I have been TOLD... so what?

[Trurl]

Ouch… this tread went down the tube… too bad.

 

[fhansen]

Very true. Public nudity is considered unacceptable (or immoral) in the Central Park, but it is not problematic in a nudist colony. Yes, “normal morality” is contingent upon the situation, the circumstances, the time and the place. You may call it “relative” morality, if you so choose. But I would suggest not to say it with “disdain”, after all there is no more “relative” morality than saying: “genocide is evil if performed by humans” but it is “perfectly moral behavior is performed by God” - because you would commit the fallacy of “special pleading”.

So is it your position to say that all morality is relative, including the “inverse golden rule”. IOW, would you maintain that no human has any real right to argue for or against any particular behavior from a position of morality, all righteous indignation/moral outrage at some perceived injustice being merely an emotional response issuing from a contrived or made up illusion of righteousness/morality?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And the DSM implicitly relies on Judeo-Christian morality to define people who act in a deviant manner.

I don’t agree, but I won’t argue with you. My primary goal here was to refer you to the answer to your question on how antisocial personality disorder is recognized.

Not long ago, homosexuality was categorized as a mental illness in the DSM.

We are almost at the 40th anniversary for that removal. Asperger’s Syndrome is being removed in favor of treating those with it as falling in the autism spectrum (Developmental disorder). Narcissism is currently on the chopping block to be removed.

At the end of the day, a socio- or psychpath is just someone who violates the moral conventions of that society.

I think you may be using a layperson’s use of the word, which doesn’t always coincide with the clinical use. But that’s fine.

 

[Trurl]

So is it your position to say that all morality is relative, including the “inverse golden rule”.

Yes, all those rules are contingent upon the times and places and the people involved.

IOW, would you maintain that no human has any real right to argue for or against any particular behavior from a position of morality, all righteous indignation/moral outrage at some perceived injustice being merely an emotional response issuing from a contrived or made up illusion of righteousness/morality?

Nonsense. There is NO emotiom involved. The proper stance is derived from ICE COLD logic based upon “heartless” mathematics - called game theory. The very best (mathematically PROVEN) strategy for having a smooth-working society is based upon the “direct and inverse” golden rule, which have been discovered (intuitively of course) way before there was christianty “on the table”. It is too bad, that most human societies did not adopt it as the basic concept for creating their “guidelines”. But for that one must blame the humans, not the principles.

Yes, morality is the set of written and unwritten rules of socially accepted behavior. Certain rule-sets are better - pragmatically of course - than others, since they allow a greater freedom and chance for the individuals to flourish. However, some societies have different priorities, they might value stability over freedom - see Singapore. There is no “one size fits all”.

My question to you: “why do you think that there was some “emotion” involved when one describes one moral rule-set as “superior” to others”? Just curious…

 

[fhansen]

Yes, all those rules are contingent upon the times and places and the people involved.

Nonsense. There is NO emotiom involved. The proper stance is derived from ICE COLD logic based upon “heartless” mathematics - called game theory. The very best (mathematically PROVEN) strategy for having a smooth-working society is based upon the “direct and inverse” golden rule, which have been discovered (intuitively of course) way before there was christianty “on the table”. It is too bad, that most human societies did not adopt it as the basic concept for creating their “guidelines”. But for that one must blame the humans, not the principles.

Yes, morality is the set of written and unwritten rules of socially accepted behavior. Certain rule-sets are better - pragmatically of course - than others, since they allow a greater freedom and chance for the individuals to flourish. However, some societies have different priorities, they might value stability over freedom - see Singapore. There is no “one size fits all”.

My question to you: “why do you think that there was some “emotion” involved when one describes one moral rule-set as “superior” to others”? Just curious…

I have no idea where your is coming from. My question could be framed as such, "Is moral outrage at, say, hearing of a case of child torture, a case of some unjustifiable and unnecessary emotion, since morality, in your opinion apparently, is relative, and based on purely practical needs?

 

[Trurl]

I have no idea where your is coming from. My question could be framed as such, "Is moral outrage at, say, hearing of a case of child torture, a case of some unjustifiable and unnecessary emotion, since morality, in your opinion apparently, is relative, and based on purely practical needs?

