• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) Approves Gay Marriage

Was smoking immoral 50 years ago? Does one have to have knowledge of an actions ramifications for it to be immoral? That seems like a flimsy standard for morality.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Was smoking immoral 50 years ago? Does one have to have knowledge of an actions ramifications for it to be immoral? That seems like a flimsy standard for morality.
Click to expand...

I've going to have to think about this a bit. Excellent questions/post.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Was smoking immoral 50 years ago? Does one have to have knowledge of an actions ramifications for it to be immoral? That seems like a flimsy standard for morality.
Click to expand...

Not really. If something is wrong because of the harm it causes then knowledge (or at least constructive knowledge) of that harm is required for the action to be immoral (versus actions that are wrong in and of themselves: i.e. lying (potentially)).

Playing a violent video game is arguably not immoral in and of itself. It's just a means of entertainment. However, if I knew that actual people were dying as a result of me playing the video game it obviously becomes immoral.

Buying a diamond engagement ring is not immoral. But if I knowingly purchase a blood diamond then the action becomes immoral. If I did my due diligence and still accidentally purchases a blood diamond then it's much harder to say purchasing the diamond was immoral.
 
RChildress107 said:
Not really. If something is wrong because of the harm it causes then knowledge (or at least constructive knowledge) of that harm is required for the action to be immoral (versus actions that are wrong in and of themselves: i.e. lying (potentially)).
Click to expand...

That's a really slippery slope, and seems to make ignorance into a protection from immorality. It also ignores the corporate nature of immorality/sin in favor of a strictly personal one.

In various versions of the Confession (of sin) in the Episcopal prayer book are two lines that I think are helpful in this discussion -

"forgive us our sins, known and unknown."

and

"pardon us from the evils we have done, and the evils done on our behalf."

Some good wisdom in those two statements.

Eta- not that we need to beat ourselves up over sins of omission and commission, but ignorance doesn't make the action moral if isn't.
 
Last edited:
I'd imagine the large majority of moral theorists would disagree with you on that.

If I flip a switch thinking I'm going to turn on my light, and I indeed turn on my light, noone would say that's immoral.

If I flip a switch thinking I'm going to turn on my light, but I'm actually electrocuting 5 people in the other room, most would not say that's immoral.

If I flip a switch thinking I'm going to electrocute 5 people in the other room, and I do electrocute 5 people in the other room, everyone would say that's immoral.

If I flip a switch thinking I'm going to electrocute 5 people, but in fact I only turn on the light, many would say that's immoral.


The action is the same in all four scenarios. The intent and knowledge of consequences are not.
 
Rev I also think that conception of morality only makes sense in the context of Christianity's views on sin and grace.

If we are born into Sin and literally cannot help ourselves then ignorance would not excuse our sin (or maybe more accurately ignorance is our sin). Without a full conception of God's redeeming grace such a view would seem unreasonably harsh.
 
RChildress107 said:
Rev I also think that conception of morality only makes sense in the context of Christianity's views on sin and grace.

If we are born into Sin and literally cannot help ourselves then ignorance would not excuse our sin (or maybe more accurately ignorance is our sin). Without a full conception of God's redeeming grace such a view would seem unreasonably harsh.
Click to expand...

You're right that it depends whether or not you're coming from a place of theism or not. I've studied this at the graduate level, and I'm well within the "normal range" for Christian ethics (and I'd argue, while still being mainstream, that morality apart from theism is a crapshoot).

That being said, I also don't buy into the doctrine of Original Sin.

In your example, if you flipped the switch, not knowing you were hurting people, but then you found out, wouldn't you feel bad (unless you're still sociopath)? That's the sign of immorality in this situation. But again, I'm appealing to a universal (theistic) sense of morality, so it may be that we'll always be talking past each other.
 
RevDeac06 said:
You're right that it depends whether or not you're coming from a place of theism or not. I've studied this at the graduate level, and I'm well within the "normal range" for Christian ethics (and I'd argue, while still being mainstream, that morality apart from theism is a crapshoot).

That being said, I also don't buy into the doctrine of Original Sin.

In your example, if you flipped the switch, not knowing you were hurting people, but then you found out, wouldn't you feel bad (unless you're still sociopath)? That's the sign of immorality in this situation. But again, I'm appealing to a universal (theistic) sense of morality, so it may be that we'll always be talking past each other.
Click to expand...

