Foreseen but unintended

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Proclaiming what we believe to be the truth should not be dependent on our expectation of being taken seriously. Our expectation of how others may react to our words is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? I was under the impression that you were given the task (by Jesus, no less) to spread the word, to be the bearer of “good news”, be the “salt of the Earth” and as such help all the non-Catholics to see the light, and become Catholics. To achieve that task, the best solution is to speak to others using their own language - called reason and secular arguments.

There own language, yes. Reason, yes. Limiting our words to only secular arguments, no. Deliberately avoiding truths we have learned through our faith is denying truth.

You should not assume that the Catholic arguments would carry any weight for non-Catholics. It is not because non-Catholics do not “understand” your arguments, it is because they are not rational, and as such not compelling.

Your opinion. Many find them both rational and compelling.

For example, the arguments against murder do not require Catholic arguments///

That is fortunate that so many people of different faiths agree on this point. But even within this point there are distinctions of what constitutes murder on which people may disagree. There are (non-Catholic) societies where “honor killings” are a valid exception.

The basis of such arguments are established by the “golden rule”…and did NOT originate with Catholicism.

That is not surprising. Catholicism is built upon truths that were known before the coming of Christ.

Are there such arguments for the abstinence outside marriage (for example)? I have never seen one.

Most cultures of whatever religion recognize the connection between marriage and sex. That is not unique to Catholicism either.

The term “natural law” does not mean “whatever happens in nature.” Rather it means what is right based on our understanding of the essential nature (in the philosophical sense, not the biological sense) of man.

I am aware of that. What I don’t see is that there would be an “essential nature” of humanity. By the way, if the “philosophical nature” of man is not grounded on the “biological nature”, then what is grounded upon?

Philosophy.

It is inviting them to do so.

Very well. So why don’t you extend that invitation using arguments that non-Catholics can find to be good and compelling?

I do.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

For example, the arguments against murder do not require Catholic arguments, the rational and secular arguments will do just fine. The basis of such arguments are established by the “golden rule” (also called reciprocal altruism) - which are fully rational and did NOT originate with Catholicism. Are there such arguments for the abstinence outside marriage (for example)? I have never seen one.

Here’s a simple one: children do best if they have a father and a mother who are totally devoted to one another and to them. If you look at outcome statistics for children, you will see that children do best in these conditions.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Let’s take a simple example: “according to your ethical system it is wrong for YOU to miss mass for frivolous reasons. If you have a good reason to miss mass, there is no problem”. This requirement does not affect non-Catholics. So this part of your ethical setup is irrelevant for others. You do not declare non-Catholics to be evil or immoral for missing mass.

The Decalogue is binding on all human beings. Some human beings are unaware of these commands, so, their culpability is reduced when they violate the commandments.

The Church does not declare persons to be evil, actions and intentions we may declare as evil

 

[Ender]

There is a “tiny” difference between preferring a color and performing an act that affects others. If the act only affects you, there is no problem: do whatever you want and it is no one else’s business.

That I shouldn’t do something that negatively affects others is an arbitrary criterion. We don’t hold animals to moral standards, and there is no evolutionary reason to believe morality exists for humans.

No one is required to accept someone else’s ethical system.

True enough, nor are we required to accept the existence of morality. I don’t think you quite recognize the implication of the non-existence of objective morality. Either morality exists or it doesn’t. We can surely disagree about whether we can know what is objectively true, but if you cannot accept that right and wrong exists outside of our own preferences then you have no basis to claim that it exists at all.

 

[MPat]

Why is it irrelevant? I was under the impression that you were given the task (by Jesus, no less) to spread the word, to be the bearer of “good news”, be the “salt of the Earth” and as such help all the non-Catholics to see the light, and become Catholics. To achieve that task, the best solution is to speak to others using their own language - called reason and secular arguments. You should not assume that the Catholic arguments would carry any weight for non-Catholics. It is not because non-Catholics do not “understand” your arguments, it is because they are not rational, and as such not compelling.

Or, of course, because the listeners did not invest enough effort, or they were not honest with themselves.

If you do not like that possibility, you are free to sing praises for our wisdom, competence and honesty shown in not finding your arguments compelling.

For example, the arguments against murder do not require Catholic arguments, the rational and secular arguments will do just fine. The basis of such arguments are established by the “golden rule” (also called reciprocal altruism) - which are fully rational and did NOT originate with Catholicism.

Actually, natural law theory also is fully rational and did not originate with Catholicism (Aristotle lived before Catholicism). If that is all that’s required, we are using “secular” arguments.

Are there such arguments for the abstinence outside marriage (for example)? I have never seen one.

You even (almost) gave one yourself. The problem is that you do not recognise them. So, how would you try to recognise such an argument?

