Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[antunesaa]

Sorry but you did state in post 177 , that “most people in the liberal West accept gay sex as ok” and I never mentioned anything about the West being accepting of homosexuals, I simply asked in response to that comment of yours in post 177 what irrefragible proof you had that people in the West consider homosexual deviant acts to be perfectly fine.

Portrait

I doubt that “most people in the liberal West accept gay sex as ok” (unless “liberal” means “people who accept gay sex as ok”). A compelling example showing that acceptance by a majority does not imply that people think it’s ok is adultery. I think a tiny majority of people thinks adultery is ok; yet, most people I know accept it. Many, many people in the West practice adultery on a regular basis. I have adulterous friends (as I have homosexual friends) but that doesn’t mean I think their behavior was ok at some point. I don’t think adultery should be a crime. Yet, I think it’s wrong.

A first approach to uncover one’s “natural law” might be the following:

“Would you wish your son or daughter to [put the subject of your test here]?”

An overwhelming majority of people I know would answer no to adultery or homosexuality, for whatever reasons. Unfortunately some (albeit less) would also answer no to marrying a person of different race. I guess this calls for a careful distinction of a universal natural law and a “natural law” dictated by one’s circumstances and preferences.

Racism is curious because it is so widespread. But on closer look, what’s really in an universal natural law that makes two people of different races unable to form a family? Do they have any serious physical incompatibility that prevents them from having children? No. Do they have any sort of emotional incompatibility that makes love between them less enjoyable? No. Only when you enlarge your environment to relatives and the society at large problems might get more serious. And, in many cases, one’s preferences in terms of the opposite sex might be correlated with one’s acquaintances. If I know a lot of black people because I happen to be black, chances are that I’ll get in love with a black person for mere frequent exposure to that person. So I guess racism in many instances is in fact not racism - it’s just frequent exposure! The problem with this is that it might generate racism: someone might say: “look, they only marry between themselves; do they think they’re superior?” Because the topic is difficult, I guess, we also have the authoritative words from Jesus and the Apostles stating clearly that all humans are born with the same dignity. It is their chosen actions, not their innate characteristics, which are eventually subject to moral scrutiny. For me that settles the matter.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks for reply. I’ll try to stick with one point at a time

Let’s get a distinction clear.

Try this example. A maths problem has an objective answer. You have an opinion as to what it is. Your opinion is subjective, but the answer to the maths problem is objective. There are, of course ,standards that make the answer correct but people may well, where the problem is hard, disagree about how they are to apply.

Now ethics works in the same way according to the position I take. There are objectively true answers to ethical questions. I have an opinion at to what they are. The opinion cannot be other than subjective but the answer to the ethical problem is objective.
There are, of course, standards that make the answer correct and in hard cases people may well disagree about how they are applied.

What is the standard? A very simple one, in principle, - ‘Does the action promote human flourishing?’

This is an objective standard but people might have different views on how it is to be correctly applied in hard cases.

You are in no better a situation. You think that there are objective standards too. In your case it seems to be some strange rules made up by God. Now it is your opinion that this is the situation but let us assume you are correct. It is your opinion too about what God actually does say. Different Christians and people from different religiions say different things. Of course your opinion is that you are correct but it is still your opinion!

But it could not be otherwise. The question is - can you defend your position and/or show mine is incorrect? The fact is that both are our opinions and cannot be otherwise.

PS I do not want to ‘pull rank’ here but any book on ethics will tell you that you can have a view that ethics is objective, as I do, without bringing in God. {That does not mean my view is correct]
Also it will tell you that the view that God provides a basis for objective ethics has to face a serious problem called the Euthyphro Dilemma but let’s leave that for another day.

Best wishes

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

For Portrait,

Continuing

Happiness is not a satisfactory or sound criterion to use when appraising a homosexual union. For example, what about say a married man who has fallen in love with another woman and who says that whilst he accepts that he already has a wife and family, notwithstanding, his new relationship is the real thing.
Please read what I said. I did not say that the right action is the one that makes a particular person happy and damm everyone else. I said a right action is one that promotes human flourishing in a society

He says that he and this new woman were made for each other and that their relationship has a quality and depth which he has not known hitherto and that if he does not have her he will be profoundly unhappy for the rest of his life and will probably make his wife and children unhappy also as a result. Now for him it is right to divorce his present wife and be joined to this new woman. If you tell him such action will hurt people, he retorts by saying that people will be hurt if he does not divorce. Our ethical intuition tells us, regardless of the specious arguments, that such action is morally wrong and that this man is not justified in breaking his marriage vows with his wife on the grounds of the quality of love for this other woman. So, quality love and happiness are not the only yardstick by which to measure what is good and right.
You like rules that apply in all circumstances. The morality that I advocate does not provide them. I do not think that in all cases a married couple should stick together. If they have young children, these children are very likely to be harmed by a divorce and so it would be right for the couple to put aside their own happiness to try and live together in some sort of harmony until the children are older if this were at all possible. So a rule of thimb would be ‘with small children, do not divorce unless the situation would be a disaster if you stayed together’ but what constitutes a disaster would depend on the circumstances.
Wouldn’t it be nice if life were black and white - but it isn’t.

