Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
100 quid he resurrects the old 'torturing babies for fun' scenario.

So its the for fun part that bothers you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So its the for fun part that bothers you?

No, the torturing babies thing is pretty bothersome too.

Originally posted by LemonJello
First, how exactly does your example describe an action irrespective of conceivable circumstance? Again, a standard concept of 'action' only concerns what an agent intentionally does (or unintentionally does but the intentional case is formally more fundamental). It is not committed to any account regarding the intentionality. So, the point you have to ...[text shortened]... l have anything to do with describing an action irrespective of conceivable circumstance.

I don't think Fetchmyjunk can avoid adding a constraint that the agents are morally responsible but this seems to weaken the universality criterion. In the Bible, I think in Leviticus, there are imperatives along the lines of "Do not [do this thing] for it is evil in the eyes of the Lord.". Which makes me think that some Christians would regard the act itself as immoral, irrespective of intent. Counterexamples where the agent is compromised in some way (insane, controlled, etc.) won't work then as even a philosophical zombie would be regarded as immoral if they violated any of the rules in the Bible. The problem is that a zombie doesn't act any more than a clockwork mouse acts, so it's a strangely animistic position to attempt to separate an action from the intent behind it. For something to be an action there has to be a will behind it and the intended outcome has to be willed or we seem obliged to apply morality to inanimate objects. But this mens rea requirement seems to generate exceptions to moral precepts and so weaken any claim to absolute morality.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If the rapist is mad then it would be difficult to describe it as morally wrong. The act was a result of insanity and not immorality, since the perpetrator is, by assumption, not responsible for their own actions. Note that 'not morally wrong' is not the same as 'morally right', I don't think the law of divided middle holds here. If a branch from a tr ...[text shortened]... you still have to justify the notion that God is necessary for the existence of moral absolutes.

So a morally wrong action is suddenly morally acceptable if the perpetrator is deemed insane? I think the action itself is still immoral. The perpetrator may receive a reduced sentence due to their insanity but their action is never deemed morally acceptable is it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So a morally wrong action is suddenly morally acceptable if the perpetrator is deemed insane? I think the action itself is still immoral. The perpetrator may receive a reduced sentence due to their insanity but their action is never deemed morally acceptable is it?

It is not that the action becomes morally acceptable, it is that the action becomes amoral ie it has nothing to do with morality.
If a tree falls over and tortures a child while doing so, is it 'morally acceptable'? Is it immoral?
Will the tree go to hell? Or will the tree go to heaven if it is a Christian tree?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So a morally wrong action is suddenly morally acceptable if the perpetrator is deemed insane? I think the action itself is still immoral. The perpetrator may receive a reduced sentence due to their insanity but their action is never deemed morally acceptable is it?

They are not criminally responsible, so they will not receive a sentence at all, but will be "held at her Majesties' pleasure", or whatever the equivalent in other countries is, until they are considered not a danger but at no point would they be held legally responsible.

This is the thing. You are trying to make the act itself immoral, but it's not the physical action that is immoral, but the intent behind it. Suppose someone is killed by a boulder that falls on them from a mountain. In my first scenario the earth holding the boulder is eroded away and a random event causes the boulder to slip. In the second scenario the boulder is pushed by a killer. The important difference between the two scenarios is the intent of the killer. We could add a third scenario where someone leans against the boulder and inadvertently dislodges it. Again intent is missing.

The other problem is that you are insisting on the law of divided middle where it isn't applicable. An action that is not immoral is not the same as one which is morally acceptable.

To put it as starkly as I can. If just the act is moral or immoral then actions by philosophical zombies are immoral. A philosophical zombie is a being that is just like a human, exhibits all the relevant behaviours, but has no mind. They are just autonomons. A zombie has no will of its own it's just following an algorithm. So in what way can an action by a zombie pushing a boulder onto someone by distinguished from the boulder falling due to weathering? If there is no difference between an action by a responsible agent and an action by a zombie then there is no difference between a willed action and an accident. So now we have acts of God being immoral, but this entails a contradiction for Christians, since God is automatically moral. So you have to take intent into account or you have problems with pure accidents having moral weight.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not that the action becomes morally acceptable, it is that the action becomes amoral ie it has nothing to do with morality.
If a tree falls over and tortures a child while doing so, is it 'morally acceptable'? Is it immoral?
Will the tree go to hell? Or will the tree go to heaven if it is a Christian tree?

We are obviously talking about the actions of humans being moral or not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
They are not criminally responsible, so they will not receive a sentence at all, but will be "held at her Majesties' pleasure", or whatever the equivalent in other countries is, until they are considered not a danger but at no point would they be held legally responsible.

This is the thing. You are trying to make the act itself immoral, but it's not ...[text shortened]... u have to take intent into account or you have problems with pure accidents having moral weight.

Ok let's take the action of rape. Is it ever not immoral to rape someone?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok let's take the action of rape. Is it ever not immoral to rape someone?

This was answered above, an insane person is not responsible for their actions. Do you actually read the posts other people write? I think you have to reduce the scope of your moral question to morally competent agents - so sane and in control of their actions. You may be able to get me to agree with statements along the lines of "It is immoral for a competent agent to [insert action here].". But your universality claim is weakened.

In the meantime I've thought of another counter-example that doesn't rely on the agents being insane or controlled in some way, rape is non-consensual sex so you have to take into account what is viewed as consent - in some jurisdictions there is the legal category of statutory rape as, for example, a 15 year old cannot legally give consent to a 17 year old, but I wouldn't necessarily regard it as immoral if they slept together. In fact the morality seems to depend on local secular laws, as in some jurisdictions they would be over the age of consent. So even allowing for competent agents I can find counterexamples.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This was answered above, an insane person is not responsible for their actions. Do you actually read the posts other people write? I think you have to reduce the scope of your moral question to morally competent agents - so sane and in control of their actions. You may be able to get me to agree with statements along the lines of "It is immoral for a ...[text shortened]... d be over the age of consent. So even allowing for competent agents I can find counterexamples.

I disagree. I don't think the immoral action of rape becomes 'moral' when the perpetrator is mad. It simply means the perpetrator of the immoral act cannot be held fully responsible for their immoral actions due to mental illness.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I disagree. I don't think the immoral action of rape becomes 'moral' when the perpetrator is mad. It simply means the perpetrator of the immoral act cannot be held fully responsible for their immoral actions due to mental illness.

I did not say it became moral I said not immoral. The law of divided middle does not apply here.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
We are obviously talking about the actions of humans being moral or not.

Exactly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Exactly.

So what does a tree falling on someone have do with human actions?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok let's take the action of rape. Is it ever not immoral to rape someone?

Already been covered. Please go re-read the relevant responses. Better yet, please try to pay attention to what others say the first time around.

I can see that discussion with you on this is rather fruitless. You failed the quid pro quo session. You were supposed to provide a qualifying example and the reasons why you think it qualifies. The last bit is actually the most important part of this exchange, and you have yet to provide anything of substance. Ultimately, you have yet to provide any substance as to how it all wraps back around to the subject of God's existence, as well.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So what does a tree falling on someone have do with human actions?

Well, what exactly does a "human action" have to do with the human part, if you exclude all contextual and circumstantial specifics? Again, the bare conceptual content of 'action' only tells you what some agent does. If you have some program of moral assessment that divorces this from any further specifics regarding context and circumstance, then what does it matter here if the agent is a human or something radically different?