A
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
How about you just look up th eword in any dictionary?
I don’t know why you think any facts embarrassing to the Church need to be ballanced against embarrassing facts about other churches or how such balancing of horrors could in any way diminish the moral failings of Catholics. It also seem absurd that you would ask for a citation on the matter. Haven’t you been paying attention to the news over the past five years or so? If not, this isn’t the thread to help educate you on the matter.
A
Anselm33
Guest
You’ve maligned Catholics and Catholic priests and the Catholic religion without providing any evidence for your numbers and wild assertions. tens of thousands??? gang rape of orphans by priests? Yes, the Boston Globe and other arms of the mainstream media have focussed on some incidents, while ignoring those in other religious sects. I’m asking you to provide documentation for the “tens of thousands” and “gang rape” assertions. This is why science depends on measurement, not wild assertions of truth. I don’t understand why you post in this forum if your opinion of Catholic morals is so low.
L
Leela
Guest
The fact that the conditions that produce well-being for one person (the sorts of social institutions, relationships, attitudes, intentions, brain states, etc) can vary to some degree from person to person, does not mean that there are no true things that we can say about better and worse values. Consider that we can say true things about human health in spite of the fact that peanuts are nourishing to one person and deadly to another. That fact does not mean that human health is entirely subjective. Neither is morality. What contributes to human well-being, is constrained by reality and entirely dependent on facts about the world concerning changes in the experiences of conscious creatures. Some changes in experiences lead to increased well-being and some to increased misery (of course this is very complicated including the complication of short-term/long-term considerations of conscious experience).
The fact is that we already know a lot about morality (despite being puzzled by the sorts of conundrums posed in university ethics courses). We know that a degree of human cooperation is more conducive to to human well-being than all of us grabbing rocks and trying to bash one another’s heads in. That is as objective a fact as you’ll find anywhere.
No, morals are not physical properties. Morality isn’t going to be settled once and for all by physicists studying material objects even once they find a so-called “theory of everything,” but it is also not at all independent of physical laws, either. What is moral depends on facts about the physical world, facts about biology, chemistry, physics, and the experiences of conscious creatures in that world as processed in the brain.
What else could it even possibly depend on? If morality is not concerned with conscious experience, what else could it be concerned with? And unless conscious experience is just random, then science can in principle teach us about how to maximize well-being.
In his new book, Sam Harris is "claiming that consciousness is the only context in which we can talk about morality and human values. Why is consciousness not an arbitrary starting point? Well, what’s the alternative? Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other.
If you put this imagined source of value in a box, I think what you would have in that box would be — by definition — the least interesting thing in the universe. It would be — again, by definition — something that cannot be cared about. Any other source of value will have some relationship to the experience of conscious beings. So I don’t think consciousness is an arbitrary starting point. When we’re talking about right and wrong, and good and evil, and about outcomes that matter, we are necessarily talking about actual or potential changes in conscious experience.
I would further add to that the concept of “well-being” captures everything we can care about in the moral sphere."
L
Leela
Guest
You keep telling me that you refuse to talk with me and that I’m not worth talking to since I don’t know anything, but then also try to goad me into responding to you. What gives?
Like I said, if you want to discuss the horrors of the sex abuse scandal, please start another thread. I’ll be happy to enlighten you there on the extent of the wrongdoings for example as those perpetrated upon orphans in Ireland.
In the mean time, you might consider the 2009 Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) report:
childabusecommission.com/rpt/
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
“The fact is that we already know a lot about morality (despite being puzzled by the sorts of conundrums posed in university ethics courses). We know that a degree of human cooperation is more conducive to to human well-being than all of us grabbing rocks and trying to bash one another’s heads in. That is as objective a fact as you’ll find anywhere”
This is the only solid thing you said in the first part of your statement. The rest is just fluff. However, moralty has nothing to do with co-operation. We even cooperate with terrorists if it helps us. I think you are confusing “self presevation” with morality.
"In his new book, Sam Harris is “claiming that consciousness is the only context in which we can talk about morality and human values. Why is consciousness not an arbitrary starting point? Well, what’s the alternative? Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other”
A tangent. What are we talking about? Oh yeah, can there be a science of good and evil? You are putting forth a theory on the basis of morality, which I disagree with. I find him long winded.
This is the only solid thing you said in the first part of your statement. The rest is just fluff. However, moralty has nothing to do with co-operation. We even cooperate with terrorists if it helps us. I think you are confusing “self presevation” with morality.