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Your qualification makes no difference for we still have to determine what one considers to be a right action and one that hence promotes happiness. Thus I do not believe that homosexual genital acts are a right action and so do not accept that they promote happiness. Moreover, there are issues as to the nature of happines which should not be confused with rewards of hedonism.

Men require rules in all circumstances, especially when fundamental moral issues are involved, otherwise they are likely to swayed by all manner of subjective considerations. Now since your morality does not provide for them it is not really of any service to mankind.

Laurie, your moral code appears, going by what you have written thus far, to based on pragmatism and you seem to have an aversion to rules for some reason, as if these are an awkward inconvenience. This sounds all too much like the Situation Ethics of the 1960’s which held that there were no fixed laws of right conduct but that each situation must be weighed on its own merits and one’s actions decided accordingly. Thus, for example, there may be a situation in which adultery would be right (even noble). If I am misconstruing your position, then please tell me.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

One large distraction that seemed to take on a life of its own is the notion of God wanting us to be ‘happy.’ I think both the NT and OT was clear on the emphasis of people being ‘good,’ not happy, defined as following His laws, the by-product of which would be happiness. He would much rather people be ‘good’ than be ‘happy.’

Winginitx, you bring up a very good point. The Greeks would say, “Count no man happy 'til he is dead.” Happiness is indeed a fleeting quality. And you are quite right to say that Christianity is not so concerned with happiness as a value in itself or as a value to be pursued for its own sake.

I don’t want to put words in Laurie’s mouth, he’s more than capable of speaking for himself, but I would imagine that he could agree that happiness is not the be-all, end-all. But flourishing is not necessarily shorthand for happiness. What I understand as human flourishing (and what I believe Mr. Gibson understands by it) is the process of becoming more of what we are, both as individuals and collectively as there is no individual without community and vice versa. This process can involve a significant amount of discomfort. But the good fruits evident in people who are flourishing are quite clear and unmistakable. Based on experience, it is my contention (and Laurie’s as well, I believe), that homosexual relationships are capable of producing this fruit and this flourishing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[The_Bucket]

Perhaps this is all over my head because I’m not a theologian or philosopher, but this exercise seems fruitless from the start. Natural Law is not an arbiter of morality. It is merely an arbiter of what is "natural and “unnatural.” Natural Law governs the world in that it defines the instincts and behaviors of animals, the patterns of weather, the flow of streams, plate tectonics, etc.

Recreation and creativity are not novel to humanity, but the depth and form of our creativity certainly is, which makes it somewhat unnatural, right? We have even created artificial elements and simple artificial life! While the creative faculties we used to do so are natural, the end result is unnatural, agreed? And yet morality has no bearing so far because we did not misuse our creative faculties when we as men crafted these unnatural objects.

To cut to the chase; homosexual acts are not unnatural for primates and other creatures of higher intelligence. They may be contradictory to survival of species if they become solely homosexual, but since lesser creatures are incapable of real love or understanding, this is not a risk. These creatures tend to be in practice, bisexual, but in reality they just know sex is for more than procreation, but do not comprehend its full extent and therefore are not expected, by Natural Law or God’s Law, to use that gift properly.

But those acts do not carry the weight of humanity’s sexual acts for there is a much greater psychological impact since our psyches are far more advanced. We do not use sexuality as a for of reward for simple tasks or for common greetings or to exercise dominance. At least not usually, and we’d all agree that use of it for dominance is wrong (rape) and greeting or simple rewards would be extremely bizarre as well. We have other forms of communication and action for that, so clearly other rules apply.

The question simply is who creates those other rules? Is it society, individuals or is there an overarching Truth which we are meant to discover? I opt for the third and believe the Church knows the fullest revelation of the Truth as it has been given to man. And frankly, it is only on these terms that we can define homosexual acts, or any other acts, thoughts, etc. for that matter as right or wrong.

 

[Portrait]

Thanks for reply. I’ll try to stick with one point at a time

Let’s get a distinction clear.

Try this example. A maths problem has an objective answer. You have an opinion as to what it is. Your opinion is subjective, but the answer to the maths problem is objective. There are, of course ,standards that make the answer correct but people may well, where the problem is hard, disagree about how they are to apply.

Now ethics works in the same way according to the position I take. There are objectively true answers to ethical questions. I have an opinion at to what they are. The opinion cannot be other than subjective but the answer to the ethical problem is objective.
There are, of course, standards that make the answer correct and in hard cases people may well disagree about how they are applied.

What is the standard? A very simple one, in principle, - ‘Does the action promote human flourishing?’

This is an objective standard but people might have different views on how it is to be correctly applied in hard cases.

You are in no better a situation. You think that there are objective standards too. In your case it seems to be some strange rules made up by God. Now it is your opinion that this is the situation but let us assume you are correct. It is your opinion too about what God actually does say. Different Christians and people from different religiions say different things. Of course your opinion is that you are correct but it is still your opinion!

