Absolute morality question

[o_mlly]

I might add that a moral absolute does not allow for conditions relative to the act in question. So that the statement: ‘Killing someone is wrong’ cannot stand on its own. You must specify the conditions in order to make a determination that it is wrong or not. Hence:

‘Killing someone is wrong IF done for the pleasure of watching someone die’. I’m assuming you would consider that to be wrong. But:

‘Killing someone is acceptable IF it is done in the defense of your family in a just war’. I’m assuming that you would consider that to be acceptable (adjust the scenario if you need to).

Neither are absolute statements because they contain conditional clause. Similarly: ‘Hurting a woman is wrong’ cannot stand alone. You need to describe the conditions relative to the act.

In some cases it is wrong (rape) and in some cases it is acceptable (a medical procedure). But one needs to give the conditions relative to the act.

Deja Vu? What conditions make rape a morally good act?

Well, none. Rape – like adultery, like murder, like theft – is intrinsically evil. I guess this argument is useful to those who have a severely limited vocabulary that excludes the words murder, rape, adultery and the like.

The definitions of intrinsically (absolutely) evil acts by necessity extend a basic human act to include conditions which make the object of the act evil always and everywhere. It’s not that complicated. One doesn’t need a rhetorical ju jitsu move to understand it.

 

[Russell_SA]

It can’t. But it can be congruent, internally consistent, practical and adequately explain gaps that other systems explain less well. It also copes well with assimilating new and “contradictory” information so long as past conclusions have not fossilised into absolute truths.

Is that approach any more foolish than the one you seem to be pitting it against?

Here is how I see the difference between faith, hope, and belief:
Belief is variable based on the evidence presented. Such as believing someone has a dog even though you have never seen the dog is not as strong a belief as actually seeing the dog in the care of that person. We have all witnessed, independently verified as well, people caring for dogs before, so it’s not a big leap to believe someone’s word when they tell you they own a dog. Now if they say they have a pet invisible dragon in their garage, you might need a lot more evidence for that belief. I definitely would.

Hope is the wish for the best possible outcome of all the possible outcomes of an event. Such as hoping to win the lottery. It is actually possible to win the lottery, but it is a very rare event.

Faith is the belief in something that actually has no evidence of its existence or the evidence of its existence is exactly no different than it not actually manifesting. So it is, by application of its use, another word for credulity. The belief in things unjustified. If you think this is unfair, please explain where this is wrong. Since you can believe anything without justified reasons, how can faith be, not the best but any, pathway to truth about reality? What can you not take on faith? This is why I don’t see the value of faith as something to value.

Logic is, definitely referencing the reality we experience. You can make the argument 1+2 = imagined idea. The 1+2 part is internally consistent and practical. The imagined idea can adequately explain gaps in our current understanding. However we need a way to demonstrated that the imagined idea is actually part of reality beyond logical conclusions. You can be mathematically correct and still come to a wrong statement about reality because maybe the use of 1+2 is not the actual correct way to describe the imagined idea. You have to be able to investigate the imagined idea in reality. So reality is the reference point and if the imagined idea can not be investigated in reality, it stays as an imagined idea. For example: Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist. So we went to investigate them in reality. Since we did not actually detect them until 2015, we were not justified in concluding that gravity waves are an actual part of reality. Science works; it has repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable results of its conclusions about reality. It is not the equivalent of the supernatural claims at all. You know this, the readers know this, stop this Tom Foolery here.
Imagining a being that can do anything and the ability to choose when to reveal and intervene comes across, definitially, as exactly no different than random chance and people still ignorant of the reality they inhabit. How do we tell the difference between the two? Since we can not investigate the supernatural in any way yet, we are stuck with the only justifiable conclusion as a natural explanation that we are ignorant as to the natural reasons why. There is zero difference at this point between the actual supernatural and the active imagination of a culture using the supernatural as an explanation.

 

[Russell_SA]

That’s not Moral Absolutism.

Moral Absolutism merely states that there are principles that must never be violated regardless of circumstances (example: “Killing another human is wrong, even in self-defense”). This is a subcategory of Moral Universalism, which merely states that there are principles that hold true across all space and time (example: “if killing another human being is wrong, then it’s wrong in every time period and culture”).