Of course you would feel bad. But feeling bad after the fact isn't a good indication of immoral behavior. There are many who sin who do not feel bad afterwards (including many who aren't sociopaths). There are also many who feel bad or responsible for things that are entirely not their fault.

I also think there is a distinction between knowing the immediate result of your actions but not thinking or understanding that the action is immoral (think a lot of people's view of premarital sex), vs. not knowing the immediate result of your action (think the switch example or maybe smoking 50 years ago).

The former type of ignorance is not an excuse, the latter, it seems, should be.
 
Hey Rev what are your thoughts (if any) on scrupulosity? Seems like this is getting into this territory a bit here.
 
RevDeac06 said:
You're right that it depends whether or not you're coming from a place of theism or not. I've studied this at the graduate level, and I'm well within the "normal range" for Christian ethics (and I'd argue, while still being mainstream, that morality apart from theism is a crapshoot).

That being said, I also don't buy into the doctrine of Original Sin.

In your example, if you flipped the switch, not knowing you were hurting people, but then you found out, wouldn't you feel bad (unless you're still sociopath)? That's the sign of immorality in this situation. But again, I'm appealing to a universal (theistic) sense of morality, so it may be that we'll always be talking past each other.
Click to expand...

Also not sure what you mean by that statement. That might be the mainstream view of Christian Ethicists but certainly not the mainstream view in the overall field of Ethics.

Again I'm not espousing the theory presented by Junebug, just mentioning that I don't see the knowledge requirement as especially problematic for that theory. It also does not prevent the theory from being universal.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
I'd say I'm more of a morality theory enthusiast circa 2010. Some of it stuck I guess.

Not saying I agree with Junebug's moral theory but simply that the knowledge of harm aspect of it isn't really problematic.
Click to expand...

feel free to PM but is it part of your professional life or just amateur interest?
 
RChildress107 said:
Also not sure what you mean by that statement. That might be the mainstream view of Christian Ethicists but certainly not the mainstream view in the overall field of Ethics.
Click to expand...
Yea, that's what I meant, that this isn't cutting edge for Xian ehticists. That's all.
 
RChildress107 said:
Of course you would feel bad. But feeling bad after the fact isn't a good indication of immoral behavior.
Click to expand...

This is a place where we're coming at it from different angles. I think there is a universal/transcendent ethic, so whether you know it or not, violating it is immoral, hence, the remorse when you find out later.
 
RChildress107 said:
Rev I also think that conception of morality only makes sense in the context of Christianity's views on sin and grace.

If we are born into Sin and literally cannot help ourselves then ignorance would not excuse our sin (or maybe more accurately ignorance is our sin). Without a full conception of God's redeeming grace such a view would seem unreasonably harsh.
Click to expand...

are you using "that" here as a definite article (describing Rev's view) or an indefinite article just meaning any conception of morality?
 
TownieDeac said:
Hey Rev what are your thoughts (if any) on scrupulosity? Seems like this is getting into this territory a bit here.
Click to expand...
Fun board game.

But seriously, I don't think we're the ultimate judge, that we are forgiven, and that grace abounds. Accepting that can be tough though.

If you're referring to the pathological disorder, then it's a shame and one that should be explored and treated by the medical/psychological professions.
 
RChildress107 said:
Of course you would feel bad. But feeling bad after the fact isn't a good indication of immoral behavior. There are many who sin who do not feel bad afterwards (including many who aren't sociopaths). There are also many who feel bad or responsible for things that are entirely not their fault.

I also think there is a distinction between knowing the immediate result of your actions but not thinking or understanding that the action is immoral (think a lot of people's view of premarital sex), vs. not knowing the immediate result of your action (think the switch example or maybe smoking 50 years ago).

The former type of ignorance is not an excuse, the latter, it seems, should be.
Click to expand...

this is interesting; and i think i kind of agree

i prefer a sort of proto-existential "there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" to a rigid yet indefinable morality of things being bad but we don't always know if they're bad or not
 
RevDeac06 said:
This is a place where we're coming at it from different angles. I think there is a universal/transcendent ethic, so whether you know it or not, violating it is immoral, hence, the remorse when you find out later.
Click to expand...

You can have a universal ethic that still depends on having a basic knowledge of the consequences of your actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top