But it could not be otherwise. The question is - can you defend your position and/or show mine is incorrect? The fact is that both are our opinions and cannot be otherwise.

PS I do not want to ‘pull rank’ here but any book on ethics will tell you that you can have a view that ethics is objective, as I do, without bringing in God. {That does not mean my view is correct]
Also it will tell you that the view that God provides a basis for objective ethics has to face a serious problem called the Euthyphro Dilemma but let’s leave that for another day.

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

The Catholic is in a better situation than yourself because what He believes is not his own subjective opinion, but rather the authoritative teaching of the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on faith and morals. Now before you dismiss this you would need to thoroughly investigate the claims of the Church so that you would be able to say that you had carefully weighed Catholic teaching in the balances and found it seriously wanting. However, until you had done this, by consulting reliable and unbiased sources, you would not be in a position to dismiss it, except from downright prejudice of course.

However, to do right for right’s sake implies that right ought to be done. Why ought it to be done? Ought or must supposes some kind of law. All law derives its force from the right of the lawgiver, whoever or whatever it may be. Thus to do right for right’s sake pushes us back to doing right for the sake of the Supreme Author of all right. No man can do right for right’s sake if he ignores God, for without God he cannot prove what he thinks to be right or has any binding force whatsoever. This is why your position is attended by great difficulty - you simply cannot prove your opinion to be right, whereas I have access to an authoritative entity that will validate my opinion and show it to be correct and true.

It does not really matter what individuals say, be they religious or not, it is what the one true Church of Christ teaches that matters. Laurie, I realise that this takes us into the whole area of the infallibilty of the Church (i.e. teaching with no admixture of error) and that is most definitely not under review here, but I had to refer to it in passing since that is how I know that my opinions on moral issues are assuredly correct and trustworthy. So yes, I am able to defend my opinion and believe that extensive research and intensive study will evince that it is both true and reasonable. Once the infallibility of the magisterium has been established we have won our case and all that remains is for men to either accept or reject the claims of the Church. BTW, that is why I and other Catholics would not be thrown off our balance by the Euthyphro Dilemma, whatever that is, though it sounds bad!

That will probably be my last dispatch today as I think I will call it a day now.

Goodnight my dear chap and pleasant dreams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear Laurie,

The Catholic is in a better situation than yourself because what He believes is not his own subjective opinion, but rather the authoritative teaching of the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on faith and morals. Now before you dismiss this you would need to thoroughly investigate the claims of the Church so that you would be able to say that you had carefully weighed Catholic teaching in the balances and found it seriously wanting. However, until you had done this, by consulting reliable and unbiased sources, you would not be in a position to dismiss it, except from downright prejudice of course.

If you decide [1] that there is a God [2] that this God is the Christian one and [3] that what the Catholic Church says is the correct version of this religion, then you do have the basis of an objective morality. However there is still the question of why your God makes the rules he does. I assume that he has reasons to make these rules and not others. Therefore this means that the rules of morality are true independently of God and so, in theory accessible by a non-believer. As a good God would want his creation to flourish and this gives an objective standard accessible to believer and non-believer alike. That is partly why Catholics believe that all can know the moral law.

However, to do right for right’s sake implies that right ought to be done. Why ought it to be done? Ought or must supposes some kind of law. All law derives its force from the right of the lawgiver, whoever or whatever it may be.
I do not think that the moral law is a law which has a lawgiver. It depends on the values underlying our use of moral concepts. It is no help for you to just deny it Or just say that a law must have a lawgiver - evidence is needed too.

you simply cannot prove your opinion to be right, whereas I have access to an authoritative entity that will validate my opinion and show it to be correct and true.

You believe you have it. Your ‘authoritative entity’ may not exist or be mistinterpreted by you. And there is plenty of evidence that my view covers what most people really mean when they use moral concepts. People value their own flourishing and see that it is fair that others should be allowed to flourish too. That is a standard that can often give clear answers even if, in problem cases, there is room for different interpretations/

I realise that this takes us into the whole area of the infallibilty of the Church (i.e. teaching with no admixture of error) and that is most definitely not under review here, but I had to refer to it in passing since that is how I know that my opinions on moral issues are assuredly correct and trustworthy. So yes, I am able to defend my opinion and believe that extensive research and intensive study will evince that it is both true and reasonable. Once the infallibility of the magisterium has been established we have won our case and all that remains is for men to either accept or reject the claims of the Church
I am certainly not going to venture there! God’s existence and the Resurrection would need to be shown probable first! No thank you.

BTW, that is why I and other Catholics would not be thrown off our balance by the Euthyphro Dilemma, whatever that is, though it sounds bad!
This is implied above -so do not worry about the name!

Thanks again for your courtesy

Laurie

Goodnight my dear chap and pleasant dreams.