I am rapidly losing interest. There was never any society which valued the wholscale torturing of children, so your question is irrelevant. I will try to educate you one more and final time. There are different moral systems (public nudity on the beach and in the Central Park) based upon the time and the society. Not all of them are equally preferable from the point of view of being “pragmatic” , or being useful to create a stable and smoothly working society. There is no “emotion” involved in this assessment. Each society has a (written or unwritten) preference. Some of them value freedom over security, other value security over freedom. As such, there is NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL. Is this clear? I hope it is, because I will not waste more time on it.

 

[PRmerger]

I am rapidly losing interest.

Curious. Right after I posted my questions, which are, I believe, unanswerable from your paradigm.

Curious now that you are suddenly so interested in remaining on topic.

My response: whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/32838114425/when-my-ex-pretends-like-he-doesnt-miss-me

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Excellent analysis. However, I would go into the details a bit deeper.

First, it seems to me that you make a distinction: a specific act is a “mortal sin” for a catholic, but not for an atheist. Is this a correct assessment of what you posted? (I applied a highlight to show the part I am referring to).

Second, I would make the subdivision into more categories then just “believers” and “non-believers”. Believers do not form a monolithic “mass”. There are christians and other theists. Within the christians there are catholics and protestants. Even within the catholics there are the orthodox ones and the “others” (heretics?).

Is there a different set of “rules” to decide if an act is performed by someone in those different groups?

Thanks.

There’s a “yes” and “no” element to your first question in my opinion.

The distinction I draw in the highlighted sentence is the same one you draw and also that between knowing and believing: just because you know “the CC teaches S is wrong” doesn’t mean you therefore know S is wrong. Even many RCs may only believe S is wrong, at least for a time. By “know” in this context I mean that you are convinced by whatever knowing/epistemic process you use that indeed S is wrong. A well-meaning atheist searching for the truth by the best lights accessible to him or her at the time may not be convinced that S is indeed wrong.

But a mortal sin requires this kind of knowing . . . even though in RC thought grave matter itself is an objective truth. So if the atheist in question although hearing that S is wrong (grave matter) in the CC’s teaching and yet sincerely is not convinced of it, then that does raise doubt that in every such case he would necessarily be committing a mortal sin. Knowing it is wrong could be compromised.

This opens the door to a bigger issue of belief and mortal sin. In the case of the believer you have someone who is convinced by whatever knowing/epistemic process he or she uses that the Catholic faith is true. The Church’s teaching is then understood as a prophetic challenge to human growth in itself and in ones relationship to God. In this context they are aware that certain acts meeting all the criteria of a mortal sin divide one from God. An atheist is not in this epistemic and communal situation.

A further question emerges: just how convincing a presentation of the Catholic faith was made to someone who does not believe. Spanish theologians debated the culpability of native population in the Americas who rejected the Faith noting that the Conquistadores were often (to make an understatement) less than credible witnesses to it. Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries who served the population out of love received a far better response–the occasional torture and martyrdom notwithstanding.

Regarding your second question, despite the fact that believers are not monolithic in details, I would say any religion that sees its origin in divine revelation (e.g., Jews, Christians, Muslims) would hold that “revelation tells us that X is the case” = “X is the case.” Heretics by definition identify as belonging to a community bound by assent to a divine revelation yet dissent from an element of it. Thus giving us “revelation tells us that X is the case;” but I say “X is not the case.”

Theism is very broad, but given that the encounter with the holy in the history of religions always carries some authoritative weight, the same “equation” above would show up in varying degrees.

Regarding rules, the objective status of the act itself is always the same because the good or evil character of the act itself is mind-independent in RC thought. The subjective culpability of the person performing the act depends on whether the person knew it was wrong and whether they performed it freely. So in general the rules are the same, but individual’s subjective situations (knowing it’s wrong, freedom) vary.

 

[Trurl]

Curious. Right after I posted my questions, which are, I believe, unanswerable from your paradigm.

Curious now that you are suddenly so interested in remaining on topic.

I already asked to stay on the topic. You can believe whatever you want. I already answered your questions, even though they did not belong to this thread.

 

[Trurl]

Thanks.

There’s a “yes” and “no” element to your first question in my opinion.

