morality, and simply abide by the "custom of the land".
if Person A says it is ok to rape women and Person B says it is wrong to do so, only one of them is right. they cannot be both right. we cannot simply say that both are right because of the "custom of their lands". saying so means there is no objective right nor wrong. to each his own. whatever rocks your boat. whatever blows your skirt.
how can humanity operate in such a framework?
we can base our morality on reason, logic, or moral intuition.
basing what is good/bad from a supernatural revelation or religious texts is bad. it very outdated and it is not flexible. as ive said, there are philosophies (like humanist ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics#Tenet… and ethical committees out there and as Former Deist mentioned, we have our penal code.
again @brian, why should it be a “transcendent” being? why should it be apart from humans?
as toyour example, person/thing/group C can tell who from person A or B is wrong/right.
what i am pointing is that why should that 'point' be god or a transcendent being? can we humans using our logic and reason cannot determine if a certain act is good/bad? i think we can.
basing what is good/bad on religious texts or supernatural revelation is problematic.
Discreet Infidel" "can we humans using our logic and reason cannot determine if a certain act is good/bad? i think we can."
i think we can't. i have stated before that we cannot because we simply have different preferences. judgment of right or wrong is primarily a question of preference. i might think for example that pornography is right, and you wrong not because of any logical assertion. it is simply a question of preference (and some supporting facts or empirical evidence that will support that preference, but all bound to raise dissenting opinions).
as i state above, we really don't have to call X God yet. we can still just call it X. you have have branded it "Human Logic and Reason". i will argue that this is never objective, because of preferences.
the question is whether there is an objective point of reference for morality among humans. i think no, unless we posit an X; where X is something which describes morality and is something apart from humans.
@innerminds: your points make sense. but i honestly shudder at the thought of an election (by a democratic society, freethinking or otherwise) as the determining factor of who gets to decide what is right or not.
if a duly elected body determines what is right or wrong, election of that body should not by any means taken lightly.
if the "mandate" of that body expires, and the electorates' preference changes (after all, what is election but statistics), rightness or wrongness now moves with time.
we are back to where we started: how do we arrive at a truly objective point of reference?
Brian wrote: "how do we arrive at a truly objective point of reference?"
Okay, do you have something in mind? 🙂
i have truly thought about this for years. right now, i am convinced that apart from God — or at least a transcendent being apart from us humans — there cannot be an objective point of reference.
there is no denying that man on his own is a highly moral being; we have a very strong sense of right and wrong. but there is not one of us who can perfectly determine morality. not hitler. not kant. not nietzsche (well, he never tried anyway).
i say this at the risk of being ridiculed by you and the rest of the freethinkers. i honestly have high respects for you guys. but i have come to this conclusion out of my own thinking also. 🙂
Hmmm…care to tell us how you came to this conclusion? 🙂
much like our discourse really.
i think of it like an argument between two people, each saying opposite things. they could either be both wrong or one is. they cannot be both right (naturally). in order to know who is right, there has to be someone other than the 2 of them who must determine — ie, another transcendent being. it could be a third person, a book, or whatever. truth is, if the 2 guys are left alone with the task, they will arrive nowhere.
now that's just two guys. suppose we have millions of people. naturally, there will be groups of beliefs. some may not even believe in anything.
so now who judges? who will describe reality accurately when everyone else has his own judgment? i think it should be some entity X. one who is apart from us. one who transcends us. one who is objective.
isn't that God?
And why should it be God? More importantly, whose definition of 'God'? 🙂
Beautiful. Anything on the Quran?
Thank you, Zach. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the Quran. But fortunately, someone here is. Uhm…calling John! 😀
Goodness as dictated by the Qur'an? Comming right up!