Warmest good wishes,

Porftrait

Warmest good wishes,

 

[Abu]

L Gibson
1)…a value built into the moral concepts that we use and a value that most people implicitly accept.
2) It is not contrary to most religions because a good God would want his creation to be happy. I do not want to ‘pull rank’ here but any book on ethics will tell you that you can have a view that ethics is objective, as I do, without bringing in God. What is the standard? A very simple one, in principle, - ‘Does the action promote human flourishing?’
Deo Volente
What is immoral, however, is to frustrate the realization of the human relational capacity insofar as human flourishing and wholeness are impeded or denied. What I understand as human flourishing (and what I believe Mr. Gibson understands by it) is the process of becoming more of what we are, both as individuals and collectively… homosexual relationships are capable of producing this fruit and this flourishing….

The particular aspect (formal object) under which ethics (motivation based on right and wrong) considers free acts is that of their moral goodness or the rightness involved in them as human acts. The petard on which both L. Gibson, and Deo Valente are hoist is the infatuation with the self-made “standard” of “human flourishing” on which they are both fixated – precisely the failure to acknowledge that if being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist. Pleasure for its own sake has been chosen regardless – “a good God would want his creation to be happy” – and you choose the rules.

The crucial error is in failing to recognise on the one hand, that mankind is created by God with the natural moral law in his human nature and, on the other, with blithely choosing to replace this with self-made assumptions of rules.

However, man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
[See Fr Paul M Quay, S.J., in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius 1993, p 21-4]

Being a good person requires making morally good choices based on the standards of moral norms according to developing our own self-perfection which God desires because it is good for us. What really determines the goodness of an action is not the pleasure, but is the character of the action itself. The purpose of moral thinking is how to love good things rightly and to pursue them properly. The moral absolutes are directives which guide us to live in accord with what the requirements of love for neighbour and reverence for what is really good. Any flaw in the intentions, or in the kind of action or in the consequences of the action, will make it morally bad – it will not be faithful to what love requires. Evil may not be done that some good my come of it.

 

[Abu]

Deo Volente
the belief that homosexual activity is always evil is based on bad science
how does natural moral law escape your critique of process morality if both are founded on utility?

How typical that science should be misused over morality coupled with the blissful ignoring of the punishment of those in Sodom and Gomorrah for sodomy, from one who quotes Scripture.

The queer idea above that the belief that homosexual activity is always evil is based on bad science, illustrates well the flight from reality for what Carl Rodgers asserts: “I am the one who chooses…I am the one who determines the value of an experience for me.” (Cited by convert Dr Paul C Vitz, Psychology As Religion, Eerdmanns 1994, p 28). Dr Vitz has coined “selfism” as meaning reward for self as the only functional ethical principle in human motivation and personality in modern psychology.

Since the moral law asserts true love and the procreation commanded by God: the unitive purpose without wilfully impeding the procreative purpose, it is a mirage to twist this into the biological utility of process theology.

Fantasising on “RC sexual morality”, denigration of Christ’s Church as the final arbiter, and the self-interpretation of Sacred Scripture may be pleasurable, and common in some circles, but one of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki S.J.,The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

The following sums up beautifully the real meaning of the new law of love:
Christian Faith And Its “Fulfillment” Of The Natural Moral Law from William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C.
“The new law of love, which is essentially the grace of the Holy Spirit given to Christ’s faithful, “fulfills” the natural moral law in the following ways:
1. First, it “regenerates” the persons to whom the natural moral law is given, making them to be not only beings made in the image and likeness of God but truly God’s children, members of the divine family, for it unites them to Jesus who shares with them his divinity just as he shares their humanity.
2. Second, it inwardly enables Christ’s faithful, now new creatures in Christ, both to know more easily the requirements of the natural law and to do the good that it requires.”
[CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ITS "FULFILLMENT" OF THE NATURAL MORAL LAW by Prof. William E. May]](CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ITS "FULFILLMENT" OF THE NATURAL MORAL LAW by Prof. William E. May])

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you. Thankyou for your remarks on my latest post.

Have you ever undertaken an intensive study of the claims of the Catholic Church and having done so found them seriously wanting? Were you to do so you might discover that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ and has been commisioned by Him to teach authoritatively all things pertaining to faith and morals. Once convinced of this fact you would then know for a certainty that you had the basis for an objective morality.

God’s laws are accessible to the non-Christian via the natural moral law. Although the natural moral law is unwritten it is perceived by men who have the use of reason and it uses basic common sense, prudence and justice. A century before Christ, the Roman stoic philospher Cicero acknowledged the natural moral law when he said:

“There is truly a law, which is right reason, fitted to our nature, proclaimed to all men, constant, everlasting. It calls to duty by commanding and deters from wrong by forbidding, neither commanding nor forbidding the good man in vain when it fails to move the wicked. It can neither be evaded nor amended nor wholly abolished. No decree of Senate or people can free us from it. No explainer or interpreter of it need be sought but itself. There will not be found one law at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another later, but one law, everlasting and unchangeable, extending to all nations and all times”. (*De Rebublica, III, 22, *]33) What sagacious words are these, and quite remarkable given that they were uttered by a pagan philospher.

Marcus Cicero came extremely close indeed to admiting to the truth of an eternal law giver and his words seem almost to anticipate St. Paul’s to the Romans (see Rom. 2: 14-15). Quite frankly, it is sheer folly to refuse to acknowledge natural moral law and those who do so are merely seeking to avoid the truth that God is the author of the natural law. Laurie, without God you cannot prove what you think is right to have any binding force upon others. Moreover, you have no means with which to demonstrate the validity of your opinion, save an appeal to other men’s moral concepts, which may also be skewed and awry.

