Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[PLC1]

I may have reached a similar conclusion but the manner of reaching it is material here. It is meaningless to say that moral human behavior consists of instantiating the essence of something not human.



If I have misapprehended the question, that's because I don't see its relevance. What you're asking is a technical question, not a moral one.

I suppose the next thing you're going to ask me is how can I reconcile a high death rate brought about the presumption that life will continue under present conditions. That, to me, is a consequentialist question; I reject the logic of it. Morality is not determined by the outcome of an act.

At any rate, there will be a gradual winding-down of resource availability with attendant rise in commodity prices. As this happens, two outcomes are likely: either we return to an essentially pre-industrial time over the course of several generations as natural resources become increasingly more difficult to extract, or we develop new resources. If the latter, we have nothing to be concerned about. If the former, then the gradual quality of resource depletion will result not in mass die-offs but in a decrease in standard of living, which, under natural law, would logically force a decrease in the acceptable number of children per couple.



No, because the morality of an act is not determined by the outcome. Good intentions and good outcomes can only justify, at best, morally neutral acts.

What you're proposing is consequentialism in its rankest form; it's borderline Satanic. There is no limit to the horrors you can justify in the name of maximizing value. If you think God is a utilitarian, it's no wonder you left the Church -- you clearly have no business being in it.



That's because human morality derives from human nature, which is relatively constant, not from peculiar circumstances of the time or culture.



It is not as absurd as you suggest. As I mentioned previously, there is no limit to the horrors that can be justified under consequentialist thinking, so long as the outcome produces something of marginally greater value.

the idea that anyone here is supporting "MandatorySterilization...Euthanization of the elderly and infirmed" is pretty absurd.

Not that a despotic government might not implement those very things, you understand.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

the idea that anyone here is supporting "MandatorySterilization...Euthanization of the elderly and infirmed" is pretty absurd.

Not that a despotic government might not implement those very things, you understand.

I am not saying necessarily that anyone here supports them; I am saying that under a consequentialist system of morality, they are perfectly licit provided the outcome of those acts results in greater good than the harm caused by the act itself. That nobody here is explicitly supporting them yet is simply because they don't see the need for it (that is, because no outcome at this moment would be good enough to justify the act), not because they have some legitimate moral scruple against doing it.

Suppose a physician has ten patients, each of whom will die within a week if they don't get organ transplants (let us suppose for the purposes of this exercise that they are each suffering from the failure of a different organ). The physician has another patient come in for routine surgery, say to have his appendix taken out; while that patient is under, the physician kills him, harvests his organs, and transplants them into the ten other patients, thereby saving their lives.

Was the act of killing one person innocent of justification good? The consequentialist would (or should) say yes: after all, only one person died, the outcome was saving 10 people's lives, and 10 is greater than one -- and it's the outcome that determines the morality of an act, not anything intrinsic to the act itself. Yet that act strikes you as a horrible perversion, no?

As I said, there is no limit to the horrors spawned by this way of thinking. Every tyrant who serially murders his people always claims that it's in the name of the "greater good." He may even be right.

But he is still a murderer.

 

[Lagboltz]

I may have reached a similar conclusion but the manner of reaching it is material here. It is meaningless to say that moral human behavior consists of instantiating the essence of something not human.

I think you know better than that. I invited you to come up with your version of an argument. And all you do is repeat that you don't like my argument that reached the same conclusion.

If I have misapprehended the question, that's because I don't see its relevance. What you're asking is a technical question, not a moral one.

Of course it's a technical question.

I suppose the next thing you're going to ask me is how can I reconcile a high death rate brought about the presumption that life will continue under present conditions. That, to me, is a consequentialist question; I reject the logic of it. Morality is not determined by the outcome of an act.

If you are typical, think I now understand the mind of a theologian. It seems the role is to brush off how to solve the real problems of survival in the future earth, and leave it to us consequentialist sinners to try to work out the triage so you can continue to meditate on what is moral and throw darts at us. But your darts of course are as inconsequential to us our burden of consequentialism is to you.

At any rate, there will be a gradual winding-down of resource availability with attendant rise in commodity prices. As this happens, two outcomes are likely: either we return to an essentially pre-industrial time over the course of several generations as natural resources become increasingly more difficult to extract, or we develop new resources. If the latter, we have nothing to be concerned about.

Thank you for answering the question. But you have to know that the pre-industrial era existed because of the lack of industrial technology, not the lack of resources which were much more plentiful. By lack of resources, I also include arable land which is a finite resource and we do have to be concerned about that. Going back to pre-industrialism also means that the land will have the pre-industrial inefficiency of crop yield per acre since energy will be much more expensive by then. This will decrease the efficiency of what little arable land that will be left.

If the former, then the gradual quality of resource depletion will result not in mass die-offs but in a decrease in standard of living, which, under natural law, would logically force a decrease in the acceptable number of children per couple.

A decrease in the standard of living is really putting it mildly. Yes it would force a decrease in what's acceptable in childbirth, but the natural tendency is for people to have more children than acceptable. That is almost impossible to control. What would logically force a decrease won't unavoidably force a decrease. Are theologians going to come up with a childbirth rate that is acceptable under the logic of natural law? I am very curious what that would be.

