How do you distinguish between what is objective moral truth and what is strongly held cultural prescription?

[cho_pilo]

Anyone?

 

[joshrp]

Anyone?

I am going to pray over this, but I suggest reading different moral theologians. The concept of natural law is very important in this. Moral actions and ideas about morality are physical actions and physical principles because they have effects on how human beings are able to organize themselves to accomplish the goals of survival and betterment of the species and of improving the universe, which is the commandment God gave to man and woman in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Objective moral truth is not so much invented as it is discovered. The best way for you to discover objective moral truth is to study and really investigate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Whether you support or oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church, you are going to find Her either your greatest ally or greatest opponent, because the Catholic Church is the only institution I can think of who claims to hold within Her teaching the infallible fullness of truth. So you are either going to be attacking or promoting Her teachings eventually, if you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Maybe someone else can chime in with the names of some good authors on moral theology? I personally can’t think of anyone of the top of my head who is totally excellent. I could use a lot more study in Catholic moral theology and philosophy myself, and most of what I know about moral theology seems to have come from informal speculation and dialogue with others, and just kind of pieced together from various writings.

Also, you can know nothing objective without dialogue. Dialogue between people, and between creatures and God, is an objective fact of existence. You cannot know anything objective without a dialogue between minds, because it is through interaction that all discoveries are made, developed, communicated, and transmitted to future generations. Morality is about interaction and encounter, and how we view and approach each other as human beings, and with all the rest of creation. So in moral philosophy or theology, which is a human science, you must first know objectively what a human being is, his nature, his mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, social nature, and how these things interact. Morality is a physical reality with physically efficient discernible effects. This is a long jounrey to understand morality, because God created us as moral free beings, and we’ve been going at this for a while.

We need more prayer to understand this. How wise would you become, should you be more conscious and invoke the one who created you and knows all wisdom.

You can PM me if you have any questions about what I might know. I don’t know a lot, but I always learn more from dialogue than I do from thinking alone. Too bad sometimes the only persons I have available to talk with are God and my guardian angel.

 

[hiinEnkelte]

Anyone?

This is something of a vague question.

Clearly, all cultures throughout the ages have had differing non-basic moral assumptions. Look for basic moral agreements first. By basic I mean do not murder, do not steal, be magnanimous, etc.

For example, some ancient pagans burned their dead, others ate them. Both cultures were disgusted at the others habits, respectively. The basic, objective moral truth? They respected their dead. The strongly held cultural prescription? They had differing approaches in the manner in which they went about their objective moral truths.

I hope this is something you can use and not completely off topic.

 

[Whadyamean]

How do you distinguish between what is objective moral truth and what is strongly held cultural prescription?

What, to you, is the difference?

 

[bmullins]

If God is real, then objective moral truth stems directly from his very nature and existence. Then we would have to determine how does God reveal to us that objective truth? As Christian’s we believe that the Word of God (both the living oral tradition and the written) are the way God speaks to us and enlightens us to objective truth.

If god were not real, then there would be no such thing as objective moral truth. At that point all truths would be ‘strongly held cultural prescription’.

So the question really becomes several questions:

Is God real?
Does God speak to us?
How do I know God’s words to us?

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t know how you go about observing these, especially when the two are in sync and not in conflict with each other .

But what they are in themselves is:
Moral truth is obeyed for its own sake- the sake of truth
Cultural “morality” is based on human respect- or that *“what will they think?” *attitude.

Objective moral truth can be seen sometimes even against strong cultural pressure- The kind of conflict that gives rise to martrys and heroes. When they are in conflict, objective morality is seen as a commitment to the truth at all costs.

For me, in individuals, it all involves intention and motives- that’s not something you can see in other people. Often, it’s not even something you can see in yourself. Prayer and self-examination and discernment often reveal this less than ideal motives in us for doing good and avoiding evil. For me perhaps, I would suspect this cultural prescription in myself or others when I do not know the principle motivating my actions, or the reasons for doing what I’m doing. Most objective good can be reasoned and/or seen or discovered through reasoning by most people. You can tell that the reason to do/avoid this is that it hurts me or some other person(s) or the common good in this/that way.