Your very ideas of what is good and moral are drawn from the general Christian culture in which you have lived and moved and had your being. To want your moral standards without the religion that gave birth to them is like wanting the rain without wanting the ocean from which it is drawn. Renan confessed that to abolish Christianity, yet to wish to retain its ethics, is merely to inhale a perfume from an empty bottle. Men cannot live or flourish on perfumes; and even if they could, the emptiness of the bottle soon mean an end of the perfume. Again, if the Christian Faith is true, and it is, then it is indispensable for both goodness and morality. For its very acceptance will be part of the morality, involving the discharge of our debt to God. One could say that religion is as necessary to to good morals as ‘SatNav’ is necessary to good road navigation.

Subjective opinions cannot be guaranteed to give clear, correct and unequivocal answers when it comes to ethical issues of paramount importance, as our own irreligious contemporary society bears witness to only too well. There is no room for differing interpretations when it comes to crucial issues such as, for example, abortion, in vitro fertilization, cloning, contraception and homosexual liaisons. If we are to avoid succumbing to prevailing erroneous opinions on these matters then we need the truth taught by God and His Church. Reason cannot refute the claims of Christ, rather it disposes a man to accept them unless he is filled with prejudice.

As regards the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, I warmly commend Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morison (Faber & Faber). Frank’s frankness and sincerity is the supreme merit of this book and it is a lucid, dispassionate and almost incontrovertible appeal to the reason, which ought to be quite pleasing to you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks Portrait - another sermon with lots of points. I can only deal with one point at a time. This discursive generalising will not get us anywhere. You wanted my views on morality and I have given them to you - let’s stick with them. I should not have refered back to your ethical views and I certainly do not want to range wider. I haven’t the time. So I’ll do you the courtesy of some brief comments on your remarks if you will deal with one subject - namely my views on ethics which is what you wanted to discuss.

Have you ever undertaken an intensive study of the claims of the Catholic Church and having done so found them seriously wanting? Were you to do so you might discover that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ and has been commisioned by Him to teach authoritatively all things pertaining to faith and morals. Once convinced of this fact you would then know for a certainty that you had the basis for an objective morality.
First I would need to believe in God. No, I do not wish to discuss that question thanks!

God’s laws are accessible to the non-Christian via the natural moral law. Although the natural moral law is unwritten it is perceived by men who have the use of reason and it uses basic common sense, prudence and justice. A century before Christ, the Roman stoic philospher Cicero acknowledged the natural moral law when he said:

“There is truly a law, which is right reason, fitted to our nature, proclaimed to all men, constant, everlasting. It calls to duty by commanding and deters from wrong by forbidding, neither commanding nor forbidding the good man in vain when it fails to move the wicked. It can neither be evaded nor amended nor wholly abolished. No decree of Senate or people can free us from it. No explainer or interpreter of it need be sought but itself. There will not be found one law at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another later, but one law, everlasting and unchangeable, extending to all nations and all times”. (*De Rebublica, III, 22, *]33) What sagacious words are these, and quite remarkable given that they were uttered by a pagan philospher.

Marcus Cicero came extremely close indeed to admiting to the truth of an eternal law giver and his words seem almost to anticipate St. Paul’s to the Romans (see Rom. 2: 14-15). Quite frankly, it is sheer folly to refuse to acknowledge natural moral law and those who do so are merely seeking to avoid the truth that God is the author of the natural law
I know all about Cicero - but I thought it was my views we were discussing not his!

. Laurie, without God you cannot prove what you think is right to have any binding force upon others. Moreover, you have no means with which to demonstrate the validity of your opinion, save an appeal to other men’s moral concepts, which may also be skewed and awry.
My views come from the usual way that moral terms are used. Anyone who accepts that human flourishing is a value will be able to talk to me. The statement ‘human flourishing is a good thing’ is true from the way moral concepts operate and is something chosen by most people. That is enough for me. I do not know what you mean be ‘demonstate its validity’ but I think I have just done it.

Your very ideas of what is good and moral are drawn from the general Christian culture in which you have lived and moved and had your being. To want your moral standards without the religion that gave birth to them is like wanting the rain without wanting the ocean from which it is drawn.
This is absurd. Are you really saying that non-Christian cultures cannot have access to concepts of right and wrong or that non-believers cannot have an ethical code?

One could say that religion is as necessary to to good morals as ‘SatNav’ is necessary to good road navigation.
One could say that and one would be talking nonsense!

Subjective opinions cannot be guaranteed to give clear, correct and unequivocal answers when it comes to ethical issues of paramount importance, as our own irreligious contemporary society bears witness to only too well. There is no room for differing interpretations when it comes to crucial issues such as, for example, abortion, in vitro fertilization, cloning, contraception and homosexual liaisons.
Have I not explained that I am not a relativist so, if you want to have a fruitful discussion please read what I say.

