Christian Ethics vs. Secular Ethics Regarding The Notion of 'The Good'

[mymindinspired]

In what ways does Christian faith contribute to, or enrich, a philosophical notion of ‘the good’? Or, what insights does Christian ethic provide secular ethics a foundation as it applies to living a good life?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In what ways does Christian faith contribute to, or enrich, a philosophical notion of ‘the good’? Or, what insights does Christian ethic provide secular ethics a foundation as it applies to living a good life?

There is no such thing as secular ethics. We call those personal opinions. Where they are the same as Judeo/Christian ethics, I can only assume that they actually are J/C ethics. No point in reinventing the wheel.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If you want to know how well “secular ethics”–morality without God–worked, you’d need to visit the Soviet Union. There they promise a “worker’s paradise” with “equal rights for all comrades” and “equal distribution of wealth” and so on and so forth. Oh, and they say they can do all that without God.

Oh, wait… the Soviet Union collapsed into a pile of soot and industrial waste in 1991 after killing almost 70 million people, destroying the environment and terrorizing the world under the spectre of mutually assured destruction. Good riddance.

Let me let you in on a dirty little secret that atheists don’t like to talk about. The “secular democracy” that they keep advocating doesn’t actually exist. There is not one successful democracy that doesn’t have God in its constitution or founding documents, that does not fund churches, that does not gives tax breaks to religious charities, and so forth.

 

[valentino]

the list is endless.Are whole society is built on Christian ethics.All the things going wrong in society today are a result of getting away from Christian ethics.None of the most talked about issues such as abortion,pornography,homosexuality,birth control which are allowed lead to a more happy life or society.There dead ends which can only lead to more unhappiness.

 

[mcteague]

Christian ethics, while certainly not rejecting reason, does not derive from reason. Secular ethics, at least secular humanist ethics, derives exclusively from reason. So Christian ethics may provide something for the secularist to think about. Provided that the reasons provided by the Christian are not exclusively based on a belief in God, the secularist would judge them on their merits.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Christian ethics, while certainly not rejecting reason, does not derive from reason. Secular ethics, at least secular humanist ethics, derives exclusively from reason. So Christian ethics may provide something for the secularist to think about. Provided that the reasons provided by the Christian are not exclusively based on a belief in God, the secularist would judge them on their merits.

And how would the secularist derive their “merits?” From utility? Then you have yourself godless utilitarianism, a system which commands: abort all the inferior humans before they are born; confiscate private property and reallocate it according to maximum efficiency, which leads to…

From an equal distribution of goods? Communism has been tried and it has failed. China is successful because they brought back God and a (limited) free market.

From the vote of the people? They will elect Hitler. If they don’t, they will vote away the rights of the people judged to be inferior (resulting in either slavery or a permanent underclass, which is basically the same thing).

Read this document. What does “inalienable” mean? “Cannot be taken away; cannot be voted away.” What makes the rights “inalienable?” Their source.

What, or rather Who, is the source? God.

Can you even HAVE a democracy without inalienable rights? If the rights derive from men, then men can take them away, so no; those in power vote to disenfranchise those out of power and boom, no more democracy. So what do you need to have inalienable rights? A source superior to man, meaning God.

So can you have a democracy without God? Again, the atheists crow about their invisible pink unicorn–er, “secular democracy” but they can’t even demonstrate that one exists. I posit that it cannot and never will.

 

[mcteague]

OP did not ask which was better, but how one might influence the other.
I tried to answer that in some way. Which I believe is more on point than simply ranting that every humanist is really Stalin in disguise.

 

[Cat_Herder]

OP did not ask which was better, but how one might influence the other.
I tried to answer that in some way. Which I believe is more on point than simply ranting that every humanist is really Stalin in disguise.

Your argument is with history, not with me. Produce evidence of a functional humanist secular democracy or admit you are the ranter.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

In my study of moral theology, the difference I see is one of degree and intention and I see no distinction between ethics and morals since we should do good to all men for the sake of God. Unless of course we should not love our enemies. I would think that it is in fact virtuous to love them (as an act of charity).