Neither of these suggest that there are rules for everything or that it needs to be provided by a conscious lawgiver.

An atheist can look at Moral Universalism or Moral Absolutism the way he might look at mathematics. In math many scientists (even secular ones) believe that theorems are discovered rather than created. In other words, 2+2=4 is universally and absolutely true. If you told a mathematician that it was subjective and that for you 2+2=1, he’ll more likely than not tell you that you’re just wrong. If you told him that your community raised you to believe 2+2=1, he’ll probably consider them wrong too. And the chance if very low that he’ll tell you “2+2=4 because God says so”.

Now you CAN write 2+2=1, but if you do any equation you try to build from that will suffer and whatever you’re trying to accomplish with said equation will fail. Likewise while you CAN murder a man for the rush of seeing him die, if you do your life will suffer.

Isn’t all morality just referencing human wellbeing? So once you reference human wellbeing as your grounding foundation for morality, you can come to moral absolutes. Just as once you reference a deity as the bar for morality, you can come to moral absolutes based on that reference point. Like a number line, everyone has to agree where the 0 is for referencing numbers, and those numbers become absolute at the reference point of 0. Or take the example of playing chess, is moving your king into a checkmate position an absolutely bad move outside of the reference point of chess? I guess checkmate wouldn’t make since outside of the game of chess, just as the volcano erupting on the moon of Io is not a “bad” thing since it is not in reference to human wellbeing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How about “I exist”?

You are not willing to unconditionally affirm that?

Well no. Have you heard of the Turing test?
The “truth” of your existence seems to hinge on yet another meaning of “truth”.
You also need to be clearer by what you mean by “l” ?

Are you referring to a universal that purports to involve something you have in common with other humans? In that case we are back to you asserting you are a person again. See my response below.

Or are you speaking of that singularity symbolised by the name ReggieM?
If so you are condemned to a solipsistic truth. Others can neither falsify or confirm that Reggie exists because to confirm that we would have to know what a Reggie is?
Sure, my sensible experience tells me that what I call “you” is as “real” as what I call “me” but anything more than that brute experience is moot.

Whether we share the same “nature”, whether you have the same consciouness as me etc…I can certainly make inductive and likely judgements just like the sun rising tomorrow. But “absolute truth” (I presume you mean certainty in this context)…well no.

It is very difficult to assert “existence” without also asserting some alleged universal “essence” that concommitantly exists. That seems to be an essential rule of communication.
I do not see how a principle of conceptual non contradiction can easily arise from this triviality. Such a principle rests on a “thing” being the subject of two predications and implies we have sure knowledge of this “thing’s” essence so as not to make the logical mistake of asserting contradictory things of different things instead of same things. In the tautological logic of such word games it is acceptable to say contradictory things of objects that are similar yet different.

We all know what “existence” means in terms of sensible experience…that is a trivial and self evident matter that is the basis for communication.

But then, further universalising and abstracting that experience into a world of divided objects with common forms and essences and natures is frought if absolute existence of them is sought.
Going further and martialing the relationships between these alleged sensible natures by means of logic, concepts and symbols is another order of “truth” again.

In summary the “truth” of essences (like a monoceros) and the “truth” of essences existing sensibly are different words. You mix up these different meanings of “truth” as if they are the same. Then there is a 3rd meaning you mix in which is “absolute truth” by which you seem to mean “certainty” regarding statements of the above two meanings.

I dont see any point in further discussion if you cannot quite grasp what I am attempting to clarify .

 

[reggieM]

We all know what “existence” means in terms of sensible experience…that is a trivial and self evident matter that is the basis for communication.

Ok, I understand.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Here is how I see the difference between faith, hope, and belief:…

I cannot say I disagree significantly with what you say above.
Though a few areas that may be worth teasing out more might be:

Now if they say they have a pet invisible dragon in their garage, you might need a lot more evidence for that belief. I definitely would.

But I believe you too easily distinguish between “evidence” and “belief.”
“More evidence” sounds like an oxymoron does it not?
Is there a digital distinction…or are they both actually on the same grey continuum between two contrary poles?

