Absolute morality question

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

So you do not have a cogent response?
What you see as muddled is simply my speaking in your less than accurate laymans terms rather than pedanticly insisting on tight moral theology definitions.
So here are the matters you need to sort out then:

1. Do you really understand the difference between a humant act and the act of a man? This classic distinction is close to what I referred to by “act” versus “deed”. Or material versus formal.
2. Do you understand the difference between personal sin and objective sin? Which do you refer to in your contributions? You seem to jump from one meaning to the other in your posts.
3. What type of “evil” do you mean when you use this word…malum poenae or malum culpae?
4. So when you combine both and speak of “sinful acts” or “evil acts” i think you are the one who confuses yourself and others by not clearly saying what you speak of. There is no clear difference between the two phrases. If you mean to speak of the objective matter of a human act just say so. Everybody knows what that means…hopefully.
5. You also need to distinguish intrinsic from absolute. The topic is absolute…the two meanings would not appear to be completely the same.

And yes there are intrinsically sinful acts. Murder sounds like one to me.
Intention appears to be part of the definition for most people…a etymological point I rambled on about above . Some Catholics here are adamant adultery is too. I, and the CCC, however disagree with him on that point. Perhaps it is so for other Churches.

Like Bradski says, if we make a definition tight enough we can define any class of sin or evil that we want. Intrinsically evil or not, actual or objective, grave or light, mortal or venial. Its all in how we define it. Whether the actual material sin we observe in any given incident matches that definition is a completely different matter.

And which reality was JPII referring to, the definition or the actual observed incident?
In my understanding his “concrete behaviour” was in fact referring to specific concrete definitions …not any deed/incident we might observe as a bystander.

We do not see either intrinsically evil acts or sins. We infer such judgements by using definitions of our own making. And often enough our inferences can be mistaken.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.

In reverse order: You do realize that we have doubled our life span over the past 100 - 150 years through scientific progress? Every measurable metric of the “good life” taken as a whole across the world are all trending up ever since we started recording these values. Stop watching mainstream news, it’s all just click bate and fear for monetary gain

You seem to now be changing the label of what “god” is into something just valuable to follow. I’ll keep the “god” description to what it was suppose to imply.

Science is the philosophy of studying reality. That’s all it is. Once there is actual evidence of the supernatural in reality, then it will be added to the idea of reality and we’ll have a specialize branch of science looking into it. If you have a better way of studying reality, then go fix the current model science is using and go win your Nobel prize.

 

[Russell_SA]

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.

I’m fine trusting the teachers in the fields of study that can be independently verified, peer-reviewed, falsifiable, and basically is part of the screening process that can remove as much personal bias as possible. Which is why we have the labels of “hard” and “soft” sciences. Soft sciences of human behavior studies like economics, sociology, psychiatry, etc. Hard sciences that provided the same results regardless of human behavior towards it. But again, I am just looking for any actual evidence that creates a causal link from the supernatural to the event observed. But all I keep finding is logical arguments for it only. To come to “justified” belief, we have to be able to actually find evidence of it in this reality or do we not? If not, could you give an example of where we do this? As far as I understand how logic works, is that it is referencing our understood reality, so reality is the measuring stick for justified belief. Logic can tell you where to look for something in reality, but finding it in reality is what makes that logical conclusion an actual fact about reality. Or do you think this is not the case and could you give an example of where we don’t do this? My example I use is Einstein’s gravity waves. He was logically, mathematically correct to conclude that gravity waves should exist. That logical process told us to look for them. It wasn’t until we actually found them in 2015 that gravity waves went from “should exists” to “actually exist”. At this point, the religious are presenting the supernatural as a fact instead of just an idea and we need to go look for it. Or do you think this is an unfair conclusion here? Don’t want to come across as flippant, but it can sometimes. I like keeping the bridges of conversation open. So if my objections seem like an impossible impasse, help me understand if it is a bridge too far because it is an inappropriate defense to the point or if it is just because the actual point of the religious side isn’t actually sufficient. If I can’t tell the difference between the two, then I’ll keep using the wrong response. But if it is a valid response, then I can’t see why that is not a correct position to respond with. My quick fire responses are typically because I have heard all these points before and it’s the same conversation for the last 2000 years and religion has made no further advancements on actually demonstrating what they are claiming to believe in. I care if it is actually there, not that it could be there or how it makes me feel that it could be there or that there may be a consequence for not acting that it could be there or how many people act as if it could be there, etc.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In reverse order: You do realize that we have doubled our life span over the past 100 - 150 years through scientific progress? Every measurable metric of the “good life” taken as a whole across the world are all trending up ever since we started recording these values. Stop watching mainstream news, it’s all just click bate and fear for monetary gain

