A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

I had earlier said that a person can decide some course of action that seems to be the most moral of those that she can identify as her options but then take some other course of action while still having the knowledge/opinion/view that this is not the most moral thing that she can do. Her actions don’t necessarily follow what she sees to be the most moral thing to do.

You seem to be asking about something different here;

sigh!

Yes. I am not talking about a person who *doesn’t *do the most moral thing that she can do.

I want to know how a person DOES THE MOST MORAL THING THAT SHE CAN DO while at the same time disobeying her (rightly formed) conscience.

My position: you cannot be (the most) moral and disobey your conscience.

You seem to be espousing the view that you can be (the most) moral and still disobey your conscience.

Give me an example of this, please.

I have asked for this ad nauseum and you keep giving examples of a situation in which a person doesn’t follow her conscience but could be more moral. Sheesh!

In the end, I think you are actually conceding my point, which is: one must always obey her conscience.

With this drawn out discussion of which you cannot cite a single example of a person doing the most moral thing by disobeying her conscience, I think we can conclude that no one here disagrees with the idea that it’s ALWAYS good to follow one’s rightly formed conscience.

 

[PRmerger]

Talking about how people make decisions on what’s considered moral, immoral, helpful, hurtful, justified, and unjustified it’s going to vary, but a sense of empathy is a starting point from which a person might figure out a good bit such as “Let’s not kill people to take their stuff” (though looking at history it’s evident that empathy hasn’t always been extended to out-groups, especially but not limited to times during imperialist expansions. But that’s another discussion).

Yep.

Beyond the simple stuff community involvement is going to be needed for figuring other things out. Predicting the ramifications of our actions especially as it relates to systems or the aggregate result of actions might require more knowledge than one person has acquired on their own. Many of us carry with us some amount of knowledge and perspectives that were shared by those that we interact with and influence us directly or at a distance (both in terms of distance and time) that play a role in thinking morality out. What I said in the previous thread about “objects of concern” is relevant here too (I won’t type it again since there is already a link to that thread).

You have articulated the Catholic teaching on subsidiarity quite well here.

With the accumulation of time and experiences we encounter new situations for which previous rules didn’t consider or cover well. Sometimes this results in further discussions and considerations on how to modify and reinterpret old rules or come up with new rules all together.

Have you been reading our Catechism?

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged “on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs.” 5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights. 6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?parnum=1882-1883

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You seem to be espousing the view that you can be (the most) moral and still disobey your conscience.

No, I’m not.

I have asked for this ad nauseum and you keep giving examples of a situation in which a person doesn’t follow her conscience but could be more moral. Sheesh!

In the end, I think you are actually conceding my point, which is: one must always obey her conscience.

And we probably are using different usages of must. The uses of these words range from (1) “We strongly want you to do XXXX” to (2)“we will apply penalties to deter you from acting outside of XXXX” or (3)“it is impossible for you to do anything outside the boundaries of XXXX” or even (4)“condition YYYY is dependent on you doing XXXX. If you want YYYY then there are no other options but to do XXXX.” (there are other usages, but sticking with these 4). The word “should” and the phrase “are obliged to” are also used as synonyms for must. The substitution of another one of these for must doesn’t change things or identify the intended usage significantly.

(1) is easily violated. So I don’t think this is what you mean. For (2) there’s not necessarily some one applying penalties to some one for not following their conscience. Well, you might say that God is or that someone is always causing injury to their soul (or something similar). But you also know I wouldn’t make that assertion. (3) doesn’t seem applicable given it would be contradicted by some performing an action that is against their own conscience. (4) might fit what you’ve got in mind. But if it does then there may be another part of your assertion that someone “must obey her conscience” that hasn’t been shared that would identify this condition.

With this drawn out discussion of which you cannot cite a single example of a person doing the most moral thing by disobeying her conscience,

Because it’s not my position. I think that may be a continuation of confusion that was expressed in #355 that I thought I had cleared up in #375. Looks like I failed.

I think we can conclude that no one here disagrees with the idea that it’s ALWAYS good to follow one’s rightly formed conscience.

I’d strongly encourage that some one follow their well conscience especially after consideration, research, and speaking to others for additional insight. I’ve got some nuances involving retrospective realizations, limitations in our own abilities to realize the consequences of actions done with the best of intentions, and the use of the word “ALWAYS” above though.

