Absolute morality question

[Russell_SA]

How is that?
This is what the discussion was referring to.
You claimed that your preferences (you used the word “I” in reference to claiming an absolute) would be the standard for absoluteness.
You can probably see that makes no sense. One person cannot be God, obviously.

Or if you don’t believe in God: one person is just one person. How can your “I” preference determine absolutes? That gives you imaginary powers you don’t have.

I believe I was referring to the idea that our understanding of reality and what is moral is only what we can understand to be true or not. Pronouncements of morality to someone that does not understand that to be a moral issue or doesn’t understand why that issue is an immoral one, or other scenarios like this is the best we can do at this point. Otherwise to suggest that we should live by a moral code where people are not understanding why it is a moral code is, by definition, asking these people to stop acting as moral agents. They are no longer assessing the situation to see why it is a moral issue and are just following the orders of their leader. You have to understand why that is a moral issue and why that moral issue is good or bad or just neutral. So we can assess agents that are claiming to have moral answers, but each answer has to be assessed on its own instead of just following every pronouncements they state.

As to whether or not we can come to “absolutes”, I don’t know yet if that is a standard we have reached yet. I’ve heard both sides argue fairly for the idea that there are and are not absolutes. I understand the idea that once you pick a reference point you can have absolutes, such as picking bob up on the mountain top. Anything that bob says, is a moral absolute because it comes from bob. Why pick bob over marry or john or you? Well bob is a special person. So? why does that matter? Well bob makes the judgments on your choices about moral actions. So. Why do we have to live by the standard that bob wants us to? Bob has to explain it to me why action A is bad and action B is bad and why every choice of a moral action only has one true answer instead of finding one that is good enough. If I don’t understand why something is moral or not, like blasphemy, picking a different bob to listen to, picking everyone to listen to so that bob is no more higher in virtue than anyone else, etc. So I’ll pick human well-being as my reference point and come to some moral absolutes that way, all human moral systems tend to have that as their ultimate reference points anyways it seems.

Not sure if this addressed your points but I think this is where it was going. Let me know if this wasn’t what you were addressing.

 

[o_mlly]

Because it is important to understand what you mean when you claim that an act is morally wrong in itself, without any conditions applying. My point is that there are always conditions present which define its morality.

… What the…? Why not call it as it is? Something is good, something is evil and most things are somewhere in between.

Is that your brother’s post? Now, he makes sense.

 

[Russell_SA]

When you work out a satisfying way to understand and avoid death let me know .

How does your desire for something in reality have any bearing on what reality actually is? You seem to be implying that religion is a child’s dummy to suck on when they don’t like something about reality.

If you do not think there is anything there to understand at your stage in life that would explain why you are unable to grasp the possibility and reasonableness of true religion.

So if someone presents you with an idea of Peter Pan, are you too thick to take that seriously too? Demonstrate that there is actually a supernatural realm. Explain how you can know that there is a god there and a supernatural realm and I’ll assess if it convinces me or not. If not, I’ll tell you why it doesn’t convince me yet. The default position is to not believe what people present as reality until there is sufficient evidence for you to change your position. Until then, it’s still just an empty sack because I can’t see how there is anything actual there that you are presenting. If this is as important as the religious community claims and this is best way this deity has for presenting it’s actual existence, would that make this deity, by definition of actions, not a moral or deity? It comes across to me as no different than parents dropping off their child at an orphanage and then never being a part of its life that the child can detect in anyway and then punishing the child for not following their morality, even though they never had a relationship with that child in any way.

I am not really interested in gainsaying your world view. I have simply provided what I believe are a few pointers or bridges from where you are at now to more easily come to understand a correct worldview of traditional Catholic philosophy on these matters. That requires considerable reflection and a little reading in areas Ive indicated rather than a quick-fire tome of defensive counter arguments from a set position. Our worldviews and vocab are too far apart to make the sort of discussion you suggest viable or practical.

I don’t really care about conversion as a result of the discussion, only that each side heard each other’s points and understand why each side believes what they believe.