As regards the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, I warmly commend Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morison (Faber & Faber). Frank’s frankness and sincerity is the supreme merit of this book and it is a lucid, dispassionate and almost incontrovertible appeal to the reason, which ought to be quite pleasing to you.
I wrote a critique of this book in 1969. The arguments in it are very poor indeed. I do not want to go into the matter here. **

But back to my morality. Please go back to my original post and deal with it rather than make a lot of general and rather specious [forgive my bluntness] points about morality.

With thanks

Laurie

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Dear Laurie

Hello again and thankyou for the above. Sorry for the delay in replying but I have been involved in another thread which as occupied me for a little longer than I thought it would.

Sorry but I thought that I was being discursive in the right sense of that word by proceeding with sound reasoning, hence the quote from Cicero to show that even a pagan acknowledged the existence of natural law morality.

Have you considered that undertaking an extensive study of the claims and history of the Church may just resullt in you believing in God? However, I respect your wishes and shall not pursue the matter further.

You may know all about Cicero but I was hoping that you might comment upon the fact that he acknowledged natural law morality as a pagan. I rather think it supports my view, and the Church’s, that all men have an in-built ethical intuition regarding right and wrong. His views are actually very germane to this debate which is why I cited them and hoped you would discuss them.

The bone of contention is what a man means by “human flourishing”; clearly this is all down to personal subjective opinion which may or may not be correct. For example, I believe that homosexual liaisons are self-destructive and harmful to both physical and mental well-being, at least in the long term and do not therefore promote human flourishing. You, on the contrary believe the very opposite old boy. Now how are we to decide which of our opinion’s is right and valid? Of course I agree that people should flourish if by that you mean that people should prosper physically and emotionally etc., but people do differ as to what will enable a person to flourish. You then have to decide who is correct and contrary to what you say this does lead to moral relativism because we right back to a quagmire of competing opinions - yours and mine. The urgent need for some authoritative arbiter is all too plainly evident. Moreover, flourishing is all well and good but it can also be an extremely materialistic and hedonistic affair if man’s spiritual dimension is ignored.

Of course non-Christian cultures can have access to notions of right and wrong. This is what I have been endeavouring to show you by the argument from natural law. Cicero was a pagan long before the emergence of the Gospel and yet he was cognizant of the “one law, everlasting and unchangeable, exetending to all nations and all times”. Now this is owing to the fact that the consciences of all men bear witness to God’s moral standards of right and wrong. This is why I contend that concepts of good were and are informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Renan, who was no friend to religion, quite rightly stated that you cannot abolish Christianity and yet retain its ethics.

Yes my dear fellow, you say that you are not a relativist but your position sadly leads you on a pathway to relativism. In response to your comments I said that subjective opinion would be of no service in deciding ethical issues of paramount importance such as abortion and homosexual unions, as our contemporary irreligious society plainly bears witness. I had hoped that you would have responded to this one but you completely ignored it. Look, people need to have decided views when it comes to the issues I cited as they are fundamental matters of ethics and there is no room for differences of opinion.

Frank Morison’s arguments very poor! You are the first person that I have ever heard make this comment. Even the secular press was more favourably disposed: “It is as though a skilled advocate, entirely convinced of the truth of his case, were unravelling the threads of some mystery…It has the supreme merit of frankness and sincerity” (Sunday Times). Perhaps you did not start out with an impartial mind but had already decided that you were not going to be convinced by the evidence.

Well I am signing off now so goodnight Laurie and sleep well.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Your friend Portrait

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Cicero was a pagan long before the emergence of the Gospel and yet he was cognizant of the “one law, everlasting and unchangeable, exetending to all nations and all times”. Now this is owing to the fact that the consciences of all men bear witness to God’s moral standards of right and wrong. This is why I contend that concepts of good were and are informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Renan, who was no friend to religion, quite rightly stated that you cannot abolish Christianity and yet retain its ethics.

Before I respond to my friend Abu later in the day, I wanted to quickly respond to this. Portrait, I think we must be very very cautious here. You are revealing why Natural Law (particularly as understood by Aquinas) is perhaps not such a good universal yardstick. Here’s why–Cicero was speaking as a Roman, as a man who believed that Rome and the Roman Empire *was *the world, or at the very least, the civilized world (whatever civilized means–as it has meant different things at different times in different places). Cicero’s intuition regarding this one law is predicated on his belief that what Rome is is the standard for the world. The one law of Cicero is little more than an idealized version of Roman moral and cultural mores. I think Aquinas and other Natural Law proponents suffer from a similar cultural bias (which arises out of our Imperial Roman cultural heritage). When we say “Natural Law” it is very difficult for us to separate out from the Universal Law the Western Cultural notions by which we attempt to understand ourselves.

For instance, there is a tribe which practices a coming of age ritual in which the young men must ingest the reproductive fluid of the older men in a ceremonial context. Why? Because it is imperative for the new members of the tribe to receive seed from the old members so that they can be fertile. Nonetheless, according to our concepts of natural law, these people are committing abominable homosexual acts. But in reality, they are engaging in a ritual practice which is meant to preserve their way of life. I could also bring up the “two-spirit” people of some Native American tribes–men or women who assume the cultural and sexual roles of the opposite gender and who often engage in or fulfill various shamanic duties.