As all men are created in the Image of God, all men have reason and the same last end, God Himself. It is in this last end that man’s good consists and all men will the good as desirable but man’s happiness consists in God alone. Our last end is perfect happiness in the vision of God. It is in this search for God that the Christian makes use of the virtues, theological virtues to orient himself to the last end and the cardinal virtues in the journey. The secularist has only those natural virtues owing to his dignity as created in the Image of God and fails in the intention of orienting himself to his last end, God, his greatest good.

As grace perfects nature, God’s Grace infuses more perfected virtues into us as we acquire the more perfect use and habit of these virtues oriented rightly. The gifts of the Holy Spirit relate to these virtues as infused.

In Summa Theologica II.II, Thomas Aquinas asserts the following correspondences between the seven Capital Virtues and the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

* The gift of wisdom corresponds to the virtue of charity.
* The gift of understanding corresponds to the virtue of faith.
* The gift of counsel (right judgment) corresponds to the virtue of prudence.
* The gift of courage corresponds to the virtue of fortitude.
* The gift of knowledge corresponds to the virtue of hope.
* The gift of piety corresponds to the virtue of justice.
* The gift of fear of the Lord corresponds to the virtue of temperance.

This is the difference between secular ethics and Christian ethics, God’s Grace relating to the orientation of man to man’s last end, God Himself. Secular ethics makes use of the intellect, will, and passions (the powers of the soul), to the service of himself, eschewing the theological and infused virtues by a lack of openness to grace owing to a failure to desire the true Good and last end, God Himself. St. Thomas puts man’s last end first in the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa before discussion of happiness and human acts.

There are of course in this world varying levels of this failure in each person at any one time. The Sacraments of the Church give us this Grace when united to the intention of the Church and bring us back to the Church in the Sacrament of Penance when we sin mortally or venially.

 

[John21652]

Christian ethics, while certainly not rejecting reason, does not derive from reason. Secular ethics, at least secular humanist ethics, derives exclusively from reason. So Christian ethics may provide something for the secularist to think about. Provided that the reasons provided by the Christian are not exclusively based on a belief in God, the secularist would judge them on their merits.

I’d like you to let us in on the secret of which Christian ethic doesn’t derive from reason.
And I’d like you to let us in on the secret of which secular ethic is built exclusively on reason.

Enlighten us.

Please

 

[mcteague]

I’d like you to let us in on the secret of which Christian ethic doesn’t derive from reason.
And I’d like you to let us in on the secret of which secular ethic is built exclusively on reason.

Enlighten us.

Please

I have always said that when someone does not understand you it is not their fault. It is your fault. So let me rephrase what I mean. Secular ethics does not depend on a belief in God, or a moral authority. In fact it largely, though not completley, excludes it from discussion. Christian ethics does depend on a belief in God. Secular ethics comes to its conclussions exclussively on the basis of reason.

That does not mean there is no reason, or intelligence, in Christian ethics. There certainly is. It simply means that for Christian ethics ones belief in the moral authority of God, the Church, and the Bible take precedence over anything else. Certainly most intelligent Christians try to think about issues beyond the obedience to God level. But it is not a requirement.

The secularist and Christian may, and often do, come to the same conclussions. They might just take different roads to get there.
What this means is that when attempting to persuade the secular world Christian arguments can not exclussively rely upon religious ideas. But they can within discussions among Christians.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How is a “Secular Ethic” any different than a personal opinion? Its clearly not. How are “Christian Ethics” any different than G-ds opinion? Clearly, they are not.

As I will not be judged by any secular authority on the contents of my life, I suppose that the idea of Secular Ethics is a fools errand:shrug:

 

[John21652]

Christian ethics, while certainly not rejecting reason, does not derive from reason. Secular ethics, at least secular humanist ethics, derives exclusively from reason. So Christian ethics may provide something for the secularist to think about. Provided that the reasons provided by the Christian are not exclusively based on a belief in God, the secularist would judge them on their merits.

I have always said that when someone does not understand you it is not their fault. It is your fault. So let me rephrase what I mean. Secular ethics does not depend on a belief in God, or a moral authority. In fact it largely, though not completley, excludes it from discussion. Christian ethics does depend on a belief in God. Secular ethics comes to its conclussions exclussively on the basis of reason.

