“consequentialist morality” versus “absolutism.”

From https://stream.org/atheist-richard-dawkins-cannibalism/

Consequentialism says that the consequences of a person’s actions should be the sole basis to judge whether those actions are right or wrong. There is nothing inherently right or wrong in any act, but only what flows from an act.

Absolutism, contrast, does not deny consequences, but insists acts can be good or bad in themselves.

It always turns out to be the common sense of the person advocating consequentialism. That makes their opinions and judgments the absolutes to which everybody else must bow. We’d better pray that they get their common sense judgments right. Otherwise, who knows who will turn up on the menu?

From your quote, the first (Consequentialism) is true and something Jesus taught.

• First, that it is true, is found in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, "You shall not murder." Exod. 20:13. Indeed God did command saying so, but consider that He was the one who commanded elsewhere, "... you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them ... just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God." Deut. 20:16-18
  
  Notice how the outcome of "the act of killing" -- the underlined text -- determined whether the act was right or wrong. In this particular case, it was right, being justified by the consequence of not doing so.
   
• We have another example given by Jesus Christ Himself. Concerning the Sabbath day, He spoke saying, "... have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the show-bread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?" Mat. 12:3-5

As children of God, we are guided NOT BY LAW but by wisdom that serves the principle of life, truth and peace from an eternal perspective, the kind which allows for some strange judgments but which, over the long term, prove good.

///

What is "good"? How does one determine that?

"... that [which] serves the principle of life, truth and peace from an eternal perspective" -- as I already showed you. An act is not good in and of itself but is good because of its consequence in view of eternity.

Jesus allowing Himself to suffer the excruciating pain of the cross was not good if viewed within the narrow frame of life on earth (who welcomes suffering for doing nothing wrong?) but given the redemption of the world as a consequence, we hear this song echoed across the universe, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!" Rev. 5:12

///

True,....sort of. The question now becomes "And just what are 'the principle of life, truth and peace from an eternal perspective' and who determines that?"

The Catholic Church used this argument in the Middle Ages to justify burning heretics and homosexuals (and others, typically those who disagreed with them) at the stake. "It's for your own good, because if we burn you now you will spend less time burning in hell." I'm sure that was a great consolation to the condemned. Certain people groups justify FGM on the same basis. Child sacrifices, often by burning, were also justified by this theory.

Secondly, this argument usually turns out to be the protectionist rhetoric of those in power, not concerned with YOUR good or the good of SOCIETY but rather keeping THEIR power, control, and economic structures in place for their own benefit.

I would rather suggest that "good" refers to that which promotes the happiness, contentment, well-being etc. of yourself and others, and reduces stress, anxiety, fear, etc. in same, IRRESPECTIVE of any "eternal" considerations. This causes "GOOD" to answer to the immediate concerns and context of the individuals involved, and keeps it "HONEST." One can no longer justify their evil actions by claiming "It's for your own good in the long run." (As with any argument, certain caveats apply.)

It's a "good car" because it keeps running and doesn't cause you worry.
It's a "good house" because you feel comfortable in it and it doesn't require constant maintenance and repair.
He/She is a "good friend" because you trust them and they don't cause you stress, etc.
It's a "good decision" because it moves you closer to your goals.
Dinner was "good" because it tasted pleasant, didn't make you sick, and prolonged your life.

Not really. At best it is the absolute only for those within their sphere of influence. Even then the next person's "common sense" modifies it, so the end product is a median of "common senses, opinions, and judgements." This is even a legal aspect: the "rational common man" is often used as a standard to which the accused's behavior is compared.

On the other hand, I care not a whit, nor am I influenced by, the "common sense" of a person from Fiji, Zaire, or Croatia (just random examples) because it does not affect me in the least. I do, however, care much about the "common sense" of my wife, because that affects me a great deal.

Your references to "a good car, a good house, a good friend, a good decision ..." are not relevant. This is not about the condition of objects but a question of morality.

What determines the intrinsic goodness of an act is, again, dependent on an eternal perspective: does it "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run. It is not about WHO determines its goodness (what the Roman Catholics did is irrelevant) but rather whether at the end of eternity, so to speak, the act in and of itself preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace.

Nevertheless, as to WHO ALONE determines that so that we are guided properly in the here and now, you know the answer and need not that anyone tell you.

///

"Are ye yet so dull?"
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
I'm surprised you need this explained to you. As far as relevance goes, well, that's just the pot calling the kettle black.


Rubbish.
The goodness of an act is determined by whether it builds stability in the cosmic system (ie: contributes to love, cooperation, and harmony) or adds to the overall chaos and entropy.
Eternity has nothing to do with it being "good" or not. Rather, the act itself, or more precisely the effect of the acts collectively, affects eternity.

