Is the latest morality the best?

[Vera_Ljuba]

I see that happening and since everyone who opposes cohabitation gets shouted down or ignored, doesn’t suddenly make it more moral.

Morality is NOT about “facts”, it is about “ought”-s. There are differing “moral” - read - ethical systems, based upon different approaches. But if you (in general) have a litmus test which shows that “behavior A” is moral, and “behavior B” is immoral, please share it with us. Otherwise it remains just an opinion. Whether a super-majority agrees with it, or it is only held by a handful of people, it does not matter. Is there a method which will separate “moral” behavior from “immoral” one?

And please don’t waste our time by bringing up examples. Dispense with the particulars, and concentrate on the abstract method - which must be applied to individual cases.

 

[Wesrock]

Wow, what strong, unsupported words you have, delivering as if it were some moral absolute and incontestable fact to which all must agree and adhere.

Morality is fact and is derived from human nature (in the sense of what is essential to the human being) and what is proper to it. Most decisions are pretty self-evident, but that careful discernment is needed and that it’s a complex situation in no way undermines the truth of it.

 

[edwest2]

Morality is NOT about “facts”, it is about “ought”-s. There are differing “moral” - read - ethical systems, based upon different approaches. But if you (in general) have a litmus test which shows that “behavior A” is moral, and “behavior B” is immoral, please share it with us. Otherwise it remains just an opinion. Whether a super-majority agrees with it, or it is only held by a handful of people, it does not matter. Is there a method which will separate “moral” behavior from “immoral” one?

And please don’t waste our time by bringing up examples. Dispense with the particulars, and concentrate on the abstract method - which must be applied to individual cases.

I won’t waste your time. Some say I live in a certain type of world but I’ve never lived in an abstract one.

Best,
Ed

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I won’t waste your time. Some say I live in a certain type of world but I’ve never lived in an abstract one.

That is too bad. I tried to get an answer to this question for quite a long time. I guess, I just have to be patient. Since you asserted so strongly that cohabitation is “immoral”, I was hoping to learn what kind of objective (litmus) test did you perform to reach that conclusion. Or is it just an opinion?

Of course you DO live in an abstract world every time you contemplate how much is two plus two; or how to inflate the tires on your car? These are all abstract problems, which are then applied to the physical reality.

 

[edwest2]

That is too bad. I tried to get an answer to this question for quite a long time. I guess, I just have to be patient. Since you asserted so strongly that cohabitation is “immoral”, I was hoping to learn what kind of objective (litmus) test did you perform to reach that conclusion. Or is it just an opinion?

Of course you DO live in an abstract world every time you contemplate how much is two plus two; or how to inflate the tires on your car? These are all abstract problems, which are then applied to the physical reality.

My tire pressure gauge is not abstract. When the tire is properly inflated, it will show that is true.

Ed

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

My tire pressure gauge is not abstract. When the tire is properly inflated, it will show that is true.

Excellent. So if I use my gauge, and it will show the same result, we have a method which is independent from our opinion. Is there a similar objective method, which will show if a behavior is moral or immoral, regardless of which one of us (you and I) applies it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is too bad. I tried to get an answer to this question for quite a long time. I guess, I just have to be patient. Since you asserted so strongly that cohabitation is “immoral”, I was hoping to learn what kind of objective (litmus) test did you perform to reach that conclusion. Or is it just an opinion?

How do you define “cohabitation”? Married couples cohabitate. So marriage is not sinful because it is a bonding of two persons who are committed in a loving relationship as opposed to a relationship of mutual exploitation.

If by “cohabitation” you mean people who live together for the sake of sharing expenses, that too is not immoral or sinful.

If by “cohabitation” you mean people who live together and fornicate, and are not committed to a lasting love but merely use each other until they are bored with each other and split, that is by any definition a low-life relationship, the products of which may or may not (but often are) sexual diseases, abandoned children, and corroding character formation. Yes, that is immoral, but more to the point sinful because it is a stain upon the building of a healthy personal life and a productive society, and clearly is an assault upon Christian values. That is the Christian litmus test.

What is your litmus test that this third type of cohabitation is not immoral?

The fact that you are not a Christian? That’s not a litmus test.

You may have noticed, if you are old enough to notice the difference between the world of 1960 and 2016, that there are among blacks, for example, a horrendous decline in the quality of life. This is due largely to black men who cohabit with women and produce children who are fatherless and without a masculine model to follow in life. Such children, especially the male offspring, tend to be less discipline and motivated to becoming full fledged members of society, and often end up in gang warfare, as the statistics for Chicago and other great inner cities demonstrate.

Do you have a litmus test for arguing that this is a good or even acceptable fate for the blacks in America?

 

[Bradski]

Morality is fact and is derived from human nature (in the sense of what is essential to the human being) and what is proper to it. Most decisions are pretty self-evident, but that careful discernment is needed and that it’s a complex situation in no way undermines the truth of it.

And thanks for that, Wes. Y’all might note that answering an honest question honestly is not akin to spoon feeding someone with information. It is rather putting forward one’s own opinion in regard to the question at hand.