If you are not really interested in applying the type of effort I suggest to better your appreciation of true Catholicism that is fine…though I wonder why you bother to come on a Catholic forum. If I was a satisfied atheist the last thing I would attempt to do is to try and convince Catholics they are on the wrong path. Apart from being a somewhat presumptuous lonely and narcissistic endeavor it will obviously be futile. Any smart person knows that, I would rather spend my time in the veggie garden or reading a good book myself.

I still don’t see how faking it till the catholics believe that I’m a catholic is a path to truth. If all the processes you used to discover the supernatural realm actually worked, wouldn’t it work everywhere regardless of the catholic filter? Electricity and medicine work regardless of the world view applying it and people’s personal feelings about those facts about reality.

 

[goout]

Whether an act is good or not is entirely dependent upon the conditions. Period.

Slightly different issues.
The conditions help make the evaluation.
All of it serves the good.

the implication of what you were saying is that no absolute good can be found, and everything is conditional.
In Christian morality, that is not so.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How does your desire for something in reality have any bearing on what reality actually is? You seem to be implying that religion is a child’s dummy to suck on when they don’t like something about reality.

So if someone presents you with an idea of Peter Pan, are you too thick to take that seriously too? Demonstrate that there is actually a supernatural realm. Explain how you can know that there is a god there and a supernatural realm and I’ll assess if it convinces me or not. If not, I’ll tell you why it doesn’t convince me yet. The default position is to not believe what people present as reality until there is sufficient evidence for you to change your position. Until then, it’s still just an empty sack because I can’t see how there is anything actual there that you are presenting. If this is as important as the religious community claims and this is best way this deity has for presenting it’s actual existence, would that make this deity, by definition of actions, not a moral or deity? It comes across to me as no different than parents dropping off their child at an orphanage and then never being a part of its life that the child can detect in anyway and then punishing the child for not following their morality, even though they never had a relationship with that child in any way.

I don’t really care about conversion as a result of the discussion, only that each side heard each other’s points and understand why each side believes what they believe.

I still don’t see how faking it till the catholics believe that I’m a catholic is a path to truth. If all the processes you used to discover the supernatural realm actually worked, wouldn’t it work everywhere regardless of the catholic filter? Electricity and medicine work regardless of the world view applying it and people’s personal feelings about those facts about reality.

You have a remarkable knack for being unable to openly explore any point of misunderstanding or dissonance re Catholic understanding of faith in your statements that I reflect back to you. Instead you take a surprisingly defensive approach and pepper back with questions I regard as non-sequitors and betray an inability to peacefully explore the dissonance with me.

That you believe, by asking you to seriously reflect on my observations before you quickfire defensively respond, I am trying to convert you … had me rolling on the floor. Yes, I am trying to convert you, but not to faith, rather to a more reasonable use of reason and a shared seeking of truth.

I tire of that inflexible, set position common in my fellow red-necked Catholics - it seems atheists also suffer from the same sort of baggage too.

But then, you do not believe in trusting anything a teacher might ask you to temporarily believe unless you can immediately see it for yourself. At least you are consistent - even if its a misguided philosophy of science (and of life). As I say, all learning, both of faith and science, begins with trust. The evidence of it comes later. If you cannot accept that then you will never be a good learner of anything - not even science/maths let alone a reasonable religion.

How does your desire for something in reality have any bearing on what reality actually is?

Even your fellow atheists, if they are philosophers of science, would hopefully be able to demonstrate the naiivity of your question here .

As I say, when you realise that science is not a god and is in fact unable to cure death, poverty and suffering and the misery this causes … then the possibility of a reasonable faith (whether in man, teachers or religion) will forever elude you.
You will be like a colorblind person who is absolutely convinced nobody can possibly be reasonable in their blatherings about color.

 

[Bradski]

Slightly different issues.
The conditions help make the evaluation.
All of it serves the good.

the implication of what you were saying is that no absolute good can be found, and everything is conditional.
In Christian morality, that is not so.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

You cannot make an evaluation without knowing the conditions. So to say that they ‘help’ make the evaluation is like saying that water helps me to swim. Again, if you think that is not the case, then give me an example of an act without conditions and tell me if it is morally right or wrong

And yet again, terms like murder and rape already have within them a set of very specific conditions that allow us to use those terms and those conditions allow us to make a moral determination.

