Can a Catholic Critique this Moral Philosophy?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think you mean that you believe He has revealed it to you . What He reveals seems to vary from person to person. And He hasn’t revealed anything at all to me.

Nope. Revelation is objective. Acceptance of the revelation is subjective, and although you might not believe that God has revealed anything to you, that doesn’t change the objective reality.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the interpretation of what you believe to be revelation is subjective.

Nearly 90% of the world’s population is religious. I’m not sure what percentage would claim to have experienced a divine truth but I know that there are as many interpretations of that truth as there are people claiming it. Even within a very distinct and specific religion such as Catholicism.

 

[Gorgias]

I know that there are as many interpretations of that truth as there are people claiming it.

That there are many interpretations doesn’t mean that the Catholic one – let alone all of them! – are wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I know that there are as many interpretations of that truth as there are people claiming it.

That there are many interpretations doesn’t mean that the Catholic one – let alone all of them! – are wrong.

I don’t see much consensus on all matters regarding the Catholic faith. Everyone has their own interpretation. And as far as personal revelation is concerned (and that’s what I was talking about), then by it’s very definition it is personal only to whoever receives it.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see much consensus on all matters regarding the Catholic faith.

Then again, “argumentum ad populum” is a logical fallacy.

And as far as personal revelation is concerned (and that’s what I was talking about)

I brought up God’s revelation, in the context of @lelinator’s objection of the unknowability of objective morality. And God’s revelation is public, not private.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I don’t see much consensus on all matters regarding the Catholic faith.

Then again, “argumentum ad populum” is a logical fallacy.

And as far as personal revelation is concerned (and that’s what I was talking about)

I brought up God’s revelation, in the context of @lelinator’s objection of the unknowability of objective morality. And God’s revelation is public, not private.

One needs an argument for it to be classed as an ‘argument ad populum’. I’m not making one. What I am doing is making the incontrovertible point that there is not a lot of consensus on all matters concerning the Catholic church’s teaching. One only needs to check on polls regarding contraception, abortion, ssm, divorce, sex outside marriage etc.

And if God’s revelation is public and we therefore have access to an objective morality then why do we have such differences of opinion on all moral matters?

Who is the person who has access to the correct interpretation? Is it you? If it is, then you become the go-to guy for all moral matters. If it isn’t then you have as much idea as me.

 

[Gorgias]

What I am doing is making the incontrovertible point that there is not a lot of consensus on all matters concerning the Catholic church’s teaching

“Consensus” doesn’t prove truth. That’s why your argument fails. You’re making the implicit claim that consensus would prove something (that it cannot).

And if God’s revelation is public and we therefore have access to an objective morality then why do we have such differences of opinion on all moral matters?

Because we each personally have the freedom to interpret data as we wish. That doesn’t mean that our personal interpretations are true, either. (Then again, it doesn’t mean that your claim – that the existence of a variety of interpretations – disproves that an objective truth exists.)

Who is the person who has access to the correct interpretation?

The Church, whom Jesus – who is God, remember? – gave authority to interpret His message.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What I am doing is making the incontrovertible point that there is not a lot of consensus on all matters concerning the Catholic church’s teaching

“Consensus” doesn’t prove truth. That’s why your argument fails. You’re making the implicit claim that consensus would prove something (that it cannot).

And if God’s revelation is public and we therefore have access to an objective morality then why do we have such differences of opinion on all moral matters?

Because we each personally have the freedom to interpret data as we wish. That doesn’t mean that our personal interpretations are true, either. (Then again, it doesn’t mean that your claim – that the existence of a variety of interpretations – disproves that an objective truth exists.)

Who is the person who has access to the correct interpretation?

The Church, whom Jesus – who is God, remember? – gave authority to interpret His message.

I’m not saying that a consensus proves anything. But if all religious people believed exactly the same thing it would strengthen their claims. In the same way that a lack of consensus weakens them.

And if you personally interpret revelations (and we’ll include church teaching here) and you admit that that interpretation does not necessarily lead to the truth, then whence this ‘objective morality’?

The church most definitely gives specific examples of what is right and wrong but it only offers guidance for the vast majority of moral problems with which we all have to deal. And so we have to personally interpret this guidance as best we can. And you tell me that it might not lead to the correct answer.

It always appears to me that we have on one side of the argument a lot of people who claim the existence of an objective morality but who simply proffer their personal.views on any given matter and claim that as being the objective morality we are looking for.