The distinction I draw in the highlighted sentence is the same one you draw and also that between knowing and believing: just because you know “the CC teaches S is wrong” doesn’t mean you therefore know S is wrong. Even many RCs may only believe S is wrong, at least for a time. By “know” in this context I mean that you are convinced by whatever knowing/epistemic process you use that indeed S is wrong. A well-meaning atheist searching for the truth by the best lights accessible to him or her at the time may not be convinced that S is indeed wrong.

But a mortal sin requires this kind of knowing . . . even though in RC thought grave matter itself is an objective truth. So if the atheist in question although hearing that S is wrong (grave matter) in the CC’s teaching and yet sincerely is not convinced of it, then that does raise doubt that in every such case he would necessarily be committing a mortal sin. Knowing it is wrong could be compromised.

Agreed with everything you say here.

This opens the door to a bigger issue of belief and mortal sin. In the case of the believer you have someone who is convinced by whatever knowing/epistemic process he or she uses that the Catholic faith is true. The Church’s teaching is then understood as a prophetic challenge to human growth in itself and in ones relationship to God. In this context they are aware that certain acts meeting all the criteria of a mortal sin divide one from God. An atheist is not in this epistemic and communal situation.

Indeed so. Since the very concept of “sin” means a disobedience to God, this concept can only be established if:

1. God’s existence is properly substantiated (observe the vagueness please, I did not wish to limit the process of substantiation), and
2. God’s commands are presented in a crystal clear, unambiguous fashion.
   I think that neither one has ever been done in a conclusive fashion. (After all “faith” cannot be removed from the problem.)

A further question emerges: just how convincing a presentation of the Catholic faith was made to someone who does not believe. Spanish theologians debated the culpability of native population in the Americas who rejected the Faith noting that the Conquistadores were often (to make an understatement) less than credible witnesses to it. Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries who served the population out of love received a far better response–the occasional torture and martyrdom notwithstanding.

Very well said. I hesitate to present an analysis here about the efficacy of the presentation (in general and especially on this board), since by now I am intimidated by having been accused of being “uncharitable” because I did not mince words. (What I said was never disputed, but the fact I did not sugarcoat it was “frowned upon”.) Though it would be a very interesting and fascinating subject.

Regarding your second question, despite the fact that believers are not monolithic in details, I would say any religion that sees its origin in divine revelation (e.g., Jews, Christians, Muslims) would hold that “revelation tells us that X is the case” = “X is the case.” Heretics by definition identify as belonging to a community bound by assent to a divine revelation yet dissent from an element of it. Thus giving us “revelation tells us that X is the case;” but I say “X is not the case.”

Well, this leads back to your previous observation. How “convincing” is the argument that “X is revealed truth”? Those whom you call “heretics” will not accept that “X has beed revealed as truth”, they will assert that “X is a human concoction”. And since God NEVER comes down to give a confirmation to either side, and as such both parties thus rely on their understanding, there is no objective way to say “party A” is right and “party B” is wrong. When push comes to shove, it all boils down to subjective interpretation.

Theism is very broad, but given that the encounter with the holy in the history of religions always carries some authoritative weight, the same “equation” above would show up in varying degrees.

Is there really an “encounter” with the “holy”? Or is it merely wishful thinking?

Regarding rules, the objective status of the act itself is always the same because the good or evil character of the act itself is mind-independent in RC thought. The subjective culpability of the person performing the act depends on whether the person knew it was wrong and whether they performed it freely. So in general the rules are the same, but individual’s subjective situations (knowing it’s wrong, freedom) vary.

I accept this way of formulating the answer. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I think we have an interesting conversation.

 

[Linux]

How come that so many people confuse the two propositions: “You know that X” and “You know ‘the teaching’ that X”? Let “X” be “extra-marital sex is sinful”, for example, or “non-procreative sex is sinful”, or something similar. People assert that we (others) KNOW that “X is sinful”… because WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. Is it really possible that they TRULY cannot comprehend the difference?

This problem is serious, after all one of the three requirements for something to be “mortally sinful” is that the person who commits the act must be “aware” (sometimes expressed as “fully aware”) that the act is a grave matter. No, I am not “aware” that such actions are a “grave matter”, however, I AM aware that SOME people consider them a grave matter. But this is only the opinion of those people, nothing more. And the opinion of those people is not accepted as valid, they have no credibility. After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

You are correct. You have to know that something is true before you can know that you have a moral obligation to it.