 

[Bradski]

We are compelled to discern what’s moral and what’s immoral. Not decide what it is and declare it to be so.

If it is God’s word we are talking about, I don’t see much leeway allowed in the process of discernment. You can discern all you like, but there’s only one result allowed. You have to be ‘in union with the Bishop of Rome’. If you are not, then you’d better go back and discern some more until you get the right answer.

This is probably the biggest difference in outlook between an atheist and a Catholic. If I’m having a discussion about a moral problem and someone tells me: Bradski, this is the truth of the matter - now go away and don’t come back until you have realised that I am correct. He’d get short thrift, no two ways about it.

But the process one goes through in discerning the morality of any particular matter is exactly the same for all reasonable people. To say (not that you specifically have said it) that as a Christian you can have no idea of where an atheists morality comes from is nonsense. Thinking Sapien covers the process well in post 393. And it’s exactly the same for Christian and atheist alike.

If you have to decide on whether a particular method of factory farming is morally acceptable or not, I would be astonished if you went searching through scripture or delved into the catechism looking for an answer. I’m not aware of the Catholic position on recycling or hunting or any number of other situations where you have to make a decision on the morality. The church obviously doesn’t lead you by the hand through every aspect of life. It will give you guidance, I’m sure, but it will expect you to make up your own mind on minor matters.

Now once you have agreed that that is in fact the way the world works, one you understand the process you yourself has to go through to reach a moral decision (Is that chicken’s cage too small? Can I take my sone hunting?) then you understand the process atheists go through. It is no different.

So if the matter is now contraception, rather than chicken cages, I look for what I perceive to be the correct answer. In that particular case, I look to see what affect using it or nor using it will be on my wife and myself. And I consider it to be a personal choice, so what I decide has no affect on others.

If the decision is to allow or disallow contraception to be freely available, I go through the same process again, this time considering the overall affects on other people beside myself.

This is really very straightforward. The fact that Catholics and other Christians disagree on some matters, or that atheists and Muslims disagree, or that Democrats and Republicans disagree, well, that’s the way the world works. It’s kinda messy but we generally find ourselves all heading in the right direction. Maybe in some cases you don’t like the particular direction, but at least we all get to talk about it so you can see why people decide as they do. And that would be decide and not discern.

Exactly. I would love to listen in on a conversation you have with a Christian–esp. a dissident Catholic–to hear how this Catholic justifies her belief that God is wrong.
That would be quite amusing!

Plenty of discussions in this forum where I’m pretty certain you’ll find some Catholics not toe-ing the party line. Maybe you could start one: Why did you have an abortion? I’m not sure, however, that you’d be able to describe the discussion as amusing.

I’ve always proclaimed that atheists can have a moral system without a belief in God. (It’s just that you haven’t connected the dots as to where this system comes from. And you can never provide a cogent apologia to anyone who disagrees with your moral code).

As above, it comes from the same system you use. You listen, read, argue, gather information, perhaps give credence to the views of people you respect and have an internal debate on the merits of both sides of the argument. Then you make a decision. One you can act in in good conscience. Those are the dots. There are many more, but you get the idea.

Anyone who disagrees with my view needs a better argument for why they hold the opposing view. One of us is going to be wrong. I need to accept that it could be me.

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be espousing the view that you can be (the most) moral and still disobey your conscience.

No, I’m not.

Excellent.

So I must conclude that you reject the view that one can be moral and disobey her (well formed) conscience.

IOW: a moral person must obey her conscience.

QED

I’d strongly encourage that some one follow their well conscience especially after consideration, research, and speaking to others for additional insight. I’ve got some nuances involving retrospective realizations, limitations in our own abilities to realize the consequences of actions done with the best of intentions, and the use of the word “ALWAYS” above though.

So give an example of when it would NOT be the most moral thing to do to obey one’s conscience…since you take exception to the use of the word “ALWAYS”.

 

[PRmerger]

If it is God’s word we are talking about, I don’t see much leeway allowed in the process of discernment. You can discern all you like, but there’s only one result allowed. You have to be ‘in union with the Bishop of Rome’. If you are not, then you’d better go back and discern some more until you get the right answer.

Yep.

(Borrowing from the late, great, Archbishop Fulton Sheen): Just like the Calculus student can’t make up his own answer. He can’t declare: “The answer to the volume of this barrel is 39!”

He has to submit to the authority of his Calc professor, whom he admits has the correct answer.

