A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[edwest2]

Actually, no. The reason is that it is futile to argue with someone, who has an “impoverished understanding of basic concepts”, be they children, psychopaths, mentally incapacitated, fundamentalists or anyone who develops a special vocabulary, where words have some unknown meanings.

Or invent fake words.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, no. The reason is that **it is futile to argue **with someone, who has an “impoverished understanding of basic concepts”, be they children, psychopaths, mentally incapacitated, fundamentalists or anyone who develops a special vocabulary, where words have some unknown meanings.

So if it is futile to argue, why are you arguing?

 

[PRmerger]

So if it is futile to argue, why are you arguing?

Egg-zactly.

Because, as has been stated so-very-often, those who argue against absolute morality really, truly believe in…absolute morality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The media are trying to mold our behavior. Have hope. We have a guide to cut us away from the cancerous mess created by special interest groups convinced that turning the world into their image is the only option. It isn’t.

God bless,
Ed

I do try to have hope. It ain’t easy given the lunatic conduct of the courts, the media, and academia.

Anyway, here is some interesting news.

cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Or invent fake words.

Like “relative absolute” and other nonsensical concoctions.

So if it is futile to argue, why are you arguing?

Because I am an incurable optimist, and I hope that OTHERS will understand the reasoning provided. In a setup like an open discussion board one does not necessarily talk to one poster, even if the à-propos of a post is presented by one specific poster. Of course there are quite a few posters, whose (name removed by moderator)ut is generally ignored.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I hope that OTHERS will understand the reasoning provided. . .

“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!”

I don’t understand the reasoning. Please explain.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because I am an incurable optimist, and I hope that OTHERS will understand the reasoning provided.

It’s good that you are an optimist. As Chesterton said, the optimist thinks everything good, so you must think Catholics are good too? Or does the OTHERS refer only to those who are not Catholic?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!”

I don’t understand the reasoning. Please explain.

Actually that is just a principle. If you are confronted with a dilemma and you examined all the possible courses of action and was able to set up a sequence for these actions starting from the best until the least satisfactory, then you should choose the best, even if it is at odds with your particular sense of morality.

An example: If you have a fellow human who suffers in terminal pain, and none of the pain treatment medications work any more, then the only way to help is a mercy killing. If your particular moral sense does not allow this solution, then you have a warped sense of morality.

This principle urges you to do the right thing, no matter what your sense of morality tells you. After all, you would not let an animal suffer needlessly, and your fellow human deserves and needs MUCH MORE compassion and love. Since you also believe in a “get out of jail card free”, so you can do the right thing and then repent and confess.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s good that you are an optimist. As Chesterton said, the optimist thinks everything good, so you must think Catholics are good too? Or does the OTHERS refer only to those who are not Catholic?

Chesterton is wrong. An optimist hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst. I most certainly do not believe that the members of ANY group have first dibs on “goodness”.

The point at this moment is that PR has no idea what the words “absolute” and “relative” mean, along with her confusion about the meaning of “objective” and “subjective”. She has been corrected many times, but she does not learn. I hope (being an optimist) that others - both Catholics and non-Catholics - realize that she is wrong and I also hope that they will express their disagreement loudly.

 

[edwest2]

Actually that is just a principle. If you are confronted with a dilemma and you examined all the possible courses of action and was able to set up a sequence for these actions starting from the best until the least satisfactory, then you should choose the best, even if it is at odds with your particular sense of morality.

An example: If you have a fellow human who suffers in terminal pain, and none of the pain treatment medications work any more, then the only way to help is a mercy killing. If your particular moral sense does not allow this solution, then you have a warped sense of morality.

This principle urges you to do the right thing, no matter what your sense of morality tells you. After all, you would not let an animal suffer needlessly, and your fellow human deserves and needs MUCH MORE compassion and love. Since you also believe in a “get out of jail card free”, so you can do the right thing and then repent and confess.

As a Catholic, I don’t believe in Utilitarian solutions. Why risk losing a helicopter in combat just to pick up the wounded, just kill them if they’re in really bad shape. Right? Just keep the ammo coming.

Comparing an animal to a human does not take into account that a human has far more value than any animal. I worked in a hospital for nearly ten years. I watched people die. I took a person down to the morgue. I saw all the suffering up close. Research on new painkillers is ongoing, and a new candidate will soon enter testing. But why waste the time and money, just kill people. That way you can fill a bed and bring in more money.