Hope is the wish for the best possible outcome of all the possible outcomes of an event.

I still prefer Aquinas’s definition based on Aristotle that hope is both an intellectual and volitional habit whose object is an arduous yet possible good.

Faith is the belief in something that actually has no evidence of its existence or the evidence of its existence is exactly no different than it not actually manifesting.

I like this one but it is still missing a few things for me due to your Post Enlightenment biases.
You might like to explore what traditional Catholicism calls “motives of credibility”. Basically it asserts, unlike your proposition, that faith is reasonable and the choice between believing and not believing is not an equal playing field in terms of reasonability as you suggest. Of course to agree with this insight you would need to redefine your somewhat absolutist appreciation of what “evidence” is (due to your your PE bias). And yes, this view is still compatible with a high degree of subjectivism in the beholder meaning two beholders may be drawn to make opposite decisions re the reasonableness of making a “faith” step.

You might also like to explore the three meanings of “faith” in traditional Catholic philosophy. (We do not just “believe it”, we also “believe in”) In accordance with Aquinas’s insight that man approaches reality with two powerful faculties (intellect and rational appetite (volition/will) ) the term “faith” can be approached either intellectually (ie articles of faith, its reasonable content and propositions as you tend to) or volitionally (as in personal “trust” of the herald of the strange propositions revealed). Both are involved in deciding the reasonableness of an act of faith as opposed to not making such an act.

Aquinas essentially asserts that an act of faith must be more reasonable than not making an act of faith if blame is to be sheeted to an unbeliever. You state *“Faith is the belief in something that actually has no evidence of its existence”. *Well if that were true Aquinas would likely say it is foolish to believe.

I would modify your statement. Faith is a belief in something that exists but traces of its existence are insufficiently coercive enough to force the intellect alone. Also, “faith comes from hearing” and intimately must involve a reasonable decision re the credibility of the herald as well. And I would further add, at least so far as Christianity is concerned, that if there has never been anyone who actually “saw” what we are invited to believe then it is built on sand and belief is unreasonable and therefore should never be given. Obviously I contend that Jesus “saw” and his followers were convinced he saw. I also accept that the temporal chain of testimony back to Jesus is, by that reason alone, a loss of “evidence” as it were. Not a heavy loss but a loss significant enough to make the step of faith/trust far less coercive than it would have been were we poor peasant witnesses in Palestine 2000 years ago. Hence deciding not to believe, or remaining undecided, will very often be blameless.

…CONTINUED BELOW

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…

You can be mathematically correct and still come to a wrong statement about reality because maybe the use of 1+2 is not the actual correct way to describe the imagined idea.

Absolutely. Or 1+1 may well be the way to describe the ideas in question but the ideas are inaccurate representations of what they refer to in the “real world” and therefore the logic, while true, is inapplicable to the practical reality we need to decide upon. That happens a lot with ethics.

Science works; it has repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable results of its conclusions about reality. It is not the equivalent of the supernatural claims at all. You know this, the readers know this, stop this Tom Foolery here.

That may be true but scientific truths and discoveries and “miracles” do not keep most people warm and peacefully asleep on dark cold nights or relieve their deepest hopes and fears.

Nor would I quite agree with your implied definition of “supernatural” which again seems to reflect a PE bias.

First up, true religion, if it is true, is verifiable. If it were absolutely unverifiable we may as believe in pixies in the end garden at twilight for all the difference such a belief will make to life (apart from being an opium for the masses).
But of course it is not yet verifiable which is why, if religion be true, faith is not a dirty word. It just has to be a reasonable faith not a credulous faith. That requires intellectual effort - as well as an open heart. Both in short supply together in this world!

But we know that even in science such “faith” is necessary for all but absolute genius’s.
It is the very basis of education. I trust my maths teacher to start with even though I cannot yet see for myself why the mathematical truths and proofs he teaches me are intellectually coercive. That’s a whole lot of pain and effort that would not be endured if we always rigidly declined “trust” and wanted “proof” from the outset. I don’t know about you but I am glad I pursued maths and trusted my teachers - they were right, I can see it for myself now. Though even in maths I still have to trust the quantum and string theory and high level calculus guys. Not smart enough there.
I am not sure my trust in my philosophy teachers was well placed even after 5 years of training! But I still admire the dedication to seeking truth even if I now have little faith in their personal absolutes!