Again: the finite acreage of arable land will result in mass die-offs if the population is not controlled. It seems that you are brushing off the real problems, but yes, I understand that is not your consequentialist province.

That's because human morality derives from human nature, which is relatively constant, not from peculiar circumstances of the time or culture.

The processes of the physical world are much much more constant than human nature, but scientists continually revise theories as we understand more about the universe, and as science explains more and more of nature. Religious doctrine becomes more outdated. (Creationism is still trying to hang in as evolution takes over.) The theology of your sect will be relegated to the carrels of seminaries and devoid of meaning to an increasing number of "sinners" that have to contend with the consequentialism of the real world. Yes, I understand that is not your problem or role. So be it.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

What I'm talking about, Lagboltz, is not "religious doctrine" but simple natural law philosophy, for which you still haven't furnished an objection that isn't predicated on question-begging utilitarianism.

I'm perfectly comfortable acknowledging that natural law theory, followed to its logical conclusion, will produce material suffering, discomfort, and unhappiness on this earth. Sexual morality alone would produce such discomfort, since, natural law being a virtue-based system, would require self-control rather than the constant gratification of one's lusts. I don't view this as a problem because I don't see that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the chief moral good -- again, because I'm not a utilitarian, because I'm a natural law theorist, because natural law is rationally superior and I have yet to hear a logically sound objection to it.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice you didn't respond to the hypothetical scenario I posited above regarding the organ-harvesting physician. I suppose that stands to reason. After all, a world full of people murdered in the name of the "common good" is exactly what a world run consistently on your and Openmind's consequentialist ethics would look like.

 

[GenSeneca]

the idea that anyone here is supporting "MandatorySterilization...Euthanization of the elderly and infirmed" is pretty absurd.

What "rational curbs on population" did you have in mind?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

I neglected to address this earlier--

I think you know better than that. I invited you to come up with your version of an argument. And all you do is repeat that you don't like my argument that reached the same conclusion.

I did not reach the same conclusion. I said I reached a similar one, and by different methods.

Natural law simply extends a right of man to procreate, and a responsibility not to produce more children than he can provide reasonable care for. That's all. It is hardly sufficient in and of itself to swamp the other natural law prohibitions on abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc., much less to assert a responsibility of government to force population control measures on its people.

 

[Lagboltz]

What I'm talking about, Lagboltz, is not "religious doctrine" but simple natural law philosophy, for which you still haven't furnished an objection that isn't predicated on question-begging utilitarianism.

I'm perfectly comfortable acknowledging that natural law theory, followed to its logical conclusion, will produce material suffering, discomfort, and unhappiness on this earth. Sexual morality alone would produce such discomfort, since, natural law being a virtue-based system, would require self-control rather than the constant gratification of one's lusts. I don't view this as a problem because I don't see that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the chief moral good -- again, because I'm not a utilitarian, because I'm a natural law theorist, because natural law is rationally superior and I have yet to hear a logically sound objection to it.

Aquinas's proofs predate Newtonian mechanics by 4 centuries. Even so, Thomas Aquinas would arguably have some merit via Newton. Where the arguments of Aquinas completely fall apart are a result of Quantum Mechanics. Cause and effect are much more complex phenomena. Also the interaction of bodies are remarkably different. The reason TA fails to understand nature is that QM is notoriously counterintuitive. What follows are excerpts from TA's arguments and how they are invalid by today's QM.

Proof 1:
TA: Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
QM: Spontaneous decay of isotopes violate his assertion.

TA: Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
QM: "Schrodinger's cat" illustrates the problems of this assertion. Many phenomena can simultaneously exist in multiple states.

Several other points in proof 1 are also outdated.

Proof 2:
TA: Nothing exists prior to itself.
TA: If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
QM: Spontaneous creation of virtual particles. This real effect gives neutrons some of its properties.

Proof 3:
TA: ...
3. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
4. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
5. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
...
QM: His conclusion 5 here doesn't follow from the 3 and 4 because of spontaneous virtual particles.

Proof 4:
TA: Various physical measures (heat) and nonphysical measures (nobleness) have a maximum or minimum.
He says the maximal measure is the cause of all other lesser measures. This makes no sense in today's physics. The current concept of cause has no relation to a general extremum condition.
Furthermore the conclusion that he gives is an inductive generalization. i.e. an informal fallacy.

Proof 5:
TA: ... natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance...
QM: This is totally wrong in QM. The wave function which is the basis of all interacting bodies describes probabilities (chances) of interaction, and never give a Newtonian determinism of motion that TA assumes.

One might argue that Newton's physics are good enough for the world of TA, but he is going well beyond common worldly phenomenon to the extent that he gives declarations about ultimate concepts. QM is necessary in the ultimate understanding of the universe and must be taken into account.