I am aware of that. What I don’t see is that there would be an “essential nature” of humanity.

If you are aware of that, then act accordingly. At this point it doesn’t matter if you “see” human nature or not, or even if it exits in any way. You still have to classify the argument as “Catholic” or “secular”. Or is that not important now?

 

[Scowler]

That I shouldn’t do something that negatively affects others is an arbitrary criterion.

It is? I don’t think so. It is the logical corollary of the biological imperative of sustaining one’s life. And of the obvious concept of reciprocal altruism. It is no wonder that the “golden rules” were accepted in all the societies.

True enough, nor are we required to accept the existence of morality. I don’t think you quite recognize the implication of the non-existence of objective morality. Either morality exists or it doesn’t. We can surely disagree about whether we can know what is objectively true, but if you cannot accept that right and wrong exists outside of our own preferences then you have no basis to claim that it exists at all.

Morality is simply the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a specific society in a specific time. Of course it exists objectively. But it is not absolute. Some rules which were required in a society at some time are not required in other societies or at other times.

It looks like that you use “objective” and “absolute” interchangeably. Not a good idea.

 

[MPat]

It is? I don’t think so. It is the logical corollary of the biological imperative of sustaining one’s life. And of the obvious concept of reciprocal altruism. It is no wonder that the “golden rules” were accepted in all the societies.

What is obvious about “reciprocal altruism”? There are enough people who do not act in accordance to it.

But, of course, by that you mean that you have no argument to support it, not enough courage to admit that directly, nor enough “misplaced courage” to reject it outright.

Morality is simply the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a specific society in a specific time.

No, that’s “good taste”, “rules of politeness”, “socially expected behaviour”.

“Morality”, on the other hand, is what this “socially expected behaviour” is supposed to be based on. For example, it includes that same “reciprocal altruism”.

Of course it exists objectively. But it is not absolute. Some rules which were required in a society at some time are not required in other societies or at other times.

It looks like that you use “objective” and “absolute” interchangeably. Not a good idea.

So, if this “reciprocal altruism” is so “obvious”, isn’t it both “objective” and “absolute”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Morality is simply the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a specific society in a specific time. Of course it exists objectively. But it is not absolute. Some rules which were required in a society at some time are not required in other societies or at other times.

“Objective” when applied to ethics pertains to the matter of whether there are correct answers to the question, “Is X wrong?” or “Is Y a virtue?” or questions of that type. Thus, saying that there are objective answers in ethics is not the same as saying there are absolute answers, but objective morality means more than the mere existence of social rules.

 

[Ender]

It [don’t harm others] is the logical corollary of the biological imperative of sustaining one’s life.

Since no other animal in the entire animal kingdom behaves that way I see no argument that there is a biological imperative that applies solely to man.

And of the obvious concept of reciprocal altruism.

I am happy for you to do good things for me, but I see no reason to do anything that doesn’t actually benefit me. Why should I do anything if there is nothing in it for me?

It is no wonder that the “golden rules” were accepted in all the societies.

Other societies have had something of a negative golden rule: “Don’t do anything to others you wouldn’t want them to do to you”, but none of them had the positive obligation to “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

Morality is simply the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a specific society in a specific time.

It seems you equate customs with morals. I wonder, do you accept as moral the behavior of ISIS when they slaughter innocent people simply because this is their set of unwritten rules they live by? If it isn’t then you don’t accept your own definition of morality, and if you do it ought to obvious that morality in your universe is a pretty meaningless term.

It looks like that you use “objective” and “absolute” interchangeably. Not a good idea.

True, that’s how I mean the term, because any other definition is an admission that morality is simply illusory…as your definition demonstrates.

 

[Scowler]

Since no other animal in the entire animal kingdom behaves that way I see no argument that there is a biological imperative that applies solely to man.

Actually, many herd-animals exhibit what we call selfless behavior. It is probably instinctive. Not just toward their own progeny, but also members of the same community. Elephants (for example) exhibit such behavior.

I am happy for you to do good things for me, but I see no reason to do anything that doesn’t actually benefit me. Why should I do anything if there is nothing in it for me?

Some people prefer to do it because they feel good about it, others might wish to gain social status. Yet other believe that it is the “right thing to do”. There are also those who realize that “what goes around, comes around”, and count on the fact that good behavior will spread.

Other societies have had something of a negative golden rule: “Don’t do anything to others you wouldn’t want them to do to you”, but none of them had the positive obligation to “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

Both of them appeared. Personally, I find the “negative” version better, because it is harder to “twist” it. With the positive version one can say: “I want you to make wild, passionate love to me, so I will make wild, passionate love to you… even if you don’t want it.” The negative version takes other people’s preferences into consideration.