You seem to now be changing the label of what “god” is into something just valuable to follow. I’ll keep the “god” description to what it was suppose to imply.

Science is the philosophy of studying reality. That’s all it is. Once there is actual evidence of the supernatural in reality, then it will be added to the idea of reality and we’ll have a specialize branch of science looking into it. If you have a better way of studying reality, then go fix the current model science is using and go win your Nobel prize.

I dont know what you are taking but you need to come off it .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In reverse order: You do realize that we have doubled our life span over the past 100 - 150 years through scientific progress? Every measurable metric of the “good life” taken as a whole across the world are all trending up ever since we started recording these values. Stop watching mainstream news, it’s all just click bate and fear for monetary gain

You seem to now be changing the label of what “god” is into something just valuable to follow. I’ll keep the “god” description to what it was suppose to imply.

Science is the philosophy of studying reality. That’s all it is. Once there is actual evidence of the supernatural in reality, then it will be added to the idea of reality and we’ll have a specialize branch of science looking into it. If you have a better way of studying reality, then go fix the current model science is using and go win your Nobel prize.

I dont know what you are taking but you need to come off it or reduce the dose.

 

[Bradski]

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…

OK. So I should be able to give you an act without telling you any of the conditions, my preferences in the matter of how I determined to do it (because an act may be determined to be evil ‘regardless of conditions, preferences and determinations’) and you can tell me if it was evil or not (I can’t add ‘consensi’ because I don’t know what you were trying to say – maybe consent or cognoscenti?).

I shot a dog.

Off you go…

 

[o_mlly]

So you do not have a cogent response?..

A cogent response first requires a coherent argument. Do you have one?

After labeling my exchange as “a storm in a teacup” you offered three rambling posts of ` 1,025 words. That’s a lot to say about a thing one considers not important.

Here’s some good advice from one poster to the OP in this thread.

I dont know what you are taking but you need to come off it or reduce the dose.

Take a breath and make a concise response. Focus on the OP’s first premise: *All people are conscious of an objective moral law. *

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A cogent response first requires a coherent argument. Do you have one?

After labeling my exchange as “a storm in a teacup” you offered three rambling posts of ` 1,025 words. That’s a lot to say about a thing one considers not important.

Here’s some good advice from one poster to the OP in this thread.

Take a breath and make a concise response. Focus on the OP’s first premise: *All people are conscious of an objective moral law. *

Mate, you now have zero credibility.
You dont answer reasonable questions but simply repeat your own set position like a nervous mantra you dont actually understand. And then you engage in silly sour grapes ad hominems instead of talking to the topic. For Gods sake pull yourself together and get intelligent life worth listening to.

Everybody else here seems to understand the points Bradski and I make.
A wise person would perhaps wonder if maybe things had thundered over their own head unknown given otherwise intelligent people usually are on point.

Nobody is denying moral absolutes…but they clearly arent what you mistakenly seem to believe they are. Your set position is clearly robbing you of the ability to understand others.

 

[o_mlly]

Mate, you now have zero credibility.
You dont answer reasonable questions but simply repeat your own set position like a nervous mantra you dont actually understand. And then you engage in silly sour grapes ad hominems instead of talking to the topic. For Gods sake pull yourself together and get intelligent life worth listening to.

Everybody else here seems to understand the points Bradski and I make.
A wise person would perhaps wonder if maybe things had thundered over their own head unknown given otherwise intelligent people usually are on point.

Nobody is denying moral absolutes…but they clearly arent what you mistakenly seem to believe they are. Your set position is clearly robbing you of the ability to understand others.