And there is nothing in the above statement with which I disagree. Yet it doesn’t (and perhaps wasn’t meant to) answer the obvious follow up that if different people come to different decisions in regard to a moral problem using ‘careful discernment’, whence Absolute Morality?

It’s no good telling me it exists if no-one can tell me who can access it and how the rest of us know that that person actually has access to it.

It’s no good whatsoever saying that ‘Jesus is the Truth’ or that the bible holds the answer or that we’ll find the answer in the catechism. There are questions of morality that aren’t found in any of these sources. And as Wes says, despite the fact that you will find almost universal agreement to many aspects of morality (which fact doesn’t in itslef make the answer absolute), many questions are complex and do not have obvious answers. In fact, there may be no correct answer - just one that’s the least bad.

Can a least bad moral position be the absolute truth?

In any case, we are back to how we know who makes the decision on these matters. And no-one has an answer to this. One could only assume, from the arguments given, that there is no such creature as Absolute Morality.

 

[edwest2]

How do you define “cohabitation”? Married couples cohabitate. So marriage is not sinful because it is a bonding of two persons who are committed in a loving relationship as opposed to a relationship of mutual exploitation.

If by “cohabitation” you mean people who live together for the sake of sharing expenses, that too is not immoral or sinful.

If by “cohabitation” you mean people who live together and fornicate, and are not committed to a lasting love but merely use each other until they are bored with each other and split, that is by any definition a low-life relationship, the products of which may or may not (but often are) sexual diseases, abandoned children, and corroding character formation. Yes, that is immoral, but more to the point sinful because it is a stain upon the building of a healthy personal life and a productive society, and clearly is an assault upon Christian values. That is the Christian litmus test.

What is your litmus test that this third type of cohabitation is not immoral?

The fact that you are not a Christian? That’s not a litmus test.

You may have noticed, if you are old enough to notice the difference between the world of 1960 and 2016, that there are among blacks, for example, a horrendous decline in the quality of life. This is due largely to black men who cohabit with women and produce children who are fatherless and without a masculine model to follow in life. Such children, especially the male offspring, tend to be less discipline and motivated to becoming full fledged members of society, and often end up in gang warfare, as the statistics for Chicago and other great inner cities demonstrate.

Do you have a litmus test for arguing that this is a good or even acceptable fate for the blacks in America?

All too true in poor black areas. No father. No or few positive role models. No or few jobs. Gangs, guns and drugs, either selling or using. And a higher proportion of incarceration, relative to the total US population of black people, compared to other racial or ethnic groups.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

And thanks for that, Wes. Y’all might note that answering an honest question honestly is not akin to spoon feeding someone with information. It is rather putting forward one’s own opinion in regard to the question at hand.

And there is nothing in the above statement with which I disagree. Yet it doesn’t (and perhaps wasn’t meant to) answer the obvious follow up that if different people come to different decisions in regard to a moral problem using ‘careful discernment’, whence Absolute Morality?

It’s no good telling me it exists if no-one can tell me who can access it and how the rest of us know that that person actually has access to it.

It’s no good whatsoever saying that ‘Jesus is the Truth’ or that the bible holds the answer or that we’ll find the answer in the catechism. There are questions of morality that aren’t found in any of these sources. And as Wes says, despite the fact that you will find almost universal agreement to many aspects of morality (which fact doesn’t in itslef make the answer absolute), many questions are complex and do not have obvious answers. In fact, there may be no correct answer - just one that’s the least bad.

Can a least bad moral position be the absolute truth?

In any case, we are back to how we know who makes the decision on these matters. And no-one has an answer to this. One could only assume, from the arguments given, that there is no such creature as Absolute Morality.

“… no such creature as Absolute Morality.”

Is this an absolute or just an opinion?

Ed

 

[Bradski]

“… no such creature as Absolute Morality.”

Is this an absolute or just an opinion?

Wow, what a zinger! Gee, if only I had a dollar for every time someone wrote that same type of response and mentally high fived themselves.

No, Ed it is just my opinion. One that is being slowly cemented in place by the inability of anyone on this forum to explain how to access this mysterious Absolute Morality.

 

[goout]

Wow, what a zinger! Gee, if only I had a dollar for every time someone wrote that same type of response and mentally high fived themselves.

I guess you would have exactly what then, $4524 American??? Or some ridiculously high number.
(And credit to you for omniscience on the high five thing)

Yes, honest questions are a good thing.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, Ed it is just my opinion. One that is being slowly cemented in place by the inability of anyone on this forum to explain how to access this mysterious Absolute Morality.

Access God and the Catholic Church. You have been told this for the third time.

Stop saying no one told you how to access Absolute Morality.

Sheesh!

 

[edwest2]

Tune in for the next chapter of There Is No Absolute Morality by our one and only Bradski.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Access God and the Catholic Church. You have been told this for the third time.

Stop saying no one told you how to access Absolute Morality.

Ye gods and little fishes – how frustrating is this…

How many times does it need to be pointed out that there is no consensus on Absolute Morality. If the way to determine it was to ‘access God’ then it stands to reason that everyone who claims to ‘access God’ would have the same answer to any given moral problem. How could that not be the case? Unless God gives different advice to everyone, which is patently ridiculous. So there is no consensus.