That does not mean there is no reason, or intelligence, in Christian ethics. There certainly is. It simply means that for Christian ethics ones belief in the moral authority of God, the Church, and the Bible take precedence over anything else. Certainly most intelligent Christians try to think about issues beyond the obedience to God level. But it is not a requirement.

The secularist and Christian may, and often do, come to the same conclussions. They might just take different roads to get there.
What this means is that when attempting to persuade the secular world Christian arguments can not exclussively rely upon religious ideas. But they can within discussions among Christians.

Well, I am very glad you have taken responsibility for the confusion, which is very charitable of you, because you have certainly created a good deal.

Your original statement that Christian ethics does not derive from reason is a very definitive one. Quite black and white, in fact. Yet in your second post you now explain there is actually some reason and intelligence in Christian ethics. You also restate that secularist Ethics “…comes to its conclussions exclussively on the basis of reason”. However, also in your second post, you say Christians and secularists “…may, and often do, arrive at the same consclussions.”

So, you are actually saying that an Ethics based entirely on reason will come to the same conclusions as an Ethics based on only some reason and therefore, by exclusion, a lot of unreasonableness. You are also stating, by inference, that if there is only some reasonableness in Christian Ethics, which is based, as you say, on “…the moral authority of God, the Church, and the Bible…”, then those things must be unreasonable. You even say Christian Ethics relies exclusively on these ideas. I’ve never heard of that before!

That’s even more confusion you need to clear up.

 

[mcteague]

Well, I am very glad you have taken responsibility for the confusion, which is very charitable of you, because you have certainly created a good deal.

Your original statement that Christian ethics does not derive from reason is a very definitive one. Quite black and white, in fact. Yet in your second post you now explain there is actually some reason and intelligence in Christian ethics. You also restate that secularist Ethics “…comes to its conclussions exclussively on the basis of reason”. However, also in your second post, you say Christians and secularists “…may, and often do, arrive at the same consclussions.”

So, you are actually saying that an Ethics based entirely on reason will come to the same conclusions as an Ethics based on only some reason and therefore, by exclusion, a lot of unreasonableness. You are also stating, by inference, that if there is only some reasonableness in Christian Ethics, which is based, as you say, on “…the moral authority of God, the Church, and the Bible…”, then those things must be unreasonable. You even say Christian Ethics relies exclusively on these ideas. I’ve never heard of that before!

That’s even more confusion you need to clear up.

At this point I must claim that the confusion is in you. You are hearing a false dichotomy.
I am not saying what you are hearing. This is probably because you are presuming that as I am not a Catholic and support a secular view that I am anti-Catholic. I am not.
All that I have said is that Catholic ethics primarily derives from a belief in God and other authoritative sources. That does not exclude reason from Catholic ethical considerations. I have only claimed that reason is not an essential component of Catholic ethics.

It is really quite a misreading on your part to conclude that anything I have said suggests that Catholics do not reason or are unreasonable. I am only saying what any Catholic might say. That they believe certain things and hold certain views because that is what God, the Church, or the Bible have told them. That does not mean Catholics do not have the capacity for rational thought. Of course they do.

Catholicism has a trememdous intellectual tradition. But, and this can not be denied, reason is not the primary source of Catholic ethics. God, the Church, and the Bible are the primary source. As the secular world, well specifically the non religious secular world, does not believe those things, at least not to the point of relying on them, it can not use them as the source of its ethical decisions.

When a religous person wishes to persuade or influence a non religious person the religious person does not have recourse to their religiously held beliefs. They can only persuade if the propositons they present can be understood and accepted on the bases of reason with out recourse to GOD.

I actually think I have been pretty clear about this. But because of some defensive presumption that I am making an anti-Catholic statement, you and others seem unable to understand that I am saying exactly what you and any other religious person believes.

I can not imagine how I could be any clearer. This is actually starting to annoy me.
The OP wanted to know how Catholicism influences the ethics of the secular world. It does so when its ethics can be understood without depending on the existence of God or the superemecy of the Church or the Bible. What more would you like me to say?