"In his new book, Sam Harris is “claiming that consciousness is the only context in which we can talk about morality and human values. Why is consciousness not an arbitrary starting point? Well, what’s the alternative? Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other”
A tangent. What are we talking about? Oh yeah, can there be a science of good and evil? You are putting forth a theory on the basis of morality, which I disagree with. I find him long winded.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi NE Catholic,
So I might avoid taking time to carefully respond to you with more of what you will simply dismiss as “fluff,” would you mind telling me what you think morality is concerned with if not the well-being of conscious creatures capable of experiencing happiness and suffering?
If you don’t think that morality has anything to do with human well-being, then we just don’t mean the same thing when we use the word “moral.”
Best,
Leela
So I might avoid taking time to carefully respond to you with more of what you will simply dismiss as “fluff,” would you mind telling me what you think morality is concerned with if not the well-being of conscious creatures capable of experiencing happiness and suffering?
If you don’t think that morality has anything to do with human well-being, then we just don’t mean the same thing when we use the word “moral.”
Best,
Leela
I
inocente
Guest
While it may be unfair to judge Harris’ views from the article alone (linked in the OP), on reading it again his thesis seems to have two aspects. The first is that science has/can produce all the answers, which weirdly he trashes with his own words:
*…Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?
Granted, genuine ethical difficulties arise when we ask questions like, “How much should I care about other people’s children? How much should I be willing to sacrifice, or demand that my own children sacrifice, in order to help other people in need?” We are not, by nature, impartial – and much of our moral reasoning must be applied to situations in which there is tension between our concern for ourselves, or for those closest to us, and our sense that it would be better to be more committed to helping others. …
*
The second is to offer a false choice. We must either be right-wing religious or left-wing secular. We must take sides, we can’t possibly be left-wing religious or right-wing secular. And then depending on that choice, we must take all our morality from religion or science. We’re not allowed to mix, we’re not allowed any other unmentioned means, we only have those two options. And of course, the rational choice is whichever party he supports.
*…Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?
Granted, genuine ethical difficulties arise when we ask questions like, “How much should I care about other people’s children? How much should I be willing to sacrifice, or demand that my own children sacrifice, in order to help other people in need?” We are not, by nature, impartial – and much of our moral reasoning must be applied to situations in which there is tension between our concern for ourselves, or for those closest to us, and our sense that it would be better to be more committed to helping others. …
*
The second is to offer a false choice. We must either be right-wing religious or left-wing secular. We must take sides, we can’t possibly be left-wing religious or right-wing secular. And then depending on that choice, we must take all our morality from religion or science. We’re not allowed to mix, we’re not allowed any other unmentioned means, we only have those two options. And of course, the rational choice is whichever party he supports.
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
Morality to me personally is living my life through Catholic teachings. My morality is not everyone’s morality. I’m constantly surprised by people’s moral base. It usually has to do with how that person can justify their own actions rather than how it affects others. If I was born on Mars and never heard of Jesus, then what? Well, what if I was 7’ tall and could free shoot .955%? Silly question, doesn’t deserve an answer. Much like Sam Harris, silly, but some people are always looking for something other than the norm to answer pretty common sense questions.
D
davidv
Guest
The science of good and evil is Theology.
With science meaning:
God is the ultimate Good. Evil is the absence of good. The study of God includes the study of evil.
From the study of God, one can discover objective morality. From the CCC:
1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.
1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
2 Leo XIII, Libertas præstantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88),597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,90,1.
3 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2,4L 2,288-289.
4 Rom 10:4.
L
Leela
Guest
Harris thinks that there are probably moral questions that we will never know the answer to. Just as we will probably never have a way of knowing how many people were bitten by a mosquito in the past minute, we may never know the correct solution to the Trolley Problem or some other moral conundrums. But “no answer in practice” is not the same as “no answer in principle.” Just because there are some questions we may never be able to answer doesn’t mean that there are no answers. It also doesn’t mean that we can’t disytinguish between better and worse answers. There are some obviously bad responses to the Trolley Problem just as their are some obviously wrong answers to the mosquito question. We don’t have to know absolutely everything to be confident that we know some things.
I think he sees the two as the most common objections to a science of morality. Left wing secular folks (especially intellectuals) too often think that there is no such thing as moral truth. Right wing religious folks tend to think that there is moral truth but only religious texts or other authorities can say what they are. There are obviously lots of other views on the matter, but these two are common enough that he needs to address them specifically.
E
edwest2
Guest
What we have here is an attempt by an individual to ‘educate’ Catholics about a concept called morality. Based on previous writings by this person, morality has been defined and the idea that there is a generic morality, free of any and all religious/superstition contamination, that should be accessible to all, thereby rendering all holy books and their related traditions, pointless. There will only be “truth,” whatever that means.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, human beings have flaws. One flaw is to manipulate the truth for personal gain. Science will never be able to produce a mathematical model for morality since human beings will find a way to get around the rules of ethical and moral behavior.