A lot of bluster and blather here but, unfortunately, still no argument.

 

[o_mlly]

OK. So I should be able to give you an act without telling you any of the conditions, my preferences in the matter of how I determined to do it (because an act may be determined to be evil ‘regardless of conditions, preferences and determinations’) and you can tell me if it was evil or not (I can’t add ‘consensi’ because I don’t know what you were trying to say – maybe consent or cognoscenti?).

I shot a dog.

Off you go…

The moral or formal object of an act is independent of the actor. The moral object identifies “what” is the end of the act. The “why” is end of the actor.

So knowledge of “your preferences” or your intentions are not necessary to determine the moral object of the act. “Who did it” or “why they did it” cannot change the species of that act as being good or evil.

Absolutely evil acts are evil because the end of the act (its moral object) is evil in itself (intrinsic). The actor’s end or intention cannot change the act’s moral object. The circumstances (when, who, where) cannot change the act’s moral object.

It is true that the formal or moral object of an act cannot be prescinded by its physical act. But it is also true that the moral object of an act cannot be collapsed into merely its physical act.

“Man shot a dog” has no moral object as it describes only the physicality of a human act.

In the concrete, the act would disclose the shooter’s status (veterinarian, policeman, dog catcher, thief?), the shooter’s authority over the dog (owner, civil authority, none?), the dog’s disposition (rabid, sick, old, healthy puppy?), and further defines “shot” (handgun, arrow, sling, hypodermic needle?).

An objective determination of a concrete human act as evil cannot be changed by the actor’s intention or any circumstances. Some utilitarians and consequentialists would disagree as their only source for moral determination is in evaluating the circumstances or effects of the act. Some Kantians would disagree as their only source for moral determination is in the intention, i.e., a good will.

We have single words that completely describe some human acts, not only their physicality, but also in their moral object. You know the list.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A lot of bluster and blather here but, unfortunately, still no argument.

Just respond to the questions my friend, the choice is yours .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ah, lets complete the allegedly independent “moral object”…

“Man shot dog unjustly.”
Bingo, intrinsic evil m’lud, case proven.

 

[Bradski]

“Man shot a dog” has no moral object as it describes only the physicality of a human act.

If you mean that there are no conditions given, then you are correct. Goout has specifically stated that an act is evil because it detracts from the good ‘regardless of conditions, preferences, and determinations, or consensi’. So I have given you an act without them.

In the concrete, the act would disclose the shooter’s status (veterinarian, policeman, dog catcher, thief?), the shooter’s authority over the dog (owner, civil authority, none?), the dog’s disposition (rabid, sick, old, healthy puppy?), and further defines “shot” (handgun, arrow, sling, hypodermic needle?).

But now you want to add conditions. Because, obviously, you have no idea whatsoever if the act is evil of not without them. Which exactly proves my point. That it is impossible to determine the morality of an act without knowing the relevant conditions. Such as, in this case, whether I was a vet or not, whether the dog was sick etc.

Or, has BH notes below, if it was done unjustly.

Ah, lets complete the allegedly independent “moral object”…

“Man shot dog unjustly.”
Bingo, intrinsic evil m’lud, case proven.

Add the conditions and you are in with a good chance of making a personal determination as to whether the act was evil or not.

 

[o_mlly]

If you mean that there are no conditions given, then you are correct. Goout has specifically stated that an act is evil because it detracts from the good ‘regardless of conditions, preferences, and determinations, or consensi’. So I have given you an act without them.

The issue: Are there some human acts that are absolutely evil, that is, evil without further description? Answer: Yes.

Are there some human acts that are evil with sufficient descriptions? Answer: Yes.

Can both statement be true? Answer: Yes.

Examples:
Man worships dog. Absolutely evil.
Man steals dog. Absolutely evil.
Man lies about dog. Absolutely evil.
Man envies another’s dog. Absolutely evil.

The truth value of the above examples is independent of the predicate “dog.” The act itself is absolutely evil - unconditionally evil.