Even if he doesn’t get how she got the correct answer–he knows his is incorrect and hers is correct…and he has to keep doing the math until he gets the right answer.

He doesn’t just get to make it up.

 

[PRmerger]

Plenty of discussions in this forum where I’m pretty certain you’ll find some Catholics not toe-ing the party line. Maybe you could start one: Why did you have an abortion? I’m not sure, however, that you’d be able to describe the discussion as amusing.

You’re right. Amusing would not be the sentiment I’d attach to a discussion with a Catholic who’d had an abortion. Tragic would be the word.

Amusing is attached to my watching you lead a dissident Catholic to the natural conclusion that she believes God to be wrong about a particular issue.

That would be a great way for me to spend my time!

 

[PRmerger]

This is probably the biggest difference in outlook between an atheist and a Catholic. If I’m having a discussion about a moral problem and someone tells me: Bradski, this is the truth of the matter - now go away and don’t come back until you have realised that I am correct. He’d get short thrift, no two ways about it.

And I would help you give him what for, if that’s how he presented it to you.

But the process one goes through in discerning the morality of any particular matter is exactly the same for all reasonable people.

Sure. You use the same process the Church obligates us to use.

And I consider it to be a personal choice, so what I decide has no affect on others.

I can think of a lot of things that are gravely immoral, even if they affect no one else.

For example: even if your wife never found out, your cheating on her would be gravely immoral. Not because she could find out and be hurt–it would be wrong because adultery violates the moral law, *at the very moment *you commit the act of adultery.

Even if no one gets hurt by it, for, clearly, at the moment you’re commiting the act, your wife is oblivious so can’t be hurt by your adultery.

Yet it’s still wrong.

Without a single person being hurt. (Putatively, of course. The Catholic position is that all sin hurts all of us, but that’s another discussion. Some day.)

 

[Bradski]

He doesn’t just get to make it up.

“Dad, what’s that?”
“A chicken, son.”

There is only one correct answer. Just like the barrel has a specific, undeniable and verifiable volume, the bird that the kid is pointing at is a chicken.

“Can I keep it in a cage?”
“Hmmmm.”

Is there one specific, undeniable and verifiable answer to that? Would you need some more information? Would you like the size of the cage? Would you like to know the alternatives? Would you like to know why it’s being kept in a cage? Is the kid going to keep it as a pet and look after it? Is he going to eat it? Will it lead to other chickens being caged? Is the cage inside or outside? Will there be sufficient food available?

Was the last chicken you ate factory farmed or free range? How was it killed? Did it have what might be considered a reasonable life before it was killed? Would you kill one yourself? Would you allow a child to watch you kill it? Would you allow a child to kill it?

I’d guess you could come up with an answer to every one of those questions. But do you think that everyone would come up with the same answer? If they have a different answer does that mean there is more than one or that they are wrong and you are right? In which case, if you are right, are you always right?

Apologies for channeling Tonyrey with all the questions. But your barrel example has just the one, as you well know. Moral questions, depending on the circumstances, have very many.

And, good grief, we’ve done the adultary discussion to death on other threads and I kept telling you that it’s the relationship that is harmed even if one partner is oblivious. I’ve spent enough time explaining that - I feel no need to repeat it any further.

Amusing is attached to my watching you lead a dissident Catholic to the natural conclusion that she believes God to be wrong about a particular issue.

I wouldn’t be leading anyone. I’d want to know why she felt she didn’t have to obey God’s will. You might wsant to know the thought process she went through.

 

[PRmerger]

Is there one specific, undeniable and verifiable answer to that?

Daddy, is it ever ok to take a young girl and circumcise her so she won’t have sexual pleasure?

Daddy, can I kill someone just because I don’t like the race he belongs to?

Daddy, can any man come and have sex with me against my will because he wants to?

Daddy, is it ever ok to own a human being?

Daddy, can I get rid of my baby just because I don’t want to be a mommy?

Daddy, can I get rid of my fetus just because I don’t want to be a mommy?

No? The answer to all of the above is just “one specific, undeniable and verifiable answer”. Oh. I thought that wasn’t possible, because I read a post by Bradski that made it seem like every single moral issue couldn’t possibly have a single answer. I’m so glad you’re so smart, Daddy, and set me straight!

 

[PRmerger]

And, good grief, we’ve done the adultary discussion to death on other threads and I kept telling you that it’s the relationship that is harmed even if one partner is oblivious.