I’m sure you’d defer to what the church teaches when you decide on a moral problem. But does that mean you are always right? I’d assume that you’re honest enough to say no. And if everyone else was honest enough then they’d say the same thing.

So what is the point of claiming there is an objective morality if there is no-one we can trust (on their own admission) to tell us what it is? What use then is the concept of objective morality?

 

[Gorgias]

But if all religious people believed exactly the same thing it would strengthen their claims.

No, it wouldn’t. That’s precisely the ‘argumentum ad populum’ logical fallacy!

And if you personally interpret revelations (and we’ll include church teaching here)

First: I don’t personally interpret divine revelation
Second: “Church teaching” isn’t personal interpretation. It’s divinely authorized (and guaranteed) transmission of God’s revelation. (You can disagree with this, but that doesn’t give you the right to mischaracterize it. )

it only offers guidance for the vast majority of moral problems with which we all have to deal.

That’s because it doesn’t offer a cookbook; it offers principles.

And so we have to personally interpret this guidance as best we can. And you tell me that it might not lead to the correct answer.

We are asked to apply the principles appropriately. Whether one does so or not is an exercise left to the reader. (And, as in your freshman calculus course, that’s no guarantee you’ll get it right. )

It always appears to me that we have on one side of the argument a lot of people who claim the existence of an objective morality but who simply proffer their personal.views on any given matter and claim that as being the objective morality we are looking for.

That’s one opinion.

I’m sure you’d defer to what the church teaches when you decide on a moral problem. But does that mean you are always right? I’d assume that you’re honest enough to say no.

Are you asking whether I always get the right answer when I apply the principles which the Church provides? That seems like a question with an obvious answer.

So what is the point of claiming there is an objective morality if there is no-one we can trust (on their own admission) to tell us what it is?

You’re conflating “principles of objective morality” with “applications of the principles”, and it’s leading you to an incorrect answer.

 

[Freddy]

Your divinely authorised interpretation doesn’t cover much. Not directly anyway. There are a few specific commands to ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’ and generally they cover aspects of life that everyone would formulate using secular reasoning in any case, depending on the specific circumstances.

And the rest isn’t ‘objective morality’ either. Just, as you said, principles which you must apply yourself. And from which, as you said, there is no guarantee that anyone could actually determine the truth of any given problem. Notwithstanding that if you can’t guarantee that anyone can get it right, there is no-one to tell us if we have got it right.

And why does no-one get the argumentum ad populum right? Just because lots of people believe something to be true doesn’t make it so (an argument against religious beliefs if I ever heard one). But if enough people can give you very good reasons why they think something is true and all those people have separately come to the same arguments individually then you’d be a fool to ignore them*.

As it is, there are more versions of Christianity then I could possibly list. And there are more interpretations within each branch of Chritianity then one could possibly come to terms with. And an extremely small number of people within each branch that could put forward logical and internally consistent arguments for their belief.

As it is, even within this forum, I am often arguing about different beliefs within the same thread.

Any sort of consistency would be worth investigating, not denigrated as a fallacy.

*Edit: As an example, the same claim in regard to that fallacy was earlier proposed regarding the age of the earth in another thread (I know…don’t ask). It was suggested ‘a consensus’ was no way to determine the validity of any matter. But if various people from various scientific branches separately arrive at the same answer then that is not an argumentum ad populum. It’s a strong indication that the answer is the correct one.

So just transpose various scientific branches to different religions. If, instead of all claiming that they have their particular verion of the truth, they all came up with the same arguments leading to one universal truth, thenit would carry some weight. But even the three main religions that hold that God is the creator differ wildly in the most important aspects of that belief.

 

[Gorgias]

There are a few specific commands to ‘do this’ and ‘don’t do that’ and generally they cover aspects of life that everyone would formulate using secular reasoning in any case, depending on the specific circumstances.

Except that it’s not mean as a guide to “aspects of life”, per se, let alone “formulated from secular reasoning.” Approaching the message of the Bible from this perspective leads to a gross misinterpretation of its intent and meaning!

And the rest isn’t ‘objective morality’ either. Just, as you said, principles which you must apply yourself.

sigh. Objective principles, which one must apply in his own life. How is this so difficult to understand?

Just because lots of people believe something to be true doesn’t make it so (an argument against religious beliefs if I ever heard one).

The truth of Christian faith does not proceed from the numbers of Christians who believe in it. Really, @Freddy… you’re slipping, it seems!

if enough people can give you very good reasons why they think something is true and all those people have separately come to the same arguments individually then you’d be a fool to ignore them

Still logically fallacious.

