Beauty, goodness and positivity

[Links_Herz]

I’ll make it clear from the outset that I am not a Catholic, but I have come to these forums with an open mind so that I may see the Catholics’ points of views on somewhat less controversial subjects. That is, not on evolution or abortion, but on more generalised and varied, and less divisive subjects.

As a secular humanist, I see beauty as deriving from a human desire and ability to see the value of something- regardless of whether it is good. Beauty, to me, is a property that does not exist independent of the human conscience, and is not an entity, but an abstract idea applied to something things which are aesthetically pleasing. Beauty is relative to different cultures.From fashion or manners, to music or the performing arts, beauty is seen differently depending on from where people are living. There is a reason why “pop music” is so popular even across country borders. The limited set of ideas “pop music” usually contains is very flexible to many interpretations. That is, different cultures will find different reasons for why that music or that idea is beautiful.

"Goodness and positivity".
What makes something “good”, “moral” or “right”. Why is an action called the “right decision” in the short term, but all too often ends up doing more harm than good?
These are questions with many answers, I cannot think that my answers are any more valid than yours, but from what I understand, do not all Christians and therefore Catholics believe that all goodness comes from God, and that all evil/badness comes from Satan (or an absence of God)? My perspective is very different, in that I believe they are innate human characteristics which allow for a functioning society (an immoral, murderous or lying society will not be able to function sustainably, where as a moral one will). Consider the difference between Somalia (perhaps the most corrupt country in the world, with no full government over the country) and New Zealand or Norway (two of the least corrupt and most developed countries in the world). Would one argue that “God has forsaken Somalia and many African countries, but blessed New Zealand and Norway”, or that much of Africa has been aggressively colonised and made a poor transition to democracy, whereas much of Europe and New Zealand have been given more care when it comes to settlement?

 

[Lonely_guy]

Well,I can’t answer all your questions but I can say this much. What ever God has created is beautiful.

 

[Curious_Seed]

You have expounded on a number of thoughts.

I would like to comment on two.

What determines what is “right?”

For me, God.

Without God, man is left to his own devices to determine right from wrong. But, man has no moral authority for what he decides, except that which he assigns to himself. Only God has moral authority, and though He also assigns it to Himself - He is God.

Is all “bad” from Satan?

No.

Man does not need Satan to eat of the apple.

 

[Altar_Server_2]

I really like that you have an open mind. I also have an open mind, as concerns those things that are not Catholic doctrine, and the best results come from a debate when both sides are open to the truth. So thank you.
If you will permit me, I will try to answer the second question first since it much more important than the first, since it deals with morality.
Now, I am only sixteen and I don’t have a lot of experience with ordering my thoughts logically on a paper, so forgive me if you don’t understand something I have said and don’t hesitate to point it out to me.

We do believe that all good flows from God and all evil is an absence of God. I think that your understanding of what we mean by this is different from what we really mean. When we say this, we don’t mean that God decides which countries, people, or societies that are good and those that are bad. It seems that is what you think judging from your example of Somalia and Norway.Since men have free will, it is our choice as individuals and subsequently as societies or nations to choose God (who is goodness itself) or evil (disregard of God and his infinite goodness). I agree that a society can only function by keeping with the moral principles.
There are two types of virtues or one could even say levels of morals: natural and theological. Natural virtues can be achieved without God’s direct intervention and without knowledge of God. For example, the Indians of North America were very brave men who respected family and had good virtues in their code of ethics. They did not know God. The ancient Chinese had a very strict code of morals as pertained to family. Parents were treated with utmost respect etc. So there are some virtues that can be attained without God’s direct intervention. But where did these “innate” (to use your word) characteristics come from in the beginning? GOD. Because he created us. So these characteristics that you speak of that create a good society are innate in humans, but there origin is in God.
(Just to finish the thought, although it doesn’t really have to do with our discussion right now. The Theological Virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity in the true Christian sense are only gained with the direct grace of God.)
Now, I don’t know much about the situation in Somalia or other corrupt countries, but I can see that the development of the countries certainly can have quite a bit of influence in the morality of the countries. Circumstances always influence things in ways that sometimes are not desirable.
(Pardon me, I must pause here and continue in my next post. I need to get some shuteye!) God Bless!

 

[Links_Herz]

l try to not make a stark dichotomy here, however the ideas that all goodness and morality stems from God (or even some nameless infinite higher power) contrasts strongly with my view that goodness and morality stem from psychological processes within human nature. The question here is whether humans get their morality from God or from something else.

I won’t talk too much about moral relativism vs. absolute morality, because I believe relative morality could still be observed even if there is a God that sets absolute standards (disregarding my questioning of God anyway). Where this God has given free will, then the freedom of society to choose its values exists, and therefore morality has different standards in different cultures. I think it is ineffectual to compare different cultures against a single standard, because there is no way to be certain that any one standard is correct, an element of faith is required for that. Such an element is not scientific and could not be used for sociological understanding of another culture without bias towards that one standard.

The point of view of Indian Hindus who believe in Sanātana Dharma (meaning “eternal law”) is different to Catholics, even though both believe in an absolute standard for morality, those standards differ and are relative to other standards and to themselves.

I will concede that much of the morality given in the bible is used today and has such strong support that many of its ideas have become “secularised”. For example, the bible teaching the golden rule “do unto others as you would have them do to you” is taught so often that it has no religious connotations.

I suppose the big question is this:
How does one observe goodness and morality coming from something that is divine and not human, and how is one sure that this is a direct result of the Christian God?