I forgot to critique your understanding of “supernatural”. In short there is a difference between a God of true religion (if he/she exists) and a “god of the gaps” which is what you really seem to mean by supernatural (ie mystical?).

Even science believes in a “god of the gaps” does it not? When it sees a experimental gap that contradicts science or cannot be explained what does it do?
It doesn’t admit this. Instead it says “those outliers must be due to an error, a loose connection etc, the exceptions that prove the rule, poor sensors, noise…”
But whatever the excuse most scientists keep bowing to the god of reason - there MUST be an explanation…we will find it eventually.

Thus even true science becomes religion, and true religion becomes science.

Are the two really as sharply divided between reason/trust as you suggest?

 

[Bradski]

Deja Vu? What conditions make rape a morally good act?

Well, none. Rape – like adultery, like murder, like theft – is intrinsically evil. I guess this argument is useful to those who have a severely limited vocabulary that excludes the words murder, rape, adultery and the like.

The definitions of intrinsically (absolutely) evil acts by necessity extend a basic human act to include conditions which make the object of the act evil always and everywhere. It’s not that complicated. One doesn’t need a rhetorical ju jitsu move to understand it.

Rape, adultery and murder are all expressions of harm carried out in a particular way in specific circumstances. So you can say harming a woman is right or wrong depending on how and why it is done. If the specific way is by having sexual intercourse with her IF she is unable or unwilling to give consent, then it is wrong. It is wrong relative to those conditions.

Theft is another matter. It means to take someone’s property without their consent. So if your neighbour tells you he is going to shoot his wife when she gets home, it would be a good idea to take his gun. One assumes that he would not give his permission if you asked. So you need to specify the conditions under which the theft takes place to make a decision as to whether it is the right thing to do.

The other three terms already have within the definition of each those specific conditions. What you are arguing is that if we have a single word to describe an action under certain specific conditions, then it becomes a moral absolute. Which is nonsense.

If that is not the case, then give me a morally harmful act that doesn’t specify any conditions at all.

 

[o_mlly]

Rape, adultery and murder are all expressions of harm carried out in a particular way in specific circumstances. So you can say harming a woman is right or wrong depending on how and why it is done. If the specific way is by having sexual intercourse with her IF she is unable or unwilling to give consent, then it is wrong. It is wrong relative to those conditions.

Why do you insist trying to put some kind of Rear Naked Choke hold on these perfectly good words? What point is there in squeezing the very color out of them making them mean less than what do they mean for no good reason (that I can see).

Theft is another matter. It means to take someone’s property without their consent. So if your neighbour tells you he is going to shoot his wife when she gets home, it would be a good idea to take his gun. One assumes that he would not give his permission if you asked. So you need to specify the conditions under which the theft takes place to make a decision as to whether it is the right thing to do.

Once again, your definition (although improved from last time) of “theft” is still defective. See below.

The other three terms already have within the definition of each those specific conditions. What you are arguing is that if we have a single word to describe an action under certain specific conditions, then it becomes a moral absolute. Which is nonsense.

What? Friend, there are many words which describe particular actions which do not make the action absolutely immoral - appendectomy, for example. Or are you against the efficiency of using words that define acts performed in a specific manner? Well, I guess ju jitsu, to stay with the metaphor, is just a fancy word for “fight.”

If that is not the case, then give me a morally harmful act that doesn’t specify any conditions at all.

Sure.
Lying - speaking a falsehood to one who has a right to know the truth with the intention of deceiving.
Atheism - rejecting or denying the existence of God is a sin against the virtue of religion.
Theft - (Properly defined) usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner.

 

[goout]

Rape, adultery and murder are all expressions of harm carried out in a particular way in specific circumstances. So you can say harming a woman is right or wrong depending on how and why it is done. If the specific way is by having sexual intercourse with her IF she is unable or unwilling to give consent, then it is wrong. It is wrong relative to those conditions.