Examples of indifferent acts (indifferent in the abstract):
Man shoots dog. Conditionally evil only.
Man saves dog. Conditionally evil only.
Man kills dog. Conditionally evil only.

But now you want to add conditions. Because, obviously, you have no idea whatsoever if the act is evil of not without them. Which exactly proves my point. That it is impossible to determine the morality of an act without knowing the relevant conditions. Such as, in this case, whether I was a vet or not, whether the dog was sick etc.

You write: “it is impossible to determine the morality of an act without knowing the relevant conditions.” You use the indefinite article “an” which normally means “any.” Do you mean to say “it is impossible to determine the morality of any act without knowing the relevant conditions”? If so, the statement is false.

Is rape an act?
Is lying an act?
Is bestiality an act?
Is stealing an act?

All are acts and all are absolutely evil.

It is true that “it is impossible to determine the morality of some acts without knowing the relevant conditions.” The truth of that statement does not alter the truth of the statement that “it is ***possible ***to determine the morality of some acts without knowing the relevant conditions.” Which is the same statement as: “Some acts are absolutely evil”

Or, has BH notes below, if it was done unjustly.

“Man shoots dog unjustly” is a logical fallacy - begs the question. At most, renders a subjective judgment about an objective fact. Subjective judgments can be erroneous. Not much help in furthering the discussion.

IAdd the conditions and you are in with a good chance of making a personal determination as to whether the act was evil or not.

This horse is dead.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Man steals dog. Absolutely evil.

Its already been agreed that taking a dog unjustly is immoral.
This is called a moral norm or even a moral precept.
And its a speculative tautology … an important **first step **in a moral judgement about a particular incident.

Whether this particular doggie incident is an example of such a norm being broken requires a few more steps of reasoning.
But whatever way we try and draw it - the particular incident cannot be judged morally until these additional prudential judgements are made based on this moral norm.
So the doggie incident itself cannot be called “absolutely evil” - though the moral norm we measure it against is.

And even if we did conclude that the doggie incident was an example of breaking the moral norm…that would still be a case by case prudential judgement and therefore be capable of error.

So no, the witnessed deed of taking a dog may not be the act of stealing a dog at all.
And if it were, it could only be called “absolutely evil” insofar as the subjective judgement was correct and the full facts known. Given that that facts are often grey (is it a stray dog with no owner?) and we don’t have a direct line to God then absolute certainty re the application of an absolute moral norm to a contingent event appears to be an argument from Paradise Lost.

You write: “it is impossible to determine the morality of an act without knowing the relevant conditions.” You use the indefinite article “an” which normally means “any.”

As has been noted you seem colorblind to the difference between “act” and “observed behaviour/incident”. An “act” in moral theology is not the same.

Animals are not capable of “acts”. Humans often are - and they are invisible to the senses but not to reason. But reason makes mistakes when judging animal behaviour/incidents because assumptions are often made about conditions and intentions that are not actually sensibly present. Sure, we can invent/assume these conditions/intentions in our moral norm (like theft, murder). But that still doesn’t tell us whether any given incident is a true example of that moral norm.

Do you mean to say “it is impossible to determine the morality of any act without knowing the relevant conditions”?

If by “act” you actually mean a given observed incident, correct, its often impossible without being certain about a variety of assumptions.

If by “act” you mean a speculative armchair defined incident (a moral norm) then incorrect, there can be absolute certainty as to the immorality of the speculatively defined material which often tends to be certain and sufficient to do so.

Is rape an act?

Do you mean if I make love to my wife? - No, she has never accused me of such. Mind you she has never explicitly verbally consented (except near the end) so it is possible it could be rape and has later forgiven me for it and so not taken it to the Police (yet).

Or do you mean “sex with a woman against her will is always and everywhere wrong, evil and immoral?” Yes, that moral norm most certainly describes an “absolute evil” act. I have never done that, though as above, my wife may one day tell me I have been dreaming. So I am uncertain now. Were all those acts absolutely evil?

“it is ***possible ***to determine the morality of some acts without knowing the relevant conditions.”

So name one?
All we can name are “moral norms/precepts” … you are not actually definitively naming a set of sensible witnessable incidents.