You could argue that the way of life of such people is abjectly sinful because it is counter to natural law. But the argument begins to look more and more like a cultural argument and less and less like a moral argument.

Moreover, the formula with which I am familiar from Christianity of “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism” does not include “One Natural Moral Law”. And when Jesus says, “This is my commandment that ye love one another,” he does not add, “by following the dictates of the natural moral law.” The Natural Moral Law is an understanding of the universal law written on our hearts, or a useful guide to it, but it is just that–it is not the law itself, but an understanding of that law colored by our particular Western cultural proclivities and prejudices. It is valuable, but it is not absolute. Consequently, as we learn more and more about who we are in relationship with each other and with God, it should not surprise us that our ideas of the universal law might need re-adjusting. Not that the universal law is wrong or flawed, but that our understanding of it is either in error or incomplete.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Portrait,

Thanks for your reply. Courteous as always!

The bone of contention is what a man means by “human flourishing”; clearly this is all down to personal subjective opinion which may or may not be correct.

You are quite correct to say that this is a part of my position that needs expansion. But you are incorrect to say that it is ‘all down to a subjective opinion’. That depends on whether there are objective criterion to discover what human flourishing is. Here are some stumbling thoughts on this matter.

1] There is universal agreement in all cultures that within a society, gratuitous violence, lying etc are wrong and courage, wisdom, temperance etc are good. No great surprise, because without these values a society could not survive. An objective standard here.
2] There are other values which are upheld by the morality of some societies only. For example, while all societies need to promote courage or they would not be able to defend themselves, some go further and uphold the sort of macho standards of Sparta. Another example, until recently just about all societies felt that men were superior to women and had an ethical code that reflected that.

But we can argue that these societies are mistaken. The latter society obviously does not allow women to flourish as they can. Again we criticise them using an objective standard. Does such and such a value or practise, allow people to flourish?

3] However it may be the case that human beings can flourish in different ways. Certainly it is true that individuals can. Pericles flourished in a different manner to Mother Theresa. This is perhaps a strong argument to say that society ought to be organised so that people can all flourish in the way that best suits their personality. Nevertheless there may be different ways in which a whole society can flourish which cannot be separated by objective criterion. In which case we may have to say they are equally good.

There is much more to say. The above is highly speculative and I do not have all the answers. But then how could I? Thinkers far far cleverer than I have wrestled with the problems of ethics for centuries without solving all its philosophical problems.

You have, you think, the answer to all problems here because you think your church provides you with truth.

Maybe it does. But just because it says it provides an objective standard, does not mean it does. Just because an easy to apply objective standard would be nice, does not mean it exists.

Finally morality is based on empathy. If I did not acknowledge you and care about your happiness and pain, what reason could I have to act in an ethical way towards you? Take now a faithful gay couple who by all ordinary standards are flourishing and happy – you acknowledge this happens – whose happiness you would celebrate in the usual way – a morality condemns them because of some objective standard which it has dredged up from the middle ages – that is enough to show the morality has lost its way.

Perhaps where we disagree is this. I think that the touchstone of right and wrong is whether it helps us all to live together in a harmonious and flourishing way. Your touchstone is what you think God says we should do even if these alleged commands cause great suffering and angst. By your touchstone; crusades, burning at the stake are fine – provided God commands it, by mine they cannot be. By your touchstone a loving faithful gay couple with a 20 year relationship are horribly sinful whereas my morality says they are to be celebrated.

But, although I do not agree that your God exists, if he does and if his most important quality is love – how could he apply standards of ‘morality’ that cause pain, suffering and angst?

Laurie

See I can preach a sermon too it seems.
I’m away until Friday – visit to Durham

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

continuing:

You say, Portrait,

For example, I believe that homosexual liaisons are self-destructive and harmful to both physical and mental well-being, at least in the long term and do not therefore promote human flourishing. You, on the contrary believe the very opposite old boy. Now how are we to decide which of our opinion’s is right and valid? Of course I agree that people should flourish if by that you mean that people should prosper physically and emotionally etc., but people do differ as to what will enable a person to flourish.

So we agree that ‘flourishing’ means something like ‘prosper physically and emotionally’?? That gives us an objective standard. Let’s apply it.

My daughter and partner;

1. Are made happy by their relationship.
2. Feel great love for each other.
3. Get pleasure mental and physical from their relationship.
4. Are enabled by their relationship to be better citizens.
5. Contribute, as a pair, to their interaction with other family members.
6. Enable each other to develop the good qualities that they have.
7. Help each other through bad times.
   8 etc
   9 etc
   10 etc
   11 This has been going on for 20+ years

If we cannot describe their relationship as ‘flourishing’ then I am speaking a different language to you.

But you accepted all the above in previous posts.

And yet, and yet, you think that God has taken agin them. Fair enough - their relationship enables them to flourish but God condemns them - that is a logically consistent statement. But you cannot say that they are not flourishing surely?