Theft is another matter. It means to take someone’s property without their consent. So if your neighbour tells you he is going to shoot his wife when she gets home, it would be a good idea to take his gun. One assumes that he would not give his permission if you asked. So you need to specify the conditions under which the theft takes place to make a decision as to whether it is the right thing to do.

The other three terms already have within the definition of each those specific conditions. What you are arguing is that if we have a single word to describe an action under certain specific conditions, then it becomes a moral absolute. Which is nonsense.

If that is not the case, then give me a morally harmful act that doesn’t specify any conditions at all.

An act is not wrong relative to conditions. An act is wrong as it harms the good. The conditions relate to the good.
Any act can be evaluated in reference to the good at hand. That’s what morality is: an evaluation in reference to the good.

Your sense of it is much too legalistic, which leads to the parsing of words that we see. As if morality were a rule-book rather than something (someone) else.

Raping a woman is wrong first of all:
because she is a human being, with all that is embodied in that.

 

[Russell_SA]

We know by experience that our self is not the sum total of reality (I hope), so our self cannot an absolute.

My own “I” only exists and makes sense in context with others.
So “I think” or “I prefer” or “I judge” cannot be an absolute.

It seems like you are suggesting that humans be held to a standard that is beyond their ability to be held to. If you can not understand why something is ethical or not, doesn’t someone’s arguments for why it is ethic become subjective to you if you are not convinced of them? Otherwise, if they are more powerful than you, it just becomes a right by might argument in the case of a deity or you’re just following orders of the deity without understanding why that action is an ethical one. That makes you an a-moral being. That is not to say you are an immoral being. A-moral means that you have shelved your ability to analyze a situation on its ethicalness and are just performing the action without understanding if it is good or bad at all. Or do you think that is a wrong assessment?

 

[Russell_SA]

But I believe you too easily distinguish between “evidence” and “belief.”
“More evidence” sounds like an oxymoron does it not?
Is there a digital distinction…or are they both actually on the same grey continuum between two contrary poles?

Evidence is just raw data, ie facts of reality. two apples, sand in your hand, etc.
Beliefs are what you hold about those facts. Beliefs can be held in varying degrees. Such as the belief that gravity is real vs the belief that my neighbor rescued a dog yesterday, but I have yet to see the dog, vs the claim that illusionist actually has ESP and can read minds. We hold our beliefs in preponderance to the evidence presented. Or do you see something wrong with this assessment?

I still prefer Aquinas’s definition based on Aristotle that hope is both an intellectual and volitional habit whose object is an arduous yet possible good.

I don’t really see how that is different from my explanation of the description of “Hope”. Hope is the desire for the best possible outcome of the known possible outcomes. AKA - Aquinas’ “arduous yet possible.”

You might like to explore what traditional Catholicism calls “motives of credibility”. Basically it asserts, unlike your proposition, that faith is reasonable and the choice between believing and not believing is not an equal playing field in terms of reasonability as you suggest. Of course to agree with this insight you would need to redefine your somewhat absolutist appreciation of what “evidence” is (due to your your PE bias). And yes, this view is still compatible with a high degree of subjectivism in the beholder meaning two beholders may be drawn to make opposite decisions re the reasonableness of making a “faith” step.

Belief is not a choice. Belief is the conclusion you make by referencing your current understanding about reality and applied logic. IE: 1+1 = ??, based on what you understand about that you have to believe it is 2. IE: I am experiencing sitting in a chair, now choose to believe I am not sitting in a chair. I can’t, even the people observing me can’t choose to believe otherwise. If they are given new information about reality and the situation, then their belief may change, but it’s not a choice. I can choose to react to people, to a limit, but I can’t choose to not believe they exist.

You might also like to explore the three meanings of “faith” in traditional Catholic philosophy. (We do not just “believe it”, we also “believe in”) In accordance with Aquinas’s insight that man approaches reality with two powerful faculties (intellect and rational appetite (volition/will) ) the term “faith” can be approached either intellectually (ie articles of faith, its reasonable content and propositions as you tend to) or volitionally (as in personal “trust” of the herald of the strange propositions revealed). Both are involved in deciding the reasonableness of an act of faith as opposed to not making such an act.

