Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[Mise]

I agree. But I don't think there is a system which is able to deal with the whole spectrum of circumstances which tag along with the abortion scenario. Rape, threat to the mother's health, etc.

Not true! Utilitarianism is a relatively straightforward one to evaluate -- do whatever causes the least suffering (or the most pleasure, or the most happiness, etc). A utilitarian might say that the foetus suffers (or experiences pleasure, happiness, etc) to a much lesser degree than the mother, therefore the mother's wishes triumph over the foetus'. If the dad's wishes are involved, a utilitarian might argue that a the right to self-determination (i.e. the ability to do as one wishes with one's own body) gives the most overall (societal) <insert metric here>, and therefore the mother's wishes triumph over all others'.

Other moral systems might introduce concepts such as responsibility; in the case of rape, the mother was not responsible for the pregnancy, and so is not responsible for the child, but outside of rape, abortion may still be morally wrong (or right) by some other part of the moral system.

A christian, for example, might say that it's okay to attempt to abort the foetus in a way that doesn't make the death of the foetus a necessary result, but a side effect, of saving the mothers' life (for the same reason it's okay to kill in self-defence, or kill 1 man to save 6 in some circumstances -- see the [wiki]doctrine of double effect[/wiki]). I'm not a christian ethicist though -- I just don't know enough about it. I might even be talking nonsense here, so maybe ask Plotinus what they really think

The GR doesn't explicitly state my moral look at abortion, but it does give some pointers. For instance, I don't like pain. It would be immoral for me to inflict pain. When the foetus is in the stage it can't feel pain the GR doesn't help me much, in the stage where it has developed a CC, it does, and at that point for me the status of the foetus changes.

I don't like putting people in harms way. This is more complicated. If we're at the stage that the foetus does not feel pain, and the live of the mother is threatened, it's clear to me. In case the foetus has developed a CC, it becomes a matter of weighing two evils against each other. What if the mother will almost certainly die?

In these cases I am rather pleased not to subscribe to a system which is absolute in it's verdict. Because such systems completely disregard the many circumstances and varying situations such a moral dilemma is surrounded with.

I think it does. The GR as I see it is being empathic with all those involved, not saying to yourself, "I would want this, thus the mother would want this", rather "what if I were the mother, what would I want?", but even that is not applicable when the mother is available to tell me what she wants. In that case it becomes "As the mother, I would want my opinion to be heard"

edit 3: I also think this kills the masochist objection which was raised. A masochist would have to reason form the perspective: "what if I weren't a masochist?"

No, it can to a certain extent, yes it can't handle every single thing. It's rather hard for me to be empathic towards a foetus since it's rather hard to learn what it wants.

And again, I don't see GR as a system which will deliver a system with nice clear morality rules, it's rather a system which motivates you to try to be empathic with others. And making decisions with that empathy in mind if that makes any sense.

Well, this is all very well and good, but none of it actually helps answer the problem. The problem being: when is it morally right/permissible to abort the foetus? All you're telling me is what to consider -- I must consider whether the foetus is capable of experiencing pain, I must consider whether the mother was raped, I must consider whether the mother wants an abortion, I must consider whether the mother's life is threatened... But it doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to do with all these considerations! Utilitarianism tells me to look at all of these things too -- but it also tells me what to do with them: It tells me I should weigh up the suffering (or happiness, or whatever metric this particular brand of utilitarianism tries to min-max), and pick the one that causes the least (or most). Of course, endless debates can go on in considering how much suffering is actually involved, but at least, once I've done all that considering, I know how to act. Less "fuzzy", more "binary" systems that involve more specific sets of rules or principles similarly tell me what to do, given certain inputs; the system might be completely indifferent to one or more of the inputs you described above (a Catholic's ethics might be blind to the mother's wishes, as you recognised), but it is still capable of giving a moral prescription.

The point is, the GR doesn't tell me how to act here. It might give me hints; it might smile suggestively at me from across the bar, but it's not going to take my clothes off and throw me onto the bed of moral prescription. You say you don't like absolutes, but what I am terrified of is unprincipled people going round making moral decisions based not on rational thought but on mere whim and gut feeling. It's especially scary when those people are Supreme Court judges, in charge of the armed forces, or members of my country's legislature. I don't really care whether you're a utilitarian or a kantian or a whateverelseian -- what matters is that there is some intellectually rigorous method of analysis for moral situations, so that we're not all at the mercy of our petty emotions. The GR simply doesn't provide one for all but the most trivial of cases.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But that's not the point I was making. I will remind you what I was replying to:

The problem with the Golden Rule, though, is that, even if that question is resolved, and we do establish (through medical fact, or mutual acceptance for arguments' sake) the moral status of the foetus, the GR still doesn't help us with abortion. It doesn't even take into consideration what the mother thinks!

GR does not go all the way as you point out, but it does help. It provides you with the considerations you need when you do draw your moral judgement. And it most definitely does take the mother into account.

Even if you believe that other ethical systems give unsatisfactory (or downright wrong) results on abortion, they at least tell us something. The Golden Rule doesn't tell us anything.

And abortion isn't the only thing the GR can't handle.

In the way I described, it does.

You need more to make that judgement, but you can't say it's useless. You can't say it can't be used while making those judgements. It is not the end-all solution, but simply being emphatic to those involved will give you a better insight into making those decisions.

"do whatever causes the least suffering" why? Why would you do what causes the least suffering? I think the answer is plain and obvious.

 

[Akka]

This seems to be where Akka and I differ, and, I think, the source of some of the confusion in this thread, given that we seem to arguing from a similar position. I would say that the Golden Rule is not a system at all, but an expression of reciprocity, which is a principal. Any ethical systems which are built upon that principal may retain the Golden Rule, or some variation of it, as a an expression of itself, but it still ultimately superficial.