Killing is not mercy, it’s killing.

Get out jail free card? We are called by God to be saints. Yes, we are still sinners but we all should have the final goal in sight: being with God for eternity. We need to work toward that, not “live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse.” Vanity and Pride are wrong.

One thing we will all see is death - the end.

ncbcenter.org/publications/end-life-guide/

Ed

 

[Aloysium]

Actually that is just a principle. If you are confronted with a dilemma and you examined all the possible courses of action and was able to set up a sequence for these actions starting from the best until the least satisfactory, then you should choose the best, even if it is at odds with your particular sense of morality.

An example: If you have a fellow human who suffers in terminal pain, and none of the pain treatment medications work any more, then the only way to help is a mercy killing. If your particular moral sense does not allow this solution, then you have a warped sense of morality.

This principle urges you to do the right thing, no matter what your sense of morality tells you. After all, you would not let an animal suffer needlessly, and your fellow human deserves and needs MUCH MORE compassion and love. Since you also believe in a “get out of jail card free”, so you can do the right thing and then repent and confess.

The question that arises is by what standard does one determine the best to least satisfactory? That sort of assessment is based solely on one’s moral standards and understanding of the meaning of life. On what reality are these based? Is there an objective moral reality which can be understood? Any conflict, and they do occur all the time, lies in choosing between competing goods or evils. i wonder how you go about determining the right thing. That knowledge, I call conscience. It is synonymous with a moral sense.

As to the moral dilemma you describe, having been exposed to my share of death, what i see as needed in these circumstances, is helping the person get through their final moments. One offers an empathic ear, assisting them in find the significance of their life, reliving its amazing moments, challenges and accomplishments, and acknowledging the hope that usually arises when we find peace. Before a close member of my family passed away more than forty years ago he spoke of the crucifix in his room appearing so dark and frightening, and how it changed seeming to glow in brilliance. (It wasn’t just the drugs.) Most people whom I’ve had the privilege to visit in their final hours, were not in pain; the treatments which keep lives going longer than they otherwise could, are well able to deal with the pain.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Chesterton is wrong. An optimist hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst. I most certainly do not believe that the members of ANY group have first dibs on “goodness”.

The point at this moment is that PR has no idea what the words “absolute” and “relative” mean, along with her confusion about the meaning of “objective” and “subjective”. She has been corrected many times, but she does not learn. I hope (being an optimist) that others - both Catholics and non-Catholics - realize that she is wrong and I also hope that they will express their disagreement loudly.

If you are an optimist by hoping about people, you are certainly a pessimist by not hoping for eternal life. It is the hope for eternal life that feeds the hope about people. My experience with atheists is that they are generally hopeless about people and regard them as just another animal with no ultimately redeeming qualities destined absolutely and only to be eaten by the worms.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If you are an optimist by hoping about people, you are certainly a pessimist by not hoping for eternal life.

Of course. Since there is no evidence for any kind of “afterlife”, I would not waste time and energy on hoping for one.

It is the hope for eternal life that feeds the hope about people.

Nonsense. The “eternal life” as depicted by Christianity is not something I would desire. Either eternal boredom in a frozen, unchanging existence, or eternal suffering of epic proportions. Neither one appeals to me.

My experience with atheists is that they are generally hopeless about people and regard them as just another animal with no ultimately redeeming qualities destined absolutely and only to be eaten by the worms.

Do you have any idea what it means to be an atheist? If you select a random person in a crowd, and observe their behavior, learn about their life and preferences, there is no way that you could make a good assessment and find out if that person is a Christian or an abominable heathen.

Your problem is this obsession with “ultimate” destination. Just because today’s delicious meal will leave us hungry tomorrow it does not make it “meaningless” or “valueless”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The question that arises is by what standard does one determine the best to least satisfactory? That sort of assessment is based solely on one’s moral standards and understanding of the meaning of life. On what reality are these based? Is there an objective moral reality which can be understood? Any conflict, and they do occur all the time, lies in choosing between competing goods or evils. i wonder how you go about determining the right thing. That knowledge, I call conscience. It is synonymous with a moral sense.

These are excellent, but practical questions. They are only relevant if we can agree on the principle that the best solution is not necessarily “moral” according to one’s principles.

