Is my moral attitude okay?

[fakename]

I’m just asking for some (name removed by moderator)ut, good or bad, over the truth of a few of the propositions that underlie my daily attitudes:

(1) all moral rules have to be practicable, so if something is not practicable then it is not moral or immoral. Further, if something is a moral rule, then it must be practicable.

(2) all moral rules are reasonable but not all reasonable things are moral. Unreasonable and illogical things then, are not moral, while moral things need to be logical.

(3) all truth is one, so a truth of geometry could lead to a truth of Catholicism. But even I can see that this is problematic so in what way is truth one? Since truth is being, and being is divided into accident and substance, then truth is also so divided. But what does that imply for the interconnection of knowledge and science? Can geometry be accidentally connected with religion? If so why doesn’t a denial of geometry constitute heresy?

(4) the ideal state operates ideally so that if a society doesn’t operate ideally, then it cannot be the ideal state and if it is an ideal state, then it must operate ideally.
But everyone desires the ideal state, so everyone desires that it operate ideally.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m quite definitely not a theologian or philosopher but I thought this thread was interesting…

I’m just asking for some (name removed by moderator)ut, good or bad, over the truth of a few of the propositions that underlie my daily attitudes:

(1) all moral rules have to be practicable, so if something is not practicable then it is not moral or immoral. Further, if something is a moral rule, then it must be practicable.

can you give an example? what would be not practicable? I’m afraid that sometimes we label something difficult as “non practicable” not saying you do at all!

(2) all moral rules are reasonable but not all reasonable things are moral. Unreasonable and illogical things then, are not moral, while moral things need to be logical.

I think that is true, if we use correct reason.

(3) all truth is one, so a truth of geometry could lead to a truth of Catholicism. But even I can see that this is problematic so in what way is truth one? Since truth is being, and being is divided into accident and substance, then truth is also so divided. But what does that imply for the interconnection of knowledge and science? Can geometry be accidentally connected with religion? If so why doesn’t a denial of geometry constitute heresy?

Religious truth was given to us through revelation. God can use other truth to help lead us to His revealed truth because all truth comes from Him. However, - some things we simply can’t find out without His direct revelation or someone telling us: for example, that Christ died for our sins. I think what I’m trying to say here is that some truth can only be given through revelation, though it is not unreasonable. If we deny revealed truth, that is heresy. This does not mean that truth is divided, but that we reach different truths in different ways: some through reason, some through revelation.

(4) the ideal state operates ideally so that if a society doesn’t operate ideally, then it cannot be the ideal state and if it is an ideal state, then it must operate ideally.
But everyone desires the ideal state, so everyone desires that it operate ideally.

Do you mean state as in government? I dont know enough to comment, I guess, but that sounds logical to me…

 

[Spirithound]

(1) all moral rules have to be practicable, so if something is not practicable then it is not moral or immoral. Further, if something is a moral rule, then it must be practicable.

Fundamentally, you are correct here. Catholic moral teaching specifies such things as the obligation to attend Mass being dispensed if it is impossible to get to Mass. I also agree with the previous poster who cautioned you not to confuse “difficult” with “impossible”.

(2) all moral rules are reasonable but not all reasonable things are moral. Unreasonable and illogical things then, are not moral, while moral things need to be logical.

Correct.

(3) all truth is one, so a truth of geometry could lead to a truth of Catholicism. But even I can see that this is problematic so in what way is truth one? Since truth is being, and being is divided into accident and substance, then truth is also so divided. But what does that imply for the interconnection of knowledge and science? Can geometry be accidentally connected with religion? If so why doesn’t a denial of geometry constitute heresy?

Hahaha…This sounds like a final exam question. Well, here goes…

All truth is one because all truth constitutes God’s Eternal Law.
“Truth” isn’t “being”. “Being” is “truth”. “Being” is the species and “Truth” is the genus.
However, we can say that ontological truth is being. Those that are ontologically true and those that exist are the same set (although truth still has logical priority).
While it is true that being is divided into accident and substance, this division cannot extend upwards to the concept of truth. That would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The truth of geometry and the truth of Catholicism are nearly fundamentally separate. Perhaps there could be an intermingling if geometry were to be used in some archaeological dig, which confirmed a historical aspect of Christianity.
Please let me know if you have more questions about this. It’s a very interesting topic.

(4) the ideal state operates ideally so that if a society doesn’t operate ideally, then it cannot be the ideal state and if it is an ideal state, then it must operate ideally.
But everyone desires the ideal state, so everyone desires that it operate ideally.

Yes, but not everyone agrees on what the ideal state is.

 

[fakename]

user "Monica4316":

Do you mean state as in government? I don’t know enough to comment, I guess, but that sounds logical to me…

that’s what I essentially mean. But I fear that it doesn’t express anything more than a tautology, when I thought that it was more informative.

 

[fakename]

user "spirithound":

All truth is one because all truth constitutes God’s Eternal Law.
“Truth” isn’t “being”. “Being” is “truth”. “Being” is the species and “Truth” is the genus.
However, we can say that ontological truth is being. Those that are ontologically true and those that exist are the same set (although truth still has logical priority).
While it is true that being is divided into accident and substance, this division cannot extend upwards to the concept of truth. That would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The truth of geometry and the truth of Catholicism are nearly fundamentally separate. Perhaps there could be an intermingling if geometry were to be used in some archaeological dig, which confirmed a historical aspect of Christianity.
Please let me know if you have more questions about this. It’s a very interesting topic.