If we formulated a question on the use of torture, then there would be more varied opinions than you could poke a stick at. If I ask any given Catholic on this forum, he or she will give their particular view on the matter. Are they ‘accessing God’ when they give it? Is it the right answer? If someone gives a different answer, are they also ‘accessing God’? Maybe* they *have the right answer. Who can tell.

The point being, which is having to be repeated at every turn, is that no-one can tell.

So unless someone comes up with something other than the usual platitudes, I think the question has been answered. Or not, as the case may be. Either way, if the evidence produced here is all there is, then the jury has returned, given its verdict and all retired to the pub for a beer.

 

[PRmerger]

Ye gods and little fishes – how frustrating is this…

How many times does it need to be pointed out that there is no consensus on Absolute Morality.

What the heck does a consensus have to do with Absolute Morality?

 

[Bradski]

What the heck does a consensus have to do with Absolute Morality?

If there is an absolute morality, it means that there is one answer to any given question. Otherwise it becomes, you know, relative.

So for the question Q, there will be one absolute answer: A.

That’s because that’s what absolute means. Not qualified, not relative to anything, universal, fixed, always correct. If the answer wasn’t fixed, was qualified, was relative, wasn’t correct in all circumstances, then it wouldn’t be absolute.

So if the way to access the absolute morally correct action for any given circumstance is to ‘access God’ or read the Catechism or accept Jesus as my saviour or read the entrails of a goat and everyone did it, then they would all come up with exactly the same answer. There will be a consensus.

If they don’t, then whatever method they used was incorrect. So if reading the entrails of a goat gives two people different answers, then at least one of them is wrong.

Please extrapolate from there and then tell me how I can determine who is right.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, honest questions are a good thing.

And an honest answer would be even better.

Ed told me that he can use a gauge to measure the tire pressure on his car. I concurred, that the fact that his gauge and mine both give the same result indicates that we have an objective way of measuring the tire pressure.

So I asked him, if he can provide a similar measure to gauge the “morality” of a position, so that we can get the same result. The answer is “deafening” silence. Which tells me that he does NOT have such a morality-meter. Of course that would be a perfectly acceptable answer, if only he would admit it. There is no measurable, objective morality, only personal opinions.

What is your litmus test that this third type of cohabitation is not immoral?

Simple. The principle that consenting adults can do in the privacy of their homes whatever they want - as long as they do NOT put other people in danger.

The fact that you are not a Christian? That’s not a litmus test.

How could you know whether I am a Christian or not? For all you know is that I can be an ultra-orthodox Catholic, with a peculiar sense of humor. But, all you exhibited was an unsupported opinion.

You may have noticed, if you are old enough to notice the difference between the world of 1960 and 2016, that there are among blacks, for example, a horrendous decline in the quality of life.

Nonsense. In the sixties lynching was still rampant, while today we have a black president in the White House. If you have not seen the movie “Mississippi burning”, I suggest you rent it. The opening pictures of a “White” and “Black” water fountains tell the story. But that has nothing to do with the existence of “absolute” morality.

That’s because that’s what absolute means. Not qualified, not relative to anything, universal, fixed, always correct. If the answer wasn’t fixed, was qualified, was relative, wasn’t correct in all circumstances, then it wouldn’t be absolute.

But PR does not accept this. Or maybe she does not understand this. Or the difference between the “absolute” vs. “relative” or between “objective” and “subjective”.

 

[inocente]

Access God and the Catholic Church. You have been told this for the third time.

Stop saying no one told you how to access Absolute Morality.

“… no such creature as Absolute Morality.”

Is this an absolute or just an opinion?

What the heck does a consensus have to do with Absolute Morality?

You guys give the impression you don’t know something very basic, the difference between objective morality and absolute morality.

If you are pushing absolute morality then please comment on the following, as it would then seem Catholics are giving the world a completed confused message.

*Pope Francis labels Catholics who believe in “absolute truths” as “fundamentalists”

On the plane returning from his journey to Africa on November 30, Pope Francis condemned Catholics who believe in “absolute truths”, and labelled them as “fundamentalists”.

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions,” Francis said, as reported by the National Catholic Reporter’s Vatican correspondent, Joshua McElwee, and similarly by other journalists on the plane. “We Catholics have some – and not some, many – who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.”

“They do evil,” said the pope. “I say this because it is my church.”

“We have to combat it,” he said. “Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like the idolatry of money.”

• veritas-vincit-international.org/2015/12/24/pope-francis-labels-catholics-who-believe-in-absolute-truths-as-fundamentalists/*

(then continue reading the article re. relativism)

 

[inocente]

It seems one thing you want to emphasize is morality is opinion-based.
That is not morality.

Catholics seem to disagree about this. The article linked in my post above contains this quote, which I’ve now verified from two other sources:

*“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good . . . Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.” - Pope Francis

• washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-stirs-debate-yet-again-with-interview-with-an-atheist-italian-journalist/2013/10/01/9e7a6790-2acb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
• huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/pope-francis-interview_n_4023659.html*

Please comment.