So people accept out of faith that some moral obligation is binding to them. But that is not evidence in itself that it is binding.

Catholics are free to accept as a matter of faith that everything the Catholic Church demands is true moral law; but if they want to convince others who do not have this faith to begin with, they have to reason their case without reference to their faith as an authority. Catholics cannot use faith as an argument because as an argument for a moral code it has the same rational value as any religious faith. All religions can say that their faith demands this or that thing and that their moral standard is the truth. Philosophically speaking it is just an assertion of faith. But that does not mean there is no rational reasons for not having sex before marriage.

If you truly believe that people have a moral value that makes them more than just objects, and that you should love people, then you are not respecting that value by using them as objects for sexual gratification alone. You are basically using a persons body for masturbation. That has nothing to do with valuing them as persons.

If you truly love a person, then you ought to know that anything less than a loving committed relationship does not really reflect the value of that person. If you do value and love a person, then you ought to be committed to their value as persons since anything less than that is not love. You might love them emotionally, but your actions do not reflect that love if they are not true to the value of the person involved. If you do intend to be committed, then this implies a willingness to be married until the day you die, since if you truly love somebody then by definition this necessitates a willing commitment to expressing the value of that person; and since the value of a person never ceases until death, your willingness to respect that value will not cease until death. Marriage is the symbolic gesture used to make it evident to the community and to the persons being married that you intend to be truly committed to loving them through your actions as a person. Until that takes place, there is no reason for the persons involved to think that they are not being used as an object until something better comes along.

That’s why sex before marriage ought to be frowned upon, because sex before marriage is not evidence of commitment to the value of a person. The value of people transcends their capacity to give sexual gratification and marriage is all about respecting that value.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you truly believe that people have a moral value that makes them more than just objects, and that you should love people, then you are not respecting that value by using them as objects for sexual gratification alone. You are basically using a persons body for masturbation. That has nothing to do with valuing them as persons.

If you truly love a person, then you ought to know that anything less than a loving committed relationship does not really reflect the value of that person. If you do value and love a person, then you ought to be committed to their value as persons since anything less than that is not love. You might love them emotionally, but your actions do not reflect that love if they are not true to the value of the person involved. If you do intend to be committed, then this implies a willingness to be married until the day you die, since if you truly love somebody then by definition this necessitates a willing commitment to expressing the value of that person; and since the value of a person never ceases until death, your willingness to respect that value will not cease until death. Marriage is the symbolic gesture used to make it evident to the community and to the persons being married that you intend to be truly committed to loving them through your actions as a person. Until that takes place, there is no reason for the persons involved to think that they are not being used as an object until something better comes along.

That’s why sex before marriage ought to be frowned upon, because sex before marriage is not evidence of commitment to the value of a person. The value of people transcends their capacity to give sexual gratification and marriage is all about respecting that value.

Well said.

Problem is the counter thinking places the self as the priority in a basic act of self gratification, which quickly is gone and fleeting, and cannot accomplish anything but to affirm a negative mindset already existing. This mindset draws one deeper and deeper into their own self created illusion of the egos abyss. When in truth the self is devalued, as is the other individual. And at last and quickly when that fleeting moment is gone, your back to square one awaiting the next episode, just as all addicts do. Its a lack of self-understanding and human respect, the basis is if you can’t respect yourself, you will not respect others. More ways than heartaches I suppose in which this wonder evolves, as we have seen.

This fundemental understanding is taught in it is better to give than receive. Hard concept to grasp, yet imperative for a loving, caring world where peace is promoted. The same issues which have been hurdles for man, have repeated themselves in history. Nothing new here, same poison regurgitated

 

[PRmerger]

I already asked to stay on the topic. You can believe whatever you want. I already answered your questions, even though they did not belong to this thread.

Really? Could you just repeat the answer, then?

If someone commits adultery on Feb 14, and his wife doesn’t find out about it until May 14, is it wrong on May 14, or on Feb 14? Or sometime in between?

 

[Trurl]

You are correct. You have to know that something is true before you can know that you have a moral obligation to it.

So people accept out of faith that some moral obligation is binding to them. But that is not evidence in itself that it is binding.