For a Catholic who believes in the Church’s authority, they’ll accept the church’s teaching on morality whether/not they understand it, based on the moral truth of obeying rightful authority when exercised in its proper jurisdiction. For those who educate themselves, they’ll obey both for obedience and the moral truth itself.

I suppose that for some persons, the society at large may represent their moral authority (psychologically speaking) so they accept the society’s teachings given through culture and obey it with the faith of a small child in its parent’s teachings and directives. Others may obey out of a fear of looking bad to society. The two may be different in that one will obey whether/not others will know and one will obey/disobey depending on the possibility of getting caught be others.

Ultimately, objective moral truth is discernible by reason because it’s based on reality or unchanging, universal principles. Strong cultural prescription may result from moral truth or not, but is not itself the subject of reason perse. It’s based entirely on the need to fit in to a certain group.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Anyone?

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something. If its merely good in relation to your “tastes” or cultural myths and opinions, then it is relative and subjective and most probably a purely pragmatic inference rather than something which proceeds from the knowledge of true good. If we want to know what is good, we cannot know by simply saying that people had an agreement about something in history. That people agree in general that murder is wrong, can simply be reflective of the practical fact that people don’t want to die, rather than knowledge of some supreme law.

The question then becomes “by what standard is a thing objectively good”.

Well we cannot say that its somebodies opinion, because opinions change and are relative to peoples needs and wants. An objective standard of good is like a mathematical truth in the sense that it never changes. It transcends subjective opinion and practical relations between objects. An objective standard of truth is something that is always true. It is an immutable truth. This is what we mean by objective moral truth. Therefore moral law in this context is not something that begins to exist or changes according to the tide of cultural relativism.

The moral quality of a things behavior is defined as good according to an absolute standard. Since the truth of that standard cannot begin to exist, its expression as a truth has to be intrinsic to the nature of an absolute standard of reality, since it, just like the laws that underlie mathematical truth, cannot just pop out of nothing. It has to be an expression of a timeless immutable reality that never changes and never begins to exist.

In other words, good is a “nature”, not just an action, and that nature is the very “act of reality” itself in which contingent beings participate. In so far as we participate in that reality, it therefore follows that an action is wrong when a persons behavior is not in conformity in some way shape or form with the intrinsic nature of that which is the “act of reality” (good), hence evil. Good by definition is an expression of love and to love is to share the good of ones being. To not share the good of ones being would be a selfish act. I am evil if i do not respect your nature, because my not respecting it is selfish in so far as it does not fulfill your nature and therefore does not conform to the existential principle we call love.

Back to your original question. We can distinguish between a cultural opinion and true objective moral good, by asking what is “good” by definition. Good is that which fulfills your potentiality, your existence, and your particular teleological nature. All these must be fulfilled in so far as they exist in relation to an absolute standard of love. To not fulfill these things would therefore be selfish in so far as the act of reality is love. Thus good is that which fulfills your nature and the nature of every body else in kind. We can know if a thing is good by applying the principle of love to natures and actions.

If i punch you in your face, i am not fulfilling the good of your nature. However context can change the moral quality of an action. For example, if i have no choice but to punch you in-order to stop you from killing somebody; the greater good of saving a persons life overrides my duty to not hurt you. Punching is not a good thing by itself, but in relation to saving somebodies life it is a necessity, and you are only morally responsible in relation to things you can control. For example if you didn’t have to punch the person in the face, but did so anyway because it was an opportunity to give an analogous show of power, then this would be wrong even though you did it to save somebodies life. Similarly, God permits evil because he sees a greater good which makes potential suffering necessary. Thus even in objective morality, there a contextual relativism, but it is not absolute. The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This is something of a vague question.

Clearly, all cultures throughout the ages have had differing non-basic moral assumptions. …]They had differing approaches in the manner in which they went about their objective moral truths.