And I think it’s a great one to keep bringing up.

It shows that even if not a single person is hurt, an act can be morally wrong.

As for: “The relationship is harmed”…well…



There’s an adulterer out there right now telling himself, “I am a better husband because I have sex with other women. Plus, my wife won’t do these things that make me happy and complete sexually. So she benefits because she doesn’t have to do those things that she doesn’t want to do. And I benefit because I get to be sexually fulfilled.”

And yet…you would say: it’s still wrong, mate.

 

[oldcelt]

All we need do is look to history…recent and distant, to know the answer.

John

 

[Bradski]

The answer to all of the above is just “one specific, undeniable and verifiable answer”. Oh. I thought that wasn’t possible, because I read a post by Bradski that made it seem like every single moral issue couldn’t possibly have a single answer. I’m so glad you’re so smart, Daddy, and set me straight!

You are confusing, and always have, I’m sure not intentionally, aspects of life which are fixed (the barrel has a volume of x), with aspects of life which every reasonable person would describe as indeterminate (can I keep a chicken in a cage) with aspects of life with which every reasonable person would agree (is it ok to torture puppies). That is, would have almost universal acceptance.

That everyone would agree to something doesn’t automatically make it right. We both know that. It is a given. The fact that we can both come up with scenarios where everyone would reach agreement does not, in itself, change that. Not in any way.

That it is wrong to kill someone because they are of a different race isn’t wrong because everyone says so (or more accurately, most people say so). Neither is it wrong because ‘it is written’. It may well be wrong in addition to the fact that most people agree and in addition to the fact that it is written, but it is wrong for a lot of very reasonable, non-religious, arguments. All of which you would be able to enumerate yourself without any reference to God, religion, your particular religion or your precise denomination.

There are reasons why ‘it is written’. It is because somebody made a conscious decision to write it. But those things are up for debate. They have to be. We cannot and must not accept anything without questioning it. On some things we will all reach a consensus. Which, as we both agree, doesn’t necessarily make it right. On other matters there will be disagreement. In some cases there may not even be a right answer.

If you had the time, could you answer all the questions I asked earlier? If you did, would you be able to say, hand on heart, that they were the ‘right’ answers? You have a propensity to ask the simple questions with which we’d all agree (rape, murder, slavery) and say it proves your point, and suggest arguments that have no connection with morality (squares and circles and calculus). But you let slide the more debatable aspects.of morality. The ones where most reasonable people would find a modicum of disagreement.

And I appreciate it’s a tough call for you. For if there is any reasonable disagreement on a matter of morality then there is no basis for assuming that all matters of morality are objective.

 

[PRmerger]

"And, good grief, we’ve done the adultary discussion to death on other threads and I kept telling you that it’s the relationship that is harmed even if one partner is oblivious.

As for: “The relationship is harmed”…well…

Incidentally, if you’re going with the “it doesn’t have to hurt a person to be wrong. A concept or idea or other entity can be hurt”…then…

Contraception: “The relationship is harmed”.
Homosexuality: “Society is harmed”.
Cheating on a test: “The school system is harmed”.
Masturbation: “The psyche is harmed”.

We can apply your paradigm to a whole lot o’ things that you support as being just fine because “it doesn’t hurt anyone”.

 

[PRmerger]

I wouldn’t be leading anyone. I’d want to know why she felt she didn’t have to obey God’s will. You might wsant to know the thought process she went through.

I do lead people. The point is to lead them through their fuzzy thinking into a useful and logical conclusion.

After all, if it was good enough for Socrates, why shouldn’t I borrow his method, no?

 

[Porknpie]

Yep.

(Borrowing from the late, great, Archbishop Fulton Sheen): Just like the Calculus student can’t make up his own answer. He can’t declare: “The answer to the volume of this barrel is 39!”

He has to submit to the authority of his Calc professor, whom he admits has the correct answer.

Even if he doesn’t get how she got the correct answer–he knows his is incorrect and hers is correct…and he has to keep doing the math until he gets the right answer.

He doesn’t just get to make it up.

Classic. I love this analogy!

 

[Porknpie]

That it is wrong to kill someone because they are of a different race isn’t wrong because everyone says so (or more accurately, most people say so). Neither is it wrong because ‘it is written’. It may well be wrong in addition to the fact that most people agree and in addition to the fact that it is written, but it is wrong for a lot of very reasonable, non-religious, arguments.