It seems you equate customs with morals. I wonder, do you accept as moral the behavior of ISIS when they slaughter innocent people simply because this is their set of unwritten rules they live by? If it isn’t then you don’t accept your own definition of morality, and if you do it ought to obvious that morality in your universe is a pretty meaningless term.

The customs in one society are not directly “transferable” to another. In a Catholic ethical system to have sex outside marriage is considered immoral. In our predominant culture such behavior is perfectly acceptable. ISIS is a “society” and we are not required to accept their behavior.

True, that’s how I mean the term.

Very bad idea. Objective anything (morality) simply means that it is independent of what different people think about it. Its opposite would be “subjective”. Absolute anything (morality, too) means that it is the same in all circumstances. Its opposite is “relative”. Many people confuse them.

 

[Ender]

The customs in one society are not directly “transferable” to another. In a Catholic ethical system to have sex outside marriage is considered immoral. In our predominant culture such behavior is perfectly acceptable. ISIS is a “society” and we are not required to accept their behavior.

I understand that we’re not required to accept the mores of another culture, but what argument is there that we should accept the ethical system of our own culture except as a practical matter where it is in our own best interest to do so?

Just to be clear: you have no more basis to object to Catholicism than you do to …whatever it is ISIS thinks it is. Nor for that matter any basis on which to claim that your person ethical system is more moral, only that it is different. This is my point. A personal ethical system is nothing more than our own set of preferences, indistinguishable from our preferences in food or entertainment. There is no better or worse, no good or bad, only yours and mine. In such a universe, morality as we tend to think of the term is as imaginary as unicorns.

 

[Scowler]

I understand that we’re not required to accept the mores of another culture, but what argument is there that we should accept the ethical system of our own culture except as a practical matter where it is in our own best interest to do so?

If it is in your best interest, that is sufficiently good reason to follow the ethical system of your own culture.

A personal ethical system is nothing more than our own set of preferences, indistinguishable from our preferences in food or entertainment.

I already explained that there is a fundamental difference between a personal behavioral system and an interpersonal behavioral one. What you do to your own body is no one else’s business. If your dietary preference is to gorge on junk food, it is your decision. You may get some illnesses, but it was your choice.

On the other hand, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, then you need to consider the society you live in. If the society is predominantly Catholic, you had better follow - or pretend to follow - the generally accepted moral customs. Otherwise you might get ostracized, or even get burned at the stakes - depending on the era you live in.

If you live in a predominantly permissive society (the atheistic Scandinavian countries come to mind), where you only need to worry about keeping the laws, your personal freedom is left intact. You are free to worship any god or not to worship any of them. You can be free to be sexually active and no one will care about it.

So now we have two societies based upon their generally accepted moral systems. It is obvious that the one, which imposes fewer limitations of your personal freedom is preferable to the one with more restrictions. (Don’t forget that restrictive society COULD BE a Muslim one, with Sharia laws.) So the social norms CAN be compared to one another and one can find an objective preference. The permissive society is clearly better for everyone (you included) than a restrictive one.

That is the difference between the social norms and the dietary preferences. And that difference in enormous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Morality is simply the set of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior in a specific society in a specific time. Of course it exists objectively. But it is not absolute. Some rules which were required in a society at some time are not required in other societies or at other times.

Is this supposed to be a proof that absolute morality does not exist? The fact that whole societies have at times adopted unjust practices and made them normative just shows that the whole society could be mistaken. It does not prove the non-existence of the absolute truth that they didn’t get. In the world of science, for example, there was a time when it was universally assumed that the sun revolved around the earth. Now we know absolutely they were wrong. Absolute truths exist whether or not anybody knows those truths.

I already explained that there is a fundamental difference between a personal behavioral system and an interpersonal behavioral one. What you do to your own body is no one else’s business. If your dietary preference is to gorge on junk food, it is your decision. You may get some illnesses, but it was your choice.

“No man is an island” is the famous quote and it is relevant to the mistake you just made. What you do to your body does affect others, if only to the extent of the added burden your sickly body may be to society when you are no longer able to care for yourself. There is no decision that you can make that you can be absolutely sure affects no one else but you.

So now we have two societies based upon their generally accepted moral systems. It is obvious that the one, which imposes fewer limitations of your personal freedom is preferable to the one with more restrictions.

In specific instances that may be true, but as a generalization it is clearly false.

(Don’t forget that restrictive society COULD BE a Muslim one, with Sharia laws.)

This is a straw man argument as is supposes that your opponent is arguing in favor of restrictive societies in all cases. Why can’t we argue in favor of the ones we find good and not the ones we find bad? (Unless you presuppose that there is no absolute good and bad upon which to make that distinction…but then your argument would be circular - assuming there is no good and bad in order to prove there is no good and bad.)