Finally TA's five proofs are not proofs of God at all. They are definitions of God. His final sentences of the 5 proofs are:
1. ...this everyone understands to be God
2. ...which everyone gives the name of God
3. ...this all men speak of as God
4. ...and this we call God
5. ... and this being we call God

I can see now why you were so confident in the "not arrogance because it's true" argument -- because TA is defining God to exist.
Assert x is true. Define God = x. Therefore God exists (under the constraints of x.) It's a simple logical tautology.
My QM arguments are that x has not been shown to be true. Therefore there is no proof of God.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice you didn't respond to the hypothetical scenario I posited above regarding the organ-harvesting physician. I suppose that stands to reason. After all, a world full of people murdered in the name of the "common good" is exactly what a world run consistently on your and Openmind's consequentialist ethics would look like.

The organ-harvesting physician would not want to go to jail and would conduct himself to that end. I mistakenly thought it was a rhetorical question. Please don't assume you understand my consequentialist ethics and proceed to reprimand me.

 

[PLC1]

What "rational curbs on population" did you have in mind?

Oh, there's a couple of ways we could go.

We could have mandatory sterilization, perhaps spay and neuter clinics applied to humans we don't want to reproduce, forced abortion, line everyone up and shoot every third individual.

Or, we could go with sex education and easy access to birth control for everyone.

I'd choose the latter path. Is there something about the former that you really like? You're the only one who brought it up, after all.

 

[Openmind]

Oh, there's a couple of ways we could go.

We could have mandatory sterilization, perhaps spay and neuter clinics applied to humans we don't want to reproduce, forced abortion, line everyone up and shoot every third individual.

Or, we could go with sex education and easy access to birth control for everyone.

I'd choose the latter path. Is there something about the former that you really like? You're the only one who brought it up, after all.

I'll vote for YOUR plan any day!

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Aquinas's proofs predate Newtonian mechanics by 4 centuries. Even so, Thomas Aquinas would arguably have some merit via Newton. Where the arguments of Aquinas completely fall apart are a result of Quantum Mechanics. Cause and effect are much more complex phenomena. Also the interaction of bodies are remarkably different. The reason TA fails to understand nature is that QM is notoriously counterintuitive. What follows are excerpts from TA's arguments and how they are invalid by today's QM.

Natural law is entirely distinct from the Five Ways (you don't even need to suppose the existence of God to discern most of natural law), but I'll bite.

I will only address the Unmoved Mover and First Cause arguments, however; they're the only ones I've really defended heavily here because they're the only ones I'm intimately familiar with.

Proof 1:
TA: Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
QM: Spontaneous decay of isotopes violate his assertion.

"Spontaneous" in a quantum sense does not mean "without cause"; at least certainly not as a matter of necessity.

At any rate, isotopes decay precisely something imbued them with matter in the first place; to say that radioactive decay is evidence of a causeless actualization of potency is like saying the same thing about a wound-up spring unspringing.

TA: Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
QM: "Schrodinger's cat" illustrates the problems of this assertion. Many phenomena can simultaneously exist in multiple states.

My understanding of Schrodingers cat is that it was the exposition of a logical fallacy stemming from a particular interpretation of QM -- the fallacy stemming from the fact that matter being in two different states simultaneously is obviously a logical absurdity, and that any presumption or appearance of this is artifactual of the observer being situated in a different inertial frame than the being observed. The cat is objectively either alive or dead; not both.

Proof 2:
TA: Nothing exists prior to itself.
TA: If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
QM: Spontaneous creation of virtual particles. This real effect gives neutrons some of its properties.

Again, "spontaneous" in QM does not mean "uncaused" but something more like "indeterminate."

That's rather like a man on a plane saying that the plane will land spontaneously because he's unsure when it will land.

The organ-harvesting physician would not want to go to jail and would conduct himself to that end. I mistakenly thought it was a rhetorical question. Please don't assume you understand my consequentialist ethics and proceed to reprimand me.

The point is not that this could happen but that consequentialism furnishes no sound moral basis to condemn the murderer.

 

[GenSeneca]

we could go with sex education and easy access to birth control for everyone.

We already have sex ed and easy access to BC products, so when is this "curb" in population going to take place?

And after sex ed and BC fail to curb population growth, what will you do then?

 

[Openmind]

We already have sex ed and easy access to BC products, so when is this "curb" in population going to take place?

And after sex ed and BC fail to curb population growth, what will you do then?

What would YOU propose?

Sex ed is being undermind by fundamental Christians and Catholics. Birth control is not free. . .and it is not necessarely accessible to teenagers who may become single mothers.

There is a LOT to do to make both sex education and birth control more effective and accessible.

So. . again. I hear a lot of criticism of every idea. . .but what is YOUR solution?

 

[GenSeneca]

So. . again. I hear a lot of criticism of every idea. . .but what is YOUR solution?

I see no reason to formulate a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

[Openmind]

I see no reason to formulate a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Still with your head in the sand?

It must be getting pretty hot down there! How are your stocks doing?

 

[GenSeneca]

Still with your head in the sand?

It must be getting pretty hot down there! How are your stocks doing?

Rules For Radicals:

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.