But if various people from various scientific branches separately arrive at the same answer then that is not an argumentum ad populum. It’s a strong indication that the answer is the correct one.

I would gently suggest that you read up on the fallacy. If you’re appealing to the many, you’re there. (If you’re appealing to their particular argument, on the other hand, you’re not. Of course, that’s not what you’re doing here. In fact, you’ve come up with a clever way to argue for the fallacy – it’s still not about the argument itself, but just about the number who argue it!)

 

[Freddy]

– it’s still not about the argument itself, but just about the number who argue it!)

The more people that separately reach the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be correct. I wouldn’t have thought it conceivable that someone could argue against that.

And objective principles? Honesty? Respect? How does an individual reach universally accepted objective moral truths from those which are not by definition personal interpretations of those principles?

 

[Gorgias]

The more people that separately reach the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be correct.

Argumentum. Ad. Populum.

I wouldn’t have thought it conceivable that someone could argue against that.

Me too. The desire to argue for fallacy boggles the mind, sometimes.

(Now, if you were to argue in terms of the validity of the argument, we’d have something to talk about. However, if your assertion centers merely on the numbers of believers, then you’re arguing fallaciously.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The more people that separately reach the same conclusion, the more likely it is to be correct.

Argumentum. Ad. Populum.

I wouldn’t have thought it conceivable that someone could argue against that.

Me too. The desire to argue for fallacy boggles the mind, sometimes.

(Now, if you were to argue in terms of the validity of the argument, we’d have something to talk about. However, if your assertion centers merely on the numbers of believers, then you’re arguing fallaciously.)

Quite often the validity of the argument is beyond the scope of any given individual. Think global warming. I doubt there’s anyone on this forum who has the expertise and access to all the evidence to make anything more than an educated guess about the matter. But we note that a huge propostion of scientists who do know what they are talking about all agree on the fact that it is happening. It’s certainly not fallacious to accept the consensus.

Likewise, if everyone on the planet individually came to the same conclusion regarding the creation of the universe then I’d be an idiot not to seriously consider their argument.

I think that you’ll find that people who follow any given religion do not do so because they have investigated all religious claims and come to the decision that one of them is probably correct. I think you’ll find that the vast majority follow their religion because everyone else they know does. I certainly did when I was younger. Maybe you did as well.

 

[Gorgias]

But we note that a huge propostion of scientists who do know what they are talking about all agree on the fact that it is happening. It’s certainly not fallacious to accept the consensus.

Nice job moving the goalposts.

You went from asserting “it’s not argumentum ad populum because everyone is independently asserting the same thing” to “it’s valid because everyone is asserting something different but pointing to the same conclusion”. So… which is it?

Likewise, if everyone on the planet individually came to the same conclusion regarding the creation of the universe then I’d be an idiot not to seriously consider their argument.

The majority of adults, in the 1800s, made moral arguments that later generations have rejected. The majority of adults, in the bulk of the 20th century, made moral arguments that are currently being rejected. I guess you’d be an idiot to reject… and accept! … those arguments, then?

I think you’ll find that the vast majority follow their religion because everyone else they know does. I certainly did when I was younger. Maybe you did as well.

Nope. You’ve made the argumentum ad sheeple-um. If that argument fits you, even for part of your life, then have at it. That’s not why I accept Catholic Christianity, though. But hey… thanks for lumping me in with your own personal history of uncritical acceptance of dogma.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But we note that a huge propostion of scientists who do know what they are talking about all agree on the fact that it is happening. It’s certainly not fallacious to accept the consensus.

Nice job moving the goalposts.

You went from asserting “it’s not argumentum ad populum because everyone is independently asserting the same thing” to “it’s valid because everyone is asserting something different but pointing to the same conclusion”. So… which is it?

Likewise, if everyone on the planet individually came to the same conclusion regarding the creation of the universe then I’d be an idiot not to seriously consider their argument.

The majority of adults, in the 1800s, made moral arguments that later generations have rejected. The majority of adults, in the bulk of the 20th century, made moral arguments that are currently being rejected. I guess you’d be an idiot to reject… and accept! … those arguments, then?

I think you’ll find that the vast majority follow their religion because everyone else they know does. I certainly did when I was younger. Maybe you did as well.