 

[Cat_Herder]

At this point I must claim that the confusion is in you. You are hearing a false dichotomy.
I am not saying what you are hearing. This is probably because you are presuming that as I am not a Catholic and support a secular view that I am anti-Catholic. I am not.

No, you are the one presuming that we have automatically put you in the “evil anti-Catholic atheist” bucket. However there is no such thing as “secular ethics”; it’s an oxymoron, and all we are trying to do is point that out.

We’re basically the “Truth Security Administration”; we confiscate all knives and other dangerous articles and we x-ray everyone regardless of their religion or denomination. You just happened to walk in with a knife, so we confiscated it. That doesn’t mean we think you’re a terrorist.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We’re basically the “Truth Security Administration”; we confiscate all knives and other dangerous articles and we x-ray everyone regardless of their religion or denomination. You just happened to walk in with a knife, so we confiscated it. That doesn’t mean we think you’re a terrorist.

That’s the best way of putting it that I have heard yet

 

[mcteague]

No, you are the one presuming that we have automatically put you in the “evil anti-Catholic atheist” bucket. However there is no such thing as “secular ethics”; it’s an oxymoron, and all we are trying to do is point that out.

We’re basically the “Truth Security Administration”; we confiscate all knives and other dangerous articles and we x-ray everyone regardless of their religion or denomination. You just happened to walk in with a knife, so we confiscated it. That doesn’t mean we think you’re a terrorist.

How any rational person could claim there is no such thing as secular ethics is beyond me. Is that really a Catholic belief or doctrine?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How any rational person could claim there is no such thing as secular ethics is beyond me. Is that really a Catholic belief or doctrine?

Can you demonstrate any substantive difference between the ideas of “secular ethics” and “personal opinions”?

 

[John21652]

At this point I must claim that the confusion is in you. You are hearing a false dichotomy.
I am not saying what you are hearing. This is probably because you are presuming that as I am not a Catholic and support a secular view that I am anti-Catholic. I am not.

I am presuming nothing. Nor do I assume anything. If I did that, this debate would meander all over the countryside. All I am doing is taking what you write here and trying to make sense of it. I am not “hearing” anything. I am “seeing” what you write. As for the false dichotomy, well your original statement was rather black and white and your subsequent post was a lot more, shall we say, equivocal. Hence the dichotomy.

All that I have said is that Catholic ethics primarily derives from a belief in God and other authoritative sources. That does not exclude reason from Catholic ethical considerations. I have only claimed that reason is not an essential component of Catholic ethics.

I would have thought that if Catholics have various sources of Ethical inspiration, as you described, the Bible, God and “…other authoritative sources…”, that a fair degree of rational thinking would be required in order that a coeherent Ethical compendium be arived at. Obviously if the Bible and “…other authoritative sources…” are used, then God is not the only source of Catholic/Christian Ethics. If God is not the only source of a coherent Ethical system, then obviously what Catholics and other Christians refer to as ‘Divine Revelation’ is not the sole font of Ethical deliberations and foundations. Obviously then, a whole lot of reasoning would be required to arrive at that coherent system, because God is obviously not doing all the thinking for Christians. Now, that sort of knocks on the head that “…reason is not an essential component of Catholic ethics”, as you wrote.

It is really quite a misreading on your part to conclude that anything I have said suggests that Catholics do not reason or are unreasonable. I am only saying what any Catholic might say. That they believe certain things and hold certain views because that is what God, the Church, or the Bible have told them. That does not mean Catholics do not have the capacity for rational thought. Of course they do.

Phew. Thank God for that, eh!?

Catholicism has a trememdous intellectual tradition. But, and this can not be denied, reason is not the primary source of Catholic ethics. God, the Church, and the Bible are the primary source.

Well, I do have to ask, if the Church is a primary source of Catholic Ethical knowledge, where does the Church get its knowledge from? You did give three sources after all, namely God, the Church and the Bible. Does the Church get its Ethicl knowledge from somewhere else again?

As the secular world, well specifically the non religious secular world, does not believe those things, at least not to the point of relying on them, it can not use them as the source of its ethical decisions.

So then, what are the sources of secular Ethical deliberations if not the Bible, the Church and God? “Other sources” and if so, are they the same “other sources” that Catholics use? I also have to ask, from what you wrote about “…non-religious secular world,…” is their a religious secular world?