Thanks, John. It would be an interesting read. 🙂
@innerminds: yes, i suppose this is a sound guide. but even with this, we have not exactly solved whether or not abortion is “direct or immediate injury to person or property,” have we? people will continue to raise questions as to which person is injured? or if a fetus is a person in the first place… hehe..
i think the question is not so much what constitutes a crime as *who* says one thing is a crime. is it the government? the united nations? we need a point of reference. and given people's different preferences, i doubt if we can ever achieve a truly objective one.
unless we accept the "God" premise. hmmm…
@ Brian: Freethinkers do not usually look up to a WHO (authority) but to a WHY (reason). But in order for a large, complex society to operate effectively, I guess a WHO is necessary. In a democracy, the WHO (the legislators who will decide which crimes become mala prohibita) are elected by the citizens.
In a freethinking democratic society, the WHO will be elected based on the WHY (what are your reasons for choosing this candidate?). But in a NON-freethinking democratic society, the WHO (legislators) will be elected based on what WHO (church/religion) says.
I admire the pursuit for the WHY. In the Bible when Moses asked God what His His name was we get an interesting answer, "I am who I am."
What's my point? God's name is who He is. This means that when believers try to understand God, they stop and look at what He has done, what He has said and Why he has done and said those things.
It's really complex but we get a glimpse that when believers speak of the Who, they also include the What and the Why.
I'm no philosopher so forgive my scattered mind. 🙂
I admire the pursuit for the WHY. In the Bible when Moses asked God what His His name was we get an interesting answer, "I am who I am."
What's my point? God's name is who He is. This means that when believers try to understand God, they stop and look at what He has done, what He has said and Why he has done and said those things.
It's really complex but we get a glimpse that when believers speak of the Who, they also include the What and the Why.
@ Brian: I guess what makes a crime malum in se is "direct or immediate injury to person or property." 🙂
nice post! just some comments:
i agree with mikong that 1-4 are in fact extensions of the premise that God alone is good. if you reject this premise, there is no objective good and every other law (that which determines a crime) cannot hold. 5,6,10 deals with what God considers as valuable — or "holy" if you may: parents, marriage and property.
christians believe that one cannot take God out of "goodness". if we do, who determines mala in se crimes? what can be considered inherently evil in one society might not be so in others (female circumcision, abortion, tribal wars, etc.)
what do you think?
hi, i think what is "good" or "bad" (mala in se)can be based on the society in which one (or the subject/s) currently belong to. if the society or community thinks that abortion is wrong, then it is wrong. if circumcision is right in a certain society, then it is right in a certain society.
but generally, i think that a certain action is bad if it can cause damage to yourself and/or another.
what do you think? i am also at the moment thinking or finding answers about the basis of what is good and bad.
hi Discreet Infidel. yes, society is also a good determining entity i think. innerminds and i have progressed the discussion below. maybe you can share with us your thoughts on what we have posted.
It is easy to see from a freethinker's view why most items in the commandments are malum prohibita. But for the fundamental or non-freethinking theist, "God" is by definition the standard of goodness, and so honoring him as in the first 4 items, is good and violating them would be considered evil in itself or malum in se. They would consider it inseparable. As I read in the Philosophy of Marquis de Sade, for the church, "God" is the perfect good, and evil is just the imperfection to that standard. Anyway, the point is they really just have a different definition of good, and so it is no surprise they claim they have a monopoly on morality.
As for the why gays shouldn't marry, the common argument for them would be that it is unnatural. And when you argue that it is quite common in nature, and that most if not all animals have homosexuals, one argument I heard is that we are not animals, though that doesn't really say anything if it is good or bad. They just seemed fixed on the stance that it is wrong.
I ran into that argument about gays too, about us not being animals and having a choice.
So when did we choose to be straight? 😛
I recall the argument I've had with people telling me that gays shouldn't marry because the bible says so.
When I ask them if being gay makes anybody more likely to commit a crime (And no – being campy is NOT a crime :D), some of them retreat to the argument that it's just "gross" watching two guys make out, and that the bible calls it an abomination.
Funny thing is that the word "abomination" has a very different meaning in the bible more so in the Old Testament. In the OT's context, abomination was more akin to violations of social norm and rituals, as compared to truly heinous crimes such as murder and rape.
Oh wait, the bible condones rape in some cases, doesn't it?
As for the "gross" argument, well, to paraphrase Jon Stewart:
That's the same argument for saying your parents shouldn't marry :))