Trust, by definition, is earned based on the predictive nature of the event. I trust my partner loves me based on how I understand love to be communicated to me and that they have done this constantly over a historical record of my experience with them.
Seems like you are using Faith as I would use Belief in a mathematical hypothesis of reality. Such as Einstein’s mathematical conclusion that gravity waves exist. But we didn’t actually detect them until 2015, so we could not say that they were actually part of reality till 2015; before that, it was a mathematical hypothesis. The math was based upon the current known understanding of our reality that has been independently tested and produced repeatably accurate results. So that level of confidence allowed for a good reasoned level of belief. Now if someone claimed they believed that gravity waves actually existed before we detected them in 2015, I would say that was an unreasonable assertion, too far to reach as a claim. But that might be fine for them though. Faith, though, is believing in an idea that has yet to provide any independently verifiable data about the actual existence of what they are claiming to be the case. Such as my invisible dragon claim used earlier. There is zero evidence in this reality that we’ve been able to interact with so far of the existence of the supernatural. So, by how I understand the use of English, that is by definition, the belief in things unjustified is what Faith is. By that application, how can anything not be defended by the use of “Faith” and thus, how can faith be any accurate pathway to actual truth of this reality?

 

[Russell_SA]

I would modify your statement. Faith is a belief in something that exists but traces of its existence are insufficiently coercive enough to force the intellect alone.

Isn’t this, by definition, belief in something without a justified reason? And as such, then, using Faith as a belief in an idea can be used to defend any idea that someone has. How is that ever an accurate path to the truth about this reality? Shouldn’t you withhold your conclusions until there is enough evidence for it? Such as: 1+X= Y. Now, you could argue that I have Faith that Y is 5. How is this not an accurate representation of what you just described?

Also, “faith comes from hearing” and intimately must involve a reasonable decision re the credibility of the herald as well.

I don’t know what this means here. Can you elaborate more here?

And I would further add, at least so far as Christianity is concerned, that if there has never been anyone who actually “saw” what we are invited to believe then it is built on sand and belief is unreasonable and therefore should never be given. Obviously I contend that Jesus “saw” and his followers were convinced he saw. I also accept that the temporal chain of testimony back to Jesus is, by that reason alone, a loss of “evidence” as it were. Not a heavy loss but a loss significant enough to make the step of faith/trust far less coercive than it would have been were we poor peasant witnesses in Palestine 2000 years ago.

What do you mean by “saw” here?

Hence deciding not to believe, or remaining undecided, will very often be blameless.

Belief isn’t a choice, as I understand it.

 

[Russell_SA]

That may be true but scientific truths and discoveries and “miracles” do not keep most people warm and peacefully asleep on dark cold nights or relieve their deepest hopes and fears.

Doesn’t this get in the way of people actually solving these problems that keep people up at night out of fear? We fear what we do not understand because we do not know where the danger is and how to avoid it. If you start choking, should I give you the heimlich or just pray for you to breath? We are not as afraid of choking because we learned how to mitigate it, not because we prayed over it.

First up, true religion, if it is true, is verifiable. …
But of course it is not yet verifiable which is why, if religion be true, faith is not a dirty word. It just has to be a reasonable faith not a credulous faith. That requires intellectual effort - as well as an open heart.

Are you implying here that religion is true until proven false so it is reasonable to accept the idea of what it is attempting to explain? No one does that with anything else in the world. It is always the case that we do not change our current understanding about reality until there is enough evidence to illustrate there is a new change. Otherwise, we’d start believing contradictory ideas everyday. The default is not to believe till sufficient evidence is presented. Or is this not what you are talking about here?

But we know that even in science such “faith” is necessary for all but absolute genius’s.
It is the very basis of education. I trust my maths teacher to start with even though I cannot yet see for myself why the mathematical truths and proofs he teaches me are intellectually coercive.