Otherwise you could add as many conditional clauses as you like, make a determination and declare it to be a moral absolute.

 

[Bradski]

Again, what conditions would make rape a moral act? Only in the abstract does one talk about a human act absent all conditions. And a human act absent all conditions has no moral content. So, it does not make any sense to analyze the morality of a completely abstracted human act.

However, in the concrete, it is never so. For instance, sexual intercourse always involves two people whose gender and marital status are real. Now, in the concrete, and only in the concrete, can one distinguish the morality or immorality of the act of sexual intercourse. Adultery, on the other hand does not need further qualification to be deemed immoral. Same with rape.

Another one of your rear-naked-choke-holds? This time on the definition of the word “lie”. Your example only works with your choked and incorrect definition of “lie.” So we can dismiss that example as non-instructive. Can you give an example of a morally acceptable lie with the correct definition? No, like rape, you cannot make moral an act which is evil in its object, ever.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283 CCC

I’m a little bemused by that post. Maybe you were arguing just for the sake of it. But what you have written above is the point I have been trying to make.

As you said, adultry and rape require no FURTHER qualification to make a moral call. The terms are ALREADY qualified.

And the catechism bears me out. Lying is not classed as morally wrong in isolation (although you will have many Catholics dispute that). As it specifically says, it is NOT unconditional.

Thanks for saving me having to find that myself.

 

[Bradski]

You cannot make an evaluation without knowing the conditions. So to say that they ‘help’ make the evaluation is like saying that water helps me to swim. Again, if you think that is not the case, then give me an example of an act without conditions and tell me if it is morally right or wrong

And yet again, terms like murder and rape already have within them a set of very specific conditions that allow us to use those terms and those conditions allow us to make a moral determination. Exactly as o_mlly explains in her earlier post.

Otherwise you could add as many conditional clauses as you like, make a determination and declare it to be a moral absolute.

 

[o_mlly]

…As you said, adultry and rape require no FURTHER qualification to make a moral call. The terms are ALREADY qualified.

And the catechism bears me out. Lying is not classed as morally wrong in isolation (although you will have many Catholics dispute that). As it specifically says, it is NOT unconditional.

Thanks for saving me having to find that myself.

As always, you are welcome.

You’re very close to the truth. You’ve now got it right on adultery and rape as intrinsically (absolutely) evil acts. But read the catechism more closely on lying because you’ve still got that one wrong.

The citations I so kindly provided specify not conditions that allow lying (lying, like adultery and rape, is always and everywhere evil) but rather a listeners right to hear the truth which is conditional.

What would one say to a psychopath bent on murder who has no right to the truth of the whereabouts of his intended victims? Well, silence is one choice, a rear-naked-choke hold another or, “They most certainly are not home for you!” Get it?

 

[Bradski]

As always, you are welcome.

You’re very close to the truth. You’ve now got it right on adultery and rape as intrinsically (absolutely) evil acts. But read the catechism more closely on lying because you’ve still got that one wrong.

The citations I so kindly provided specify not conditions that allow lying (lying, like adultery and rape, is always and everywhere evil) but rather a listeners right to hear the truth which is conditional.

What would one say to a psychopath bent on murder who has no right to the truth of the whereabouts of his intended victims? Well, silence is one choice, a rear-naked-choke hold another or, “They most certainly are not home for you!” Get it?

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word absolute. It means without conditions or qualifications. You have already agreed that the term rape already has wthin it specifc conditions yet now you say that it’s absolute.

‘I just had sex with someone’
‘Was it your wife?’
‘No’ A qualification. So it’s not an absolute by definition. Which makes it adultery.
Was it with her consent?’
‘No’. Another qualification. So again it cannot be an absolute by definition. Which makes it rape.