 

[Scowler]

Is this supposed to be a proof that absolute morality does not exist?

No, that is the definition of morality. What would be your suggested definition? I am all ears. And don’t confuse ethics with science. In science you can perform an experiment, in ethics you cannot. By the way, there is only one “absolute” truth, namely that there are no other “absolute truths” (observe the plural!) Except, of course the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle (in some cases).

There is no decision that you can make that you can be absolutely sure affects no one else but you.

Yes, I can, if I live on a desert island. Anyhow, this appeal to “absolutely sure” is nonsense. Even in the most serious ethical cases we “only” require “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”. The concept of “absolute” is only applicable in the axiomatic (deductive) sciences, and even there they are they are “relative to” or “contingent upon” the axioms being used.

In specific instances that may be true, but as a generalization it is clearly false.

Of course. But I did not generalize. Moreover, let me support you. In certain societies safety is preferred to freedom (Singapore comes to mind, where you might face a serious beating with a rattan stick as a punishment for littering. And I am not joking). So freedom is not an absolute “good”. For certain societies at certain times it is, for others it is not. Maybe you would prefer a theocracy with its innumerable restrictions - as long as it is your clergy is the one in power.

Why can’t we argue in favor of the ones we find good and not the ones we find bad?

Sure, you can. Do it. That is what I do, I argue for a permissive society as opposed to a restrictive one. You are free and welcome to argue for a restrictive set moral rules. Maybe you would prefer a society where adultery was punished by public stoning. I would not know.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Is this supposed to be a proof that absolute morality does not exist?

No, that is the definition of morality. What would be your suggested definition?

Morality is a system of behavior that is objectively good, done with good reason, and done with a good intention. Good is what is written into our nature by God. I realize that some people disagree with me about what is good, even after both of us completely understand the circumstances and consequences, but since good is axiomatic, there is very little I can say to those people.

By the way, there is only one “absolute” truth, namely that there are no other “absolute truths” (observe the plural!)

Of course I disagree.

There is no decision that you can make that you can be absolutely sure affects no one else but you.

Yes, I can, if I live on a desert island.

Do live on a desert island? No? Then that excuse does not apply to you.

Anyhow, this appeal to “absolutely sure” is nonsense. Even in the most serious ethical cases we “only” require “evidence beyond any reasonable doubt”.

Your first sentence does not follow from your second one.

The concept of “absolute” is only applicable in the axiomatic (deductive) sciences, and even there they are they are “relative to” or “contingent upon” the axioms being used.

As I said, good is axiomatic.

In specific instances that may be true, but as a generalization it is clearly false.

Of course. But I did not generalize.

If you did not generalize, then how did you conclude that the Scandinavian countries were preferable to a predominately Catholic society? You cited no specific feature of those countries other than one is more permissive and the other is less so. It sure seems like you were claiming a generalization when you said:

So now we have two societies based upon their generally accepted moral systems. It is obvious that the one, which imposes fewer limitations of your personal freedom is preferable to the one with more restrictions.

Moreover, let me support you… So freedom is not an absolute “good”.

Well, that undercuts your claim quoted above.

Why can’t we argue in favor of the ones we find good and not the ones we find bad?

Sure, you can. Do it. That is what I do, I argue for a permissive society as opposed to a restrictive one…\

OK, but my point still shows that a straw man argument was implied when you said:

(Don’t forget that restrictive society COULD BE a Muslim one, with Sharia laws.)

As if I could approve on one kind of restrictive society with approving of all restrictive societies.

 

[Rau]

The above passage references to Catholic Doctrine of the Universal Destination of Goods.

Referencing principles such as this in a discussion with Scowler is not viable as such a notion is not something that he, as an atheist, can accept. There is no common ground on which to discuss many aspects of Catholic Moral Theology with an atheist for ultimately, it relies on a belief in God. Understandably, atheists will find a Catholic explanation “irrational”. Rationality rests on agreed principles or pemises.

 

[Rau]

I don’t disagree just for the fun of it, if you can substantiate it on rational grounds, too, that would fine.

Rationality does specify the premises. Two persons can apply faultless rationality and arrive at different places.

 

[Scowler]

Rationality does specify the premises.

But it does. Rationality is more than logic.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Yet, over and over this poster speaks as an authority on Catholicism, stating that Catholics believe this and the Catholic Church teaches that. I know if I am going to debate, I want to thoroughly research my opponent and their views.

 

[Rau]

Rationality does specify the premises. Two persons can apply faultless rationality and arrive at different places.

Typo, should read: rationality does not determine the premises.