I don’t think it’s vague. As you recognize through our history there have been different groups that have made claims of what is “objectively morally true.” In modern times you can find people that don’t agree on what is “objectively morally true.” With the differing views “Objective Morality” comes across more as an idiom for a subjective morality for which a person has a strong attachment.

 

[hiinEnkelte]

I don’t think it’s vague. As you recognize through our history there have been different groups that have made claims of what is “objectively morally true.” In modern times you can find people that don’t agree on what is “objectively morally true.” With the differing views “Objective Morality” comes across more as an idiom for a subjective morality for which a person has a strong attachment.

After reading more responses I see that it is not as vague as I thought.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think it’s vague. As you recognize through our history there have been different groups that have made claims of what is “objectively morally true.” In modern times you can find people that don’t agree on what is “objectively morally true.” With the differing views “Objective Morality” comes across more as an idiom for a subjective morality for which a person has a strong attachment.

People disagree all the time about physical and scientific truths. For example, at one time a large proportion of the scientific community were passionately invested in the ideas that the solar system revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Then there was passionate disagreement and debate re opposing theories - that the solar system revolved around the sun (per Copernicus and Galileo) and that it was round (latched onto by Christopher Columbus).

Did this disagreement mean that each theory was merely subjective? Or that any theory was merely held due to attachment?

Of course not - many scientists DID change their minds once the globe was circumnavigated (proving it’s roundness) and when more and more solid scientific backing emerged for heliocentrism. They weren’t THAT emotionally attached to their theories.

Same goes for religion - there is such an amount of conversion and reversion of religion among believers, not to mention the number of people who go from being devout religious practitioners to abandoning religion altogether, either for amlong time or permanently, that there must be more than subjective attachment at play.

 

[cho_pilo]

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something. If its merely good in relation to your “tastes” or cultural myths and opinions, then it is relative and subjective and most probably a purely pragmatic inference rather than something which proceeds from the knowledge of true good. If we want to know what is good, we cannot know by simply saying that people had an agreement about something in history. That people agree in general that murder is wrong, can simply be reflective of the practical fact that people don’t want to die, rather than knowledge of some supreme law.

The question then becomes “by what standard is a thing objectively good”.

Well we cannot say that its somebodies opinion, because opinions change and are relative to peoples needs and wants. An objective standard of good is like a mathematical truth in the sense that it never changes. It transcends subjective opinion and practical relations between objects. An objective standard of truth is something that is always true. It is an immutable truth. This is what we mean by objective moral truth. Therefore moral law in this context is not something that begins to exist or changes according to the tide of cultural relativism.

The moral quality of a things behavior is defined as good according to an absolute standard. Since the truth of that standard cannot begin to exist, its expression as a truth has to be intrinsic to the nature of an absolute standard of reality, since it, just like the laws that underlie mathematical truth, cannot just pop out of nothing. It has to be an expression of a timeless immutable reality that never changes and never begins to exist.

In other words, good is a “nature”, not just an action, and that nature is the very “act of reality” itself in which contingent beings participate. In so far as we participate in that reality, it therefore follows that an action is wrong when a persons behavior is not in conformity in some way shape or form with the intrinsic nature of that which is the “act of reality” (good), hence evil. Good by definition is an expression of love and to love is to share the good of ones being. To not share the good of ones being would be a selfish act. I am evil if i do not respect your nature, because my not respecting it is selfish in so far as it does not fulfill your nature and therefore does not conform to the existential principle we call love.

Back to your original question. We can distinguish between a cultural opinion and true objective moral good, by asking what is “good” by definition. Good is that which fulfills your potentiality, your existence, and your particular teleological nature. All these must be fulfilled in so far as they exist in relation to an absolute standard of love. To not fulfill these things would therefore be selfish in so far as the act of reality is love. Thus good is that which fulfills your nature and the nature of every body else in kind. We can know if a thing is good by applying the principle of love to natures and actions.