And as far as lying and the catechism, 2488 says nothing whatsoever about a person’s right to know. And it SPECIFICALLY says that it is not unconditional. It cannot be clearer.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word absolute. It means without conditions or qualifications. You have already agreed that the term rape already has wthin it specifc conditions yet now you say that it’s absolute.

‘I just had sex with someone’
‘Was it your wife?’
‘No’ A qualification. So it’s not an absolute by definition. Which makes it adultery.
Was it with her consent?’
‘No’. Another qualification. So again it cannot be an absolute by definition. Which makes it rape.

And as far as lying and the catechism, 2488 says nothing whatsoever about a person’s right to know. And it SPECIFICALLY says that it is not unconditional. It cannot be clearer.

It doesn’t help that the meaning of words change either.
Traditionally rape of one’s wife was a contradiction in terms.
That does not mean the act of force was not immoral - it simply wasn’t called rape.

Yet that qualification has changed and now marital rape does exist.
All very tortured which doesn’t make discussions re morality any easier.

I suppose that technically, at least so far as the Church is concerned, the rape above was also adultery - those two terms are not mutually exclusive either as far as I know.

 

[o_mlly]

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word absolute. It means without conditions or qualifications. You have already agreed that the term rape already has wthin it specifc conditions yet now you say that it’s absolute.

Are all atheists so loquacious? You seem to think that even though we have a perfectly good word that describes a human act that we must use a paragraph instead.

And, why cannot a word like “rape” from which one does not have to tease out particulars, as your example painfully describes below, be categorized as absolutely immoral? Is there any advantage in making the simple so complex?

‘I just had sex with someone’
‘Was it your wife?’
‘No’ A qualification. So it’s not an absolute by definition. Which makes it adultery.
Was it with her consent?’
‘No’. Another qualification. So again it cannot be an absolute by definition. Which makes it rape.

Watch - 45 words reduced to just 2: “I raped.” Same 1 word answer to both: “immoral.”

And as far as lying and the catechism, 2488 says nothing whatsoever about a person’s right to know. And it SPECIFICALLY says that it is not unconditional. It cannot be clearer.

Please read the complete citation. Also cited was 2489, “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

There are two teachings involved - When can one lie? Never. When must one withhold the truth? Sometimes (conditionally).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are all atheists so loquacious? You seem to think that even though we have a perfectly good word that describes a human act that we must use a paragraph instead.

And, why cannot a word like “rape” from which one does not have to tease out particulars, as your example painfully describes below, be categorized as absolutely immoral? Is there any advantage in making the simple so complex?

Watch - 45 words reduced to just 2: “I raped.” Same 1 word answer to both: “immoral.”

Please read the complete citation. Also cited was 2489, “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

There are two teachings involved - When can one lie? Never. When must one withhold the truth? Sometimes (conditionally).

Guys this is a storm in a teacup.
You are both right and wrong in this discussion.

Bradski is correct that all immoral acts are defined so under a very particular set of descriptive conditions. Thus they are absolute only if those conditions are met. Sometimes the english language has a sinle word for such…eg murder. But such a word is not to be confused with a sensible deed. One does not see innocence in killing or an unreasonable non consent in taking property.

But Bradski also made some incorrect statements as well as you correctly observed. His definition of theft in post #109 was mistaken.

The source proplematic post seems to be #100.

It boils down to whether a moral proposition with conditional statements may be called absolute.
Well obviously the conclusion will be absolute…eg killing under such and such conditions is always wrong.

Is the statement itself conditional…? Obviously. And in that sense it is not absolute.
However moral word definitions have to be conditional otherwise we cannot easily define specific classes of immoral acts.

And once so defined they can be absolute.

Who has a problem with that?

Whether this particular deed is an example of such a word is a whole different matter of course.

 

[o_mlly]

Guys this is a storm in a teacup.
You are both right and wrong in this discussion.

Bradski is correct that all immoral acts are defined so under a very particular set of descriptive conditions. Thus they are absolute only if those conditions are met. Sometimes the english language has a sinle word for such…eg murder. But such a word is not to be confused with a sensible deed. One does not see innocence in killing or an unreasonable non consent in taking property.