Bradski,

Regardless of how you complete this sentence above from your viewpoint, "it’s wrong to kill someone because ___ ", in the end, you will only have an opinion. Someone else can have an opposite opinion.

This thinking leads to the question of "Was Hitler Right?". The link is to a talk by Jon Martignoni (see bottom of page). I highly recommend listening to it as well as any of the other talks by him listed.

 

[PRmerger]

You are confusing, and always have, I’m sure not intentionally, aspects of life which are fixed (the barrel has a volume of x), with aspects of life which every reasonable person would describe as indeterminate (can I keep a chicken in a cage) with aspects of life with which every reasonable person would agree (is it ok to torture puppies).

And you are guilty of, and always have been, (although I’m quite sure it’s unintentional), fundamentalist thinking. Either/Or. “If it’s A, then *everything in the entire universe of discourse *must always be A”. All or none.

That is: PRmerger believes in moral absolutes? Well, then everything is a moral absolute.

Nope. Some morality is indeed relative. But that doesn’t mean all morality is relative.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . There are reasons why ‘it is written’. It is because somebody made a conscious decision to write it. But those things are up for debate. They have to be. We cannot and must not accept anything without questioning it. On some things we will all reach a consensus. Which, as we both agree, doesn’t necessarily make it right. On other matters there will be disagreement. In some cases there may not even be a right answer. . …

For me there is really no doubt that God exists.
In terms of understanding, one comes to know Him through one’s relationship with Him.
That relationship is guided by His ongoing dialogue with humanity that is scripture and through the living institution that is the Church He founded.

There is a thread here about Hubble pictures of the Andromeda galaxies.
“What is written” is analogous to what is visually presented in those images - both point to Reality.
To read that “somebody made a conscious decision to write it” has no real meaning for me.
Yeah someone made a YouTube video of Hubble images; so?

As to morality, for me it is sort of utilitarian - what will ultimately make one happy.
What leads to happiness is love. With its joys and sorrows, the final tally is good.
Love is God’s imperative to us. That is His will. He is Love. We must love.
The commandments are a huge help for mankind in the direction of knowing how to love.

The trouble is that we can be so easily be led astray, even by our very own inclinations.
Society reflects this, and as a collection of people, may be even more lost than the individual.
We are fed and eagerly accept lies that wealth and things, honour, fame and status, power and influence, pleasure, that possessing any of these things will make us happy.
They do not.

Individually, there are choices to be made.
That is where there is an objective good or bad - in the conversation with God that is our conscience.
Through our actions we create ourselves in time as eternal beings.
The stakes are huge. The good thing is that the Judge is on our side - willing to go to jail for us, so to speak.

 

[PRmerger]

That it is wrong to kill someone because they are of a different race isn’t wrong because everyone says so (or more accurately, most people say so). Neither is it wrong because ‘it is written’. It may well be wrong in addition to the fact that most people agree and in addition to the fact that it is written, but it is wrong for a lot of very reasonable, non-religious, arguments.

The above is nothing but quite eloquent apologia for the existence of…

wait for it…
wait for it…

objective morality.

All of which you would be able to enumerate yourself without any reference to God, religion, your particular religion or your precise denomination.

Indeed. I typically don’t appeal to God when offering rationale for why genocide, abortion, gay “marriage”, rape, murder is wrong.

There are reasons why ‘it is written’. It is because somebody made a conscious decision to write it.

Sure.

But those things are up for debate. They have to be. We cannot and must not accept anything without questioning it.

Very Catholic, this!

If you had the time, could you answer all the questions I asked earlier?

Which questions?

You have a propensity to ask the simple questions with which we’d all agree (rape, murder, slavery) and say it proves your point, and suggest arguments that have no connection with morality (squares and circles and calculus).

Yep.

But you let slide the more debatable aspects.of morality. The ones where most reasonable people would find a modicum of disagreement.

Because some things *are *debatable, Brad. No argument from me (or the CC) on that.

And I appreciate it’s a tough call for you. For if there is any reasonable disagreement on a matter of morality then there is no basis for assuming that all matters of morality are objective.

LOL! Yes, sir. We are agreed on this.

There is a relativity to absolute morality. We’ve covered this before–you’ve even sent me a PM on this, saying you find the idea of a relative absolute morality intriguing and wished to pursue this line of thought a bit more. Remember?