Catholics are free to accept as a matter of faith that everything the Catholic Church demands is true moral law; but if they want to convince others who do not have this faith to begin with, they have to reason their case without reference to their faith as an authority. Catholics cannot use faith as an argument because as an argument for a moral code it has the same rational value as any religious faith. All religions can say that their faith demands this or that thing and that their moral standard is the truth. Philosophically speaking it is just an assertion of faith.

So far we are in good agreement.

But that does not mean there is no rational reasons for not having sex before marriage.

If you truly believe that people have a moral value that makes them more than just objects, and that you should love people, then you are not respecting that value by using them as objects for sexual gratification alone. You are basically using a persons body for masturbation. That has nothing to do with valuing them as persons.

If you truly love a person, then you ought to know that anything less than a loving committed relationship does not really reflect the value of that person. If you do value and love a person, then you ought to be committed to their value as persons since anything less than that is not love. You might love them emotionally, but your actions do not reflect that love if they are not true to the value of the person involved. If you do intend to be committed, then this implies a willingness to be married until the day you die, since if you truly love somebody then by definition this necessitates a willing commitment to expressing the value of that person; and since the value of a person never ceases until death, your willingness to respect that value will not cease until death. Marriage is the symbolic gesture used to make it evident to the community and to the persons being married that you intend to be truly committed to loving them through your actions as a person. Until that takes place, there is no reason for the persons involved to think that they are not being used as an object until something better comes along.

That’s why sex before marriage ought to be frowned upon, because sex before marriage is not evidence of commitment to the value of a person. The value of people transcends their capacity to give sexual gratification and marriage is all about respecting that value.

Unfortunately I am unable to reflect on this without further clarification. You came up with this concept of “value” for a human being. What does “value” mean in this case? Monetary value? Doubtful. Usability value? Strange. What other kinds of “values” are there? Is this “value” the same for two different humans? Or are all humans beings equally “valuable”? Is this “value” constant for one specific human for its lifetime? Or is it something that may change or fluctuate as the person changes (and we ALL change!)? I have a truckload of questions, but they will have to wait until you clarify your concept of “value”. When you will clarify this, we can start to talk to each other.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Agreed with everything you say here.

Indeed so. Since the very concept of “sin” means a disobedience to God, this concept can only be established if:

1. God’s existence is properly substantiated (observe the vagueness please, I did not wish to limit the process of substantiation), and
2. God’s commands are presented in a crystal clear, unambiguous fashion.
   I think that neither one has ever been done in a conclusive fashion. (After all “faith” cannot be removed from the problem.)

Very well said. I hesitate to present an analysis here about the efficacy of the presentation (in general and especially on this board), since by now I am intimidated by having been accused of being “uncharitable” because I did not mince words. (What I said was never disputed, but the fact I did not sugarcoat it was “frowned upon”.) Though it would be a very interesting and fascinating subject.

Well, this leads back to your previous observation. How “convincing” is the argument that “X is revealed truth”? Those whom you call “heretics” will not accept that “X has beed revealed as truth”, they will assert that “X is a human concoction”. And since God NEVER comes down to give a confirmation to either side, and as such both parties thus rely on their understanding, there is no objective way to say “party A” is right and “party B” is wrong. When push comes to shove, it all boils down to subjective interpretation.

Is there really an “encounter” with the “holy”? Or is it merely wishful thinking?

I accept this way of formulating the answer. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I think we have an interesting conversation.

I agree, it is a very interesting conversation.

There are a few points I’d like to explore to build better understanding and coherence between the theist and atheist worlds. But with Thanksgiving coming up I’m pretty busy. If it’s not presuming on your time and attention, perhaps you could check back after Friday and if I’ve had the time to sit, we can pick things back up.

In the mean time Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[edwest2]

How come that so many people confuse the two propositions: “You know that X” and “You know ‘the teaching’ that X”? Let “X” be “extra-marital sex is sinful”, for example, or “non-procreative sex is sinful”, or something similar. People assert that we (others) KNOW that “X is sinful”… because WE HAVE BEEN TOLD. Is it really possible that they TRULY cannot comprehend the difference?