But Bradski also made some incorrect statements as well as you correctly observed. His definition of theft in post #109 was mistaken.

The source proplematic post seems to be #100.

It boils down to whether a moral proposition with conditional statements may be called absolute.
Well obviously the conclusion will be absolute…eg killing under such and such conditions is always wrong.

Is the statement itself conditional…? Obviously. And in that sense it is not absolute.
However moral word definitions have to be conditional otherwise we cannot easily define specific classes of immoral acts.

And once so defined they can be absolute.

Who has a problem with that?

Whether this particular deed is an example of such a word is a whole different matter of course.

The OP’s question is the issue, restated: Are there any human acts whose morality is absolute? The argument that there are no absolutely evil acts is false. This arguments portrays that the morality of human acts always depends on conditions outside the act itself, that is in the circumstances. That is not the Catholic answer. Acts evil in their object are never permissible.
*But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. VS JPII.*An attempt to abstract from such acts the basic human act is a reductio ad absurdum as all such efforts must end in simply “I exist.”

The next issue to fully address the OP’s question is, "Are there any human acts whose morality is absolutely good? Now, the poster may and correctly argue, “No, it depends.”

 

[goout]

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word absolute. It means without conditions or qualifications. You have already agreed that the term rape already has wthin it specifc conditions yet now you say that it’s absolute.

‘I just had sex with someone’
‘Was it your wife?’
‘No’ A qualification. So it’s not an absolute by definition. Which makes it adultery.
Was it with her consent?’
‘No’. Another qualification. So again it cannot be an absolute by definition. Which makes it rape.

And as far as lying and the catechism, 2488 says nothing whatsoever about a person’s right to know. And it SPECIFICALLY says that it is not unconditional. It cannot be clearer.

As stated before, moral evaluations serve the good. The good exists, and the good is not dependent on conditions. This whole discussion and all it entails rests entirely on seeking and doing the good, which ultimately is not you, not your preferences, and is not subject in any way to your understanding of it.
Neither is the good subject to popular opinion, consensus, force, or any other thing than the good itself.
5 or 10 or 90% does not make right. Neither do conditions make right.

The conditions that you and I might use to make an evaluation are not the end in themselves, they serve the good.

Surely this is not so difficult to understand, unless you are bent on relativizing morality. :sad_yes:

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The OP’s question is the issue, restated: Are there any human acts whose morality is absolute? The argument that there are no absolutely evil acts is false. This arguments portrays that the morality of human acts always depends on conditions outside the act itself, that is in the circumstances. That is not the Catholic answer. Acts evil in their object are never permissible.
*But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. VS JPII.*An attempt to abstract from such acts the basic human act is a reductio ad absurdum as all such efforts must end in simply “I exist.”

The next issue to fully address the OP’s question is, "Are there any human acts whose morality is absolutely good? Now, the poster may and correctly argue, “No, it depends.”

I really dont know what you are trying to say.
At least Bradski was very clear and I agreed with his approach even if he made a few slip ups in his definitions of theft and he misunderstood what you were saying about revealing the truth.

But your weakness above is that you blurr the line between acts and deeds.
A “human act” is as far from a “deed” as a soul from a body. They are not at all the same. I am not sure you realise this. Which does JP2 actually mean by a “concrete action” or “behaviour”?
I think you have jumped the wrong way if you think its a “deed” evident to the senses alone.

Then there is the problem of how we use words when speaking of morally loaded deeds.
I have had extended debates on CAF with well educated Catholics who believe adultery is always personally mortally sinful because it is, allegedly, a condition of the definition that it be intentional.

Its an interesting angle. Can intent be part of a definition? With some words he is right. We dont really speak of someone as a killer if the killing was accidental (an old man pressed the wrong pedal). We would normally use the paasive tense to describe how a pedestrian “was killed” or died due to… We dont usually say an old man killed a pedestrian yesterday.

However the Catholic Church does not actually include intent in its definition of adultery. Hence accidentally sleeping with my wifes twin sister due to a trick is still adultery.