You merely provide a universal “ideal-ised” concrete incident.
That is what a “moral precept” is. Concrete incidents themselves vary and may not be judged to be true examples of the ideal - even if they seem close.

“Man shoots dog unjustly” is a logical fallacy… Not much help in furthering the discussion.

“Man takes dog unjustly” is the same isn’t it?
That’s the same as your “Man steals dog” above which you started with above .

Or murder
Or theft

I would not say moral precepts are unimportant.
They are the first steps in judging the objective morality of particular acts.
But yes, they may be mistaken in application to real events, which is what we are saying.

Think about it.

 

[o_mlly]

…
So no, the witnessed deed of taking a dog may not be the act of stealing a dog at all.
And if it were, it could only be called “absolutely evil” insofar as the subjective judgement was correct and the full facts known. …

The statement under analysis is not “Man takes dog” but “Man steals dog.” The former is conditionally evil, the latter absolutely evil. If the act is “steal” we need know nothing more about the subject to determine that the human act is evil.

It seems in your post that you do not separate the fonts. The determination of the “object of the act” is not identical with the determination of the “morality of the human act.” The “object of the act” is one of three fonts which together determine the “morality of the human act.”

All three fonts must be good to render the human act good. Subjective conditions reside in the other two fonts of intention and circumstances. If any one of the fonts is not good then the act is evil.

Therefore, an act evil in its object (stealing) can never be a good human act. It really is that simple. A disordered will is not pleasing to God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The statement under analysis is not “Man takes dog” but “Man steals dog.” The former is conditionally evil, the latter absolutely evil. If the act is “steal” we need know nothing more about the subject to determine that the human act is evil.

It seems in your post that you do not separate the fonts. The determination of the “object of the act” is not identical with the determination of the “morality of the human act.” The “object of the act” is one of three fonts which together determine the “morality of the human act.”

All three fonts must be good to render the human act good. Subjective conditions reside in the other two fonts of intention and circumstances. If any one of the fonts is not good then the act is evil.

Therefore, an act evil in its object (stealing) can never be a good human act. It really is that simple. A disordered will is not pleasing to God.

When you can actually answer the questions put to you perhaps we can pursue a heathly and realistic conversation about the real world rather than moral mathematics where infintely small points and infinitely long lines dont actually exist.

 

[o_mlly]

When you can actually answer the questions put to you perhaps we can pursue a heathly and realistic conversation about the real world rather than moral mathematics where infintely small points and infinitely long lines dont actually exist.

Some typical troll tactics:

• Trolls generally use provocative and confrontational language.
• Trolls hardly ever stick to the topic; they beat around the bush with the intention to confuse the reader.
• Trolls of the subtle variety flag off their attack with innocent questions.

Also, available on Amazon: *Blue on the Horizon: Troll *, Paperback $11.99.

Once a troll is unmasked, the best advice is to ignore them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Some typical troll tactics:

• Trolls generally use provocative and confrontational language.
• Trolls hardly ever stick to the topic; they beat around the bush with the intention to confuse the reader.
• Trolls of the subtle variety flag off their attack with innocent questions.

Once a troll is unmasked, the best advice is to ignore them.

And still you are unable to respond to the questions both Bradski and I put to you.

Instead you above carry out exactly the very “troll tactics” you critique others for.
How embarrassing.

Perhaps you would be best following your own advice above: “the best advice is to ignore them.”
Bet ya can’t but come back … timing you from … Now!
…

 

[Bradski]

Is rape an act?
Is lying an act?
Is bestiality an act?
Is stealing an act?

You continuously fail to understand that a term like rape contains within it the conditions that define the act. There is no need to add further conditions to determine the morality of the act. Likewise bestiality.

Whereas a term like lying contains none. It is simply telling someone something that is not true. For any reasonable person, we would need the conditions to determine if lying is morally justified or not. That is, unless you would argue that telling the SS that the children are not hiding in the house is absolutely evil.

Likewise stealing. What is being stolen? From whom? What are the consequences? Again, unless you want to argue that stealing the trigger for a nuclear device from a terrorist is absolutely evil. In which case, you have an extremely perverse notion of evil.