 

[Nec5]

1. Are made happy by their relationship.
2. Feel great love for each other.
3. Get pleasure mental and physical from their relationship.
4. Are enabled by their relationship to be better citizens.
5. Contribute, as a pair, to their interaction with other family members.
6. Enable each other to develop the good qualities that they have.
7. Help each other through bad times.
   8 etc
   9 etc
   10 etc
   11 This has been going on for 20+ years

If we cannot describe their relationship as ‘flourishing’ then I am speaking a different language to you.

If that is your standard, then brother/sister marriages and polygamy also are “flourishing”. There are other relationships too that fit that standard.

 

[Booklover]

I’ll be honest and say probably not. If you look to other more intelligent species in the animal kingdom, you’ll see primitive greetings or establishment of dominance through same-sex sexual activity.

Of course, human beings are more than simple animals. Spirituality aside, we have developed codes of ethics, civil morals and laws and established real relationships based not just on species propagation and instinct but of real love. We are far beyond acknowledging friends or relatives or allies through same sex sexual activity. If anything, animals demonstrate how powerful sex is for more intelligent creatures and how it can be easily used improperly when you don’t have a good understanding of it.

If your friend asks for a demonstration of natural law that homosexuality is wrong, ask him if he would think one friend acknowledging another by gratifying him sexually, in public, is wrong. Ask him if basically raping a member of the same sex in order to establish dominance is wrong. These things happen in nature and they’re not wrong for animals because they don’t know any better. We have a better understanding, even at a basic primitive level, for what sex is intended. He’d at least have to acknowledge that and it’s not a far step to say then it should be used only under certain circumstances and that’s for an expression of love between man and woman who have made a permanent commitment to one another. Otherwise, we’re just like animals!

This is just another myth for pushing the homosexual agenda!

Dr. Antonio Pardo, professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, in Spain:

“Properly speaking homosexuality does not exist in animals…For reasons of survival the reproductive instinct among animals is towards directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”

From "Defending a Higher Law" page. 94 This book can be downloaded online.

Vickie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Nec5

Polygamy is not recommended because it does not treat women equally.
Incest wrong for biological reasons.

No such reasons apply to monogamous gay sex.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The Catholic Church, using its Magisterial authority, states that the natural law is the human participation in God’s eternal law. This makes the tenants of the natural law immutable in that way in which it is related to the eternal law. This is for the Church to define, as this eternal law has been revealed to us by The Creator’s authority and that authority is given to the Church through the Church’s union with the Holy Spirit. We are to submit to that authority, since it comes from God.

The object of morality is virtue and this virtue is defined by the Church which uses the revealed eternal law beginning with the Decalogue and continuing through the New Law given to the apostles by Jesus… This law compliments the law written on our hearts and comes from God Who gives us the grace necessary to participate in union with Him via Sanctifying Grace This gives us the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand His Wisdom and to cooperate with His Will. True human flourishing is defined as participating with God in His plan for our eternal flourishing, the Beatific Vision.

Denial of God, His law, and His Church is at our own peril. The end is as close as your last breath with judgment immediately following due to our souls going back to its source, God. Denial of God’s Truth is worthy of separation from God for eternity since He is the source of all we are and have. It would behoove all to study the truths of the Church to see it’s reasonableness, especially in contrast with fallen man’s version of truth, and to pray for faith since God’s Grace is required for supernatural faith. The final end of ones life is either with God or apart from Him and being separated from the source of Goodness and Holiness is what Hell is about. This, along with humans using their own intelligence, nature, and will apart from God, is what the Devil leads us to when we reject God’s Truth and define “natural” by our own sinfulness.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The Catholic Church, using its Magisterial authority, states that the natural law is the human participation in God’s eternal law. This makes the tenants of the natural law immutable in that way in which it is related to the eternal law. This is for the Church to define, as this eternal law has been revealed to us by The Creator’s authority and that authority is given to the Church through the Church’s union with the Holy Spirit. We are to submit to that authority, since it comes from God.

The object of morality is virtue and this virtue is defined by the Church which uses the revealed eternal law beginning with the Decalogue and continuing through the New Law given to the apostles by Jesus… This law compliments the law written on our hearts and comes from God Who gives us the grace necessary to participate in union with Him via Sanctifying Grace This gives us the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand His Wisdom and to cooperate with His Will. True human flourishing is defined as participating with God in His plan for our eternal flourishing, the Beatific Vision.

Denial of God, His law, and His Church is at our own peril. The end is as close as your last breath with judgment immediately following due to our souls going back to its source, God. Denial of God’s Truth is worthy of separation from God for eternity since He is the source of all we are and have. It would behoove all to study the truths of the Church to see it’s reasonableness, especially in contrast with fallen man’s version of truth, and to pray for faith since God’s Grace is required for supernatural faith. The final end of ones life is either with God or apart from Him and being separated from the source of Goodness and Holiness is what Hell is about. This, along with humans using their own intelligence, nature, and will apart from God, is what the Devil leads us to when we reject God’s Truth and define “natural” by our own sinfulness.

:clapping: That says it all.