If i punch you in your face, i am not fulfilling the good of your nature. However context can change the moral quality of an action. For example, if i have no choice but to punch you in-order to stop you from killing somebody; the greater good of saving a persons life overrides my duty to not hurt you. Punching is not a good thing by itself, but in relation to saving somebodies life it is a necessity, and you are only morally responsible in relation to things you can control. For example if you didn’t have to punch the person in the face, but did so anyway because it was an opportunity to give an analogous show of power, then this would be wrong even though you did it to save somebodies life. Similarly, God permits evil because he sees a greater good which makes potential suffering necessary. Thus even in objective morality, there a contextual relativism, but it is not absolute. The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

The problem with your stance is inasmuch the translation from abstract common-sense truisms to actual real-life examples is concerned.

While we can readily agree on the abstract common-sense truisms (e.g. “No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good.”),
we will often disagree on how they apply or don’t apply to actual real-life examples.

For example if you didn’t have to punch the person in the face

We don’t know when punching someone in the face is necessary and when it is not. Knowing such would require omniscience.

 

[cho_pilo]

People disagree all the time about physical and scientific truths. For example, at one time a large proportion of the scientific community were passionately invested in the ideas that the solar system revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat.

Which portions of the scientific community were in favour of the Geocentric system?

Then there was passionate disagreement and debate re opposing theories - snip - that it was round (latched onto by Christopher Columbus).

Since we’d known the Earth was round for ~2,000 years what debate was there?

Of course not - many scientists DID change their minds once the globe was circumnavigated (proving it’s roundness) and when more and more solid scientific backing emerged for heliocentrism. They weren’t THAT emotionally attached to their theories.

You’re confusing things. Science qua science wasn’t in existence back then.

 

[Langdell]

If God is real, then objective moral truth stems directly from his very nature and existence. Then we would have to determine how does God reveal to us that objective truth? As Christian’s we believe that the Word of God (both the living oral tradition and the written) are the way God speaks to us and enlightens us to objective truth.

If god were not real, then there would be no such thing as objective moral truth. At that point all truths would be ‘strongly held cultural prescription’.

So the question really becomes several questions:

Is God real?
Does God speak to us?
How do I know God’s words to us?

 

[puzzleannie]

Anyone?

objective moral truth is codified in the ten commandments and laws of the Church, and is derived from natural law and from Divine Revelation.

 

[karbear]

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something. If its merely good in relation to your “tastes” or cultural myths and opinions, then it is relative and subjective and most probably a purely pragmatic inference rather than something which proceeds from the knowledge of true good. If we want to know what is good, we cannot know by simply saying that people had an agreement about something in history. That people agree in general that murder is wrong, can simply be reflective of the practical fact that people don’t want to die, rather than knowledge of some supreme law.

.

I like this. I was thinking that the OP question was interesting because things like standards of modesty can not be morally defined in practical terms. Dress does not have a morality, but if we look to find the moral good in modesty, then we can do our best to judge dress against that standard.

 

[jochoa]

Anyone?

Amazing Question my friend! One I have been pondering for quite some time. I look forward to further discussion with you.

To determine objective morality,
I first ask myself: What morals are required in order for a society, both individually and communally, to live with an unbreakable peace and limitless happiness?

The development of the foundation of objective morality can be gracefully stated as:
To have unbreakable peace, there must be perfect patience.
To have limitless happiness, there must be the desire and action of perfect kindness.
To always do perfect patience and kindness, there must be perfect motivation.
The body, spirit, thoughts, and will must work in perfect unity for if one is operating out of patience, kindness, or motivation, peace and happiness will be lost on some level.
The patience and kindness must be equal towards others and self, for if one is greater than the other, there will be a loss of peace or happiness on some level.

The foundation of objective morality is set by the Greatest Commandments, which I have defined further from prayer, analysis, and experimentation as: Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to be patient and kind and motivated for God with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self, in order to achieve unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy, as a society as well as individual.

Thoughts?