There are enough smart people out there that can recreate the mathematical proofs and the teachers should be able to walk you through the proof and how it was created. They skip over the life-time of errors and mistakes the mathematician took before they reached their proof though, but anyone can recreate it. Also you can apply the mathematical proof in the real world to see if it accurately predicts the results in the real world. You can falsify it and independently verify it. Science is all about trying to break the current understandings of reality. If everyone still can’t break the idea, then it becomes a theory till someone can break it. The best part of science is when someone says, Huh, that’s strange; that’s new information or that shouldn’t have occurred.

Even science believes in a “god of the gaps” does it not? When it sees a experimental gap that contradicts science or cannot be explained what does it do? It doesn’t admit this. Instead it says "those outliers must be due to an error, a loose

When science is performed correctly, this does not happen. Yes you can have the sugar industry pay to create their own funded think tanks and scientists that learn how to present data in a way that obfuscates the conversation. But that is not how science is correct done. Scientists are always trying to break what they currently understand about reality. There is enough funding in the religious community to pay scientists to discredit evolution for example, but all that ends up happening, so far, is that they can’t break it. Things you can’t break after trying, just reinforces you justified belief in that idea as a truth about reality. We do need to remove private funds from the scientific community and let them perform science without regard to popular publicated results for industry. But scientists need to eat as well. We can do things to fix this issue though.

Are the two really as sharply divided between reason/trust as you suggest?

Justified belief is necessarily referenced within the reality we all experience. Since, having a belief in a realm currently outside of reality that is not accessible to anyone, how is that a justified belief? Why not just withhold a conclusion about it till more evidence presents itself? Otherwise you could become a mark for all the hucksters in the world looking for an easy mark.

 

[goout]

It seems like you are suggesting that humans be held to a standard that is beyond their ability to be held to.

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Doesn’t this get in the way of people actually solving these problems that keep people up at night out of fear? We fear what we do not understand because we do not know where the danger is and how to avoid it. If you start choking, should I give you the heimlich or just pray for you to breath? We are not as afraid of choking because we learned how to mitigate it, not because we prayed over it.

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

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.

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 quickfire tome of defensive counter arguments from a set position. Our worlviews and vocab are too far apart to make the sort of discussion you suggest viable or practical.

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 presumptuos lonely and narcissistic endeavour it will obviosly be futile. Any smart person knows that, I would rather spend my time in the veggie garden or reading a good book myself.
Good luck on your journey, I hope you learn what it is you seek.

 

[Bradski]

Why do you insist trying to put some kind of Rear Naked Choke hold on these perfectly good words? What point is there in squeezing the very color out of them making them mean less than what do they mean for no good reason (that I can see).

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.

Lying - speaking a falsehood to one who has a right to know the truth with the intention of deceiving.
Atheism - rejecting or denying the existence of God is a sin against the virtue of religion.
Theft - (Properly defined) usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner.

I see that you even felt the need to qualify the term ‘lying’ to include ‘one who has a right to know’. That’s not the definition of lying. A person’s right to know doesn’t affect it, so we can leave that out.

Psychopath: ‘Is your child hiding in the house?’

What is correct answer? Are you actually going to claim that it is morally correct to tell the truth in this case and have your child raped and murdered?

I think we can forget atheism, that‘s a nonsensical suggestion. And we’ve already covered theft (as if you wouldn’t steal the psychopath’s gun when he wasn’t looking).

An act is not wrong relative to conditions.

That’s quite impressive. You manage to contradict yourself in concurrent sentences.

An act is wrong as it harms the good. The conditions relate to the good

 

[goout]

That’s quite impressive. You manage to contradict yourself in concurrent sentences.

Funny.
You managed to not understand what I said in one!
Let’s hear it for precision and bandwidth conservation.

There is no contradiction. If we are going speak of absolutes, and that absolute is the good that we are referring to, that good is prior to conditions. The conditions are informed by the good.

So…?
wut r u talking about?

 

[Bradski]

The conditions are informed by the good.

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

 

[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.

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.

I see that you even felt the need to qualify the term ‘lying’ to include ‘one who has a right to know’. That’s not the definition of lying. A person’s right to know doesn’t affect it, so we can leave that out.

Psychopath: ‘Is your child hiding in the house?’

What is correct answer? Are you actually going to claim that it is morally correct to tell the truth in this case and have your child raped and murdered?

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*