As to the moral dilemma you describe, having been exposed to my share of death, what i see as needed in these circumstances, is helping the person get through their final moments. One offers an empathic ear, assisting them in find the significance of their life, reliving its amazing moments, challenges and accomplishments, and acknowledging the hope that usually arises when we find peace.

I agree - IF that is a viable option. Of course I was talking about something else; an extreme situation, when the person about to die is in horrible pain, screaming and begging to be put out of her misery. No matter how advanced our pain medication is or will be, it is inevitable that the amount of medication needs to be increased - all the way to the lethal level. And then you are left with the dilemma, allow the pain until the person dies, or hasten the inevitable - out of MERCY.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course. Since there is no evidence for any kind of “afterlife”, I would not waste time and energy on hoping for one.

But of course you are absolutely certain of this.

Which is why there are no moral absolutes.

Which is why today America has devolved in a moral sewer.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nonsense. The “eternal life” as depicted by Christianity is not something I would desire. Either eternal boredom in a frozen, unchanging existence, or eternal suffering of epic proportions. Neither one appeals to me.

Nonsense. Your conclusion is not based on the experience of heaven as eternal boredom. How could you know? Have you been there and back? What ever happened to your belief there are no absolutes when you proclaim with absolute certainty something you have never experienced?

 

[Bradski]

But of course you are absolutely certain of this.

Which is why there are no moral absolutes.

Being personally convinced about something beyond any reasonable doubt and the existence of what you describe as absolute morality are two entirely different things. It really is exceptionally difficult to get across what absolute morality actually means. Here’s a couple of quotes from Mr. Google:

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

Absolute morality measures ethical questions against a set of unconditional standards, without regard for mitigating circumstances.

So are we all up to speed with that? Note the requirement that an absolute statement is one devoid of context and has no regard for circumstances. It is unconditional. That is, a statement about morality that is absolute is independent of the conditions. It is morally right or wrong in itself with no conditional clauses. Because that would make it…? Yes, at the back there? A relative statement. That’s right. That is, one that is relative to the circumstances.

So. Here’s a blazingly simple question:

Is killing a person wrong?

See what I did there? I have asked a question about a moral matter that contains no conditions. It has no regard for circumstances. It is devoid of context. And I’d like an answer please. Which puts anyone who holds that absolute morality exists in something of a quandary in attempting to answer it. Because for it to be a statement of absolute morality, you cannot, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT ABSOLUTE MORALITY MEANS, add anything to it. No conditions. No particular circumstances. No context. The answer can be YES or NO, either of which will do to prove your point.

Hey up, someone thinks. I‘ll just change ‘killing’ to ‘murdering’ and I can get around this, because everyone knows that murder is always wrong. Except that what you have then done is make the statement conditional. That is: ‘Yes, killing a person is wrong – if it is unlawful and premeditated.’ Which is…? Yes at the back again? A relative statement? Correct. Well done.

 

[PRmerger]

Being personally convinced about something beyond any reasonable doubt and the existence of what you describe as absolute morality are two entirely different things. It really is exceptionally difficult to get across what absolute morality actually means. Here’s a couple of quotes from Mr. Google:

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act

Absolute morality measures ethical questions against a set of unconditional standards, without regard for mitigating circumstances.

No. Not without regard for them.

We evaluate all moral questions with regard to circumstances.

We always “regard” circumstances.

Sometimes, however, they are irrelevant.

But, let’s be quite clear about this: it’s never permissible to disregard the circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

. Because for it to be a statement of absolute morality, you cannot, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT ABSOLUTE MORALITY MEANS, add anything to it. No conditions. No particular circumstances. No context.

This is utterly ridiculous.

No one has ever asserted that we don’t give context to a moral situation.

 

[Bradski]

We evaluate all moral questions with regard to circumstances.

Then, for heaven’s sake, any determination that you make is RELATIVE to said circumstances. A statement of absolute morality BY DEFINITION contains no context. It contains no relative clause. It is devoid of context.

Killing is wrong.

That is an absolute statement BY DEFINITION. Add any context, add any conditional clause, add anything AT ALL to that statement and it ceases to be an absolute statement. You have to answer Yes or No to the question in the previous post AS IT STANDS because only then you will be making an absolute statement about a moral matter.