When a religous person wishes to persuade or influence a non religious person the religious person does not have recourse to their religiously held beliefs. They can only persuade if the propositons they present can be understood and accepted on the bases of reason with out recourse to GOD.

OK, so if I as a Catholic start an Ethical argument with an Atheist, I’m not allowed to quote God? Is that what you are saying? Isn’t it a bit unfair to have an Ethical argument and have one party restrict the grounds of the debate? That might rule out quite a valuable “other source”! Then again it begs two questions. The first being why the Atheist doesn’t want the Catholic to have an advantage?! The second is that there would have to be points that both can argue about and still arrive at common conclusions even without the Catholic’s recourse to God. Do you think that’s possible?

I actually think I have been pretty clear about this. But because of some defensive presumption that I am making an anti-Catholic statement, you and others seem unable to understand that I am saying exactly what you and any other religious person believes.

Well, as I said I presumed nothing and I certainly don’t feel defensive about anything. Why should I? However, you have admitted you sowed an awful lot of confusion and until you clear up a few more points, confusion will reign, because, well, I explained ‘because’.

I can not imagine how I could be any clearer. This is actually starting to annoy me.

You annoyed?! You weren’t the one dealing with conflicting statements. I was and I have manged to patiently try and find out why you made those conflicting statements.

The OP wanted to know how Catholicism influences the ethics of the secular world. It does so when its ethics can be understood without depending on the existence of God or the superemecy of the Church or the Bible. What more would you like me to say?

I know what the OP wrote. I do read fairly well. It’s just that you write stuff that is confusing. For example, the implication in your last paragraph here is that if God suddenly went AWOL, Catholic Ethics would no longer be able to have any influence on anybody. That would mean that Catholic Ethics is entirely reliant upon God being on deck. If that’s the case, then all the “other sources” you told us about are a figment of someone’s imagination and your statement that Catholicism’s Ethics has a “…tremendous intellectual tradition behind it…” is also untrue.

Very confusing.

 

[mcteague]

Very confusing.

Although your hearing vs seeing remark simply proves you are being difficult, I will play along.

In order to accept an argument, or be persuaded, an agreement must exist on the validity of premises. Thus in the classic syllogism;
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
we can only accept the conclusion if we accept the premises. If we do not accept them we will not accept the argument. It follows rationally that in order to be persuaded the same criteria exists. Are you with me so far?

In Catholic philosophy, at least according to my understanding of Thomas Aquinas, there are essentially two kinds of knowledge or truths. Truths known from reason and truths known from revelation.
Let us think about these two kinds of truths. For the purposes of argument and persuasion, truths known from reason are superior to truths known from revelation. Why? Because revelation is an experience particular to the person to whom that truth is revealed. That does not mean the truth itself is less valid. It only means that truth that comes from reason can be more easily shared.
You might retort that not everyone is shown the face of God while riding a donkey across the desert, but somehow the truth of that revelation was shared with other people. Yes that is true. But these other people can only accept that truth if either that truth meets the standard of reasonableness they accept independent of revelation, or they themselves have that truth revealed to them. There is no other way.

If we define the secular world as those who do not accept the legitimacy of reveled truth then we must accept that attempts at argument or persuasion that depend upon revealed truth will not be successful unless that revealed truth can also be presented by means of reason.

Put simply arguments with premises based solely upon revealed truth will not be a accepted because the premises are not agreed upon. So we can clearly see that if a Catholic wishes to persuade someone regarding anything they must make their argument only on the basis of reason, not revelation. This has nothing to do with the actual legitimacy of the truth, but rather its ability to persuade

Now why did I say Catholic philosophy does not derive from reason? It has to do with which is more important; reasoned or revealed truth. To a religious person revealed truth always trumps reasoned truth. This because revealed truth comes from God; who is perfect. Therefore reason can only be used to support those truths known from revelation. It can never be used to reject those truths. Reason is subordinate to revelation. So Catholic philosophy must ultimately derive from revelation not reason. There is of course plenty of reasoning done in support of those revealed truths, but that reasoning is not independent of the already accepted revealed truth. And it never can be