I don't expect you to understand that.

That's the point I've been making from the beginning. So we agree then.

///

What does scripture have to say about these issues?

Is there an "absolute" rightness beyond "rational common sense"?

Are there consequences beyond the scope of seemingly right decisions for comfortable, seemingly stable, making everyone happy, for the supposedly good of society, that have NEGATIVE eternal consequences?
That may also have an eventual future, collective" negative effect on society in the present realms as well.

I think that is what they were meaning. Whoever is in control, everyone else must bow to their absolute opinion.

As Nadi asked, what is the principle of life, truth and peace? Does each individual determine that according to his own opinion? Or only to the opinion of the one who has power over others?

It is relevant. For if you were a member of that society, would you support or condemn those WHO were acting? That is, one must determine whether their acts preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace in order to be supportive of those WHO were acting.

And WHO would that be, and how would THEY guide us in affecting the actions we do?

If I rearranged your response just a little bit, you would discover that your questions were already answered. Here goes:

1. Does each individual determine [the principle of life, truth and peace] according to his own opinion? Or only to the opinion of the one who has power over others?
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterson

   
   What determines the intrinsic goodness of an act is, again, dependent on an eternal perspective: does it "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run.
   
   
   
    
2. ... if you were a member of ... society, would you support or condemn those WHO were acting? That is, one must determine whether their acts preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace in order to be supportive of those WHO were acting.
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterspm

   
   It is not about WHO determines its goodness (what the Roman Catholics did is irrelevant) but rather whether at the end of eternity, so to speak, the act in and of itself preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace.
   
   
   
    
3. And WHO would that be, and how would THEY guide us in affecting the actions we do?
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterson

   
   Nevertheless, as to WHO ALONE determines that so that we are guided properly in the here and now, you know the answer and need not that anyone tell you.
   
   That person is GOD who knows the end from the beginning and tells us whether the same act is good or bad depending on the cicumstances.
   
   See Mat. 12:3-5
   
   

There was once a child who learnt of sex in school through his friends. So when he had come home and was dining with his parents, to their consternation, he asked them rather suddenly if it were true that they had sex. The father sat there for a while and thought about the best way to answer his little son: how do you say something is right and wrong at the same time; and why and when and how would it be both right and wrong all at once?

///

The reason I asked the questions were because of your statements. You are doing something circular when you give the cause of the questions as the answer to the questions.

I will assume that I presumed correctly. That when you see men, women, and children being tortured and killed, you do not think in it being right or wrong, but say to yourself, we'll just have to wait and see how it comes out in eternity.

The only way powers such as the papacy can have power is if the people allow it. People who say, we don't know whether torturing someone is right or wrong because only God knows the end from the beginning, and this might "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run.

And because of that attitude, sir, is how the papacy was allowed to exist and grow.

I absolutely agree that putting the moral judgement sometime in the nebulous "eternity" removes all (most) responsibility from individuals in the here and now. Therefore I must reject that line of reasoning.

I also think that this discussion may be juxtaposed onto a continuum, with acts that are always "good" on the one hand and acts that are always "bad" at the other extreme. Also, the ideas of "good" and "bad" should be understood as:

I. No "ACT" is inherently "good" or "bad" in itself.

II. All acts have a degree of "goodness" and "badness," depending on the situation.

III. Acts are "GOOD" for which, in the general, usual, or vast majority of situations, conditions obtain by which such act promotes peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation.

IV. Acts are "BAD" for which, in extremely rare or perhaps non-existent situations, conditions obtain by which such act promotes a similar peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation.

What degree of goodness is there in demanding wholescale slaughter of those who disagree with you? How could that in any degree promote peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation. Well, maybe cooperation in extinguishing the infidels.

I don't know, kland. You tell me.

Perhaps you should ask God that question:
Genesis 6
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 8:25
Joshua 10:40
Joshua 11
1 Samuel 15:3
1 Samuel 27
2 Samuel 8:2

Not to mention God's second coming, when he destroys EVERYONE who disagrees with him.

Love me or I'll kill you. Nice, eh?

Not those who "disagree" with you; but those who would "harm" you. Do you not know that he who kills a robber in his house at night is guiltless? And those who administer the death sentence to murderers are blameless? And yes, no one takes mice and roaches to heart saying, "I will not do harm to God's creation."

Consider then the command of God to wipe out a people. What does He say of those people? What were they guilty of?

2 Chronicles 36:15-21

///

Does not those who disagree with me, "harm" me?