Nope. You’ve made the argumentum ad sheeple-um. If that argument fits you, even for part of your life, then have at it. That’s not why I accept Catholic Christianity, though. But hey… thanks for lumping me in with your own personal history of uncritical acceptance of dogma.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put quote marks around any statement that infer I actually said it. If you disagree with something I specifically said then please use the quote function. I have said that if everyone (or even a considerable proportion of people) independently reach the same conclusion on any matter then it adds weight to that conclusion.

Those conclusions (such as those made re moral matters many years ago) may be based on nothing more than personal opinion. In which case it would be an argument ad populum. But I have specifically noted that giving weight to the consensus requires a certain degree of personal investigation. Individual investigation.

And if you actually investigated all religious claims and then settled on Christianity (and thence Catholicism) then good for you. I doubt there’s more than a handfull of you so you’re in a select group.

 

[Gorgias]

You forgot to use the other nonsensical response: “Red herring”. The two “Jolly Jokers” when there is no rational argument.

LOLOL! You realized that what you just did, here, was throw a red herring?

Really… the irony is delicious!

What other quibbling can you bring up?

Gee… any other one that’s reasonable, perhaps?

(Let’s go with another one: you’re arguing that I’m wrong because I’m wrong. That would be ad hominem. Really, now… you’re on a roll! Any other fallacies you want to demonstrate? You’re doing an amazing job of it!)

The actual argumentum ad populum would be: “Proposition X IS true, BECAUSE a lot of people agree on it.” Not: “proposition X is worthy of consideration, because a lot of experts agree on it”

Hahahahaha!

Really, you just keep stepping in it! Now, you’ve just segued into the “argument from authority”!

Seriously, man… if you want to sealion, at least be less obvious about it!

 

[Freddy]

Gorgias:

Argumentum. Ad. Populum.

You forgot to use the other nonsensical response: “Red herring”. The two “Jolly Jokers” when there is no rational argument.

Nice job moving the goalposts.

Oh, and the third one: accusing the other of “moving the goalposts”.

What other quibbling can you bring up?

We should make a list of ‘Fallacies Used Fallaciously’.

Argumentum ad populum: incorrectly used when it’s a consensus (and all that that entails) that’s being proposed.
Ad hominem: constantly used when someone is simply being told ‘you’re wrong’.
Begging the question: hardly anyone gets this right when using it and rarely understands the point being made when accused of it.
Straw man: generally used correctly but overused to the point of cliche.
Moving the goalposts: when the argument is still refuted but by another means.
Appeal to authority: claimed when you quote someone who is an expert in their field who backs up the point you are making.

 

[Gorgias]

We should make a list of ‘Fallacies Used Fallaciously’.

I recommend that you go for it. I sense a certain expertise there.

Argumentum ad populum: incorrectly used when it’s a consensus (and all that that entails) that’s being proposed.

Not when it’s the argument that’s being held up and not the consensus. You’re choosing the latter.

Ad hominem: constantly used when someone is simply being told ‘you’re wrong’.

Dang. That’s not what ya’ll are saying? Are you sure? (You might want to go back and re-read your posts. )

Ad hominem: constantly used when someone is simply being told ‘you’re wrong’.

I was told that I was wrong because I was making the argument. “Quibbling”, as it were. Nice try, though.

Begging the question: hardly anyone gets this right when using it and rarely understands the point being made when accused of it.

Agreed. I’ll keep an eye out for it in this thread, then.

Straw man: generally used correctly but overused to the point of cliche.

Right. 'Cause, we’d hate to be correct but unfashionable.

Moving the goalposts: when the argument is still refuted but by another means.

Nice. Try. Rather, it’s when “a different argument is being refuted, but is being claimed to have been refuting the original argument.” You know… like you’re doing here? By attempting to refute my assertions of your fallacious statements, and thus demonstrate my original assertions are suspect?

Appeal to authority: claimed when you quote someone who is an expert in their field who backs up the point you are making.

Again… wrong. It’s when you say that an argument is right because an authority is making it. Has anyone made that claim? Let’s see…

we note that a huge propostion of scientists who do know what they are talking about all agree

Why yes! Someone has made that argument!

 

[Dimmesdale]

Hey Gorgias, I wonder if you could could respond to this, if it’s gone underneath the radar. Thanks!

 

[Stidlet]

4 is an assumption. And 7 assumes the conclusion.

4 is the principle of causality, if it requires rejection of causality and the rejection of the principle of sufficient reason to be an atheist, then that should say something

7 is deduced logically.