Science can observe and produce data. That’s it. It can be applied to real world situations, but before that happens, the experiment needs to be observed in a small scale setting and data produced that verifies the goal or benefit desired.
No. For this, science cannot decide what is good or evil. It can only provide data that must be interpreted and if there is an interpretation filter that requires the elimination of religion or religious beliefs, then it would simply be attempting to reinvent the wheel. Thousands of years of collected human behavior and experience has brought us to this point, science cannot claim to be starting with a blank slate as if history never happened.
God bless,
Ed
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, human beings have flaws. One flaw is to manipulate the truth for personal gain. Science will never be able to produce a mathematical model for morality since human beings will find a way to get around the rules of ethical and moral behavior.
Science can observe and produce data. That’s it. It can be applied to real world situations, but before that happens, the experiment needs to be observed in a small scale setting and data produced that verifies the goal or benefit desired.
No. For this, science cannot decide what is good or evil. It can only provide data that must be interpreted and if there is an interpretation filter that requires the elimination of religion or religious beliefs, then it would simply be attempting to reinvent the wheel. Thousands of years of collected human behavior and experience has brought us to this point, science cannot claim to be starting with a blank slate as if history never happened.
God bless,
Ed
L
Leela
Guest
Yes, but everyone’s morality including your is about maximizing the well being of conscious creatures. Even if you think the most important of those conscious experiences happen after death, you are still trying to maximize well-being in living your life through Catholic teachings, right?
It therefore seems to me to be Harris’s least contraversial claim that morality is concerned with increasing happiness and reducing suffering. But it then follows that unless the conditions that result in these states of consciousness are entirely random, then science study them and help us decide what we ought to value.
L
Leela
Guest
Catholics seem to agree with this idea when I hear them talk about natural law. Am I wrong?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Increasing happiness and reducing suffering are positively immoral if they considered as the** sole **criteria of morality. Science is morally deficient because it cannot justify the principle of equality or determine which is the lesser of two evils in any given situation. Can you give us an specific example of when science can help us decide what we ought to value from a moral point of view?
E
edwest2
Guest
Natural law is only part of the equation. Human beings just didn’t get here on our own. We aren’t like bacteria growing in a petri dish. Assuming, for a moment, that some believe we are just more elaborate bacteria, science cannot reinvent the wheel by ignoring history, and by creating, or even thinking about creating, some sort of utopia. Just watch the TV news if you don’t understand: robbery, killings, scandals - all caused by human beings against other human beings. And it happens every single day. Do you know of any mothers who look at their baby and think, I hope he goes to prison when he gets older? But that’s what’s happening, especially to poor, young black men.
Science can observe and collect data, period. Applied science can take obserrvations and make practical things like computers or airplanes, but morality? Each human being carries the potential for great good and great evil, or just mediocrity. Never, or rarely, challenging themselves to do better.
God bless,
Ed
L
Leela
Guest
What other criteria could there possibly be for what is moral outside of the concern for the experiences of conscious beings? I don’t think there is anything other than states of connsciousness that we even *could *be concerned about.
Harris: "Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other.
If you put this imagined source of value in a box, I think what you would have in that box would be — by definition — the least interesting thing in the universe. It would be — again, by definition — something that cannot be cared about. Any other source of value will have some relationship to the experience of conscious beings."
Saying that science is deficient because you think it can’t justify some moral principle is putting the cart before the horse. I’m not sure what you mean by the principle of equality, but it may turn out to be false once we learn more about morality.
To be honest, I’m still reading the first chapter, but I’d like to get back to you on this with some clear examples.
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
almost sounds as seemless as socialism. Unfortunately, many people do not run on the concept of “well being” and “increased happiness”. Do you not agree? I suppose if we were all robots, Harris would be onto something, but alas, we are not.
I don’t think you get Catholicism by your simplistic comment about my faith. In fact, I think Harris doesn’t get people in general by his ideas. He must be far removed from common people.
Anyhow, science can not determine good & evil since they are not physical properties. No matter how many strawmen people set up, that is a fact.
L
Leela
Guest
I can’t imagine what anyone could possible concerned about in the name of morality besides the experience of conscious beings. You say that many people have other concerns besides the well-being of such creatures, but you haven’t said what these things could be.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
I suspect that science will one day determine that a fertilized human ovum has as much consciousness as a single human skin cell. However, Catholic teaching holds that we have a moral duty toward that fertilized human ovum that is independent of any considerations based on consciousness. That moral duty is owed the fertilized human ovum not because of its potential to become a conscious being, nor because of the effect that harming it will have on already existing conscious beings, but because it was made in the image and likeness of God (i.e., it has a soul).
- Status