Here’s what I think you’re saying:

All Truth–>Being but only Some Being is Truth. However all Ontological or Subsisting Truth (called OT) is being and vice versa so that OT–>Being and Being–>OT. But then you say that something which uses the concept of being to reach a conclusion about OT is affirming the consequent. However that can’t be true about a biconditional (can it?) and it can’t be true of your first statement where a deduction from truth (albeit not OT) to a conclusion about being is possible. So what do you mean here?

My own opinion is, I like to think, Aristotelian, in that Aristotle might possibly allow a demonstration per accident from geometry to theology. After all, one can do accidental proofs by means of common ideas (like commensurate things can be equal) to prove that a circle can be squared since the size of a square can be equal to a circle if they are commensurate. But this proof isn’t about the shapes square or circle but about their areas or sizes. So it isn’t about the per se square or the per se method of constructing one from a ruler and compass, so the proof is a per accident proof. In this manner, it may be possible for geometric theology and heresy to exist, which is clearly wrong since Aquinas said it was. But again, why is the question. I also find it interesting.

 

[Spirithound]

Here’s what I think you’re saying:

All Truth–>Being but only Some Being is Truth. However all Ontological or Subsisting Truth (called OT) is being and vice versa so that OT–>Being and Being–>OT. But then you say that something which uses the concept of being to reach a conclusion about OT is affirming the consequent. However that can’t be true about a biconditional (can it?) and it can’t be true of your first statement where a deduction from truth (albeit not OT) to a conclusion about being is possible. So what do you mean here?

I mean that truth is not a subset of being. Being is a subset of truth.

 

[fakename]

user "Spirithound":

I mean that truth is not a subset of being. Being is a subset of truth.

In that case I still think that the biconditional problem exists. I also realize that I said something non-nonsensical about you last post since I read it wrong. You were right that it was affirming the consequent.

But if being is a subset of truth, is it still affirming the consequent?

 

[tonyrey]

But if being is a subset of truth, is it still affirming the consequent?

How can being be a subset of truth if truth is the **correspondence **of belief to reality.
Truth presupposes being…

 

[fakename]

To Tonyrey:

I don’t know, ask the poster who est. this definition.

But I have another question. In the end, it is natural for the moral and the practical to be united since truth doesn’t contradict truth and being doesn’t contradict being. So for instance, Adam and Eve, who were saintly in their lives in the garden of Eden, (though they didn’t have sex) could have enjoyed sex much more than we do. Also saints did enjoy food more than we do.

So I’m asking is the practical also the moral? Is reason and science<–>morality?

That is, is the virtue of say generosity also the most reasonable way to conduct economic policy?

 

[Godfollower]

I’m just asking for some (name removed by moderator)ut, good or bad, over the truth of a few of the propositions that underlie my daily attitudes:

Okay, but I’m not sure I agree with any of your propositions. Here goes . . . .

(1) all moral rules have to be practicable, so if something is not practicable then it is not moral or immoral. Further, if something is a moral rule, then it must be practicable.

Nope. Sometimes the moral thing is impracticable indeed. If I have planted a WMD in a large city and threaten to set it off unless you kill an innocent person standing in front of you, you CANNOT kill that innocent person in hopes of saving all the lives that will be lost from the WMD. A practical person of this world might well trade one life for many – but we can’t. That’s immoral, even though as a practical matter it leads to many more deaths.

(2) all moral rules are reasonable but not all reasonable things are moral. Unreasonable and illogical things then, are not moral, while moral things need to be logical.

All moral rules, properly understood, are reasonable; but not all illogical things are immoral. In addition, morality does not depend on man’s rules of logic. So be careful what logic you’re using when you judge a moral rule. If a moral rule from God appears to conflict with logical reasoning, then either (A) you’ve misunderstood the moral rule; (B) you’ve misapplied the rules of logic; or (C) the logical reasoning is wrong.

(3) all truth is one, so a truth of geometry could lead to a truth of Catholicism. But even I can see that this is problematic so in what way is truth one? Since truth is being, and being is divided into accident and substance, then truth is also so divided. But what does that imply for the interconnection of knowledge and science? Can geometry be accidentally connected with religion? If so why doesn’t a denial of geometry constitute heresy?

Not sure what you mean by “all truth is one.” That phrase, and phrases like it, are the rallying call of moral relativists (“there are many paths to one truth”), and they’re simply wrong. There is one Truth; there are many falsehoods. And I don’t see how we can say with any accuracy that Truth is divided. God is Truth; His being is existence itself. Knowledge and science are merely man’s attempts to understand existence and therefore God. But anything we discover that appears to contradict God or His Word is by definition incorrect.

(4) the ideal state operates ideally so that if a society doesn’t operate ideally, then it cannot be the ideal state and if it is an ideal state, then it must operate ideally.
But everyone desires the ideal state, so everyone desires that it operate ideally.

This is basically a definition of the perfect government. So I don’t see that it helps a moral understanding of society. That being said, I question the truth of your premise that “everyone desires the ideal state.” It seems to me that many people desire their own power at the expense of the ideal state.

 

[Spirithound]

In that case I still think that the biconditional problem exists. I also realize that I said something non-nonsensical about you last post since I read it wrong. You were right that it was affirming the consequent.

But if being is a subset of truth, is it still affirming the consequent?

I don’t see a biconditional problem here, because since Ontological Truth is only another name for Being, it is a subsection of the greater concept of Truth.

Sorry for taking this one point at a time It’s a difficult one, and I’m wary of getting lost myself!