So yes there are absolutely evil acts. But as Bradski said the definition of these acts are very strictly defined and conditioned and often they will be indistinguishable from other deeds which at first pass may look the same.

Whether a material deed corresponds with our definition of an absolutely evil act is a matter of investigation and practical reason. It is often hard to see innocence (which distinguishes murder from just war or self defence) or unreasonable will (which distinguishes theft from just taking).

In some sense absolutely evil acts are no more than tautologies … the predicate is implicitly contained in the subject. eg unjust killing (murder) is always wrong, strange to say I share a parent with my brother, an unmovable object can never be shaken.

Nothing wrong with defining such absolutely evil acts…the problem comes when we try to identify real world examples of them.

 

[Bradski]

In some sense absolutely evil acts are no more than tautologies …

I tend to agree. An evil act is an act that has already been determined to be evil. So logically must have been qualified in some way. ‘It was evil because…it would be evil if…’.

It therefore, again by definition, cannot be absolute.

 

[goout]

I tend to agree. An evil act is an act that has already been determined to be evil. So logically must have been qualified in some way. ‘It was evil because…it would be evil if…’.

It therefore, again by definition, cannot be absolute.

An act is not evil because it is determined so, it is evil because there is a good that exists, and the evil act detracts from that good, regardless of conditions, preferences, and determinations, or consensi.

Your scenario above is not very satisfying to the myriad victims of injustice, who are not protected by the right “determinations”.

Relativist quicksand…

 

[o_mlly]

I really dont know what you are trying to say.
At least Bradski was very clear and I agreed with his approach even if he made a few slip ups in his definitions of theft and he misunderstood what you were saying about revealing the truth.
But your weakness above is that you blurr the line between acts and deeds.
A “human act” is as far from a “deed” as a soul from a body. They are not at all the same. I am not sure you realise this. Which does JP2 actually mean by a “concrete action” or “behaviour”?
I think you have jumped the wrong way if you think its a “deed” evident to the senses alone.
Then there is the problem of how we use words when speaking of morally loaded deeds.
I have had extended debates on CAF with well educated Catholics who believe adultery is always personally mortally sinful because it is, allegedly, a condition of the definition that it be intentional.
Its an interesting angle. Can intent be part of a definition? With some words he is right. We dont really speak of someone as a killer if the killing was accidental (an old man pressed the wrong pedal). We would normally use the paasive tense to describe how a pedestrian “was killed” or died due to… We dont usually say an old man killed a pedestrian yesterday.
However the Catholic Church does not actually include intent in its definition of adultery. Hence accidentally sleeping with my wifes twin sister due to a trick is still adultery.
So yes there are absolutely evil acts. But as Bradski said the definition of these acts are very strictly defined and conditioned and often they will be indistinguishable from other deeds which at first pass may look the same.
Whether a material deed corresponds with our definition of an absolutely evil act is a matter of investigation and practical reason. It is often hard to see innocence (which distinguishes murder from just war or self defence) or unreasonable will (which distinguishes theft from just taking).
In some sense absolutely evil acts are no more than tautologies … the predicate is implicitly contained in the subject. eg unjust killing (murder) is always wrong, strange to say I share a parent with my brother, an unmovable object can never be shaken.
Nothing wrong with defining such absolutely evil acts…the problem comes when we try to identify real world examples of them.

Hard to address this rambling post much of which I see as muddled thinking.

Let’s just examine how you begin: “you blurr (sic) the line between acts and deeds.” Read the posts carefully. The word “deed” does not occur in the posts for good reason: the discussion is about evil acts, not about sinful acts. One cannot “blur” what’s never been discussed.

Remember, not all evil acts are sinful acts and no act is intrinsically sinful. It is not only unnecessary but only serves to muddle the discussion of absolutely evil acts with issues that determine culpability for such acts. If you want to discuss sinful acts, start another thread or line of questioning in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

I tend to agree. An evil act is an act that has already been determined to be evil. So logically must have been qualified in some way. ‘It was evil because…it would be evil if…’.

It therefore, again by definition, cannot be absolute.

Once loosed, the muddling usually continues …