And, again, reciprocity is a principle which is adhered to, not a ethical system, as I have said the whole time. One may built systems upon it, and those systems may or may not be capable of dealing with X or Y, but that really says nothing of the principle itself.

Honestly, I don't really see the difference between your point and mine on this. That's pretty close to what I meant. Either I miss an important part of what you say, or you misunderstood what I said, but for what I can gather from this post, it looks like very similar to my position.

 

[Traitorfish]

Honestly, I don't really see the difference between your point and mine on this. That's pretty close to what I meant. Either I miss an important part of what you say, or you misunderstood what I said, but for what I can gather from this post, it looks like very similar to my position.

Well, I meant that I do not treat the Golden Rule as a core principle in itself, but the expression of a more nuanced principle, while you seem to be arguing that the Golden Rule is, in itself, the principle.

 

[Akka]

Well, I meant that I do not treat the Golden Rule as a core principle in itself, but the expression of a more nuanced principle, while you seem to be arguing that the Golden Rule is, in itself, the principle.

0_o

Most of the back-and-forth discussion I had with Orange was precisely about how the GR was not to be taken literally, as it was just a very rough summing up of a more encompassing concept. I've probably spent several page talking about the "intent", the "spirit" and the "idea behind the words". Paint me surprised that you can consider I talked about the GR as if it was the entirety of the concept itself (unless you were fed up with the walls of text and just skipped them ).

 

[Akka]

All you're telling me is what to consider
[...]
But it doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to do with all these considerations! Utilitarianism tells me to look at all of these things too -- but it also tells me what to do with them: It tells me I should weigh up the suffering (or happiness, or whatever metric this particular brand of utilitarianism tries to min-max), and pick the one that causes the least (or most).

So you say that "treat others like you would like to be treated" doesn't tell you how to act, but "maximize the global happiness" does ?
This really makes no sense at all.

(even considering the GR is not as simplistic as the one-liner said above, its very idea is still to consider how to treat others and act accordingly, so saying it doesn't say how to act is just bizarre)

 

[Traitorfish]

0_o

Most of the back-and-forth discussion I had with Orange was precisely about how the GR was not to be taken literally, as it was just a very rough summing up of a more encompassing concept. I've probably spent several page talking about the "intent", the "spirit" and the "idea behind the words". Paint me surprised that you can consider I talked about the GR as if it was the entirety of the concept itself (unless you were fed up with the walls of text and just skipped them ).

Oh, I appreciate that you were treating the Golden Rule as non-literal, but I still think there is a distinction between that and my position, which is more generalised. Among other things, I feel that my position is implicitly utilitarian when applied on a grand scale, while I am not sure yours does.
Basically, I think we are on more or less the same page, I simply feel that there are certain nuances, and that it was worth making them clear so as to lessen some of the confusion which seems to have emerged.

Either that, or we're in the same position, but are muddling our terminology.

 

[Akka]

Well, we most certainly have nuances in our approach. With such a complex subject as ethics, and such a vague concept as the idea behind the GR, it's practically begging for different interpretations.
But we at least share quite a bit of the main idea.

 

[Ayatollah So]

How do you derive ethics from logic? Are you a Kantian?

I am - to some extent. (Kant himself would probably disown me before you could say "categorical imperative".) Better than Kant, however, are Tim Scanlon and Jurgen Habermas. The fundamental insight they have in common is that moral discussion is reasoning together about what to do. And if you're going to reason together, you have to advocate virtues/goals/principles that others who are similarly committed to public discourse could reasonably accept. These constraints brings fairness and universalizability into the picture straight off.

Of course, a person can reason in solitary mode about what to do, aside from what anyone else might want or think, but we call the results of such reasoning "prudence" not "morality". Reasoning alone has many limits (a few billion heads are much better than one). Reason doesn't automatically require morality (sorry Kant), but reason is pro-moral, because both receiving and giving trustworthy discussion are highly pro-rationality.

Since the very act of moral discussion packs certain moral assumptions, everything that follows from those is a sort of moral tautology. Anyone who questions the principle that (for example) all validity claims are subject to critical examination by the discussants, can be shown to be relying on the principle already. To discuss the issue is to answer it.

 

[Narz]

If your explanation consists of an appeal to moral intuitions, please explain why those moral intuitions have access to some sort of objective moral truth. Please also clarify what it means for an ethical statement to be true and what it is that makes these ethical statements objectively true.

There is no objective moral truth.

I try not to do things to others I think would cause them pain. This is less out of obligation & a sense or morality than simply because I feel wrong about it in my gut.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I hear very often that "you don't need to be religious to be moral," but if "being moral" just means following some system that enables "group survival" then I do not think anyone is particularly impressed that atheists can be "moral." You can, if you like, define the terms however you wish, but if you wish to participate in this conversation you must understand that I am using the terms as they are commonly understood.

I think that's unfair to the "evolutionary ethics" types. They need not claim that group survival defines morality - they are more likely to simply claim that such evolutionary facts explain morality. Meaning, causally explain. And such facts might help us understand morality - if morality is a natural kind.

Is morality a natural kind? Yes? No? Bring on the arguments!

[Ziggy] Well, think of a "white lie" scenario. Suppose I rescue a woman from a blazing fire, but she is fatally wounded and about to die. She asks whether her children were rescued. I know that in fact they perished in the fire. Do I tell her the truth, or do I lie and say they were rescued, so that she can die happy about that at least?

"Wait here, lady, I'll go investigate." While she's dying, double-check your facts (maybe those dead kids weren't hers after all). If the news is good, rush back with it; if not, don't rush.

Creativity - a moral necessity.

@ Orange Seeds: revised - just read reply#200. Let's just say, don't demand more precision than you think is actually possible.