This problem is serious, after all one of the three requirements for something to be “mortally sinful” is that the person who commits the act must be “aware” (sometimes expressed as “fully aware”) that the act is a grave matter. No, I am not “aware” that such actions are a “grave matter”, however, I AM aware that SOME people consider them a grave matter. But this is only the opinion of those people, nothing more. And the opinion of those people is not accepted as valid, they have no credibility. After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

When truth is whatever individual people want it to be - that’s moral relativism. I’ve read that we can’t know anything for certain and “that what might be good for you might be bad for me.”

We need to tell people that OPINIONS are NOT facts. Pointing at “some people” as an excuse for your own sinful behavior is wrong - 100% wrong. No one here is God but Jesus told us that He had come “to call sinners to repentance.” People need to turn away from their sins. Yes, in some cases, it’s very difficult, like a sex addict, or porn addict or drug addict.

I think most people understand. In a recent article that asked people about religion, a good number replied that they do not practice it because it’s “too restrictive.” In a separate place, I read how some people view religion as “oppressive.” That makes people their own god. And since we are living in such immoral times, they can just point to their friends and co-workers and say, “Hey. What’s the big deal?” Or ‘everybody’s doing it.’

We need to get the word out, and not just on the internet. We need to get Church approved pamphlets and hand them out to people on the street. Yes, I know some won’t take one, but some will.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Trurl]

I agree, it is a very interesting conversation.

There are a few points I’d like to explore to build better understanding and coherence between the theist and atheist worlds. But with Thanksgiving coming up I’m pretty busy. If it’s not presuming on your time and attention, perhaps you could check back after Friday and if I’ve had the time to sit, we can pick things back up.

In the mean time Happy Thanksgiving!

I will do it. Truth is that I have many faults, but being impatient is not one of them. At the end of November a new expansion of my favorite internet game (EverQuest) is coming out, so I will probably spend extra time on reaching the new maximum level (it will be fun to get to 100 - especially with 6 characters!). Nevertheless I will find time for our conversation. In the meantime happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Trurl]

When truth is whatever individual people want it to be - that’s moral relativism. I’ve read that we can’t know anything for certain and “that what might be good for you might be bad for me.”

We need to tell people that OPINIONS are NOT facts. Pointing at “some people” as an excuse for your own sinful behavior is wrong - 100% wrong. No one here is God but Jesus told us that He had come “to call sinners to repentance.” People need to turn away from their sins. Yes, in some cases, it’s very difficult, like a sex addict, or porn addict or drug addict.

I think most people understand. In a recent article that asked people about religion, a good number replied that they do not practice it because it’s “too restrictive.” In a separate place, I read how some people view religion as “oppressive.” That makes people their own god. And since we are living in such immoral times, they can just point to their friends and co-workers and say, “Hey. What’s the big deal?” Or ‘everybody’s doing it.’

We need to get the word out, and not just on the internet. We need to get Church approved pamphlets and hand them out to people on the street. Yes, I know some won’t take one, but some will.

I have no idea what the relevance of your post might be vis-a-vis the post you replied to. The problem is: “If I am told that certain behavior is “sinful” that does not mean that I now know that that behavior is sinful” - I only know that in their opinion it is sinful". As you said: “opinions” are not “facts”. And this is true for the believers, as well.

 

[jimmy]

In some cultures people believe that murder is a “good”, and would wear it as a badge of courage. We don’t always, at first glance, understand the reasons for why a particular act is morally wrong, so yes, being told that “X” is sinful isn’t sufficient, in and of itself, for us to know for ourselves that “X” is sinful. We often have to find things out the hard way; in fact that’s the purpose of our stay here on planet earth, and until and unless that’s done we don’t really know anything.

What culture considers murder a good?

 

[In_Spiration]

J. Budziszewski has an insightful presentation on YouTube that I think is probably more relevant than many of us sinners want to admit. It’s about moral pseudo-excuses via motivated error, self-deception, and willful ignorance. Or, to take an excerpt from one of his articles on the topic,
*We do know better; we are not doing the best we can. The problem of moral decline is volitional, not cognitive; it has little to do with knowledge. By and large we do know right from wrong, but wish we didn’t. We only make believe we are searching for truth-so that we can do wrong, condone wrong, or suppress our remorse for having done wrong in the past.

If the traditional view is true, then our decline is owed not to moral ignorance but to moral suppression. We aren’t untutored, but “in denial.” We don’t lack moral knowledge; we hold it down.*